House of the Dragon Filming in Spain in October

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

How much do you want to bet that Rhaenyra and Laenor’s wedding night on the show is going to be a repeat of Margaery trying to seduce Loras on GOT?

Do you mean Renly instead of Loras? 

[The Bard of Banefort]

11 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Do you mean Renly instead of Loras? 

Yes, I just edited it lol.

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Yes, I just edited it lol.

It would be Cersei's wet dream for Margaery to actually be bedding Loras. 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This might actually imply that Daemon really did love his brother and had a line he wouldn’t cross. For all his stunts, Daemon never tried to challenge Viserys’ rule. The only other person who could have proved a threat was Rhaenys, and she was clearly too smart to try.

Yes, certainly, the only way to make sense of things as they are is that Daemon didn't covet the Iron Throne enough to actually depose or murder his elder brother ... but that breaks thing down to a personal sibling dynamics and ignores the structural power imbalance.

Another take on the thing:

We have a scenario where the author clearly wants to show a decline in power and prestige in the history of a royal dynasty. Originally they have dragons, then they lose them. We also hear a lot of talk that the Targaryens with dragons were much more powerful than those who lacked those dragons.

When the author finally decides to depict the dragonriding Targaryens we get basically no indications that these people were viewed differently, or had more power and prestige. Think of THK and the standing the Targaryens had there. They had no dragons, but if we imagine a tourney during the reign of Viserys I or Jaehaerys I then folks would defer to the dragons in exactly the same manner. Baelon Targaryen wouldn't be treated differently than Baelor Breakspear just because he rode Vhagar.

You can say that isn't much of a problem but it clearly turns the dragonriders into little more than people with pets or big weapons.

If you check the power dynamics within the royal family it seems pretty obvious that the prince with the largest dragon might pose a problem to whoever is the king - even more so if we talk about a dragonless king. If Aenys or Aegon the Uncrowned had mounted Balerion rather than Maegor then chances are less that Maegor would have ever usurped the throne. If Aemond had never mounted Vhagar then chances that there would have been a Green coup or a Dance would have also been less ... just as Aemond would have likely never been given the regency if he hadn't been the rider of the largest dragon alive (in light of youth and inexperience).

We see how important those dragons are in the power dynamics within the family. Vermithor is the largest dragon after Balerion and Vhagar and that is a crucial reason why Jaehaerys I can seize power and hold on to it. His policy of 'the veiled threat' wouldn't have worked if he hadn't a dragon of his own.

In relation to Viserys I we can say that the love and obedience you owe an elder brother and father would keep your ambition in check to a point. But (1) Rhaenys and Laena and Laenor do not love or respect Viserys I, nor do they owe him any allegiance. He stole their throne (at least from their point of view) so he should defer to them, not the other way around, and (2) this kind of informal hold you have over your children and siblings is going to put to the test when there is a serious conflict.

Whenever Viserys quarreled with a dragonriding family member - be it Rhaenys, her children, Daemon, Rhaenyra, his children by Alicent - he risks alienating them. If push came to shove they could refuse to help him when the Realm faced a problem that needed dragonriders or they could actively turn against them.

Politically, spurning Laena Velaryon as Viserys' second wife was madness. She already rode Vhagar at that time, so if she were to marry outside the Targaryen family - or outside the Realm even, as Corlys later planned - then the largest dragon alive could actually be used against the Targaryen king. Not to mention that this could also lead to the development of another dragonlord house, etc. as Jaehaerys I feared back when Elissa stole the eggs.

Not to mention that mere fact of Laena being spurned could have led to a Velaryon rebellion, just as the weirdo idea in the year before that Rhaenyra was suddenly the Heir Apparent when Rhaenys and her children had not been good enough in 92 and 101 AC.

It is very hard to swallow that Viserys I and his advisers would even expect they could get away with this, that it didn't even seem to figure in their deliberations. At least one would expect that Viserys would have immediately offered Rhaenyra's hand to Laenor, arranging a betrothal in 106 AC, to include the Velaryons in his dynastic plans. Instead, we are supposed to believe that the most powerful family in the Realm - who had just made an alliance with the king's own brother - just ignored all that.

And when we look at Viserys' later reign then the fact that all the children of Alicent became dragonriders - and one of them claimed Vhagar - that whatever hold he had over those children who were under the influence of their mother should have been slipping away fast. When the guy could no longer mount the Iron Throne he could also not mount a dragon even if he tried, so if Aegon or Aemond had wanted to depose the old man, this shouldn't have been much of a problem.

A better way to depict the dragon era of the Targaryen would have been to make the dragonriders really special and revered people. Little kings, if you will; people who were powerful political players merely because they were dragonriders. People who were only under the king's control because he had a larger dragon and/or because chose to defer to him. Because if dragons are power then, in the end, the power is personal. It is the power a dragonrider has over his or her dragon and how he or she uses that power. And people would know this.

In our scenario of Viserys I vs. the Velaryons there is just no chance that a majority of the lords of the Realm would be keen or eager to start a war with the people who controlled 3-4 dragons, one of them Vhagar, while Viserys I had, perhaps, only Syrax. The point really isn't that you inspire love but rather that inspire enough devotion in your subjects that they actually face Vhagar's flames if you command it. And that is a completely unrealistic scenario.

If we assume that the wishes of the guy with the crown matter more than the dragonrider who could burn your castle then dragons aren't really important instruments of power.

8 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

House Targaryen with no dragons is more vulnerable than House Targaryen with dragons.

A stable Targaryen king that doesn't ride a dragon but essentially has all the world's dragonriders at his command is not a vulnerable king.

But Viserys I is clearly not the example of such a king. He didn't have all the world's dragonriders under his command. At least in the era we talk about, namely when Daemon was with the Velaryons/away on the Stepstones and the Velaryons had Meleys, Vhagar, and Seasmoke.

5 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

But that's the thing.

A lot of people (both in the series and in real life) tend to blow off or downplay soft skills such as being able to make people laugh, knowing who is who and knowing what's happening with everyone, being a creative talent and being able to organize and host good parties.

It was the key to the success of Aegon I and Viserys I. It was the key in the downfall of both Rhaenyra and Aegon II. And it will be the key to the success of Sansa, Arya and Bran.

Nah, it isn't that easy. I'm not saying Viserys I shouldn't have used soft skills to control the Realm - or that it makes completely no sense for him to eventually not having a dragon of his own. But it is kind of weird to see him dragonless at the Great Council and winning and apparently keeping his dragonriders in check - and throwing dragons at pretty much everybody - without having a dragon himself.

That he could keep the peace among the lords and the smallfolk is one thing, that he should be able to keep the peace among the royal family without the means to actually intimidate them is a different issue.

Surely the kind of dynamic we see betweeen Aenys-Maegor (little dragon guy vs. big dragon guy) and Daeron-Daemon (physically weak king vs. divinely built warrior prince) should have also played out between dragonless fat and physically unimpressive Viserys and the dragonriding, well-built warrior prince Daemon.

In a realistic scenario, Daemon should have won against Laenor at the Great Council, not Viserys. He was the adult prince with the dragon, an impressive fighter and manly warrior. Viserys was neither of those things.

It is quite clear in this world that a king who looks manly, who is a distinguished fighter and warrior, who can be expected to defend his subjects in a battle personally, etc. has an advantage over a king who has neither of those qualities - and this should have been doubly true for a king who has a dragon in comparison to one who doesn't.

[BlackLightning]

On 1/21/2022 at 5:42 PM, Lord Varys said:

In a realistic scenario, Daemon should have won against Laenor at the Great Council, not Viserys. He was the adult prince with the dragon, an impressive fighter and manly warrior. Viserys was neither of those things.

But Daemon was the younger and Viserys was the elder.

I'm sure Daemon factored into the Great Council's decision to side with Viserys. But ultimately, the final two contenders with Viserys (because he was a married man older than his brother with children of his own) and Laenor as the Old King's grandson and the firstborn male of the original inheriting branch

 

It's also worth admitting that Viserys was kinder and much more stable than Daemon. That much had to be clear even then.

King Maegor's reign is not too distant and I think people were definitely afraid of a repeat.

[BlackLightning]

On 1/21/2022 at 5:42 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear in this world that a king who looks manly, who is a distinguished fighter and warrior, who can be expected to defend his subjects in a battle personally, etc. has an advantage over a king who has neither of those qualities - and this should have been doubly true for a king who has a dragon in comparison to one who doesn't.

This is true.

This is why having a ruling queen (or even a ruling lady) is such an anathema in Westeros.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

But Daemon was the younger and Viserys was the elder.

Rhaenys/Laenor were from the elder line, and Viserys/Daemon from the younger. Folks didn't care about that, either. I mean, sure, we can pretend that primogeniture should win the day - but it didn't, did it?

We cannot pretend that an elder brother would have to win over a younger at a Great Council.

And when you actually check FaB in-depth about folks discussing succession issues you see how Aegon the Uncrowned is abandoned for spurious reasons and the regency council of Aegon III actually think their personal preferences ('Rhaena is more tractable', 'Baela was a dragonrider', 'Rhaena has a dragon', 'We need a fantasy male claimant') are much more important than the simple fact that Aegon III does have an elder and a younger half-sister, meaning it should actually be clear that in absence of a male heir Baela Targaryen should be the presumptive heir of Aegon III.

The idea that such preferences should not dominate a Great Council - and most notably the fact that Daemon Targaryen was an adult prince riding the dragon of the former Heir Apparent - simply undermines the idea that dragons and personal charisma are power.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I'm sure Daemon factored into the Great Council's decision to side with Viserys. But ultimately, the final two contenders with Viserys (because he was a married man older than his brother with children of his own) and Laenor as the Old King's grandson and the firstborn male of the original inheriting branch

Daemon's claim is actually never mentioned as something the Great Council discussed - which is completely odd since they basically discussed every other claim but his.

We are led to believe that Daemon coveted the throne himself, so why wouldn't he put forth his own claim? They even discussed Vaegon's claim and the claims of alleged royal bastards.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

It's also worth admitting that Viserys was kinder and much more stable than Daemon. That much had to be clear even then.

Sure enough, and one certainly could also make the point that the lords wanted a dragonless (i.e. a weak) king. But you can only crown such a king by dismissing the claims of the actual dragonriding Targaryens, meaning siding with Viserys means to antagonize or potentially antagonize the guys with the large dragons.

And my entire point basically is that the existence of dragonriders should have some impact on the political sphere, the lords should think very hard before slighting or antagonizing them, etc.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

King Maegor's reign is not too distant and I think people were definitely afraid of a repeat.

Daemon may have been viewed as something of a loose cannon but he had also been shown great favor by the Old King when he allowed him to mount Caraxes and gave Dark Sister to him.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

This is true.

This is why having a ruling queen (or even a ruling lady) is such an anathema in Westeros.

If you figure dragons into it, then the disadvantage of being female should not figure into things all that much. I mean, it doesn't matter all that much if Visenya or Aegon burns your castle, right? Having a dragon should be ultimate trump card.

Viserys basically has no advantages at all - he is no dragonrider and he is not exactly a very impressive martial guy. If you are at the Great Council, are you more cowed by the dragonless fun guy or the boy with a dragon who might grow up and remember that you dismissed him? His dragonridering mother won't forget that slight, either.

And while we don't know when exactly Laena claimed Vhagar - that she was allowed to do this is, perhaps, one of the weirdest actions on part of the Old King or Viserys I because that literally doubled or tripled the power and prestige of the Velaryons.

Unless, of course, we pretend - like people here seem to want us to do - that it doesn't really matter that you have a dragon nor how large said dragon is in comparison to the others.

[The Dragon Demands]

Speculation that the full trailer will be released tonight along with the series premiere of HBO's The Gilded Age, which airs from 9 pm to 10 pm EST.

Probably not a coincidence that Emily Carey just posted a photo of herself with Milly Alcock while both of them sit on that replica Iron Throne set up in a public park in London. Why post this today of all days unless she knows something? We've suspected The Gilded Age premiere for a while, due to the first official Game of Thrones convention on February 18 being canceled. 

It may be worth it for those of you in Europe to stay up for this.

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenys/Laenor were from the elder line, and Viserys/Daemon from the younger. Folks didn't care about that, either. I mean, sure, we can pretend that primogeniture should win the day - but it didn't, did it?

 

Well yeah, if we're talking about absolute or true primogeniture, then Rhaenys/Laenor were from the elder line and would always come first.

If we're talking about male-preference primogeniture, then Rhaenys/Laenor come after to Viserys/Daemon.

In any case, you're right. I've always said that this whole misogynistic thing that King Jaehaerys I had was his single greatest mistake. The Dance is ultimately his fault.

Any other lord would've just been content to leave well enough alone and allow his firstborn son's daughter to succeed him. But noooooo...

What was his problem? I don't get it. He is old enough to clearly remember both Queen Visenya and the sheer amount of power she wielded and his own mother who protected them and held the post-Maegor realm together. And then there was Rhaena who ruled both Dragonstone and Harrenhal pretty effectively.

I just don't get it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If you figure dragons into it, then the disadvantage of being female should not figure into things all that much. I mean, it doesn't matter all that much if Visenya or Aegon burns your castle, right? Having a dragon should be ultimate trump card.

Viserys basically has no advantages at all - he is no dragonrider and he is not exactly a very impressive martial guy. If you are at the Great Council, are you more cowed by the dragonless fun guy or the boy with a dragon who might grow up and remember that you dismissed him? His dragonriding mother won't forget that slight, either.

And while we don't know when exactly Laena claimed Vhagar - that she was allowed to do this is, perhaps, one of the weirdest actions on part of the Old King or Viserys I because that literally doubled or tripled the power and prestige of the Velaryons.

Unless, of course, we pretend - like people here seem to want us to do - that it doesn't really matter that you have a dragon nor how large said dragon is in comparison to the others.

I agree.

Again, this whole inequity between female dragonriders and male dragonriders is all Jaehaerys' fault. Because, let's be honest, there is no difference. Visenya, Rhaenys, Rhaena were all competent dragonriders who did a good job ruling. None of Jaehaerys' predecessors stood in the way of female dragonriders and their rights as queens and princesses. Alysanne was also more than just competent.

That's something I wish I could ask Martin to elaborate on.

And yes, size matters. Anyone who is being honest will say that. The size of the dragon matters.

Take Balerion and Syrax. It doesn't  matter how old Balerion is: Balerion is this gigantic beast who can melt and pulverize stone whereas Syrax is a hatchling who can cook a piece of fish. Balerion is ridden by a girl of 20 and Syrax has been claimed by a boy of 20. Clearly, the girl of 20 exerts four times as much power as the boy of 20

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What was his problem? I don't get it. He is old enough to clearly remember both Queen Visenya and the sheer amount of power she wielded and his own mother who protected them and held the post-Maegor realm together.

Rhaenys was 18 and pregnant, and the realm had just lost its heir to an attack by enemies. Choosing a grown man who could be expected to command forces seemed at the time more important at that moment. The fact that he even had the Great Council suggests he recognized that the situation had changed by the time a new choosing was needed, but now had set up a situation where the children of both of his heirs had a claim, and decided best to take it to the Great Council. Had the Great Council chosen Rhaenys, Jaehaerys would surely have abided by it.

5 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

And then there was Rhaena who ruled both Dragonstone and Harrenhal pretty effectively.

What's "effective", by your definition? They didn't fall into ruins or get taken over by bandits? I guess, but otherwise I think we don't really see that Rhaena's either an exceptional or an unexceptional ruling lady, any more so than any other random lord or lady is. 

 

[BlackLightning]

46 minutes ago, Ran said:

What's "effective", by your definition? They didn't fall into ruins or get taken over by bandits? I guess, but otherwise I think we don't really see that Rhaena's either an exceptional or an unexceptional ruling lady, any more so than any other random lord or lady is. 

 

Yes that's what I mean by effective.

What I also mean when I bring up the word effective is the fact that they don't have their servants and guards leaving or rising up against them.

Also, the smallfolk seemed to be pretty content on Dragonstone and in the lands surrounding Harrenhal.

46 minutes ago, Ran said:

Rhaenys was 18 and pregnant, and the realm had just lost its heir to an attack by enemies. Choosing a grown man who could be expected to command forces seemed at the time more important at that moment. The fact that he even had the Great Council suggests he recognized that the situation had changed by the time a new choosing was needed, but now had set up a situation where the children of both of his heirs had a claim, and decided best to take it to the Great Council. Had the Great Council chosen Rhaenys, Jaehaerys would surely have abided by it.

Enemies? It wasn't a nation- or city-state that had attacked the realm. It was a band of pirates and slavers...who were summarily destroyed and/or thrown back into the sea on dragonback.

I'm not seeing how Rhaenys, or Corlys for that matter, was not able to step up and take the reigns. Pirates on Tarth? Great, the Velaryon fleet is the best or the second-best fleet in the realm. And I'm not seeing how Rhaenys was not capable of mounting a dragon and setting a fleet ablaze from afar. I don't know how heavily pregnant she was but pregnancy is not as physically debilitating as it is made out to be. Least of all for an 18 year old woman.

Even so, Jaehaerys is still king.

Visenya was an old woman and she was able to put on a suit of armor, fly around the realm and set multiple castles ablaze in one single night.

[Ran]

20 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Also, the smallfolk seemed to be pretty content on Dragonstone and in the lands surrounding Harrenhal.

Right. That's a pretty low standard of effectiveness to have, though, especially when compared to the greater challenge of ruling an entire realm.

It's not that Jaehaerys thinks a woman can't rule -- again, he would have abided by Rhaenys if the Great Council had chosen her -- but rather that the reality is that a woman will find it a greater challenge to rule in Westeros simply because of the culture and given two basically equal candidates, separated only by sex, it would be prudent to go with the male over the female.

20 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Enemies? It wasn't a nation- or city-state that had attacked the realm. It was a band of pirates and slavers...who were summarily destroyed and/or thrown back into the sea on dragonback.

These would not be the last to challenge the Targaryens. Five years earlier, the Triarchy had formed, swept clean the Stepstones... which was good... but then began to cause sufficient trouble that, just five years after the Great Council, the Iron Throne sponsored an effort to throw them out and take over the Stepstones through a proxy. 

 

20 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

And I'm not seeing how Rhaenys was not capable of mounting a dragon and setting a fleet ablaze from afar. I don't know how heavily pregnant she was but pregnancy is not as physically debilitating as it is made out to be. Least of all for an 18 year old woman.

Her father refused to have her join him because of her pregnancy. Westeros is a place where women go into confinement at a certain point in their pregnancy, in general. Their opinions are not our own. 

You have to look at it from the cultural side. Jaehaerys, once again, would have abided by the decision if the Great Council chose Rhaenys. But Rhaenys wasn't even a serious candidate, because Westerosi society is patriarchal and women are not  trusted to be able to stand up and rule effectively. Instead, Rhaenys's 7-year-old son was seen as a better candidate precisely because he was male.

The society is sexist. Jaehaerys doubtless knew that by throwing it to the Great Council, a male heir -- either Laenor or Viserys -- would have been found, bypassing Rhaenys again. I would speculate he thought this acceptable because his first and greatest concern was to the stability of the realm, and it was manifestly true that most lords would feel a lot more comfortable with a ruling king than a ruling queen.

The Dance was Viserys's fault for failing to properly back-up Rhaenyra as his chosen successor, by the by. I don't lay the blame at Jaehaerys's feet. If he had reconfirmed her as his heir after Aegon's birth, forced Alicent and Otto and all the rest to publicly swear their acknowledgment of her as heir, etc., nearer to the time of his death, things might well have gone differently. But he preferred to pretend that things were fine so as not to rock the boat with his wife and her kin, and that's where we ended up.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 1/24/2022 at 10:00 PM, BlackLightning said:

Well yeah, if we're talking about absolute or true primogeniture, then Rhaenys/Laenor were from the elder line and would always come first.

If we're talking about male-preference primogeniture, then Rhaenys/Laenor come after to Viserys/Daemon.

At an assembly like the Great Council - or even a larger group of royal officials like the regency council of Aegon III - discussing the legal arguments for succession clearly play a very small role. We also see this when learned Otto Hightower and whatever allies he had on the Small Council push the king to name Rhaenyra his heir in 105 AC, only four years after the Great Council where the female claim was summarily dismissed according to many.

That is why I think it is very odd that folks would basically fall over themselves to support dragonless Viserys and antagonize/slight the dragonriding Velaryons.

Chances are actually pretty bad that Viserys actually won out because folks preferred the claimant from the male line - that's the historical narrative written by the maesters.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:00 PM, BlackLightning said:

In any case, you're right. I've always said that this whole misogynistic thing that King Jaehaerys I had was his single greatest mistake. The Dance is ultimately his fault.

Any other lord would've just been content to leave well enough alone and allow his firstborn son's daughter to succeed him. But noooooo...

What was his problem? I don't get it. He is old enough to clearly remember both Queen Visenya and the sheer amount of power she wielded and his own mother who protected them and held the post-Maegor realm together. And then there was Rhaena who ruled both Dragonstone and Harrenhal pretty effectively.

I just don't get it.

Baelon vs. Rhaenys is actually not that hard to understand. It is a son of your own body against a grandchild, basically. Jaehaerys I especially seems to have wanted a son as his successor - which is why he apparently seriously considered Vaegon as his heir in 101 AC before the Great Council.

And in context it is quite clear that basically all of Westeros was very fine with Baelon as Heir Apparent in 92 AC, even more so after he avenged Aemon. The real problem comes when Baelon predeceases Jaehaerys as well, since nobody views Viserys as the king's natural heir - unlike with Baelon in 92 AC.

This idea that a king or lord has to turn to the eldest child of his eldest son if the son predeceases him is actually something that's not a given in medieval successions. Turning to a younger son is the way to go there in most cases. Only if there is a binding succession law with a fixed and clear line of succession do you have a scenario where younger grandchildren come into play.

Still, though, passing over Rhaenys is also a problem from a generational perspective. Jaehaerys I had outlived so many of his children in 92 AC that turning to his eldest grandchild might have been a wise decision in any case. Baelon could predecease the king, too, so perhaps it might have been better to go with a younger heir.

This is also the reason why I still assume Viserys II may have planned to name Daeron his Heir Apparent rather than Aegon considering the fact that Aegon was only thirteen years younger than his father, and Viserys II could easily live to see his great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren grow up.

On 1/24/2022 at 10:27 PM, Ran said:

Rhaenys was 18 and pregnant, and the realm had just lost its heir to an attack by enemies. Choosing a grown man who could be expected to command forces seemed at the time more important at that moment. The fact that he even had the Great Council suggests he recognized that the situation had changed by the time a new choosing was needed, but now had set up a situation where the children of both of his heirs had a claim, and decided best to take it to the Great Council. Had the Great Council chosen Rhaenys, Jaehaerys would surely have abided by it.

Jaehaerys even realized that his wishes no longer mattered. He no longer had the authority or power to force the Realm and the royal family to accept an Heir Apparent of his choosing. That's why he called the Great Council in the first place.

The reason why he lost his authority there seems to be his picking-and-choosing attitude in 92 AC, though. He made the popular choice ... which set a bad precedent. On the basis of the 92 AC precedent Vaegon would actually have a better claim than Viserys, since you can interpret it as 'all sons of the king come before any of his grandchildren or great-grandchildren'. Him going back to Aemon's line would antagonize Baelon's sons, him choosing Viserys or Daemon would be antagonize the Velaryons even further.

But if Jaehaerys had a favorite heir after Baelon's death it was Vaegon - not Viserys, Daemon, Rhaenys, Laena, or Laenor. He is the only prince we hear he may have considered naming his new heir, not any of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren. And as things stand, he may have even done that if Vaegon had agreed to be his heir - but he apparently refused and told his father he should convene a Great Council.

On 1/24/2022 at 11:28 PM, Ran said:

Her father refused to have her join him because of her pregnancy. Westeros is a place where women go into confinement at a certain point in their pregnancy, in general. Their opinions are not our own. 

While that's true - the idea that the sonless Aemon would have ever wanted his father to pass over his daughter or his grandchildren is very unlikely. He doesn't have to dote on Rhaenys to the degree Viserys doted on Rhaenyra to want his blood to come before that of his younger brother, never mind how well these two got along.

And since both the brothers and the king failed to actually unite the branches via a Rhaenys-Viserys betrothal/marriage they either were so stupid to not think beyond Aemon's future reign at that point ... or it was clear that Aemon's daughter/grandchildren would succeed him in the very distant future.

If they had known things between Aemon's and Baelon's descendants might get messy they would have married Rhaenys to Viserys. In fact, they would have arranged such a betrothal when the children were still very young. Instead, Rhaenys got permission for her marriage to Corlys, meaning we had a presumptive heir to the throne marrying outside the Targaryen family.

On 1/24/2022 at 11:28 PM, Ran said:

You have to look at it from the cultural side. Jaehaerys, once again, would have abided by the decision if the Great Council chose Rhaenys. But Rhaenys wasn't even a serious candidate, because Westerosi society is patriarchal and women are not  trusted to be able to stand up and rule effectively. Instead, Rhaenys's 7-year-old son was seen as a better candidate precisely because he was male.

The society is sexist. Jaehaerys doubtless knew that by throwing it to the Great Council, a male heir -- either Laenor or Viserys -- would have been found, bypassing Rhaenys again. I would speculate he thought this acceptable because his first and greatest concern was to the stability of the realm, and it was manifestly true that most lords would feel a lot more comfortable with a ruling king than a ruling queen.

While all this is true ... the point here is that this shouldn't have been *that much of an issue*. Dragons should be able to neutralize sexism and patriarchy to a point. If you are a Westerosi lord you wouldn't look at the Targaryen dragonriders the way you look at the younger children or kin of a dragonless lord or king. Rhaenys Targaryen and Laenor/Laena Velaryon are not Harry the Heir or Sansa or Rickon Stark. They are people with powerful magical weapons who can destroy you, your family, and your castle on a whim.

You would know this, and thus you would treat dragonriding women differently then dragonless (royal) women.

Insofar as George portrays things differently things get unrealistic. The lords would not wish to antagonize such women ... and they would do anything in their power to marry their heirs to such women so that their grandchildren could become dragonriders themselves - like Corlys Velaryon did. He set the example the other great houses would try to follow.

Rhaenyra's own assessment about her chances at a Great Council is also pretty weird. She had more dragons, so if we imagine the factions calling a truce and convening a Great Council the lords seeing that Rhaenyra's dragonriders are attending the council would have had a considerable effect on the decisions of the lords.

Unless we actually assume that these people are so stupid or ignorant that they don't actually care or know who is a dragonrider and who isn't.

Which is - as I said repeatedly - the impression we get with Laena Velaryon riding Vhagar. That was such a massive advantage on the side of the Velaryons that Viserys I could not have possibly spurned Laena. Even if Viserys I had been a dragonrider - the Velaryons with Vhagar on their side could have still made short work of him even if Daemon had been at his side.

On 1/24/2022 at 11:28 PM, Ran said:

The Dance was Viserys's fault for failing to properly back-up Rhaenyra as his chosen successor, by the by. I don't lay the blame at Jaehaerys's feet. If he had reconfirmed her as his heir after Aegon's birth, forced Alicent and Otto and all the rest to publicly swear their acknowledgment of her as heir, etc., nearer to the time of his death, things might well have gone differently. But he preferred to pretend that things were fine so as not to rock the boat with his wife and her kin, and that's where we ended up.

While you are right there, I certainly think the Great Council is the root of all evil in the same way the Tourney at Harrenhal was. Not so much the council as such, but its interpretation that only men can sit the throne now, which apparently was so big an issue that Viserys I had to rule on his own succession barely two years after his own coronation.

Without the Great Council chances are smaller that Rhaenyra would have ever been named Heir Apparent - assuming Viserys had remarried and fathered a couple of sons.

[Rara Avis]

Dragons should have been great equalizers when it comes to power, and it's pretty annoying that they aren't. You absolutely cannot dismiss a person who controls a dragon, not matter what's between their legs. With dragon you're a superjet in a world where people fight with sticks. 

It's one thing to transport real life sexism into fantasy setting - some people are still annoyed by it, but I like real world parallels, - but another when you have obvious in-setting basis to lessen it in great measure and still contrive ways to keep it up. Not saying it would have trickled down to other people, but Targ ladies should have been seen as exceptional, much like Targ incest. Physical differences really pale in comparison to having vs. not having a dragon or the size of said dragon. 

and yet we end up with paralles to Salic law. 

 

ETA: I'm not one of those easily offended people but I have to agree that 3 insane  female rulers for 2 shows is a bit much. Sansa isn't a good counterpoint since we've no reason to be sure she won't go nuts - wouldn't even be shocking given what she's been through. Her biggest achievement so far in the story was feeding man to his dogs, which, deserving as it was, doesn't exactly scream sanity. 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 1/27/2022 at 11:55 AM, Rara Avis said:

Dragons should have been great equalizers when it comes to power, and it's pretty annoying that they aren't. You absolutely cannot dismiss a person who controls a dragon, not matter what's between their legs. With dragon you're a superjet in a world where people fight with sticks. 

It's one thing to transport real life sexism into fantasy setting - some people are still annoyed by it, but I like real world parallels, - but another when you have obvious in-setting basis to lessen it in great measure and still contrive ways to keep it up. Not saying it would have trickled down to other people, but Targ ladies should have been seen as exceptional, much like Targ incest. Physical differences really pale in comparison to having vs. not having a dragon or the size of said dragon. 

and yet we end up with paralles to Salic law. 

Prior to the information on the Dance I never actually thought that the Dance of the Dragons was a parallel to the English Anarchy. I thought Rhaenyra was 'the villain' there in the sense that she wasn't her father's chosen heir but simply an elder sister who thought she would be a better monarch and thus decided to challenge the rise of her younger brother - sort of like Maegor or Daemon Blackfyre or Renly thought they should be king. After all, the AGoT appendix pretty much implies that she wasn't the anointed heir but challenged the (apparently) rightful ascension of her brother.

That would have been a much better narrative, I think, emphasizing that dragons were power and female dragonriders could really bend or break the rules because they had dragons.

And as you say:

The best way to portray the dragonriders would have been to really have them as 'little kings' if you will - people as much above the law and the mundane government of the Realm as a dragonless king is above his lords. It would have made sense that the Targaryens were only turned into mundane princes and princesses completely under the thumb of the king after they lost their dragons.

The idea that the opinions of the likes of Lyman Beesbury or Jasper Wylde mattered when deciding who is to be crowned monarch in the dragon age feels very weird. One would imagine that the highest authorities/most powerful people in the Realm after the king would be the dragonriding members of the royal family. A consensus would have to be reached among them - if not, then you would risk that they take their dragons and use them against you.

And as the number of the dragonriders increased any king would have to be very wary of them, doing anything in his power to keep them sweet and on his side or else risk a majority of them band together and depose him.

No sane society would ignore the dragonriders the way they are (apparently) ignored at the Great Council of 101 AC, when Viserys I declares Rhaenyra his heir, when he chooses a second wife, etc.

If you look at it, then Viserys' chosen heir in 105 AC shouldn't have been Rhaenyra but Laena. She was the one riding Vhagar and the heir from the elder line. She had the power to try to take the throne by force in the future, so the sane and rational approach would have to win her to your side by either naming her the heir or make her the new queen.

[DMC]

I haven't read everything, but all this talk of Viserys lacking "symbolic" legitimacy of manliness or martial status because he wasn't a dragonrider really seems to be eliding the fact he rode Balerion.  Granted only very shortly, but that surely would grant Viserys street cred even after Balerion died - he's like a dragonrider emeritus.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, DMC said:

I haven't read everything, but all this talk of Viserys lacking "symbolic" legitimacy of manliness or martial status because he wasn't a dragonrider really seems to be eliding the fact he rode Balerion.  Granted only very shortly, but that surely would grant Viserys street cred even after Balerion died - he's like a dragonrider emeritus.

I'm not pretending Viserys never rode a dragon. But that was a pitiful and sad affair. Viserys could barely get him in the air, and the ailing dragon was so weak he couldn't even fly to Dragonstone. All they did was fly around KL. It may have looked impressive for whatever Kingslanders and others were there at the time, but it was hardly a great feat. Balerion was effectively dying when Viserys mounted him, meaning even while he was still alive he wasn't a dragon the Old King could use in war if he had actually needed Viserys as a dragonrider.

I mean, if you check the text the Dragonkeepers were already telling Viserys' mother Alyssa to not bother with the Black Dread because he was getting old and lazy.

Insofar as actual dragon power (which would be both the physical ability to ride a dragon as well as you actually having a dragon you can ride) as well as the power dynamics that come with you being a dragonrider (which is that your lords and rivals know you can mount said dragon any time and torch them, their loved ones, and their homes) are concerned, the 'street cred' of being an 'ex-dragonrider' wouldn't be worth much. It wouldn't help Viserys I to keep the actual dragonriders in line. What he is going to say to Daemon or Laena or Rhaenyra? 'Do what I tell you because I rode a dying big dragon once in my youth'? Then they will answer: 'Balerion is dead, you have no dragon, but I'm riding Caraxes/Vhagar/Syrax and you can do nothing about that.'

Or take Alysanne losing the ability to mount Silverwing in old age. When she could still fly Silverwing she personally cowed the Faith and the Hightowers into submission by landing atop the Hightower itself during her visit in the city. That was a terrifying sight to see, symbolizing how easy it would be for Alysanne Targaryen, personally, to destroy the seat of the Lords of Oldtown. It was an expression of the personal power a dragon gives to its rider.

Once she was too old and frail to do this folks might remember what she could do in her youth ... but they would also realize she was just an old and frail woman without a dragon now - like any other mortal. If you threatened her now she might call on the help of a child or grandchild to mount a dragon in her stead ... but she herself could no longer do it. And that is a difference.

It is the same with Viserys. The difference in his case is that he could technically mount another dragon while there were riderless dragons around. But this, again, begs the question why he didn't do that? As I laid out - a dragonless king among a family of dragonriders shouldn't just have problems exerting his authority when it is challenged (which it was, repeatedly, throughout his reign) but it would also be impractical when he moved around.

We know the dragonriders flew to Dragonstone and Driftmark (e.g. to Laenor's funeral). Are we to believe Viserys I preferred to go there by ship when Daemon was away and Rhaenyra/Syrax still too young/small to take her father on Syrax's back as a passenger? Are we to believe that Alicent later liked to ride on Daemon's or Rhaenyra's dragon when the royal family went somewhere (before the dragons of her own children were able to carry her)? A king dependent on his brother or children, etc. to get a ride on one of their dragons or else have to travel like a normal person by ship or horse would very much reveal his own symbolic impotence.

If we take the scenario and transfer it to the main series - say, by imagining the Lannisters as a race who can ride large magical lions ... then it would be equally inconceivable that Joffrey or Cersei would prefer to ride horses while Jaime, Tyrion, Tywin, Kevan, Tommen, and Myrcella all rode gigantic lions. It would make look them weak, less impressive, etc.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that was a pitiful and sad affair. Viserys could barely get him in the air, and the ailing dragon was so weak he couldn't even fly to Dragonstone. All they did was fly around KL. It may have looked impressive for whatever Kingslanders and others were there at the time, but it was hardly a great feat. Balerion was effectively dying when Viserys mounted him, meaning even while he was still alive he wasn't a dragon the Old King could use in war if he had actually needed Viserys as a dragonrider.

This may all be true and known to the reader, but my point was about the projection of "symbolic" legitimacy and the importance of appearing manly/martial vis-a-vis dragonriding.  In that respect, I don't see a plausible reason why most at court wouldn't view Viserys as retaining this dragonrider street cred just because of these details, or that Balerion died, or that Viserys eventually got old and fat.  The concept of such symbolic legitimacy, as I understand it, is that its still salient even after a king has aged out of it being a reality - e.g. Robert still being respected as a great warrior even though presumably most at court knew he wasn't nearly the warrior he used to be.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

the 'street cred' of being an 'ex-dragonrider' wouldn't be worth much. It wouldn't help Viserys I to keep the actual dragonriders in line. What he is going to say to Daemon or Laena or Rhaenyra? 'Do what I tell you because I rode a dying big dragon once in my youth'?

Will, I mean, how is any single dragonrider king supposed to keep more than 1 or 2 other dragonriders in line based on the threat of head-to-head combat?  I certainly agree that consolidating support from your dragonriders is how the Targaryen kings were so much more powerful with dragons than without them, but this is still ultimately through inspiring the loyalty of your dragonriders.  And I don't think this is realized for most Targaryen dragon kings simply because they ride the biggest and baddest dragon.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

This may all be true and known to the reader, but my point was about the projection of "symbolic" legitimacy and the importance of appearing manly/martial vis-a-vis dragonriding.  In that respect, I don't see a plausible reason why most at court wouldn't view Viserys as retaining this dragonrider street cred just because of these details, or that Balerion died, or that Viserys eventually got old and fat.  The concept of such symbolic legitimacy, as I understand it, is that its still salient even after a king has aged out of it being a reality - e.g. Robert still being respected as a great warrior even though presumably most at court knew he wasn't nearly the warrior he used to be.

I agree with you that Viserys already having mounted a dragon in the past (meaning he had shown he could do it) - while Laenor had still to mount Seasmoke at the time of the Great Council - certainly gave him more symbolic capital, prestige, etc. than a dragonless Targaryen like, say, Vaegon would have had there. I agree that having mounted a dragon would be seen as a great feat - sort of like being a great warrior stays with you even as you age.

But that's just Viserys' relative strength/prestige compared to a non- or yet-to-be dragonrider - it shouldn't give him more prestige than Rhaenys or Daemon would have gotten from the actual dragons they were still riding - dragons they likely used to fly to Harrenhal for the Great Council. Dragons that were actually *there* with the lords (including Laenor's Seasmoke), not just in the memory of people who knew Viserys had ridden Balerion once nearly ten years ago.

The dragons of the actual dragonriders at Harrenhal were real and under the control of their riders. Slighting or humiliating or antagonizing them would thus be a considerable risk on the side of the lords and knights doing that. And I think George really ignores the psychological effect this would have had on people in the Viserys and Dance material. Not so much in the newer material about Jaehaerys I where access to dragons is controlled by the king and dragons are actually used very effectively as weapons of intimidation.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Will, I mean, how is any single dragonrider king supposed to keep more than 1 or 2 other dragonriders in line based on the threat of head-to-head combat?

This is why I think the government system as presented during the reign of Viserys I really doesn't make much sense. There are so many dragonriders that even a guy with a big dragon would have trouble controlling them especially as they form political factions of their own ... but that a dragonless king should be able to do it is even harder to swallow than the idea that the rider of Vermithor or Vhagar could do it.

The court and government of Viserys I should have dominated by his dragonriding family and kin, not ambitious lords and knights who sat on the Small Council or were part of the Kingsguard.

As long as it is few dragonriders challenging equal the same number of dragonriders whose dragons all are of more or less equal size we wouldn't have that much of a problem. That Jaehaerys I could keep the dragonriders in line is not problematic at all. He didn't allow his younger children to claim dragons, and he passed them only to his elder children he knew he could trust who he included in his government. Aemon, Baelon, and Alyssa could have still banded together to challenge their parents ... but a battle with Caraxes, Vhagar, and Meleys on the one side, and Vermithor and Silverwing on the other wouldn't have been easy for the children - even more so since (especially) the younger dragons wouldn't have been as large during the reign of Jaehaerys I as they were during the Dance.

But with Viserys I we have a scenario where the rival branch of the family has more dragons than the king himself - among them the largest dragon alive from the moment Laena claimed Vhagar.

In a sense, that's like Aenys/Visenya/Maegor accepting that dragonless Orys Baratheon succeeds the Conqueror rather than one of them.

And as I said - it gets worse and worse as Viserys I grows old and fat and immobile while his entire family acquire dragons. It is a miracle that the Blacks and Greens didn't take matters in their own hands in 120 AC when things came to blows at Laenor's funeral. What could Viserys I have done to stop his children from unleashing their dragons on each other? Or what could he have done if Aegon and Aemond had decided to arrest and depose their old man to crown Aegon in his stead?

We get the Greens vs. Blacks thing as a frozen conflict when there isn't really an authority that could stop them from taking matters into their own hands.

And if you look at the Dance George really sends the message that Daemon serving the City Watch for a very short time over twenty years ago has more of an impact on the war effort than the dragons he and Rhaenyra control. Luthor Largent shouldn't have talked about gold cloaks so much but what it means when you see six dragons circling above your head knowing fully well that the only dragon left in the city belongs to a mad queen confined to her chambers (who might not even know or understand that a war is going on in the outside world).

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I certainly agree that consolidating support from your dragonriders is how the Targaryen kings were so much more powerful with dragons than without them, but this is still ultimately through inspiring the loyalty of your dragonriders.  And I don't think this is realized for most Targaryen dragon kings simply because they ride the biggest and baddest dragon.

Of course, Viserys I personality must have played a great role in keeping the peace if we buy the scenario - and we kind of have to. But it would have worked much better if he had also been a dragonrider throughout (most of) his reign.

But the size of the dragon did matter for the dragonrider kings. Balerion being the largest certainly underlined Aegon being the guy in charge of the system he set up with his sister-wives. Aenys having a much smaller dragon than Maegor (once the latter claimed Balerion) contributed to the changing power dynamics among the brothers (to a much larger degree, one imagines, than the question how many Valyrian steel swords Maegor had). Aegon the Uncrowned not being a dragonrider when his father died seems to have been the deciding factor why Maegor could usurp the throne, and Vermithor being the largest ridden dragon during his reign (sans the short Aerea intermezzo) until Vhagar was claimed by Baelon ensured that Jaehaerys' kingship would and could not be challenged (Vermithor and Silverwing are even the deciding factors why Rogar Baratheon's attempted deposition of Jaehaerys I during his minority fails). And at the beginning of the Dance it is the number and sizes of the dragons controlled by Rhaenyra that give her faction a fighting chance. Without the dragons they had their chances of success would have been as bad as Stannis' were before he teamed up with Melisandre. Perhaps worse, considering the fact that Rhaenyra was a woman.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Do you guys think they might have a trailer debut during the Super Bowl? It would only be a minute long at most.