House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open

[The Bard of Banefort]

Did Rhaenyra ever execute anyone with her dragon? I don’t remember that.

I think you could argue that Rhaenyra is a watered-down version of Daenerys, in that Dany reaches both greater highs and deeper lows. Just going off of the books, Rhaenyra never tries to help the commoners like Dany does, but she also doesn’t start burning people alive at the age of 14 either.

[C.T. Phipps]

I think it's best to think of the characters as mostly combinations of character traits. No one is 1:1.

But we'll see how similar Rhaenyra is to Daeny vs. Cersei.

Same with Alicent an Cersei vs. Show Margaery.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Did Rhaenyra ever execute anyone with her dragon? I don’t remember that.

I think you could argue that Rhaenyra is a watered-down version of Daenerys, in that Dany reaches both greater highs and deeper lows. Just going off of the books, Rhaenyra never tries to help the commoners like Dany does, but she also doesn’t start burning people alive at the age of 14 either.

A big difference is that Dany, far more than Rhaenyra, has to earn her position.  By the time she reaches Westeros, she’ll have tons more military experience than Rhaenyra.

[C.T. Phipps]

Oddly, I think Daemon had the common touch much better.

[Ran]

He did, though only to a certain set: brutish men, hardened soldiers, etc. The folk of Flea Bottom come to love him because of his brutality, not despite it, after all.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Yeah, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Rhaenyra.  Just like the riots got put down by Joffrey in the books, vilifying him forever, Rhaenyra turns her dragons on the people and torches them horribly. As for not having sufficient cash to keep the rabble happy, that IS a basic function of government and a measure of whether or not you will be considered a good ruler or not.

Rhaenyra never turns her dragons on the people. The people turn on them. They literally killed four defenseless dragons in the Dragonpit, and a fifth who was simply too stupid to defend herself.

If you want symbolism, then Rhaenyra is the perfect embodiment of the 'women are too stupid/weak to rule' trope. She couldn't defend the dragons.

You are a bad ruler if you suck at doing your job if you have the means to do so. If you come into a throne and find that the government is heavily in debt/lacking cash to enable the government to function properly then you are not to be blamed for that.

Jaehaerys I had a similar problem when he came into his throne ... but the advantage that he didn't also have to fight a civil war. Rhaenyra should have named a different Master of Coin, that's clear. But whether a more competent guy could have actually found a less taxing way to raise funds for her is unclear.

I'm also not sure that Joff was 'vilified forever' by any of his actions. Apparently the people liked him well enough, blaming the people around him for the bad things he did, since they didn't believe he is a child was making those calls.

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Point A: She never actively tried to hurt Aegon's family.

Point B: Because we don't believe she had Alicent and his wife raped.

Even if B was accurate there ... we cannot expect that Aegon II heard about that while hiding on Dragonstone. But if that had been accurate, Rhaenyra should at least have expected that she would be raped by Aegon's garrison or something along those lines. But she didn't seem to expect that either, no?

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

But yes, Rhaenyra is correct that it was an incredibly stupid move by Aemond because it not only made him a kinslayer in the eyes of the public and did absolutely nothing to ward off Cregan Stark but it ruined any chance of a peaceful settlement too even if it was, "keep her prisoner for the rest of her life in Dragonstone."

Well, Gyldayn doesn't really elaborate if and how Rhaenyra's murder affected Aegon II's public image, so we just don't know the effects. Rhaenyra's own assessment that her leal lords would find and eventually free her would have likely been correct. After all, they did the same thing for the future Aegon III. And it stands to reason that Aegon II position with a living Rhaenyra as a hostage wouldn't have been any better.

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Mind you, like Rhaenyra herself and what she might have done to the Queen Mother and Queen, I don't have any surprise at Aegon blaming her for his children's death or the above.

But he doesn't blame her for anything. He just has her murdered. There is no explanation or justification given for any of this.

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It's funny that I view Rhaenyra as much more evil thank you but never anything approaching pathetic or a failure. Yeah she dies at the hands of Aegon II but her forces eventually crush his and he is murdered by his own men.

Oh, but that doesn't really effect her efficacy as a ruler, no? Sure, her side wins the war and her bloodline prevails, but that doesn't mean she is a particularly heroic, devisive, or strong-willed character.

In fact, insofar as personal leadership is concerned, Aegon II is a much more impressive figure. He mounts Sunfyre repeatedly and risks his own life and body in battle (in stupid battles, of course, but it is nonetheless impressive). Rhaenyra stands right there, next to her dragon, when an angry mob slays the foundation of Targaryen power ... and does nothing to stop it.

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

There's no heroes in the Dance of Dragons but it doesn't need to be because everyone is interesting.

The fact that 'there are no heroes' is going to become a problem in the show if it is true. I'd also not say that everybody there is interesting. There are, perhaps, a few interesting figures there, but most of the Targaryens are neither impressive nor interesting. I mean, Empress Matilda seems to be a hundred times more impressive and charismatic than Rhaenyra. There is that famous episode where she escaped a siege in Oxford in winter by dressing in white and walking straight through the siege. Matilida had no dragons, of course, but both more leadership skills and more adventures than Rhaenyra.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Did Rhaenyra ever execute anyone with her dragon? I don’t remember that.

She had Syrax eat Vaemond Velaryon's corpse after Daemon executed him. Aside from that, there is no indication she did something like that. It is possible that the Dragonpit dragons were eating the corpses of the men she executed, but she never fed anyone living to a dragon as far as we know.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

He did, though only to a certain set: brutish men, hardened soldiers, etc. The folk of Flea Bottom come to love him because of his brutality, not despite it, after all.

Which actually makes no sense at all since Daemon only commanded the City Watch for months nearly thirty and nearly twenty years ago at the time of the Dance. It would make some sense that some greybeards remember that Viserys' brother was once the Lord Commander of the City Watch ... but very few people would care about any of that.

Even if Daemon's methods had any lasting effects, folks would praise his longer serving successors in the office for that rather than the guy himself. The man didn't even live in KL since 111 AC, spending his time on the Stepstones, on Driftmark, and eventually settling on Dragonstone, coming to court only for brief visits for feasts and such.

George should have had Daemon serve in that capacity for a couple of years again in the 120s ... or at least have many of his Stepstones War veterans settling in KL and joining the ranks of the City Watch to establish that he still had a hold over them in 130 AC.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Regarding the number of Targaryens, weren’t there more Targs during Daeron II’s reign, and even Egg’s, if you include the female lines?

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Regarding the number of Targaryens, weren’t there more Targs during Daeron II’s reign, and even Egg’s, if you include the female lines?

Of course. In THK there are four princes, three of which have in total seven grandsons, and four granddaughters. In addition, there are Elaena's Plumm and Penrose branches, Daenerys' Martell branch, and whatever remains of Baela's Velaryon and Rhaena's Hightower branch. And then there are the Blackfyres, of course.

Compared to Viserys I's empty Targaryen court, even the Conqueror's court should have looked more impressive. Up until 10 AC he had two queens and a small son, and after Rhaenys's death came Maegor and then five grandchildren.

[Ran]

Pretty uncharitable to pick the start of Viserys I's reign rather than its end. There were at minimum 18 Targaryens then, perhaps more.

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

Pretty uncharitable to pick the start of Viserys I's reign rather than its end. There were at minimum 18 Targaryens then, perhaps more.

Well, they do seem to refer to the beginning of his reign rather than the end in the videos.

And as I said - the main/only function of lots of those 'characters' is to be killed. Helaena, Jaehaerys, Jaehaera, Maelor, Luke and Joffrey Velaryon aren't really characters. This could have been done much better ... and if there had been some uncles and cousins and siblings of Viserys, it wouldn't have looked so obvious that they would be killed.

I mean, anyone knowing the appendix of AGoT would look at Aegon II's children and Rhaenyra's elder sons and know that the fact that neither of them ever said the Iron Throne likely indicates that they won't live to a happy old age.

[C.T. Phipps]

I wonder if the Shepherd was an agent of the Citadel to try to destroy the dragons and thus kill magic.

[Lord Varys]

21 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I wonder if the Shepherd was an agent of the Citadel to try to destroy the dragons and thus kill magic.

I speculated somewhat along those lines prior to the publication of FaB but what we learned about him in the complete text makes that pretty unlikely. First, it must strike us as very unlikely that there was an actual anti-dragon conspiracy while Vaegon Targaryen was an archmaester, and while a Hightower Hand and a Hightower queen were in KL, having dragonriding (grand-)children.

The maesters might be sneaky and all, but it is pretty hard to buy that they would dare to conspire against the Hightower-Targaryens under their very noses.

Rather I'd expect that the Dance itself kind of caused some people at the Citadel to think that many Targaryen dragonriders will inevitably lead to another such succession/civil war, possibly with even more monstrous consequences than the last war. And they wanted to prevent that.

The more important point, though, is that the text makes it pretty clear that the Shepherd was a religious fanatic whose ultimate goal was not just to kill the dragons and overthrow the Targaryen abominations but also to establish some kind of theocratic rule which was the complete opposite of the rationalist agenda of the Citadel (which I think is pretty much akin to enlightened absolutist rule).

I'd expect that the Shepherd comes from a kind of underground Poor Fellows movement. Too many decades have past for the guy being an actual Poor Fellow living during the reign of Maegor and early Jaehaerys, but he may have grown up among Poor Fellows who went underground in the 50s AC. We see in AFfC with the Sparrows movement that the Poor Fellows were never truly gone but just dropped their symbolism and kind of hid among the other orders of the Faith, mainly the begging brothers, one imagines.

[BlackLightning]

On 7/23/2022 at 5:13 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

3. Mind you, I don't think Jaehaerys is EXCEPTIONAL in his sexism. I think he was a man of his time and significantly less misogynist than, say, Maegor. But a man of his time in Westeros, when so many other Targaryens were not (and have not far ancestors who were dragon riding badasses who led armies) is notable. It's part of his character arc that shows the King succumbed to normalizing the Targaryens to Andal values.

I disagree. Maegor is clearly less misogynistic than Jaehaerys.

On 7/23/2022 at 3:00 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

I suspect it was the graphicness of Sansa's sexual assault and the fact she was a beloved character we'd watched since the actress' childhood that heavily influenced the backlash.

I am curious what will be kept and changed, though.

Sansa's sexual assault was not graphic.

I've seen much, much worse.

However, the point that she was a beloved character we'd watched since the actress' childhood heavily influenced the backlash. Another point that influenced the backlash was that the show somehow made the raping of Sansa all about Theon. And then another point that influenced the backlash was that the whole Sansa/Ramsay situation made no fucking sense and was completely contrived.

 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

27 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I disagree. Maegor is clearly less misogynistic than Jaehaerys.

I dunno, actual rapist and keeper of sex slaves has a strong argument over entrenched chauvinism.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I think the Maester Conspiracy probably involved poisoning the eggs with some kind of potion. It would explain why Elissa Farman’s stolen eggs hatched while the others didn’t (although if there really are a clutch of eggs hidden somewhere in Winterfell, it’s possible those could hatch as well). I’m guessing that during/after the Dance, the Citadel concluded that dragons were too dangerous and caused too much damage. . . and honestly, I don’t blame them.

[BlackLightning]

8 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I dunno, actual rapist and keeper of sex slaves has a strong argument over entrenched chauvinism.

True.

But he named and treated Aerea (the firstborn child of one of his most bitter enemies and the rightful heir to the Iron Throne) as his heir...for years.

Let me say that again: Aerea was the rightful Queen of Westeros as the heir of Aegon the Uncrowned, Maegor's most serious rival. King Maegor not only acknowledged that in a way but he publicly made her his heir. If he did ever in fact had a son, he would've simply betrothed Aerea to that son. Granted, it was politically expedient as it disarmed Aegon's widow but that doesn't mean it was any less valid.

And if we know anything about Maegor, it's that he means what he says and does what he means.

That's more than Jaehaerys ever did.

He listened and took the advice of women around him. He listened to his mother more than anyone. As a matter of fact, he trusted the women around him more than he ever trusted the men around him--which is probably why he reacted so horrifically towards his wives and their families. Their betrayals -- perceived or real -- hurt him deeply.

And Maegor also never pretended to be the perfect, good king. He was a mean, stubborn and unfair tyrant to everyone, not just women.

[BlackLightning]

6 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I’m guessing that during/after the Dance, the Citadel concluded that dragons were too dangerous and caused too much damage. . . and honestly, I don’t blame them.

I wouldn't blame them either.

However, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Citadel started doing that way before the Dance. Maegor's reign drove home the message that dragonkings are much more dangerous and much less trustworthy than regular kings.

Absolute monarchs are frightening enough as it is. Any monarch with a flying, fire-breathing dragon that almost no one else has (no matter how experienced or competent they are) and a centralized government is an absolute monarch of "the worst kind." It's like if the President of the United States was the king of the United States and he was the only one in the whole world who had nukes and subsonic fighter jets.

Westeros is a feudal, decentralized monarchy--always has been. Under Maegor, it got very close to becoming an absolute, centralized monarchy. Which, again, is frightening.

 

It would be cool (and make a lot more sense) for Archmaester Vaegon of House Targaryen to be the father of the anti-dragon, anti-magic conspiracy.

It would make so much sense: he hated dragons, he wanted no parts in the royal family life, he declined the opportunity to be king and sought to make the next decision for the kingship a democracy. What if he orchestrated events to prevent the Seven Kingdoms from being ruled by another dragonlord? Maybe Vaegon saw a massively destructive and bloody Targaryen civil war coming a mile away (it's logical to assume as much). Maybe Vaegon was a edgelord who just hated his weirdo family. Maybe Vaegon was militantly pro-science despite his family's clear magical background.

In any case, if Vaegon was the master engineer of the anti-dragon conspiracy, then it would be safer to orchestrate events so that the dragonless, laissez-faire Viserys sit the Iron Throne instead of shrewd and dragonriding Rhaenys as the ruler of Westeros. It doesn't matter if Rhaenys was Queen Regnant or Queen Regent: you'd still have a shrewd, dragonriding Rhaenys ruling the country as an overlord or an behind-the-scenes puppetmaster for decades. Plus, both her children were dragonriders with one of them commanding the gigantic Vhagar.

What also doesn't help are the consorts. Pretty, mild-mannered, honor-worshipping Aemma Arryn...or extremely experienced, ridiculously wealthy, well-traveled Corlys Velaryon. Between Rhaenys and Corlys, you'd be hard-pressed and self-destructive to keep anything from them. Especially if it pertained to the dragons.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

True.

But he named and treated Aerea (the firstborn child of one of his most bitter enemies and the rightful heir to the Iron Throne) as his heir...for years.

Eh, even then we have the fact that Maegor himself took the throne from Aenys I's daughter and son. Aenys was the one to overlook his eldest daughter for his eldest son but Maegor took over both. He named her his heir but that was because he had none of his own and the male children rebelled.

Quote

However, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Citadel started doing that way before the Dance. Maegor's reign drove home the message that dragonkings are much more dangerous and much less trustworthy than regular kings.

I admit to having found great humor in the fact that fans generally view autocratic secular kings, even mad ones, like Maegor as preferable to the Faith having more influence.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think the Maester Conspiracy probably involved poisoning the eggs with some kind of potion. It would explain why Elissa Farman’s stolen eggs hatched while the others didn’t (although if there really are a clutch of eggs hidden somewhere in Winterfell, it’s possible those could hatch as well). I’m guessing that during/after the Dance, the Citadel concluded that dragons were too dangerous and caused too much damage. . . and honestly, I don’t blame them.

If the stolen eggs are Dany's eggs then them hatching is still a miracle, over 200 years after the fact.

There are very subtle clues about how 'the maester conspiracy' may have messed with the dragons. There is a new maester at Dragonstone handing Aegon II seven eggs for hatching ... which leads nowhere, possibly indicating he messed with them before handing them to the king. More importantly, Baela and Alyn also put a Dragonstonian egg into the cradle of little Laena, so there is a pattern there. The freak dragon from that egg may have also been the result of poisoning.

More importantly, there is Maester Rowley, who succeeds George Graceford as Lord Confessor in 136 AC. He his chosen because he is a great healer and thus also knows how to inflict pain and he studied under Archmaester Sandeman, a very wise healer.

If I were to place a maester at court to mess with the dragon (eggs) then a very good way to do this would be by ways of a maester acting in another capacity altogether, and one in a position of actual authority rather than the aloof Grand Maester who is mostly interacting with the big shots.

Although, of course, during the reign of Aegon III no dragon should have permanently resided at the Red Keep, and the Dragonpit should have been empty for a most of the time as well. The crucial place to mess with dragon eggs would be Dragonstone. That's the place where they hatched ... and some eggs did hatch and even produced more eggs during the reign of Aegon III. Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal most likely won't die of poisoning. Also not the dragon of Alys River's son ... if he actually has a hatchling of his own (if not, then he might claim one of the riderless dragons in the future).

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

True.

But he named and treated Aerea (the firstborn child of one of his most bitter enemies and the rightful heir to the Iron Throne) as his heir...for years.

Let me say that again: Aerea was the rightful Queen of Westeros as the heir of Aegon the Uncrowned, Maegor's most serious rival. King Maegor not only acknowledged that in a way but he publicly made her his heir. If he did ever in fact had a son, he would've simply betrothed Aerea to that son. Granted, it was politically expedient as it disarmed Aegon's widow but that doesn't mean it was any less valid.

And if we know anything about Maegor, it's that he means what he says and does what he means.

That's more than Jaehaerys ever did.

He listened and took the advice of women around him. He listened to his mother more than anyone. As a matter of fact, he trusted the women around him more than he ever trusted the men around him--which is probably why he reacted so horrifically towards his wives and their families. Their betrayals -- perceived or real -- hurt him deeply.

And Maegor also never pretended to be the perfect, good king. He was a mean, stubborn and unfair tyrant to everyone, not just women.

Maegor went with a female heir because he had no male heir he felt he could trust. And he only disinherited Jaehaerys (and murdered Viserys) after Alyssa escaped with the children.

Jaehaerys did have male heirs aplenty and since they were his sons there is little to no reason why he should favor the female heirs he also had.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I wouldn't blame them either.

However, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Citadel started doing that way before the Dance. Maegor's reign drove home the message that dragonkings are much more dangerous and much less trustworthy than regular kings.

Absolute monarchs are frightening enough as it is. Any monarch with a flying, fire-breathing dragon that almost no one else has (no matter how experienced or competent they are) and a centralized government is an absolute monarch of "the worst kind." It's like if the President of the United States was the king of the United States and he was the only one in the whole world who had nukes and subsonic fighter jets.

Westeros is a feudal, decentralized monarchy--always has been. Under Maegor, it got very close to becoming an absolute, centralized monarchy. Which, again, is frightening.

No textual evidence for any of that. The dragons only started to really multiply in Jaehaerys' reign, and while there was a minor dragon battle during Maegor's reign, it wasn't very frightening.

Also - the Citadel wouldn't have anything against absolutist rule. They want the rule of law, and for the law to be upheld you need a powerful king who can keep the lords in line ... or perhaps one day take most of their powers away from them.

But they would have problems with a growing royal family whose various branches all are dragonriders.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

It would be cool (and make a lot more sense) for Archmaester Vaegon of House Targaryen to be the father of the anti-dragon, anti-magic conspiracy.

It would make so much sense: he hated dragons, he wanted no parts in the royal family life, he declined the opportunity to be king and sought to make the next decision for the kingship a democracy. What if he orchestrated events to prevent the Seven Kingdoms from being ruled by another dragonlord? Maybe Vaegon saw a massively destructive and bloody Targaryen civil war coming a mile away (it's logical to assume as much). Maybe Vaegon was a edgelord who just hated his weirdo family. Maybe Vaegon was militantly pro-science despite his family's clear magical background.

In any case, if Vaegon was the master engineer of the anti-dragon conspiracy, then it would be safer to orchestrate events so that the dragonless, laissez-faire Viserys sit the Iron Throne instead of shrewd and dragonriding Rhaenys as the ruler of Westeros. It doesn't matter if Rhaenys was Queen Regnant or Queen Regent: you'd still have a shrewd, dragonriding Rhaenys ruling the country as an overlord or an behind-the-scenes puppetmaster for decades. Plus, both her children were dragonriders with one of them commanding the gigantic Vhagar.

What also doesn't help are the consorts. Pretty, mild-mannered, honor-worshipping Aemma Arryn...or extremely experienced, ridiculously wealthy, well-traveled Corlys Velaryon. Between Rhaenys and Corlys, you'd be hard-pressed and self-destructive to keep anything from them. Especially if it pertained to the dragons.

Vaegon wasn't 'anti-dragon'. He was just dragonless for some reason. We don't even know why. However, magic and other arcane matters were among his many interests, making it exceedingly unlikely he had any problems with that. Nor does it make sense he would plot against his family.