Jump to content

House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open


Recommended Posts

Bah, dreadful dialogue. Didn't like most of that at all.

Not to mention having Corlys defend Daemon's claim to the Iron Throne. What's that? The guy wanted his wife and son take the throne, so if anything he would be open to the idea that a woman or a man through the female line could take the throne.

(Unless they completely cut Rhea and Daemon is already married or betrothed to Laena at that point. Then this would make sense.)

Although I like the silliness of the situation play out - a young king on the throne for only a year or so being asked to rule on a succession which will be decades away. That was utter stupidity and I hope they do present it as such.

Don't like the weirdo take on 'there was never a queen'. Yes, okay, there was never a queen, but that only means there is no precedent so far.

This is a dynastic setting. Precedents are made by history, and the prospect of a king dying without a son or childless and thus the throne passing to a cadet branch is always there. It is part of the very concept of hereditary monarchy.

Yes, okay, there being some friction between Daemon and Rhaenyra makes sense, but the real issue should come when Rhaenyra is the Heir Apparent and she has younger half-brothers. That's when tradition and custom are openly defied.

But not when a daughter of a king without a son is favored over an unstable, unpopular brother.

And, of course, the whole talk about a 'new order', etc. is also over-the-top and unworthy of a monarchy. Monarchies give royal women more power and access to power than other systems, meaning there wouldn't be this kind of fundamental sex/gender issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to mention having Corlys defend Daemon's claim to the Iron Throne. What's that? The guy wanted his wife and son take the throne, so if anything he would be open to the idea that a woman or a man through the female line could take the throne. 

I don't know how the showrunners can claim to be faithful to the source material when they made significant changes right from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checked the subtitles now - apparently Lyonel Strong is the guy who says there wasn't a ruling queen. We know that, Lyonel ... but you are the one who wanted to marry his son to the Heir Apparent and, presumably, helped to put in her bed. Not to mention you also argued for the execution of Daemon Targaryen.

Sure, somebody has to argue against the Rhaenyra idea. But Corlys and Lyonel are really the wrong guys for that job ... that would be something for the Grand Maester or the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Lyonel Strong would have most likely not succeeded Otto as Hand if he had been (originally) opposed to the idea of a female Heir Apparent.

Do we know what the other building on the hill in KL is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Checked the subtitles now - apparently Lyonel Strong is the guy who says there wasn't a ruling queen. We know that, Lyonel ... but you are the one who wanted to marry his son to the Heir Apparent and, presumably, helped to put in her bed. Not to mention you also argued for the execution of Daemon Targaryen.

Sure, somebody has to argue against the Rhaenyra idea. But Corlys and Lyonel are really the wrong guys for that job ... that would be something for the Grand Maester or the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Lyonel Strong would have most likely not succeeded Otto as Hand if he had been (originally) opposed to the idea of a female Heir Apparent.

Do we know what the other building on the hill in KL is?

The Lyonel part makes sense if he is the master of laws at the time. He may have just been discussing it with Viserys, not protesting.

I suppose Corlys could be bitter that Rhaenys was passed over, and does not want to see a woman with a lesser claim ascend the throne when is his wife was unable to.

The other building is presumably the dragonpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a dynastic setting. Precedents are made by history, and the prospect of a king dying without a son or childless and thus the throne passing to a cadet branch is always there. It is part of the very concept of hereditary monarchy.

Yes, okay, there being some friction between Daemon and Rhaenyra makes sense, but the real issue should come when Rhaenyra is the Heir Apparent and she has younger half-brothers. That's when tradition and custom are openly defied.

But not when a daughter of a king without a son is favored over an unstable, unpopular brother.

And, of course, the whole talk about a 'new order', etc. is also over-the-top and unworthy of a monarchy. Monarchies give royal women more power and access to power than other systems, meaning there wouldn't be this kind of fundamental sex/gender issue.

Interestingly in the Anarchy (which the Dance of the Dragons is based on), the male claimant (Stephen of Blois) had a much weaker claim than Daemon. Daemon is the brother of a King and a direct descendant of Aegon the Conqueror through the male line. Meanwhile, Stephen was the nephew of the previous King and the third son of William the Conqueror's daughter (not direct male line).

The English and Norman aristocracy were well aware of the concept of a Queen regnant, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to go to war when the prospect of Matilda sitting on the throne actually became a reality.

Edited by Lady_Qohor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The Lyonel part makes sense if he is the master of laws at the time. He may have just been discussing it with Viserys, not protesting.

Well, technically the smart guy should say 'Who cares about the succession at this point? Our king is still young and virile, so bring in the young maidens and let him father a son. Until such a time we have an unclear presumptive heir. If Your Grace never has a son you can always name a nephew or grandson your heir later in life.'

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I suppose Corlys could be bitter that Rhaenys was passed over, and does not want to see a woman with a lesser claim ascend the throne when is his wife was unable to.

Don't think that would make much sense, to be honest, since it would enable him to raise the issue of the female line again, finally pushing Rhaenys through ... not to mention marrying Laenor to the new Heir Apparent.

If Laena-Daemon are already a thing at that point - or at least the match is planned - then it could make some sense, though.

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The other building is presumably the dragonpit.

Ah, of course.

11 minutes ago, Lady_Qohor said:

Interestingly in the Anarchy (which the Dance of the Dragons is based on), the male claimant (Stephen of Blois) had a much weaker claim than Daemon. Daemon is the brother of a King and a direct descendant of Aegon the Conqueror through the male line. Meanwhile, Stephen was the nephew of the previous King and the third son of William the Conqueror's daughter (not direct male line).

The English and Norman aristocracy were well aware of the concept of a Queen regnant, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to go to war when the prospect of Matilda sitting on the throne actually became a reality.

Yes, of course, but the details there are much more convoluted than here. The reason Daemon isn't the Heir Apparent is that the king might still have sons ... and also that he isn't particularly popular with certain powerful people.

But the idea that a king without a son would turn to his (eldest) daughter as his chosen heir is by no means revolutionary or unheard of a in monarchy setting. Especially not in a system ruled by precedent and not by a fixed Law or Act of Succession.

If there are no royal males out there then the throne must pass to woman. Such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, and the idea that a king would have a daughter over an unstable, unpopular brother shouldn't be a big issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with Daemon being supported by Corlys at a time when the question appears to be Daemon or Rhaenyra. He probably has a good relationship with Daemon. If he's not yet married (I think a Rhea Royce has been cast but not sure if we know if they've moved the dates around there), then Laena may be a prospect. If he is unhappily married, then he's sure to end the marriage to her if Viserys dies early and Daemon becomes king, and then there's Laena to marry. 

You can say, sure, Rhaenyra can be wed to Laenor, but Rhaenyra is a young girl while Daemon is a man grown. There's no reason to prefer her over Daemon (well, besides Daemon being Daemon). He didn't support Rhaenys on the principle of absolute primogeniture, he did it because it was what would suit his ambition, always wanting more for his family. And if they place Corlys as someone who is in a rivalry with Hightower for influence, then supporting Daemon is a much more obvious course.

Finally, it's just a clip of a scene. Who knows the full context or all that's said? Jaehaerys and the Great Council, Rhaenys and her children, all that stuff could be relitigated in that scene. We don't know.

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I see nothing wrong with Daemon being supported by Corlys at a time when the question appears to be Daemon or Rhaenyra. He probably has a good relationship with Daemon. If he's not yet married (I think a Rhea Royce has been cast but not sure if we know if they've moved the dates around there), then Laena may be a prospect. If he is unhappily married, then he's sure to end the marriage to her if Viserys dies early and Daemon becomes king, and then there's Laena to marry. 

In the book Corlys and Daemon only become allies of sorts when they both feel slighted by the king by Rhaenyra's installation as Heir Apparent (Daemon) and Viserys' choice for a second wife (Corlys). They are not natural allies or friends.

There is no indication that they would be buddies in any way since Corlys was Laenor's main supporter at the Great Council while Daemon was supporting Viserys. Both were preparing for a succession war before the Great Council.

One can imagine that this magically turned into a friendship ... but that's not what the source material would imply.

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

You can say, sure, Rhaenyra can be wed to Laenor, but Rhaenyra is a young girl while Daemon is a man grown. There's no reason to prefer her over Daemon. He didn't support Rhaenys on the principle of absolute primogeniture, he did it because it was what would suit his ambition, always wanting more for his family.

Where do you get it that Corlys isn't in favor of 'absolute primogeniture' there? Aemon was the eldest son, and he only one child, Rhaenys. She is the natural heir, and her eldest son is her natural heir. This isn't 'absolute primogeniture' but rather simply primogeniture as the legal principle.

I mean, in context the book makes it crystal clear that the 'iron precedent' Viserys fanboys from the Great Council were the ones who didn't like the idea that Rhaenyra would be the Heir Apparent. Corlys wasn't one of those, and Lyonel Strong likely neither.

Even later in 129 AC the Greens go back to 'the dissenters' of 101 AC to find folks who are likely to back Rhaenyra's claim.

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Finally, it's just a clip of a scene. Who knows the full context or all that's said? Jaehaerys and the Great Council, Rhaenys and her children, all that stuff could be relitigated in that scene. We don't know.

Sure enough. Not saying everything must suck because of a few clips. Just how I feel about those clips with the knowledge we have so far.

And thinking about that - while Lyonel should already have been there, having been invited to court in 105 AC prior to Queen Aemma's death, Corlys shouldn't be there. He gave up his seat on the Small Council in 92 AC and never came back.

Having him there as Master of Ships (or only in an advisory capacity) contradicts the source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the article for a second, it mentions that the Targs are sexually libertine, but that was basically just Daemon. For the fifty years that Jaehaerys and Alysanne reigned, they held a fairly conservative court (as did Aenys and Aegon), which is part of the reason why Saera’s escapades were so shocking. Even Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin was the product of her being married to a man who didn’t want to sleep with her, and taking one lover for the span of a decade isn’t really promiscuous. Aegon II and Aemond being womanizers was part of showing what louts they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But the idea that a king without a son would turn to his (eldest) daughter as his chosen heir is by no means revolutionary or unheard of a in monarchy setting.

It is in Westeros, the setting of this story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

It is in Westeros, the setting of this story.

No it's not. We have a prime example in book 5, with the Alys Karstark plot. She would be the ruler of Karhold should her last remaining brother die. Which is why her uncle is plotting to marry her off to his own son, so his son would essentially be the new lord and hopes the Lannisters execute Harrion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

No it's not. We have a prime example in book 5, with the Alys Karstark plot. She would be the ruler of Karhold should her last remaining brother die. Which is why her uncle is plotting to marry her off to his own son, so his son would essentially be the new lord and hopes the Lannisters execute Harrion. 

For those who are Unsullied if there are still any left…

Karhold is not a kingdom, it’s a small House in the North, one of more reticent regions of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. The Karstarks are not a Royal house, just bannermen to the Starks. And of course Alys Karstark is not an heir to a throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

No it's not. 

Yes, it is. Outside of Dorne, none of the kingdoms of Westeros allowed women to inherit the throne. There was one single Queen of the Reach, of whom we know nothing; the North very explicitly has never had a female ruler, and even in the Seven Kingdoms period female heirs were passed over; the one time the Kingdom of the Rock had a female heir, they crowned her husband instead.

There is a very clear tradition in Westeros that a woman cannot sit the throne, even if they're allowed to hold subordinate lordships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Ultimately, I think that framing this as Rhaenyra taking on the patriarchy and “starting a new order” is going to backfire. I don’t think people are going to take well to another promising Targaryen queen who loses everything, becomes paranoid and bitter, and is then brutally killed by her male relative. And at the end of the day, regardless of new female directors and writers, this is still a show being produced by two guys.

Well Rhaenyra is more Cersei than Daenerys. If the show does the Dance of the Dragons correctly, they'll make it clear that Rhanyra is an evil psychopath well before her death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Well Rhaenyra is more Cersei than Daenerys. If the show does the Dance of the Dragons correctly, they'll make it clear that Rhanyra is an evil psychopath well before her death.

All the promotional material has been comparing Alicent to Cersei. She even auditioned with Cersei’s dialogue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colonel Green said:

It is in Westeros, the setting of this story.

Not really. Or rather: Your take on this is pretty much the take I don't like in the show.

Yes, men in this world do not like to be ruled by women. But it is not an absolute thing. Any hereditary monarchy inherently includes the prospect that the throne might either pass to or through a woman. That's an inherent feature of that kind of political system.

And Westeros decidedly does not have laws against female rule ... it merely happens rarely.

Any king or lord lacking a son might consider his daughter as an heir instead. Shireen and Myrcella are currently the heirs of their father/brother, and that's an non-issue for the lords of the Realm. It certainly can be difficult if there is closely related male kin around ... but the idea of a female monarch isn't anathema to the people in this world. Both Maegor and Jaehaerys had female heirs for a time, after all.

The trailer very much implies this show is framing this story as some kind of modernistic gender struggle where Rhaenys and Rhaenyra are some kind of champions of feminism, talking about 'a new order' where power is equally shared among the sexes and other such stuff.

Which is just nonsense within the framework of this story. Rhaenyra is a conservative woman in the books, one who has no interest in changing anything ... neither how she conducts herself nor how other women are treated by their lord husbands.

George really dropped the dynastic ball there by granting Rhaenyra only male children. It would have been great if her eldest child had been a daughter ... and she had groomed her eldest son as her heir from the start because the idea that her daughter should come before her son was outlandish and ridiculous to her.

The show should present female rule as a difficult thing, as something that's unpopular when there are good male alternatives around ... but not as something that's so outlandish that the woman who easily enough could have been the first Queen Regnant of House Targaryen (if her father Aemon hadn't died prematurely she would have been his heir and eventually his successor) would explicitly say that something like that is impossible.

In fact, the best way to present this is indeed to make it clear that Rhaenyra is widely seen as a better alternative to half-mad, unstable Daemon due to not just Otto Hightower expecting he might turn into Maegor 2.0. ... and then give the whole thing a kind of unnatural spin when the king decides to keep Rhaenyra as his heir when he has three sons.

Because that's that crux of the issue there. Not that Rhaenyra was named Heir Apparent instead of Daemon ... but that she remained Heir Apparent when Viserys I finally did have sons of his own.

This idea that Rhaenyra's succession would have caused trouble after 105 AC - which is apparently all over the place in the show because the whole thing is done in defiance to any rule - if Viserys I had never had any sons is ridiculous. Because in a monarchy the deciding factor is the king and the king's favor. Viserys made Rhaenyra his chosen and anointed heir. His word is law. So whatever Daemon thinks he is and has a right to it is simply irrelevant. He could have never challenged Rhaenyra's ascension.

Ditto with Rhaenys if she had been the chosen and anointed heir of a King Aemon Targaryen. This isn't a democracy, after all.

People would expect or prefer it if the king had a son or if he did choose an heir who wasn't female ... but if that happened people would comply. Because that's what they do in a monarchy.

This isn't some kind of early modernistic setting where women are completely pushed out of the political sphere. It isn't ideal that women rule ... but it is acceptable.

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Going back to the article for a second, it mentions that the Targs are sexually libertine, but that was basically just Daemon. For the fifty years that Jaehaerys and Alysanne reigned, they held a fairly conservative court (as did Aenys and Aegon), which is part of the reason why Saera’s escapades were so shocking. Even Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin was the product of her being married to a man who didn’t want to sleep with her, and taking one lover for the span of a decade isn’t really promiscuous. Aegon II and Aemond being womanizers was part of showing what louts they were.

Yes, that was nonsense. It seems that all the Targaryen kings up to Viserys were almost Victorian in their approach to extramarital affairs and sex. Perhaps there were hushed up visits to brothels and whatnot among some of the princes, but then they were hushed up pretty well. No official mistresses and most definitely no acknowledged or legitimized bastards.

4 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Well Rhaenyra is more Cersei than Daenerys. If the show does the Dance of the Dragons correctly, they'll make it clear that Rhanyra is an evil psychopath well before her death.

That seems to be only the Rhaenyra in your head, not the one George wrote about.

And Daenerys is also no silly girl boss feminist who wants to change established rules and customs. She just takes up the torch of her house and family after all her men got themselves killed. She is not as pampered and spoiled as Rhaenyra for obvious reasons ... but both are very feminine and conventional women, being attracted to conventional and manly men. Daenerys is even so soft (in the head) to grant her consort the style of 'king' ... which Rhaenyra never granted Daemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TormundsWoman said:

For those who are Unsullied if there are still any left…

Karhold is not a kingdom, it’s a small House in the North, one of more reticent regions of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. The Karstarks are not a Royal house, just bannermen to the Starks. And of course Alys Karstark is not an heir to a throne.

 

1 hour ago, Colonel Green said:

Yes, it is. Outside of Dorne, none of the kingdoms of Westeros allowed women to inherit the throne. There was one single Queen of the Reach, of whom we know nothing; the North very explicitly has never had a female ruler, and even in the Seven Kingdoms period female heirs were passed over; the one time the Kingdom of the Rock had a female heir, they crowned her husband instead.

There is a very clear tradition in Westeros that a woman cannot sit the throne, even if they're allowed to hold subordinate lordships.

Yes, indeed, but the word here is tradition and tradition doesn't equal law. While all the lords of Westeros did everything they could at all times to ensure a male inherited, sometimes things just couldn't go their way. Who would have ruled the Stormlands if Aegon's Conquest didn't happen and Argilac died with just his daughter as a family member? There didn't seem to be any male family members; House Durrandon essentially ended with Argilac. 

Before the Targaryens, the main difference between a king and a lord was number of vassals and claimed land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Bard of Banefort said:

All the promotional material has been comparing Alicent to Cersei. She even auditioned with Cersei’s dialogue. 

It is clear that Alicent will be the Cersei parallel in the show ... if there is one. Although she should be a toned down Cersei, doing things indeed mainly for her own children and the place she things they should have in the world ... rather than for a petty desire to rule behind the throne.

Rhaenyra seems to bevery much modelled on Daenerys ... she might even be turned into a dialed-up version of Daenerys, considering they seem to turn her into tomboyish, 'masculine woman' whose interest in power and the crown will be portrayed as her being interested in masculine things and pasttimes.

Which would be a very bad take on the characters.

I must say, the worst line in the trailer is Young Rhaenyra's line about the new order. The actress seemed to channel Clarke's portrayal there completely ... and Clarke was a horrible Daenerys most of the time. The last thing this show needs is another mad queen rambling on about how she is going to 'change things'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/house-of-the-dragon-game-of-thrones-prequels-1235181929/

As I understand it, HBO felt that Bloodmoon was too risky because it didn't have any Targaryens and dragons and went all in on HotD for that same reason?

I really want to know who pitched this:
 

Quote

A series concept that sounds like a superhero team-up about the fabled Seven Gods of Westeros as if they were actual people. The premise followed a Father, Smith, Warrior, etc. as they had adventures and came to be worshipped as gods. “That didn’t get very far,” an insider says dryly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...