Jump to content

House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

 

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. 

My comment was for people who may believe you’re comparing apples to apples. The discussion seemed to stem from the “no woman will be sitting the Iron Throne” trailer line and from there to ruling and who’s crowned. No doubt you can produce an example of a woman that sat the IT over a male claimant, or at least was successfully not contested when by law she was next in line, so as to be apples to apples. Not in theory of “what could happen if there was no male left” type of stuff, but in-world reality. Perhaps before the Aegon’s conquest as you clearly know your stuff.

I cannot actually think of one but in your defense Martin suggested himself it is an extremely confusing and vague process, when asked about it what seems now eons ago, which is why I didn’t outright contradict you.

He also said as a conclusion to that response that unfortunately his world is “ruled by men not laws”. Funny he should say “men” not “people”, especially consider the topic he was responding to. So my interpretation of that is: even if by law you can give it to a daughter over a brother chances are in practice it will not happen. It’s basically like we say here “possession is 90% of the law”

EDIT: So as to be fair, here is the answer to the inheritance laws in Westeros and as luck would have it, it started from the Hornwood and Whent House inheritance, also a small House from where he extrapolated to ruling and to real world. No doubt in that very mixed and all inclusive response of Martin’s you’d find something that would prove your point, just like I found something else o prove mine, however for the sake of argument I still think you should look practically and provide an apples to apples example.

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents/

Edited by TormundsWoman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

No, it isn't. There are quite a few monarchies in history where political power could neither pass to or through women.

Westeros does not end up a place with essentially no history of female rulers if female rulers were considered a legitimate possibility (though GRRM has also been very inconsistent in how he depicts this, it must be said).

Nor is the show wrong to make this about gender. Westeros is a society with very strict notions about gender and where women are second-class citizens in both religious and secular senses.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Stephen of Blois would disagree with you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TormundsWoman said:

My comment was for people who may believe you’re comparing apples to apples. The discussion seemed to stem from the “no woman will be sitting the Iron Throne” trailer line and from there to ruling and who’s crowned. No doubt you can produce an example of a woman that sat the IT over a male claimant, or at least was successfully not contested when by law she was next in line, so as to be apples to apples. Not in theory of “what could happen if there was no male left” type of stuff, but in-world reality. Perhaps before the Aegon’s conquest as you clearly know your stuff.

I cannot actually think of one but in your defense Martin suggested himself it is an extremely confusing and vague process, when asked about it what seems now eons ago, which is why I didn’t outright contradict you.

He also said as a conclusion to that response that unfortunately his world is “ruled by men not laws”. Funny he should say “men” not “people”, especially consider the topic he was responding to. So my interpretation of that is: even if by law you can give it to a daughter over a brother chances are in practice it will not happen. It’s basically like we say here “possession is 90% of the law”

EDIT: So as to be fair, here is the answer to the inheritance laws in Westeros and as luck would have it, it started from the Hornwood and Whent House inheritance, also a small House from where he extrapolated to ruling and to real world. No doubt in that very mixed and all inclusive response of Martin’s you’d find something that would prove your point, just like I found something else o prove mine, however for the sake of argument I still think you should look practically and provide an apples to apples example.

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents/

First, thank you for the link. The response may have been clear as mud, but it's also illuminating to understand GRRM's thinking.

I'm currently re-reading select bits of Fire & Blood, currently in the Jaeherys & Alysanne chapters. Before Jaehaerys started codifying universal laws for the entire kingdom, laws were definitely up to the whim of the lords. I would say one unwritten rule that was hardwired in just about everyone's brain was children before siblings. For a few years Jaeherys's heir was Aerea, Rhaena's daughter, not Rhaena herself who did feel she had a claim to the IT, nor Alysanne herself. 

There are no examples to give you (yet) of a woman gaining the IT by law/universal approval.

Second, my initial response was to Colonel Green's response to Lord Varys's comment:

Quote

Lord Varys: 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.

Colonel Green: It is in Westeros, the setting of this story.

I agree with a Lord Varys saying this is not a revolutionary concept.

I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding comparing apples to apples. If you're saying that the Alys Karstark argument (or the Hornwoods/Whents) doesn't apply to the Iron Throne succession laws, I disagree. Westeros, in its entirety is a feudal state, top to bottom. The mechanisms of land and title inheritance are the same, the only difference is the scale. And yes, the scale difference can lead to more considerable efforts being put into establishing an heir. A small house will turn to its liege to settle the succession issue when things are muddied, but the crown wearer has no liege. But as we've seen a few times in Westerosi history, it's the lower people who had to settle the matter in a more democratic fashion. Rhaenys lost the vote at the Great Council but the fact she was even considered as a possible heir shows that women can inherit, and it's perfectly legitimate for them to inherit. Sexism and cultural traditions lost her the throne.

Edited by Corvinus85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding comparing apples to apples. If you're saying that the Alys Karstark argument (or the Hornwoods/Whents) doesn't apply to the Iron Throne succession laws, I disagree. Westeros, in its entirety is a feudal state, top to bottom. The mechanisms of land and title inheritance are the same, the only difference is the scale. And yes, the scale difference can lead to more considerable efforts being put into establishing an heir. A small house will turn to its liege to settle the succession issue when things are muddied, but the crown wearer has no liege. But as we've seen a few times in Westerosi history, it's the lower people who had to settle the matter in a more democratic fashion. Rhaenys lost the vote at the Great Council but the fact she was even considered as a possible heir shows that women can inherit, and it's perfectly legitimate for them to inherit. Sexism and cultural traditions lost her the throne.

Were that the case, there would actually be a long history of female rulers in Westeros. There isn't. That's more than just disinclination, past a certain point. It's completely legitimate for Rhaenys and Rhaenyra to say that in the general opinion no woman will ever sit the Iron Throne, because even a cursory glance at the history books would show that Westeros has consistently rejected the idea of a female ruler over a period of thousands of years.

Even at the paramount house level once they were stripped of kingship, there have been all of two female heads of houses in 300 years, one of whom was an infant who died almost immediately afterward, the other faced repeated insurrection specifically on account of her gender.

Edited by Colonel Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

No, it isn't. There are quite a few monarchies in history where political power could neither pass to or through women.

Eventually, when there was actually codified succession law (and that's actually only something truly modern monarchies have - even the French didn't have a binding law that prevented women from ruling ... just a series of precedents - if they had even been in a situation where the only possible heirs were women or sons of women they would have flown with that). But even in such monarchies, if they were truly hereditary and didn't retain elective elements, the very concept and definition of the system means that a monarch might not have any male heirs left. And then there would have to be female monarchs or at least some whose blood claim went through a woman.

Westeros is neither - its monarchies have no elective elements, so if the male line died out folks couldn't just elect a new king or choose a new dynasty, nor is there a codified and binding succession law.

The way the show seems to present the thing is really that it is unthinkable that there is going to be a female monarch. And that is just nonsense, in my opinion. Folks might not cherish the idea ... but there is neither precedent nor a law against female rule, and it is part of the monarchy as a system that the crown might end up on a woman's head.

18 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Nor is the show wrong to make this about gender. Westeros is a society with very strict notions about gender and where women are second-class citizens in both religious and secular senses.

No, it isn't. Sure, common women have no rights at all ... but they are not that different from their men there. Noble and royal women, though, are different. They do wield power and they do represent their particular houses and dynasties.

Rhaenyra is in no way an ally or a sister to all other women in Westeros - not noblewomen, not common women. She only represents herself. If she rules then this means literally nothing for any other woman, possibly not even her own daughters and granddaughters. It would all depend on what kind of policies she would want to enact as queen. And we know from George's Rhaenyra that she didn't have the slightest intention to change succession laws on a broader scale.

And I, personally, even find this kind of weird mentor role Rhaenys seems to have for Rhaenyra bad. Rhaenys wanted the throne for herself and/or her son. Rhaenyra wanted the throne for her father and, eventually, for herself. Both are loyal to their particular branches of the family, not some kind of sisterly bond among women. If Rhaenys had been queen, Rhaenyra would have had no shot at the Iron Throne at all.

They seem to take something that could have been an interesting depiction of medieval-style monarchy and turn in

18 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Stephen of Blois would disagree with you there.

Well, the Norman kingdom is literally a mess. Henry I basically stole the throne, too, not just Stephen. Matilda was abroad when her father died, a situation George kind of tries to mimic there with Rhaenyra being stuck on Dragonstone. The reason she isn't crowned isn't because it is anathema and the lords and common men alike would rise against the unnatural idea of a female monarch ... but because there is a rival faction and they act first/faster and stage a coup.

The lines we have heard in those trailers so far all indicate that there is a broad consensus that a female monarch is unthinkable and the notion itself is going to cause rebellions and uprisings ... possibly even if no rival male pretender were to be found.

And that is just too much.

33 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I'm currently re-reading select bits of Fire & Blood, currently in the Jaeherys & Alysanne chapters. Before Jaehaerys started codifying universal laws for the entire kingdom, laws were definitely up to the whim of the lords. I would say one unwritten rule that was hardwired in just about everyone's brain was children before siblings. For a few years Jaeherys's heir was Aerea, Rhaena's daughter, not Rhaena herself who did feel she had a claim to the IT, nor Alysanne herself. 

That Alysanne herself never comes up as a potential heir of Jaehaerys is indeed kind of weird. George also seems to forget Queen Rhaella's own claim to the throne. If Viserys and Dany had both died and she had lived then she could have challenged Robert's claim all on her own.

However, Aerea's claim goes not just through Rhaena but also through Aegon the Uncrowned. She is the eldest child of King Aenys' eldest son and anointed heir, and he proclaimed himself king and his daughters were born during the time while he styled himself king.

That makes her claim pretty strong, all things considered. And Jaehaerys would have wanted a presumptive heir of the next generation, not a sister-wife two years younger nor a sister ten years older.

In context with Jaehaerys's laws it is also no surprise that Viserys I's decision for Rhaenyra is actually in line with the famous Widow's Law. It stipulated that children from a first marriage couldn't be disinherited in favor of the children from a second marriage.

Of course, if Rhaenyra hadn't been named Heir Apparent in 105 AC prior to Viserys' second marriage nobody would have been disinherited but rather Aegon would have been rightfully installed and named Heir Apparent. But the king had already chosen and anointed an heir, so changing the succession in favor of Alicent's sons would have meant to disinherit Rhaenyra.

33 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding comparing apples to apples. If you're saying that the Alys Karstark argument (or the Hornwoods/Whents) doesn't apply to the Iron Throne succession laws, I disagree. Westeros, in its entirety is a feudal state, top to bottom. The mechanisms of land and title inheritance are the same, the only difference is the scale. And yes, the scale difference can lead to more considerable efforts being put into establishing an heir. A small house will turn to its liege to settle the succession issue when things are muddied, but the crown wearer has no liege. But as we've seen a few times in Westerosi history, it's the lower people who had to settle the matter in a more democratic fashion. Rhaenys lost the vote at the Great Council but the fact she was even considered as a possible heir shows that women can inherit, and it's perfectly legitimate for them to inherit. Sexism and cultural traditions lost her the throne.

Rhaenyra's case very much shows how this goes. If you have the favor of the king, if he wants you as his heir ... that happens. That's how it goes. People don't follow weirdo abstract principles, etc. to prevent that.

That it didn't work out is mostly due to bad luck and circumstances.

I mean, Rhaenyra is in a very similar position as Asha. Asha, like Rhaenyra, is effectively the chosen heir and successor of her father, King Balon. She just happens to be abroad when her father suddenly dies and an evil uncle jumps on the chance to steal her throne.

Later on, during the Kingsmoot, Asha is also effectively on the verge of winning the crown ... when the evil uncle uses vile tricks and foul sorcery to prevent her success.

In fact, I think, Asha perfectly illustrates what I mean by 'royal favor shown to royal women'. The very fact that she is Balon's daughter and his chosen heir means she is eligible to rule the most patriarchal warrior-culture in Westeros. Euron would have had no chance to usurp the Seastone Chair if Asha had been there when the Faceless Man murdered him. Euron would have landed at Pyke ... and Asha would have thrown him into a cell.

Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Were that the case, there would actually be a long history of female rulers in Westeros. There isn't. That's more than just disinclination, past a certain point. It's completely legitimate for Rhaenys and Rhaenyra to say that in the general opinion no woman will ever sit the Iron Throne, because even a cursory glance at the history books would show that Westeros has consistently rejected the idea of a female ruler over a period of thousands of years.

Even at the paramount house level once they were stripped of kingship, there have been all of two female heads of houses in 300 years, one of whom was an infant who died almost immediately afterward, the other faced repeated insurrection specifically on account of her gender.

Counter-point: if patrilineal inheritance was followed at all times, most of the present day houses would have been extinct long ago. Even so, it stretches belief for some of these houses to have existed for thousands of years, without including the idea that inheritance was further limited to just males without exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The way the show seems to present the thing is really that it is unthinkable that there is going to be a female monarch. And that is just nonsense, in my opinion. Folks might not cherish the idea ... but there is neither precedent nor a law against female rule, and it is part of the monarchy as a system that the crown might end up on a woman's head.

There is literally thousands of years of precedent against female rule.

It is impossible for Westeros to have had no female monarchs in any of its kingdoms (save Dorne, which isn't relevant for these purposes) for 6000+ years if female monarchs were truly considered a legitimate option.

Anyone living in this society and looking at that history would quite sensibly say that a female monarch was unthinkable.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it isn't. Sure, common women have no rights at all ... but they are not that different from their men there. Noble and royal women, though, are different. They do wield power and they do represent their particular houses and dynasties.

Yes, it is. Noblewomen certainly have more rights than common women, but they have fewer rights than noblemen, and it's not even close.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I, personally, even find this kind of weird mentor role Rhaenys seems to have for Rhaenyra bad. Rhaenys wanted the throne for herself and/or her son. Rhaenyra wanted the throne for her father and, eventually, for herself. Both are loyal to their particular branches of the family, not some kind of sisterly bond among women. If Rhaenys had been queen, Rhaenyra would have had no shot at the Iron Throne at all.

Rhaenys barely gets any characterization in the source material, we don't get any sense of what their relationship was like. But in any event, what the trailer suggests is an entirely plausible character dynamic of somebody frustrated by having hit the glass ceiling and partly cynical and (presumably) partly envious at seeing somebody else get a new crack at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corvinus85 said:

Counter-point: if patrilineal inheritance was followed at all times, most of the present day houses would have been extinct long ago. Even so, it stretches belief for some of these houses to have existed for thousands of years, without including the idea that inheritance was further limited to just males without exception.

I never that that all inheritance was strictly patrilineal; we're shown expressly a few examples of men inheriting via the female line (the Westerlands, and possibly in the North if you believe the tale of Bael the Bard). That isn't the same thing as a woman being in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

There is literally thousands of years of precedent against female rule.

Well, we can ignore all the pre-Conquest shenanigans. That's the dark ages of Westeros, basically. Although I'd say that it might just as well be that Yandel didn't really bother with the adventures and exploits of whatever female monarchs there were. I don't think it is a coincidence that we didn't get the name of the Gardener queen.

We know that the only precedents people actually cited when dealing with the Targaryen succession ... were Targaryen succession precedents, both in Westeros and on Dragonstone.

At the end of the first century of Targaryen rule there are certainly quite a few precedents for female rule ... namely by the Conqueror's sister-wives, Good Queen Alysanne, and in a sense even in Alyssa Velaryon. In addition to all the women who were actually named and accepted as presumptive heirs.

And then you add the whole incest thing into it. What would have happened if a childless Aegon or Jaehaerys would have died? The crown would have passed immediately to the sister-wife. Thanks to the Targaryen marriage policies a queen is not just a consort but always also eligible to inherit the throne herself, considering that she very often both the daughter and the sister of a king. That strengthens their claim to royalty immensely.

We can say that people may not have relished the idea of a female monarch. But during the Targaryen era especially they would have to deal with that idea.

11 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Anyone living in this society and looking at that history would quite sensibly say that a female monarch was unthinkable.

They would say that it was unlikely and perhaps even undesirable ... but not unthinkable.

11 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Yes, it is. Noblewomen certainly have more rights than common women, but they have fewer rights than noblemen, and it's not even close.

Noblewomen aren't the issue. It is royalty we talk about. And royalty is above nobility. For a lord or knight or there is a much bigger gap between him and a royal woman than there is between him and a noblewoman. The class/rank distinction is crucial here, not the difference between the sexes in a given class.

Nobility submit to royalty. They are accustomed to serve them. You see this with the kind of power and gravitas Rhaena has as the king's elder sister. Jaehaerys doesn't like how she shows off her power ... but it is there and it is quite frightening at times. So the idea to have a female king shouldn't be unthinkable to them - not to the lords and knights, and most definitely not to the common people.

I mean, we see how thinkable this is when half the Realm rises for Rhaenyra despite the fact that her ruling instead of Aegon is truly a defiance of custom and tradition. But female rule in absence of a son certainly wouldn't be.

11 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Rhaenys barely gets any characterization in the source material, we don't get any sense of what their relationship was like. But in any event, what the trailer suggests is an entirely plausible character dynamic of somebody frustrated by having hit the glass ceiling and partly cynical and (presumably) partly envious at seeing somebody else get a new crack at it.

Well, that kind of metaphor is what I take issue with. Rhaenys wasn't stopped by a glass ceiling - by an abstract patriarchal system - but by her father's early death and her grandfather's whim, basically. Jaehaerys decision against Rhaenys all but ensured that the Realm would follow his lead ten years later. And in 101 AC she didn't really push her own claim but the claim of her son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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'.

The characters are more mixed matched ones in this case. Alicent is definitely the "scheming evil consort/Queen" and "woman ruling through her son" that Cersei Lannister was but she's also someone who is attempting to enforce the values of Westeros versus Rhaenyra who wants to utterly overthrow them. Part of what makes me happy they're adapting the Dance of the Dragons is the fact that it is a story with so many layers of good and bad to everyone.

Daemon Targaryen is a guy who in a more traditional story would have been the "evil" prince trying to keep the beautiful princess down and usurp her crown but he recognizes that his own position isn't tenable enough to make a play so he marries her instead.

Rhaenyra's cause is just but she's also the woman who orders massacres of bastards and slaughter of her own people like Nettles. Rhaenyra is also the person who, like Cersei, has bastards that she attempts to pass off as her husband's own issue (though with his consent in this version).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing George acknowledged in the Hollywood Reporter article is that for all the talk of grey characters, GOT did have clear-cut heroes from the beginning. He swears that isn’t the case here. (In the books at least, the character who comes the closest is probably Jace). I wonder how that will affect viewers’ perception of the show? Sure, some people liked villains like Tywin, Littlefinger, and Cersei, but the fan favorites were always The Starks, Tyrion, and Dany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Kevin Feige, probably.

I mean it is the most obvious one to pitch. I wouldn't be surprised if Martin wrote the short stories in preparation for a pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

One thing George acknowledged in the Hollywood Reporter article is that for all the talk of grey characters, GOT did have clear-cut heroes from the beginning. He swears that isn’t the case here. (In the books at least, the character who comes the closest is probably Jace). I wonder how that will affect viewers’ perception of the show? Sure, some people liked villains like Tywin, Littlefinger, and Cersei, but the fan favorites were always The Starks, Tyrion, and Dany.

Yes, there is a lot less grey in ASOIAF than is often claimed.   People like Adam Feldman can come up with elaborate theories about how good is actually bad and vice versa, but they don’t really pass muster.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Yes, there is a lot less grey in ASOIAF than is often claimed.   People like Adam Feldman can come up with elaborate theories about how good is actually bad and vice versa, but they don’t really pass muster.

I think it's fair to say that the characters in the books are, on the whole, much more grey than their GoT counterparts. Tyrion being a prominent example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I think it's fair to say that the characters in the books are, on the whole, much more grey than their GoT counterparts. Tyrion being a prominent example.

I think that the two D's conception of good and evil is so at variance to my own that it's hard to make a judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The characters are more mixed matched ones in this case. Alicent is definitely the "scheming evil consort/Queen" and "woman ruling through her son" that Cersei Lannister was but she's also someone who is attempting to enforce the values of Westeros versus Rhaenyra who wants to utterly overthrow them. Part of what makes me happy they're adapting the Dance of the Dragons is the fact that it is a story with so many layers of good and bad to everyone.

I'm sorry, but Rhaenyra is not trying to 'utterly overthrow' the values of Westeros ... just as Alicent doesn't defend them. Male primogeniture isn't the same as 'Westerosi values'. And if push comes to shove Westerosi values would dictate that you obey the king and his decrees, not your own whims and desires.

And the really fun thing there is that, in the end, the Blacks champion the male claimant (Aegon III) and Alicent and Aegon II unsuccessfully try to push for the female claimant (Jaehaera).

Alicent and her faction just wanted to put her blood on the throne. It is pretty simple. Just as Visenya wanted her son on the throne rather than Rhaenys' son or grandsons.

10 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Rhaenyra's cause is just but she's also the woman who orders massacres of bastards and slaughter of her own people like Nettles. Rhaenyra is also the person who, like Cersei, has bastards that she attempts to pass off as her husband's own issue (though with his consent in this version).

Rhaenyra is not perfect, and she does make some questionable decisions. But that doesn't turn her into a Cersei-like figure. And in relation to her sons: She doesn't attempt anything there ... she succeeds at it. Her sons live and die as Velaryons, with the full knowledge and support of Laenor, Corlys, and perhaps even Viserys I.

While the three children thing there is a parallel to 'the Cersei situation' it is not a parallel between the two characters. And it is also not a betrayal since the royal bloodline goes through Rhaenyra, not Laenor. Cersei betrayed Robert and the Realm by putting non-royal children on the throne. But Rhaenyra's children were royalty ... perhaps not trueborn royalty, but royalty nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we can ignore all the pre-Conquest shenanigans. That's the dark ages of Westeros, basically.

You can't ignore it, because that is a huge part of the cultural context in which all of these characters exist.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Although I'd say that it might just as well be that Yandel didn't really bother with the adventures and exploits of whatever female monarchs there were. I don't think it is a coincidence that we didn't get the name of the Gardener queen.

If GRRM wants us to understand Westeros as having had female monarchs, he has to give evidence of them. When you write multiple elaborate histories and come up with exactly one female monarch in 8000 years, you're saying something.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They would say that it was unlikely and perhaps even undesirable ... but not unthinkable.

Something that has literally never happened in 6000+ years can be fairly called unthinkable.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that kind of metaphor is what I take issue with. Rhaenys wasn't stopped by a glass ceiling - by an abstract patriarchal system - but by her father's early death and her grandfather's whim, basically. 

It wasn't "her grandfather's whim", her grandfather's opinions were a manifestation of the glass ceiling, i.e., an ideology that women are second class citizens and not suited to sitting the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...