Jump to content

House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open


Westeros
 Share

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Ran said:

Agreed. It really doesn't.

Who has ever felt resignation without it involving disappointment to some degree?

It's just a very odd take on the text.

Based on what I’ve seen, a lot of readers don’t understand the mindset a religious couple would have in a medieval setting. I always took Jaehaerys’ line about the gods not being done with them yet to indicate that he and Alysanne would continue having sex, there would be no moon tea or contraception involved, and that if she conceived, it was because that was how the gods willed it. I think a lot of people are unfamiliar with this approach (especially since most readers, at least among English speakers, aren’t Catholic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d say a much bigger issue for royal/noble women in medieval Europe was the fact that their husbands frequently usurped them, rather than they were denied the right to inherit land, and the political authority that came with it.

No one disputed in Acquitaine that Eleanor was the reigning Duchess, at at time when the Duchy was a lot more powerful than the Kingdom of France.  But, both her husbands, King Louis and Henry II tried to usurp her authority in Acquitaine.  Likewise, no one disputed that Joanna was Queen of Naples, but she had a constant battle with her husbands to defend her power.  

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I’d say a much bigger issue for royal/noble women in medieval Europe was the fact that their husbands frequently usurped them, rather than they were denied the right to inherit land, and the political authority that came with it.

No one disputed in Acquitaine that Eleanor was the reigning Duchess, at at time when the Duchy was a lot more powerful than the Kingdom of France.  But, both her husbands, King Louis and Henry II tried to usurp her authority in Acquitaine.  Likewise, no one disputed that Joanna was Queen of Naples, but she had a constant battle with her husbands to defend her power.  

I wouldn't say so. There are a lot of women who were denied the right to inherit power and land because of male preference primogeniture during the Middle Ages.

Think about, if simple primogeniture existed half the monarchy and nobility of Europe would have been women instead of only rare examples such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joanna.

Plus, if half the power in medieval Europe was held by women, its not a stretch to imagine that they might have made it so life was less restrictive for royal/noble women who didn't inherit/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Richard III was also not deformed and so on and so on.

Richard III had noticeable scoliosis, which over time probably telephone-gamed into the idea that he was a hunchback.

As far as Mushroom goes, most of the lurid stuff in his histories is some combination of (a) things he had no way of knowing and (b) stuff that very obviously contradicts the figures' characterization and actions in other ways (the stuff about Cole being the perfect knight who was disgusted by Rhaenyra's sexuality, especially, seems like Mushroom doing a piss-take, because Cole's behaviour in general is very obviously that of a man scorned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lady_Qohor said:

It's not pleasant to think that there is deep rooted sexism in a world that we enjoy and often accepted by characters that we love and it's tempting to try to explain individual instances away.

 

However, when you look at the picture as a whole, I think it is pretty clear that there is strong discrimination against women in Westeros (with the possible exception of Dorne)

 

Examples of institutional sexism in Westeros include:

  1. Governance and Wealth
    • Male preference primogeniture - throughout the kingdom (with the exception of Dorne), older sisters are consistently and legally passed over for younger brothers. As such it is significantly more unlikely that a woman can own property or gain a position of leige lord or monarch
    • Small council - of the around 160 named members of the Small Council throughout history, only 6 have been women
  1. Academia
    • Women are forbidden from becoming Maesters
  1. Faith
    • Although women can become septas, they are not allowed to become septons which means that they can never lead worship or become High Septon
  1. Military
    • Women are forbidden from joining the Night's Watch
    • There are no known instances of women becoming knights, suggesting that they are banned from the profession
    • Of the over 100 Kingsguard members named, only 1 (Brienne) is female
  1. Domestic violence
    • Rule of thumb and Rule of Six - Men are allowed to beat their adulterous wives six times with a rod no wider than their thumb, aka domestic violence is legal
    • Marital rape - it's unclear if marital rape is legal but if this world is anything like the middle ages then it probably is. It certainly appears that powerful men can beat and rape their wives (e.g. Aerys II, Robert, Ramsey) in the full knowledge of those around them and get away with it.

Of course. What I think the show might fuck up is that in a monarchy - even a monarchy not allowing women to rule - royal women are still participating in the power game. They represent their dynasty, protect their men and their children, and put their family first.

If the vibe I get from Rhaenys' lines about her feeling close to both Rhaenyra and Alicent because they are all women who are fucked over by men ... then this would give the whole thing a spin I don't like because it misconstrues the monarchistic setting.

The only woman Rhaenys should be loyal to is Laena, her daughter. But her foremost interest should be to see her son Laenor, the rightful heir to the throne, as king. Up until Rhaenyra's betrothal/marriage to Laenor Rhaenyra should be a rival for the throne in her eyes, and possibly a means to undermine Viserys because Laenor is still male and could thus challenge Rhaenyra's rise to the throne.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Viserys was an inferior king by all stretches of the imagination and was chosen primarily for the fact he was a dude. The Targaryens had the belief they could make or break the rules (and probably could) due to their superior force. However, the Conciliator spent his entire reign attempting to undo the attempt to do so by Maegor the Cruel.

Not really. Jaehaerys is, in the end, just a Maegor with gloves and a smile. He is courteous and soft-spoken but he does point to his dragon when he wants folks to get in line. He wants that his family doesn't behave as if they can burn everybody on a whim ... but he still wants people to understand that this is what he will do if they force him down that road.

You see what he is capable of when he deals with the murderers of Rego Draz (the cruelest punishment ever commanded by a king in ASoIaF) and during the War of a Hundred Candles ... which strikes me as the naval version of Aegon's Harrenhal.

I don't think one can dismiss Viserys I as king all that easily. He fucked up his own succession, but his reign was completely without war in Westeros and he continued and finished all of his grandfather's projects, extending and maintaining the period of peace and prosperity started by Jaehaerys I. He would have fucked all that up if he had been a bad king.

4 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

IRRC, George said that Mushroom does possess a lot of accurate information, because people in KL thought he was a simpleton and weren't afraid to talk about their secrets when he was nearby.

Mushroom is really good only in one or two instances where he correctly deduces something - most notably the true parentage of the Hull boys, the true parentage of Laenor's sons, and perhaps some of the murder mysteries. The other stuff is just hilarious entertainment inserted to fill a vacancy where no good explanation could be found by Gyldayn.

But the sexual stuff is pretty much nonsense most of the time, as Ran indicated. Also stuff where he puts himself into the center of attention like suggesting the whole bastard dragonrider thing. We know that the Black Council discussed finding riders for the other dragons at the beginning of the war ... and Jace apparently went through with that idea after both Luke and Rhaenys had been killed.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

1.   Continuing to have sex with Alysanne despite her extremely legitimate concerns at the possibility of her getting pregnant in her later years killing her. Dismissing those concerns when brought up.

No indication that he forced himself on Alysanne ... or that he was always the guy who initiated sex in their later life.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

 2.   His treatment of Daella and Viserra is not good. He pressures his most fragile child Daella to marry when she is only sixteen years old, which directly leads to her death in childbirth.

In Daella's case he really fucks things up. But as I said - he also fucks up things with Vaegon. He doesn't understand either of those children. His plans for royal children don't seem to have involved becoming an archmaester or serving the Faith (Alysanne decided that Maegelle would become a septa, presumably because Maegelle felt that was her calling - they make that decision only when Maegelle is ten - not as early as Maegor did with Rhaella).

For Jaehaerys the duty of both a princess and a prince is to marry and continue the dynasty. That's why he and Alysanne are doing as well, leading to thirteen pregnancies.

He should have understood Daella's issues better ... but don't forget that Lord Rodrik Arryn is to be blamed for that, too. He was in a much better decision to realize that it might be better for fragile Daella to wait a little longer, until she was fully grown, say, before they tried to have children.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

3. He was going to force Viserra to marry a man literally old enough to be her grandfather despite allowing his other children to have some form of choice  ignored her when she brings her concerns to him.

That was Alysanne's decision. Jaehaerys rather convinces washes his hands off that particular decision. He even says his daughter that he won't interfere with the matches Alysanne has made.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

4. His dismissal of his youngest for having PREMARITAL SEX and general disgust at her.

It wasn't just premarital sex ... it was her slutty behavior of having premarital sex with multiple men at the same time and her apparent desire to emulate the monstrous behavior of Maegor the Cruel. That is certainly not progressive but not worse than, say, Alysanne's view of the matter. The punishment is harsh ... but even that seems to have something he came to regret in old age. At least that's how I interpret ailing Jaehaerys mistaking Alicent for Saera. He wanted her to come back home, wanted to make amends.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

5. His dismissal of the argument against First Night privileges until nagged about it.

That is a point where he shows that he is royalty watching commoners the way his ilk are ... Alysanne and Barth are the progressive ones who are able to put themselves in the shoes of those women. But Jaehaerys certainly can empathize with royal and, one assumes, also noblewomen who are not subject to the First Night.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

6. The whole business with the heir club for men going to the affable but unexceptional Viserys.

That wasn't Jaehaerys' decision at all.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

7. Washing his hands of Aerea since day one.

He wasn't interested in her, yes, but that's not that surprising considering she didn't live at court and he never intended her to remain his heir. He wanted children and he fathered thirteen.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

It's reading a lot into the text to say he "dismissed her", or that Alysanne did not want another child. Indeed, the initial conversation we see about this is that Alysanne is disappointed by the fact that she thinks she's past bearing children. It seems to have become a matter of faith that the text of F&B says Alysanne did not want to get pregnant, but as I have noted in the past it feels like a misreading. She believes she can't bear a healthy child any more, but she's not happy about it, but rather "resigned" to it.

ETA:

For that matter, on point #4, why should Jaehaerys embrace premarital sex? He and Alysanne almost certainly did in fact stay chaste, despite Rogar's efforts and printed slanders. I think the religious orthodoxy of Jaehaerys and Alysanne needs to be considered. They are devout believers in the Faith and its tenets. They practiced what they preached. 

And Saera did just a bit more than have premarital sex, one must admit.

Here, I think, George wrote himself into a kind of corner. This world has a very effective birth control drug. Yet lots and lots of women die in older age due to pregnancy complications. While it is clear that in our middle ages royal fertility was seen as a divine blessing, a sign that the land would bloom and prosper, Westeros should have a slightly tweaked view on those things because (noble)women do have easy access to moon tea and the like.

For Alysanne and Jaehaerys it is clear that they want to have children until they no longer can't, physically - and Alysanne certainly is willing to get pregnant as long as she can. Ditto with Alyssa Targaryen.

Something like Alyssa Velaryon's final pregnancy is very ugly, though, and as Rhaena's wrath show must have happened only because Rogar forced himself on her and/or because he forbid her to take measures to prevent another pregnancy. It really seems as if the guy had to have another son.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

2. This I flat out disagree with as Jaehaerys and his wife are in no way, shape, or form orthodox Seveners. They are the people who created the nonsensical doctrine of exceptionalism to justify their incestuous relationship after all. A doctrine which basically says the Targaryens are not beholden to the laws of other men. It seems to require a rather significant looking the other way to say that Jaehaerys chastity makes him more honorable than the significantly less sinful (by the Seven doctrine) engagement in carnal relations.

You don't have to phrase this point religiously ... although it seems clear that, incest shenanigans aside, both Jaehaerys and Alysanne were devout followers of the Seven. Like their father Aenys, they didn't seem to be able to see a contradiction between their own family customs and their belief in the Seven. Although I guess Alyssa was the one who was more pious.

Jaehaerys and Alysanne's view of marriage was that the point of it was to produce children. As many as they could, for the good of the Targaryen dynasty which nearly died out during Maegor's reign ... and wasn't that fertile to begin with if you look back to Aegon's two sons.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Re Salic Law, my own view is that it was an invented tradition, raised to bar (a) Joan of Navarre and (b) Isabella of France and her son, from inheriting the throne of France.

Aside from Philips own designs on the crown, the Louis X's apparent doubts that Joan was actually his daughter also seems to have contributed to her weakened position there (at least if Druon's take on the thing is correct).

That this thing could happen, though, was also contingent on Philip the Fair having fathered three strong sons. If we had had a scenario where there was a royal princess groomed as the heir because the closest male relations were obscure third cousins then this wouldn't have happened.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

It certainly didn't stop Joan from inheriting the crown of Navarre, or Mahaut from inheriting the County of Artois.

Yes, and it also never stopped France to be full of duchesses and marquises ruling her lands in her their own right ... right down to the abolutist kings throwing honors and titles and female bastards and their official mistresses.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It was certainly the will of the King that Rhaenyra inherit the throne but his father had just gone through extended political and social negotiations to get precedent handled as well as dismiss all of the other heirs that the Targaryens would never struggle with, including the bastard children of his disinherited daughter as well as Maegor claimants. Overturning that is a bigger deal than people give it credit for but really amounts in large part to where you think the power of a king flows from.

Here you have to keep in mind that Viserys I himself may not have agreed with the arguments put forth by some of the lords supporting his claim at the Great Council. Viserys' only child and heir in 101 AC was his daughter Rhaenyra, so he and Aemma may have had already thought about what they might decide to do if they were to be king and queen and would never have sons of their own. Viserys doesn't want to rule on the succession in 105 AC, but I think it is pretty clear that the idea that Rhaenyra could be his successor wasn't a prospect he had problems with.

I guess, if people hadn't annoyed him so much in 105 AC he would have let the matter undecided to either name Rhaenyra the heir once she had come of age ... or to name her eldest son once he was born.

Daemon he clearly didn't want close to the throne as his opposition to Daemon's suggestion that he could marry Rhaenyra after she had been named Heir Apparent shows.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, the will of the outgoing King ought to be of very great significance, in the absence of a constitution or Act of Succession, which sets out who is to inherit.  In England, Alfred inherited the throne of Wessex, by agreement with his brother, notwithstanding his brother left male heirs.  John was the heir of Richard I, and inherited in place of Arthur.  Henry VIII designated both Mary and Elizabeth to succeed him, in the absence of Edward producing an heir, and Elizabeth herself designated James of Scotland as her heir.

The fact that the Greens immediately resorted to murder, and covered up the death of Viserys I for a time, shows what shaky ground they were on, legally.

Yes, and in context a king could also just change a codified Law or Act of Succession if the legal power to do so rested with him ... which it clearly does in Westeros. The fiction the Greens purport during the coup council session is that the royal succession has to be 'settled' prior to the new monarch's coronation ... but that is clearly nonsense since King Viserys I had done that a long time ago. Nothing is unclear there.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I dunno, I think the Great Council of 101 is largely considered to be the most important legal precedent of the time.

And yes, it was indeed scandalous and questionable what they did versus openly proclaiming their support for the first born heir.

It was an important precedent ... but King Viserys I set another equally important precedent in 105 AC when he named Rhaenyra his heir. And strictly speaking, the Great Council didn't address the question whether a king's brother came before a king's daughter since no king's brother or king's daughter presented a claim. The council only dealt with obscure bastards, very distant relations, a son who had taken the vows of a maester, a granddaughter, a grandson and two great-grandchildren.

There were folks who interpreted the outcome of the Great Council that the male line should always take precedence over the female line ... but that was just an interpretation, not the actual ruling of the council which was written into law thereafter.

It is this kind of vague interpretation that causes Daemon to fancy himself the heir of his brother in 103-105 AC, coveting the title Prince of Dragonstone, etc. But it is not clear. Until 105 AC Viserys I doesn't have an anointed heir, a kind of informal presumptive heir in Daemon.

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

While true, I just can't forget J's attempt to persuade his wife:

Bearing and delivering a child may be a joy for a young woman of ten-and-seven, like the Princess Alyssa, but it is quite another matter for one of forty, like her mother, Queen Alysanne. The joy was therefore not entirely unalloyed when Her Grace was found to be pregnant once again. Prince Valerion was born in 77 AC, after another troubled labor that saw Alysanne confined to her bed for half a year. Like his brother Gaemon four years earlier, he was a small and sickly babe, and never thrived. Half a dozen wet nurses came and went to no avail. In 78 AC, Valerion died, a fortnight short of his first nameday. The queen took his passing with resignation. “I am forty-two years old,” she told the king. “You must be content with the children I have given you. I am more suited to be a grandmother than a mother now, I fear.”

King Jaehaerys did not share her certainty. “Our mother, Queen Alyssa, was forty-six when she gave birth to Jocelyn,” he pointed out to Grand Maester Elysar. “The gods may not be done with us.”

You know, their mother...who died in childbirth.

One can read that as Jaehaerys being more interested in having more children than Alysanne. But not that Alysanne was ever forced into pregnancies against her will. It may be that patriarchy shows her ugly face there by having Alysanne internalize the desire to please her brother-husband by having children to the point that it might kill her. But since we don't know if she was ever concerned about her own health during a pregnancy we don't really know things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I’d say a much bigger issue for royal/noble women in medieval Europe was the fact that their husbands frequently usurped them, rather than they were denied the right to inherit land, and the political authority that came with it.

No one disputed in Acquitaine that Eleanor was the reigning Duchess, at at time when the Duchy was a lot more powerful than the Kingdom of France.  But, both her husbands, King Louis and Henry II tried to usurp her authority in Acquitaine.  Likewise, no one disputed that Joanna was Queen of Naples, but she had a constant battle with her husbands to defend her power.  

Yes, that kind of thing should be seen more often in Westeros. Men usually ruled by right/in the name of their crowned wives, never disputing their right to the crown ... merely their right to actually rule.

That is why I think the show should have a scene where Daemon formally submits to Rhaenyra, making it clear that he is going to content with being prince consort at her side, never trying to usurp her place as the actual ruler.

That could be a kind of character development with him if they introduce him as the guy who covets the throne for himself, originally, and at first only views Rhaenyra as a tool to take the throne for himself.

1 hour ago, Lady_Qohor said:

I wouldn't say so. There are a lot of women who were denied the right to inherit power and land because of male preference primogeniture during the Middle Ages.

Think about, if simple primogeniture existed half the monarchy and nobility of Europe would have been women instead of only rare examples such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joanna.

Plus, if half the power in medieval Europe was held by women, its not a stretch to imagine that they might have made it so life was less restrictive for royal/noble women who didn't inherit/

I think the Hapsburgs acquired nearly all their titles by way of marrying female heirs to crowns and duchies and the like, and then effectively usurping the right of the women to actually exert the power that was their due. That is at least confirmed for Joan the Mad (although she was at times also under the thumb of her father).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so it begins.

For what it’s worth, I think the quote was taken out of context. The impression I got from the article was that they’re not going to remove depictions of sexual assault during the war (although they can’t mention the war part without it being a spoiler) but they’re going to try to handle it more gracefully than GOT did. Still, I can’t fault all the people upset in the comments/retweets. I don’t really think we owe HBO the benefit of the doubt in this regard, not after a decade of GOT.

While I think some of the defenses of rape and incest by fans are done in good faith, I also think that a lot of people get off on them, and are hiding behind source material/“gritty realism”/“that’s just the way things were!” to cover that. A lot of people watch HBO just for the sex and nudity, and if you look at how popular rape and incest are in porn, it’s not that big of a leap to make. They don’t want “feminist prudes” getting in the way of their fantasy.

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

And so it begins.

For what it’s worth, I think the quote was taken out of context. The impression I got from the article was that they’re not going to remove depictions of sexual assault during the war (although they can’t mention the war part without it being a spoiler) but they’re going to try to handle it more gracefully than GOT did. Still, I can’t fault all the people upset in the comments/retweets. I don’t really think we owe HBO the benefit of the doubt in this regard, not after a decade of GOT.

While I think some of the depictions of rape and incest by fans are done in good faith, I also think that a lot of people get off on them, and are hiding behind source material/“gritty realism”/“that’s just the way things were!” to cover that. A lot of people watch HBO just for the sex and nudity, and if you look at how popular rape and incest are in porn, it’s not that big of a leap to make. They don’t want “feminist prudes” getting in the way of their fantasy.

Plenty of people enjoyed watching the rapes of Dany and Sansa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently George IS at SDCC, after all.

Also Emily Carey (young Alicent) said she read FnB, which automatically makes her my favorite cast member. 
 

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Plenty of people enjoyed watching the rapes of Dany and Sansa.

Yep. And the show played right into it, making them both look so beautifully disheveled and pouty-lipped.

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

And so it begins.

For what it’s worth, I think the quote was taken out of context. The impression I got from the article was that they’re not going to remove depictions of sexual assault during the war (although they can’t mention the war part without it being a spoiler) but they’re going to try to handle it more gracefully than GOT did. Still, I can’t fault all the people upset in the comments/retweets. I don’t really think we owe HBO the benefit of the doubt in this regard, not after a decade of GOT.

While I think some of the depictions of rape and incest by fans are done in good faith, I also think that a lot of people get off on them, and are hiding behind source material/“gritty realism”/“that’s just the way things were!” to cover that. A lot of people watch HBO just for the sex and nudity, and if you look at how popular rape and incest are in porn, it’s not that big of a leap to make. They don’t want “feminist prudes” getting in the way of their fantasy.

I honestly don't understand what the quote is getting at. The first season could depict Daemon as a rapist deflowering countless maidens in Mysaria's brothels ... but they don't have to dwell much on that. Marital rape could be a part of the Daemon-Rhea marriage if they wanted to go there ... but that would then be their choice, nothing the book actually implies. I'd depict them just as a very awkward couple who simply can't stand each other's presence.

Aside from that, there should be only lots and lots of consensual sex leading to the conception of a dozen or so children. In addition we are likely going to get some gay sex.

During the war I think the story warrants/demands an accurate depiction of the horrors at Tumbleton ... but aside from that the horrors of the war in general don't have to include a lot of rape.

Thankfully enough we don't get any forced marriages or (much) marital rape during that era. I guess a realistic depiction of the marriage of Aegon and Helaena would also show that neither of them enjoys having sex with the other. But that would also be interpretation.

One just hopes that the writers don't have silly ideas like having a Green army rape all the women in a 'Black village' because the women there all fancy themselves Rhaenyras. That's something the writers of GoT could have easily done but it would be completely uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really excited for this show! I love everything I've seen so far, I think the costumes and sets are pretty good (loved that giant statues room) and the actors seem well-cast. I'm particularly excited to see Rhaenyra, the Velaryons and Aemond.

I'm a bit taken aback by the negativity towards this show when it looks good and we haven't even seen it. And personally I don't particularly care if they change some things from the book especially when it could be an improvement. It's a TV adaptation and I think sometimes book-fans get a bit too carried away with trying to compare a show to its source material, namely about things that cannot be replicated on screen or about superfluous information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

I'm really excited for this show! I love everything I've seen so far, I think the costumes and sets are pretty good (loved that giant statues room) and the actors seem well-cast. I'm particularly excited to see Rhaenyra, the Velaryons and Aemond.

I'm a bit taken aback by the negativity towards this show when it looks good and we haven't even seen it. And personally I don't particularly care if they change some things from the book especially when it could be an improvement. It's a TV adaptation and I think sometimes book-fans get a bit too carried away with trying to compare a show to its source material, namely about things that cannot be replicated on screen or about superfluous information.

If the main series had concluded well, most of us would be looking forward to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the main series had concluded well, most of us would be looking forward to this one.

I understand. Personally I've basically forgotten GOT and while I was skeptical about this prequel at first, I'm pleasantly surprised by what I've seen so far. I really have no high expectations so I'll wait to see how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 this video basically suggests that Daemon's "heir for the day" comment and his famous nickname "lord flea bottom" were Otto's doing. do you think the show will go in this direction? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it but all indications are that Daemon is an asshole with a smart mouth. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he was also sincerely sad for his brother and just throws whatever he's thinking out.

But the thing about "Lord Flea Bottom" was that Daemon was actually quite good with commoners and there's a reason he created a (semi) functioning police force when there was no such thing beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Apparently George IS at SDCC, after all.

Also Emily Carey (young Alicent) said she read FnB, which automatically makes her my favorite cast member. 
 

Yep. And the show played right into it, making them both look so beautifully disheveled and pouty-lipped.

Had there not been such a backlash to Sansa’s rape, I expect the start of Season 6 would have had the Dothraki raping Dany, rather than just talking about it and whipping her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...