A specific plot point compromises the potential of the Dance (spoilers)

[C.T. Phipps]

34 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Brandon coming screaming to King's Landing for Rhaegar's head tells us that it genuinely looked like Rhaegar had kidnapped her for some period of time. 

In Brandon's case, I have the feeling there is something to the idea that Ned Stark isn't actually a typical Stark and there's a good argument his family was historically a bunch of assholes that Jon Arryn filed the edges off with him. Especially if you consider the idea that Brandon was attempting to lay the groundwork for a Northern succession if not outright Stark-led coup.

There's a good argument that someone less kindly than Ned Stark might have viewed the difference between voluntarily running away with his daughter and keeping her as a mistress when she's betrothed to his Barthaeon ally versus kidnapping her as irrelevant.

Which is to say, its possible Brandon was less upset about the possibility of his daughter being ravaged by a Prince and more that Rhaegar had ruined his chance at a Stormlands alliance.

[Denam_Pavel]

14 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

In Brandon's case, I have the feeling there is something to the idea that Ned Stark isn't actually a typical Stark and there's a good argument his family was historically a bunch of assholes that Jon Arryn filed the edges off with him. Especially if you consider the idea that Brandon was attempting to lay the groundwork for a Northern succession if not outright Stark-led coup.

There's a good argument that someone less kindly than Ned Stark might have viewed the difference between voluntarily running away with his daughter and keeping her as a mistress when she's betrothed to his Barthaeon ally versus kidnapping her as irrelevant.

Which is to say, its possible Brandon was less upset about the possibility of his daughter being ravaged by a Prince and more that Rhaegar had ruined his chance at a Stormlands alliance.

Lyanna was Brandon's sister not his daughter. Their father was more even tempered about the affair but got executed anyway. And however the news reached Brandon, it only reached Ned and Robert in the Vale afterwards. Brandon riding to KL screaming bloody vengeance to commit absolute certain suicide by king rather colours how the situation looks to the Jon Arryn and the boys in the Vale when ravens finally reach them with news about whats going on. After that Roberts in sieges, on ships, and out afield, during the war it think it probably quite legitimately looked one way to Robert and there were very few opportunities to clear things up. In the decades after that, yeah he became a big manchild about it.

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

In Brandon's case, I have the feeling there is something to the idea that Ned Stark isn't actually a typical Stark and there's a good argument his family was historically a bunch of assholes that Jon Arryn filed the edges off with him. Especially if you consider the idea that Brandon was attempting to lay the groundwork for a Northern succession if not outright Stark-led coup.

There's a good argument that someone less kindly than Ned Stark might have viewed the difference between voluntarily running away with his daughter and keeping her as a mistress when she's betrothed to his Barthaeon ally versus kidnapping her as irrelevant.

Which is to say, its possible Brandon was less upset about the possibility of his daughter being ravaged by a Prince and more that Rhaegar had ruined his chance at a Stormlands alliance.

I doubt if either Rickard or Brandon would have considered that Lyanna had any say in her marriage to Robert.

[Winterfell is Burning]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don’t know about Elia, but Aegon and Rhaenys were surely marked for death once Robert’s rebellion shifted from self-defence, to claiming the crown.  He would not have allowed children to live, who were ahead of him in the succession.

That’s aside from his being a man-child, who was furious that Lyanna preferred Rhaegar to him.

Maybe, but there's nothing in the text that claims Robert had plans to murder them. Ned certainly didn't.

Also, this was discussed before, but even if Lyanna left voluntarily with Rhaegar, there's zero evidence that Ned, Robert or Brandon knew that, or that Ned knew before he met Lyanna in the Tower of Joy

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

In Brandon's case, I have the feeling there is something to the idea that Ned Stark isn't actually a typical Stark and there's a good argument his family was historically a bunch of assholes that Jon Arryn filed the edges off with him. Especially if you consider the idea that Brandon was attempting to lay the groundwork for a Northern succession if not outright Stark-led coup.

There's a good argument that someone less kindly than Ned Stark might have viewed the difference between voluntarily running away with his daughter and keeping her as a mistress when she's betrothed to his Barthaeon ally versus kidnapping her as irrelevant.

Which is to say, its possible Brandon was less upset about the possibility of his daughter being ravaged by a Prince and more that Rhaegar had ruined his chance at a Stormlands alliance.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing to suggest that the Starks are, on average, better than other Great Houses.  That doesn't mean they're worse, either.

But people who view Stark = Gryffindor, and Lannister and Targaryen = Slytherin are misreading these novels.

[C.T. Phipps]

8 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Lyanna was Brandon's sister not his daughter. Their father was more even tempered about the affair but got executed anyway. And however the news reached Brandon, it only reached Ned and Robert in the Vale afterwards. Brandon riding to KL screaming bloody vengeance to commit absolute certain suicide by king rather colours how the situation looks to the Jon Arryn and the boys in the Vale when ravens finally reach them with news about whats going on. After that Roberts in sieges, on ships, and out afield, during the war it think it probably quite legitimately looked one way to Robert and there were very few opportunities to clear things up. In the decades after that, yeah he became a big manchild about it.

My opinion stands despite temporarily mixing up their names.

[Dreadscythe95]

Yeah let's be honest, it's pointless looking at this from today's views. Yes, Rhaenyra was right but back then the Lords of Westeros had many reasons to defy the King after he died to support the male heir because that's what they believed was right for their society back then. The same way they defined Maigor and rebelled against him even if he was King. Some things are not acceptable from the World order and you either need to burn the world or bow. That's why many went with The King's Orders and many went with the male heir. There were enough reasons for the society to get devided. It doesn't  change the fact that both sides murdered, more than one times for it. It's the same with Stannis, he was right but he never got over Renly's death. The cause doesn't justify the means.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Yeah let's be honest, it's pointless looking at this from today's views. Yes, Rhaenyra was right but back then the Lords of Westeros had many reasons to defy the King after he died to support the male heir because that's what they believed was right for their society back then. The same way they defined Maigor and rebelled against him even if he was King. Some things are not acceptable from the World order and you either need to burn the world or bow. That's why many went with The King's Orders and many went with the male heir. There were enough reasons for the society to get devided. It doesn;tg change the fact that both sides murdered, more than one times for it. It's the same with Stannis, he was right but he never got over Renly's death. The cause doesn't justify the means.

In this conflict, and the War of the Five Kings, the various sides displayed the kind of savagery of the Thirty Years War, or the Time of Troubles and The Deluge, in Eastern Europe (I found out far more about how impalement was carried out than I ever wished to know).

The Wars of the Roses, and baronial wars in general, were much more restrained on the whole.  The leaders usually had no desire to destroy what they wanted to rule.

It all points to some kind of pent up hatred, in Westerosi society, which periodically erupts in warfare.

The most brutal of all, I think, was Aemond One Eye, who was basically a psychopathic terrorist.

[Dreadscythe95]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

In this conflict, and the War of the Five Kings, the various sides displayed the kind of savagery of the Thirty Years War, or the Time of Troubles and The Deluge, in Eastern Europe (I found out far more about how impalement was carried out than I ever wished to know).

The Wars of the Roses, and baronial wars in general, were much more restrained on the whole.  The leaders usually had no desire to destroy what they wanted to rule.

It all points to some kind of pent up hatred, in Westerosi society, which periodically erupts in warfare.

The most brutal of all, I think, was Aemond One Eye, who was basically a psychopathic terrorist.

Well, the Targareyn had dragons as well, it was easier to feel like a god that can crush every oposition.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Well, the Targareyn had dragons as well, it was easier to feel like a god that can crush every oposition.

That could be right, but the absence of dragons does nothing to make war more gentle.  When you put weapons and alcohol in the hands of teenagers, and tell them to live off the land, you open the gates of hell to the civilian population.

[BlackLightning]

In the end, the Greens were completely wrong and that branch of the Hightower family deserved to be destroyed.

Children from the first marriage come before the children of the second wife. Doesn't matter if they are male or female. You cannot disenfranchise the first set of children in favor of the second

[Winterfell is Burning]

9 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

In the end, the Greens were completely wrong and that branch of the Hightower family deserved to be destroyed.

Children from the first marriage come before the children of the second wife. Doesn't matter if they are male or female. You cannot disenfranchise the first set of children in favor of the second

Heh...no, that's not how monarchy works, both IRL and Westeros.

[C.T. Phipps]

18 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Heh...no, that's not how monarchy works, both IRL and Westeros.

Aint no rules when you have dragons!

 

[Dreadscythe95]

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

In the end, the Greens were completely wrong and that branch of the Hightower family deserved to be destroyed.

Children from the first marriage come before the children of the second wife. Doesn't matter if they are male or female. You cannot disenfranchise the first set of children in favor of the second

Yes, tell this to Olympias, the mother of Alexander The Great, who had her hausband, Phillip II of Macedon murdered so that he wouldn't bypass their son (Alexander the Great) for his son of his second wife, Phillip Ahrridaios who was a pure Macenonian (while Olympias was from Epirus so Alexander was half Macedonian, half Epirote). 

Also, female rules were a no no at these times. They were a last choice and they were a sign of weakness. That was society back then.

[C.T. Phipps]

7 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Yes, tell this to Olympias, the mother of Alexander The Great, who had her hausband, Phillip II of Macedon murdered so that he wouldn't bypass their son (Alexander the Great) for his son of his second wife, Phillip Ahrridaios who was a pure Macenonian (while Olympias was from Epirus so Alexander was half Macedonian, half Epirote). 

Also, female rules were a no no at these times. They were a last choice and they were a sign of weakness. That was society back then.

I mean, that's the thing with Empress Maud but notably, the Pope refused to recognize King Stephen's claim and declared him a usurper.

(Mind you that was over whether Henry II would inherit)

[SeanF]

Oddly, the various Spanish Christian kingdoms had no issue with female monarchs.  There were a lot of them.

[BlackLightning]

12 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Also, female rules were a no no at these times. They were a last choice and they were a sign of weakness.

I understand that. Given the maternal mortality rates at the time and the necessity of physical strength, to have a tradition of female rulers (particularly in times where war was always a possibility and succession is fragile) is very risky.

However, the rules are different in this world as the Targaryens (male or female) command dragons who can fly at about hundred miles per hour, can crush wooden edifices with their bodies and breathe fire hot enough to melt steel and pulverize stone.

I would agree that a male ruler is more preferable given the prejudices and the needs of the times (especially if they are to prepare for an apocalyptic war with ice demons and men are biologically more capable of dangerous activities such as warfare with said ice demons) but a female ruler is not a sign of weakness. Not inherently and especially not if said female ruler is an experienced dragonrider with battle experience in Planetos.

Viserys is a weak ruler and he is male. His lack of physical strength and vigor is one thing but what truly makes him weak is his bad habit of people-pleasing, his inability to communicate effectively, his procrastination, his tolerance of sketchy counselors and courtiers and his distaste for conflict. Rhaenyra, as bratty as she is, would be a much better ruler than Viserys already and she's not even eighteen.

[BlackLightning]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Oddly, the various Spanish Christian kingdoms had no issue with female monarchs.  There were a lot of them.

This is true.

Also, I think the entire Iberian peninsula had that in common.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

This is true.

Also, I think the entire Iberian peninsula had that in common.

It's also a great irony that Henry II, victor of the Anarchy, would marry Eleanor of Aquitane, the woman who owned most of France in her own right.

[Denam_Pavel]

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I understand that. Given the maternal mortality rates at the time and the necessity of physical strength, to have a tradition of female rulers (particularly in times where war was always a possibility and succession is fragile) is very risky.

However, the rules are different in this world as the Targaryens (male or female) command dragons who can fly at about hundred miles per hour, can crush wooden edifices with their bodies and breathe fire hot enough to melt steel and pulverize stone.

I would agree that a male ruler is more preferable given the prejudices and the needs of the times (especially if they are to prepare for an apocalyptic war with ice demons and men are biologically more capable of dangerous activities such as warfare with said ice demons) but a female ruler is not a sign of weakness. Not inherently and especially not if said female ruler is an experienced dragonrider with battle experience in Planetos.

Viserys is a weak ruler and he is male. His lack of physical strength and vigor is one thing but what truly makes him weak is his bad habit of people-pleasing, his inability to communicate effectively, his procrastination, his tolerance of sketchy counselors and courtiers and his distaste for conflict. Rhaenyra, as bratty as she is, would be a much better ruler than Viserys already and she's not even eighteen.

You are seriously underselling just how bratty Rhaenyra is in this episode, she does nothing to ingratiate herself, try to win allies, she just goes to people to pick fights in full view of the court. As weak as Viserys is, he has the absolute bare minimum of basic decorum neccesary to reign peacefully along with Otto. Rhaenyra and Daemon do not. But I agree, when the king is in poor health, the heir is a capable dragonrider and the alternative is a baby, I don't buy that the court would be in such a massive hurry to openly back the alternative regardless of sex.