[Spoilers] Episode 102 Discussion

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

55 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Will HOTD impact RoP, do you think? 

It's hard to say, really. As others have pointed out, it's hard to trust reports as long as the networks themselves are providing the numbers. 

But yeah, I think both will be successful in the end.

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Has something happened?

I don't know about them but some of us were rooting for it to fail. 

[C.T. Phipps]

4 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I don't know about them but some of us were rooting for it to fail. 

How good it is really surprised a bunch of Game of Thrones fans.

So many memes exist about how they were sucked back in.

Edited September 3, 2022 by C.T. Phipps

[Lord Varys]

I think TROP and HOTD have quite different target audiences ... the former is a generic high fantasy show loosely inspired by stuff written by Tolkien - it has 'dwarf humor', Willow-like Hobbits, Legolas-style action, gigantic sea monsters, etc.

While HOTD is more the kind of show you can watch when you enjoys soaps about royalty - The Crown, say, or Becoming Elizabeth. Eventually it will devolve into a pointless succession war - and that's the true challenge of this show - but right now it is not telling that story yet.

Folks flying around on dragons a couple of minutes each episode does make this very fantastic. Even the later dragon battles won't last that long, one imagines.

Pretty sure among the book readers/fantasy fans there will be a great overlap between those two shows ... but many casual viewer not liking fantasy all that much might end up liking HOTD while passing on TROP.

5 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It sounds like they filmed a bunch of scenes for HOTD that were cut. The leaks have gotten pretty much everything right so far, but they also said we’d see Laena claim Vhagar, Rhaenyra confront Alicent (with Rhaenyra calling her a whore and Alicent telling her that none of this was her idea), and Rhaenyra deciding to help Alicent dress for the wedding. I’m not sure why these were cut, but I’m guessing they were, seeing as episode 2 is considerably shorter.

It looks somewhat better now. The big sept scene from episode 2 certain reports seemed to think would come in episode 1. Alicent-Rhaenyra stuff pre-wedding is most likely gone, though, unless they don't jump directly ahead into hunting business. The director clearly seemed to prefer to end the episode with the *big* Alicent wedding surprise to then jump directly into Daemon/Corlys plotting territory. Which works not that badly, but really tanks character development aspects regarding Alicent/Rhaenyra. If we just jump ahead 2-3 years we don't really know if the (possibly) friction in their relationship goes back to 'Alicent's betrayal' regarding the announcement of the wedding (which is rather Viserys' betrayal) or due to other things that transpired in those in-between years.

Having watched the preview again - there are Red Keep and council chamber scenes in episode 3, so they could actually have still some scenes pre-wedding, but I'm not sure how likely that is. Perhaps we have those scenes before the progress/hunt begins? Or after they return from wherever the hunt takes place? If they just go to the Kingswood it might not even be a royal progress.

Criston Cole's investiture into the Kingsguard was apparently flimed, too, and it is clearly gone.

I expect that the Vhagar-Laena scene isn't gone but will be depicted in a later episode. After all, Viserys' talk about her 'nest' and Laena's own information imply she might actually be on Driftmark. True enough, Corlys is back home at the end of the episode, but this is something that needs some further buildup. You cannot just have a scene of a small girl chancing on the largest dragon in the world just like that. Establishing Laena as Vhagar's rider just in dialogue or, worse still, have her just appear on her back with no buildup at all would suck pretty hard. Then they should have just gone with Laena as Vhagar's rider from the start. Like they are doing with Laenor, one imagines, since he can easily enough be properly introduced as a dragonrider like Rhaenyra and Daemon - after all, one imagines that Laenor was one of the dragonriders Rhaenyra meant when she urged her father to send them to the Stepstones. She meant herself, Rhaenys, and Laenor since Daemon clearly wasn't a dragonrider they could rely on at that point. Laena, on the other hand, was specifically introduced as dragonless in episode 2.

(Must say I realize that there being no mentioning of Meleys and Rhaenys being a dragonrider at this point is kind of a letdown - I do hope both are going to feature big time in episode 3.)

I'm still wondering about the 'weeks ahead' trailer scenes:

- Young Rhaenyra reading up on the prophecy in the Balerion crypt. Is that a part from the episode 1 talk scene which was cut but stupidly included in a trailer for later episodes? I guess we'll have to wait and see, but one imagines that Viserys and Rhaenyra will have more talks down in that crypt.

- The reports said the scene the Daemon voiceover about dreams and dragons and kings is taken from a pilot scene between Viserys and Daemon taking place after Aemma's death where they discuss destiny and dreams and the gods. It was supposed to include a retelling of the story of Daenys the Dreamer.

It would reflect very badly on the show if they had cut that entire scene but were still using the 'cool dialogue' as voiceover for promotional purposes. Nothing do I hate more than people who tease folks with material they no longer use. That is kind of acceptable with early teaser and trailer footage but not stuff that's released after the first episode of a show has already aired.

It is also not really necessary to cut so much from those episodes since they don't really have a fixed runtime, anyway - or at least much more leeway than when they had a fixed time slot on a network.

[Lord Varys]

Completely different thing:

Do you guys realize how hard certain of George's decisions about the kings suck?

The show has a perfect justification for Viserys' remarriage - he has to secure the royal line, which is in considerable danger since he has only one heir of his body, a childless brother as a spare who nobody likes, and an ambitious cousin with only two young children as heirs. House Targaryen's next generation is basically only Rhaenyra, Laena, and Laenor. People die all the time of sickness and accidents, but children are especially vulnerable early deaths.

But in the books Viserys' remarriage is not the obvious take because it is an exceedingly rare step for a king to do, and half the readership or more foolishly blame the king for the Dance because he took another wife ... when this was standard practice in every hereditary monarchy in existence. And we get this kind of silly argument, I think, because George peopled his world with unrealistically obstinate noble widowers/bachelors like Tywin, Hoster, Brynden, Oberyn, Galbart Glover, etc.

(The worst moment in this regard we get is when nobody thinks about or suggest the possibility that the high and mighty Tywin Lannister might remarry in the wake of Joffrey's death. The old man wants a marry off both Cersei and Jaime ... but the obvious OTHER CANDIDATE for Margaery's hand if it is not to be Tommen or Jaime on the Lannister side is Tywin himself.)

Queenless kings like Viserys II and Maekar are especially unrealistic. Viserys II should have remarried at the latest when Baelor decided to annul his marriage and take a septon's vow - because then the Targaryen dynasty potent males were down to Aegon IV and his son Daeron (who Baelor had just sold to the Dornish). Viserys had married his eldest son to his sick sister Naerys, who clearly wasn't exactly ideally suited to produce living offspring, so there was a pretty big need for more heirs. And as king he would have needed a queen at his side to, well, properly function as monarch. And the obvious choice there was one of Aegon III's daughters.

Maekar's situation is not that bad back when he is still a prince and all - he did father four sons and two daughters on his late wife, but as the sons of Daeron II and their sons started to die like flies duty would have knocked at the old man's door. At the latest, Prince Maekar should have wed Princess Aelora (or some other woman) after Aelor's death. If he could refuse that somehow, King Maekar should have married early in his reign in light of his elder sons' inability to actually produce promising children (only a lackwit daughter from Daeron in 222 AC, and Aerion's Maegor was only born in 232 AC), at the very latest after his elder sons had died, and he was down to unpromising young grandchildren as potential heirs ... and an unpopular peasant prince he might not even have wanted to succeed him (else Egg would have been Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone when Maekar died in battle, and there would have been no need for a Great Council).

Similar thing about dragonriders as political factors. Having a dragonless Laena when Viserys' remarriage is discussed makes infinitely more sense than George's ridiculous setting of a dragonless king spurning the rider of the largest dragon in the world while he himself is down to a girl dragonrider and a brother he has just shipped back into the Vale. Where, I'm sure, Daemon just waits for a telephone call informing him that the Velaryons are roasting the dragonless party king in his own castle.

Ditto with the polygamy thing coming up again as a theoretical possibility. George should have written about that, too, even if he had decided that after Maegor no Targaryen would actually ever take a second or third wife until Rhaegar.

I must really say in regards to the writing of those rather crucial issues the score is 3:0 Condal-Martin. The man actually bettered crucial aspects of the setting he is writing in and the story he is telling on screen. And that is, so far, a pretty good thing, actually.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Completely different thing:

Do you guys realize how hard certain of George's decisions about the kings suck?

The show has a perfect justification for Viserys' remarriage - he has to secure the royal line, which is in considerable danger since he has only one heir of his body, a childless brother as a spare who nobody likes, and an ambitious cousin with only two young children as heirs. House Targaryen's next generation is basically only Rhaenyra, Laena, and Laenor. People die all the time of sickness and accidents, but children are especially vulnerable early deaths.

I think you actually are kind of stumbling over a big root in your trek through the forest and the root is, "the reason Viserys sucks." Which is not a insult as you know how much I love your analysis @Lord Varys.

Specifically, the issue of Viserys' remarriage causing so much pain and suffering is the fact that it completely undermines his decision to name Rhaenyra as his heir. The fact is that he already, by Targaryen standards, has a spare in Daemon or could have named Laenor to be his heir after Rhaenyra (both of which could result in civil war), he chooses to continue to add to the line despite the fact that historically male heirs come before women.

It's actually one of my favorite interpretations of Otto and Alicent Hightower that they didn't actually intend to PLOT against Rhaenyra until they realized that Viserys had no intention of ever naming Aegon to be his heir. It's a completely shocking breach of custom and where they utterly misread him. Otto thinks that Viserys will cave (but doesn't). Alicent thinks that he will come to love Aegon over Rhaenyra (he doesn't). Both of them possibly think they can persuade Rhaenyra away (certainly not) and she ends up with Dragonstone and a powerful alliance with the Velaryon part of the family but also away from court that allows them to crown their erstwhile King Stephen.

Viserys never should have taken another bride because his decision was unprecidented already.

[The Bard of Banefort]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Completely different thing:

Do you guys realize how hard certain of George's decisions about the kings suck?

The show has a perfect justification for Viserys' remarriage - he has to secure the royal line, which is in considerable danger since he has only one heir of his body, a childless brother as a spare who nobody likes, and an ambitious cousin with only two young children as heirs. House Targaryen's next generation is basically only Rhaenyra, Laena, and Laenor. People die all the time of sickness and accidents, but children are especially vulnerable early deaths.

But in the books Viserys' remarriage is not the obvious take because it is an exceedingly rare step for a king to do, and half the readership or more foolishly blame the king for the Dance because he took another wife ... when this was standard practice in every hereditary monarchy in existence. And we get this kind of silly argument, I think, because George peopled his world with unrealistically obstinate noble widowers/bachelors like Tywin, Hoster, Brynden, Oberyn, Galbart Glover, etc.

(The worst moment in this regard we get is when nobody thinks about or suggest the possibility that the high and mighty Tywin Lannister might remarry in the wake of Joffrey's death. The old man wants a marry off both Cersei and Jaime ... but the obvious OTHER CANDIDATE for Margaery's hand if it is not to be Tommen or Jaime on the Lannister side is Tywin himself.)

Queenless kings like Viserys II and Maekar are especially unrealistic. Viserys II should have remarried at the latest when Baelor decided to annul his marriage and take a septon's vow - because then the Targaryen dynasty potent males were down to Aegon IV and his son Daeron (who Baelor had just sold to the Dornish). Viserys had married his eldest son to his sick sister Naerys, who clearly wasn't exactly ideally suited to produce living offspring, so there was a pretty big need for more heirs. And as king he would have needed a queen at his side to, well, properly function as monarch. And the obvious choice there was one of Aegon III's daughters.

Maekar's situation is not that bad back when he is still a prince and all - he did father four sons and two daughters on his late wife, but as the sons of Daeron II and their sons started to die like flies duty would have knocked at the old man's door. At the latest, Prince Maekar should have wed Princess Aelora (or some other woman) after Aelor's death. If he could refuse that somehow, King Maekar should have married early in his reign in light of his elder sons' inability to actually produce promising children (only a lackwit daughter from Daeron in 222 AC, and Aerion's Maegor was only born in 232 AC), at the very latest after his elder sons had died, and he was down to unpromising young grandchildren as potential heirs ... and an unpopular peasant prince he might not even have wanted to succeed him (else Egg would have been Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone when Maekar died in battle, and there would have been no need for a Great Council).

Similar thing about dragonriders as political factors. Having a dragonless Laena when Viserys' remarriage is discussed makes infinitely more sense than George's ridiculous setting of a dragonless king spurning the rider of the largest dragon in the world while he himself is down to a girl dragonrider and a brother he has just shipped back into the Vale. Where, I'm sure, Daemon just waits for a telephone call informing him that the Velaryons are roasting the dragonless party king in his own castle.

Ditto with the polygamy thing coming up again as a theoretical possibility. George should have written about that, too, even if he had decided that after Maegor no Targaryen would actually ever take a second or third wife until Rhaegar.

I must really say in regards to the writing of those rather crucial issues the score is 3:0 Condal-Martin. The man actually bettered crucial aspects of the setting he is writing in and the story he is telling on screen. And that is, so far, a pretty good thing, actually.

GRRM decided to give Rhaena another husband in FnB, so he might decide to have Maekar or Viserys remarry in later books too. It could also be that Larra outlived him.

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think TROP and HOTD have quite different target audiences ... the former is a generic high fantasy show loosely inspired by stuff written by Tolkien - it has 'dwarf humor', Willow-like Hobbits, Legolas-style action, gigantic sea monsters, etc.

While HOTD is more the kind of show you can watch when you enjoys soaps about royalty - The Crown, say, or Becoming Elizabeth. Eventually it will devolve into a pointless succession war - and that's the true challenge of this show - but right now it is not telling that story yet.

Folks flying around on dragons a couple of minutes each episode does make this very fantastic. Even the later dragon battles won't last that long, one imagines.

Pretty sure among the book readers/fantasy fans there will be a great overlap between those two shows ... but many casual viewer not liking fantasy all that much might end up liking HOTD while passing on TROP.

It looks somewhat better now. The big sept scene from episode 2 certain reports seemed to think would come in episode 1. Alicent-Rhaenyra stuff pre-wedding is most likely gone, though, unless they don't jump directly ahead into hunting business. The director clearly seemed to prefer to end the episode with the *big* Alicent wedding surprise to then jump directly into Daemon/Corlys plotting territory. Which works not that badly, but really tanks character development aspects regarding Alicent/Rhaenyra. If we just jump ahead 2-3 years we don't really know if the (possibly) friction in their relationship goes back to 'Alicent's betrayal' regarding the announcement of the wedding (which is rather Viserys' betrayal) or due to other things that transpired in those in-between years.

Having watched the preview again - there are Red Keep and council chamber scenes in episode 3, so they could actually have still some scenes pre-wedding, but I'm not sure how likely that is. Perhaps we have those scenes before the progress/hunt begins? Or after they return from wherever the hunt takes place? If they just go to the Kingswood it might not even be a royal progress.

Criston Cole's investiture into the Kingsguard was apparently flimed, too, and it is clearly gone.

I expect that the Vhagar-Laena scene isn't gone but will be depicted in a later episode. After all, Viserys' talk about her 'nest' and Laena's own information imply she might actually be on Driftmark. True enough, Corlys is back home at the end of the episode, but this is something that needs some further buildup. You cannot just have a scene of a small girl chancing on the largest dragon in the world just like that. Establishing Laena as Vhagar's rider just in dialogue or, worse still, have her just appear on her back with no buildup at all would suck pretty hard. Then they should have just gone with Laena as Vhagar's rider from the start. Like they are doing with Laenor, one imagines, since he can easily enough be properly introduced as a dragonrider like Rhaenyra and Daemon - after all, one imagines that Laenor was one of the dragonriders Rhaenyra meant when she urged her father to send them to the Stepstones. She meant herself, Rhaenys, and Laenor since Daemon clearly wasn't a dragonrider they could rely on at that point. Laena, on the other hand, was specifically introduced as dragonless in episode 2.

(Must say I realize that there being no mentioning of Meleys and Rhaenys being a dragonrider at this point is kind of a letdown - I do hope both are going to feature big time in episode 3.)

I'm still wondering about the 'weeks ahead' trailer scenes:

- Young Rhaenyra reading up on the prophecy in the Balerion crypt. Is that a part from the episode 1 talk scene which was cut but stupidly included in a trailer for later episodes? I guess we'll have to wait and see, but one imagines that Viserys and Rhaenyra will have more talks down in that crypt.

- The reports said the scene the Daemon voiceover about dreams and dragons and kings is taken from a pilot scene between Viserys and Daemon taking place after Aemma's death where they discuss destiny and dreams and the gods. It was supposed to include a retelling of the story of Daenys the Dreamer.

It would reflect very badly on the show if they had cut that entire scene but were still using the 'cool dialogue' as voiceover for promotional purposes. Nothing do I hate more than people who tease folks with material they no longer use. That is kind of acceptable with early teaser and trailer footage but not stuff that's released after the first episode of a show has already aired.

It is also not really necessary to cut so much from those episodes since they don't really have a fixed runtime, anyway - or at least much more leeway than when they had a fixed time slot on a network.

I remember there being one trailer from GOT where Sansa had a line about how she “lay awake every night thinking about what was taken from me” and that never appeared in the show.

Eve Best has mentioned Meleys in interviews, so it sounds like we will see her eventually.

[The Bard of Banefort]

The whole Dance could have been avoided if Daemon was slightly less of a dick. Viserys wouldn’t have named an official heir after Aemma’s death, and Aegon would have become the uncontested heir at birth. Or, Viserys could have simply added the caveat that Rhaenyra was his heir until he had a trueborn son. Either way, crisis averted.

[zajaz]

At this point, I can't tell if it was fortunate or unfortunate that Aegon (Baelon and Alyssa's son) died in the cradle. With another brother added to the mix, who knows how the relationship between Viserys and Daemon could have developed.

[C.T. Phipps]

23 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The whole Dance could have been avoided if Daemon was slightly less of a dick. Viserys wouldn’t have named an official heir after Aemma’s death, and Aegon would have become the uncontested heir at birth. Or, Viserys could have simply added the caveat that Rhaenyra was his heir until he had a trueborn son. Either way, crisis averted.

I mean, Aegon II is so incredibly unfit a king that he would have been revolted against no matter what.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

24 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean, Aegon II is so incredibly unfit a king that he would have been revolted against no matter what.

An Aegon II who was trained to be king or, at minimum, wasn't seen as "lesser" by his father would be a completely different person. (Seriously, the fact that Viserys I says in F & B that "she wants HER blood on the throne" (emphasis mine) rather than "our" tells me that however much he may have loved Alicent he clearly saw her and the children she gave him as being inferior to the daughter Aemma gave him. Not for nothing does Beesbury, who we are clearly supposed to sympathize with, bring up Rhaenyra having more Targaryen blood, which I personally find disgusting because it actually justifies racial purity when a few generations down the line the exact opposite is lauded with Daeron II and Baelor Breakspear.)

And for the record I don't see much difference between Otto and Corlys when one ignores the biased framing GRRM uses to present them through.

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Viserys never should have taken another bride because his decision was unprecidented already.

Oh, I meant just the remarriage, not the heir thing. Sure enough, not formally naming an Heir Apparent while there was still a chance for a son in the (distant) future was a mistake.

But not the remarriage. And also not the remarriage after he had named an Heir Apparent - because the marriage could have been childless, the new wife could have only given birth to daughters or sons who were stillborn or died in the cradle.

It is another pretty good piece of writing by Condal to have Rhaenys mention that the men of the Realm will look to Rhaenyra's hypothetical half-brother as the next king once he comes of age ... they are not likely to view an infant and toddler as the next king while Rhaenyra is the anointed heir and a woman grown. If Viserys had died with Aegon as a three-year-old and Aemond as an infant then nobody would have challenged her succession.

And this is the kind of realism this setting needs.

Your take on the confusion of Otto and Alicent regarding the succession might very well be true. We will have to wait and see how it goes, but it will, of course, be the fun part to see how things slowly move towards former friends becoming mortal enemies ... especially since neither party would have actually wanted this.

The writers would be utter morons if they basically didn't give the characters literally every chance they could think of to knit things back together, starting with the obvious - although kind of weird - incestuous match of Rhaenyra-Aegon. That likely will be viewed as very weird in light of the larger age gap between them and the fact that Rhaenyra could only birth children of her by Aegon in her late twenties in the show. Then there will be the prospect of matches between Helaena and one of Rhaenyra's sons, and I'm sure they come up with more ideas.

51 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

GRRM decided to give Rhaena another husband in FnB, so he might decide to have Maekar or Viserys remarry in later books too. It could also be that Larra outlived him.

He still could make such a decision, but I'd not count on that. He also widowed Baelon rather early (who only had two sons) and had him never remarry (which he should also have done after he was named Heir Apparent and thus future king in 92 AC). It is almost as if the author never bothered with it, because, you know, he knew the guy would never be king, anyway...

The Conqueror suffers from a similar problem. He should have remarried after Rhaenys' death and Maegor's birth. Two sons weren't even to secure the succession. Not in the middle of a total war with Dorne.

Larra Rogare did not only not outlive Viserys (according to dates given by Ran she died in 145 AC, I think) she also left him for Lys shortly after the birth of Naerys. The guy thus was a widower for over twenty years by the time he became king. After about fifteen years by the time he must have realized that the Iron Throne would one day pass either to him or at least to his descendant because Baelor would father no heirs of his body.

51 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I remember there being one trailer from GOT where Sansa had a line about how she “lay awake every night thinking about what was taken from me” and that never appeared in the show.

Don't recall that particular thing, but I do remember the snippet from the cut flashback scene from Rickard/Brandon's execution depicting Aerys. Most notably I remember lots of cut material from the (theatrical) versions of the LotR movies. But back then I really cared much about such things. Movies, though, are somewhat different than TV show episodes with no rigid time limit. There one really should have the grace to actually include all the scenes/lines of dialogue one used in the promo material (assuming it was all taken from the actual episodes and not talk recorded as a voiceover specifically for a trailer).

51 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Eve Best has mentioned Meleys in interviews, so it sounds like we will see her eventually.

Yes, of course, we will see her in the season, but I just realized that it is kind of a letdown that they haven't established that she actually is a dragonrider. If you think about it this tidbit of information would have been something for Rhaenyra's Great Council voiceover when she introduces Princess Rhaenys. She could have used this to stress her suitability for the throne even more, eldest descendant, dragonrider, while Viserys was dragonless ... but male.

[C.T. Phipps]

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

An Aegon II who was trained to be king or, at minimum, wasn't seen as "lesser" by his father would be a completely different person. (Seriously, the fact that Viserys I says in F & B that "she wants HER blood on the throne" (emphasis mine) rather than "our" tells me that however much he may have loved Alicent he clearly saw her and the children she gave him as being inferior to the daughter Aemma gave him. Not for nothing does Beesbury, who we are clearly supposed to sympathize with, bring up Rhaenyra having more Targaryen blood, which I personally find disgusting because it actually justifies racial purity when a few generations down the line the exact opposite is lauded with Daeron II and Baelor Breakspear.)

And for the record I don't see much difference between Otto and Corlys when one ignores the biased framing GRRM uses to present them through.

Of course, Alicent uses this exact bullshit excuse as to why her children should be in charge as she states Rhaenyra's children aren't true children.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

4 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Of course, Alicent uses this exact bullshit excuse as to why her children should be in charge as she states Rhaenyra's children aren't true children.

Umm...no? Alicent's excuse is that Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey are bastards, which in a hereditary monarchy built on marriage alliances, is a big f*cking deal. (Not to mention tradition and precedent.)

Edited September 3, 2022 by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back

[C.T. Phipps]

9 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Umm...no? Alicent's excuse is that Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey are bastards, which in a hereditary monarchy built on marriage alliances, is a big f*cking deal. (Not to mention tradition and precedent.)

Which is already decided that they aren't bastards, so it's purely slander based on the fact that they don't look like Targaryens.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

5 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Which is already decided that they aren't bastards, so it's purely slander based on the fact that they don't look like Targaryens.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that they were so its not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

[C.T. Phipps]

16 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that they were so its not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

It's like 90% probable they're bastards. But even then it could be her Arryn blood.

Either way, we know her objections are all hypocritical lies because she and her father offer Driftmark to Rhaenyra in addition to Dragonstone.

[zajaz]

The funny / sad thing about the Strong boys, once the Dance starts, is that, by insisting that Jacaerys, Lucerys and Joffrey are legitimate, Rhaenyra is making sure that her first three kids end up usurping her last two. Then again, (dragons not taken into the equation) if it were to be confirmed that her kids were 100 % Harwin Strong's, Rhaenyra is dead, or the very least disinherited and imprisoned along with her children. Although I'm not quite sure in what kind of legal limbo would that leave Aegon and Viserys. They are legitimate, so their claim should be taintless, but they are born from a traitor, so...

Edited September 3, 2022 by zajaz

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

8 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It's like 90% probable they're bastards. But even then it could be her Arryn blood.

Either way, we know her objections are all hypocritical lies because she and her father offer Driftmark to Rhaenyra in addition to Dragonstone.

We don't know if Aemma Arryn had brown hair, brown eyes, or a pug nose. She may have. She may not have. I also don't see them offering Rhaenyra Dragonstone and Driftmark as hypocrisy so much as realpolitik (as well as them swallowing their pride on the off chance bloodshed could be avoided). Anyway, I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this so to avoid derailing what is supposed to be a show thread I'll stop here.

[C.T. Phipps]

12 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

We don't know if Aemma Arryn had brown hair, brown eyes, or a pug nose. She may have. She may not have. I also don't see them offering Rhaenyra Dragonstone and Driftmark as hypocrisy so much as realpolitik (as well as them swallowing their pride on the off chance bloodshed could be avoided). Anyway, I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this so to avoid derailing what is supposed to be a show thread I'll stop here.

Eh, I don't believe there's really a good answer because the idea of hereditary monarchy is already inherently ridiculous.

So any of the arguments are ones I find questionable.

I just loathe the Hightowers.

Edited September 3, 2022 by C.T. Phipps