[Spoilers] Episode 103 Discussion

[slant]

I can see it happen, people declaring their allegiance to either side 

18 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

There have been a fair number of funny lines, though?

Were there? Do not remember. There were a few things I may have laughed at, but there was no comic relief used to ease the tension anytime

Maybe it is a necessary missing ingredient for a show like this, but I am not missing it so far 

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

13 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

https://deadline.com/2022/09/house-of-the-dragon-week-3-ratings-hbo-16-million-plus-viewers-1235110494/

Episode 3 brought in SIXTEEN million viewers.

Thankfully, our previous error has been corrected, but they are definitely still releasing numbers.

This appears to have been released in direct response to the earlier report. The article doesn’t say the viewers came from a specific country, so these are probably the global figures. It’s a bit manipulative on their part.
 

Disclaimer: HOTD is hugely popular. It will win lots of awards. No amount of me being a killjoy will change that.

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This appears to have been released in direct response to the earlier report. The article doesn’t say the viewers came from a specific country, so these are probably the global figures. It’s a bit manipulative on their part.

Yes, that's probably a global number for HBO Max viewership + HBO viewership, but probably does not include stuff like Sky in the UK and whoever is airing it in France and so on.

The important part of the piece  is not the number, but that the episode viewership has grown across the days at a similar pace to those of the first two episodes, i.e. the holiday really did lead a lot of people to skip linear viewing but they caught up with the show in the days after.

 

[EggBlue]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What do you think of the dream business?

I'm not sure Viserys another motivational layer to name a son his heir. I mean, it is all there for him, considering that he only got the throne because he was a man, basically, so the notion that he should name a female heir was always very, well, unusual.

And Otto is very much right in the episode - the birth of a royal son should make everything more clear, it is like Viserys returning from Lys later on, a clear male heir is there.

In that sense, I think, it could have been much more potent if Viserys had dreamed about a daughter on the throne rather than a son ... and thus his conflict would be about tradition and how he himself gained the throne vs. the whole prophecy/destiny/magical sphere.

Especially in light of what happens later with Rhaenyra, Criston, Laenor, Harwin, and Daemon ... a mythical or magical backing of this decision to name an heir could have worked better than the reversed thing. Because as things stand now Rhaenyra is basically only kept as heir because of Viserys' guilt trip over Aemma's death. Regardless how the various scandals go down, the show didn't really sell it strongly enough, I think, that Viserys just loves his daughter so much. For that they quarrel too often.

Hell, they could have even played around with Jaehaerys II weirdo decision to marry Aerys to Rhaella because of prophecy ... Viserys could have correctly guessed that the promised prince would be born from Rhaenyra's bloodline.

Also, I must say, I really like Otto's reluctance about turning against Rhaenyra and Alicent's even greater reluctance. It is something very few people seem to get that this conflict slowly developed. The war could have been averted the entire time, it was never a given ... most especially not back when Alicent married Viserys or when she gave birth to Aegon. This is the time when they were all still friends or at least cordial.

And the context is also pretty good there - Rhaenyra starts as somebody who is more or less at daddy's mercy. He can name her heir ... or somebody else. It is all about him and his decisions. Once she comes into her own, has a family of her own, and power of her own ... things are more complicated.

Pushing aside Laenor's wife would already have been a considerable challenge ... and once she and Daemon marry harder still.

according to one of Milly Alcok interviews , Rhaenyra starts off as someone who didn't expect to be heir , then rebels when she doesn't know how to play the role in the society until she learns how she should act . well , we have seen phase 1 and 2 in these 3 episodes and I expect episode 4 will be somewhat of a transition point . and in the light of one of the articles that claimed adult Rhaenyra is more solemn , I guess despite all the scandals , Rhaenyra and Viserys will regain their good relationship and she will prove herself to him . besides , as you mentioned , after Rhaenyra married Laenor , for Viserys to choose a new heir would have been to spur Velaryons for the 3rd time . Strong scandal or not , Rhaenyra had become a part of house Velaryon and had their support . and add to that Daemon(who was one of the Velaryons anyway ) , Aegon's incompetence and Alicent's hostility towards Rhaenyra's sons?  ... I'd say they could give Viserys plenty of reasons to stay put on his decision 

[The Bard of Banefort]

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Met my dad's boss today. 

He's basically the "We have GRRM at home" version from the joke. He has the same chunky bodyshape, the same voice, the same LAUGH, a very similar face, all he misses out on is the beard and the hat.

It was creepy, and I got goosepbumps everytime he was laughing: The laugh was identical, man.

In college, I had a professor who was a rabbi, and every day he wore a different colored yamika with a matching sweater vest. He also looked like George R.R. Martin.

The only problem is that he had read ASOIAF and said he preferred the show  This was around S4-5.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, EggBlue said:

according to one of Milly Alcok interviews , Rhaenyra starts off as someone who didn't expect to be heir , then rebels when she doesn't know how to play the role in the society until she learns how she should act . well , we have seen phase 1 and 2 in these 3 episodes and I expect episode 4 will be somewhat of a transition point . and in the light of one of the articles that claimed adult Rhaenyra is more solemn , I guess despite all the scandals , Rhaenyra and Viserys will regain their good relationship and she will prove herself to him . besides , as you mentioned , after Rhaenyra married Laenor , for Viserys to choose a new heir would have been to spur Velaryons for the 3rd time . Strong scandal or not , Rhaenyra had become a part of house Velaryon and had their support . and add to that Daemon(who was one of the Velaryons anyway ) , Aegon's incompetence and Alicent's hostility towards Rhaenyra's sons?  ... I'd say they could give Viserys plenty of reasons to stay put on his decision 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next episode is any indication that Viserys KNOWS that Otto attempted to blacken Rhaenyra's reputation and this will be what results in him being fired as Hand.

[Lord Varys]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

I dunno, I always viewed the appendices as "in-universe" as well.  Even if they aren't, seems to be an extremely minor quibble.

Not acknowledging her as a ruling queen is not the same as "ignoring or vilifying" her.  You're taking a simply listing and extrapolating that to comparisons of Richard III and whatnot, which is just nonsensical.

The only reason why Rhaenyra's descendants wouldn't count her as a queen is if she was lacking something in this regard. George could have made her another Aegon the Uncrowned, Daemon Blackfyre, Viserys, or Stannis ... but he didn't. Thus neither Rhaenyra's descendants on the throne nor the majority historians in the Realm would try to erase her short reign. That is just not how royal dynasties work. So that is kind of relevant, although certainly not the greatest of deals.

But I do find it hard to actually pretend that Aegon II reigned from 129-131 AC because that's just not true.

18 hours ago, Mithras said:

What is the casual viewer waiting for in this show?

Some action, to be sure, but not for Aegon the Conqueror babe to grow up to have children or his own nor for his brother to be born to become a big villain at the end of the season.

The casual things that there might be action due to some stuff the Velaryons and Daemon might pull in the future, not that they both end up playing the second fiddle to a Rhaenyra who is running around with five sons at her heel.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The only reason why Rhaenyra's descendants wouldn't count her as a queen is if she was lacking something in this regard. George could have made her another Aegon the Uncrowned, Daemon Blackfyre, Viserys, or Stannis ... but he didn't. Thus neither Rhaenyra's descendants on the throne nor the majority historians in the Realm would try to erase her short reign.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.  How is she depicted differently than Aegon son of Aenys I, Blackfyre, etc?  And is that a bad thing or good thing in your view?

[C.T. Phipps]

It seems like an answer looking for a question.

Rhaenyra won the war but the sexism of the Westeros culture marks her as a usurper.

They thus pretend that Aegon III became king because he was the next male relative of Aegon II even though it was because Cregan Stark took the country.

[Lord of Brewtown]

On 9/5/2022 at 11:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

Build-up for the Targaryen-Velaryons actually having dragons was missing. If we had already known that Rhaenys is a dragonrider it would be easier to swallow that her son is, too.

Yes, that would have been a small thing that improved things greatly.  

[Lord of Brewtown]

On 9/6/2022 at 11:10 AM, Darryk said:

Interesting that they're portraying Laenor as more traditionally masculine than he is described in the book. It's the reverse of what they did with Lloris in GoT, where they made him somewhat effeminate in the show despite him being one of the greatest knights in the realm in the book.

I like this small change.   My preference for the show would be for them to portray Laenor as going both ways and having an agreed upon open relationship with Rhaenyra - not just a cold, unfeeling arrangement - thereby leaving the audience unsure of who her sons' true father is (Laenor or Harwin).   Give the audience reason to suspect both.  I think that would be better for the non-readers - keep them guessing and allow fans rooting for one side or the other to make assumptions that 'reinforce' their fandom.  

 

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

I might have misheard but did Corlys say at the end of the last episode that, like Daemon, he is a second son? Because that would be a weird change to say the least.

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.  How is she depicted differently than Aegon son of Aenys I, Blackfyre, etc?  And is that a bad thing or good thing in your view?

Didn't you read the diatribe above? She was the chosen heir, had a coronation, deposed her predecessor, and actually sat the Iron Throne. Neither of the actual pretenders did that.

16 minutes ago, Lord of Brewtown said:

Yes, that would have been a small thing that improved things greatly.  

Thinking about this - I think that's another ripple effect of the black Velaryon change. Folks don't view them as 'Targaryens with a different name' because they look signficantly different due to their skin color, meaning they are confused about this thing.

More important, though, if they actually cut the earlier Targaryen-Velaryon matches we get in the book, then the closeness between those two houses which eventually resulted, one assumes at least, in the Velaryons being given permission to mount Targaryen dragons, being given Targaryen dragon eggs and hatchlings, etc. is erased in the show.

There are other close Targaryen kin - the Baratheons, for instance - who are never given access to dragons. Aemma Arryn also seems to be no dragonrider, presumably because nobody wanted to give a dragon to an Arryn. (Although it is certainly weird that Queen Aemma never mounted a dragon - she could have definitely done it then or, perhaps, already when she was married to Prince Baelon's eldest son and heir.)

In the books it is pretty clear that the Velaryons and the Targaryens kind of become the same family, are two branches of the same Valyrian clan, and the Velaryons now have sufficient dragonlord blood to be worthy of having their own dragons.

14 minutes ago, Lord of Brewtown said:

I like this small change.   My preference for the show would be for them to portray Laenor as going both ways and having an agreed upon open relationship with Rhaenyra - not just a cold, unfeeling arrangement - thereby leaving the audience unsure of who her sons' true father is (Laenor or Harwin).   Give the audience reason to suspect both.  I think that would be better for the non-readers - keep them guessing and allow fans rooting for one side or the other to make assumptions that 'reinforce' their fandom. 

I'm okay with that ... although I must say that I like the book Laenor better. The guy has a right to be non-martial. I'm also fine with Rhaenyra and Laenor trying to make their marriage work when it is clear they have to marry. But I also like Rhaenyra not wanting to marry this guy, wanting a 'real man', a man she desires sexually and romantically, and a man who is going to do his duties in the bedchamber with passion and not just because it his duty.

He could still have been there as a dragonrider, though, just as his mother and his sister could have. The problem in the book is that it makes no sense that Corlys would just utilize Daemon and his dragon in that war when he has literally three other dragonriders back home. Even more so, when they are having problems. One dragon is just one dragon - but four are a completely different thing, even more so if one is Vhagar.

In the book Rhaenys and Meleys should have been there - the children are still in their early teens in the beginning of the war, but Laenor and Laena could have been down there with their father in the later phases of the campaign, around 108-110 AC, say, and then also, of course, after Daemon returned to the Stepstones following his second exile in 111 AC.

If the show had bothered with two seasons for Viserys' reign Daemon and Laena could have been a kind of war romance, then getting to know and falling for each other while they both fight on the Stepstones.

George is really writing a kind of dumb narrative there. Just think how silly it would be if the Conqueror had had used just one dragons despite the fact that he controlled three. But then, he also has that kind of stupid plot with Aegon the Uncrowned and Rhaena not using Dreamfyre to help him. But that's at least addressed as a mysterious thing. That Corlys has three dragonriders of his own but only uses Daemon and Caraxes is not. Hell, the guy didn't even need Daemon for the entire Stepstones compaign. He could have done it just with Rhaenys, Laena, Laenor, and their dragons.

[C.T. Phipps]

28 minutes ago, Lord of Brewtown said:

I like this small change.   My preference for the show would be for them to portray Laenor as going both ways and having an agreed upon open relationship with Rhaenyra - not just a cold, unfeeling arrangement - thereby leaving the audience unsure of who her sons' true father is (Laenor or Harwin).   Give the audience reason to suspect both.  I think that would be better for the non-readers - keep them guessing and allow fans rooting for one side or the other to make assumptions that 'reinforce' their fandom. 

I think the take on the show is that Laenor is a loving husband and good friend of Rhaenyra who loves his children. It's just a sexless marriage because he's a 5 on the Kinsey Scale. What they have works for them just fine.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Didn't you read the diatribe above? She was the chosen heir, had a coronation, deposed her predecessor, and actually sat the Iron Throne. Neither of the actual pretenders did that.

I mean, obviously I know all that.  So? 

Again, I honestly don't get why this is a thing for you.  Her descendants were supposed to ensure her place in history because...why?  Aegon III clearly wasn't the type to give a shit either way, his sons were explicitly preoccupied and beholden to their own obsessions, and Aegon the Unworthy is Aegon the Unworthy.  The only one who may have gave a fig is Viserys II, but he also seems like the type that would respect the maesters' independence - which the Citadel did enjoy to some extent under most kings other than tyrants.

[C.T. Phipps]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, obviously I know all that.  So? 

Again, I honestly don't get why this is a thing for you.  Her descendants were supposed to ensure her place in history because...why?  Aegon III clearly wasn't the type to give a shit either way, his sons were explicitly preoccupied and beholden to their own obsessions, and Aegon the Unworthy is Aegon the Unworthy.  The only one who may have gave a fig is Viserys II, but he also seems like the type that would respect the maesters' independence - which the Citadel did enjoy to some extent under most kings other than tyrants.

It's a meaningless distinction since it's purely how the misogynist inaccurate historians of Westeros choose to record her.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

it's purely how the misogynist inaccurate historians of Westeros choose to record her.

Which, again, makes perfect sense in-universe.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I mean, obviously I know all that.  So? 

Again, I honestly don't get why this is a thing for you.  Her descendants were supposed to ensure her place in history because...why?  Aegon III clearly wasn't the type to give a shit either way, his sons were explicitly preoccupied and beholden to their own obsessions, and Aegon the Unworthy is Aegon the Unworthy.  The only one who may have gave a fig is Viserys II, but he also seems like the type that would respect the maesters' independence - which the Citadel did enjoy to some extent under most kings other than tyrants.

The Citadel doesn't decide who was a proper monarch, just as universities don't in our world. The government does. And it is run by Rhaenyra's descendants. (Within reason, of course. But as already discussed, Rhaenyra has everything to be a proper monarch.)

And I'm not under the impression that Aegon III didn't care or anything. He point blank says to Manderly in FaB that he served his mother ... presumably while she was the queen. So it is clear how he viewed her then, just as it was clear how he viewed her when he risked his own life trying to defend her.

There is pretty much no chance that Rhaenyra's descendants would have to fight against 'the scholarly consensus' or 'the majority opinion' on her. Her sons and grandsons ruled for about fifty years after the Dance. Their mere presence on the Iron Throne should have ensured that Aegon II was pushed into the background while Rhaenyra and Daemon would have been viewed more favorably. Most histories of the Dance we know were written during the reign of Aegon III/Viserys II and their sons (and earlier rather than later, one imagines). Eustace started when he was fired, Orwyle wrote his confessions during the Regency era, Munkun perhaps after Aegon III had him sacked as Grand Maester (assuming that ever happens and isn't a mistake); Mushroom may have been the latest chronicler, but even he isn't likely to have lived 50+ years after 131 AC.

You can ask yourself - if you were any of those guys would you write a history where you want to anger the King on the Iron Throne? Offering an opinion whether the mother or grandmother of the current king who claimed to be a ruling queen was in fact a vile pretender isn't the kind of thing you would like to say ... because you would not know the monarch intimately and just assume that saying something they might view as an insult to their (grand)mother is something they might not like. In that sense, I don't see a single maester or other Westerosi historian write a history leaning towards the Greens where Rhaenyra's queenship is flat-out denied.

What I could see is a history where they acknowledge the facts and conclude from the Dance that one shouldn't name a female heir (if there are males around) because that could lead to another succession war. But that doesn't really affect Rhaenyra's status as such - even less so since Aegon II is the actual usurper.

We even get this kind of sucking up with Yandel and all his Robert and 'Glorious Reign' stuff.

[C.T. Phipps]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Citadel doesn't decide who was a proper monarch, just as universities don't in our world. The government does. And it is run by Rhaenyra's descendants. (Within reason, of course. But as already discussed, Rhaenyra has everything to be a proper monarch.)

The problem is multifold with this:

* The Citadel is an institution that lasts centuries and absolutely writes down the version of history they want to.

* It implies that Aegon III, literally a man suffering periods of clinical depression, will care enough to intervene.

* That anyone will bring it to his attention.

* That the forgiving view of Rhaenyra would be carried on by her descendants given the disaster it was for the Dance of the Dragons. This history could be what is told centuries later after reinterpretation.

* That we're not reading the history as told in the Baratheon Era.

But I think the best way to rebut your position @Lord Varys is the fact that we know FOR A FACT that Rhaenyra's defenders are not going to be the kind of people who eventually write the history books. Why? Because there's no way in Hell if they did get to write the history books that they would be filled with the absolute monumental amount of salacious gossip, slander, and trash talking about her that they were.

We also know that at least one of her descendants, Baelor the Blessed, DID try to defend his family lineage from Mushroom's writings but that has since gone on to be semi-accepted historicla accounts in the official histories.

Frankly, I think Rhaenyra's descendants would be less concerned about whether she's considered legitimate queen of Westeros than the massive amount of sexual induendo and slander against her.

Edited September 8, 2022 by C.T. Phipps

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I'm not under the impression that Aegon III didn't care or anything. He point blank says to Manderly in FaB that he served his mother ... presumably while she was the queen. So it is clear how he viewed her then, just as it was clear how he viewed her when he risked his own life trying to defend her.

The most we know about Aegon III as king - or at least the most impactful thing from the text - is the quote he give Manderly et al. when he dismisses them.  And that entirely suggests he wouldn't give two shits about how the maesters depicted the Dance in their histories.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is pretty much no chance that Rhaenyra's descendants would have to fight against 'the scholarly consensus' or 'the majority opinion' on her.

I didn't say they would have had to.  I said, other than Viserys, they wouldn't care.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Offering an opinion whether the mother or grandmother of the current king who claimed to be a ruling queen was in fact a vile pretender isn't the kind of thing you would like to say ...

Except that's totally not how Gyldayn depicts things in Fire & Blook nor Yandel in AWOIAF - and the latter was so far removed he shouldn't even be relevant.

Martin's method of providing "history" was a really creative way of worldbuilding that also makes entire sense to me.  It doesn't for you, apparently - and that's fair enough - but you aren't providing any compelling arguments for why yours would fit better in-universe.