Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, RumHam said:

He's killing it, and is so skeevy that I might even be ok with the foot thing. There was a moment where she joined him for dinner and took of her shoes and he said "I started without you" and I was like "oh no..."

By the way since Laena claimed Vhaegar at 15 that kills the "they cut a scene of her claiming him during Alicent and Visery's wedding" idea. 

Edit: I also meant to say it sucks that Harwin really only got to be a character for one episode. Did he even have a line before this? 

He's a little too skeevy to me. Like so blatantly skeevy that all other character should see through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, although as I asked George himself on his NAB a couple of years back ... it is quite odd to have Otto Hightower as a bad Hand considering he served two peace-and-plenty kings. He may have helped to cause or even orchestrated a succession war, but that doesn't necessarily undo all the good he did during the decades of his long service (although we didn't yet know at that the time that Viserys dismissed and reinstated Otto as Hand).

But one can certainly say that his stint in office under Aegon II wasn't exactly a success.

That's what I was getting at when I said I don't think its fair to say Otto was one of the worst Hands ever. He served 3 different kings over the span of 20 years and apart from 129 AC the realm was peaceful as well as prosperous, which makes sense when you consider that Gyldayn describes him as being a very methodical man.

Speaking of that, I think Otto's lack of success under Aegon II stems more or less from the fact his efforts only bore fruit AFTER he was stripped of office. We know for a fact he was responsible for bringing in the Triarchy, not to mention the terms he offered them, but he also strengthened the defenses of KL and sent out riders as well as ravens that may account for some of the houses that ended up declaring for the Greens. (Its frustrating how much more page-time the Blacks get in F & B, not to mention the Riverlands alone raising multiple armies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

That's what I was getting at when I said I don't think its fair to say Otto was one of the worst Hands ever. He served 3 different kings over the span of 20 years and apart from 129 AC the realm was peaceful as well as prosperous, which makes sense when you consider that Gyldayn describes him as being a very methodical man.

Speaking of that, I think Otto's lack of success under Aegon II stems more or less from the fact his efforts only bore fruit AFTER he was stripped of office. We know for a fact he was responsible for bringing in the Triarchy, not to mention the terms he offered them, but he also strengthened the defenses of KL and sent out riders as well as ravens that may account for some of the houses that ended up declaring for the Greens. (Its frustrating how much more page-time the Blacks get in F & B, not to mention the Riverlands alone raising multiple armies.)

I suppose it depends on how you define a good hand because depending on your position on the Black and Green divide, Otto was a traitor to two kings.

1. Working against Viserys to undermine his decisions and promote his own interests.

2. Betraying Rhaenyra to put up his own candidate.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I suppose it depends on how you define a good hand because depending on your position on the Black and Green divide, Otto was a traitor to two kings.

1. Working against Viserys to undermine his decisions and promote his own interests.

2. Betraying Rhaenyra to put up his own candidate.

That certainly would color one's assessment of him. And thanks for answering my question about Stephen of Blois. Dude sounds like he was a real piece of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ran

 

Were this olden times and GRRM still easily accessible by DM'ing on Livejournal, I would ask him this, but since that era is long past us, I'll pose this to you:  are the Maesters and the other physicians aware of embryotomy?  In both the case of Aemma and now Laena the only option for an obstructed birth has been Caesarean, but in the actual Middle Ages any university trained physician (though perhaps they would leave its actual performance to barber-surgeons?) would've been familiar with al-Zahrawi, who describes the other option (and gives illustrations of the necessary tools).  This, was, of course, the gruesome destruction of the fetus and its removal in chunks.   I'm aware that in the actual *Fire and Blood* neither Aemma nor Laena are described as dying of a Caesarean or that there was a suggestion of one.  Especially in Laena's case, she delivers the baby and *then* dies.

 

The fact that the show went with a Caesarean twice (well the suggestion of one in the latter case) strikes me as unrealistic.  Especially as Laena as show in the show would've been a good case for embryotomy - Daemon certainly seemed like he would've chosen to kill the child to attempt to save her life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jurble said:

@Ran

 

Were this olden times and GRRM still easily accessible by DM'ing on Livejournal, I would ask him this, but since that era is long past us, I'll pose this to you:  are the Maesters and the other physicians aware of embryotomy?  In both the case of Aemma and now Laena the only option for an obstructed birth has been Caesarean, but in the actual Middle Ages any university trained physician (though perhaps they would leave its actual performance to barber-surgeons?) would've been familiar with al-Zahrawi, who describes the other option (and gives illustrations of the necessary tools).  This, was, of course, the gruesome destruction of the fetus and its removal in chunks.   I'm aware that in the actual *Fire and Blood* neither Aemma nor Laena are described as dying of a Caesarean or that there was a suggestion of one.  Especially in Laena's case, she delivers the baby and *then* dies.

 

The fact that the show went with a Caesarean twice (well the suggestion of one in the latter case) strikes me as unrealistic.  Especially as Laena as show in the show would've been a good case for embryotomy - Daemon certainly seemed like he would've chosen to kill the child to attempt to save her life.

Isn't that exactly what happened? She had blood on her dress but wasn't soaked in it. Laena seems to have not wanted her life saved at the expense of the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Isn't that exactly what happened? She had blood on her dress but wasn't soaked in it. Laena seems to have not wanted her life saved at the expense of the child.

No, the doctor says he's very sorry and they can try opening the womb to remove the infant, but that the mother wouldn't survive.  There's no indication an embryotomy is an option, the only choice is apparently letting both die or attempting to save the infant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

That's what I was getting at when I said I don't think its fair to say Otto was one of the worst Hands ever. He served 3 different kings over the span of 20 years and apart from 129 AC the realm was peaceful as well as prosperous, which makes sense when you consider that Gyldayn describes him as being a very methodical man.

As I said, it is also not 'fair' to say that Maegor was a bad Hand considering he apparently did nothing of note as Hand aside from ruling jointly with Aenys.

That said, though, we don't know how great Otto's own contribution to the management of the prosperity of the kingdom was. In the 100s Viserys himself was still very active, and whether the Realm was still as prosperious in the 120s we don't actually know. But he certainly made no bad job at that time.

37 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Speaking of that, I think Otto's lack of success under Aegon II stems more or less from the fact his efforts only bore fruit AFTER he was stripped of office. We know for a fact he was responsible for bringing in the Triarchy, not to mention the terms he offered them, but he also strengthened the defenses of KL and sent out riders as well as ravens that may account for some of the houses that ended up declaring for the Greens. (Its frustrating how much more page-time the Blacks get in F & B, not to mention the Riverlands alone raising multiple armies.)

Otto's great failure is that (1) he caused a succession crisis, and (2) he allowed it to devolve into a war, and (3) he failed to win the war for his pretender. Had he won and had his king not dismissed him in disgrace, he may have been remembered quite differently.

Otto is at the heart of it all - he made Rhaenyra the Heir Apparent, after all. He also married his daughter to Viserys.

And while Otto's alliance-making and scheming could have served the Greens better in the sense that it could have prevented a further escalation of the war it is equally clear that the Triarchy's wouldn't necessarily have done a better job if Rhaenys and Meleys had still been around.

The point just is the man made a massive blunder assuming the Realm wouldn't back Rhaenyra. And the show depicts this quite well. He thinks there will be war on Aegon's (!) behalf even before he is actually fully committed to replace Rhaenyra with Aegon as heir.

As it happens, though, it seems there was only a war because there was a Green coup. If Aegon hadn't been crowned there may have been neither a war nor a succession struggle. Things could have gone nearly as smoothly as in 101-103 AC.

After all, we should not fool ourselves that Viserys/Daemon and Corlys/Rhaenys had not been capable of plunging the war into a succession war. They were - that's why Jaehaerys called the Great Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Yeah. Rhaenys and Laena's claims were "immediately dismissed" if I remember the text correctly.

Not immediately - those were the obscure folks. Rhaenys didn't really push her own claim, but put forth that of her son because Laenor hadn't been around in 92 AC when Jaehaerys made his earlier ruling. They also considered the claims of Laena and Rhaenys, apparently, but they were not pushed by the Velaryons and their allies.

Although it has to be noted that equal primogeniture isn't a completely unknown concept outside of Dorne. There were people speaking for Laena at the Great Council, presumably because she was the eldest child of Rhaenys (although I'm not sure how much sense this makes considering that her mother still lives - I guess there may have been people who felt that Jaehaerys' ruling invalidated Rhaenys' own claim but not the transfer of her claim to her children.

And we also have those folks championing equal primogeniture back after Maegor's death by the people who consider Rhaena a potential ruling queen instead of Aerea or Jaehaerys. And there was some sense to this - after all, Rhaena was the eldest grandchild of the Conqueror over a decade older than Jaehaerys, and groomed to rule alongside her brother Aegon by both Aegon I and her father Aenys.

Jaehaerys is basically Aenys' Vaegon. An obscure third son who would have been overshadowed by his brothers had they lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weirdo notion regarding the grand prophecy thing:

Might they fix 'the Arya problem' from HotD by giving the Starks Targaryen blood at some point in HotD, possibly at the very end of the show?

The best way would be via the Pact of Ice and Fire - if Jace doesn't end up marrying Sara Snow, he could marry Baela before his death, having a posthumous daughter who, as per the terms of the agreement, is eventually married to Cregan's son and heir. Now, we would then have to assume that this son did continue the main branch of House Stark eventually leading to Ned and children - which he doesn't seem to be doing in the book - but that could easily enough be implied in the show.

It would be also a nice touch to see Jace being the founder of this bloodline since Rhaenyra did indeed kind of channel Ned there with her 'You are a Targaryen, and that's all that counts.'

Could be another great 'Fuck you!' to D&D by putting the Targaryens (kind of) back at the heart of the story where they likely will be in the book series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After rewatching the episode:

Olivia actually has naked feet in the scene, at least that's what I think you can see in the scene where the servant enters.

One also imagines that the symbology there was kind of botched by the cut. Larys having a bee as his personal sigil and showing of the blossom in the end kind of implies that he lusts for Alicent's honey - something she has so far denied him but which he expects to claim eventually. One imagines the cut feet scene was to imply that Alicent was still keeping him at arm's length.

How this version of Larys is going to choose a beheading in the end is quite odd. It is also odd in the book, of course, but in the book it wasn't clear that Larys was behind the fire ... nor had we reason to believe he would be willing to murder a father and a brother he had no issues with that we know of. In the show he did that, setting him on a pretty clear villain's path, whereas in the book he could have better motives if he actually did it.

Although in the book he is pretty much a hero in the end, doing away with the crippled pretender and installing Aegon III in his place. Larys Strong more or less singlehandedly ended the Dance. Corlys would have neither survived Aegon II's restoration nor been able to rid the Realm of the king without Larys whispering in his ear and convincing him that poison was queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the new actresses - I think Emma continues Emily's take on Rhaenyra as a reserved woman who hides her emotion pretty well. She rarely loses her temper or lets people see her true self, that was something Milly also handled well.

Olivia's Alicent looks very convincingly older and like a multiple mother ... but you just don't get where the hell her resentment comes from. Nor where her seemingly sudden interest in the ruling of the Realm comes from.

Emma's Rhaenyra and Viserys show a very touching scene in the beginning, indicating that they are still or again very close ... making it quite odd that Alicent could maneuver herself into a position where she is running things more and more.

In the book Rhaenyra leaves court in the later 110s because she and Alicent no longer get along, but her father isn't particularly sick nor is her party at court weak(ened). Her family only permanently resides on Dragonstone after the Aemond incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on your discussion it seems that any succession conflict happened before the heir was named, not after it before Viserys I. The only exception to that is Maegor the cruel who killed the ruling King & became an usurper King. 

 

As per what has been shown in the show, the Hightowers themselves are propogating the installation of Aegon II over Rhaenyra amongst the lords since his birth. It has nothing to do with Rhaenyra's capabilities as a ruler but about her not being male. So this faction didn't start due to discontent of the lords but with the backing of the Queen's family. That is why Otto is sure that realm would not accept her as a Queen. Because their faction is actively working against the King's decision. 

 

It is just ironic that Otto who castigated Daemon for being like Maegor the cruel, himself ended up being instrumental for fighting against the rightful heir & supporting an usurper. 

The biggest failure for Green faction was that they couldn't prove to Viserys that Aegon II was a worthy heir over Rhaenyra. It isn't as if Rhaenyra is not giving them chances with her lapses. But she is still better than Aegon II on her merits. Also by later marrying Daemon & having legitimate heirs which couldn't be contested she somehow nullified the damage caused by her bastard sons. Plus her family seems to have been a tight supporting unit for Jace.  Frankly if the same Rhaenyra was a boy, would there even be a conflict?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...