[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion

[C.T. Phipps]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Other than agnatic primogeniture and the bastardy - both of which are covered in the show - the books don't give a compelling reason to support the greens either.  At least at this point.

I mean, that's part of the appeal of the show that this is a conflict that consumes much of Westeros and destroys the dynasty.

It's not Daenyers vs. slavery or "I don't want it" vs. The White Walkers.

[Stenkarazine]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Same reason to support Ned's position in aGoT - Rhaenyra is the rightful heir.

She isn't, though.

[Khloey]

8 hours ago, slant said:

I had told my friends who have not read the books that the world will be divided into Greens and Blacks, and that people would declare their allegiance to one side, have badges on social media, and it would become a big thing. They are not even noticing the colour coding of Alicent, and all of them are unanimously supporting Rhaenyra. 

By now, we should have seen the two camps in the show... now these friends are unanimously supporting Rhaenyra. Guess the show makes supporting Alicent indefensible, even if people like Viserys. They are pitting some crazed jealousy against a willful princess who has not really done anything wrong, even her husband is supporting her children.

I am bit disappointed in the show just because they did not set up two equally compelling camps. Thinking, they had to give the Greens more compelling reasons beyond agnatic primogeniture, which no one really cares about anyway. GoT was so much more fun, because at least people could support the Greyjoys, Baratheons, Lannisters, Starks or Targaryens and celebrate the houses they supported. This show is giving very little room for that.  

Hum.. no. The fans supported Starks and Dany, GOT never gave any good reasons to support the Greyjoys, Baratheons or the Lannisters (especially in the first season, and this is HOTD's first season. The show cannot be judged and compared to GOT yet, it's too soon).

Yes Tyrion and Jaime were made likeable and even Tywin was admired for his ruthlessness (Kudos to Charles Dance), but no one was actually rooting for them to keep the Iron Throne.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

9 hours ago, slant said:

all of them are unanimously supporting Rhaenyra.  

Again, this was pretty much also the case among readers before HOTD was made, wich was a surprise to GRRM.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean, that's part of the appeal of the show that this is a conflict that consumes much of Westeros and destroys the dynasty.

It's not Daenyers vs. slavery or "I don't want it" vs. The White Walkers.

I’ve come across people on Quora who root for the slavers.  They tend to be people who post on the same site about The War of Northern Aggression.

I haven’t encountered any supporters of the Others.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I’ve come across people on Quora who root for the slavers.  They tend to be people who post on the same site about The War of Northern Aggression.

I haven’t encountered any supporters of the Others.

I have. It's like, "Westeros sucks so much, have the zombies eat it."

[EggBlue]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I’ve come across people on Quora who root for the slavers.  They tend to be people who post on the same site about The War of Northern Aggression.

I haven’t encountered any supporters of the Others.

 

13 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I have. It's like, "Westeros sucks so much, have the zombies eat it."

to be honest , the argument for the Others (the misunderstood heros!) makes much more sense than that of Slavers.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

 

to be honest , the argument for the Others (the misunderstood heros!) makes much more sense than that of Slavers.

I agree.  I found myself so disliking the Starks, Tyrion & co., by the end of the show, that I did find myself wondering if the Night King ought to have won.

He was male, a native, and a warrior, everything the people of the Seven Kingdoms wanted in their ruler.

[C.T. Phipps]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I agree.  I found myself so disliking the Starks, Tyrion & co., by the end of the show, that I did find myself wondering if the Night King ought to have won.

He was male, a native, and a warrior, everything the people of the Seven Kingdoms wanted in their ruler.

In my Game of Thrones tabletop RPG, I had the revelation the Others were invading Westeros because an ancient pact that ceded the North above the Wall to them had been broken by letting the Wildlings live there.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I haven’t encountered any supporters of the Others.

We still don't even know what they want, which makes it a bit hard to support them. They definitely need a new PR manager.

[slant]

I really liked Theon's arc and the Greyjoys in general. For a time I believed him to be the PTWP lol (maybe have outlined the reasons in some old thread). 

Anyway, more than surprise of most people supporting Rhaenyra... It is more like, okay both Rhaenyra and Alicent want their kids to sit on the Iron Throne, and right now even Rhaenys and Daemon are the strong contenders to get it after the eventual death of Viserys. Characters such as Larys Strong just add to the confusion. 

The book was just borderline torture to read, it was depressing. Would not have gone through with it if it were not for better understanding the history of Westeros.

Basically main problem is show has not yet made it clear that there are two camps here and that Greens and Blacks are even a thing. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, EggBlue said:

 

to be honest , the argument for the Others (the misunderstood heros!) makes much more sense than that of Slavers.

It can be quite blackly funny to compare/contrast, the arguments in favour of Ghiscari masters with the arguments in favour of the Confederacy.  Usually, it's along the lines of slavery is their culture/way of life, the masters feed and shelter their slaves, whereas they'd just starve to death as free people, and emancipation/reconstruction just made things worse for everyone.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It can be quite blackly funny to compare/contrast, the arguments in favour of Ghiscari masters with the arguments in favour of the Confederacy.  Usually, it's along the lines of slavery is their culture/way of life, the masters feed and shelter their slaves, whereas they'd just starve to death as free people, and emancipation/reconstruction just made things worse for everyone.

That is probably the biggest argument that George R.R. Martin failed in his depiction there. Because I believe he was trying to do a critique of the Iraq War.

And...well, slavery apologia leaked all over it because those were the arguments of the Confederates. My ancestors. Assholes.

[Winterfell is Burning]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

Same reason to support Ned's position in aGoT - Rhaenyra is the rightful heir.

As discussed many, many times: depends on who you ask.

 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

As discussed many, many times: depends on who you ask.

 

 

Same could be said for Joffrey v Stannis.

Edited September 30, 2022 by DMC
could not good

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

From the latest Notablog:

Quote

With Sunday’s episode, Emma d’Arcy and Olivia Cooke took over as the adult versions of the characters. I think you will love them too. Or hate them, maybe. Love/hate. Westeros, like the real world, is full of complex characters, capable of both good and evil.

I don't know, I think GRRM will again be surprised by the fact that most viewers almost unanimously hate Alicent.

[Stenkarazine]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Same could be said for Joffrey v Stannis.

Not really.

Greens vs. Blacks is a case of competing legitimacies (legitimacy having been fragmented by the idiotic decisions of King Visery to: a) appoint Rhanerya heir, b) remarry and father sons). 

You can decide to give more weigh to one claim over the other, but it would be disingenuous to deny wholesale the other claim. Ie., you can prefer Rhaenyra's claim (because you think that the king can alter the laws of succession as he sees fit - this in itself is an interesting topic to discuss), but it would be dishonest to shrug off Aegon's claim as baseless usurpation.

In Joffrey's case, we the readers/viewers know that he has no right to the throne whatsoever. Stannis has the only serious claim*

* Which admittedly doesn't amount to much since he derives said claim for his brother's usurpation - that's why I always found Stannis' soliloquies to ring hollow. If Stannis and Eddard Stark cared so much about legitimacy and honour, they should have insisted on the accession of young Viserys III.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Stenkarazine

[Winterfell is Burning]

Just now, Stenkarazine said:

Not really.

Greens vs. Blacks is a case of competing legitimacies (legitimacy having been fragmented by the idiotic decisions of King Visery to: a) appoint Rhanerya heir, b) remarry and father sons). 

You can decide to give more weigh to one claim over the other, but it would be disingenuous to deny wholesale the other claim. Ie., you can prefer Rhaenyra's claim (because you think that the king can alter the laws of succession as he sees fit - this in itself is an interesting topic to discuss), but it would be dishonest to shrug off Aegon's claim as baseless usurpation.

In Joffrey's case, we the readers/viewers know that he has no claim whatsoever. Stannis has the only serious claim (which admittedly doesn't amount to much since he derives said claim for his brother's usurpation - that's why I always found Stannis' claims hollow, from a legitimist point of view). 

Exactly. And both of them ironically enough have a better claim than Viserys did when he became heir, which is one of the many, many reasons Viserys actions (combined with the fact he decides to bring back as Hand the guy pushing Aegon's claim) are just awfully stupid.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

19 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

You can decide to give more weigh to one claim over the other, but it would be disingenuous to deny wholesale the other claim. Ie., you can prefer Rhaenyra's claim (because you think that the king can alter the laws of succession as he sees fit - this in itself is an interesting topic to discuss), but it would be dishonest to shrug off Aegon's claim as baseless usurpation.

There is no law of succession, though, there is only precedent. And precedent is not binding.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

[El Guapo]

4 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

There is no law of succession, though, there is only precedent. And pecedent is not binding.

Yes which is why when Otto first put up Rhaenyra’s name as heir nobody said it was against the law only that it was against tradition.