[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion

[sifth]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Fun fact:

Is no one commenting on the fact Alicent's argument about the Horse makes NO GODDAMN SENSE?

Because I took Viserys as talking about THEM.

Because Alicent's children look NOTHING like her.

It doesn’t make sense in the original AGoT’s novel either, when Ned figures out about the incest. I mean nearly all of his kids have red hair and he thinks there’s something off with Robert’s being blonde, lol

Edited September 27, 2022 by sifth

[Ran]

Just now, sifth said:

It doesn’t make sense in the original AGoT’s novel either, when Ned figures out about the incest. I mean nearly all of his kids have red hair and he thinks there’s something off with Robert’s being blonde, lol

"Nearly" is not all, and the point Ned comes to is looking at a book of genealogy where it's recorded that every pairing of Baratheon and Lannister, going into the past, has never once yielded a blond child, much less three in a row. That's enough to fit together with what he believed Jon Arryn was killed for (he was wrong!) and what his final words meant, and so he brought it to Cersei, and she of course admitted it.

[sifth]

Just now, Ran said:

"Nearly" is not all, and the point Ned comes to is looking at a book of genealogy where it's recorded that every pairing of Baratheon and Lannister, going into the past, has never once yielded a blond child, much less three in a row. That's enough to fit together with what he believed Jon Arryn was killed for (he was wrong!) and what his final words meant, and so he brought it to Cersei, and she of course admitted it.

Nearly is not all. If not for Arya all of his kids would look more like Cat then himself. Even over looking that, the blonde hair is no evidence at all of incest. Possibly an affair, and even that a long shot.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

Nearly is not all. If not for Arya all of his kids would look more like Cat then himself. Even over looking that, the blonde hair is no evidence at all of incest. Possibly an affair, and even that a long shot.

The proof was Cersei's admission. But given everything else, he was right to suspect it was Jaime specifically, to try and understand why they tried to kill his son as he came to believe. The only "magic" in it is that the Baratheon genes appear to be some sort of super-dominant thing, which is fine but does make one wonder why half the Stormlands aren't black haired and blue eyed... But then, who says they aren't? Heh.

 

[Stenkarazine]

My main problem with this episode is the fact that Daeron has not been mentioned and thus I fear he has been cut entirely from the show. I have read somewhere that he could appear in Season 2 à la Stannis, but running against this hypothese is the fact that the episode had many opportunities (dialogue between Alicent and Aegon; or maybe a throwaway line by Visery while watching his sons training in the yard) to mention him, even in passing, and did not.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Stenkarazine

[C.T. Phipps]

31 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

This bugs me a little. The fact that Otto's and Alicent's fears are treated as delusional or manipulative is not very realistic. Our own Ancient and Medieval times are rife with brothers, nephews, cousins, offing each other at the first opportunity or the merest uncertainty about the succession, so we can assume the same in the setting of Westeros. The fact that Rhaenyra has never given any indication that she would murder her half-brothers on the first day of her reign does not dispel the possibility. I don't think that, to cite but one instance among countless others, Antiochus IV announced to all and sundry that he would liquidate his young nephew as soon as he got a son of his own. Maybe the thought didn't even occur to him before the uncertainty (ie., having a son of his own) occurred. 

No matter what Rhaenyra says or thinks now, the possibility that she (or her partisans) would execute, imprison or at least confine her half-brothers once Viserys dies is very real, and actually highly probable. Simply because she (and her family) have every interest to do so, in the same way that Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, Caligula, the Ottoman Sultans, Catherine the Great and countless others had every interest to do so. Unless somehow Westeros, a realistic Medieval setting in almost every way, verges on idealism on this one particular point.

There's a lot of caveats to what you're saying and ones that are being overlooked in-show.

Specifically, that plenty of these disputed claims did happen but the vast majority of these families usually ended up just naming their family members Dukes and Earls that proceeded to found their own impressive lineages as well. Yes, plenty of these families ended up going to war later on and pressing their claims but the Anarchy itself is resolved by Prince Eustace being given a bunch of castles and left to sulk despite being Stephen's heir with no one attempting to make any revolts against Henry II in his name.

(Mostly because Pope Innocent II effectively ended Stephen's legitimacy despite his predecessor supporting him)

Plus while Maegor the Cruel overthrew his brother, Daemon pointedly DID NOT and has the same sort of claim that Alicent claims Rhaenyra would have to snuff out.

Alicent also ignores an attempt by Rhaenyra (with Viserys' support) to bind the families closer together by marrying her eldest to one of Alicent's children that they can avoid any future bloodshed. Alicent flatly rejects this and continues to support the idea that Rhaenyr'as children are bastards which TRUE OR NOT will get them killed. Which means the only person plotting the death of any children is Alicent. House Velaryon also shows that they could bind Aegon and Aemond's claims back into the Targaryen household generationally without war.

There's also alternatives to Aegon's throne in-universe to murder: The Night's Watch, the Maesters of Old Town, and the Sept.

I'm already imagining Aegon as a particularly corrupt and lecherous High Septon.

Edited September 27, 2022 by C.T. Phipps

[frenin]

41 minutes ago, sifth said:

Nearly is not all. If not for Arya all of his kids would look more like Cat then himself. Even over looking that, the blonde hair is no evidence at all of incest. Possibly an affair, and even that a long shot.

The blonde kids is not evidence of incest but it is certainly evidence of affair, i also don't know how Ned got to the incest either, when all of Robert's kids are coming out his way and all the matches in the pass came out the Baratheon way, something is amiss.

Daeron is not going to appear, his arc seems to be mixed with Aemond's. 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

Just now, frenin said:

The blonde kids is not evidence of incest but it is certainly evidence of affair, i also don't know how Ned got to the incest either, when all of Robert's kids are coming out his way and all the matches in the pass came out the Baratheon way, something is amiss.

Daeron is not going to appear, his arc seems to be mixed with Aemond's.

I think it's because there's not that many people that could be close to the queen. If you wanted to know who could have an affair with the First Lady, your options are limited.

[Stenkarazine]

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

There's a lot of caveats to what you're saying and ones that are being overlooked in-show.

Specifically, that plenty of these disputed claims did happen but the vast majority of these families usually ended up just naming their family members Dukes and Earls that proceeded to found their own impressive lineages as well. Yes, plenty of these families ended up going to war later on and pressing their claims but the Anarchy itself is resolved by Prince Eustace being given a bunch of castles and left to sulk despite being Stephen's heir with no one attempting to make any revolts against Henry II in his name.

(Mostly because Pope Innocent II effectively ended Stephen's legitimacy despite his predecessor supporting him)

Plus while Maegor the Cruel overthrew his brother, Daemon pointedly DID NOT and has the same sort of claim that Alicent claims Rhaenyra would have to snuff out.

Alicent also ignores an attempt by Rhaenyra (with Viserys' support) to bind the families closer together by marrying her eldest to one of Alicent's children that they can avoid any future bloodshed. Alicent flatly rejects this and continues to support the idea that Rhaenyr'as children are bastards which TRUE OR NOT will get them killed. Which means the only person plotting the death of any children is Alicent. House Velaryon also shows that they could bind Aegon and Aemond's claims back into the Targaryen household generationally without war.

There's also alternatives to Aegon's throne in-universe to murder: The Night's Watch, the Maesters of Old Town, and the Sept.

I'm already imagining Aegon as a particularly corrupt and lecherous High Septon.

What you say is true: having more than one heir does not automatically lead up to civil war. In the huge majority of cases, it does not, provided the rules of succession are clear enough and generally accepted. 

But I am saying that, whenever there is an element of uncertainty or ambiguity in a royal succession, then the odds of a brutal resolution of said uncertainty rise dramatically. 

This is why the Roman Empire's succession was so rife with murder during the Julio-Claudian era: because, being a de facto monarchy under the guise of a salvaged republican system, there could be no clear rule of succession. 

Same for the Ottomans: no clear primogeniture amongst the (typically many) sons of the Sultan: that is why for a while they made a habit of automatically strangling all male siblings of the new Sultan.

Your example about Eustace is telling, because, yes, Eustache was basically bought out of his pretensions, but this happened after a civil war (between Stephen and Mathilda) had erupted, and after Eustache had suffered many setbacks, at a point when Mathilda's faction had clearly gotten the upper hand. Your example would be more convincing if this strategy had been used (successfully) in dissuading Stephen from pressing his claims before the war started in earnest.

(One could make the case that, without Aemond killing the Velaryon prince and the Blood&Cheese business, the Dance of Dragons could have resolved in such relatively peaceful manner).

In our case, the element of uncertainty is obvious, even if it seems unfair or trivial to us modern audience: Rhaenyra is a woman, and her inheriting the throne goes against the customs of Westeros and the precedent set by the Great Council of Jaeharys. In this case this is particularly problematic because the alternative heir is not an uncle or, say, a bastard, but a legitimate brother. 

Even if most of the Kingdom accepts peacefully Rhaenyra's proclamation, and even if Aegon and his brothers keep a low profile, there will be people who will try to weaponize them against the Queen, sooner or later (basically as soon as she takes some unpopular decision or offends an ambitious lord or whatever). 

In a nutshell: buying off Aegon and his brothers with the Sept or the Watch could work reasonably well if Rhaenyra was a man. In this situation, it is not enough. We can find this unfair but this is so. 

Hence the only logical step for the Queen is to neutralize her half-brothers as soon as she ascends the throne. She might of course do the human thing and confine them to a relatively decent captivity somewhere in the countryside, under heavy but discrete guard, but even that would be tempting fate. 

Again, I am not saying that Rhaenyra and her faction are already thinking about that. It is just that this will impose itself upon them once they are in power, almost irrepressibly. 

So Otto and Alicent are warranted in seeing the upcoming succession as a matter of life and death. They are all playing the game of thrones, even if they don't want to. 

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Stenkarazine said:

This bugs me a little. The fact that Otto's and Alicent's fears are treated as delusional or manipulative is not very realistic. Our own Ancient and Medieval times are rife with brothers, nephews, cousins, offing each other at the first opportunity or the merest uncertainty about the succession, so we can assume the same in the setting of Westeros. The fact that Rhaenyra has never given any indication that she would murder her half-brothers on the first day of her reign does not dispel the possibility. I don't think that, to cite but one instance among countless others, Antiochus IV announced to all and sundry that he would liquidate his young nephew as soon as he got a son of his own. Maybe the thought didn't even occur to him before the uncertainty (ie., having a son of his own) occurred. 

No matter what Rhaenyra says or thinks now, the possibility that she (or her partisans) would execute, imprison or at least confine her half-brothers once Viserys dies is very real, and actually highly probable. Simply because she (and her family) have every interest to do so, in the same way that Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, Caligula, the Ottoman Sultans, Catherine the Great and countless others had every interest to do so. Unless somehow Westeros, a realistic Medieval setting in almost every way, verges on idealism on this one particular point.

 

Fratricide is not unheard of in Westeros, but  it is not in any way the norm.

Most magnates don’t send their brothers and sisters to the executioner when they assume power.

It’s very unusual for a father to take the view “when I die, you must kill your brother, but if he strikes you down before that, I shall embrace him and name him my heir”, like Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Fratricide is not unheard of in Westeros, but  it is not in any way the norm.

Most magnates don’t send their brothers and sisters to the executioner when they assume power.

It’s very unusual for a father to take the view “when I die, you must kill your brother, but if he strikes you down before that, I shall embrace him and name him my heir”, like Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

Indeed, the Ottoman Empire is considered to be HIGHLY UNUSUAL with the amount of infighting and murder among brothers it engendered.

[frenin]

9 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

Even if most of the Kingdom accepts peacefully Rhaenyra's proclamation, and even if Aegon and his brothers keep a low profile, there will be people who will try to weaponize them against the Queen, sooner or later (basically as soon as she takes some unpopular decision or offends an ambitious lord or whatever). 

Neither sibling is indefense, they are dragonriders. It is quite difficult to weaponize a dragonrider who is not interested on what you have to say.

The only danger there is... Well, if they get ambitious and try and press their claims but then, we're talking about treason, not paranoia.

[Stenkarazine]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Fratricide is not unheard of in Westeros, but  it is not in any way the norm.

Most magnates don’t send their brothers and sisters to the executioner when they assume power.

It’s very unusual for a father to take the view “when I die, you must kill your brother, but if he strikes you down before that, I shall embrace him and name him my heir”, like Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

 

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Indeed, the Ottoman Empire is considered to be HIGHLY UNUSUAL with the amount of infighting and murder among brothers it engendered.

See my previous answer which addresses this. You are referring to scenarii where the rules of succession are not uncertain or contested. The key here is uncertainty, which can impact existing practices quite quickly.

A key example is the Seleucids: during the first half of their reign, the succession was pretty much peaceful and ordained. Yes, some of them got murdered by traitors or mobs, but there was no family infighting. So a man living in Antioch around 175 BC would contend that dynastic infighting is not in any way the norm of the Seleucid Empire. 

Then, from 170 BC to their end a century later, the Seleucids spent their time in endless infighting between cousins, brothers, etc, forever rising against each other and murdering each other with abandon.

What had changed ? The succession had become uncertain, because after the death of Seleucus IV, his brother Antiochus took power, usurping the line of Seleucus. Even if Seleucus' son Demetrius ended up on the throne after the demise of Antiochus' line, this created a new dynamic (one could say a new "norm") of usurpation.

 

[The hairy bear]

Regarding the opening credits:

The execution of a reasonably good idea is absolutely awful. For this episode they maintain the depictions of Aegon I, his sisters, Jaehaerys and Alysanne, Baelon and Alyssa, but they omit Viserys+Aemma, Corlys+Rhaenys, and Otto+Alicent (all of them actual main characters in the show). It makes no sense.

As @Cashless Society says, the additions are:

• Daemon, represented by his winged helmet.
• Laena, represented by something that resembles a ring with a braid motif. Far from a direct association, but Laena has been shown wearing collars with braided patterns both during her walk with Viserys and in her brother's wedding.
• Baela and Rhaena, represented by eggs.
• Jace (represented by Dragonstone), Luce (represented by a dagger) and Joffrey (very hard to see what's being shown there).

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Neither sibling is indefense, they are dragonriders. It is quite difficult to weaponize a dragonrider who is not interested on what you have to say.

The only danger there is... Well, if they get ambitious and try and press their claims but then, we're talking about treason, not paranoia.

I’d suggest that Rhaenyra, if she’s the heir who is disinherited, is the one who’s most likely to face the bowstring.  IMHO, that fear is what motivates Arianne Martell in AFFC.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The proof was Cersei's admission. But given everything else, he was right to suspect it was Jaime specifically, to try and understand why they tried to kill his son as he came to believe. The only "magic" in it is that the Baratheon genes appear to be some sort of super-dominant thing, which is fine but does make one wonder why half the Stormlands aren't black haired and blue eyed... But then, who says they aren't? Heh.

 

There either is magic at play or GRRM doesn’t know how genes work. Sorry, but the Jamie suspicion is a huge leap. GRRM needed to provide a little more evidence to Ned to get him to that point, IMO

Maybe have Jamie slip him a clue during his attack in the street. 

[Stenkarazine]

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

Neither sibling is indefense, they are dragonriders. It is quite difficult to weaponize a dragonrider who is not interested on what you have to say.

The only danger there is... Well, if they get ambitious and try and press their claims but then, we're talking about treason, not paranoia.

To me, the fact that they are dragonriders is an added element weighing in favour of neutralizing them. Imagine the threat if but one of the brothers decided to press his claim. 

 

[Stenkarazine]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I’d suggest that Rhaenyra, if she’s the heir who is disinherited, is the one who’s most likely to face the bowstring.  IMHO, that fear is what motivates Arianne Martell in AFFC.

I totally agree. I contend that Otto's fear is not unfounded, but in the reverse scenario, Rhaenyra, having been the official heir for more than ten years (and supported by the powerful House of Velaryon), would have even less chance to preserve her life or at least her freedom.

Basically my point comes down to the fact that, thanks to the idiotic decisions of Viserys, there is no way that this does not end up in a more or less violent power struggle, and so it is a bit unfair to portray Alicent's fear as unfounded or just a pretext for scheming. As someone wrote earlier in this thread, Viserys could name his daughter heir, or remarry and father boys, but he could not have both. And therefore he will have war on his deathbed.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Stenkarazine

[Tywin's Wallet]

23 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The Blacks are not good guys but their cause is the just one...which makes them the good guys. To cheat and rob Rhaenyra of her birthright is treason, to let their Viserys rot in his chambers for over week is just twisted and disrespectful (doubly so for people who swear that they are championing honor and decency) and to let Aemond off of his leash was insane

 

This! Also them changing the banner to green just screams theft! I know the surface reason is that it's hard to distinguish banners in battle. But it also sends a clear message of out right robbery. Blacks supporters was probably like that's not the house my ancestors bent the knee to screw that!. That s**t is Hightower takeover.  I wouldn't fall for it either and go straight to team black.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Tywin's Wallet
context

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

I totally agree. I contend that Otto's fear is not unfounded, but in the reverse scenario, Rhaenyra, having been the official heir for more than ten years (and supported by the powerful House of Velaryon), would have even less chance to preserve her life or at least her freedom.

Basically my point comes down to the fact that, thanks to the idiotic decisions of Viserys, there is no way that this does not end up in a more or less violent power struggle, and so it is a bit unfair to portray Alicent's fear as unfounded or just a pretext for scheming. As someone wrote earlier in this thread, Viserys could name his daughter heir, or remarry and father boys, but he could not have both. And therefore he will have war on his deathbed.

Certainly once you have sat the Iron Throne, or claimed it, there is no way you can stand down, and expect to survive.

One of the many stupidities of Season 8 of GOT was the notion that Daenerys should stand down in favour ofJon.