[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

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

We the readers/viewers also know these same exact things when it comes to Rhaenyra/Aegon.  The only difference, again, is agnatic primogeniture and the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children.  Which I would hope in the modern context of us readers/viewers would not be things we really give two shits about.

[SeanF]

52 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

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.

Steven Attwell has pointed out that the Sons of the Harpy actually resemble the original KKK far more than any Middle Eastern terror movement. They brutalise the "uppity" ex-slaves in order to resubjugate them.

The only resemblance that Meereen has to Iraq is that it's hot and arid.  Religiously and socially, they have nothing in common. The foreign imperial powers, intervening in Slavers Bay are Volantis, New Ghis, and Qarth, 

[Stenkarazine]

13 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

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

In a any pre-French revolution society (or their fantasy equivalent) precedent, custom, tradition, become law, eventually. So precedent is binding, in a way. 

Are the laws of Westeros codified somewhere ? Barring a few exceptions (Maegor's laws etc.), no, they are customs, beliefs, precedents that slowly accrue strength through practice. And the rule that son goes before daughter seems, as far as we know, an universal law of all the Kingdoms north of the Dornish marches since time immemorial. 

We can usefully use reductio ad absurdum to illustrate this: 

- Can the King disinherit his children and give the throne to Daemon ? There is no law against that.

- Can the King disinherit his relatives and give the throne to a random peasant he just met ? There is no law against that.

By your reasoning, this random dude would be the "rightful king" and the whole house of Targaryen would be wanna-be usurpers.

 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Stenkarazine said:

In a any pre-French revolution society (or their fantasy equivalent) precedent, custom, tradition, become law, eventually. So precedent is binding, in a way. 

Are the laws of Westeros codified somewhere ? Barring a few exceptions (Maegor's laws etc.), no, they are customs, beliefs, precedents that slowly accrue strength through practice. And the rule that son goes before daughter seems, as far as we know, an universal law of all the Kingdoms north of the Dornish marches since time immemorial. 

We can usefully use reductio ad absurdum to illustrate this: 

- Can the King disinherit his children and give the throne to Daemon ? There is no law against that.

- Can the King disinherit his relatives and give the throne to a random peasant he just met ? There is no law against that.

By your reasoning, this random dude would be the "rightful king" and the whole house of Targaryen would be wanna-be usurpers.

 

A precedent which works against that, however, is the Succession Law of Jaehaerys and Alysanne of 52AC.

Children of first marriages inherit ahead of children of second marriages.

While that does not deal specifically with succession to the Iron Throne, it does enshrine that a daughter can inherit in priority to a son in that particular situation.

[Stenkarazine]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

We the readers/viewers also know these same exact things when it comes to Rhaenyra/Aegon.  The only difference, again, is agnatic primogeniture and the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children.  Which I would hope in the modern context of us readers/viewers would not be things we really give two shits about.

Yes, that is why I said elsewhere that as a reader/viewer steeped in modern times I sympathize with Rhaenyra's arc. But it seems to me we were discussing the issue in regard to the values of the fictional universe in which it takes place. I believe this is the only way of understanding the characters' motivations, but of course one can also judge said characters through the lens of our own values.  

Edited September 30, 2022 by Stenkarazine

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Stenkarazine said:

But it seems to me we were discussing the issue in regard to the values of the fictional universe in which it takes place. I believe this is the only way of understanding the characters' motivations, but of course one can also judge said characters through the lens of our own values.  

No.  My response was specifically about why viewers have little to no reason to support the greens - and why they didn't in the books either.  We all come in with our own values, as does the writer.  Do you think aGoT would have worked as well as it did if Joffrey was as nice of a kid as, say, Tommen?  Or if Jaime and Cersei didn't try to murder a kid at the end of the pilot of the series?

Edited September 30, 2022 by DMC

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

We the readers/viewers also know these same exact things when it comes to Rhaenyra/Aegon.  The only difference, again, is agnatic primogeniture and the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children.

I don't think the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children was as pivotal to the Dance as the bastardy of Cersei's children was to the War of the Five Kings, though.

[Stenkarazine]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  My response was specifically about why viewers have little to no reason to support the greens - and why they didn't in the books either.  We all come in with our own values, as does the writer.  Do you think aGoT would have worked as well as it did if Joffrey was as nice of a kid as, say, Tommen?  Or if Jaime and Cersei didn't try to murder a kid at the end of the pilot of the series?

It is a matter for the reader's taste. Now that you mention it, I find quite entertaining the idea of Joffrey as a decent kid, pursued by the righteous yet murderous vendetta of Stannis. 

 

Edit: Just remembered all these memes about Good King Joffrey.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Stenkarazine

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I don't think the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children was as pivotal to the Dance as the bastardy of Cersei's children was to the War of the Five Kings, though.

It certainly wasn't.  Just wanted to head off that argument at the..head.

[BlackLightning]

5 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

For nobility that was the standard. Especially 'back then' as the cast and crew is want to say. 

It would have been interesting if Rhaenyra despised her children for stealing her freedom and forcing her into a life of domesticity (whereas Alicent was already adept at that with fewer expectations) but instead they showed her to be a loving mother with no qualms against her lack of freedom thereafter. 

Which is fine but they also made Alicent into a horrible mother who's children are chaotic, disrespectful, and often times rewarded for such behavior. 

What you're not understanding is that Alicent is a hypocrite who is blinded by her personal feelings of envy and her loyalty to the political structure that has her "trapped."

That's the core difference between her and Ned Stark. Because for all his faults and mistakes, his children still turn out better than Alicent's.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Stenkarazine said:

And the rule that son goes before daughter seems, as far as we know, an universal law of all the Kingdoms north of the Dornish marches since time immemorial. 

It ain't. That's an illusion. During the Conquest the Sistermen crowned Marla Sunderland their queen who happened to have a brother, Steffon Sunderland, who eventually bent the knee to Aegon and toppled his sister.

It stands to reason that Marla was the Lady of the Three Sisters before she was proclaimed queen of the Three Sisters (else Steffon would have been proclaimed king), and both does mean she rose to power before her brother, meaning equal primogeniture is not exactly anathema or unknown in all the regions of the Seven Kingdoms outside Dorne.

(In fact, it might even be that Marla Sunderland was Steffon's younger sister ... which would then establish a precendent for a younger charismatic sister coming before an inept elder brother. Less likely, of course, but lacking the details we don't know who was the elder sibling there.)

1 hour ago, Stenkarazine said:

We can usefully use reductio ad absurdum to illustrate this: 

- Can the King disinherit his children and give the throne to Daemon ? There is no law against that.

That is not a reductio ad absurdum. Daemon is a Targaryen and a member of the royal family. He does have a blood claim. It would be unusual for the king to disinherit his own children in favor of his brother, but this would be something that could be done and pushed through. Just as installing Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent could have been a greater success.

Disinheriting and passing over people is a thing in Westeros. It is custom and tradition to treat your eldest son as your heir ... but if you don't, if people don't think you view him as your heir, it shouldn't be that hard to push him aside. You see that all the time with Tyrion not being Tywin's heir, with Cat fearing Jon Snow or his children might become a threat to Robb's children, with Daemon Blackfyre's success as a pretender (and the limited success of his sons), with Robert proclaiming himself king, etc.

1 hour ago, Stenkarazine said:

- Can the King disinherit his relatives and give the throne to a random peasant he just met ? There is no law against that.

That would be much more difficult, of course, but the concept of installing an heir you are not related to is also not unknown. Sharra Arryn offers her hand in marriage to Aegon in exchange for him naming her son Ronnel Arryn his heir, Daemon Velaryon, I think, suggests that Jaehaerys marry the Dowager Queen Elinor and adopt her children from her first marriage.

It would be hard to name a peasant your heir, of course, but a peasant with a dragon could have worked (say, one of the dragonseed dragonriders during the Dance).

An interesting question in this context would be who Aegon would have named his heir if he and his sisters had been unable to have children of their own.

[Lord Varys]

And as I said earlier - we do have people arguing for Rhaena's claim in 48 AC, and also people putting forth Laena's claim in 101 AC. Meaning there are people north of the Red Mountains who think that elder daughters should come before younger sons.

And one imagines this is the case because there are regions in the Seven Kingdoms where equal primogeniture was a thing before the Conquest - regions like the Three Sisters and perhaps other places.

[slant]

^And the Eyrie! Oh, and Tarth. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by slant

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Which I would hope in the modern context of us readers/viewers would not be things we really give two shits about.

In western countries, maybe. But in countries like Japan, for example, there is still a huge debate over primogeniture. Under the current laws, the Japanese emperor's only daughter isn't allowed to inherit, so the throne will pass to his brother and then the brother's son.

Also, Spain has a male preference system, where a female can inherit the throne only if there is no male heir.

[Khloey]

14 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

In western countries, maybe. But in countries like Japan, for example, there is still a huge debate over primogeniture. Under the current laws, the Japanese emperor's only daughter isn't allowed to inherit, so the throne will pass to his brother and then the brother's son.

Also, Spain has a male preference system, where a female can inherit the throne only if there is no male heir.

Interesting point. Same goes for France.. Even since the salic law was passed, it prevented any woman or even a male from a female bloodline to take the throne (or any kind of property), unless there were no other options. As such, no Queen has ever ruled in her own name.

But then, thank god we had a Revolution to kick them out (too bad the medias have forgotten about that and keep talking about the Royals in UK ^^)

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Khloey said:

Interesting point. Same goes for France.. Even since the salic law was passed, it prevented any woman or even a male from a female bloodline to take the throne (or any kind of property), unless there were no other options. As such, no Queen has ever ruled in her own name.

But then, thank god we had a Revolution to kick them out (too bad the medias have forgotten about that and keep talking about the Royals in UK ^^)

The Salic Law was an invented tradition, to keep first Joan of Navarre, then Edward III, from the throne.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

In western countries, maybe. But in countries like Japan, for example, there is still a huge debate over primogeniture. Under the current laws, the Japanese emperor's only daughter isn't allowed to inherit, so the throne will pass to his brother and then the brother's son.

I guess the Tenno is a special case in the sense that he is both spiritual leader/god on earth as well as (once) the supreme ruler of Japan. If he was just the head of state the change might be easier.

14 minutes ago, Khloey said:

Interesting point. Same goes for France.. Even since the salic law was passed, it prevented any woman or even a male from a female bloodline to take the throne (or any kind of property), unless there were no other options. As such, no Queen has ever ruled in her own name.

But then, thank god we had a Revolution to kick them out (too bad the medias have forgotten about that and keep talking about the Royals in UK ^^)

The Salic Law was never passed as such, they were citing it as a weirdo justification for passing over a girl in favor of her uncle. As this happened repeatedly with the last Capet Kings it eventually stuck, but it is pretty clear that the later absolutist kings may have decided to name a daughter their heir if they preferred her (like Charles VI of Austria did with Maria Theresa) to some brother or cousin. Nobody would have stopped Louis XIV or Louis XV from naming a daughter their heir.

And it is quite noteworthy that the French kings continued marry very much in the family and usually ended up marrying some cousin or uncle who was in line to inherit if there was no son to a daughter or other close female relation.

[Elaena Targaryen]

I wonder if any matrilineal societies have let a male inherit? The only one I know a very little about does not marry or have a concept of bastards.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Salic Law was never passed as such, they were citing it as a weirdo justification for passing over a girl in favor of her uncle.

I'm not familiar with that bit of history, but I sincerely hope that the uncle never took her to a pleasure house on a fun night out. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Steven Attwell has pointed out that the Sons of the Harpy actually resemble the original KKK far more than any Middle Eastern terror movement. They brutalise the "uppity" ex-slaves in order to resubjugate them.

The only resemblance that Meereen has to Iraq is that it's hot and arid.  Religiously and socially, they have nothing in common. The foreign imperial powers, intervening in Slavers Bay are Volantis, New Ghis, and Qarth, 

The one argument I hate is that the Ironborn parallel the Confederacy/KKK. The South was fertile, prosperous, and had equal representation in federal government. The Iron Islands are impoverished, barren wastelands that the crown completely ignored and granted no political influence (not a single Ironborn council member) or aid even after centuries of loyalty. They have good reason to hate the rest of Westeros.

Edited September 30, 2022 by The Bard of Banefort