[Spoilers] Episode 109 Discussion

[Rockroi]

Just now, DMC said:

The other side of the coin on the terrible stupidity of nobility - it wouldn't have been honorable.

That's worse.  

[Lord Varys]

58 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Uh, no. That they are whitewashing all of the female characters is my point. Alicent was a cool schemer in the books who left her husband's body to rot while she staged a coup. Now she is a tragic victim determined to defend her son, stop the cruelties of men, and save the realm after she misinterpreted her husband's dying words. Her and Otto were clearly in cahoots in the books; here she didn't even know he was planning anything until it was unraveling before her.

Well, Alicent is treated like a little child by the Green Council in the book when they exclude her from their (childish) 'blood oath'.

While the book Alicent is clearly meaner and a clearer villain, we should not pretend we know her well enough to determine whether she or Otto called the shots at that time. It is Otto who presides over the council meeting, not the queen. And he arranges everything, not Alicent.

Book Alicent certainly loathes Rhaenyra and wants Aegon to be king, but she only steps up when she has to (i.e. when no men are around who could rule in her stead). In that sense she is always more pawn than player, always more an evil woman ruling with feminine wiles, whispering in her husband's or her son's ears (right down to the end, where she has poor Aegon reject the black) rather than coming to the fore and doing something all by herself.

The reading of FaB of Alicent as this big conspirator/player also plays into the general patriarchal/anti-woman reading of such wars. Just think of Graves' portrayal of Livia, which follows quite a few portrayals of the woman from Roman times. If something is amiss it was the woman - and the heart of the conflict must be the rivalry between two women and not to a larger degree the ambitious and pettiness of 'evil men'.

It was a great take of the show to turn things around to a point and show Otto and his council cronies in the blackest light possible.

As a conflict, both in book and show, the Dance would be something greater than two women and their children not getting along. And now we see this.

In that context it is also great that they start to portray the Greens as not exactly a united power bloc, especially not the royal family. And we are going to see similar things with the Blacks. We know what's going to happen to Rhaenyra's marriage, and I hope they'll also bury the idea that the half-brothers on Dragonstone all got along ... or that Daemon loved his stepsons as much as Aegon and Viserys.

When they take KL they are down to Joffrey and Aegon, so it would not surprise me if Daemon would see his son as Rhaenyra's heir rather than the last Strong boy.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

He would be considered regent to the heir until he came of age. Otherwise, he is usurping his nephews’ rights. 

Aemond basically consider usurping Aegon's place. Why should he care about toddlers?

And in context: They discuss the succession of King Viserys I, not the succession of Aegon II. Aegon's heir might be his son Jaehaerys if he names his heir, but Viserys' heir could easily enough be his second son rather than his grandson by his eldest son if people feel like it. Just as Baelon succeeded Aemon as heir ... and Jaehaerys apparently considered naming Vaegon his heir rather than a grandchild or great-grandchild.

[DMC]

Just now, Rockroi said:

But my point was only that in 1964 people thought X.  I'm trying to show how people back then hoped that if he won, the job would change him.  I'm not trying to say that Goldwater was not THAT bad (he ... he may still have been but not my argument); just that he clearly worried people in 1964. 

I know, I just wanted to clarify.  And also add that this is somewhat of an exaggeration due to the Daisy ad.  He wasn't considered THAT crazy by the political elite, or his constituents.  It's just LBJ made him out to be.

[C.T. Phipps]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Goldwater was an "extremist" based on the composition of the Republican party at that time.  These days 1964 Goldwater would be something akin to John McCain - who replaced and admired him.

I mean, Goldwater laid the groundwork for the extremists of today. The Republicans have consistently gotten worse in their leadership (no statement on the electorate) and pandered more and more to radicals from Nixon to Reagan to Bush II and now Trump with HW as a sort of blip.

But you can't say it wasn't them creating the road.

This is a bit off topic, though.

And yes, the job doesn't change you. It just makes you more of who you are.

Aegon is utterly unfit for the throne. Is Aemond better? An interesting question since he becomes a monster.

Edited October 17, 2022 by C.T. Phipps

[butterweedstrover]

Look, the peasants aren't real people in a show like this. It's like complaining about that nameless guard. 

The story doesn't empathize with them, the visuals don't empathize with them, the characters don't empathize with them. They are irrelevant set dressing who die in order to show off how important the nobility are. 

Initially I thought the show having Rhaenyra say the small folk don't matter was foreshadowing troubles in her perception that will lead to problems as queen. But I was wrong, it was a very sober observation as to the reality of the fact.  

[Lord Varys]

47 minutes ago, teej6 said:

So I watched the scene again when Ser Erryk picks her up… no armor then. maybe she carries an armor suit on Meleys, who knows. Maybe, I’ll enjoy these shows better if I stop caring about continuity and logical progression in scenes. 

I expected she left it with her dragon. May be standard practice for her when flying on a dragon, especially over longer distances.

By the way:

Really glad they dropped 'the blood oath'. That was always a silly scene, possibly something the chroniclers invented to spice things up or tone down the fact that most of these people must have been co-conspirators for a very long time - as they are presented in the show.

Must say I also enjoyed how Alicent put Jasper Wylde into his place. Who the hell does this guy think he is?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, IFR said:

It's tactically foolish, and it essentially reveals Viserys had a moral imperative to the crown because Rhaenys is an insane despot, and if there are no significant repercussions to this action (eg Rhaenys is immediately imprisoned by the Blacks when she tries to defect to them) then it will be an utter failure in the narrative.

Again, most every Targaryen dragonrider would have done the same thing for their dragon.  So if she's an "insane despot," they all are.  It's absurd to think it'd be an "utter failure in the narrative," but you do you.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

Look, the peasants aren't real people in a show like this. It's like complaining about that nameless guard.

Which we do.

[Corvinus85]

When the highborn play their game of thrones it is the smallfolk who suffer.

True in the timeline of the main novels and true now. 

[RumHam]

40 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

Rhaenys isn't a fool.  The High Septon of the Faith was standing in the line of fire next to the Targaryens.  If Rhaenys and her dragon had killed him (and I believe there was at least one other priest of the Faith there too), the Faith would have revolted against Driftmark and anyone else with whom Rhaenys was affiliated.  The dragons remaining in the Dragonpit of King's Landing probably would have been killed by the Faith months/years early. 

This is a bit of a leap. Even if the faith somehow rallied people to slaughter the pit dragons, which I doubt they could do as the people weren't so desperate and starving and fearful yet, it'd still be dragons vs no dragons. The new high septon would have to be stupidly devout to revolt against the throne. 

I assume Rhaenys just didn't see it as her place or job to burn them to death. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

There was something so sweet and sad about how Helaena looked ashamed that Aegon wasn't with her when Otto and Alicent came looking for her. I also think it's a nice touch that she's clearly Otto's favorite grandchild.

I think that Alicent misinterpreting Viserys' last words was a poor addition. No one is going to believe her anyway, it would have worked just fine for her to be torn over installing Aegon based on her fear for his safety. 

[TormundsWoman]

5 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I will ask you a question:

Would it be easier to kill 100 strangers or your own family?

It’s not only that she would be a kinslayer but she at this point knows that Alicent is trying negotiations. That’s what Alicent told her and the reason why she was holding Rhaenys and Meleys. If the opposition  is trying to negotiate and you do not know for sure Rhaenyra herself would want her step brothers and her sister dead and YOU don’t want to burn your niece and nephews yourself, why burn them?! Rhaenys’ objective here wasn’t to stop a usurper, it’s to get herself free from King’s Landing and not be held hostage. Definitely reasonable actions from where she’s sitting. I find it difficult to see why everyone expected her to kill her Targaryen fam en mass to be honest. Thats Otto Hightower not Rhaenys.

also hindsight and meta judging is not the point. We all know it would have probably saved some lives but Rhaenys is not us so there’s that.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean, Goldwater laid the groundwork for the extremists of today.

Of course.  He precipitated Reagan who precipitated Gingrich, etc.  It's still important to put his beliefs in context.  Also, he became increasingly libertarian after 64.

[TormundsWoman]

6 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Look, the peasants aren't real people in a show like this. It's like complaining about that nameless guard. 

The story doesn't empathize with them, the visuals don't empathize with them, the characters don't empathize with them. They are irrelevant set dressing who die in order to show off how important the nobility are. 

Initially I thought the show having Rhaenyra say the small folk don't matter was foreshadowing troubles in her perception that will lead to problems as queen. But I was wrong, it was a very sober observation as to the reality of the fact.  

Haha have you finally watched the ep?! How are you bitching about it if you’ve not seen it yet?!?! Someone said it earlier: this ep was made for you!

[The Bard of Banefort]

I think the problem is more the framing of Rhaenys' scene. It's clearly supposed to be a triumphant girlboss moment, but instead most of us were distracted by all the human casualties and Rhaenys' smug indifference. 

[C.T. Phipps]

Just now, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think the problem is more the framing of Rhaenys' scene. It's clearly supposed to be a triumphant girlboss moment, but instead most of us were distracted by all the human casualties and Rhaenys' smug indifference. 

Eh, I think that added to the scene.

Because now the Smallfolk will remember Aegon as a weak king who was at Rhaenys' mercy. His coronation is now a massacre.

[IFR]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, most every Targaryen dragonrider would have done the same thing for their dragon.  So if she's an "insane despot," they all are.  It's absurd to think it'd be an "utter failure in the narrative," but you do you.

By that sense, any Targaryen would also end a future civil war by killing their enemies. Rhaenys was satisfied with masscring a slew of bystanders and letting her enemies go.

Anyway, if that works for you, I suppose there's nothing more to be said. We disagree, and that's fine.

[C.T. Phipps]

BTW, I missed some dialogue. Was Otto planning on killing Rhaenyra's children as well? I want to be clear for my review.

[Lord Varys]

There is a considerable chance that the whole 'the dragons trample and crush the smallfolk all the time' will have a pretty big payoff eventually.

I mean, they are going to storm the Dragonpit, no? And this cannot and should not come out of the blue.

Think back to the poor Targaryen sycophant in episode 3.

And to be clear - Rhaenys doesn't kill those people. Her dragon does, simply by breaking through the boards and moving herself. That cannot be helped in context. It is very ugly, of course, but still different from intentional dragon attacks.

3 minutes ago, TormundsWoman said:

It’s not only that she would be a kinslayer but she at this point knows that Alicent is trying negotiations. That’s what Alicent told her and the reason why she was holding Rhaenys and Meleys. If the opposition  is trying to negotiate and you do not know for sure Rhaenyra herself would want her step brothers and her sister dead and YOU don’t want to burn your niece and nephews yourself, why burn them?! Rhaenys’ objective here wasn’t to stop a usurper, it’s to get herself free from King’s Landing and not be held hostage. Definitely reasonable actions from where she’s sitting. I find it difficult to see why everyone expected her to kill her Targaryen fam en mass to be honest. Thats Otto Hightower not Rhaenys.

also hindsight and meta judging is not the point. We all know it would have probably saved some lives but Rhaenys is not us so there’s that.

Thing is, Rhaenys does have two granddaughters who are betrothed to Rhaenyra's sons. Even if she kept Driftmark out of the war for some reason, Baela and Rhaena would either be targeted or might end up joining the war effort on Rhaenyra's side out of loyalty to their future husbands.

The betrothals should have come up in the Alicent-Rhaenys talk, with Alicent making counter offers to Jace and Luke (Aemond or Daeron), so that Rhaenys could actually gain something out of declaring for Aegon.

6 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think that Alicent misinterpreting Viserys' last words was a poor addition. No one is going to believe her anyway, it would have worked just fine for her to be torn over installing Aegon based on her fear for his safety. 

Regardless how you view the prophecy as such - the Greens flying with the 'the king changed his mind in the last moment' justification was a given. In fact, we should assume they also flew with that in the book, at least officially (and Gyldayn had the grace to not repeat it because his sources mentioned that this never happened), since that would be the obvious way to justify this usurpation.

However, I think the prophecy angle will ripple throughout the entire show, and might have interesting repercussions if, for instance, Daemon or Rhaenyra came to the conclusion that their blood was the promised prince special bloodline, and not, you know, the Strong boys?

Just now, C.T. Phipps said:

BTW, I missed some dialogue. Was Otto planning on killing Rhaenyra's children as well? I want to be clear for my review.

Yeah, the entire family.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IFR said:

By that sense, any Targaryen would also end a future civil war by killing their enemies.

No.  As has been mentioned, plenty of Targaryens are reticent when it comes to kinslaying.  Or killing septons.  Or killing their enemies "dishonorably."  Or killing their enemies before they're entirely sure Rhaenyra wants them dead.