[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

44 minutes ago, Ran said:

Well, we know what bin to put his opinion in.

I've been following Campea for a while, and most of his content consists of fawning over stuff with bits of criticism here and there. I'm not sure if it's his real opinions or if he's just shilling. 

Which is a shame, because he can be really good when he isn't busy with bootlicking.

[TormundsWoman]

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

it is possible she might rule with sexual deviances which might not be an issue by modern standards

I read the entire back and forth, and I must say there is something truly insulting about this specific sentence. I can't put my finger on why, but kuddos to you. I rarely feel insulted on the interwebz. Must be just me and the baggage and connotation that comes with the term "sexual deviance" applied to a woman (in this case a woman character) who has sex with multiple partners and / or outside of marriage. I'm sure you didn't mean it though.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

It’s fascinating how people can confuse social issues like sexuality and tie those into economic populism as if they are fundamentally tied together. We are talking about perceptions of gender and sex amongst the ruling class, not their dedication to economic reform.

I didn't catch what caused this particular discussion point.

However, in context it is quite clear that the morals of royalty - what's permissable for members of the royal family - is not decided by the morals and beliefs of the nobility or majority but only by the whims of the king, basically.

That's how it is in real world absolutist monarchies, and that's also how it is in Westeros in that era. Viserys I decides what his family can and cannot do. He is certainly influenced - or rather: allows himself to be influenced - by what he views as 'common decency', but that doesn't change the fact that the royals can pretty much do what they want if the king ignores what they are doing.

For instance, it is clear that the Targaryens could continue to practice polygamy in the show if Viserys I would allow it. It is also quite clear that Rhaenyra or Alicent or Helaena could sleep around the way Daemon and Viserys did in their youth if the king were to allow this, too. He doesn't ... or rather: he kind of forces them to do it clandestinely, but he doesn't really fault them for it once they are safely married.

And there, I think, it is also pretty clear that the audience is supposed to realize that Viserys was unduly influenced by Alicent's morals (or by the morals of the Old King) - Rhaenyra is the blood of the dragon and the heir to the throne. She can sleep with whoever she likes and be publicly viewed as a slut ... and lords and heirs would still fight for her hand because hers in the hand of power. All Rhaenyra can really expect is folks to talk about her behind her back. But they will do that, anyway. If the king approved of her behavior, so would the Realm. They really have no other choice.

Which is also why Alicent being so obsessed with Aegon's transgressions is kind of odd. I mean, okay, perhaps raping servants is for some reason worse than KG brutally murdering the male friends of the future prince consort ... but if that were so it should have been properly established.

Who in KL or the Realm would know or care if Aegon (routinely) raped or corrupted servant girls? Very few people, if any.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I remembered another time Aemond defended Alicent. When Viserys interrogated him about who told his his nephews were bastards, Aemond hesitated and the camera panned to Alicent, implying it was her. Instead, Aemond told him that it was Aegon.

I noticed that, too, but I think the implication there is more that Aemond wants to ruin Aegon than protect his mother. He is already of the opinion that the wastrel sucks as a future king and now he happens to have claimed Vhagar ... so why not try to undermine Aegon so that their father possibly punishes him, resulting in Aemond getting a better shot on the throne later on?

I mean, we'll have to wait and see how exactly Aemond claims the regency in light of his youth and inexperience ... but one road I see they could take is blatant blackmail. Acknowledge me as king in all but name ... or else I'll take my dragon and either don't fight against Rhaenyra and her dragonriders when they come or I fly away to Essos or wherever I want to go.

He has the power to dictate to the other Greens any conditions he wants since he controls their greatest weapon. If they want his help, they are dependent on him.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't think Condal sees Daemon as a villain. He sees him as an especially dark anti-hero. He has remarked that he finds Visenya extremely fascinating, and considers her to have been the sibling that was the "true blood of the dragon". Which contextualizes the episode 1 remark (written by Condal) that when Viserys said to Aemma that the family already had a Visenya, he meant his brother Daemon.

Condal's take on the "true blood of the dragon" Targaryens appear to be that they are almost dragon-like in their personas, ruthless and full of hubris and violence, but have the abilities to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

This also gives greater context to Viserys's remark on dragons being a force the Valyrians shouldn't have meddled with, that they can't be controlled. He pretty much believes the same about Daemon.

If that's Condal's take on Visenya and Daemon's characters he seems to interpret the source material rather freely.

Daemon is more like Queen Rhaena and Queen Rhaenys than Visenya. What little we know about Visenya is that she was controlled and cold and calculating - she wasn't changeable or given to flights of fancy, unlike Daemon.

Visenya Aegon may have been able to trust had he ever given Aegon a speech about protecting him from himself and his enemies ... but Daemon you cannot trust there, because Daemon, while doing his best to protect Viserys, would also ruin his reign by creating enemies where earlier where friends, allies, or neutral folk who had no reason or pretext to turn against the king.

Visenya wasn't that kind of person as far as we know.

Viserys certainly compares Daemon to Visenya in the pilot ... because the historical image of the woman would be pretty dark, especially in the interpretation of Jaehaerys and Alysanne who would be Viserys and Daemon's primary sources on Visenya. She is the one who may have poisoned their great-grandfather King Aenys and she is definitely the one who crowned the usurper Maegor, nearly destroying House Targaryen in the process of it.

[The Bard of Banefort]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I noticed that, too, but I think the implication there is more that Aemond wants to ruin Aegon than protect his mother. He is already of the opinion that the wastrel sucks as a future king and now he happens to have claimed Vhagar ... so why not try to undermine Aegon so that their father possibly punishes him, resulting in Aemond getting a better shot on the throne later on?

I mean, we'll have to wait and see how exactly Aemond claims the regency in light of his youth and inexperience ... but one road I see they could take is blatant blackmail. Acknowledge me as king in all but name ... or else I'll take my dragon and either don't fight against Rhaenyra and her dragonriders when they come or I fly away to Essos or wherever I want to go.

He has the power to dictate to the other Greens any conditions he wants since he controls their greatest weapon. If they want his help, they are dependent on him.

If that's Condal's take on Visenya and Daemon's characters he seems to interpret the source material rather freely.

Daemon is more like Queen Rhaena and Queen Rhaenys than Visenya. What little we know about Visenya is that she was controlled and cold and calculating - she wasn't changeable or given to flights of fancy, unlike Daemon.

Visenya Aegon may have been able to trust had he ever given Aegon a speech about protecting him from himself and his enemies ... but Daemon you cannot trust there, because Daemon, while doing his best to protect Viserys, would also ruin his reign by creating enemies where earlier where friends, allies, or neutral folk who had no reason or pretext to turn against the king.

Visenya wasn't that kind of person as far as we know.

Viserys certainly compares Daemon to Visenya in the pilot ... because the historical image of the woman would be pretty dark, especially in the interpretation of Jaehaerys and Alysanne who would be Viserys and Daemon's primary sources on Visenya. She is the one who may have poisoned their great-grandfather King Aenys and she is definitely the one who crowned the usurper Maegor, nearly destroying House Targaryen in the process of it.

Wouldn’t the camera have panned to Aegon instead then, and not Alicent looking panic-stricken? Aemond talked about doing his duty only a few hours earlier. Alicent would have raised him to believe his duty was to serve Aegon. If he wanted to ruin Aegon, he had another six years to do so and never did.

 

FnB did a good job of establishing why no one named their children after Visenya or Rhaenyra, but I still find it weird that there were no other Alysannes. It’s especially weird that Egg didn’t name his daughter Alysanne, since he named all of his sons (after Duncan) for wise kings. Rhaella may have been a tribute to his sisters, but I have no idea where Shaera came from.

Edited October 27, 2022 by The Bard of Banefort

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Wouldn’t the camera have panned to Aegon instead then, and not Alicent looking panic-stricken?

Yeah I took that scene as Aemond protecting Alicent as well.  I agree that we've seen Aemond demonstrate feelings of loyalty and affection towards Alicent and Helaena - and this alone makes him a more interesting character than his book counterpart.  But still, I don't think this makes him much different than Daemon, who clearly also has feelings of loyalty and affection for Viserys and Rhaenyra.

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Wouldn’t the camera have panned to Aegon instead then, and not Alicent looking panic-stricken? Aemond talked about doing his duty only a few hours earlier. Alicent would have raised him to believe his duty was to serve Aegon. If he wanted to ruin Aegon, he had another six years to do so and never did.

The camera focused on Alicent to show she was likely Aemond's source there. But Aemond could have come up with another excuse. Him choosing Aegon was deliberate. He could have said, say, Criston Cole or Otto or come up with something like Aegon's own excuse. He didn't.

And to be clear, I don't think Aemond is out there to destroy Aegon at all cost ... it would have been nice payback for Aegon bullying him earlier and to perhaps help show everyone how bad a potential king he actually is.

20 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

FnB did a good job of establishing why no one named their children after Visenya or Rhaenyra, but I still find it weird that there were no other Alysannes. It’s especially weird that Egg didn’t name his daughter Alysanne, since he named all of his sons (after Duncan) for wise kings. Rhaella may have been a tribute to his sisters, but I have no idea where Shaera came from.

I'm actually hoping that George tweaks the family tree again for FaB II (and III) and changes the weirdo name Shaera to Alysanne. Would also help better to explain Jaehaerys shipping this whole sibling match there.

Why nobody would name anyone Rhaenyra hasn't really been established. It is unclear why they used that name for Rhaenyra in the first place, and one imagines that somebody would have flown with the name again a couple of generations down the line. They are descended from her, after all. Since there was actually an Aenys Blackfyre, I hope that we'll get a Rhaenyra Blackfyre eventually ... possibly the Blackfyre that's the basis for Illyrio's claim that House Blackfyre is only extinct in the male line.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Fun article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/joshcorrea/i-used-ai-to-show-house-of-the-dragon-characters

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, TormundsWoman said:

I read the entire back and forth, and I must say there is something truly insulting about this specific sentence. I can't put my finger on why, but kuddos to you. I rarely feel insulted on the interwebz. Must be just me and the baggage and connotation that comes with the term "sexual deviance" applied to a woman (in this case a woman character) who has sex with multiple partners and / or outside of marriage. I'm sure you didn't mean it though.

If the specific terminology of “deviance” has such an affect then I will gladly refrain from using it in the future. Thank you for the feedback.  

Edited October 27, 2022 by butterweedstrover

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I didn't catch what caused this particular discussion point.

However, in context it is quite clear that the morals of royalty - what's permissable for members of the royal family - is not decided by the morals and beliefs of the nobility or majority but only by the whims of the king, basically.

That's how it is in real world absolutist monarchies, and that's also how it is in Westeros in that era. Viserys I decides what his family can and cannot do. He is certainly influenced - or rather: allows himself to be influenced - by what he views as 'common decency', but that doesn't change the fact that the royals can pretty much do what they want if the king ignores what they are doing.

For instance, it is clear that the Targaryens could continue to practice polygamy in the show if Viserys I would allow it. It is also quite clear that Rhaenyra or Alicent or Helaena could sleep around the way Daemon and Viserys did in their youth if the king were to allow this, too. He doesn't ... or rather: he kind of forces them to do it clandestinely, but he doesn't really fault them for it once they are safely married.

And there, I think, it is also pretty clear that the audience is supposed to realize that Viserys was unduly influenced by Alicent's morals (or by the morals of the Old King) - Rhaenyra is the blood of the dragon and the heir to the throne. She can sleep with whoever she likes and be publicly viewed as a slut ... and lords and heirs would still fight for her hand because hers in the hand of power. All Rhaenyra can really expect is folks to talk about her behind her back. But they will do that, anyway. If the king approved of her behavior, so would the Realm. They really have no other choice.

Which is also why Alicent being so obsessed with Aegon's transgressions is kind of odd. I mean, okay, perhaps raping servants is for some reason worse than KG brutally murdering the male friends of the future prince consort ... but if that were so it should have been properly established.

Who in KL or the Realm would know or care if Aegon (routinely) raped or corrupted servant girls? Very few people, if any.

The king certainly influences the the nobility. But he does not (or at least, not exclusively) set their dispositions  or preferences. He is as much influenced by them as they are by him.
 

As for his family, he has a bit more control in that regard. 

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Wouldn’t the camera have panned to Aegon instead then, and not Alicent looking panic-stricken? Aemond talked about doing his duty only a few hours earlier. Alicent would have raised him to believe his duty was to serve Aegon. If he wanted to ruin Aegon, he had another six years to do so and never did.

Well, as Lord Varys said, I don’t know if Aemond choosing to throw his brother under the bus rather than his own mother was that deep a sign of affection. 

Keep in mind he is still a kid, he relies on his mother and trusts her like most children do. I mean he’s still a human, lots of bad people have affection for their parents.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

And why frame the discussion as contemporary monarchies when it was about absolute monarchies vs. constitutional monarchies? 

I'm not going to PM because I don't want to have a political discussion. But I do question why you jump into a discussion, make some irrelevant classifications, then shut it down because you decide it is off topic. It comes off as less of an intellectual disagreement and more of a combative personal tone you take when people you don't like.  

LOL, no, the discussion was never about absolute v constitutional monarchies.  Constitutional monarchies are obviously entirely irrelevant in a comparison to Westeros.

And I tried to "shut down" the discussion, because I've been around this board long enough to know that mods are going to shut down any protracted discussion that is decidedly a tangent (which the discussion of modern monarchies clearly is); as well as any protracted discussion where it just boils down to two people hurling insults at each other.  This one had both.  Further, I know these are often if not always annoying to wade through for other users.  Anyway, if you have no interest in a political discussion, why do you care if I urged you to take it PM?

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The way you stretch those 'behaviors' to mean Aegon IV is really something. You made the assumption that she could/would never have sexual relationships outside of her marriage, and from the book we couldn't know that.

*Sigh*  First, it was you who first compared Rhaenyra's potential rule to Aegon IV, so it takes a special type of delusion to say I'm the one "stretching those behaviors."  Anyway, this will be my last attempt on this. 

You are the one making unfounded assumptions that because of Rhaenyra's sexual history she will not be able to "control her desires" and subsequently be a bad or even tyrannical queen.  Again, continually saying "we can't know" is not an argument, it is a rhetorical device to make baseless arguments - usually to slander the other side.  And now you're using another commonly used fallacy of accusing others of what you yourself are doing.

We have no reason to believe Rhaenyra will "openly" take multiple partners as queen because she has never exhibited this behavior.  Suggesting she will based on her sexual history is akin to suggesting Dany will make a bad ruler who can't control her urges because she carried on with Daario.  Or, better yet, Jon would make a bad ruler who can't control his urges because he had a sexual relationship with a wilding. 

Now, you could say there are mitigating circumstances for each - Dany ended the relationship when she had to and Jon was trying to maintain his cover.  But each of these is comparable to Rhaenyra's behavior - she needed to produce heirs when it obviously wasn't working with Laenor, and once she married a straight man of her choice we have no evidence she ever cheated on him (whereas he undoubtedly cheated on her).

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

No, I get Jaehaerys didn't burn the realm. My point is his authority came from the threat his dragons held. And if Rhaenyra means to actively quell a war her own lack of concern and self-indulgent attitude created, she'd either use that power or be killed. 

There's no reason to think Rhaenyra would have to use the dragons to quell any dissent about the apparent bastardy of her children and/or her sexual history.  That was precisely my point in using the analogy - the threat would have sufficed if her opposition didn't have dragons too, just as it did for Jaehaerys.  Moreover, the incest is clearly a far greater "sin" than bastardy.  The latter is common among lords and kings, while the latter is only tolerated among Targaryens.  Which further supports the notion the threat of dragons along with some contrition and gladhanding should suffice. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

The king certainly influences the the nobility. But he does not (or at least, not exclusively) set their dispositions  or preferences. He is as much influenced by them as they are by him.

As for his family, he has a bit more control in that regard. 

The king sets the example for all.

Aegon the Unworthy pretty much turned all the nobles who wanted to gain his favor into panders and pimps and the noblewomen into sluts.

Baelor the Blessed turned all the courtiers who wanted to gain favor with him into pious guys, etc.

In a monarchy it doesn't really matter what the subjects think. They got no voice in crucial matters.

The reason why there is strife in the royal family ... is because there is strife in the royal family. Jason Lannister, say, could ramble on about the slut Rhaenyra all day long. It matters about as much as if Hot Pie had issues with Cersei's morals.

The position of heir in a hereditary monarchy isn't a popularity contest.

 

[Lady Anna]

19 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

New interview from Condal. He mentions a scene between Baela and Rhaenys that was cut from the final episode, but says that any other cut scenes from the finale didn’t need to be included. I see this as further confirmation that the showrunners see Daemon as a villain. In a way, I’m glad they’re committing to it. Once they decided to have him murder his wife with his own two hands, there was no coming back from that.

https://www.vulture.com/article/house-of-the-dragon-finale-ending-explained-director-interview.html

Agreed. And I personally agree with them. That is, in how their approaching his character.

I genuinely don't get this outrage about Daemon. I mean, from the Daemon stans who somehow thought he was prince charming, yes I get that they would be mad. But that misinterpretation is not the show's fault because there's nothing on the actual show that gives that impression. On the contrary, it was explicitly shown, multiple times, that he is very capable of doing what he did to Rhaenyra. And I also believe that that wouldn't be far fetched even for his book counterpart. I'm just so confused by this reaction and by the crew and cast members being asked to explain it like it's something out-of-character.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Lady Anna

[Winterfell is Burning]

18 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I still don't understand why they had to have made it so that Daemon killed his first wife.

 

Because they decided to not have him murder Laenor.

[The hairy bear]

48 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Because they decided to not have him murder Laenor.

They could have easily opted for not having Daemon kill neither Rhea nor Laenor. There shouldn't be a murder quota to reach.

That said, I think it would have been much better to have him kill Laenor than Rhea. There would be a clearer motivation, and it would have spared us from both the contrieved fake murder plot and the future complications surrounding Seasmoke.

[The Bard of Banefort]

20 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

They could have easily opted for not having Daemon kill neither Rhea nor Laenor. There shouldn't be a murder quota to reach.

That said, I think it would have been much better to have him kill Laenor than Rhea. There would be a clearer motivation, and it would have spared us from both the contrieved fake murder plot and the future complications surrounding Seasmoke.

This show is terrified of Twitter. They already received backlash for killing Joffrey (which I’m sure they expected), they weren’t going to kill off Laenor and Qarl too, especially not at Daemon’s behest.

1 hour ago, Lady Anna said:

Agreed. And I personally agree with them. That is, in how their approaching his character.

I genuinely don't get this outrage about Daemon. I mean, from the Daemon stans who somehow thought he was prince charming, yes I get that they would be mad. But that misinterpretation is not the show's fault because there's nothing on the actual show that gives that impression. On the contrary, it was explicitly shown, multiple times, that he is very capable of doing what he did to Rhaenyra. And I also believe that that wouldn't be far fetched even for his book counterpart. I'm just so confused by this reaction and by the crew and cast members being asked to explain it like it's something out-of-character.

The defenses of Daemon online are crazy, and there is a certain gender divide that I’m noticing. The women are mostly saying that him choking Rhaenyra is character assassination by the writers because he clearly loves his family above all else, while the men are arguing that it’s okay that Daemon murdered Rhea because she provoked him with her verbal abuse and/or he was acting in self-defense when she reached for her bow. 
 

We’ve got a decade of this ahead of us, friends 

[Lady Anna]

44 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The defenses of Daemon online are crazy, and there is a certain gender divide that I’m noticing. The women are mostly saying that him choking Rhaenyra is character assassination by the writers because he clearly loves his family above all else, while the men are arguing that it’s okay that Daemon murdered Rhea because she provoked him with her verbal abuse and/or he was acting in self-defense when she reached for her bow. 
 

We’ve got a decade of this ahead of us, friends 

I.....don't have any words for any of that...

Truly being offline is probably the best choice with this show.

[RhaenysBee]

There was loads that I loved, but let’s begin with some nitpicks: 

-why would you intercut Rhaeyra’s (second within 5 episodes) birth scene with a dragon? Why would Rhaenyra have another birth scene? I appreciate symmetry but not this much, so maybe one birth scene per person per season can be satisfactory? I’m not saying it wasn’t a beautifully executed scene with deep insight into the kind of person Rhaenyra is, but it was a choice. Especially the intercutting. 
- but it’s all fine - as long as you don’t have a MIDWIFE turn away crying at the sight of a stillborn baby. I mean for crying out loud why would you direct that? Stop. 
- so the whole song of ice and fire thing is, along with the white worm lady friend, much like fetch. You need to stop trying to make it happen. The Rhaenyra actor couldn’t even say it with a straight face. The scene didn’t make any sense and daemon’s reaction was such a wtf moment. I don’t know or care if it was out of character or not but it had so little to do with the episode. It was another one of those, let’s do this to shock people decisions. 
-I also don’t get the point of the I will teach you what loyalty is moment, it was a little bit gratuitous especially the way it was cut off in the middle. 
- I get that there was no time for this, but how exactly did Dragonstone find out what happened to Arrax and Luke? 
- Aemond is a twenty year old young man (or something like that) as an envoy to the new king - what brings him to act like a butthurt brat in a foreign lord’s hall against a kid? Son, the only person you’re humiliating is yourself. 

Stuff that worked: 
- Rhaenyra mothering the strong boys
-Rhaenyra’s fatal miscalculation that storms’ end will be a smooth assignment 
-Daemon looking for that wild dragon
-Crowning of Rhaenyra with Viserys’s crown by Daemon 
-Rhaenys’s arrival and cutting to the chase about the news
-reactions to Viserys’s death 
-Corlys declaring for Rhaenyra 
-the table 
-Rhaenyra’s attempt to remain peaceful and avoid war and honor Viserys’s legacy
-Calling out Rhaenys for not roasting the Hightowers 
- Rhaenyra being a beginner at queenship for ten minutes straight - it was realistic, relatable and character building 
-Rhaenyra’s trying to reign in Daemon and remain in charge 
- Daemon’s bringing the news to Rhaenyra at the end 
- dragon chase and losing control of the dragons. That was a first class scene. Aemond’s descent to loss of control, panic and regret, Luke’s terror and attempt to stay in control, the dragons losing their shit in the storm and with the emotionally unstable and inexperienced riders. It was beautiful, graceful, terrifying, heartbreaking, relatable and I rewinded to watch it again for the emotional payoff. This is how you do dragon-death. 
 

meh: 
- I’m not a fan of digs and callbacks at season 8. I don’t hate it because I loathed that season so much it deserves it, but it’s not actually witty or mature. Stay in your own world, script. 
- I don’t know if that last Rhaenyra reaction worked for me. There was very little body language to observe with the wig and the thick dark costume, so I’m not sure it came across as impactfully as they intended. 
-Rhaenys had some quite moments that worked but she’s still underutilized and underdeveloped and used for the wrong reasons in the wrong ways. 
 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

but it’s all fine - as long as you don’t have a MIDWIFE turn away crying at the sight of a stillborn baby. I mean for crying out loud why would you direct that? Stop. 

It's not that the child was stillborn. It's that it was an abomination -- it had the stub of a tail and its back and head were mottled with what looked like half-formed black scales. For some reason they tried to play it ambiguously on the show, but apparently a line of High Valyrian dialog that was written but went unused was explicit that the baby was deformed.

 

4 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

I don’t know if that last Rhaenyra reaction worked for me. There was very little body language to observe with the wig and the thick dark costume, so I’m not sure it came across as impactfully as they intended. 

Oh, it really worked for me. The slight stumble, and then the way her hands go to the womb -- so recently losing Visenya, and now remembering another baby she carried who is now dead -- worked really well for me.