[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion

[The hairy bear]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If we are going there, I don't understand why Aegon II would be seen as a proper king. He always ruled only over a fraction of the Targaryen domain.

Because, as I was saying, lists of kings are as much about legitimacy than actual power. Who is listed as a monarch in a period of civil strife reveals the historiographical consensus on who had the rightful claim.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is little chance that the view of Rhaenyra changed overtime considering her descendants sat the throne. That in and of itself should have protected her reputation.

There are plenty of real history where ancestors of current kings are berated. As an exemple from English history, John Lackland is an unanimously vilified king, while being an ancestor of all the monarchs that followed him.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially not in comparison to Aegon II, who used hundreds of Kingslanders as living torches. This guy was a monster. Rhaenyra wasn't.

When I claim that it'd be bad PR to be associated with Rhaenyra, I never meant that being associated with Aegon was preferable. Both were widely seen as awful rulers. My point has always been that a wise monarch would try to detach himself from both of them, avoid muddling with fruitless discussions about who had been the rightful ruler, and move forward.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What little we know about the adult Aegon III is that he didn't mince his words, didn't hide his true feelings once he was king, didn't suck up to anybody.

The idea that this man had anything but contempt for the thugs and traitors who fought against his mother, his brothers, and him, personally, is very unlikely.

We are also told that "he strove to give the realm peace and plenty in the wake of the Dance", that he sat besides Ser Tyland as he was dying, and we have to assume that at some point he authorized the marriage of his half-sister to the son of Ormund Hightower.

So, yes, he had more than contempt for the ones that fought against his mother.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That goes for the Riverlords, Cregan Stark and Jeyne Arryn had received letters from Rhaenyra from Duskendale and had been raising more troops the entire time.

If we have need to go case by case, we know why those lord paramounts joined the blacks. Besides being bloodthirsty and wanting to get rid of unwanted mouths before Winter begins, Cregan seems to have developed some kind of friendship with Jace, and had him commit to marry a future daughter to his son. Meanwhile, Jeyne Arryn would have had her own claim to the Vale questioned if female succession was contested.

Neither Cregan nor Jeyne sided with the blacks out of love for Rhaenyra.

(For Jeyne's case in particular, it's easy to assume that if Aegon II had stayed a little longer in the throne, one of his first decisions would have been to name Arnold/Eldric as the rightful Lord of the Vale. If he had not already done that already during the war)

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not how the reigns of kings are measured properly. Proper lists include the actual reigns, duly noting interruptions of the reign if they occurred.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because he eventually gave up his claim ... and the Bourbons became the new royal house of Spain.

So... are those lists about who actually holds power? Or it's about who is eventually seen as the rightful monarch by posterity? You need to make up your mind!

It's the later, of course.

[frenin]

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

They’ll probably instantly fall in love, with him sadly telling her that he’s promised to another, and they’ll have sex before he says goodbye forever.

That's not spice.

 

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

thus fulfilling the pact and making Arya and Bran descendants of the Targaryens. 

The current Starks descend from Cregan's 3rd-4th son. It's pretty much impossible.

Not that I see why they should be coming from Targs anyway.

I sincerely hope they don't go that route.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

That's not spice.

 

The current Starks descend from Cregan's 3rd-4th son. It's pretty much impossible.

Not that I see why they should be coming from Targs anyway.

I sincerely hope they don't go that route.

I think Dany and the Starks are related through the Blackwoods, but I know of no Targaryen ancestors.

[DMC]

Again, the problem with this "legitimacy" argument for me is the accounts we get from Gyldayn and subsequently Munkun and even Orwyle are that Rhaenyra's "legitimacy" was just as righteous/proper/whatever as Aegon's - if not more so.  While it's emphasized in F&B that Aegon enjoyed all the "trappings of legitimacy" upon his coronation, the fact is Rhaenyra seized those "trappings" when she took KL.  These are the sources both the reader and in-universe relies upon for the "history" of the Dance, so it does not really follow that Rhaenyra's rule should not be counted as "legitimate."

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Because, as I was saying, lists of kings are as much about legitimacy than actual power. Who is listed as a monarch in a period of civil strife reveals the historiographical consensus on who had the rightful claim.

No, it hinges on who had the actual power. If a civil war wages long enough for the pretender who eventually fails to wield the power for a time then his reign is duly noted by historians (e.g. Henry VI short restoration during the exile of Edward IV).

Of course, this kind of thing is never perfect, especially if you want a complete list of the Roman Emperors where it is, at times, very hard to decide who was a successful usurper or proper emperor and who just tried at it. But with proper monarchs it is much easier.

Aegon II and Rhaenyra wielded more or less the same power while the sat the throne. They both reigned and ruled for a time, and Aegon II actually had less power after his restoration than before. He is a king who is effectively deposed by his subjects if you look at it closely. He is done when he is murdered.

No proper historian would say Aegon II reigned and ruled while Rhaenyra sat the Iron Throne and Aegon II was presumed dead. They would also not view him as the king during the Moon of Madness, etc. We could discuss when exactly folks would start to view Aegon II as king again, his followers most likely upon him announcing that he was still alive and Rhaenyra dead by his hand, others only after his crippled ass had been moved back to KL. His reign sort of began again when a new government was formed in the name of Aegon II in KL.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There are plenty of real history where ancestors of current kings are berated. As an exemple from English history, John Lackland is an unanimously vilified king, while being an ancestor of all the monarchs that followed him.

Sure enough, but that's because the guy was viewed as a tyrant by his subjects. That is not something that enters into our discussion here.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

When I claim that it'd be bad PR to be associated with Rhaenyra, I never meant that being associated with Aegon was preferable. Both were widely seen as awful rulers. My point has always been that a wise monarch would try to detach himself from both of them, avoid muddling with fruitless discussions about who had been the rightful ruler, and move forward.

But that would then be more akin with my reading on the Dance - and the subtle message I think George is sending on a symbolic level - namely, that neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II were viewed as proper monarchs, the Dance being a period of complete chaos.

Aegon III could not possibly detach himself from his mother in any meaningful way. The sole reason he became king was that his mother's partisans won the war. Had the Blacks not been knocking at the doors of KL, with even larger armies on the march, Aegon II wouldn't have been murdered nor would anyone even considered the notion of making Aegon III king.

Even if the betrothal between Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera had not been dissolved, in case of a Green victory we would likely have seen the coronation of a Queen Jaehaera with Rhaenyra's son serving as her Prince Consort since it would have been unbearable for the Green regime (i.e. Aegon II and Alicent) to actually allow Rhaenyra's brat to wear the crown.

(It would be more likely that the betrothal would have been dissolved and Aegon the Younger killed, castrated, or be sent to the Wall, of course.)

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

We are also told that "he strove to give the realm peace and plenty in the wake of the Dance", that he sat besides Ser Tyland as he was dying, and we have to assume that at some point he authorized the marriage of his half-sister to the son of Ormund Hightower.

He may have striven to that, but it already seems that he failed, just as his Regency government did. I mean, the fake Daerons and the Harrenhal situation imply that Aegon III's reign is going to be full of conflict. The Dornish tensions also seem to be slowly building thanks to the reign of Princess Aliandra, so that, perhaps, Daeron's Conquest is going to be not just some boy's mad dream but rather the culmination point of decades of bloody conflicts and raids along the Dornish border.

Ser Tyland Lannister was an enemy of both Rhaenyra and, specifically, Aegon III whose murder he proposed shortly before the end of the Dance. He also was the architect of Rhaenyra's destruction. The way to read Aegon III's compassion for the man is, in my opinion, twofold. One - and most crucial - Aegon III was at the mercy of this man. He run his government and controlled his person and life. He could arrange his murder at any time. He had to play nice. Second, it seems that Tyland grew fond of the boy and Aegon III realized this, so he paid him a visit on his deathbed.

George quite deliberately gives us little insight in Aegon III personality considering his character and personality. But the idea that he didn't really care about things is clearly wrong. He reveals this when he takes power into his own hands, and also earlier when he attends key trials in the wake of the Secret Siege (trials sentencing the people he personally loathed) appoints Kingsguard and other officers (only to be overruled by Peake afterwards), etc.

The guy wasn't all that smart, but he was smart enough to bide his time, to keep his tongue and hide his true feelings as best he could to survive until he came of age.

Now, since he dismissed a Black loyalist as brusquely as he did ... how exactly do you think he would have dismissed Tyland Lannister had he served as Hand throughout the entirety of the Regency? I could see him thanking him for his leal service ... only to then arrest and execute him for the role he played in the Dance.

Aegon III didn't have to avenge his mother or himself after he came of age since effectively all people playing crucial roles in the Dance of the Dragons were already died. They either died during the war itself or during the Regency era. I'd also think that Marston Waters ranked very highly on the list the young king would want to see dead ... but he got himself killed shortly before the end of the Regency.

Unwin Peake is the big enemy still out there, and I think we can look forward to Viserys orchestrating his destruction.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

If we have need to go case by case, we know why those lord paramounts joined the blacks. Besides being bloodthirsty and wanting to get rid of unwanted mouths before Winter begins, Cregan seems to have developed some kind of friendship with Jace, and had him commit to marry a future daughter to his son. Meanwhile, Jeyne Arryn would have had her own claim to the Vale questioned if female succession was contested.

Neither Cregan nor Jeyne sided with the blacks out of love for Rhaenyra.

(For Jeyne's case in particular, it's easy to assume that if Aegon II had stayed a little longer in the throne, one of his first decisions would have been to name Arnold/Eldric as the rightful Lord of the Vale. If he had not already done that already during the war)

That is irrelevant to the question at hand. Yes, the lords had their own original reasons to declare for Rhaenyra in the start. But they stuck with her even after she fled KL and effectively gave up the throne. She writes to Jeyne and Cregan from Duskendale and receives answers that armies are raised and will come to her defense. Those lords made the decision to remain in her camp after everything she did earlier. They did not waver in their loyalty to her cause, and they apparently never considered making their peace with Aegon II, asking for pardons or generous terms in exchange for disbanding the armies they had raised. I think in light of all that it is not wrong to speak of 'love for Rhaenyra' in this context. They stuck with a queen who had effectively been deposed by the people of her own capital, and they never wavered even after Rhaenyra had been killed and her only remaining heir being taken as hostage by an Aegon II who had seemingly returned from the grave.

And, hell, Lady Jeyne even had her very own pretender to the throne if push came to shove and Aegon II did away with both Aegon the Younger and Lady Baela. She had Rhaena Targaryen and her little dragon Morning.

This why the paragraph you quoted earlier is so weird in both books. Aegon II could have tried to offer generous terms, but the speculation that he could have succeeded there is very unlikely since the people he truly needed to offer something - Cregan and Jeyne - had all the power. They had powerful armies and Aegon was down to a couple of thousands of Stormlanders.

This is why I say that Rhaenyra effectively won the war, even if she never lived to see it. Her letters from Duskendale are the deciding factor. At that time the decision was made in the Vale and the North to raise more troops, troops that would inevitably crush the remaining Greens. If Rhaenyra had not left her ship at Dragonstone but continued on to Gulltown or White Harbor she would have returned to KL triumphant.

The idea that Jeyne's rivals in the Vale - which she could easily do away with considering that she apparently was very much in control of her domains - played any role in her decision-making process at that time is not very likely. Ditto with Cregan's friendship with a long-dead prince.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

So... are those lists about who actually holds power? Or it's about who is eventually seen as the rightful monarch by posterity? You need to make up your mind!

It's the later, of course.

The situation would be comparable only if the Habsburg pretender happened to be the parent of the eventual Bourbon king - which is the case with the Targaryen situation we compare that to. They were inbred, too, to be sure, but not as closely related as Rhaenyra and Aegon III.

George could have easily enough written things so that Aegon III took the throne only as the heir of Aegon II. The boy could have been publicly forced to denounce his mother, he could have given up all claims to the throne as Rhaenyra's son, only being recognized as heir of his uncle Aegon II, etc.

But for that the Greens should have actually won the war. All the Realm could have done homage to Aegon II, and he could have died peaceful in his sleep with his nephew being his chosen and anointed heir.

Aegon III could have also simply become king because he was the last male Targaryen around. Aegon II could have died in the field with neither side having named an heir, so that to finally end the war both sides could have come together to crown Aegon III as the last remaining Targaryen claimant.

But that's not what happened. Rhaenyra's loyalists never yielded, never acknowledged Aegon II as their king, Aegon II was strong-armed into accepting Rhaenyra's son as joint heir with his own daughter until he had sons of his own, and Aegon II lost the war and was subsequently murdered by his own court who joined the Black side to make Rhaenyra's son the king to save their own necks.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again, the problem with this "legitimacy" argument for me is the accounts we get from Gyldayn and subsequently Munkun and even Orwyle are that Rhaenyra's "legitimacy" was just as righteous/proper/whatever as Aegon's - if not more so.  While it's emphasized in F&B that Aegon enjoyed all the "trappings of legitimacy" upon his coronation, the fact is Rhaenyra seized those "trappings" when she took KL.  These are the sources both the reader and in-universe relies upon for the "history" of the Dance, so it does not really follow that Rhaenyra's rule should not be counted as "legitimate."

Yes, that's pretty much it. The narrative as written in FaB and all the works derived from that views both pretenders as having equally strong claims - which is why the chapter titles of TWoIaF and the new book don't really work. If you read the chapters they are derived from you would not consider the two years of the Dance the reign of King Aegon II. For that, I think, Aegon II should have reigned throughout the Dance (i.e. his government should have never been disbanded and Rhaenyra should have never taken KL, the Red Keep, and the Iron Throne).

You would just call them 'The Dance of the Dragons' and go with nobody really knowing who was 'the rightful monarch' in that short era.

This would also be the best way to put this ugly affair behind them, by simply acknowledging that each side had good arguments in their favor and it was never really decided. Unlike the question of the Black Dragon - which was eventually decided in favor of the Red, but which you also best put behind you by not always talking about whether Daeron or Daemon was the rightful king. We see that in Dunk & Egg.

The idea that a majority consensus could have ever reached the conclusion that Rhaenyra was a would-be usurper or pretender is ludicrous in context of her standing, though. She was the chosen and anointed heir of her father, the previous king, the people who crowned Aegon II all died as villains and traitors (Otto, Alicent, and Criston), Rhaenyra did sit the throne for a time and controlled all symbols of legitmate royal authority, her side effectively won the succession war, and, most importantly, her sons continued the royal bloodline.

It just doesn't make much sense that folks in Westeros would ponder this question with the majority coming to the conclusion: 'Of course! It is obvious! In light of all what transpired Aegon II was the rightful king. And Aegon III only ascended the Iron Throne as heir of his uncle, the rightful king. We will all never count the Princess Rhaenyra as a monarch!'

That borders on madness, would be akin to Maekar or Egg acknowledging that Daemon Blackfyre 'bearing the sword' meant that he was the rightful king rather than Daeron II.

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

They’ll probably instantly fall in love, with him sadly telling her that he’s promised to another, and they’ll have sex before he says goodbye forever.

There’s a theory that I find likely, which posits that Sara will die while secretly giving birth to his bastard daughter, which Cregan will cover up somehow and probably betroth to his own son, thus fulfilling the pact and making Arya and Bran descendants of the Targaryens. 

As I’ve said before, I expect this show to get really weird. 

I think that would add to much incest into the Stark family tree.

I could see Jace discarding Baela for Sara Snow, taking her back to Dragonstone as his wife, causing friction in the Black camp. Sara could then give birth to Aegon III's future wife Daenaera Velaryon, after Jace is already dead. Sara's background could easily explain why the child is never viewed as a proper heir to the throne. Better still it could simply be Baela having a posthumous daughter by Jace who could either be Daenaera or, according with the Pact of Ice and Fire, is eventually sent to Winterfell to marry Cregan's heir.

If we want a weird Stark-Targaryen link there I think a more intriguing scenario might be the following:

The show could replace Medrick Manderly with Cregan Stark. Cregan could come down to attend Rhaenyra at her court in KL after she takes the Iron Throne and he could return back home to raise another army to restore her to the throne like the Manderly brothers do in the book.

But whilst with Rhaenyra in KL, she and Cregan have an affair and marry (in secret) after Daemon's death. When Rhaenyra is captured by Aegon II on Dragonstone she is not fed to Sunfyre or executed immediately because she is visibly pregnant. She gives birth to her child in captivity and regardless what happens to Rhaenyra eventually, Cregan takes charge of his child and it either succeeds him as Lord of Winterfell or one of his grandchildren through that child do. The implication would be that the Ned and his children are descended from that child.

Having Cregan be this personally involved with Queen Rhaenyra could also help explain his fervor to continue the war, etc. after the death of Aegon II. One imagines that the show will include the Hour of the Wolf even if they don't bother with the Regency era.

Giving Rhaenyra another love interest could also help better end the whole Daemon thing, regardless how they present the entire Nettles affair. Not to mention that Rhaenyra-Cregan being on the same page prophecy-wise could also add more tragedy to future events, etc. ... with the implication that Rickard and Brandon never shared 'crucial Stark-Targaryen prophecy stuff' with little Ned the spare heir.

And this is actually something that might be the case in the books. George may have hinted at something more than just sibling rivalry when he had Ned complain that everything was for Brandon. Hell, even Rickard Stark's willingness to go to KL to defend his son could be because he thought a Targaryen king would never turn against a Stark because of whatever secret agreements Aegon the Conqueror and Torrhen Stark had made.

[The Bard of Banefort]

10 hours ago, frenin said:

That's not spice.

 

The current Starks descend from Cregan's 3rd-4th son. It's pretty much impossible.

Not that I see why they should be coming from Targs anyway.

I sincerely hope they don't go that route.

The show has its own canon though. They added all the stuff about the prophecy and the dagger, so it’s not that unlikely that they’d make more changes from the books. HBO is probably also looking to retcon S8 in whatever way they can.

[The Bard of Banefort]

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think that would add to much incest into the Stark family tree.

I could see Jace discarding Baela for Sara Snow, taking her back to Dragonstone as his wife, causing friction in the Black camp. Sara could then give birth to Aegon III's future wife Daenaera Velaryon, after Jace is already dead. Sara's background could easily explain why the child is never viewed as a proper heir to the throne. Better still it could simply be Baela having a posthumous daughter by Jace who could either be Daenaera or, according with the Pact of Ice and Fire, is eventually sent to Winterfell to marry Cregan's heir.

If we want a weird Stark-Targaryen link there I think a more intriguing scenario might be the following:

The show could replace Medrick Manderly with Cregan Stark. Cregan could come down to attend Rhaenyra at her court in KL after she takes the Iron Throne and he could return back home to raise another army to restore her to the throne like the Manderly brothers do in the book.

But whilst with Rhaenyra in KL, she and Cregan have an affair and marry (in secret) after Daemon's death. When Rhaenyra is captured by Aegon II on Dragonstone she is not fed to Sunfyre or executed immediately because she is visibly pregnant. She gives birth to her child in captivity and regardless what happens to Rhaenyra eventually, Cregan takes charge of his child and it either succeeds him as Lord of Winterfell or one of his grandchildren through that child do. The implication would be that the Ned and his children are descended from that child.

Having Cregan be this personally involved with Queen Rhaenyra could also help explain his fervor to continue the war, etc. after the death of Aegon II. One imagines that the show will include the Hour of the Wolf even if they don't bother with the Regency era.

Giving Rhaenyra another love interest could also help better end the whole Daemon thing, regardless how they present the entire Nettles affair. Not to mention that Rhaenyra-Cregan being on the same page prophecy-wise could also add more tragedy to future events, etc. ... with the implication that Rickard and Brandon never shared 'crucial Stark-Targaryen prophecy stuff' with little Ned the spare heir.

And this is actually something that might be the case in the books. George may have hinted at something more than just sibling rivalry when he had Ned complain that everything was for Brandon. Hell, even Rickard Stark's willingness to go to KL to defend his son could be because he thought a Targaryen king would never turn against a Stark because of whatever secret agreements Aegon the Conqueror and Torrhen Stark had made.

The whole point of marriage is that it’s public. It doesn’t make sense within this feudal world for Cregan to father a legitimate Targaryen heir and then have it never brought up again. The Starks would have capitalized on that connection as much as the Velaryons and Baratheons did.

On a side note, I’m pretty sure that R+L=J is supposed to be significant in part because no northerners ever married into the royal family before. . . but this is somewhat undercut by having never had the Ironborn marry into the family either. (Just musing.)

Edited November 18, 2022 by The Bard of Banefort

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The whole point of marriage is that it’s public. It doesn’t make sense within this feudal world for Cregan to father a legitimate Targaryen heir and then have it never brought up again. The Starks would have capitalized on that connection as much as the Velaryons and Baratheons did.

The child would be the younger sibling of Aegon III and Viserys II. Sure enough, it would have some claim to the throne ... but not that great a claim in context. And, of course, there might be reasons why Rhaenyra and Cregan wouldn't have a big public wedding if the capital is exploding around them.

Sure enough, it would mean that later Targaryens should look for brides among the Starks. But that's not an issue the show would have to address.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I started reading When Christ and His Saints Slept by Sharon Kay Penman, which is about the Anarchy. GRRM has said he’s a fan of hers, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he read and was influenced by her. I can already see some of the similarities between characters, but one big difference is that Stephen does have a lot of good qualities, which makes me wish even more that the show made Aegon a lovable loser rather than an outright degenerate. Come to think of it, that’s sort of what Androw Farman was like: a lovable loser who eventually turned cruel and murderous. I like the changes the show made to Aemond and Helaena, but I think they dropped the ball with Aegon.

[butterweedstrover]

I think Aegon was meant to come off as a lovable loser, who also is a sexual pervert. 

They did something similar with Daemon, make him a monster but hope people saw the fun loving side to him. 

But for some reason people ignore Daemon's bad stuff but they can't do the same for Aegon. Why is that?

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

I think Aegon was meant to come off as a lovable loser, who also is a sexual pervert. 

They did something similar with Daemon, make him a monster but hope people saw the fun loving side to him. 

But for some reason people ignore Daemon's bad stuff but they can't do the same for Aegon. Why is that?

I’m not sure what they were going for with Daemon. It sounds like they edited the final product to make Daemon less gray and more of an outright villain. The showrunners seemed upset that some people were trying to make him out to be a better person than he was. I imagine that’s quite common for storytellers. GRRM clearly resents how much fans dislike Catelyn, or sympathize with Theon, or romanticize Jaime and the Hound (even though he’s given the last three all some variation of a redemption arc).

I think people prefer Daemon because of his swagger and because of the weird cult around Matt Smith. People love Aemond for his swagger too. The funny thing is, I’d say that Aegon’s actor might be the best-looking in real life, but he carries himself in a much more pathetic way as Aegon.

[EggBlue]

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I think Aegon was meant to come off as a lovable loser, who also is a sexual pervert. 

naah. I think they wanted to shout that Aegon's a monster (look Ep9 and 8) , while trying to explain why he's so messed up . 

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

They did something similar with Daemon, make him a monster but hope people saw the fun loving side to him. 

But for some reason people ignore Daemon's bad stuff but they can't do the same for Aegon. Why is that?

you got me ! I suppose it could be a combination of less screen time for Aegon (would it kill them if they showed Aegon with someone he cares about? say , his kids or his dragon?)  , lack of love interest for Aegon (I bet a lot of love for Daemon is thanks to Rhaenyra's love for him ) and Matt Smith having a bigger fan base and bigger marketing . 

53 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think people prefer Daemon because of his swagger and because of the weird cult around Matt Smith. People love Aemond for his swagger too. The funny thing is, I’d say that Aegon’s actor might be the best-looking in real life, but he carries himself in a much more pathetic way as Aegon.

that's pretty much true . people usually like over confident jerks better than pathetic jerks !

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

On 11/17/2022 at 8:17 PM, frenin said:

Lucerys did not get the memo and then it was obviously too late.

Yeah, Rhaenyra should have thought about that before sending him.

[frenin]

5 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Yeah, Rhaenyra should have thought about that before sending him.

I mean, Jace did not get the memo either and he adapted to the situation fast. Then again, the whole reason why Luke was sent was because Storm's End was already taken for granted.

But yeah, Rhaenys and Jacaerys were far better envoys than Lucerys.

 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

But for some reason people ignore Daemon's bad stuff but they can't do the same for Aegon. Why is that?

Daemon is way cooler.

 

16 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I can already see some of the similarities between characters, but one big difference is that Stephen does have a lot of good qualities, which makes me wish even more that the show made Aegon a lovable loser rather than an outright degenerate.

Disagree, whereas in  both the books and i assume the show Rhaenyra will be treated as a tragic figure, Aegon is a failed project from the get go.

I said it a lot of times but i love the Targaryen brothers very much, if only the showrunners had the sense of making Daeron not to become the worst war criminal of the Dance, then it'll be good.

 

13 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

or romanticize Jaime

Perhaps if he stopped to say that Jaime is always thinking about the sons he doesn't care about in the first three books while he commits heinous acts whle he casts doubts on whether Cersei loves her children or not.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I started reading When Christ and His Saints Slept by Sharon Kay Penman, which is about the Anarchy. GRRM has said he’s a fan of hers, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he read and was influenced by her. I can already see some of the similarities between characters, but one big difference is that Stephen does have a lot of good qualities, which makes me wish even more that the show made Aegon a lovable loser rather than an outright degenerate. Come to think of it, that’s sort of what Androw Farman was like: a lovable loser who eventually turned cruel and murderous. I like the changes the show made to Aemond and Helaena, but I think they dropped the ball with Aegon.

Don't think Androw Farman was lovable at all. He was just a loser, and Rhaena used him as her plaything.

George actually took some things directly from that book, although I don't recall what exactly. It was some mannierism, way of speech, or a couple of lines. It has been a while.

But neither Stephen nor Matilda as people actually shaped the characters/stories of Aegon II or Rhaenyra. At best Aegon II and Aemond are kind of inspired by Stephen's son Eustace ... which is subtly hinted at by Eustace being the name of the septon chronicler.

When George wrote out the Dance background he more or less few with the background of the Anarchy - a sonless king names his only daughter his heir, but the details are all different.

The same goes for Matilda/Rhaenyra's two marriages or the time they were named heirs. Matilda was never particularly popular in England, and her second marriage was a complete mess. Rhaenyra was Viserys' heir from childhood (youth, in the show), and her father never had another formally named/anointed Heir Apparent (Daemon was never Prince of Dragonstone). Daemon wasn't just an asset to Rhaenyra, sure, but he wasn't a nobleman from some other French province whose general conduct and treatment of his wife undermined her standing.

The Anarchy is also not as poisonous a war as the Dance is for the royal family. Sure enough, England and Normandy suffer due to the conflict between Stephen and Matilda, but that's because central rule declines, the authority of the king is diminished, and the lords and brigands end up doing whatever the hell they want - that's why 'Christ and His Saints slept' in those decades - not because the war as such was particularly cruel.

Stephen was in essence a likable moron installed by the nobility who wanted a pliable puppet king. Matilda would have been a stronger monarch, more like her own father who ruled with an iron fist and may have actually murdered his brother to seize the throne for himself. It seems that this is why the lords wanted Stephen, and the whole 'a woman shouldn't rule' stuff was used as a pretext for this. If Stephen had been more like Matilda ... and if Matilda had been married to a powerful English or Norman magnate, then nobody would have considered Stephen as a potential king.

The show's take on Aegon II kind of mirrors Stephen's rise to a point, although Aegon should quickly develop into an incompetent tyrant. But that will be due to the fact that a Targaryen monarch with dragons is much more powerful than some English king in the 12th century.

[The Bard of Banefort]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't think Androw Farman was lovable at all. He was just a loser, and Rhaena used him as her plaything.

George actually took some things directly from that book, although I don't recall what exactly. It was some mannierism, way of speech, or a couple of lines. It has been a while.

But neither Stephen nor Matilda as people actually shaped the characters/stories of Aegon II or Rhaenyra. At best Aegon II and Aemond are kind of inspired by Stephen's son Eustace ... which is subtly hinted at by Eustace being the name of the septon chronicler.

When George wrote out the Dance background he more or less few with the background of the Anarchy - a sonless king names his only daughter his heir, but the details are all different.

The same goes for Matilda/Rhaenyra's two marriages or the time they were named heirs. Matilda was never particularly popular in England, and her second marriage was a complete mess. Rhaenyra was Viserys' heir from childhood (youth, in the show), and her father never had another formally named/anointed Heir Apparent (Daemon was never Prince of Dragonstone). Daemon wasn't just an asset to Rhaenyra, sure, but he wasn't a nobleman from some other French province whose general conduct and treatment of his wife undermined her standing.

The Anarchy is also not as poisonous a war as the Dance is for the royal family. Sure enough, England and Normandy suffer due to the conflict between Stephen and Matilda, but that's because central rule declines, the authority of the king is diminished, and the lords and brigands end up doing whatever the hell they want - that's why 'Christ and His Saints slept' in those decades - not because the war as such was particularly cruel.

Stephen was in essence a likable moron installed by the nobility who wanted a pliable puppet king. Matilda would have been a stronger monarch, more like her own father who ruled with an iron fist and may have actually murdered his brother to seize the throne for himself. It seems that this is why the lords wanted Stephen, and the whole 'a woman shouldn't rule' stuff was used as a pretext for this. If Stephen had been more like Matilda ... and if Matilda had been married to a powerful English or Norman magnate, then nobody would have considered Stephen as a potential king.

The show's take on Aegon II kind of mirrors Stephen's rise to a point, although Aegon should quickly develop into an incompetent tyrant. But that will be due to the fact that a Targaryen monarch with dragons is much more powerful than some English king in the 12th century.

Reading this book, along with a few others about the Middle-Ages, the stigma against bastards seems to be much greater than it was in real life, as is the kinslaying taboo. Paradoxically, Westeros comes across as much less religious than medieval Europe was.

There are remarkably few royal mistresses and recognized royal bastards in ASOIAF, but after looking at some timelines of French and English monarchs, it looks like they don’t live as long either lol. Most kings ruled for decades; in ASOIAF, few make it to twenty years.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Reading this book, along with a few others about the Middle-Ages, the stigma against bastards seems to be much greater than it was in real life, as is the kinslaying taboo. Paradoxically, Westeros comes across as much less religious than medieval Europe was.

George took the bastard thing straight from a dialogue from Druon's books, although there it doesn't refer to royal or noble bastards - who in the real middle ages bathed in splendor and might, although they were eventually excluded from the royal succession.

(But only pretty late, William the Conqueror was originally William the Bastard, after all, and in the early middle ages kings had primary and secondary wives - the concept of bastardy could only take root when strict monogamy was an enforced and universally accepted norm. French royal bastards even intermarried with legitimate Bourbons as late as the reign of Louis XIV.)

How powerful they were with the Normans you see in the book with Matilda's many half-brothers.

And, of course, religion played a greater role in the real middle ages. The biggest letdown in this regard is George's refusal to properly include religious feasts and celebrations into the worldbuilding, which would inevitably shape the day-to-day life at court and in the Realm at large. There are tiny bits of this with the Day of the Maiden, the Day of the Father, etc. ... but those should be much grander things.

And, of course, the Targaryens should have also established more traditions and feasts to celebrate themselves and their own power and dynasty - the Day of the Landing should be a great celebration, also the Day of the Conquest (i.e. the day of Aegon's second coronation), the namedays of the great kings (and the sitting monarch) should also be celebrated, births and rites of passages in the royal family should be celebrated throughout the Realm (the show made the right decision there with 'the Tourney of the Heir').

Anniversaries should also big events, and we know those are celebrated - Jaehaerys' 50th anniversary on the throne, Aerys II's tenth anniversary, the fifth anniversary of the marriage of Viserys and Alicent (that might be over the top, but we should imagine Viserys I as a king who threw at least one massive tourney each year, perhaps even more).

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

There are remarkably few royal mistresses and recognized royal bastards in ASOIAF, but after looking at some timelines of French and English monarchs, it looks like they don’t live as long either lol. Most kings ruled for decades; in ASOIAF, few make it to twenty years.

Oh, but most of them did remarry like Henry I did, and quite a few of them also ruled pretty long. The earlier guys tended to die in the field from wounds or illnesses (both Richard I and John I went down that way), but the women didn't die like flies in childbirth - only when they were complications and/or they were pregnant pretty late in life (which usually means complications from illnesses, etc.).

That the Targaryen kings and princes from Aegon I to Viserys I didn't father any recognized or legitimized bastards, nor entertained any official mistresses aside from Daemon's Mysaria was a letdown for me. I think it could have easily worked to give Prince Baelon a paramour with whom he had a bunch of children after Alyssa's death (it could have been a Hightower woman, and Alicent could have been Viserys' (legitimized) half-sister), not to mention that a mistress could have also helped explain why the hell Aemond and Jocelyn had only one child. This plotline is just as underdeveloped as the Conqueror's lack of children, possibly even more. Jocelyn was still alive in 92 AC, they were married for decades at that point, and we hear nothing about fertility problems or injuries, etc.

If the marriage hadn't been a great success, then Aemon could easily have had a mistress, explaining while he and his wife never had any children after Rhaenys.

Such bastard cadet branches could have played a role during the reign of Viserys I, not to mention the Dance.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Man, I can’t tell you how much I wish there were more formal holidays in ASOIAF. It would be especially cool to see what kind of pagan holidays the North celebrates. Imagine some kind of solar eclipse holiday during a Reek chapter, or Sansa observing one of the holidays in secret in ACOK.

There has been some renewed brouhaha online about Matt Smith claiming at a convention that he and Emma were surprised by the choking scene, but honestly, I respect the writers more for including it. I’ve said it before: there’s no coming back from intentionally murdering your wife. If they had Daemon be a loving and unproblematic husband to Rhaenyra, it would have been like how GOT conveniently forgot about Tyrion killing Shae. That has to be reflected on the character going forward.

[butterweedstrover]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Tyrion killing Shae. 

Wasn't that self-defense? 

Anyways, its the show's fault for making Rhea's murder have absolutely no affect on the story or characters. I mean yeah, he is still awful for doing it, but it is awfulness framed like a big joke, especially when seeing his swagger on return to the red keep and the nonchalant way he dismisses the accusation.