Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

Even if it was self-defense, it still should have haunted him.

Rhea’s murder had no lasting effect (yet) but Daemon remained a man who would abuse his wife on a moment’s notice. Rhaenyra isn’t his perfect soulmate, she didn’t “fix” him. Their destined Valyrian supremacist lovematch was a lie. 

(I also find it noteworthy that the one who carried on the Targaryen line, Viserys II, was married to a woman from another country, even if Lys is also Valyrian. Incest did not save the Targaryens after they lost their dragons). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Even if it was self-defense, it still should have haunted him.

Rhea’s murder had no lasting effect (yet) but Daemon remained a man who would abuse his wife on a moment’s notice. Rhaenyra isn’t his perfect soulmate, she didn’t “fix” him. Their destined Valyrian supremacist lovematch was a lie. 

(I also find it noteworthy that the one who carried on the Targaryen line, Viserys II, was married to a woman from another country, even if Lys is also Valyrian. Incest did not save the Targaryens after they lost their dragons). 

You’re right Shae was sort of forgotten. But her running at Tyrion with the knife came out of left field and made me forget about her so the issue didn’t stick out as much. 

We know Daemon is capable of hurting his wife, Valyrian or not. Being sexually attracted to Rhaenyra isn’t the same as loving her, and people love a toxic relationship. 

But, he also, before the choking, supported her claim and defended her from her enemies. I don’t think it’s just people romanticizing his awfulness, the things he did with a real emotional impact like choose Laena over the unborn child, help Viserys onto the throne, kill Vaemond for calling Rhaenyra a whore, and verbally abuse Otto did a lot to endear him to the audience. 

The choking, while not out of character, was the first time from a narrative perspective his brutality was aimed at the good guy (Rhaenyra). 

Otto was made to be smarmy and unlikable so giving the favor to Alicent at the tourney and mocking him in front of the council did not establish Daemon as evil but rather a positive force whose cruelty was more stylistic. 

It was an example of his cruelty, but just like the murder of the citizens on the first night of the city watch, the killing of Rhea, the murder of the nameless Velaryon guard, etc. it is an example not integrated into the story. 

So I don’t buy the showrunners surprise at Daemon’s popularity when they chose to highlight his heroic endeavors and treat him as a villain only in the most superficial ways possible.  
 

Like Shae, we know it’s wrong on an intellectual level, but the emotional feedback just isn’t there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

You’re right Shae was sort of forgotten. But her running at Tyrion with the knife came out of left field and made me forget about her so the issue didn’t stick out as much. 

We know Daemon is capable of hurting his wife, Valyrian or not. Being sexually attracted to Rhaenyra isn’t the same as loving her, and people love a toxic relationship. 

But, he also, before the choking, supported her claim and defended her from her enemies. I don’t think it’s just people romanticizing his awfulness, the things he did with a real emotional impact like choose Laena over the unborn child, help Viserys onto the throne, kill Vaemond for calling Rhaenyra a whore, and verbally abuse Otto did a lot to endear him to the audience. 

The choking, while not out of character, was the first time from a narrative perspective his brutality was aimed at the good guy (Rhaenyra). 

Otto was made to be smarmy and unlikable so giving the favor to Alicent at the tourney and mocking him in front of the council did not establish Daemon as evil but rather a positive force whose cruelty was more stylistic. 

It was an example of his cruelty, but just like the murder of the citizens on the first night of the city watch, the killing of Rhea, the murder of the nameless Velaryon guard, etc. it is an example not integrated into the story. 

So I don’t buy the showrunners surprise at Daemon’s popularity when they chose to highlight his heroic endeavors and treat him as a villain only in the most superficial ways possible.  
 

Like Shae, we know it’s wrong on an intellectual level, but the emotional feedback just isn’t there.

Tyrion might get away with a manslaughter plea, but not self-defence, given that he’d entered the room to commit murder, in any event.

In the books though, it’s much more plainly common murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 1:35 AM, 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.

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.

That’s so common in fantasy. Quite often, attitudes are late Victorian, rather than medieval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Tyrion might get away with a manslaughter plea, but not self-defence, given that he’d entered the room to commit murder, in any event.

In the books though, it’s much more plainly common murder.

Unless I'm misremembering, I think Tyrion had no clue Shae would be there. He intended to kill Tywin, so killing Shae might have come across as self-defense in court. 

But in the books it was bloody murder. The show just chickened out on making Tyrion look evil because he was popular, and it kind of screwed up his character arc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT manslaughter (and I'm analysing it from a modern POV) when you enter premises, intending to commit a murder, you lose the right to make an argument for self-defence. In effect, you have provoked the assault that has been made against you.

In-universe, few people would care about Shae, but the murder of Tywin would be a massive issue.

I agree, that this was a part of the effort to whitewash Tyrion.  It didn't just screw up his character arc, but had knock on effects on other characters.  They did all they could to whitewash the Lannisters, they loved them so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

WRT manslaughter (and I'm analysing it from a modern POV) when you enter premises, intending to commit a murder, you lose the right to make an argument for self-defence. In effect, you have provoked the assault that has been made against you.

In-universe, few people would care about Shae, but the murder of Tywin would be a massive issue.

I agree, that this was a part of the effort to whitewash Tyrion.  It didn't just screw up his character arc, but had knock on effects on other characters.  They did all they could to whitewash the Lannisters, they loved them so much.

Fair. I'm not good with the law so the nuances are often times lost on me. 

Probably a good reason to avoid murder since I'd come up with the wrong excuses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Even if it was self-defense, it still should have haunted him.

Rhea’s murder had no lasting effect (yet) but Daemon remained a man who would abuse his wife on a moment’s notice. Rhaenyra isn’t his perfect soulmate, she didn’t “fix” him. Their destined Valyrian supremacist lovematch was a lie.

Daemon murdering Rhea - although perhaps the worst plotline in HotD both in motivation, execution, and aftermath (how the hell did the Royce chap conclude that Daemon murdered Rhea?) - shouldn't be used to assess his character as a husband. For that we should have gotten domestic abuse earlier, say, with Mysaria, Laena, or his daughters.

Rhea and Daemon were neither a couple nor family in any meaningful sense. They were a failed arranged marriage and clearly strangers for years or decades by the time of Rhea's death.

The murder of Rhea is not an unforgivable or particularly evil crime. Laenor's murder - if that's what happened in the book - is far worse than Rhea's murder in the show considering how close Daemon was to Laeor's sister, Laenor's parents, and Laenor's wife.

But, of course, Rhaenyra and Daemon's marriage will eventually fail unless they change the story drastically. Although I imagine they will change the details of that considerable. Daemon should not really fall for Nettles, nor should Rhaenyra replace Daemon with a lot of cakes.

If they go the love interests road both of them should grow weary of each other. Although I think the Nettles thing makes little sense as a romance.

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

(I also find it noteworthy that the one who carried on the Targaryen line, Viserys II, was married to a woman from another country, even if Lys is also Valyrian. Incest did not save the Targaryens after they lost their dragons). 

Ah, no. Sure enough, Viserys married Larra under exceptional circumstances. But she is the perfect Valyrian bride, just like Daenaera Velaryon is for Aegon III. They might both not be close relations to the Targaryens but their supreme looks are testament to their Valyrian bloodline. They help keep the blood of the dragon pure. The whole thing is not so much about keeping a particular dragonlord bloodline pure via exclusive incest, but to preserve the blood of the dragon. And both those women clearly had it.

Thinking about it - it would not surprise me if part of the reason why Viserys married Naerys to Aegon rather than one of Aegon III's sons might be that he was immensely proud of his wife and the stunning looks she passed on to their children, so he wanted to preserve her bloodline by marrying her children to each other.

Insofar as the marriage policies are concerned, both Daenaera and Larra are better 'sister-wives' than, say, Alyssa or Alysanne Targaryen (who may be sisters to their husbands, but are not particularly impressive Valyrian specimen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daemon murdering Rhea - although perhaps the worst plotline in HotD both in motivation, execution, and aftermath (how the hell did the Royce chap conclude that Daemon murdered Rhea?) - shouldn't be used to assess his character as a husband. For that we should have gotten domestic abuse earlier, say, with Mysaria, Laena, or his daughters.

Rhea and Daemon were neither a couple nor family in any meaningful sense. They were a failed arranged marriage and clearly strangers for years or decades by the time of Rhea's death.

The murder of Rhea is not an unforgivable or particularly evil crime. Laenor's murder - if that's what happened in the book - is far worse than Rhea's murder in the show considering how close Daemon was to Laeor's sister, Laenor's parents, and Laenor's wife.

But, of course, Rhaenyra and Daemon's marriage will eventually fail unless they change the story drastically. Although I imagine they will change the details of that considerable. Daemon should not really fall for Nettles, nor should Rhaenyra replace Daemon with a lot of cakes.

If they go the love interests road both of them should grow weary of each other. Although I think the Nettles thing makes little sense as a romance.

Ah, no. Sure enough, Viserys married Larra under exceptional circumstances. But she is the perfect Valyrian bride, just like Daenaera Velaryon is for Aegon III. They might both not be close relations to the Targaryens but their supreme looks are testament to their Valyrian bloodline. They help keep the blood of the dragon pure. The whole thing is not so much about keeping a particular dragonlord bloodline pure via exclusive incest, but to preserve the blood of the dragon. And both those women clearly had it.

Thinking about it - it would not surprise me if part of the reason why Viserys married Naerys to Aegon rather than one of Aegon III's sons might be that he was immensely proud of his wife and the stunning looks she passed on to their children, so he wanted to preserve her bloodline by marrying her children to each other.

Insofar as the marriage policies are concerned, both Daenaera and Larra are better 'sister-wives' than, say, Alyssa or Alysanne Targaryen (who may be sisters to their husbands, but are not particularly impressive Valyrian specimen).

I’ll give you Larra/Daenaera, but HOTD added Rhea’s murder knowing how wife-murder is viewed by a modern audience. The showrunners wouldn’t have been so surprised that people still like Daemon if they hadn’t intended it that way. 

And I still think Daemon choking Rhaenyra was in character. Even in that shot of him from the wedding that all the shippers love, he’s holding her by the neck—a sign of possession. As her husband, he has authority over her now that he didn’t as her uncle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said before I thought the chocking scene was in character... but only because of what she said. Yeah he is capable of that forcefulness, but not at random and without instigation. 

Daemon just lost his brother, has to deal with traitorous snakes trying to overthrow his wife, he is making battle plans, and here she is talking about surrender because of some looney prophecy.  

Rhaenyra's comments were completely out of character. In the book she was screaming in rage, in the show she is completely passive even with the preexisting knowledge that Otto (or Alicent) might harm her own children. And worst of all the prophecy should be motive to NOT surrender the throne, instead she is spewing this contradictory bull shit at him. 

Morally that doesn't justify strangling someone, but he never intended to kill her or affect lasting damage to her throat. It's dark, its physicals, and even twisted. But people much rather have a twisted and eccentric person than a smarmy traditionalist. Not the fault of viewers, that is just how these types of stories work. 

So it was in character, but the scene itself was artificial because they needed Rhaenyra to say and do something with zero affect on the plot and zero resonance as regards her character and psychology to make it happen. 

If you need to create an impossible scenario to depict your bad boy in an unpopular manner than your writing is fundamentally flawed. They could have added depth to his previous crimes and actually implemented them into the narrative instead of having to resort to this awkward and inconsequential scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I’ll give you Larra/Daenaera, but HOTD added Rhea’s murder knowing how wife-murder is viewed by a modern audience. The showrunners wouldn’t have been so surprised that people still like Daemon if they hadn’t intended it that way.

Sure enough, it did establish something, although I'd also say that him murdering Rhea isn't establishing him as a wife-beater or somebody prone to domestic abuse. We do have to differentiate between forced intimacy/closeness in arranged marriages and people who live together of their own free will.

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

And I still think Daemon choking Rhaenyra was in character. Even in that shot of him from the wedding that all the shippers love, he’s holding her by the neck—a sign of possession. As her husband, he has authority over her now that he didn’t as her uncle.

I don't follow the shipper discourse there. I think they did a good job establishing the connection these two clearly are supposed to have, but we all know how this marriage is going to end, so whoever gets off on fantasizing how great it is is either not knowing about or not caring about where this story is going.

Although, of course, the writing really has to be good there. They cannot really go with a childish jealousy plot there, nor with Daemon discarding Rhaenyra for Mysaria or Nettles. The Rhaenyra they present is really above petty jealousy, not to mention more than willing to look for love and affection elsewhere if things don't work out in her marriage. We saw that with the Laenor-Harwin thing.

Even in the book Rhaenyra's jealousy because of Nettles feels weird considering she apparently had no problems with Daemon's rekindled affair with Mysaria. And I'm not sure how dumb you have to be to buy the 'the Nettles girl is a evil slut' story it if is coming from the very woman who earlier had an affair with Daemon and might not be exactly motivated by loyalty to you but by jealousy of whatever Daemon and Nettles had.

I do have a feeling that now that Daemon has been told that his brother and Rhaenyra both believe very much in prophecy - and have good reason to do so, apparently - that he will overcompensate in that department, trying to prove that not only can he believe in prophecy, too, but that he can also have prophetic dreams, etc. Laena also told him that he was destined for more and not admitting this to himself. Once he believes House Targaryen as a whole is destined to do more than just rule the Seven Kingdoms, he might become pretty eccentric. And we already saw that Daemon does have scholarly side, and I think the Helaena plot was set up so that some characters will eventually realize she is a genuine dreamer. An aspect they could explore, I think, is a potential rivalry between the Velaryon boys and Daemon's sons. If Daemon were to conclude that his and Rhaenyra's blood have a super special destiny, he might no longer approve of Jace or Joff being Rhaenyra's heir.

Rhaenyra is much more sober in the show, so I don't think we will see her taking any weird turns. However, should Cregan come down to court as I think he might, the whole 'Song of Ice and Fire' thing could certainly make the Stark guy look very attractive to her. I mean, we all believe that part of Lyanna's attraction for Rhaegar must have been this part of the prophecy, so if Rhaenyra believes in it, too, the show could certainly play with that aspect which never properly played out in GoT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Rhaenyra's comments were completely out of character. In the book she was screaming in rage, in the show she is completely passive even with the preexisting knowledge that Otto (or Alicent) might harm her own children. And worst of all the prophecy should be motive to NOT surrender the throne, instead she is spewing this contradictory bull shit at him.

That is not really true. I mean, yes, we have reports that have Rhaenyra curse everybody and their grandchildren during her painful three days labor ... but none of her later actions reflect whatever anger she (supposedly) felt during that time. She doesn't demand that everybody be killed when she is crowned, nor does she later actually execute any of her family when she captures them. At best this anger would have been a reflection of her suffering during her prolonged labor ... but not representative of her political leanings.

In that sense the show's take on Rhaenyra's character is more consistent than the one Gyldayn creates in his book - which makes sense since those contradictions are intended considering Gyldayn draws on multiple sources to tell the story of the Dance.

The show could have gone with a more hawkish version of Rhaenyra, but then they would have faced trouble when she spares the lives of Helaena and Alicent both.

The legacy of the Song of Ice and Fire is that House Targaryen should stand united against the common enemy. Rhaenyra knows this and one way to make it true would be to accept Aegon's kingship. Of course, a clear problem there would be to keep the belief in the prophecy alive. It wouldn't do to have the Realm united only for Aegon II and his heirs to not keep the tradition alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not really true. I mean, yes, we have reports that have Rhaenyra curse everybody and their grandchildren during her painful three days labor ... but none of her later actions reflect whatever anger she (supposedly) felt during that time. She doesn't demand that everybody be killed when she is crowned, nor does she later actually execute any of her family when she captures them. At best this anger would have been a reflection of her suffering during her prolonged labor ... but not representative of her political leanings.

In that sense the show's take on Rhaenyra's character is more consistent than the one Gyldayn creates in his book - which makes sense since those contradictions are intended considering Gyldayn draws on multiple sources to tell the story of the Dance.

The show could have gone with a more hawkish version of Rhaenyra, but then they would have faced trouble when she spares the lives of Helaena and Alicent both.

The legacy of the Song of Ice and Fire is that House Targaryen should stand united against the common enemy. Rhaenyra knows this and one way to make it true would be to accept Aegon's kingship. Of course, a clear problem there would be to keep the belief in the prophecy alive. It wouldn't do to have the Realm united only for Aegon II and his heirs to not keep the tradition alive.

So in three paragraphs you explained why it's absolutely true. She was angry, just because she wasn't planning on killing everyone (except Alicent and Otto) doesn't mean she was considering abandoning her claim. 

Which is what, in the show, she was literally suggesting. If she wasn't serious then why say it? Either way it is out of character for both her book interpretation and her show interpretation because even the pure hearted Rhaenyra of the show never shows any reluctance to ascend, she wants the throne from the first episode to the last (unlike Aegon and Alicent). 

So what are you disagreeing with exactly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

So what are you disagreeing with exactly? 

I pointed out that many of the FaB characters are, in fact, not internally consistent. One expects that's intentional because the different sources had different takes on the various characters. A very glaring example of this is Queen Rhaena first presented as a woman who didn't give shit about the Iron Throne and supporting Jaehaerys' claim wholeheartedly ... only to later allegedly growing resentful that the throne wasn't hers.

While the end of her retirement in her Fair Isle paradise certainly could have caused her to reassess her role in life, realizing that she may have given up something prematurely that could have been pretty cool ... there is also the fact that the character of the woman who is growing bitter and evil in later life is also quite common.

In that sense, it is more likely that Rhaena's issues were more with herself and how her life started to suck, and less about power and ambition.

For the Dance we have similar contradictions with Daemon, Aegon II, Rhaenyra.

My take on the Rhaenyra thing we talk about basically is that we cannot really pretend that the story about her curses, etc. during her long labor actually happened in this manner. The source for this would be (mostly) Mushroom, and he would be remembering this years or decades later when he dictated his book.

I'm not saying Rhaenyra didn't suffer during her labor or didn't curse folks at all ... but it is clear that those curses were no political statements.

If you want to judge which statements are closer to the actual historical person then the big public announcements and decrees are the way to go. Those things would be witnessed and remembered and put to paper by many people, meaning Gyldayn wouldn't be drawing his narrative about those events only from the sources claiming to have had access to 'secret knowledge' (which is what Eustace and Mushroom both claim, and Orwyle to a lesser extent).

Of course, the prophecy stuff is an addition by the show, and book Rhaenyra is seems more focused on her claim, more determined to push it from the start. But the measures she takes to do this are still very conservative and cautious. It is not a big diversion of the show to have Rhaenyra discuss whether to push her claim or not with Daemon behind closed doors. Officially Rhaenyra never gives up her claim in the show, not with her lords and not with her sons. She only talks about this with her husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 7:37 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

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.

My feeling is that Westeros wouldn't talk about 'pagan holidays' or dismiss anything connected to the old gods as 'pagan'. They still do swear by the old gods and the new, after all. There are zealots of the Seven, to be sure, but the take on holidays and feasts would be that none of them were ever given up, but changed so the celebration was now (more) about an aspect of the Seven or some mythical Andal hero (king) than about what it was back before the arrival of the Andals.

Although, of course, holidays marking the passing of seasons or sowing, harvest, etc. should play as great a role in the Andal kingdoms as it does in the North. Those freak seasons would completely dominate every aspect of the people living in those lands.

The biggest celebrations of Westeros should be the formal beginning of Spring/End of Winter and the Beginning of Summer, for obvious reasons, but even the Beginning of Autumn and Winter should be observed in a ritualistic manner. It marks a significant change in the lives of the people, and if you mark it with a feast or a celebrations you express that you take it seriously, have prepared for it.

In the North the Last Harvest before winter should be a very significant event. In the more southern regions were harvests in mild(er) winters might be possibly, winter harvests should be very joyous events, too.

Of course, the religious of Westeros also kind of suck in light of the fact that the freak seasons apparently never shaped the beliefs of the people to degree that there are deities embodying winter or summer, autumn and spring, not to mention that the Stranger as a deity of death should also be closely linked with winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I pointed out that many of the FaB characters are, in fact, not internally consistent. One expects that's intentional because the different sources had different takes on the various characters. A very glaring example of this is Queen Rhaena first presented as a woman who didn't give shit about the Iron Throne and supporting Jaehaerys' claim wholeheartedly ... only to later allegedly growing resentful that the throne wasn't hers.

While the end of her retirement in her Fair Isle paradise certainly could have caused her to reassess her role in life, realizing that she may have given up something prematurely that could have been pretty cool ... there is also the fact that the character of the woman who is growing bitter and evil in later life is also quite common.

In that sense, it is more likely that Rhaena's issues were more with herself and how her life started to suck, and less about power and ambition.

For the Dance we have similar contradictions with Daemon, Aegon II, Rhaenyra.

My take on the Rhaenyra thing we talk about basically is that we cannot really pretend that the story about her curses, etc. during her long labor actually happened in this manner. The source for this would be (mostly) Mushroom, and he would be remembering this years or decades later when he dictated his book.

I'm not saying Rhaenyra didn't suffer during her labor or didn't curse folks at all ... but it is clear that those curses were no political statements.

If you want to judge which statements are closer to the actual historical person then the big public announcements and decrees are the way to go. Those things would be witnessed and remembered and put to paper by many people, meaning Gyldayn wouldn't be drawing his narrative about those events only from the sources claiming to have had access to 'secret knowledge' (which is what Eustace and Mushroom both claim, and Orwyle to a lesser extent).

Of course, the prophecy stuff is an addition by the show, and book Rhaenyra is seems more focused on her claim, more determined to push it from the start. But the measures she takes to do this are still very conservative and cautious. It is not a big diversion of the show to have Rhaenyra discuss whether to push her claim or not with Daemon behind closed doors. Officially Rhaenyra never gives up her claim in the show, not with her lords and not with her sons. She only talks about this with her husband.

The post you were replying to was about her consistency in the show itself. Show Rhaenyra wants the throne and never waivers. 

In the book, her being angry is not insider information, it is a normative reaction to the step mother you have no love for stealing your birth right.  

Rhaenyra was changed drastically in that regard, but none of it ever led to her doubting her own claim. For decades, despite numerous challenges, she refuses to even consider the idea of being passed down.  

Now, at a pivotal moment she uses the prophecy as an excuse to surrender and risk the lives of her children even though the prophecy should incentivize her to take the throne. 
 

It is abject nonsense, and it had nothing to do with the knowledge of the prophecy, her love for her children, or her personal aims as a character. So why does she say it? to get a rise out of Daemon and show his bad boy side to the audience. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The post you were replying to was about her consistency in the show itself. Show Rhaenyra wants the throne and never waivers. 

Rewatch the show. In episode 8 she point blank says to her delirious dad that she never wanted the throne and it is up to him whether she will remain the heir or not. That's not a woman who lives for the prospect of being queen. Also, her talk to Luke in the final episode reinforces this. She was pushed into the role of heir by her father and eventually grew to accept it. She is fine with being the next queen when her father dies, but it is nothing she wanted or craved.

However, if you are royalty in this setting you cannot possibly reject such a thing. If your royal or lordly father approaches you and tells you you are his heir now, then you accept it, even if you afraid. Your entire upbringing and education would demand that you do this. And most children in such a position would view this as a sign of their father's love. We see how Daemon wants the Handship because he feels it would be an expression of his brother's love for him, we see how Jon Snow dreams about being declare a true Stark by Ned. Rhaenyra never dreamed about being the heir, but once she was named heir she (eventually) realized that this was a way how her father expressed his love for her and she was grateful for that.

But it takes her years. She still expects him to change the succession in the third episode.

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

In the book, her being angry is not insider information, it is a normative reaction to the step mother you have no love for stealing your birth right.

Go back and reread the chapter. The story about the stillbirth, etc. is court gossip and the source behind it is Mushroom. That's evident from the simple fact that Gyldayn reveals  that Mushroom is the only source for the notion that Rhaenyra's stillborn daughter was a monstrosity. Nobody else says that. The only people overhearing Rhaenyra's curses and such would be Daemon, her sons, and the servants (Mushroom included, who was there) and to our knowledge only Mushroom left any records of what transpired there. And Mushroom is not trustworthy in general, nor would his memory allow him to accurately remember what Rhaenyra said years or decades ago at the time some scribe wrote his book for him.

Rhaenyra's subsequent coronation was attended by lots of lords and knights and it was an official ceremony. Many witnesses would have written accounts of that, Maester Gerardys of Dragonstone included.

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Now, at a pivotal moment she uses the prophecy as an excuse to surrender and risk the lives of her children even though the prophecy should incentivize her to take the throne.

That doesn't follow at all. If the true enemy where to attack during the succession war, the Realm would be weakened and House Targaryen would have failed the Conqueror. If Rhaenyra accepted Aegon's kingship she and her dragonriders could then help Aegon to do what they would have to do in the war against the Others. If they fight each other this would not happen ... or only too late.

Also note in that context that Rhaenyra never heard her father saying that he believed she was the promised prince(ss). He intervened on her behalf in the Vaemond thing, but he never told her why he did it or that he believed she played a crucial role in the prophecy. If he had told her that, she may have thought that it was her duty to become queen no matter what. But as things are her main focus is on the content of the general prophecy, and that calls for unity in the House of the Dragon, not civil war. I mean, Rhaenyra would have been aware her entire life that her father wanted sons. And eventually he got not just one but three sons. He still stuck with her, but she herself is quite aware that it is not the normal order of things that she as the eldest daughter remains the heir if she has three younger half-brothers.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rewatch the show. In episode 8 she point blank says to her delirious dad that she never wanted the throne and it is up to him whether she will remain the heir or not. That's not a woman who lives for the prospect of being queen. Also, her talk to Luke in the final episode reinforces this. She was pushed into the role of heir by her father and eventually grew to accept it. She is fine with being the next queen when her father dies, but it is nothing she wanted or craved. 

No dude, her entire character is built around wanting the throne. She thinks her father ignores her until he names her as his heir. She sees it as a symbol of his love and affection. She cherishes being heir and despite many proclivities that would undermine her claim she never gives it up. 

There were many opportunities to reject the duty of Queendom for sake of personal freedoms and she never does. Yes she wants the right to enjoy herself but she never concludes that the throne is the problem. She knows (for decades) people want to see her gone and does not even once consider that as a viable option. 

In that scene with Viserys, at the very end, after two decades, she puts the pressure on him, asking for him to do something to protect her claim. She is exhausted because defeat is near but she wants this thing so bad she will go to a corpse of a father and beg that he aid her as a hail mary. 

The scene with Daemon was the only time she considered conceding to the Greens, and that is after they betrayed and stole her birthright. 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

But it takes her years. She still expects him to change the succession in the third episode. 

No, no, no. She fears that he will change the succession. If she didn't care or was indifferent she would have (at many different times) discussed the merits of Aegon rather than her. But she doesn't, she denies the plot against her and is determined to see her destiny fulfilled. 

Worrying that your father will sway is not the same thing as wanting him to sway. I mean come on Lord Varys, when Aegon is first born Rhaenyra is miserable because of the loss of attention, brooding around because she might be passed over. 

This is what the narrative says about her character, this is how it is framed, this is the moral basis for the entire show. Women shouldn't be passed down for men  

The moral is that she should want it, and she does. That is the primary aspect of her as a person. 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Go back and reread the chapter. The story about the stillbirth, etc. is court gossip and the source behind it is Mushroom. That's evident from the simple fact that Gyldayn reveals  that Mushroom is the only source for the notion that Rhaenyra's stillborn daughter was a monstrosity. Nobody else says that. The only people overhearing Rhaenyra's curses and such would be Daemon, her sons, and the servants (Mushroom included, who was there) and to our knowledge only Mushroom left any records of what transpired there. And Mushroom is not trustworthy in general, nor would his memory allow him to accurately remember what Rhaenyra said years or decades ago at the time some scribe wrote his book for him. 

Again, Martin wrote a book with narrative cohesion. Saying entire segments are flat out lies to shape the story into your own thing isn't conducive of good analysis. 

Mushroom isn't a source of abject lies meant to throw off the reader, he is a source of exaggerations that conceptualizes the tale with some flare. Maybe this person doesn't watch children fight, but the point is he is a drunk who does immoral things. Maybe Rhaenyra wasn't screaming at the top of her lungs, but she is angry her birthright has been stolen from her. 

Rhaenyra and Alicent have no love for each other in the book. They are enemies, everything about the book says this time and time again. Referencing real history is pointless because this is not real history. You can read a real historical account and hypothesize why it was all false or whatever, but this isn't that. 

Martin is writing a story, he is building a antagonistic relationship between stepmother and stepdaughter. And the climax of this rivalry is when Alicent steals the throne from Rhaenyra. Is Rhaenyra suppose to be happy, no of course she is mad. Just because Mushroom will add scandalous tidbits doesn't mean the emotional progress is a complete lie and the story is whatever you want it to be Lord Varys. 

Rhaenyra being mad at someone (who hates) for taking what is hers for selfish reasons is natural. Rhaenyra seriously considering giving up the throne because she has no motivation to do so is not. And we know the show doesn't take itself seriously because the show never considers her dropping her claim. She just says it in this one scene to get Daemon to choke her for the audience. 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

That doesn't follow at all. If the true enemy where to attack during the succession war, the Realm would be weakened and House Targaryen would have failed the Conqueror. If Rhaenyra accepted Aegon's kingship she and her dragonriders could then help Aegon to do what they would have to do in the war against the Others. If they fight each other this would not happen ... or only too late. 

What are you talking about, she doesn't think there is going to be a massive war. And if she did the least she could do is try to push her claims and then relent once she saw it wasn't working. 

Of course the show version of Rhaenyra, by your own admission here, is awful. Because according to you she has no personal desires, no emotional feelings towards Alicent or her half-siblings, no concern for her father and his wishes, and no feelings. 

She is just a computer calculating the cost of some unforeseeable war against a nebulous enemy that might not strike for another few centuries and that might not exist.  

But that isn't who she is before, the gymnastics required to take this as an actual interpretation is not healthy. And worse, AEGON doesn't know about the prophecy. What is she going to do, enter a nest of vipers, with a man she suspects want her dead (Otto), and just casual chitchat about a prophecy that she wasn't going to do anything about anyways? 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Also note in that context that Rhaenyra never heard her father saying that he believed she was the promised prince(ss). He intervened on her behalf in the Vaemond thing, but he never told her why he did it or that he believed she played a crucial role in the prophecy. If he had told her that, she may have thought that it was her duty to become queen no matter what. But as things are her main focus is on the content of the general prophecy, and that calls for unity in the House of the Dragon, not civil war. I mean, Rhaenyra would have been aware her entire life that her father wanted sons. And eventually he got not just one but three sons. He still stuck with her, but she herself is quite aware that it is not the normal order of things that she as the eldest daughter remains the heir if she has three younger half-brothers.

OMG, please, forget about the show, watch the trailer. 

Rhaenyra knows it is the traditional order for the eldest daughter to be passed down, and she wants to create a NEW order. Part of the reason she wants this so bad is because she hates the sexism behind the old order. She wanted to BREAK the wheel like Daenerys, that's the whole point of the goddam show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

No dude, her entire character is built around wanting the throne. She thinks her father ignores her until he names her as his heir. She sees it as a symbol of his love and affection. She cherishes being heir and despite many proclivities that would undermine her claim she never gives it up.

She never expected to be the heir, and her love for/connection with Daemon has her object to be named heir because he is her father's heir. She is hurt that her father cares more about having sons than spending time with/loving her, but her whole thing about wanting to be a boy/man is not that she then would be the heir, but that she would have a freer life, could easier do what she wants to do.

And she cannot give up being the heir without insulting or hurting her father. This is not really a choice for her, but a burden that has been put on her she cannot really reject.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

In that scene with Viserys, at the very end, after two decades, she puts the pressure on him, asking for him to do something to protect her claim. She is exhausted because defeat is near but she wants this thing so bad she will go to a corpse of a father and beg that he aid her as a hail mary. 

No, she specifically says that if he truly wants her to be the queen he has to stand up for her now. She never wanted the whole thing, and if you look at things her decision to retreat to Dragonstone can actually be read as her having had enough of constant intrigues and plots and infighting. She effectively retires and spends her time raising her children. She hasn't given up being the heir, but it is not her top priority. Else she would have pushed for herself or Daemon to be the Hand, would have kept or retaken her seat on the council, etc.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The scene with Daemon was the only time she considered conceding to the Greens, and that is after they betrayed and stole her birthright.

She also has no real problem with being replaced as heir back in episode 3. She even expects this to happen. Until the end of that episode she views herself not as the loved, favorite child of her father but as a spare/replacement heir only used to push out Daemon who will eventually be replaced by a son.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

No, no, no. She fears that he will change the succession. If she didn't care or was indifferent she would have (at many different times) discussed the merits of Aegon rather than her. But she doesn't, she denies the plot against her and is determined to see her destiny fulfilled. 

Aegon doesn't seem to have any merits. At all. Not even his own mother thinks he would make a good king.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Worrying that your father will sway is not the same thing as wanting him to sway. I mean come on Lord Varys, when Aegon is first born Rhaenyra is miserable because of the loss of attention, brooding around because she might be passed over.

Not because of Aegon's birth, specifically, but because she thought that her father remarrying would eventually lead to herself being replaced. I mean, seriously, put yourself in her position. She likes her uncle, and then the schemers at court push her father to oust him as heir in favor of her, only for the same people to then push her father to remarry so he could finally father a son to replace her. In this whole thing she is clearly used as a pawn by other people, her own father included (who would be the guy who finally made all those decisions).

Rhaenys tells her that this is what will happen, and she apparently believed it until Viserys' decision for her at the end of episode 3.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Again, Martin wrote a book with narrative cohesion. Saying entire segments are flat out lies to shape the story into your own thing isn't conducive of good analysis. 

Nope, he decidedly wrote the book for the characters being inconsistent as hell. Because the accounts are based on different and partially contradictory sources.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Mushroom isn't a source of abject lies meant to throw off the reader, he is a source of exaggerations that conceptualizes the tale with some flare. Maybe this person doesn't watch children fight, but the point is he is a drunk who does immoral things. Maybe Rhaenyra wasn't screaming at the top of her lungs, but she is angry her birthright has been stolen from her. 

Rhaenyra in the show is also angry what happened to her. She just isn't sure if she wants to wage a proper and all-out war over the issue.

The internal contradiction in the book is that the 'curses during the painful labor' episode is clearly not fitting well with Rhaenyra's later declaration at her coronation - which doesn't have her demand the deaths of her half-siblings, whilst she clearly wanted to see all of them dead as per the labor episode. More importantly, she later even spares Alicent's life who is declared a traitor as per the declaration at her coronation.

With Rhaenyra the contradiction is less striking than with Eustace's take on Aegon not wanting the throne because Rhaenyra was the rightful heir and him shortly thereafter insisting that she be killed ... but it is there nonetheless, and it seems clear that this is the case because the labor episode is drawn from Mushroom's account alone, just as the episode about Aegon's reluctance be king is drawn exclusively from Eustace's account.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Rhaenyra and Alicent have no love for each other in the book. They are enemies, everything about the book says this time and time again. Referencing real history is pointless because this is not real history. You can read a real historical account and hypothesize why it was all false or whatever, but this isn't that.

Rhaenyra and Alicent were also friends once, in the book. Not as close friends as they are in the show, but friends nonetheless. The degree in which they personally loathed each other is unclear in the book. For that we simply have to little actual insight into their character and views of each other.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Martin is writing a story, he is building a antagonistic relationship between stepmother and stepdaughter. And the climax of this rivalry is when Alicent steals the throne from Rhaenyra. Is Rhaenyra suppose to be happy, no of course she is mad. Just because Mushroom will add scandalous tidbits doesn't mean the emotional progress is a complete lie and the story is whatever you want it to be Lord Varys.

Nobody says she wasn't angry and hurt over the usurpation. But it is not clear in the book that she truly was very much into war from the start ... nor that she wanted to kill all the traitors.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Rhaenyra being mad at someone (who hates) for taking what is hers for selfish reasons is natural. Rhaenyra seriously considering giving up the throne because she has no motivation to do so is not. And we know the show doesn't take itself seriously because the show never considers her dropping her claim. She just says it in this one scene to get Daemon to choke her for the audience. 

LOL, no. Daemon only attacks her because he thinks the woman has lost her senses ... and because he only now realized how little his brother, father, and grandfather trusted him.

This scene is there to show how responsible Rhaenyra is. Yes, she wants the throne, but she is willing to accept that it had been taken from her because House Targaryen has a larger duty to the Realm than just her own petty desire for the throne.

But she simply considers accepting Aegon's kingship - she never actually does. She knows that doing this would come with its own set of problems, mainly threats to her own life and the lives of her family. Daemon is right that they cannot possibly trust the Greens.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

What are you talking about, she doesn't think there is going to be a massive war. And if she did the least she could do is try to push her claims and then relent once she saw it wasn't working.

There would be a war if she resisted, and House Targaryen would be weakened if she did it. Some royals (and perhaps their dragons, too) would die, perhaps only because they are executed in the end, perhaps during the fighting.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Of course the show version of Rhaenyra, by your own admission here, is awful. Because according to you she has no personal desires, no emotional feelings towards Alicent or her half-siblings, no concern for her father and his wishes, and no feelings. 

LOL, no. She has all that ... but there is another layer on top of that all, something she also considers. The prophecy stuff.

Whilst that is an addition by the show, it is not really contradicting the book. We don't know what Daemon and Rhaenyra talked about behind closed doors, and we don't really know why their war strategy was so conservative and cautious that it bordered on stupidity. One reason for this could certainly be a general reluctance of plunging the entire Realm into a war.

Note that the Black strategy didn't involve a drawn-out war involving all the Seven Kingdoms. They wanted support from the Stormlands and the Riverlands to end this whole thing quickly. When they decided to send dragonriders as envoys the ended up adding to North as potential allies, too, but they never expected to actually need help from there.

All this would be consistent with a Rhaenyra who doesn't really want a big war ... and a reason for this could be the prophecy or a general reluctance to plunge the Realm into war.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

She is just a computer calculating the cost of some unforeseeable war against a nebulous enemy that might not strike for another few centuries and that might not exist.  

LOL, no. George and Ryan actually talk about this. The prophecy didn't come with a time stamp. So every Targaryen believing in the prophecy didn't know when it would come true ... which means the best way to deal with it would be to consider the possibility that it might come true in your own reign. Viserys I put peace above all else because he knew the Realm should be at peace when the true enemy came. The policies of Jaehaerys I (in the show) would of been motivated by a similar desire. Ditto the Conqueror's policy after he had finally accepted that Dorne wouldn't yield.

Rhaenyra could pretend that the prophecy would only come true in the distant future ... but that would be reckless. It could come true tomorrow. And if her actions then led to a development where Westeros couldn't properly react to the threat she would have failed her father and the Conqueror's memory and the very reason why House Targaryen had come to Dragonstone and conquered the Seven Kingdoms.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

But that isn't who she is before, the gymnastics required to take this as an actual interpretation is not healthy. And worse, AEGON doesn't know about the prophecy. What is she going to do, enter a nest of vipers, with a man she suspects want her dead (Otto), and just casual chitchat about a prophecy that she wasn't going to do anything about anyways?

If she had accepted Aegon's terms as given to her by Otto, she would have also believed that they wouldn't kill her or her family (she didn't accept them, so we can assume she didn't believe they would do this). In such a scenario she would likely have gone to Otto, Alicent, and Aegon (and Aemond, too, one imagines) to tell them what her father told her and what nobody ever told Aegon before. She would have seen it as her duty to explain to the new king what his true duty to the Realm and House Targaryen was.

And you can be very sure that this plot will continue in the show. Rhaenyra and Alicent likely will talk about this after Rhaenyra takes the capital. Alicent was apparently never told about the prophecy by Viserys, but she knew her husband believed in prophecies and prophetic dreams, so this whole plot will continue to be important.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Rhaenyra knows it is the traditional order for the eldest daughter to be passed down, and she wants to create a NEW order. Part of the reason she wants this so bad is because she hates the sexism behind the old order. She wanted to BREAK the wheel like Daenerys, that's the whole point of the goddam show. 

LOL, what? Rhaenyra talks about her new order as a defiant statement against Rhaenys' claim that she will never be queen. As things go, Rhaenys is wrong. Not only does her father not pass over Rhaenyra when he has a son, he also effectively establishes equal primogeniture for the succession of the Iron Throne when he arranges the match between Rhaenyra and Laenor. The new order Rhaenyra speaks of is created, but it is the new order of Viserys, not the new order of Rhaenyra.

We also see this new order in existence during the reign of Viserys when he has two women on a council that was earlier exclusively male.

One imagines that the show will have Rhaenyra favor women more than book Rhaenyra did (who was pushed by Corlys to view her own succession merely as 'a special case' whereas Daemon pushed for equal priogeniture being applied to the succession of Stokeworth and Rosby). One imagines we will see Baela and Rhaena on her council, eventually with speaking roles, and one would expect that the writers will also extend the role of Jeyne Arryn (who could easily enough join Rhaenyra on Dragonstone or in KL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She never expected to be the heir, and her love for/connection with Daemon has her object to be named heir because he is her father's heir. She is hurt that her father cares more about having sons than spending time with/loving her, but her whole thing about wanting to be a boy/man is not that she then would be the heir, but that she would have a freer life, could easier do what she wants to do. 

Not expecting to be heir and not wanting to be heir are different things. Saying "But Daemon is your heir" isn't showing unwillingness, it is showing disbelief. 

Part of the reason she broods so much is because she feels her father values a potential son more than her. And part of the reason she thinks he does this is because he is looking for an heir. By naming her his successor she connotates his love with her position as next in line, which is why she wants.  

Yeah she pursues greater freedoms, but she never sees the throne as the problem, or the duties it entails. Instead she sees the misogynistic order to blame and wants the queendom even more. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And she cannot give up being the heir without insulting or hurting her father. This is not really a choice for her, but a burden that has been put on her she cannot really reject. 

You're just creating fantasy at this point. The idea she is only doing this out of obligation is laughable. If she didn't want it or was even the slightest bit reluctant the show would have made that relevant somehow. 

Instead she jumps at the opportunity and for the following twenty years never waivers. Maybe she could be upset by the responsibility but instead she broods whenever she feels she is being passed over. Maybe part of the reason she wants this so much is because it is a symbol of her father's love, but the whole point of the show is that she wants this. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, she specifically says that if he truly wants her to be the queen he has to stand up for her now. She never wanted the whole thing, and if you look at things her decision to retreat to Dragonstone can actually be read as her having had enough of constant intrigues and plots and infighting. She effectively retires and spends her time raising her children. She hasn't given up being the heir, but it is not her top priority. Else she would have pushed for herself or Daemon to be the Hand, would have kept or retaken her seat on the council, etc. 

No isn't the right answer here. She struggles against everything, even at the expense of her own children, for the throne. Before leaving for Dragonstone she plots to 'kill' Laenor to help shore up her claim with more Valyrian born children (via Daemon) and instill "fear" into her enemies. Fleeing to Dragonstone wasn't her giving up, it was the exact opposite. 

And the show tells use this in a 100 different ways. You cannot legitimately hold this position when the dialogue and everything is opposed to you. She raises her sons to kings in Dragonstone away from the rumors, she never even entertains the idea of being passed over. 

As for Viserys, she is asking him to fight for her. If she "never wanted" the whole thing she would have for at least one scene showed reluctance, instead all she ever did was pressure Viserys to keep her as heir and showed nothing but abject misery at the idea of anything else. If she never wanted it, she would have been relieved on the birth of Aegon, and her problem wasn't about being killed. She wanted people to accept her, that was the whole point of her discussion with Cole at the hunting grounds. 

Going to a dying father desperately begging for help isn't a sign of someone who doesn't want it. 

I think the problem is we aren't debating something about the show, you are just denying the central theme all the writers are screaming at you because you need Rhaenyra to not want the throne for the story to fit with your own head-canon. It's like hitting your head against a brick wall, just stop. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She also has no real problem with being replaced as heir back in episode 3. She even expects this to happen. Until the end of that episode she views herself not as the loved, favorite child of her father but as a spare/replacement heir only used to push out Daemon who will eventually be replaced by a son. 

Expecting something and having no problem with it are completely different things, like they have nothing to do with each other. 

Then you go on to explain why she doesn't want to be passed down. Seriously, the attaching the concept of love with the status of heir is a big reason why she wants to be Queen, because it establishes her as her father's favorite child. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon doesn't seem to have any merits. At all. Not even his own mother thinks he would make a good king. 

As a baby? Neither does she, all Rhaenyra wants is the power and the love. She is not calculating her desire based off of a rational fear for the kingdom. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not because of Aegon's birth, specifically, but because she thought that her father remarrying would eventually lead to herself being replaced. I mean, seriously, put yourself in her position. She likes her uncle, and then the schemers at court push her father to oust him as heir in favor of her, only for the same people to then push her father to remarry so he could finally father a son to replace her. In this whole thing she is clearly used as a pawn by other people, her own father included (who would be the guy who finally made all those decisions). 

Rhaenyra was upset over the birth of his first son by Aemma. She literally is acting like a sarcastic bitch at her mother's funeral with the 'I hope he was happy for the few minutes the baby live' line. Her entire character is about wanting the crown and being miserable when she might not get it.  

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenys tells her that this is what will happen, and she apparently believed it until Viserys' decision for her at the end of episode 3. 

The point is what she WANTS, not what she THINKS will happen. Two. Different. Things. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, he decidedly wrote the book for the characters being inconsistent as hell. Because the accounts are based on different and partially contradictory sources. 

Lol no, then there won't be any story. If everything was inconsistent there would be no characterization, no drama, no conflict, nothing.  

To write a cohesive narrative there needs to be ideas built upon ideas. For example, the concept of a rivalry between Alicent of Rhaenyra, it is introduced, built upon, passed down to their children, and eventually climaxes with the coup on the death of King Viserys. 

Emotional progression is the something, specific facts might be misused to exaggerate something, but it's not a book of contradictions. Maybe Daemon didn't take Rhaenyra to a brothel, but the point is he built a close relationship to his young niece. Maybe Rhaenyra didn't scream like a banshee, but she has reasons and motive to angry. 

You're not alone with thinking Westeros history is real and it could all be lies. But it is not real history, we are not reading about real people, we are reading a drama with a specific narrative goal and purpose. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra in the show is also angry what happened to her. She just isn't sure if she wants to wage a proper and all-out war over the issue. 

No she isn't. She is grieving, she is sad, but she never yells or demands vengeance because that would sabotage her image as a pure hearted soul incapable of human vice.  

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The internal contradiction in the book is that the 'curses during the painful labor' episode is clearly not fitting well with Rhaenyra's later declaration at her coronation - which doesn't have her demand the deaths of her half-siblings, whilst she clearly wanted to see all of them dead as per the labor episode. More importantly, she later even spares Alicent's life who is declared a traitor as per the declaration at her coronation. 

"Clearly not fitting" is your own decision. People calm down after an initial bout of rage. And she is still angry, she wants her throne back. She wants the people who stole it from her dead (Alicent and Otto). She because she considers letting her blood relations live (because kinslaying is bad) and not murdering innocent children doesn't mean she is not mad. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

With Rhaenyra the contradiction is less striking than with Eustace's take on Aegon not wanting the throne because Rhaenyra was the rightful heir and him shortly thereafter insisting that she be killed ... but it is there nonetheless, and it seems clear that this is the case because the labor episode is drawn from Mushroom's account alone, just as the episode about Aegon's reluctance be king is drawn exclusively from Eustace's account. 

There is no contradiction. Being mad about a person you hate stealing your throne isn't a contradiction. Entertaining the idea of letting your blood relatives live isn't being "not angry". Your arguments are built on false assumptions. 

Mushroom wasn't put into the book to lie and muddle the story, he was put in the book to exaggerate and embellish the emotional end of the characters. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra and Alicent were also friends once, in the book. Not as close friends as they are in the show, but friends nonetheless. The degree in which they personally loathed each other is unclear in the book. For that we simply have to little actual insight into their character and views of each other. 

Not really, they were far apart in age and had cordial relationship, for like maybe a page. There actual dynamic develops once the rivalry heats up. No part in the actually plot were they friendly, that is just a throw away line for initial introduction. 

I agree the degree of loathing is unclear, but the point is they were rivals who didn't get along. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody says she wasn't angry and hurt over the usurpation. But it is not clear in the book that she truly was very much into war from the start ... nor that she wanted to kill all the traitors. 

So what? No one wants war, but she wants her power back. And she is willing to take different routes (like surrender) to get there. But she would got to war before actual surrendering her claim all together. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Daemon only attacks her because he thinks the woman has lost her senses ... and because he only now realized how little his brother, father, and grandfather trusted him.

This scene is there to show how responsible Rhaenyra is. Yes, she wants the throne, but she is willing to accept that it had been taken from her because House Targaryen has a larger duty to the Realm than just her own petty desire for the throne. 

Ostensibly, but in reality she has no reason for saying this. 

She wants the throne completely. The people who betrayed her are snakes and bad people. She has the capacity to fight back and hold onto her claim. She has a sense of duty to remain because of the prophecy. 

And yet for the first time, in the middle of battle preparations she brings up the idea of surrender. This has nothing to do with her character and in future episodes will not be remembered, it was just an excuse the writers came up with to show bad boy Daemon being bad. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But she simply considers accepting Aegon's kingship - she never actually does. She knows that doing this would come with its own set of problems, mainly threats to her own life and the lives of her family. Daemon is right that they cannot possibly trust the Greens. 

And she knows her kids would be put in danger to. So why did she say it besides trying to get a rise out of Daemon?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There would be a war if she resisted, and House Targaryen would be weakened if she did it. Some royals (and perhaps their dragons, too) would die, perhaps only because they are executed in the end, perhaps during the fighting. 

We are not even at the war part, right now they are just pressuring KL to surrender and shoring up support. For your position to hold merit all the character development about her desperately wanting to be queen, about the love for her children, about her fear of Otto, about her friendship and betrayal that Alicent brought upon her, all of that would have to be thrown out the window over a vague prophecy that SHE was entrusted to enforce. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. She has all that ... but there is another layer on top of that all, something she also considers. The prophecy stuff. 

That thin layer doesn't override everything. In fact it overrides nothing because the point of the prophecy was not for Rhaenyra to have a practical plan, but because Viserys trusted her with the information because she was his real heir. And that is why she wants the throne, because her father choose her and this is her duty. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whilst that is an addition by the show, it is not really contradicting the book. We don't know what Daemon and Rhaenyra talked about behind closed doors, and we don't really know why their war strategy was so conservative and cautious that it bordered on stupidity. One reason for this could certainly be a general reluctance of plunging the entire Realm into a war. 

It would contradict everything just like it did in the show, because Rhaenyra has no reason to give up now. 

1. She wants the throne 

2. Her children would be endangered if she doesn't take the throne 

3. Daemon exists to help her take the throne 

4. The Greens are awful people with no real justification for wanting the throne. 

Everyone and everything is telling her to take it back. There is nothing conflicted about her decision to at least try and enforce her claim before all out war breaks out. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Note that the Black strategy didn't involve a drawn-out war involving all the Seven Kingdoms. They wanted support from the Stormlands and the Riverlands to end this whole thing quickly. When they decided to send dragonriders as envoys the ended up adding to North as potential allies, too, but they never expected to actually need help from there. 

My point exactly. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All this would be consistent with a Rhaenyra who doesn't really want a big war ... and a reason for this could be the prophecy or a general reluctance to plunge the Realm into war. 

Exactly, trying to push her claim isn't the same things as starting a big war. 

But again, there are a lot of reasons to not want to start a big war, the prophecy is just a minor one. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. George and Ryan actually talk about this. The prophecy didn't come with a time stamp. So every Targaryen believing in the prophecy didn't know when it would come true ... which means the best way to deal with it would be to consider the possibility that it might come true in your own reign. Viserys I put peace above all else because he knew the Realm should be at peace when the true enemy came. The policies of Jaehaerys I (in the show) would of been motivated by a similar desire. Ditto the Conqueror's policy after he had finally accepted that Dorne wouldn't yield. 

George and Ryan made this up to screw with the character motivations. But even then, all it did was provide more reason for Rhaenyra to take the throne and pass down the prophecy to her future children.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra could pretend that the prophecy would only come true in the distant future ... but that would be reckless. It could come true tomorrow. And if her actions then led to a development where Westeros couldn't properly react to the threat she would have failed her father and the Conqueror's memory and the very reason why House Targaryen had come to Dragonstone and conquered the Seven Kingdoms. 

She doesn't do any of this stuff. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If she had accepted Aegon's terms as given to her by Otto, she would have also believed that they wouldn't kill her or her family (she didn't accept them, so we can assume she didn't believe they would do this). In such a scenario she would likely have gone to Otto, Alicent, and Aegon (and Aemond, too, one imagines) to tell them what her father told her and what nobody ever told Aegon before. She would have seen it as her duty to explain to the new king what his true duty to the Realm and House Targaryen was. 

You just said she doesn't trust Otto and thinks he want her dead. Why would she start believing him now?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And you can be very sure that this plot will continue in the show. Rhaenyra and Alicent likely will talk about this after Rhaenyra takes the capital. Alicent was apparently never told about the prophecy by Viserys, but she knew her husband believed in prophecies and prophetic dreams, so this whole plot will continue to be important.

LOL, what? Rhaenyra talks about her new order as a defiant statement against Rhaenys' claim that she will never be queen. As things go, Rhaenys is wrong. Not only does her father not pass over Rhaenyra when he has a son, he also effectively establishes equal primogeniture for the succession of the Iron Throne when he arranges the match between Rhaenyra and Laenor. The new order Rhaenyra speaks of is created, but it is the new order of Viserys, not the new order of Rhaenyra. 

Why is she defiant against Rhaenys? Because she WANTS to be QUEEN. 

Why does she want a new order? Because she WANTS TO BE QUEEN.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We also see this new order in existence during the reign of Viserys when he has two women on a council that was earlier exclusively male. 

No, she wants to create the new order. She doesn't want Viserys to do it. 

"When I am queen I will create a new order" not "let my father take care of it". 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One imagines that the show will have Rhaenyra favor women more than book Rhaenyra did (who was pushed by Corlys to view her own succession merely as 'a special case' whereas Daemon pushed for equal priogeniture being applied to the succession of Stokeworth and Rosby). One imagines we will see Baela and Rhaena on her council, eventually with speaking roles, and one would expect that the writers will also extend the role of Jeyne Arryn (who could easily enough join Rhaenyra on Dragonstone or in KL).

Yeah, because show Rhaenyra sees her queendom as a victory for all women (or she is just selfish). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...