Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't think the 'incest' between Richard III and Elizabeth of York is that construed. One doesn't have believe in a passionate affair there ... although that might not be completely off the table, either, considering how, well, badly Henry VII treated Elizabeth in their later marriage.

I'm certainly no expert on the War of the Roses, but this is the first time I hear something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I've never read any of her works but watched the first season based on her works. Not really a fan.

Don't think the 'incest' between Richard III and Elizabeth of York is that construed. One doesn't have believe in a passionate affair there ... although that might not be completely off the table, either, considering how, well, badly Henry VII treated Elizabeth in their later marriage. But a calculated consideration to solidify Richard's hold on the throne by ways of marrying his brother's eldest child might have been on the table only to fall through because started to believe Richard had his first wife murdered.

These people had little to no issue with avuncular marriages.

Based on what I’ve read, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had a very good marriage, and he became quite embittered after her death.

The English must have taken some umbrage at the idea of the king marrying his niece, otherwise it wouldn’t have caused such a scandal. Richard III had to publicly deny the rumors and send Elizabeth away from court.

But the reason I find the incestuous love affair unlikely is that Richard had declared her and her siblings bastards, imprisoned her younger brothers, usurped the throne from all of them and, most importantly, killed her older half-brother Richard Grey. That’s a lot to overlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I'm certainly no expert on the War of the Roses, but this is the first time I hear something like this.

Yeah, I got confused there about the role she played in the beginning of the marriage, with her mother-in-law apparently overshadowing her, and Henry making it crystal clear to her that he was king based on his own claim/victory on the field alone. But she was pretty crucial later on to help Henry's legitimacy with the other monarchs on the continent - who didn't view him as a rightful king - and they really got close to each other, apparently, after she had secured the Tudor dynasty.

10 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The English must have taken some umbrage at the idea of the king marrying his niece, otherwise it wouldn’t have caused such a scandal. Richard III had to publicly deny the rumors and send Elizabeth away from court.

As you say further down, one imagines that the scandal had less to do with their close kinship and more with the general circumstances of those alleged marriage plans. Especially so soon after Anne Neville's unfortunate death.

10 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

But the reason I find the incestuous love affair unlikely is that Richard had declared her and her siblings bastards, imprisoned her younger brothers, usurped the throne from all of them and, most importantly, killed her older half-brother Richard Grey. That’s a lot to overlook.

Sure enough, a love affair is very unlikely there. Considering a match not so much, though. Especially in light of Richard's precarious position if he actually had his nephews killed or could not prevent their deaths. If the guy remarried - which was necessary considering his own son by Anne had also died - then Elizabeth was a very good way to do it. Royalty abroad would also be a great way to at least gain some international credibility but if Elizabeth of all people married anyone but Richard (especially Henry Tudor) she and her husband could try to topple him. Vice versa, if Richard had married her it would strengthen his claim and the claim of whatever children they might have together. It could, perhaps, also help to get over the murder of the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am by no means an expert on the War of the Roses, but my controversial historical opinion is that I don’t necessarily think that Shakespeare did as much of a hit job on Richard III as people today claim he did. We know he traduced his own mother as an adulteress and his brother as a bigamist, that he kidnapped his nephews and usurped the throne from them before his brother’s body was cold, and that he de-legitimized the princes and their sisters. Anyone who is capable of doing all of that to their own family is capable of having his nephews killed or poisoning his barren wife. Even the caricature of him as a hunchback turned out to be more of an exaggeration than an outright falsehood, since his skeletal remains showed that he had scoliosis. 
 

Back to Philippa Gregory for a moment; although I would pick GRRM over her 9/10 times, there is one aspect where she outdid him (along with sex scenes, because let’s be honest, George isn’t the best at those). In her book about Margaret Tudor, I found Margaret’s anger at having to live with her new husband’s bastards to be quite understandable and was sympathetic to her, whereas I’ve never felt that way about Cat. Granted, the circumstances were more extreme for Margaret: she was only fourteen (her husband was thirty), he had like seven illegitimate children already, and some of them were almost as old as her. I could sympathize with this teenage girl who was all alone in a strange new land but Cat, who was in a very similar position (I think they were both redheads too), always came across as very prissy and unsympathetic to me. So I do think that one aspect of ASOIAF could have been done better.

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2023 at 8:49 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Philippa Gregory is a very frustrating author. I’m working my way through her Tudor and Plantagenet series right now, and she’s an extremely talented writer and storyteller (I believe GRRM said that he’s a fan of hers), but she makes a lot of maddening narrative decisions.

I haven't read any of her books myself, but I did watch The White Queen series a while ago. And there are unfortunately some unsettling similarities between Richard/Elizabeth and Daemon/Rhaenyra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Bard of Banefort

I think you're mixing up a few details.

1) Anne Neville was not barren (unless you're talking about the play version?)
2) Richard wasn't the one who started the Blaybourne rumor, that was George (a real weathervane by all accounts) and Warwick
3) If I remember correctly, in that time period there was this concept known as "precontract", which meant if you were betrothed to someone it was effectively the same as being married to them, and thus marrying someone else constituted bigamy
So if Edward IV really had been precontracted to Eleanor Butler then, by law, his kids were all illegitimate and few would have argued against that
4) Multiple different parties had cause to want the two princes dead (Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham)
5) One reason the Wars of the Roses started, which Richard would be keenly aware of, was the fact that Henry VI became king when he was just a baby

I'm by no means a Ricardian but I don't think its a stretch of the imagination to say Richard III's reputation is a case of "history is written by the winners." Case in point, the first thing Henry VII did upon winning Bosworth was declare that his reign started the day BEFORE the battle and latter he had so many copies of Titulus Regius destroyed that until a SINGE copy was found by mere chance people generally assumed it was Ricardian propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

@The Bard of Banefort

I think you're mixing up a few details.

1) Anne Neville was not barren (unless you're talking about the play version?)
2) Richard wasn't the one who started the Blaybourne rumor, that was George (a real weathervane by all accounts) and Warwick
3) If I remember correctly, in that time period there was this concept known as "precontract", which meant if you were betrothed to someone it was effectively the same as being married to them, and thus marrying someone else constituted bigamy
So if Edward IV really had been precontracted to Eleanor Butler then, by law, his kids were all illegitimate and few would have argued against that
4) Multiple different parties had cause to want the two princes dead (Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham)
5) One reason the Wars of the Roses started, which Richard would be keenly aware of, was the fact that Henry VI became king when he was just a baby

I'm by no means a Ricardian but I don't think its a stretch of the imagination to say Richard III's reputation is a case of "history is written by the winners." Case in point, the first thing Henry VII did upon winning Bosworth was declare that his reign started the day BEFORE the battle and latter he had so many copies of Titulus Regius destroyed that until a SINGE copy was found by mere chance people generally assumed it was Ricardian propaganda.

By barren, I meant that she hadn’t had any other children besides the one who died after Richard took the throne. He surely knew that he needed an heir.

Even if Edward was pre-contracted, the timing is a little too coincidental. Richard knew about it but didn’t mention it until immediately after his brother died?

Edward V was, what, 12? And wasn’t Richard named his regent? That’s hardly the same as crowning a baby. 
 

Honestly, I think you could draw a comparison between Richard III and Stannis. Since Stannis apparently will burn Shireen, his arc shows how a highly principled lord who was loyal to his brother can be corrupted by a pursuit of power, even if he is convinced that he is only carrying out his duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

By barren, I meant that she hadn’t had any other children besides the one who died after Richard took the throne. He surely knew that he needed an heir.

Even if Edward was pre-contracted, the timing is a little too coincidental. Richard knew about it but didn’t mention it until immediately after his brother died?

Edward V was, what, 12? And wasn’t Richard named his regent? That’s hardly the same as crowning a baby. 
 

Honestly, I think you could draw a comparison between Richard III and Stannis. Since Stannis apparently will burn Shireen, his arc shows how a highly principled lord who was loyal to his brother can be corrupted by a pursuit of power, even if he is convinced that he is only carrying out his duty.

I think Stannis like Richard in real life.  Tyrion is like Shakespeare’s Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Bard of Banefort

Only if Stannis burns Shireen for the same reasons as in the show. Burning Shireen to stop the Others, however horrific, is a bit different.

Anyway, I agree with @SeanF that Stannis is RL Richard and Tyrion is Shakespeare's Richard though I'd add Ned is, in some ways, the Ricardian view mixed with Hastings.

Alas, we won't know the truth until Judgment Day, at which point we'll all be a bit preoccupied. :)

P.S. The pedant in me insists that the word "barren" be reserved for women who don't conceive, let alone give birth to a live child. Also, child monarchs are ALWAYS bad news.

Edited by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I am by no means an expert on the War of the Roses, but my controversial historical opinion is that I don’t necessarily think that Shakespeare did as much of a hit job on Richard III as people today claim he did. We know he traduced his own mother as an adulteress and his brother as a bigamist, that he kidnapped his nephews and usurped the throne from them before his brother’s body was cold, and that he de-legitimized the princes and their sisters. Anyone who is capable of doing all of that to their own family is capable of having his nephews killed or poisoning his barren wife. Even the caricature of him as a hunchback turned out to be more of an exaggeration than an outright falsehood, since his skeletal remains showed that he had scoliosis.

Yes, he pretty much was a hunchback, after all. No character assassination there. The folks claiming this was going on there do look rather stupid now that his body has been found and identified.

I'm pretty much flabbergasted by the whole take on things that anyone but Richard III could have authorized the murder of Edward V and his younger brother. I mean, if somebody else like Richard's buddy Buckingham who also had some weak claim to the throne did it ... Richard III did execute him eventually, so if he was behind the whole thing he would have sure as hell pinned those murders on him to wash his own hands clean.

The notion that any other official at the Tower, etc. would actually do something like that without Richard III's specific (and possibly written) order also makes no sense. And if the boys died natural deaths of illness, etc. it would have been publicly revealed and they would have gotten proper burials.

George kind of plays around with Richard III stuff with Maegor. The alleged murder of Ceryse Hightower kind of brings to mind Richard murdering Anne Neville - that's at a point in both reigns were their reputation is so blackened that people are willing to believe anything (we also have that for the claim that Rhaenyra had Helaena murdered).

The whole pre-contract thing and Richard effectively having Parliament rule on the validity of a royal marriage and the legitimacy of the designated king really reads like a completely nonsensical story. Not only should Parliament have no right doing this in light of the fact that marriage was Church business ... it is just striking how easily this marriage could be swept aside compared to Henry VIII's troubles scarcely 50 years later.

True enough, the Woodvilles weren't exactly Spanish royalty with the most power Habsburg Emperor for a nephew ... but Richard pushing through his agenda this easily certainly must mean he either had a very strong hold on the crucial people his brother put into power. Or Elizabeth Woodville and her family were well and truly hated by most of those people.

This whole thing is especially odd since thanks to the Tudor gang the Lancastrian cause wasn't yet completely dead, so one should have actually expected the Yorkist trying to form a united front. But then, of course, Edward IV's brother George also was so troublesome he eventually had to go, so the family really was pretty dysfunctional there.

Still, this blatant power grab really feels like a guy running amok.

Honestly, I don't see much similarities between Tyrion and Shakespeare's Richard III. He is a kind of cripple, but Tyrion is more like the Claudius from 'I, Claudius' - the smart but loathed family embarrassment who basically only gains prominence when the family is suddenly lacking in more presentable assets. Tyrion might eventually become a villain, but so far he isn't. He tried balancing being a good ruler with being loyal to family and king with satisfying his own desires. His potential for darkness and evil we can only properly assess when he regains any real political power. He could overcome the more destructive and crueler traits he showed in ADwD. And his relationship with Penny, etc. actually might help him in this regard. He is at a better place now than he was in Pentos and Volantis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

 

P.S. The pedant in me insists that the word "barren" be reserved for women who don't conceive, let alone give birth to a live child. Also, child monarchs are ALWAYS bad news.

Hey man, it worked out for Louis XIV.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, he pretty much was a hunchback, after all. No character assassination there. The folks claiming this was going on there do look rather stupid now that his body has been found and identified.

I'm pretty much flabbergasted by the whole take on things that anyone but Richard III could have authorized the murder of Edward V and his younger brother. I mean, if somebody else like Richard's buddy Buckingham who also had some weak claim to the throne did it ... Richard III did execute him eventually, so if he was behind the whole thing he would have sure as hell pinned those murders on him to wash his own hands clean.

The notion that any other official at the Tower, etc. would actually do something like that without Richard III's specific (and possibly written) order also makes no sense. And if the boys died natural deaths of illness, etc. it would have been publicly revealed and they would have gotten proper burials.

George kind of plays around with Richard III stuff with Maegor. The alleged murder of Ceryse Hightower kind of brings to mind Richard murdering Anne Neville - that's at a point in both reigns were their reputation is so blackened that people are willing to believe anything (we also have that for the claim that Rhaenyra had Helaena murdered).

The whole pre-contract thing and Richard effectively having Parliament rule on the validity of a royal marriage and the legitimacy of the designated king really reads like a completely nonsensical story. Not only should Parliament have no right doing this in light of the fact that marriage was Church business ... it is just striking how easily this marriage could be swept aside compared to Henry VIII's troubles scarcely 50 years later.

True enough, the Woodvilles weren't exactly Spanish royalty with the most power Habsburg Emperor for a nephew ... but Richard pushing through his agenda this easily certainly must mean he either had a very strong hold on the crucial people his brother put into power. Or Elizabeth Woodville and her family were well and truly hated by most of those people.

This whole thing is especially odd since thanks to the Tudor gang the Lancastrian cause wasn't yet completely dead, so one should have actually expected the Yorkist trying to form a united front. But then, of course, Edward IV's brother George also was so troublesome he eventually had to go, so the family really was pretty dysfunctional there.

Still, this blatant power grab really feels like a guy running amok.

Honestly, I don't see much similarities between Tyrion and Shakespeare's Richard III. He is a kind of cripple, but Tyrion is more like the Claudius from 'I, Claudius' - the smart but loathed family embarrassment who basically only gains prominence when the family is suddenly lacking in more presentable assets. Tyrion might eventually become a villain, but so far he isn't. He tried balancing being a good ruler with being loyal to family and king with satisfying his own desires. His potential for darkness and evil we can only properly assess when he regains any real political power. He could overcome the more destructive and crueler traits he showed in ADwD. And his relationship with Penny, etc. actually might help him in this regard. He is at a better place now than he was in Pentos and Volantis.

Agreed. And the idea that Henry Tudor, who had to hire mercenaries and align himself with the Woodevilles in order to defeat Richard, was someone able to plan and execute the princes’ deaths from exile is quite fanciful. With that kind of power, he should have just taken the throne then and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Hey man, it worked out for Louis XIV.

And Louis XV.

5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Agreed. And the idea that Henry Tudor, who had to hire mercenaries and align himself with the Woodevilles in order to defeat Richard, was someone able to plan and execute the princes’ deaths from exile is quite fanciful. With that kind of power, he should have just taken the throne then and there.

Yeah, that idea is so far out there that you don't have to consider it. Effectively, nothing short of Richard III having them murdered and the corpses hidden makes much sense. In any other scenario the boys would have at least gotten a proper burial when Henry VII had established himself and married Elizabeth of York.

Henry's success hinges completely on Richard fucking things up the point where an invasion might have a chance of success. And things only got there some time later, in part due to betrayal and schemes among the Yorkists, the deaths of his son and then Anne Neville, etc.

As far as I recall, the three suspects most theorists put forth are Richard, Buckingham and Henry. The odd thing there is that folks rarely fantasize that Henry IV or the regime of Edward III had no hand in the deaths of Richard II and Edward II, respectively. Although there is that conspiracy theory that Edward II actually survived and lived out his life pious obscurity somewhere abroad ... which isn't total nonsense, I guess, since Edward II was actually usurped by his own son, so he may have been reluctant to return and make a mess of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And Louis XV.

Yeah, that idea is so far out there that you don't have to consider it. Effectively, nothing short of Richard III having them murdered and the corpses hidden makes much sense. In any other scenario the boys would have at least gotten a proper burial when Henry VII had established himself and married Elizabeth of York.

Henry's success hinges completely on Richard fucking things up the point where an invasion might have a chance of success. And things only got there some time later, in part due to betrayal and schemes among the Yorkists, the deaths of his son and then Anne Neville, etc.

As far as I recall, the three suspects most theorists put forth are Richard, Buckingham and Henry. The odd thing there is that folks rarely fantasize that Henry IV or the regime of Edward III had no hand in the deaths of Richard II and Edward II, respectively. Although there is that conspiracy theory that Edward II actually survived and lived out his life pious obscurity somewhere abroad ... which isn't total nonsense, I guess, since Edward II was actually usurped by his own son, so he may have been reluctant to return and make a mess of things.

The account of Manuel Fieschi, who was related to the English royal family, and the Pope’s in-house lawyer, makes the survival of Edward II more plausible than most such tales.

The Yorkists had won completely in 1471.  Richard III lost it all by dividing his own faction.

By Christmas 1483, the disappearance of the Princes was the talk of European courts.  It’s impossible for Henry VII to have been responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The account of Manuel Fieschi, who was related to the English royal family, and the Pope’s in-house lawyer, makes the survival of Edward II more plausible than most such tales.

I guess it is about as likely as the 'the red hot poker story'... Even if they killed him, they would have come up with a better way to do it.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

By Christmas 1483, the disappearance of the Princes was the talk of European courts.  It’s impossible for Henry VII to have been responsible.

Definitely in the scenario where he supposedly does it after Bosworth Field. Not sure if people put forward the idea he had agents infiltrate the Tower during Richard's reign and do it then. Would also make little sense, though. In context, Henry Tudor may have actually profited from the reign of a King Edward V since such a king may have allowed him to come back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other theory is that Margaret Beaufort arranged for the boys’ murder (this is the version that Philippa Gregory uses in her books lol). I find it funny that people would prefer to protect the conscience of the guy who kidnapped and imprisoned his own nephews by instead turning one of the most influential women of the era, who helped end the war by arranging the Tudor-York marriage with Elizabeth Woodeville, into a child murderer.

I haven’t read Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower yet, but I’ve heard that it makes a very compelling argument for Richard’s guilt.

Of course, the clearest parallel to the princes in ASOIAF is when Bran and Rickon disappear in ACOK. The difference is, Bran and Rickon definitely did escape and Theon faked their deaths to save face. But even then, we see how killing defenseless children will turn the people against you.

The Yorks are a pretty good example of how a dynasty can destroy itself through greed and decadence. If any of them had been even slightly less selfish, they would have remained in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The other theory is that Margaret Beaufort arranged for the boys’ murder (this is the version that Philippa Gregory uses in her books lol). I find it funny that people would prefer to protect the conscience of the guy who kidnapped and imprisoned his own nephews by instead turning one of the most influential women of the era, who helped end the war by arranging the Tudor-York marriage with Elizabeth Woodeville, into a child murderer.

Never understood why anyone would want to defend that shithead, to be honest. I guess the main reason would be the Shakespeare play.

Not sure if Gregory's portrayal of Margaret Beaufort makes much sense. She certainly may have doted on her only son, but her string of husbands certainly also indicate that she wasn't as steadfast and determined a would-be kingmaker as she portrays them - or as she is portrayed in the shows based on her works.

I mean, the Tudor claim is so outlandish that even after the end of the proper Lancastrian line only the tyrannical exploits of somebody like Richard III could convince a sufficient number of people to bet on this weird horse ... and even then a decisive victory in battle was necessary.

If I had to guess, then prior to Richard's reign the idea that Henry Tudor could ever become king was a very outlandish idea even for the Henry Tudor himself - and whatever friends he had.

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I haven’t read Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower yet, but I’ve heard that it makes a very compelling argument for Richard’s guilt.

It makes a pretty good case. Vice versa, Costain makes a very, very bad case for Richard's possible innocence in the matter.

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Of course, the clearest parallel to the princes in ASOIAF is when Bran and Rickon disappear in ACOK. The difference is, Bran and Rickon definitely did escape and Theon faked their deaths to save face. But even then, we see how killing defenseless children will turn the people against you.

The Yorks are a pretty good example of how a dynasty can destroy itself through greed and decadence. If any of them had been even slightly less selfish, they would have remained in power.

Well, you have to keep in mind that the kind of savagery one sees at the end of the Wars of the Roses can be seen as norms and morals becoming very twisted by the decaldes-long civil wars - and especially by somebody like Richard (and his brothers) never actually living in proper peace times.

That said - George kind of fails at capturing this with his world since we get the impression that the way the Westerosi conduct themselves during the War of the Five Kings and earlier during Robert's Rebellion is how these people do things. And that's just not normal in a medieval setting - and would also not be normalcy in a civilization which spans thousands of years and is capable of surviving freak winters that can last years.

20 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Louis XIV and Louis XV were both well into the early modern era so not quite the same thing.

They are not that much different from Henry III, Richard II (whose later problems had little to do with coming to the throne as a child), Henry VI (whose problems also come from his personality/state of mind, not from the time his reign started), or Edward VI.

In the earlier middle ages child monarchs were a problem - or rather: tended to not happen. In stable hereditary monarchies, at least. In more elective monarchies they were a no-go, for obvious reasons. But once there was a proto-state in place - or at least a royal dynasty had established sufficient loyalty to itself and its institutions this definitely could and did work.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland is an interesting case in that they had three infant monarchs in a row. I’m guessing that people at the time probably thought they were cursed. James VI turning out as well as he did is something of a miracle considering the circumstances of his upbringing. And seeing as his bastard uncle helped overthrow his mother*, James likely being gay and not having any bastards of his own feels like nature’s healing haha. 

*I’ve read that Mary, Queen of Scots’ other half-siblings were very loyal to her, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 12:49 PM, Lord Varys said:

Never understood why anyone would want to defend that shithead, to be honest. I guess the main reason would be the Shakespeare play.

Not sure if Gregory's portrayal of Margaret Beaufort makes much sense. She certainly may have doted on her only son, but her string of husbands certainly also indicate that she wasn't as steadfast and determined a would-be kingmaker as she portrays them - or as she is portrayed in the shows based on her works.

I mean, the Tudor claim is so outlandish that even after the end of the proper Lancastrian line only the tyrannical exploits of somebody like Richard III could convince a sufficient number of people to bet on this weird horse ... and even then a decisive victory in battle was necessary.

If I had to guess, then prior to Richard's reign the idea that Henry Tudor could ever become king was a very outlandish idea even for the Henry Tudor himself - and whatever friends he had.

It makes a pretty good case. Vice versa, Costain makes a very, very bad case for Richard's possible innocence in the matter.

Well, you have to keep in mind that the kind of savagery one sees at the end of the Wars of the Roses can be seen as norms and morals becoming very twisted by the decaldes-long civil wars - and especially by somebody like Richard (and his brothers) never actually living in proper peace times.

That said - George kind of fails at capturing this with his world since we get the impression that the way the Westerosi conduct themselves during the War of the Five Kings and earlier during Robert's Rebellion is how these people do things. And that's just not normal in a medieval setting - and would also not be normalcy in a civilization which spans thousands of years and is capable of surviving freak winters that can last years.

They are not that much different from Henry III, Richard II (whose later problems had little to do with coming to the throne as a child), Henry VI (whose problems also come from his personality/state of mind, not from the time his reign started), or Edward VI.

In the earlier middle ages child monarchs were a problem - or rather: tended to not happen. In stable hereditary monarchies, at least. In more elective monarchies they were a no-go, for obvious reasons. But once there was a proto-state in place - or at least a royal dynasty had established sufficient loyalty to itself and its institutions this definitely could and did work.

The savagery of warfare in Westeros is more akin to the most brutal phases of the Hundred Years War, or wars of religion, than the War of the Roses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

The savagery of warfare in Westeros is more akin to the most brutal phases of the Hundred Years War, or wars of religion, than the War of the Roses.

This may be true for the treatment of (foreign) peasantry ... but nobility and royalty treated each other pretty fine during the Hundred Years War. When, by comparison, things really devolved to savagery there during the Wars of the Roses.

Not only were kings murdered there but young princes as well. And the whole attainder thing - which is standard treatment in Westeros, apparently - was rediscovered/reintroduced during the Wars of the Roses to destroy not just individual nobles but entire noble houses.

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...