#Usurper

[mtsodie]

Usruper........................................

usurper stays winning

[totallyottie99]

One persons love is another’s…

[dinastiatargaryen]

[horizon-verizon]

HOTD IS ALREADY A VIOLENTLY ANTI BLACK SHOW BUT RACIST PIGS WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER BLACK GIRL SIDELINED IN FAVOR OF AN IRRELEVANT & UNINTERESTING WHITE NON-CHARACTER.

When Aegon III look at Jaehaera, her face, her eyes, I know he saw Aegon II’s face. With Jaehaera, he can’t escape him, he can’t escape his mother’s violent death, he isn’t allowed to think of anything else, he’s forced to revive his olympic trauma over and over again. But with Daenaera, it’s UTTERLY different.

Jaehera dying is the story coming full circle. A greedy and ambitious hand wanting to make his daughter queen started the war but now his line ended by another greedy and ambitious hand who wanted to make his daughter queen. The point is that the Greens didn’t get what they want in the end because someone, one of their supporters, had the exact same mindset as Otto. Karma got to them. The Greens started this entire war to get their blood on the throne and their last chance to get their victory is dashed by one of their own people doing the same thing to them, GRRM is a genius, it’s ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.

Y’all REFUSE to let Rhaenyra have some crubs, it’s so disgusting. The Greens already have their own victory, Aegon II is the one remembered as king and Rhaenyra as an usurper, but he must also have descendants (the Blackfyres I guess) who tries to usurp Rhaenyra’s descendants and grandsons who became kings ??? OUT OF QUESTION, LET IT GO. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The Greens started this entire war to get their blood on the throne and their last chance to get their victory is dashed by one of their own people doing the same thing to them

Heavy on this, anon. In fact, let me go back an insert the part about Jaehaera being the green's last botched "chance".

Anon refers to this post I wrote from a person expressing why they thought Jaehaera's death was "narratively irrelevant". And why Daenaera can still be written in without marrying Aegon.

It's true Aegon the Elder is held as one of the kings in the line of monarchs while she is not. That is not bc she usurped Aegon, but because they wanted to discourage the idea and practice of naming women or girls as heirs altogether. It was about female rulership being made into the cause of disaster or conflict, not Rhaenyra necessarily!

I still don't think Rhaenyra is universally remembered as the/a usurper, because by their own vocabulary Rhaenyra can never be a usurper...she was declared heir by the monarch and held as the true heir for years. Gyldayn calls her "Queen" several times and unironically and out of the then-living people's perspective. To be a usurper, you need to violently or unlawfully seize power, which Rhaenyra never ever did. The greens did that.

Once again, Stannis is not a reliable source to judge history, because the man is a walking self-denier and nihilistic user of fear to get his way. In the actual novels, Rhaenyra is thought of a civil conflict more than the direct cause of one through usurpation and "usurpation" itself is never mentioned unless it's Stannis saying so. And yes, Arianne Martell had the right of it, even though she is also using history for her own claims...the difference is that her reading of history and Rhaenyra's position is correct.

The people who want things to be more "equal" or "balanced" bt the greens and the blacks or have the greens have a sort of victory like the blacks just sound really desperate. And for what? For patriarchy to reaffirm itself deeper than ever and more than if Rhaenyra had just been queen?🙄

[just-shapes-and-sweaters]

Wondrous. Disregard the soiled bandages. Rose is to be kept watch on at all times until further notice. Until then, we can only split the party into two. Now, I'm sure that you do not wish to, but of course, there is some working together that could be done here.

Araena, you are to supervise over Rose's condition. Usu, Saffron, we have to get a look of the land without creating suspicion. Better safe than sorry. (Saffron, trust me, I know what I'm doing. I've dragged us out from playing two hundred questions before and will do so again if need be.) -Sharkgeon

first / prev / next

[royal-rat-kreacher]

∴The Queen Usurper∴

Seduction, my obsessive art A pantheon of tragedies inscribed upon the stars Like thistled ruin, garbed around thy heart Bacchanal Cinderella, desirous midnight passed Leaving thee as sacrifice asleep within my arms 'Midst dreams of robed redemption versed in sexual aftermath When we ebb as tides together, carnal souls entwined And orgasms expire, come puppet wires and the blind Purge

₊ ⁺ follow me on instagram ⁺ ₊

[guerillamatt]

[scotianostra]

January 20th 1356 saw Edward Balliol surrender his claim to the Scottish throne to Edward III in exchange for an English pension.

Edward Balliol was born around 1283, the son of the deposed King John of Scotland and Isabella de Warenne, daughter of John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey and his wife Alice de Lusignan, who was the maternal half-sister of King Henry III of England. Edward married Marguerite de Taranto, the daughter of Philip I, Prince of Taranto (d. 1332) they had no issue and the marriage was later annulled.

When his father was forced to abdicate by King Edward I of England in 1296, the younger Balliol was imprisoned with him in England. John Balliol died in exile in France in 1314, Edward Balliol then in France, was recalled to England by Edward II in 1324.

On the death of the great Robert the Bruce, his four year old son, David II, succeeded to the Scottish throne. The Regency passed to the two men the Bruce had entrusted with the guardianship of his young son, Sir James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. Douglas died shortly after in a skirmish in Spain and Randolph soon followed him to the grave.

lThe Regency then passed to the Robert's the Bruce's nephew, Donald, Earl of Mar. Edward Balliol still harboured dreams that he would one day occupy the Scottish throne, a position he considered to be his by right of birth. He received support from Edward III of England and landing on the coast of Fife he proceeded toward Perth. Mar met them in a bloody battle at Dupplin Moor and was killed in the action.

Edward Balliol was duly crowned Edward, King of Scots at Scone Abbey, but Sir Andrew Murray, appointed Guardian of Scotland by nobles loyal to the memory of Robert the Bruce ambushed him at Annan and drove him back into England. The regency during the minority of the young David Bruce was taken by another Douglas, Archibald, the brother of the previous Earl. Edward III now gave further support to Balliol, he declared the Treaty of Northampton null and void due to border reiving and marched on Berwick.

The Scots met the English invaders at the The Battle of Halidon Hill, where they suffered total defeat. Berwick was forced to surrender after a long siege and Balliol was restored to the Scottish throne. The young King David was promptly sent to France for his greater safety. Balliol paid homage to Edward III for his kingdom, destroying the Scots independence that Robert the Bruce had fought so long for.

Following the English victory at Halidon Hill the town of Berwick and the lands of the Borders and Lothian were ceded to Edward III by Edward Balliol. This ensured that warfare between the two countries would continue as the Scots fought to regain their lands. The young King David was sent to France for safety, where Phillip VI lodged him at Chateau Gaillard.

For twelve years thereafter, anarchy reigned in Scotland. When Edward III declared war on France, Phillip VI sent David Bruce back to Scotland in the hope of creating a diversion. David II entered Edinburgh in triumph, while Balliol fled to England leaving the throne open to his adversary.

After the defeat and capture of David II at the Battle of Neville's Cross on 17 October 1346, Balliol again invaded Scotland, leading an uprising in Galloway, but had no realistic hope of occupying the Scottish throne again. On 20th January, 1356 he surrendered his claim to the Scottish throne to Edward III, in exchange for an English pension. Edward Balliol died in 1367 at Wheatley, Doncaster, Yorkshire.

[pixelz-but-with-uh-z]

the song usurper reminds me of gregor from gregor the overlander a LOT

[thebean-17]

I'd have sex to this.

[totallyottie99]

Wasyl concept art

[dinastiatargaryen]

[horizon-verizon]

Sometimes I feel like when people use the argument that Stannis is “the rightful heir because the Baratheons overthrew the Targaryens…”, I feel like they’re kinda missing the point or at least like, being purposefully obtuse just because they might not like Targaryens or believe that the better a warrior/larger army you have = better fit to rule.

I could argue that just because something is stolen doesn’t necessarily make it legitimate. The same way people KNOW that Cersei stole the throne from Robert, and Joffrey isn’t the “rightful” heir, could use the same logic against Robert and Stannis. Robert stole the throne, he’s technically a usurper, so in that case is there a “rightful” heir? Is Stannis the “rightful heir” or is he just next in line for the throne?

I don’t know, that’s just some thoughts I’ve had, I could be way off base though

So I wrote about what "usurper" means for Westerosi society/simplified EU "feudal" societies HERE.

"rightful heir" is a cultural phrase more to define how, by custom or by "law", "deserves" the throne. "Fit to rule", can overlap with this, but it is not an equal synonym. Just bc you have more soldiers, doesn't mean that you are "fit" to rule, but if you use said army and you won...you are a "legitimate" ruler.

FIRST -- if there had been no suspicion thrown on Cersei's kids, Stannis wouldn't have gone out of his way to try to take the throne and thus he'd be 4th in line behind Cersei's kids...as he technically still is during the War of Five Kings.

SECOND -- The thing with (mostly) successful overthrows of the past monarch is that....this is enough to establish the new, replacement ruling house as the "legitimate" ruling house...bc they won. It's weird, I suggest you read the post I'm linking.

Anyway, Cersei "stealing"--if we read how lines of succession of Westeros are customarily done--would be her "stealing" from Stannis, nor Robert. this is IF it were ever exposed that her kids were not Robert's, which it never was. Usurpations are a circumstance of force and greed or self-interested ambition or self preservation or, rarely, trying to steer the state into an envisioned "future"/"new world" come at force...not black and white "justice". I'm saying the ethical value of the motivation(s) behind usurping a sovereignty are not as moral as people sometimes want to believe or tout/misinform. You find this out while reading ASoIaF, when in the 80s-90s (remember this is when this series was first published) GRRM subverts the tale of the morally righteous ruler who supplants the evil ruling tyrant. Robert could have been the pure-driven knight who banishes the "dragon"...but we question how "good" or fit for rulership he really is when we get to know him and see what sort of priorities he has that are indicative of what sort of hierarchial society he lives and is a beneficiary of.

He regularly cheats on and beats his wife--a juxtaposition of the good, silent, behaviorally "pure" queen consort who supports her husband's every move or draws inspiration from the masses to follow them AND the her motives/relationship w/Robert show a darker, realer side to noble marriages in terms of the inequality.

He cosigns on the rape and murder of a woman for power and in hatred for the past dynasty's "dragon" prince that began with a slight to his masculinity.

He wants to continue to destroy that last vestige of the "dragon" family, its children (those who are one of the most vulnerable humans), not just bc he wishes to secure his seat but bc he genuinely sees them all, youngbloods and adults, as unworthy of mercy for descuring his sense of self--he dehumanizes them to do so.

In a way, he reflects the past mad king in his excesses and malevolence that's only banked by his being more rational. It's even repeated and obvious with how we know Aerys raped and beat his sister-wife Rhaella/Dany, Rhaegar, & Viserys' mother but the Kingsguard didn't do anything bc she is essentially his property and they "legally" can't go against his wishes or prevent him from enacting his will...but rather serve him to carry out his will and preserve his ability to do so by protecting his life above all else unless he says otherwise. Robert, does he not do the same with Cersei, and is Jaime similarly unable to do anything for Cersei without inviting great risk to them both? He is not as unchecked as Aerys, but just as selfish and he still enables bad-to-evil actors around him and they do him AND the quality of that uncheckedness comes not from governmental checks for a protected realm but comes from other nobles moving in their self interests. Nothing really has existential changed with his rule expect he has a corrupt council and another person determining his bigger decisions bc how powerful they are, how much they have and can still supply his rule and maintain his seat (Tywin). And we see that partially shown in how a war immediately breaks out after he's killed/dead for the succession.

But despite all this, the "legal"/customary rules riles that he is "fit" for the throne bc he won. He is King/Monarch. Imagine if Dany and Viserys were dead, if FAegon and all the Blackfyres were gone...yes Robert would be rightful and he's established a new dynasty. If Dany comes back or any Targ scion, and they win, he's a usurper and not rightful.

So instead, the question more is: what makes a near absolute ruler "fit" to rule (and before modern scholars come for me, yes monarchies are not great, I'm talking abt the introspection of interrogating current sociopolitical systems...esp those where we see no potential for the rise of peasants or traders or a rise of "bourgeoise" insight...this is a noble-led story, so let off)? It can't just be cultural custom or law. Thus we are divided b/t what the society sees as "fit", how they define it and how rigid or flexible according to circumstance that really ("law" or an individual's actions) is VS what we the reader consider a fit leader. And why do we think so, from what moral, ideologies, or philosophical references do we vs the characters draw from?

All of this works to peel back the veneer of "order" and show just how messy governance can be, can get, etc. how cyclically violent it can be and esp without some sort of existentially higher purpose.

So absolutely, some of them are missing the point (bc idk what else beyong Stannis is rightful heir some say). In fact, they are really just perpetuating & reinternalizing feudal or authoritarian definitions of "deserving", "rightful", "fit", "blood=being", "(male/masculine/able-bodied)warrior = good/fit leader". Because they want absolute answers or a total shift into a new, closer to our own social "democratic" order...which yes people vote, but even the worth of that vote is not absolutely understood or substantial without political understanding and we're back to some sort of "square one".

Fire and Blood serves to highlight that and contextualize Dany through her ancestors and the Dance is a huge old question of "deserving" based on sexism. and to give us more clues-mysteries on the origins of dragons/the nature of the bond. These nobles who could be focusing on more important things and preserve the knowledge of the Others at least...not reject magic and instead maybe learn to use it and their ordinary weapons of war for good, mostly protective purposes. Instead, bc they (Targs [who also "rejected" magic when they rejected their women to assimilate] and other Westerosi houses) are the apex of their society by being nobles and are constantly trying to define lines of power, they fight for revenge and power. They can and do prey on relatively more socially vulnerable people.

[derithespike]

Tuatara use seagull moms for protection

Tuatara eat the eggs and chicks of seagull nests, then imitate the behaviour of a hungry seagull chick, so the mother seagull will protect the tuatara from predators.

This behaviour is not instinctual, which means that, the tuatara first study the behaviour of the chicks, before taking their place in the nest.

It's believed that, years ago when an invasive rat species came to New Zealand, seagull moms took the baby tuatara in their beaks, and carefully carried them to the safety of off-shore islands, to prevent the rats killing the tuatara.

This behaviour has even been observed today, though initially people thought that, the birds were preying on the tuatara, and only recently did we understand what was happening.

It's also believed that, long ago the tuatara did this same trick, to the native human population of New Zealand, and that's why they are worshipped by the Maori.

[just-shapes-and-sweaters]

first / prev / next