#a lot of character conflict stems from the fact that they can't just choose an heir

[synchodai]

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.

[travelling-on-the-octopath]

A break from the GW!Claude negativity, how about some of the few nice things about his portrayal here?

The emphasis his has on how busy he is actually complements how much work he still willingly takes on himself that aren't directly related to his already stuffed workload. Him asking Leonie to keep him up-to-date on how the common people view him, and how they're faring overall? Not part of the job description! But it's work he still willingly chooses to take on because he actually genuinely cares about being a good leader, and he recognizes that he can't do that without knowing of the people's plights that his position otherwise wouldn't let him in on and that he knows he's ignorant on. (ignore how this is erased in his DuTiEs aNd ObLiGaTiOnS tHe cHuRcH fOrCeS oN uS line which is complete ass lmao we're Dev Approves to cherrypick what we take as canon so I cherrily pick that fact off of him lmaooo)

His overthinking!! Actually being visibly apparent! The fact his head gets so full of thoughts that he eventually just starts having whole-ass conversations with himself like his B support with Hilda shows him start to do before she walks in. It's something he lowkey alludes to in his A support with Byleth in 3H (how his thoughts gets so busy that it keeps him awake at night) but it's nice to see that be actually shown off.

His belief on not relying on chance going all the way down to not even liking to gamble recreationally is a really small detail that I really like - it's not just the big spectacle moments that belief affects, but the little enjoyments too. Makes it feel more natural to his character in a way?

Him getting visibly upset at Lysithea for putting her and her men's lives at risk to get a win going back into his survival > winning mindset. And also shows how much he cares for his friends!! I haven't seen the A support yet so I don't know how it ends, but the B one shows a very caring side to Claude.

Him overall trying much harder to be sincere here. Sometimes it falls flat - like with Lorenz in their C - and sometimes it works out - like in Hilda's B - but there's a visible effort on Claude's end now to try to connect with others. And it's good that it initially didn't work with Lorenz! It shows off how the tension in their relationship really strains it, it makes it really feel real and hit harder.

There's a lot less jokey moments with Claude now. Even with more gimmick characters like Raphael, who he only has one support with, the support is still grounded in a seriousness that a lot of his 3H supports just didn't have. Like!-

Ignatz!! His support with Ignatz here is sooooo much better than his 3H ones! He takes Ignatz' dreams of seeing the world and helps him start seeing them to light in a way that still allows him to perform his knightly duties!! And Ignatz appreciates him for it!! And they honestly feel like friends!! It's this kind of relationship that lets me understand why Ignatz would fight for Claude, way more so than the mess that was their 3H supports lmaooo

While the extent of his self-doubt feels a little... weird (it can be a little Much, for Claude), I do like the idea of it being there! We love to see some internal conflict stemming from one's knowledge of the depths they know they can sink to 💞 (which are unfortunately highkey ruined by the writers making those depths the goddamn Mariana Trench BUT POSITIVE TIME NO THINKING ABOUT THAT lol)

These are aspects I will happily try to incorporate into writing Claude <3 I will simply ignore the bad parts lol

!!! This! All of this! Like this is the Claude that does not budge at Derdriu, even when he knows there isn't an army of miracles coming to save him or the city; who wants a better world so badly he's willing to wear fifteen different hats to do it; who wants to feel a closeness to people that proves to him care can overcome manmade differences and borders. There are moments throughout the game that just feel like such a treat. Like THIS is my dude, my little guy, the meow meow.

[makeste]

some meta about Izuku, Katsuki, and trust

and choosing to trust is the real bridge that goes to accepting that person as a part of your live again and what the offender has to earn. I think the interesting aspect of Deku and Bakugou's relationship is that Deku has always trusted Bakugou, and I would say more than he had forgiven him at the start of the story (where he does show more frustration and resentment towards Bakugou's behaviour and see him as a jerk) but despite that he can always trust Bakugou to him himself, attested to

the fact that Deku feels very confident about how Bakugou will act or what Bakugou's true motives are and probably the reason why he always sees Bakugou as a hero despite his hurtful behaviour is because Deku 100% trusts Bakugou even if he's doing something disagreeable or that will hurt him. Knowing someone and trusting is not exactly the same and I see it as trust because of Deku willingness to be co-operative. On Bakugou's side he is mistrustful of Deku and thats where the communication

breaks down and there has been plenty of meta exploring why Bakugou has deep rooted problems around Deku and his journey is him taking accountability of that and changing to be a better person. While understanding and miscommunication get their fair due I think trust and mistrust are the true bedrocks of the bkdk river bed because that allows for how they can still be so connected despite the miscommunication (with Bakugou mistrust is mixed with some trust) because of knowing.

anon I really enjoyed this, thank you for sharing your thoughts! I concur with just about all of this, and this ask got me thinking a lot about the nature of trust, and how it applies to Izuku and Katsuki’s relationship.

I think a lot of people’s reactions to reading the sentence “Bakugou and Deku have always trusted each other” would pretty much be, “???” and “lol what.” like, yeah, sure. they trusted each other so much that Bakugou decided that throwing a tantrum for ten years would be an appropriate reaction to Deku trying to hold his hand. classic Trust, right there!!

lol but I honestly think this is true, though. it’s just that there are different... levels?? types?? of trust. let’s go with types. there are different types of trust, and what makes Izuku and Katsuki’s relationship so interesting to me is that it’s kind of the opposite of what these fictional rival-type relationships usually are. it’s basically the difference between knowing, and understanding.

okay so first of all let’s back up here to make sure we’re all on the same page. we’re defining trust as “firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone”, which is the Oxford Language definition and which works pretty well for me. you’ll note, btw, that the current relationship between Katsuki and Izuku more or less meets all four of these criteria.

reliability - both boys regard each other as dependable and are willing to rely on each other in a pinch (although Izuku is currently having some difficulty with that, but that’s another topic for another day).

truth - both are honest with each other, though not completely honest (this is the aspect that Katsuki still needs to work on, as he’s currently hiding his desire to atone).

ability - neither of them have any difficulty with this. Izuku admires Katsuki’s ability so much that he’s made it his own gold standard since childhood, and Katsuki respects Izuku’s ability enough that he made him his main rival, and never doubted that Izuku was qualified to receive OFA and become All Might’s heir.

strength - as with ability, this is another aspect of trust that neither of them has ever struggled with. in fact, a lot of their relationship struggles happened specifically because Katsuki never doubted Izuku’s strength, but feared it because he didn’t understand it.

so yeah. there’s a lot more trust between them than most people realize, I think. but the thing is that the type of trust they have is based more on knowing than understanding, and that’s where so much of their conflict stems from.

when I say knowing, I’m talking about the kind of awareness that comes from familiarity and experience. this is the type of trust that’s difficult to take shortcuts with, because it mostly just has to be accumulated over time. this is all about learning what someone is like through observing them and being around them. and it’s just as much about being known as well, because at the same time that you’re learning who the other person is, they’re learning about who you are. and that’s where trust starts to work its way in. it’s the slow unveiling of who you are, and laying it on the table piece by piece over time. and every time another little piece of you is revealed and accepted, and every time you accept one more piece of who the other person is in turn, that trust increases a little bit more. this type of trust takes a long, long time to build up, but in exchange the foundation it creates is pretty much rock-solid and nigh-indestructible.

understanding, on the other hand, to me is more instinctual. it’s about empathy and insight. and the interesting thing is that it’s possible to know someone for years upon years, and yet never truly understand them. and on the flip side, it’s also possible to understand someone within minutes of meeting them, even if you know almost nothing about them. if “knowing” is about learning who someone is, I would say that “understanding” is about learning why they are who they are. this type of trust isn’t necessarily always mutual, but it does necessitate forming a connection with someone. because empathy is such a critical component of it, it’s basically impossible to understand someone and not form an emotional connection to them in some way. this type of trust can be far more powerful and intense than the “knowing” type of trust, but the flip side is that it can sometimes be less stable and easier to break.

I think that the majority of fictional relationships, especially the ones that become really popular ships, are based more around the latter type of trust because of its intensity and unpredictability and potential for story development. the thing is, both of these types of trust are necessary for a good ship (and when I say “ship”, I’m talking about both romantic and platonic relationships just fyi). if neither type of trust is present on at least some level, then there’s really no foundation to start building up the relationship. so most of the time a ship will start out with one or the other, and then over the course of the story they'll work on building up whichever one was lacking.

and because of how stories work, the majority of the time we’re going to be dealing with characters who at first don’t know each other all that well. and so the relationships we get are ones where the characters first form some kind of emotional connection that builds understanding, and then over time they start to learn more about each other and build up that kind of trust as well. I feel like 90% of ships have this kind of dynamic. it’s the basis for things like enemies-to-lovers, fake dating AUs, and basically any kind of trope in which the characters get stuck somewhere and are forced to spend a lot of time together. it’s good, and it works.

but the fascinating thing about the relationship between Izuku and Katsuki, though, is that it’s actually the exact opposite of this. the premise of Izuku and Katsuki's story is that these are two people who’ve known each other their entire lives, but have almost no understanding of each other whatsoever. they know almost every little detail about each other, so much that they hardly even think about it. but all of their conflict is based on the fact that understanding between them is basically nonexistent.

and to me this is such an intriguing dynamic. the two of them know each other like the back of their hand. they’re familiar with the smallest habits. they can predict each other’s actions. they know how the other person thinks. and they have the kind of trust that comes with having seen the other at both their best and their worst. Katsuki is capable of letting his guard down around Izuku in a way he doesn’t do around anyone else. he cries in front of him on multiple occasions. he lets Izuku call him “Kacchan” long after their other childhood friends have stopped doing so. and even though he fears and resents Izuku’s strength early on, he also subconsciously acknowledges it in ways that even he doesn’t realize (e.g. “don’t you dare get into U.A.,” rather than “you can’t get in” or “you won’t get in”). he knows Izuku.

but he doesn’t understand Izuku. he knows who he is, but he doesn’t understand why. he knows that Izuku is strong, but he can't wrap his head around the nature of that strength. and because he lacks that understanding, this vital aspect of the trust between them is lacking, and is all too easily broken when Katsuki falls into the creek and Izuku tries to offer his help. Katsuki knows that Izuku is a good person, but he doesn’t understand that goodness, that selflessness, and so he’s mistrustful of it.

on the flip side of the coin, however, Izuku has the utmost faith in Katsuki. to him, Katsuki is the strongest, smartest, most capable and most amazing person in the world (aside from All Might). and Izuku, unlike Katsuki, actually does understand his childhood friend at least a little bit. he understands Katsuki’s reasons for wanting to be a hero. he understands that Katsuki is not just mindlessly pursuing strength. he understands that Katsuki’s motivation is about overcoming obstacles and beating challenges. and most importantly, he understands that Katsuki, in spite of everything he’s said and done to Izuku over the years, is fundamentally a good person.

and this is crucial. because, along with the bond of familiarity they’ve built up together over the years, it’s this other, one-sided bond of understanding that is responsible for their relationship enduring for as long as it did despite everything. as you put it, anon, Izuku’s trust is ultimately what becomes the bridge between them. on some level, he trusts in Katsuki’s innate goodness. he believes in it in spite of all of Katsuki’s attempts to persuade him otherwise. e.g. when Katsuki suggests that he go jump off the roof, Izuku is hurt by the words, but he never once takes them to heart, because he knows on some instinctive level that Katsuki doesn’t mean them. and so he grumbles to himself about Katsuki needing to think before he speaks, but aside from that he never gives the words another thought.

Katsuki would no doubt consider this yet another example of Izuku not caring enough about himself or taking himself into account. but it really is more than that. the reason the words don’t cut deep in spite of them being vicious and well-targeted is simply because Izuku knows that Katsuki isn't truly that cruel. and he knows that on a level so deep that Katsuki is never able to break it despite his best efforts. he can’t break it, because there’s nothing to break, because it’s true. the reason the relationship endures in spite of everything is because deep down Katsuki is fundamentally a good person, and so Izuku’s trust, in the end, is based on truth. and so it never fully breaks, and eventually, it becomes reciprocated.

and that’s what their story is all about. it’s two people that have known each other their entire lives, but have to work in order to build their understanding of each other. unlike many ships, they start off already having that foundation of knowing and being known, and so their story instead is about forging that connection of empathy and insight. and it doesn’t come easily to them at all. but they keep at it.

anyway, so thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this, anon. I didn’t even get into the topic of forgiveness, but I agree with you about it being a process of letting go of negative feelings and resentment. I also agree that forgiveness is a separate thing from trust, but I do think trust plays a big part in one’s decision to forgive or not forgive. it's a lot easier to forgive if you have an understanding of the other person’s actions. and it’s also far, far easier to forgive if the offender’s actions are long in the past. and because the latter is now true in Katsuki’s case, that shows a pattern of him learning from his mistakes and not repeating them. which further builds trust, especially in the “reliability” department. and so even though forgiveness and trust are two separate things, they’re still connected. and in many ways, by working to rebuild the understanding between him and Izuku, Katsuki is also working towards earning Izuku’s forgiveness, even though that’s ultimately something that can never truly be earned, but can only be granted.

I’m not sure if I’m really making my point very clear here lol, but basically what I’m trying to say is that while the relationship may have once been one-sided in this aspect, it’s not anymore. it’s mutual, and they’re both putting the work in. and Katsuki is also doing his part without any guarantee or expectation of forgiveness on Izuku’s end. it’s unconditional. he’s doing it because he wants to atone. and he’ll continue to do it whether he’s forgiven or not. and that’s important. it’s important because it shows that the relationship has value to both of them. and it’s important because neither of them wants to lose it. they want to fix it; they want to make it stronger.

and ultimately what that means is that the relationship will continue to endure, despite their ups and downs. because even though it may have started out as something incidental -- two boys who just happened to become friends because they spent a lot of time together as children -- it’s not, anymore. it’s no longer just something that happened, something that just accidentally came together. it’s something that they’re both working to build. they want to trust each other. they want to understand one another. their relationship is no longer something that simply withstood and persisted -- it’s something that is now being nurtured. and you love to see it.

so let's see, how do I even begin to tl;dr this post lol. something something blah blah blah trust, understanding, childhood friends, knowing someone, having faith in someone, being the recipient of that faith, and working to become worthy of it. they're very confused, but they care about each other a lot, and they are good boys.

[lesbianrobin]

i think season three is good, but there are a few things about it that absolutely enrage me to an overdramatic amount, and here i shall list them lol. also this will be in more than one ask because i have too many thoughts. ok, the first is how hopper went from trying his best to threatening children, having that "girls can't choose who they date they aren't smart" mindset, gaslighting Joyce/not believing her when she has basically always been correct, and tricking her into a date?? 1/? lol

next, i hate how they went "here, take billy's sad childhood and him saving el and forgive his racist actions! go! FETCH!" and we were supposed to be like "yayyy! what a nice guy!!!" you know? like... a sad childhood isn't redemption? it may vaguely explain things, but not excuse them? i also was disappointed with el and max's friendship being based off them being mean to their (admittedly mediocre) boyfriends? like- yall are in 8th grade dating sucks why are we being mean just communicate? 2/?

and it felt like max and el's friendship was supposed to come of as this "wow FEMINISM!" thing, and it really wasn't at all? i mean i could totally see kids perceiving this "girls rule boys drool" thing as empowering, but i just wish that if they are going to go the whole (adorable) "sleepovers, wonder woman, shopping, normal, not-supernaturalish (if that makes sense)" female friendship, they didn't base it on... well... men?

(i'm sorry i'm saying so much lol) they are also setting up problems for character development and writing. if they continue to add characters for no reason, characters are going to keep loosing purpose because there are less roles to fill than actual characters. Admittedly, the characters they add for seemingly no reason are usually so fun that i end up shutting my mouth and taking back my complaint? like max, robin, erica, not you billy, alexi, heather, etc. 4/? (i'm so sorry i'm hyperfixated)

and don'T EVEN GET ME STARTED (lmao i've clearly started) ON THE RUSSIAN STUFF?! LIKE WHAT!??!? WHO IS THIS TERMINATOR BITCH AND WHY WAS ~HE~ THE ONE TO KILL OF A NEW LOVABLE SIDE CHARACTER??? AND WHY IS HOPPER RECKLESSLY KILLING??? (sorry i am yelling the anger is not at you, you seem lovley) LIKE WHAT?!? tHIS TOXIC MASCULINITY HOPPER CRAP NEEDS TO CEASE PLEASE, I BEG. anyway there was no point to making the terminator guy other than a reference. ok i think i'm done?? thanks for listening lol.

so i’m gonna be honest man the only thing i agree with you on is that the way they handled billy was bullshit. i wholeheartedly disagree with all the rest but i’m very glad you got it all off your chest kjdcnmnd like. i’m gonna share my thoughts on some of this and i REALLY don’t mean to be rude i just like talking about stranger things so please don’t take this as me trying to argue or whatever bc that is not my intention!!

so i don’t think hopper having a problem with el and mike has anything to do with him thinking el isn’t smart or that she can’t make her own decisions. el’s a kid, and she’s only been allowed to be a kid for like... two years, max? he’s worried that she’s growing up too fast, mourning the inevitable end of her childhood which has just barely begun, and yeah, he’s overprotective, too, but he’s pretty clearly painted as being in the wrong for how he handled things. he changed his ways by the end of the season, and through the speech he wrote it’s clear that his issues stemmed from his own fears of her growing up, not from him thinking she was stupid. change isn’t typically sudden or easy, and i really do think that hopper was trying his best at the start of s3 (he lets el hang out with her friends as much as she wants, trusts her to roam freely and keep herself safe, etc). he just still had a little way to go.

i also don’t personally see how hopper “tricked” joyce into a date when she agreed to go and then didn’t show up. joyce is an adult, and she was perfectly capable of telling hopper no (she actually did tell him no once, and then didn’t object later). he was never threatening or manipulative to her. he was a total bitch after he got stood up, and they did overdo it, but he most certainly wasn’t gaslighting her. he genuinely didn’t think that there was something going on! he thought she was paranoid due to her trauma, trauma that he personally has been through and is sympathetic to. he still helped her check things out, even when he didn’t think there was a real problem, because he wanted to give her peace of mind. while you can argue he was dumb or disrespectful not to believe her, he didn’t have any intention of making joyce feel crazy or of deceiving her.

and the reason that the kids aren’t communicating well in s3 is because they’re... well, kids. have you ever seen an eighth-grade relationship where both parties communicate maturely about their problems? if they were older i would agree that the conflict was dumb, but it makes perfect sense for kids their age. i also don’t really have an issue (personally) with how the elmax friendship started. the whole point is that el came to max asking for dating advice, and max shows el that she doesn’t have to revolve her whole life around her boyfriend, she can develop her own identity and be her own person.

a lot of people in the fandom share your trepidation about adding new characters, so i’m definitely outnumbered here, but i don’t personally have a problem with it at all. i think alexei could have been better-utilized, but his existence didn’t interfere or detract from anything with existing characters. in fact, i think he gave murray some more development and allowed for more dynamic interactions between joyce and hopper. max and robin were both “new characters,” and i’m not being hyperbolic when i say they’re two of the best-written and best-acted characters in the show. when i go back and watch s1 now, things just feel wrong without max, and robin is a revelation. i think that adding new characters makes the world of stranger things feel more organic and allows for the stakes to remain somewhat high without making the writers feel like they have to kill off one of our beloved OGs. 

russian terminator... yeah you’re right that shit was weird as fuck. i don’t think hopper killing the dudes down in the base was “toxic masculinity” or anything though like he’s a veteran and the guys he killed were all soldiers and he was just trying to get to the gate to shut it down no matter the cost, yknow? it was a matter of life and death, and with a giant monster trying to kill his daughter i think him killing anyone in the way of him preventing that is kind of... fair. but yeah i don’t really get the point of terminator guy like it was so fucking weird sdknckdnm

thanks for the asks!!! the fandom’s been kinda dead lately and it’s so fun to still be able to talk about st!!

[dent-de-leon]

Hi Leo. Vanitas ask. D'you think Noel killing V plays into 'can't die otherwise/last resort/only solution' sort of thing? Cursed blue moon and all. Also, "I will save vampires regardless of what they want" seems very 'desperate heroics'. There's a lot of buried history in the story, no? Tbh read only ch1 but wow, do many questions. Thanks! Be well.

Aw thank you, I hope you’re well too!! Ohhh this is really good I love thinking about this and it’s been on my mind since the concept was introduced in chapter one!! I think it’s probably the biggest mystery of the series and the one that’s going to haunt all of us until the very end, but we can absolutely speculate. 

I’ll try to be as vague as possible without spoiling too much lmao, but early on you find out Noe is very much still petrified over the fact that he wasn’t able to mercy kill his childhood friend, despite how much they were begging him to. He just couldn’t do it. It’s a failure that haunts Noe and provides the backdrop for a lot of his sensitivity and emotionally invested concern in the wellbeing of others.

Again, for Noe, this is seen as an obstacle he was never able to overcome. So, if Vanitas is going to end up being the person he’s closest to now, then it’s fitting that their arc will lead to a similar end–only this time, he’s able to actually go through with it. That way, if Vanitas absolutely has to die, Noe can at least give him the comfort of a death at “his own hands”–something his other friend never got. 

And then you have Vanitas, who is just this incredibly enigmatic and intriguing character shrouded in mystery. One of the things that really gets me about him is that he both 1) has a self professed “hatred” for those that are too “weak” and willing to compromise their own life for the safety of others. Consequently, his own will to live is also incredibly strong, and he’s absolutely against throwing away his own life for the sake of others. And 2) he really hates seeing other people so readily throw themselves in harm’s way to protect him. 

So like, Vanitas has this incredibly strong self-preservation instinct, but he also can’t bear to see others get hurt trying to protect him. Obviously, these two things are sometimes mutually exclusive, so it’s really interesting to see the kind of conflict that stems from it. 

Like, one minute you’ll have Vanitas yelling that Noe needs to be less soft, just learn to use others for his own gain, going on about how he refuses to get pulled into Noe’s antics and killed for his sake, ect. And the next, he’s yelling at Noe for protecting him and putting himself in danger. It makes poor Noe’s head hurt, lmao, and raises some really interesting questions about Vanitas as a character.

Inevitably, I think he’ll have to choose a side. And it’s very possible he might have to compromise the belief that he can’t just throw his own life away. And realize that, maybe there are some people out there that are worth that. This would be especially heartbreaking, because at times, it seems all Vanitas really wants is to live. Through Noe’s insight and conjecture, we constantly see glimpses of that. Noe strongly believes that Vanitas is so adamant about saving every vampire because he wishes, more than anything, that someone would be there to save him. It’s very poignant. 

There’s also this really fascinating ongoing question between Noe and Vanitas as to what the nature of “salvation” truly is. Noe knows that Vanitas wants it–both for every vampire and himself–but again, it’s this elusive state of being. Sometimes, you’re too late to preserve a cursed vampire’s life, so what do you do then? Sometimes, Noe strongly disagrees with the moral angle of Vanitas’ methods for “saving” others. 

Noe wanted more than anything to save someone that was already doomed at one point in his life. And with Vanitas, we might well see a repeat of that. So what really constitutes salvation? How do you save people that you already know cannot be saved? It’s a loaded question. And at the end of the day, I think it’s very likely that Noe killing Vanitas might just be the best “salvation” he can offer him. 

[ilikefelines]

@missisjoker

Here's another one!

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.