#alsethwisson

[anghraine]

All true, but I excluded him because he's the only one with a canonical death date and information about his aging/death (he didn't actually rule Númenor because he was already elderly when Elros died, and immediately passed the Sceptre to his son Amandil and enjoyed his old age before dying at 410 years old, which is still a pretty good run!). We don't have any death dates or information about the later years of his younger siblings, though.

Switching fandoms for today's poll because I feel like it: in Nature of Middle-earth, Tolkien drops the absolute bombshell (for me!!) that Elros's children did get to choose between mortality and immortality, just like Elrond's. Elros's firstborn definitely chose mortality (he died of old age at over 400 years old), but we have no death dates for any of his other children.

If you were going to headcanon that one of Elros's three younger children did choose immortality (and is either keeping a low profile or in Valinor by the Third Age), which child of Elros would it be?

If you want to headcanon that more than one of them chose to be counted among Elves, pick the one you care about the most and tell me who the other one is. If you still don't headcanon that any of them chose immortality, this poll is not for you!

[ceoofhelaegon]

The worst thing with show!Aemond is, he lacks the youthful immaturity of his book counterpart. Book!Aemond was young, he was a teenager still, and he behaved as such. His story with Alys is basically a dark mirror of Robb/Jeyne: his family is dead (he has no means to know Aegon&kids survive) and the only person to help him through is his enemy's daughter. But she is no sweet Jeyne and only feeds his madness, not cures it. His fateful fight with Luke is two kids fighting and one being killed, etc

I honestly have no idea how they'll handle that...

Or they'll make it all wholesome? lol, if that happens it would be so botched.

But what else can we expect from those talentless writers?

[istumpysk]

WAIT I LOVE NO SPRING FOR TYRION!

👏 @alsethwisson 👏

[ceoofhelaegon]

@alsethwisson

I still don’t understand this, I always looked at “a son for a son” being about Rhaenyra losing Luke, so Aegon must lose a son as well…(even tho is absolutely insane) it cements the war between Aegon and Rhaenyra.

Being about Aemond is just a cheap plot, imo.

I don't think they will confirm or deny the paternity of the twins in the show but they can certainly continue to play with the idea.

Don’t say those things, Nonnie.

I still don’t understand why make this a thing, tbf. Not even Mushroom could come up with something like this, it’s so dumb IMO.

[nogoodsheepstealing-greatgrandma]

@alsethwisson The Council did not, I repeat, did not codify male inheritance of the iron throne into law - all it did was demonstrate a preference by the lords for male inheritance. Just because green supporters viewed it as setting an iron precedent doesn't make it so, it certainly doesn't make it 'universal law'. And even if it was, in an absolute monarchy the king does have the right to change the law. Was Good Queen Alysanne behaving like a tyrant when she abolished the long-established precedent of the First Night and banned lords from raping peasant women on their wedding night? I suppose the answer depends on whether you ask the rapists or their victims. In the annals of tyrannical rulers of Westeros, I doubt many are ranking either Viserys or Alysanne among the likes of Maegor the Cruel or the Mad King. Something tells me GRRM intended readers to use the part of their brain that is capable of nuance when considering whether 'universal law' is even worth upholding.

While there was a long-established precedent of male inheritance among the noble houses in Westeros (that Viserys did not overturn) there was no long-established precedent of male inheritance of the Iron Throne. At the time of the Great Council, there had only been three generations of Kings ruling the 7 kingdoms - long-established precedent favours separate independent kingdoms. The existence of Westeros as a single kingdom under one monarch is relatively recent - and that monarch having to be a male was decidedly undecided, at first due to circumstance. Rhaena being passed over in favour of Jaehaerys is complicated by the fact that she was her uncle's prisoner and forced bride, while Jaehaerys was free and being used as a rallying point against Maegor the Cruel by their mother.

Then Alysanne full on expected that Daenerys was naturally Jaehaerys' heir, and was surprised and angry when Jaehaerys kept dodging the issue with half-assed evasions like "yeah she'll be queen when she marries her brother" "NO JAEHAERYS". Then Daenerys died before the matter could be resolved and her little brother was next in line anyway. Then Alysanne was furious at Jaehaerys for not backing his grand-daughter Rhaenys as the rightful heir, and Jaehaerys went for the half-assed approach of "I'll call a council - its obvious what will happen but this way I have deniability" "FOR FUCKS SAKE JAEHAERYS".

Yes Viserys definitely did not do his grandmother or his mother Alyssa Targaryen proud when he displaced Rhaenys. I imagine he partly named Rhaenyra heir as a guilty corrective. Which he had every right to do as monarch. And no, he wasn't setting a dangerous precedent at all, because he wasn't just naming any random kid he liked as heir. He was naming his firstborn child - a perfectly legitimate thing to do. A dangerous precedent would be something more along the lines of Randyll Tarly - forcibly disowning his oldest son and sending him to the wall because he liked the younger son better. Or what Otto did.

In sum, so far the heirs being male had been decided due to there being only male heirs (Aenys & Maegor), circumstance (captivity or death of female heirs Rhaena & Daenerys), then Jaehaerys cowardly refusing to officially settle the matter while counting on the misogyny of the lords to pick the male candidate. Then Viserys chose his firstborn child.

Upon choosing her, as I stated above, he made her his cupbearer. Again, it is not the dumb 'girl made to fetch the drinks' role it is in the show. Cupbearer is a ceremonial role, its an excuse for the chosen heir to learn at the King's side and attend meetings, it is training from an early age. Rhaenyra has been cupbearer since she was named heir aged 8 - so there you go, there's her training. The show may have misunderstood the role and made her cupbearer before she was named heir, but she still attended the council meetings. Learning from the meetings is the entire point, otherwise the king would just have a servant serving drinks (its also so dumb that she was serving the whole council - they could have had their own cupbearers, if the writing was intelligent then Alicent not being made Otto's cupbearer could have been a way to demonstrate the opportunities being denied to her that are open to Rhaenyra). Think how Jon Snow was made Jeor Mormont's steward - it was to place him at his side and raise him for command.

Beyond that, even with the show rewriting Rhaenyra to make her appear less trained for the role, we have Rhaenyra resolving the crisis at Dragonstone and continuing to attend council meetings as an adult. The tragedy of the council scene in 1x06 is that both Rhaenyra and Alicent's suggestions are right, and if they weren't in opposition to each other then they could have cooperated on a solution. The Blackwood/Bracken issue - Alicent is right that they should be able to delegate it to the Tully's and encourage them to take responsibility, and Rhaenyra is right that the particular risk of the conflict escalating into violence means the crown should step in. There's a middle ground to be found there. Then the Stepstones - Alicent is right that military holdings are expensive, and Rhaenyra is right that not defending an important trade route has high long-term costs. The solution, work towards the most cost-effective defence.

Meanwhile, in the book her move to Dragonstone is the King's decree - it is considered the heirs seat, which is why it was so controversial when Daemon tried to claim it in 1x02. Holding Dragonstone is a symbol of political legitimacy. It is also a ruling seat in its own right, with responsibilities of any ruling seat in Westeros beyond 'playing house'. It is also extremely convoluted in the show that Rhaenyra, a dragonrider, can't hop over the blackwater on dragonback in a jiffy. The only purpose of that detail was so the show could have a scene of Rhaenyra reacting to the Red Keep being redecorated.

Also, Aegon, attending court functions and behaving as a prince should? In the book he is described as lazy and gluttonous and prone to groping serving girls. In the show he is a drunken rapist who watches children forced into fighting rings for fun, and even describes himself as unfit to rule. I know the bar is low for princely behaviour and having a penis is considered all the qualification he needs, but come on. They definitely made him worse in the show, but since they had also rewritten Rhaenyra to be less trained they kind of had to. Since the whole point is that the only advantage Aegon has over Rhaenyra is that he has a penis - in every other way Rhaenyra is the better option, and half of westeros agrees. The other half would have been able to do no more than grumble, if it weren't for the greens deciding to plunge the realm into war.

Otto is the reason why this stupid Dance happened.

Otto’s the Villain and if Alicent need someone to blame for her poor predicament, it’s Otto. UGH!

Got two of the same asks, thought it would be better to answer them together.

I believe the dance is more nuanced than that, if Viserys married another Lady from another House, the Dance would still had happened.

Otto was just closer to Viserys, any other Hand would do the same.

This is clearly speculation on my part, but the reason why Viserys chose Alicent was because she was the daughter of a second son, meaning no power. But the Hightowers were willing to fight for their own, which is probably why Aegon and Heleana were married, to stop them from making alliances.

If Laena married Viserys, Corlys would fight for his grandson, he was willing to do that for Rhaenys and then Laenor. If Viserys married a Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, Tyrell, the Dance would still happen.

The only way to avoid the Dance would be marrying Rhaenyra and Aegon, but then they still would have to worry about Daemon.

The dance happened because there were too many Targaryens and dragons, the Blackfyre rebellions lasted for years, imagine if they had dragons?

Even if by some miracle, everyone got along well and Rhaenyra became Queen. The dance would’ve happened between Jace and Aegon, or Jace and Aegon the younger because Daemon would 100% want his trueborn son on the throne and that would be even more bloody because there would be way more dragons.

In conclusion, the dance would’ve happened with or without Otto.