#alternate lady jane grey | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

fideidefenswhore · 10 months ago

Note

So I follow Claire Ridgway's Anne Boleyn Files and she has a few interesting alternative videos on what would have happened if Anne Boleyn had given birth to a son and not been executed. I am curious what you think may have happened to Mary had Anne given birth to a son that was acknowledged by everyone as Prince of Wales. Would she have been restored to the Succession or not?

It's hard to say perhaps Henry would have made Mary legitimate again but I can't see him doing that without putting Elizabeth and her new brother's legitimacy in danger. Maybe he would have married her off elsewhere?

Claire thinks the 1553 Crisis probably would have been avoided had Anne's son inherited the throne. I tend to agree with her son on the throne even if that son were to die young the Crown would still pass to Elizabeth. The Lady Jane Grey Coup would have been avoided.

Well, Mary's counsel from the Emperor's representative was to acknowledge Anne as Queen once/if she had a son. She did ultimately follow his counsel in the summer of 1536 when it came to acknowledging the religious supremacy, the legal invalidity of her parents' marriage and her own bastardy (and renouncing any claim to the throne thereby), so one could plausibly assume she would've done the same here. Many Marians insist she would never have done so; I myself don't find that scenario plausible, unless she was already on the other side of England at the point of her continued stance, in one of Charles V's realms and under his protection (as much as France had pushed for her to wed one of their princes, they're unlikely to have risked alienating HVIII by keeping her under theirs [tbf, they did harbor Reginald Pole, but that was years later in a much-changed religious and political landscape/circumstances], as for Scotland, James V had outright refused Chapuys' proposal on the grounds it would alienate HVIII, his close neighbour, and besides, had already acknowledged AB as Queen and Elizabeth as Princess, along with his mother).

I am curious what you think may have happened to Mary had Anne given birth to a son that was acknowledged by everyone as Prince of Wales. Would she have been restored to the Succession or not?

No to the 2nd, and what's been argued in this genre goes even further and more specifically, that had AB had a son in 1533, Mary would not have been disinherited or had her title reduced at all, because there would have been 'no need'. However, the prevalence of this theory underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of English precedent when it came to inheritance and HVIII's own beliefs, which wouldn't have changed but rather been vindicated, had his prince been born in 1533:

"[...] to appreciate Henry’s viewpoint it is first necessary to clarify the nature of his quest. This was certainly not simply to wed Anne Boleyn. Most scholars have concurred with the emphasis given by Elton and Scarisbrick that, whatever the roots of Henry’s ‘Great Matter’, he became unquestionably ‘convinced in his conscience that his marriage to Catherine had been a great sin’ and that his lack of sons was a punishment for this transgression. This reasoning also means that we must take seriously Henry’s worries about a future renewal of civil war, which might best be averted by the birth of a healthy and clearly legitimate baby boy. In earlier marriage negotiations with France and the Empire he had insisted that Mary was heir presumptive; he now argued that she would be barred by illegitimacy. This contention puzzled continental contemporaries because elsewhere in western Europe those children born to couples who in good faith (like Katherine and Henry in 1509) believed themselves validly married were treated as legitimate. Nevertheless, Henry was right. After a period of some uncertainty, by the late fourteenth century England had opted out of the bona fides principle, just as it had famously done in the Statute of Merton from that of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium.

While it is true that the English royal succession was not rigidly constrained by the law of property, nevertheless, as Sir John Baker notes, ‘succession problems were usually debated in legal terms and in accordance with the common law canons of inheritance’. A successful challenge to his marriage would thus automatically bastardise Mary and leave Henry with no direct heir."

- Katherine of Aragon & The Veil, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol 66. © Cambridge University Press

What Mary does seem to have been offered in late 1533, was the retaining of her own household, its complete staff, etc, in exchange her acknowledgement of Elizabeth as Princess, her stepmother as Queen, her parents' marriage is invalid, her own title as invalid by extension:

Throughout these years, the king had showed a genuine personal affection for Mary, even if his support for her as his successor was minimal at times. Initially, therefore, he hoped to persuade her to accept the Boleyn marriage despite its inevitable implication of her own disinheritance. Henry determined that the strongest incentive he could offer to secure her acquiescence was the continuation of her household on nearly the same scale it enjoyed prior to Elizabeth's birth. A checkeroll listing of all Mary's household officers and department heads as well as her senior staff carries the date of October 1533, a month after Elizabeth's birth. The list provides a snapshot of Mary's household on the eve before she was to experience considerable loss in status as a result of the imminent reduction of her household. Indeed, the list initially presents something of a puzzle. The king had already announced plans to reduce Mary's household shortly after Elizabeth's birth in September. Yet the list contains exalted names apparently indicating that in October 1533 that Mary's household was still of sufficient status to attract the service and residency of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury and Lady Margaret Douglas (Henry VIII's niece). Did the October list represent a description of Mary's household as it actually existed, or was it instead a fantasy household offered to Mary, via the checkeroll, as an inducement to accept her own disinheritance? There is not enough evidence for a definitive answer. Given the positive comment by the Milanese envoy around this time that Mary's household was appropriate to her (then) status as heir to the throne combined with the rarity of household lists taking the form of fantasy literature and the tradition of compiling such lists for accounting during October, this study proceeds on the assumption that the October list of 1533 was an accurate depiction of Mary's household. Jeri L. McIntosh. From Heads of Household to Heads of State: The Preaccession Households of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, 1516–1558.

So while McIntosh admits there's 'not enough evidence for a definitive answer', I find her theory highly plausible, as it seems to fit the timeline of events (specifically, late 1533 to early 1534) and adheres to the scholarly understanding of HVIII's character, temperament, and personality of the early 1530s.

There's sense to this offer, as obviously the Duke of Richmond had his own household, but unlike her brother, Mary had been acknowledged as Princess her entire life. So, 'the arrogant presumption of that title' (HVIII's words) is very...things that make you go hmmm.

So it was at his discretion to legitimate her by statute (as Caesaropapism goes, an equivalent to the Pope declaring children of similar dissolved marriages legitimate in good faith, he could have done this), but I don't believe he ever would have. There's some fuzziness here, because this was apparently offered to COA via Campeggio by HVIII circa 1529 and refused (and she seems to have tried to grasp at this previous offer much later, like in 1533), so he must have been willing at some point (unless this was merely an attempted feint of deceit). What seems most plausible is that it was on offer genuinely, but as he further studied the religious and legal scholarship/precedent on the matter and argued for the legitimacy of his beliefs and views in the years to come, he must have come to believe Mary's illegitimacy would inevitably follow the dissolution of her parents' marital union.

At most, he might have invested her in some titles by dint of marriage negotiations, this making her more appealing to prospective royal/noble parents wishing to marry their sons (I've seen Duchess of York suggested, which I don't find likely from HVIII, former Duke of York, in particular...it was a title for second sons....I could see some new creation however, maybe Marchioness/Marquess of Exeter, as I believe Gertrude Courtenay lost that title after being attainted, and obviously her husband's was rather more permanently lost).

There was arguably equal danger to marrying her abroad to a prince (the potential to invade) and marrying her in England (proximity eased the possibility for any future coup). However, such qualms could be eased via marriage treaties, and in fact, we know of the marital negotiations for Mary that took place in the late 1530s and throughout the 1540s, that an immoveable caveat HVIII tended to add was that Mary and a future spouse would renounce any claim to the throne of England, in writing (as this was often the appeal for the other party, most, with the exception of the Duke of Bavaria, which was closed for other reasons, ended in stalemate). Tl; dr I'm not really sure her prospects for marriage would've been much better off in any counterfactual where her first stepmother both remained Queen, and had a prince (which is one of the greatest ironies of the, alternately named, Aragonese/ Marian / White Rose faction of 1536...they schemed for the reinstatement and better circumstances of their Princess, which never really eventuated in any significant way [at least, arguably not in much greater luxury or attendance at court than she might've enjoyed in her acceptance of Anne as Queen], as she remained in that joint household with Elizabeth for several years, etc.)

Well, that's to assume Mary wouldn't have fought for the throne. She never fought for this against her half-brother by another stepmother, but she did signficantly defy him, and she never left England as she planned to do during his reign...which leaves us with a rather open question of how she would have survived once he assumed complete power in his majority and dissolved his regency council. We can never really know counterfactuals, and this one feels way too nebulous to even make any attempt of sketch, tbh. How many supporters would any Boleyn-Tudor prince have had? Elizabeth had a significant party by the time Mary took the throne, and they certainly made enough moves in her favor to unsettle and frighten the regime. Certainly, I cannot envision a Boleyn-Tudor prince revising the succesion to make Jane Grey his heir and disinherting his own sister, especially as Elizabeth would, in this scenario, be considered legitimate more universally (within England, at least).

#i'll link the relevant sources later if you're so inclined #heather123-fanblog #henry viii #mary i #counterfactuals

8 notes · View notes

kaiserin-erzsebet · 5 months ago

Note

My Lady Jane is alternate history where Jane Grey wasn't killed. And it's not serious alternate history. The narrator gives serious Lemony Snicket vibes even in the first 30 seconds. King Edward is black, gay, and faked his death. There are shapeshifters. And yet...

I've heard it is good (and quite fun) though I haven't watched it yet.

....you've got to be kidding me.

I want to give shows credit for playing fast and loose with history to create fun media that isn't ashamed of fun, but I need people to understand the difference.

4 notes · View notes

anwhitebooks · 6 months ago

Text

My Lady Jane: Funny and charming

June 20, 2024 Spoiler-Free Review I saw the promotion pictures for the new My Lady Jane TV series on Amazon Prime, and I admit it, I was immediately influenced. I quickly got my hands on a copy, and good thing too, because I adored everything about it. What’s My Lady Jane about? In an alternate history where some humans can shift into animals, Lady Jane Grey’s history is completely rewritten.…

View On WordPress

#book blog #book blogger #book review #book reviewer #cynthia hand #fantasy #jodi meadows #my lady jane #ya books

2 notes · View notes

realcatalina · 2 years ago

Text

Necklaces of triangles-Part 1: Dudleys or mislabelled Tudors?

I have a theory regarding lady Jane Grey’s portraits. I found THE pearl necklace on portrait labelled as Anne Russel, Countess of Warwick from c.1565:

Sorry closeup is not in HD, but this is worth investigating.

By this point only Elizabeth I was alive, and there is some serious resemblence to her. Could be misindentified portrait of Elizabeth. And it is not only portrait which can be misidentified Tudor Queen.

You can straight away say that from first glance this could be Elizabeth. All the differences here could be accounted by slightly different angle of head(or her telling painter to make her nose nicer.) And there is also some serious resemblence to Mary I and this can happen with siblings, that sometime in their life they can resemble more each other than in other age.

(Or alternatively we have to wonder, was Anne Russel born in 1548/9 or 1547? Because if she was one year older, then certain royal daddy would be in picture.)

Nevertheless Anne Russell was very favoured courtier of Elizabeth, and her wedding was among biggest court celebrations Elizabeth I ever thrown!

We cannot rule out that it included royal gift. It was normal for Queens to give away some jewelry-usually something smaller, but perhaps Elizabeth had a reason to make such grand gesture. You know politics! And then we’d expect Anne Russel to be depicted with such necklace-showing it proudly!

I found portrait of Elizabeth in which perhaps she is wearing the necklace also, but it is partially hidden by the parlet:

It is from 1560s, and might predate Anne Russel’s portrait. So even if it is Anne Russel, it doesn’t rule out that necklace could have originated in royal collection. But if you ask me it is mislabelled.

But there is gets interesting. Anne Russel was married to Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick. She was member of Dudley family! And that necklace is on portrait labelled as her. (whetever or not it is actually her does not matter, not to fans of certain lady.)

You know I was wondering why lady Jane Grey’s fans are so convinced that the portraits with this necklace show her and not somebody else?

Well, what if they had assumption that this necklace wasn’t part of royal collection, but Dudley collection?

The theory picks up on credibility, when you add the closeup upon portrait labelled as Mary Dudley, lady Sidney and look what is around the neck!

That is that necklace again! They assumed it this is Dudley necklace and then any portrait which shows both royal jewels and this necklace must be lady Jane Grey! That seemed logical to them. But is it true? Are these portraits of Dudleys?

Well, the case is strong for first portrait being misidentified Elizabeth, what about second one?

National Trust has it on their webpage located in Penthurst House, and the hair has very interesting hue(at least under certain light):

Exact same hue as Mary in undarkened copies of her. And except nose, there is certainly a great deal of resemblence, straight away.

Some differences in width of face and nose, but those can be accounted by weight loss/gain, and take of different artists upon same person could result in differences. Here the noses are more similiar, but artists had different take on eye-brows:

So if you ask me, I’d say I am 90% sure it is Mary I.

National Trust say it is labelled as Mary Dudley due to non-contemporary label saying it is her. Which is very weak, but i am curious about what exactly did that old label say.

Because I suspect it didn’t say ‘lady Sidney’ or ‘Mary Dudley’, but that it simply said ‘lady Mary’. That the label thought not contemporary was correct and they misunderstood.

Anyway this is probably how lady Jane Grey fans became obsessed with portraits with this necklace. Because supposedly Dudley women wore this necklace.

Supposed Dudley necklace+royal jewelry=lady Jane Grey

They’ve been looking at completely wrong direction based upon wrong assumption.

(And let us sit and watch as they go crazy trying to prove both of these are lady Jane Grey.) I might write to National Trust regarding this, because tbh it’s such good likeness of Mary and i believe lots of us fans looked at this portrait and said-you sure itsn’t Mary I? It looks like her!

So it strikes me as weird that finally very good likeness and people miss it! Common on. You can tell this is same jewel:

Could it be because of the hair? People tend to think of her as brunette.

Also we are being bombarded with stereotypical image of Mary as Queen, with headwear of that time, and where she doesn’t wear it, people might be assuming it is not her, solely because the headwear is different.

However that she as Queen had favourite style, doesn’t mean she didn’t wear styles that were popular before. Mary wore english gable hood, she wore french hood, she wore flat hoods.

So this was Mary probably early into her brother’s reign(i know they say it is 1550s, but it is not. I will explain some other time)-a lovely lady.

Now I want to show you what years of stress can do to a person. Let’s look at portrait at end of Edward’s reign. Beware the difference is brutal!

Tbh, she looks kind of like a corpse. Pale beyond belief, very very thin(which prolongates the face), and it seems she is not yet recovered from some illness. Edward’s health is talked about, but that his sister was often sick during his reign-that is not talked about. And this potrait imo shows, that those were not minor illnesses. She was indeed very sick from worrying constantly.

The original from Fitzwilliam Museum of Mary I, University of Cambridge, UK:

I believe that beside previous one it might be only larger undarkened surviving original portrait of her(i am talking about hair.) Nevertheless this photo shows it with yellow varnish and might be overexagerating the goldness of the hair. But it is exactly the hue women in her family had, so idk if it is discouloured or not.

Mary looking very tall, and with huge wide torso is normal for Eworth’s depictions of her. This is labelled as circle of Eworth. I have some theories regarding Scrots and Eworth and their circles etc, but I will spare you the long explanation. Main point is, this is exactly what I’d expect Mary by Eworth to look like! But imo work of workshop is labelled as Eworth and explains why some of his work is great, and some is more like cartoon.

Under different light the golden hair is gone, but that only adds to resemblence to Mary’s other known depiction by Eworth.

It’s just different levels of issue i call flatness of the nose(caused by unstability of pigments of the skin, resulting in lack of shadows in proper places), which is pretty common Eworth’s work at times.

The feature-wise you cannot argue it is not Mary. So why so many webpages say it is unknown lady possibly lady Jane Grey?

Unfortunately this time, it is partially due to webpage of Fitzwilliam Museum not being updated for while. In highlighted work, it was without doubt labelled as Mary I. But in another section of the webapge it was labelled as Unknown woman, possibly lady Jane Grey. I have written them about it(because it was confusing) and they updated it!

The Lady Jane Grey suggestion was made by J Stephan Edwards back in 2005, the arguments were not convincing and he even admitted he was wrong later on!(Lol.) The museum believes arguments for Mary I are much stronger. They don’t say they are 100% sure Mary. They refer to it and have formerly exhibited it as possibly Mary I. I’d use likely instead of possibly, but i am fine with this.

Hence they are not against this being Mary I:

And this is the another version of the pearl necklace forming triangles:

And I wonder if angle in which Mary gets depicted during her reign might cause it to not be visible and hence unrecognizable.

So far I found 12 depictions of these necklaces made of pearls forming triangles(which i shortened to necklaces of triangles). They are based upon 9 original paintings. Just 4-5 original survived. I just showed you 4 of them and gave you my take upon who it is.

With 5th painting i am not that sure if all of it is original. Face looks original, dress does not. A copy or alteration? Idk.

However this possible original is sadly just closeup of larger portrait. Sometimes royalty had large scale portrait done and smaller version with same outfit. Sadly this time only the smaller version appears it could be original.

So how do i know larger version existed? Because there are copies(in their case i am sure of that) which match this smaller version, but show 3/4 figure, while the smaller version doesn’t even show hands.(so it is not even half-lenght).

These copies based upon larger portrait has been (mis)identified as somebody else for long time. So can we find any evidence for it being royalty despite that?

And who is that smaller possibly original painting labelled as? And is that identification correct? You’ll find in future. So that was tease at the end I hope you have enjoyed it and that you’ll have a lovely New Year.

#Tudor History #historical portraits #Mary I Of England #elizabeth i of england #queen elizabeth i #Queen Mary I #elizabeth tudor #mary tudor #mistaken identity #how fans of lady Jane Grey got confused

9 notes · View notes

dorksidefiker · 2 months ago

Text

I don't know why the entire concept behind My Lady Jane feels icky to me. It just does.

Like... the real Jane Grey was a teenager who got killed for her father's and father-in-law's ambitions, and who had very little say over the events that lead to her being executed by her cousin, but it also happened hundreds of years ago, and there are plenty of Alternate History stories based off of even more horrible events that I've enjoyed without this same feeling of ICK.

1 note · View note

tvsotherworlds · 6 months ago

Text

0 notes

heather123fan-blog · 2 years ago

Text

I had a creative thought today for a fanfiction scenario based off of Becoming Elizabeth. What if Queen Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley had chosen to marry each other during the early years of Edward VI's reign before Jane Grey and Guildford were thrown together?

If Elizabeth and Robert were already married w/children then maybe John Dudley wouldn't have thought it very prudent to marry his son to Lady Jane Grey in 1553. Perhaps in this alternative timeline the Greys would ally with the Seymours and Jane could marry a Seymour boy instead? As her sister Catherine did? How old would Edward Seymour be in this timeline?

Are there any other marriage candidates for Lady Jane Grey out there that anyone can think of?

0 notes

garnetbutterflysblog · 7 months ago

Text

I would present a counter-argument because I do believe that we are given textual evidence that Alicent’s children were in danger if Rhaenyra took the Iron Throne- even if fratricide isn't an established custom/law. GRRM carefully crafted parallels that would echo the struggles Rhaenyra would face in trying to claim the Iron Throne, though for this purpose I will be excluding any parallels to the main series and using only the show’s canon or Fire and Blood.

My first point would be to look at Lady Jeyne Arryn, the only canonical female lord paramount who is conveniently placed right before the Dance begins. Unlike Rhaenyra, Jeyne Arryn had the full support of Andal law behind her as she inherited the position when her father and brothers were all killed. In spite of her possessing the strongest legal claim to the Vale, her cousin Arnold Arryn rebelled against her three times. Ser Arnold’s reasoning during each attempted coup was Lady Jeyne’s gender, and he gathered significant support given Jeyne chose to imprison him within the Eyrie perpetually. I will concede that this point also prepares an alternative scenario where Rhaenyra could choose to imprison her brothers and any nephews, but considering Arnold went insane from being imprisoned, that isn’t truly a preferable outcome.

Secondly, even prior to the Great Council, there is an implicit precedent when it comes to the Iron Throne that mirrors Salic law, where a woman cannot inherit at all. The Great Council merely makes this precedent explicit. The first use of this implicit precedent was at the end of Maegor’s reign, where the realm backed Jaehaerys against Maegor in spite of Aerea, the heir of Aegon the Uncrowned being a claimant. Decades later when his eldest surviving son Aemon died, Jaehaerys upheld this precedent by skipping over Aemon’s trueborn daughter in favor of his second son, Baelon. What makes it even worse, is that the realm was given the opportunity to restore the more traditional succession practices during the Great Council but actively chose otherwise by naming Viserys heir.

One has to consider that it is not only Rhaenyra and her half-siblings operating in this world. As episode 9 proves, there are people willing to use Alicent’s children as pawns against Rhaenyra without their knowledge or consent. In the real world, we have several historical parallels to this such as Lady Jane Grey, Henry VI, the Princes in the Tower and Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warrick. Even though they had been locked away in the Tower of London, all were either executed or simply murdered because people rose against the reigning monarch on their behalf- forcing the reigning monarch to execute them to secure their own reign and the stability of their kingdom. It doesn’t matter how disinterested in the throne her half-siblings are, Rhaenyra’s reign would always be more secure and the risk of rebellion would significantly decrease if her half-siblings were executed.

Your argument also willfully ignores the actions or supposed actions of both Rhaenyra and Daemon. If asking for Aemond to be tortured over the truth in episode 7 wasn’t enough, Rhaenyra joined forces with Daemon to get the realm to believe they arranged the murder of Laenor. In the eyes of the Greens, Laenor was one of the men who shielded Rhaenyra from the consequences of having sons with Harwin. Laenor accepted these boys as his own despite explicitly knowing those children weren’t his as he stated in episode 6. Laenor was also her cousin, her own blood and though it seems ‘by proxy’ deaths aren’t counted as kinslaying, that is essentially what Rhaenyra is purposefully saying she is capable of. Given Aemond and Aegon's actions only days prior to Laenor's "death", Rhaenyra has reason to be concerned. Aemond clearly hates his nephews (understandably) and Aegon inadvertently did more damage to her sons by answering Viserys that everyone knew Rhaenyra's sons were bastards because of their appearance. If her own allies are not safe from her, how could the living and breathing challenges that are Alicent’s sons be safe from Rhaenyra and Daemon?

And as for your last remark about Alicent’s issue being premarital sex, it is a very shallow and doylist reading of the scene. We, as a modern audience, would initially want to explain this scenario as Alicent being a prude and “slut-shaming” but the Watsonian explanation is very apparent in episodes 4 and 5. Rhaenyra cannot defy gender conventions just because she is a Targaryen and the heir to the Iron Throne, as Viserys bluntly states. Viserys even confirms that the perception of being with Daemon in a brothel would have been enough cause for Jaehaerys to disown her. If that was not enough, Rhaenys and Corlys even reference how desperately Viserys is trying to repair Rhaenyra’s reputation and solidify her position as heir by coming to Driftmark himself to arrange a match with Laenor. Unlike the audience, Alicent can only use the Watsonian perspective which is 1) after offending many lords during her tour of the realm, Rhaenyra choose to engage in even more reckless behavior without thinking of the importance of perception and how precarious her position is, 2) Rhaenyra is willing to work against Alicent’s own interests by having Otto sent away because he gave a mostly truthful report about her actions, and 3) that Rhaenyra is willing to lie to Alicent (even if by small lies or lies of omission). Alicent's options are to entrust Rhaenrya with the lives of her children or try to protect them by usurping the throne (most likely at that point, she thought Viserys could be convinced to name Aegon heir). Rhaenyra understandably doesn't trust her and now, Alicent's trust has been broken in turn.

I finally realized why it always rubs me the wrong way when people compare Alicent to Hürrem: despite multiple genuine similarities between the two, people often use it to imply things about Alicent (and Rhaenyra) that are just plain untrue. Notably, Hürrem has legitimate reasons to worry about her sons' lives, while Alicent... Just doesn't. I am sorry, she really fucking doesn't.

First off, let's make something very clear - recent history of their worlds is very much on Hürrem's side, while with Alicent, it's a lot less clear. Notably, while the oldest members of the Ottoman dynasty, when the empire was just really just a small emirate in Anatolia, were able to peacefully coexist with their brothers and other male relatives that could challenge their power, as the empire grew, so did the propensity of potential candidates for the throne to fight over it. By the time Süleyman I. became the sultan, fratricide was very much an established practice. Ottoman succession laws were rather murky, and at the time the show takes place, the good old "to the strongest" principle was in place when it comes to deciding which prince was to become the next ruler. There was some sense that the oldest has more right to the throne than his brothers - hence Mustafa being considered the strongest candidate, along with his general popularity among the janissaries - but Selim I. did win the throne from his older brother, so it was hardly set in stone.

Then there's Westeros, which is a lot more complicated. Sure, you did have Maegor I. usurping and murdering two of his nephews, where the third was only saved by going into hiding, but notably that was only after the oldest one rose in open rebellion towards him. Now, Aegon the Uncrowned wasn't really in the wrong there, considering Maegor had at that point already burned the Starry Sept and generally showed himself to be the absolute worst. Aegon was fully within his rights to be worried about the fate of himself, his own family and the whole country. But it's worth noting, because even the most tyrannical king Westeros had up to that point didn't just shank his nephews completely unprovoked (as was at the time the show was set already an established practice for the Ottomans). Hell, Maegor previously fully supported the reign of his older brother, apparently for no other reason than because of affection between them. Even after they had a falling out because of Maegor's bigamy, Maegor went into exile rather than directly challenge his brother's rule.

Then we have Viserys I., whose claim was also contentious, but after it was cemented trough legalistic means, noone ever went directly against him. It's worth noting that Rhaenyra's claim too was established trough legalistic means (her father's decree) and just like Viserys' claim, it also went against the common practice of Westerosi succession. Admittedly, Rhaenyra's claim was much less stable, mostly because of her gender, but still. In addition, there is absolutely no indication that Rhaenyra would ever go the Maegor route if her throne wasn't usurped; admittedly, she would've kept a close watch on her brothers (and they might be in danger if there is ever an unrelated crisis during Rhaenyra's death - possibly, maybe), but that's far from the "certain death" scenario Alicent presents to Aegon the Trashy. And considering the alternative is a civil war, which also endangers the lives of her children... Yeah, keeping your head down and trying to appear as faithful as possible to Rhaenyra suddenly seems like a pretty viable option, doesn't it?

But that would mean Alicent has to firmly go against her manipulative father and place her trust in Rhaenyra just after she lied to her about *gasp* having premarital sex, and she just isn't emotionally ready for that.

Look, I am not saying Alicent doesn't have good character-driven reasons to be horribly, horribly wrong. But she is. By God is she wrong. Superficially, hers and Hürrem's situation are similar. But one of them is probably right, while the other is just wrong. And that makes all the difference.

#house of the dragon #pro alicent hightower #pro team green #alicent hightower #alicent hightower defense squad #otto is terrible but partially right #anti rhaenyra targaryen #anti team black #just to be safe

29 notes · View notes