#awoiaf characterization

[horizon-verizon]

This might be a little out of the blue but what is your opinion on the fan theory that Quaithe's true identity is Shiera Seastar?

@deus-sema

I'm coming around to it. It makes sense bc Brynden Rivers is still active, Aegor Rivers' hand of politics has reached till today with his having secured the Blackfyre remnants to Essos and this is where we possibly get FAegon...why can't Sheira have found some means of immortality--or just longevity--through magical means with all the mention of her study of magical arts?

[horizon-verizon]

Important quotes:

[...] One that hasn’t been suggested, as far as I can tell, is sincere philosophical opposition. A Blackfyre victory is not only a victory for Daemon, but a massive cultural push toward this Prom King of the Seven Kingdoms “better man” ideology. It’s not hard to imagine why Brynden Rivers would want to oppose that. If the just and peaceable King Daeron II, with the might of the Iron Throne behind him, can be overthrown because he doesn’t fit the masculine ideal, what place will there be for someone whose deviation from this ideal is literally all over his face?  If hostility toward the Rhoynar proves this potent a motivation to warfare, what’s next? The Dornish at least keep the Andal faith, which is no small thing; who’s to say that this new regime won’t want a new enemy to rally people against and decide that those weirdo tree-worshippers are a convenient target? I don’t think his motivations were predominantly about principle or self-preservation, but at the same time, if you were in his shoes, wouldn’t you fight tooth and nail to resist that?

................

Bloodraven is a bastard in an era where bastardy is a social flash point, he is a warg in a world of disappearing magic, he is an albino in a world where divergence from a physical ideal is treated as a moral failing. At some point, covering (as I hypothesized that Daeron may) or trying to kick down the door into Normalcy (as Daemon and Bittersteel definitely do) becomes corrosive, self-destructive, utterly exhausting. There is nobody else like Bloodraven, and he lives like somebody who knows it.

................

Archery is thought to be below knights, supposedly because it isn’t considered to bring too much glory. As a skill, it’s literally worth less in their world[...] The more cynical explanation for this cultural attitude is that it’s bluntly classist: people can make pretty effective bows and arrows and even learn to use them on their own, they allow people to be valuable in battle even if they can’t afford expensive armor and well-kept horses, and once those same people leave the battlefield they can also use those bows and arrows to feed themselves. Brute strength is less important, which means maleness and able-bodiedness are nowhere near as much of an advantage as they are in more “honorable” fights. And what does Bloodraven use to strike down foes? A weirwood bow. Foreshadowing things to come, yes, but I suspect the character made this choice precisely because of its symbolism.

................

But the main issue is, look how much of this is scapegoating and outright dehumanization, and how little of it is based on actual events. “He killed his half-brother and nephews on the battlefield" - fair enough, if stripped of the context of Daemon’s kinslaying intent, but then - “and then he made the plague happen and killed the half-brother he was fighting for! Oh, and Baelor Breakspear, who hundreds of reputable sources saw someone else kill! Oh, yes, and somehow he did this overly-complicated magical feticide but still GOT CAUGHT doing it even though he is magical and all-powerful! Also LOOK AT HIS GROSS FACE!” As long as he lives under his own name, he’s going to be demonized. What he looks like is sufficient ammunition against him; if he starts hiding his appearance, he outs himself as a sorcerer, because the way he looked before is very memorable. This exists in dialogue with the social bias that lumps him in with his mortal enemies.

................

What’s especially impressive and engaging and above all unusual about this character is that he could, if he wants, cover more effectively than anyone else. He could disappear into the libraries with Aerys; he could either pretend not to have his affinity with ravens or choose to be one full-time. He can pass himself off as a Plumm – or for that matter, probably the Lannister or Tyrell of his choice – or any other person whose skin and hair and eye(s) don’t draw attention. His shape-shifting abilities could be read as a metaphor for the ability to cover, which is learned so well by stigmatized people. But as Melisandre tells us, glamours take a toll. Even with the means to do it, he refuses to crouch defensively and use his abilities to coddle other people’s biases and deny his own identity. He inhabits his own skin, and he throws people by forcing them to meet him on his terms. If people construe your existence as offensive, then the best defense is to give offense. This is radically different from the “wear it like armor” attitude Tyrion Lannister tries to take. Armor is defensive. Armor, like glamors, is something that you put on when necessary but is dead weight to carry when not. Bloodraven wears his difference like a set of brass knuckles. You might resent him for refusing to play by the established rules – but you’ll watch your mouth or lose some teeth.

................

When someone who is outside of society is above it and okay with it, then there’s no need to challenge ourselves on what alienation might be doing to them; when they don’t care about the system, they don’t threaten our perspective on how it’s organized. Bloodraven, though, is always playing toward some long game or another, and he always uses the most powerful tools he can get his hands on to do it. He is not a devotee of chaos. He is about order, bare and unflinching -and he stands in starkly visible contrast to what most people assume their social order to be.

................

Better Men: Bias and Bastardy in the Blackfyre Rebellion, Part 3

I tried to keep this post from turning into a general deep dive into Lord Bloodraven, the biggest greatest of bastards and the newest of my favorite characters. Given the subject matter of this series of posts and what we know about the character so far, there’s a lot to explore. I’ve tried to limit this one to the character’s relationship to his own difference and how that influences his thinking.

White as bone were the skin and hair of Brynden Rivers, and his eye - he had only the one, the other having been lost to his half brother Bittersteel at the Battle of Redgrass Field - was red as blood. On cheek and neck he bore the winestain birthmark that had given him his name. (TMK)

In some ways, the Lord Hand is a fairly straightforward exploration of the concept of stigma. His face bears a literal mark, which defines his social identity to a point where he’s publicly named for it - a name referencing an animal, no less.

Straightforward,perhaps,but far from simple.This is a complicated subject, inhabited by a very complicated character.

Keep reading

[agentrouka-blog]

What are your thoughts on Alicent Hightower?

I haven't read Fire&Blood yet, so I can't comment on the book Dance. In the show she's my favorite character but the writing is inconsistent, which really detracts from the overall messaging and characterization.

No deep thoughts. HOTD has a lot of potential but mediocre execution and I am not commiting my limited brainspace to it. Not when I am way behind on my AWOIAF project. 😁

[aegor-bamfsteel]

How long does it take to travel to King’s Landing from Dragonstone?

I wanted to focus a meta on a seemingly minor detail that, if you look into the likely circumstances surrounding it, reveals an important piece of characterization of Da3ron II that I don’t think has been discussed. AWOIAF says, regarding Da3ron’s reaction to his father’s death: “[he] departed Dragonstone within the fortnight after learning of his father's demise and was swiftly crowned by the High Septon in the Red Keep.”

If Aegon IV had died, and then Da3ron had arrived from Dragonstone and been crowned within 2 weeks (equal to a fortnight) of this death, that would’ve been understandable. However, the “and” signifies that Da3ron was crowned after the fortnight; it took within a fortnight of being told of Aegon’s death (not Aegon’s death proper, just when he heard the news) for Da3ron to pack his things and travel from Dragonstone to King’s Landing. The implication is that the journey from Dragonstone to KL takes nearly two weeks by sea. I was so puzzled at the idea that the Targaryen’s home castle was so far away from their capital (that they chose to build in that location partially because it was that close to Dragonstone) I checked the Errata of The World of Ice and Fire to see if it was a misprint in the way Myriah Martell’s name was; it was not. Da3ron took nearly two weeks after hearing of his father’s death to arrive at King’s Landing, and was “swiftly crowned” only after. Which leads me to ask, how many miles by sea does it take to travel from Dragonstone to King’s Landing?

According to a map of Westeros and assuming that it is to scale, someone worked out the distance as 420 miles/675km by sea; it is 100 miles/160km from Dragonstone to Sharp Point on the mainland, and then 320 miles/515km of traveling west along the coast to King’s Landing. It is not mentioned what type of ship Da3ron took (galley, longship, carrick, caravel, etc; all of which travel at different speeds based on how they’re built, with longships being the fastest and galleys the slowest), how experienced its crew was (although since Dragonstone is known for its navy, you’d think they would be experienced), or if the winds were favorable, so I’m going to estimate the slow, average, and fast speed of arrival from Dragonstone to KL based on the sources:

If Westeros is anything like our world and the equator is located south of Dorne, then the prevailing winds would blow from east to west (easterlies) south of the Neck and from west to east (westerlies) north of the Neck. Dragonstone and King’s Landing are located south of the Neck, so the prevailing winds would be trade winds/easterlies; in other words, Da3ron would’ve had the wind on his side leaving Dragonstone, which would’ve increased his speed by as much as 1 knot/1.15mi. Travelling at less than 4mph/3.5knots per hour generally meant a sailing ship was travelling with unfavorable winds, so we can assume Da3ron never reached below that speed.

Ideal Conditions:

Under ideal conditions (favorable winds, a skilled crew) a sailing ship could average around 6knots/6.9mph over a trip (pre-modern vessels could “sprint” up to 12 knots, but this wasn’t sustainable). This translates to 168 miles per day, assuming sailing in the day and night (which Da3ron would’ve had to do at least on the first part of his journey to Sharp Point, as he’s sailing the open ocean). 420mi/168mi/d= 2.5 days, or 60 hours at maximum speed

Assuming Da3ron took a caravel, the maximum speed of which is 9mph or 150 miles per day, it would’ve taken 420mi/150mi/d= 2.8 days, or 68 hours at maximum speed

I doubt Da3ron took a galley, considering it is a slow ship most often used for war, but non-ironborn nobility in Westeros do seem to have more of them to their name (Cersei, Stannis, Alyn Velaryon use them as flagships) than other ships, so I’ll put these numbers in to show that even at the slowest built ship Da3ron should’ve made better time. They are on average about 3/4 as fast as caravels, so at maximum might reach 6.75mph, 112mi/d, so 3.7 days or about 90 hours at maximum speed

Average conditions:

The average sailing ship could go around 5knots/5.75mph; this translates into 73 hours or 3 days 1 hour on average

Average speed for a caravel is 4.5mph or 90-100mi/day. The lower range indicates this trip would take 112 hours, or 4 days 16 hours; the upper range is 101 hours, or 4 days 7 hours on average

Average speed for a galley is about 3knots/3.45mph; this translates to about 122 hours, or about 5 days on average

Slow conditions (slowest possible with still-prevailing winds):

As explained before, going less than 3.5knots/4mph via sailing ship meant generally unfavorable winds. Assuming the absolute slowest, the ship could expect to make the trip in 105 hours or 4 days 9 hours

Using the ratio that a galley is about 3/4 the speed of a caravel, its slow speed might be 3mph, which translates into 140 hours or 5 days 20 hours

In conclusion, assuming that Da3ron did not stop at any harbors along the way and traveled at a consistent pace, he should have arrived in King’s Landing within one week, not two, of learning of Aegon’s death. Even at the slowest pace, taking the slowest method of water transport, the trip does not equal 6 full days of travel. 

It’s possible that, like Corlys Velaryon at the 101 Great Council, he brought the full Dragonstone fleet to King’s Landing to support his claim to the throne if he feared it was in danger (which makes sense in that he took so long to arrive, but was “swiftly crowned” after), but that would’ve lengthened the trip to 6 days at most (since a navy can only travel as fast as its slowest ship, the galley), and certainly not to nearly two weeks, since time is clearly of the essence in thwarting a potential coup. The idea that it took so long to prepare such a navy after hearing of Aegon’s death seems like a stretch considering the old king’s slow physical decline (see below)

A more benign argument is that after he reached Sharp Point, he did stop during the night, but assuming a night is 8 hours, that means even if he stopped every night along the journey (a ridiculously inefficient plan that practically defeats traveling by water, but to stretch out the time let’s pretend he might’ve done it) would’ve made the trip 76 hours or 3 days 4 hours at the fastest, and 172 hours or 7 days 4 hours at the slowest. Again, even at the slowest pace, with the slowest method of transportation, and now with long stops, it still would’ve taken barely more than half the time Yandel noted Da3ron actually spent to depart Dragonstone and arrive in King’s Landing. And how many days did he really need to pack his things and leave? I doubt nearly a week was really necessary...

Of course, that Da3ron might’ve taken a slower ship and stopped every night from reaching Sharp Point on ignores why he’s journeying to King’s Landing in the first place: his father just died and he is going to be crowned king, unmistakably the most important event of his life. As the crown prince, he has access to the fastest ships and most experienced crew. This is no time to stop to rest and leave the realm without a king (especially if you believe that others are plotting to take the throne, as Da3ron’s actions after arriving regarding Daemon Blackfyre and his father’s Small Council indicate). There is no technical reason why a journey that should’ve taken 3-4 days instead took nearly 2 weeks. The only possible reason for such a massive delay is a character-based one: that Da3ron did not wish to arrive in the capital so soon. Waiting that long almost undoubtedly meant he was not there for the funeral (given Aegon’s condition at death, it makes me think he was buried shortly after; in addition, the news of the death would’ve had to have reached Da3ron before he could depart, which would’ve taken 1-1.5 days by raven), which would’ve been the best opportunity to show filial piety, or at least pay respects to the old king from the perspective of a successor. Da3ron wore his father’s crown allegedly to prove his legitimacy, but the gesture seems rather empty after taking so long to come to the capital that he missed the funeral, and the coronation itself was the only event described as “swift.” It makes it seem as if he did not care for his father, purposely avoiding the capital until all mourning was done and then claiming his crown. This might have been the case given they were estranged the last years of Aegon’s life, but no matter his personal feelings, it would’ve been politically wiser if he were to come to King’s Landing as fast as he could, especially given the doubts of his legitimacy and his paranoia over claimants to the throne. The very tense succession of Viserys I to Aegon II officially took place on a single day; understandably such a short passage of time wasn’t possible in Da3ron’s case, but potential problems in a succession makes Targaryens act faster, not slower.

What makes matters worse is that Aegon’s death was obviously not sudden in the manner of Viserys II’s. TWOIAF’s description of his demise includes, “he was grossly fat, barely able to walk, and some wondered how his last mistress—Serenei of Lys, the mother of Shiera Seastar—could ever have withstood his embraces.” Serenei was Aegon’s mistress for at least a year, and undoubtedly a man who was barely able to walk does not have long to live. Toward the immediate end “his limbs [were] rotting and crawling with fleshworms”; there was even debate over this condition: “the maesters claimed they had never seen its like, whilst septons declared it a judgment of the gods” in addition to palliative care “Aegon was given milk of the poppy to dull his pain, but elsewise little could be done for him.” It seems like the final stage of Aegon’s illness could’ve taken weeks or even months, if there was time to discuss its cause and for worms to start eating his rotting limbs, or for final treatment and a damning decree to be issued. The health of the king is obviously politically important, especially to his heir, so I think it’s unlikely Da3ron wouldn’t have known about this final illness. Certainly by the time Aegon was unable to rise from his sickbed, Da3ron should’ve been able to tell the end was near; he very well could’ve reached King’s Landing before Aegon’s death, let alone before his funeral. That could have altered the course of Westerosi history if he arrived in time to contest the will that decreed all of Aegon’s illegitimate children be legitimized. 

It’s important to note that it’s never explained why Da3ron was unable to undo Aegon’s deathbed decree. The Greens were able to successfully contest Viserys I’s will that Rhaenyra succeed him and instead crown Aegon II, once they got the majority of the Small Council on their side. In real life, Henry of Blois was able to release his brother Stephen and the rest of the barons from the vows they swore to uphold Empress Matilda’s ascension to the English throne, on the grounds that her father king Henry was wrong to make them swear the oath because it would threaten the stability of the kingdom (in addition to bribing the royal steward into alleging that the old king had changed his mind about the succession and nominated Stephen instead, which at least worked for William the Conqueror regarding Edward the Confessor’s will). It would’ve been even easier for Da3ron to contest the will because Aegon was in horrific pain due to ill health and given milk of the poppy, a drug that is known to “fill one’s head with clouds”; Da3ron could’ve said that Aegon was not in his right mind when he made the will and that any deathbed decrees should be discarded. If only he had come early enough to King’s Landing to plead his case before Aegon’s death, or failing that, to try to force a reversal through the High Septon or the royal steward shortly after, things might’ve gone better for him later in his reign.

To conclude what is a much longer meta than I expected, Yandel claimed that Da3ron arrived in King’s Landing from Dragonstone within 2 weeks of hearing of his father’s death. Through estimating the speed of certain ships and the distance between the two castles, we can determine it should have taken at most 6 days and in all probability more like 3-4 days if he conducted himself with any sense of urgency. But instead, he chose to arrive so far after Aegon’s death that he probably missed his funeral, which, coupled with the haste with which he was crowned, shows a lack of respect for a deceased father that goes against the teachings of the Faith of the Seven, the moral authority of Westeros (and probably fed rumors of his illegitimacy). Even worse, the nature of Aegon’s illness was so slow that Da3ron could’ve made it to King’s Landing in time to change or contest his will if he had bothered, thus getting rid of his potential rival’s legitimization. I can only infer that Da3ron’s actions were not motivated by political necessity (and in fact could’ve hurt him politically and socially), but by hatred for his estranged father. I don’t blame Da3ron for loathing a man who abused his mother and tried to start an unprovoked war with his wife’s family. However, I don’t think the characterization of him putting political necessities above personal feelings can hold water, at least where his own are concerned (the feelings of others under his guardianship, such as those of Aerys I, and perhaps those of Princess Daenerys and Daemon Blackfyre, might be different matters). Nor do I believe that he should get a pass for making politically unwise decisions due to personal grudges when Aegor Rivers, who also had long-term vulnerabilities (disgrace at 2 weeks of age, the execution of half of his family at 6 years, invited into a court that hated his family...and that’s before the Blackfyres start getting cruelly murdered) is reduced to a one-dimensional villain for behaving similarly.

[horizon-verizon]

Also-also---

Since Dany accrues the power she needs from Viserys/Aerys/Rhaegar/Rhaego/Drogo's deaths AND needs to be queen both for her own and her people's safety, does that mean that she can never be truly "heroic"? So because monarchies are and have been patriarchal and abusive, she herself can never be a "good" ruler or a good force in this world?! You can't make the argument that the original or beginning material must be "feminist" (as in something made towards the political and ideological movement) or set that as a reason to deny how any woman gaining power from a patriarchal structure bc are we then to say she can't be a "real", altruistic ruler?

Often, that is exactly how many women & feminist groups get power back, as I already noted above, but also in real life often women use the patriarchal logic of any familiar argument against men to show how stupid that argument is or unsustainable its implications are for how we form and shape society in the broader sense. Or they have to go through and make use of or manipulate the laws/policies designed for men for their own use to gain power and then they can decide to use that in both underhanded and overt ways against men for a bigger or altruistic cause. One way this is literally embodied is how Dany obtains the Unsulllied in a more anti-slavery context; but for feminism we have that case in Australia (I think) of that artist who succeeded in making her point about those Gentlemen's clubs, made a ladies' club, was sued by a man for excluding him, but won all while still making her point (a much more overt example). She could not have made her points more salient with the effect that it had without creating her gender-exclusive ladies' club WHILE ALSO giving a safe space for (some) women from men. Dany cannot free slaves without becoming the queen that she is, which is very dependent on the already existing systems of rulership in both Essos and Westeros.

Feminism as a movement in of itself didn't exist until the 18th century, so we shouldn't care what any woman does before then or how they resisted & made use of the patriarchal narratives for themselves and/or for others? These women are no longer "heroes" or inspirations for private or public resistance/resisters? Because they used what existed for them to use?!

So it's more than "shortsighted"; it's dangerous to argue a thing. It smacks of "we shouldn't care about Rhaenyra's story or Dany's story or Rhaena the Black Bride's bec none of them were feminist"...okay...

From time to time, I see some people argue that Dany can't be Azor Ahai because Azor Ahai was a man who killed his wife and such a character can't be considered a hero. So Dany couldn't be Azor Ahai because she is a hero and because such a feminist character like Dany can't be associated with Azor Ahai.

I agree that Dany is a hero, and I agree that Azor Ahai killing his wife is not the most feminist story. But I disagree with the idea that this means Dany isn't Azor Ahai, because literally all the foreshadowing points to her, she fulfills every aspect of the prophecy. Just because we as readers might think there's a moral dissonance in Dany being Azor Ahai, doesn't mean that she isn't. Whether we as readers might not like her being Azor Ahai, whether we think it's not feminist for Dany to be Azor Ahai, it doesn't change the fact that GRRM wrote all the clues pointing to her.

Also, while some people may argue that it's not feminist for Dany to be Azor Ahai because the original Azor Ahai killed his wife, other people might argue that Dany being Azor Ahai is a feminist subversion, because everybody expects the prophesied hero to be a man.

[racefortheironthrone]

I think you've answered this question before, but I can't find where you responded. For someone who wants to write an AWOIAF fanfic and wants it to be reasonably consistent with the canonical universe and characterization, which of yours and other ASOIAF analyses would you recommend reading and/or studying?

First things first, study the text. There is so much detail, so many things to mis-remember or forget. Re-read the books, highlight stuff, have asearchoficeandfire open as you write (would also help with word choice I would imagine). 

Second, in terms of analyses to read or study, it depends what you’re looking for. I tend to focus on politics and economic policy, @warsofasoiaf is excellent on military history, @poorquentyn is excellent on character arcs and the whole magical-meta plot, @goodqueenaly is very good on House Targaryen but also minor houses and law, @nobodysuspectsthebutterfly I would always defer to on anything to do with Sansa, @joannalannister is a great resource on House Lannister. This isn’t a dispositive list (I am super-slammed today and am seriously multi-taskign), but it is a good place to start. 

[horizon-verizon]

I think that the “bold and vivacious” daughter that anon was talking about is Daena the Defiant:

“Daena worshipped her father and idolized her brother Daeron, the Young Dragon. As a child she often dressed all in black, like her father King Aegon III.”

I bet Daemon used to tell his sons stories of how Rhaenyra was growing up, how precocious and fearless and headstrong and full of life she was. And then Daena came along and it was like Rhaenyra was there again for Aegon III.

Anon refers to this post.

Ahh...you're right. 🚶🏽‍♀️ That anon was talking abt Daena worshipping Aegon.

Again, it all goes back to their trying to distort what makes a character or story "compelling"; they really just mean what's comfortable for them/some green win to validate their "cause" AND spectacle for the thrills.

That's a cute thought about Aegon and Daena, I like it. Speaking of, could anyone let me know why/how it came to be that Daena wears a necklace Rhaenyra supposedly wears?

[horizon-verizon]

Aegon V wearing Aegon III’s crown is so special to me, I’d like to believe Egg chose his crown because Aegon III was as invested in the smallfolk as Egg is, that he read his legendary speech and wanted his rule to be marked by “full bellies and dancing bears” too.

My heart is at peace knowing that Aegon III’s legacy wasn’t lost, that his crown was still there, that his brother’s descendant honored his memory by wearing it and possibly remembering him as a king who cared about his people.

I don't know if Aegon V exactly thought of Aegon III as a source of major inspiration...perhaps as a quick example, but not an entire figure of respect. It appears that he'd more likely wanted to portray himself as a simple monarch and express his intentions to be the protector of smallfolk and thus he chose a simple crown to express that. He has his own story that at no point mentions Aegon III, both in the 3 Dunk & Egg novels and AWoIaF.

Really, any monarch who has such an attitude towards helping the smallfolk or prioritizing them could have a simple band to convey a "humble" mindset; it doesn't mean they copied or take inspiration from a previous monarch's policies unless their economic/legal policy and methods mostly or 100% mirror and develop from the previous'. Aegon III was far less hands-on even as yes he thought it was his duty to at least afford the people protections but he hardly instilled programs or was rigorous in his approach.

Aegon I and Aegon II and Maegor I all wore the same crowns but they didn't adopt the same exact policies nor have the exact same attitudes towards nobles, enemies, etc. Aerys II & Aegon IV shared crown, but even Aerys wasn't really as excessive in showing off wealth as Aegon IV.

That all being, said, when you read the line of Targs and see Aegon III and V had similar crowns, we know there is something similar in thematic intention going on. Just not to the type and degree you're describing.

[theweirwoodfiles]

Youre welcome, although your last line in your paragraph confuses me. I reblogged you with polite disagreement and curiosity, that is why we are having this conversation. Although if you don't wan't to have this discussion, you are more than welcome to block or ignore me. I just wanted to know your thoughts on the actor's interpretations, because as I said, I do feel they hold more authority than ours. They work closely with the writers and directors, and they have to keep in mind not only their characterization, but the other character's as well in order to properly act out the scene.

I think that is very fair to trust only the writers or directors. I haven't looked too closely at what they say, since its mostly the actors who get interviewed.

Yes, most of the fanbase or general audience views Rhaenyra as the protagonist and "good side" in the show. This is where it gets tricky, because those with fandom bias are going to feel a certain way of course, and then you have general audiences who likely really only know three character's names and everyone else is "the brother" or "the son", so they are only going to pick up basic traits for characters on the side they prefer. That's another reason why I personally tend to listen closely to what those involved in the show have to say.

Now onto the mushroom debacle, I'm personally from this point in the conversation going forward only going to use show canon, as it is the most relevant and recent canon. The book and show are just completely two separate entities at this point. I'm not going to get into a who has the better morality when it comes to the tb vs tg children, you have already admitted Aegon is worse than the other kids, and it's also not where my curiosity comes from. What I am curious about and trying to understand is does the tb kids level of morality prevent you from liking them? Are you unable to get past the way they treated Aemond (again, I am only using show canon for this), or is this just a case where you simply don't click with them or care about them, because thats why I brought up the scale of morality.

There is no such thing as a "pure bean" in awoiaf, unless you are like, under the age of 10. Personally, I think your interpretations and criticisms of these 4, especially Rhaena, are a little harsh, but it is pretty impossible to be completely pure in a cruel medieval world during a time of nobility and dragons. While I can't speak for every single team black fan, I think I can safely say most team black fans see these 4 characters as fairly good, or as good as you can be, espeically in comparison to others around them. And that's why you see a firm defense over them, especially when its's in response to a take about them being evil or bratty, or awful, or however you wanna call it.

Anyways, that's why I opened the conversation, I was just curious and interested in discussion on your position is all.

Every time Team Black stans talk about Rhaenyra’s bastards and the Dragon Twins as if they’re blessings upon this earth, an angel loses its wings.

Like, okay. They’re children, I’m excusing all of them up to a certain point. But they’re some of the most vicious, aggressive, cowardly, snotty brats we’ve ever seen in this franchise and pretending that they’re not is so foul.

Lucerys is a hypocritical twat that bullied the boy he grew up with because he didn’t have a dragon, but then he’s totally okay hanging out with Rhaena who doesn’t have one either. And then he pulls out a knife and blinds Aemond for no fucking reason, after his gang attacked him first, and faces zero consequences for his actions. He eventually grows up to become an even worse person by literally laughing in his cousin’s face, whom he disabled. And then he tries to boss lord Borros around by telling him that he’s obligated to ally with Rhaenyra even if there isn’t anything in him for it.

Jacaerys is also very two faced for the exact same reasons as Lucerys, with the addition of having anger management issues. Like, remember how he beats the living shit out of his little brother when they’re training at the beach, kicks him to the ground and grabs him by the throat because he is upset their uncles are better warriors than them? That’s the good future king you’re all talking about? He is already obsessed with the idea of becoming king, to the point that his own mother has to remind him that she’s actually alive and well and he would have to wait a good fucking while before his dreams come true. That’s actually so sick on his behalf. Not to mention that he very likely married Sara Snow, betraying his fiancée, in order to gain the Starks’ help, which is very dishonourable. At least Lucerys told Borros he’s betrothed and refused to marry one of his daughters to get his support, I’ll give him that.

Baela is a deranged evil girl who was ready to throw hands on sight, too. And have we forgotten that she becomes a drunkard and whoremonger who spends her money gambling in the rat pits, the places where children fight one another in King’s Landing, once she grows up, or is it wrong only when Aegon II does it?

Rhaena is an aggressive coward who seems more preoccupied with the acquisition of a dragon than her mother’s death. She didn’t have the guts to go and claim Vhagar, but she feels powerful enough to confront Aemond when she has three people backing her up.

Finally, even without taking all of their problematic traits into account, these people are so severely uninteresting and unimpressive. Lucerys does not convince Borros to side with his mother and drops dead like a fly. Joffrey gets shrugged off by Syrax and plummets to his demise. Jacaerys is immediately killed during his embarrassing attempt to fight the Triarchy, not to mention that he was the reason his youngest half siblings were captured and nearly killed because he had the brilliant idea of sending them away. Baela loses the only dragon fight she was ever part of to Aegon II and Sunfyre who were very injured by a previous fight already! And Rhaena is just… there. Doing nothing. Never avenging her husband’s death, eventually marrying a Hightower. Yikes.

Are there much more ill behaved children in ASOIAF? Yeah, for sure, but we actually acknowledge that children like Aegon II and Joffrey Baratheon are pieces of shit. But if we could like, stop glorifying these four mediocre and borderline malicious kids solely because some of you feel the need to ride the dicks of everyone who is part of Rhaenyra’s crew, that would be great. They might be children, but they’re children with shady, putting it mildly, personalities, wielding new-clear weapons of mass destruction who actively participated in a war, especially Jacaerys and Baela. They sure were victims of the world they were raised in, but they were aggressors as well. And like, this is the ASOIAF universe, nearly all of our protagonists are children. We can’t constantly apply modern day morals and coddle them forever because “OMG, they are just babies!”, unless we are ready to apply the same logic on the Targtowers, who were basically the same age as Rhaenyra and Daemon’s children.

[horizon-verizon]

I always wondered why Daemon Blackfyre didn’t claim it through Daena; it always seemed to me the better argument than Naerys cheated because that can never be proven, and, sadly, it seems very unlikely.

GRRM likes taking things from history, so it always struck me as odd that not once did a guy make a bid for the throne from a woman's lineage. That happened a lot in history. Henry II claimed the English throne through his mother, Empress Matilda; the Yorkists drew their claim through Anne Mortimer, the cognatic heir of Lionel of Antwerp, who was the 2nd son of Edward III, over the Lancasters, who drew their claim through the 3rd son of Edward III; Edward III himself claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France, when her brothers, Philip the Fair’s sons, died without male issue, beginning the Hundred Years’ War. The English/British/UK monarchs didn’t even drop their claim to the French throne until the year 1800, almost 500 years after the claim was first made. It seems like a waste not to utilize that storyline.

And yes, Aegon III got his claim from Rhaenyra, but the throne was more or less given to him; he didn’t put forward his own claim and fight for his right to rule like the people I mentioned above did. He was too young to make his own bid for the throne, is what I’m saying.

Watsonian: Daena was already disposed, as opposed to those other women men use to claim the throne in ASoIaF (in Robert Baratheon's time, he didn't use his Targ grandmother to justify his taking of the throne but it certainly helped that the maesters decided to speak of Rhaelle 🤫). And Daena had been imprisoned for years, she had little resources or connections to herself at court. It doesn't hit as hard to use the woman who has little to nothing material on her side to claim the throne and especially when women in the Targ succession line had been tacitly officialized as...undesireable. They were just a generation from the Dance when Daena was active and about.

For Daemon's present prospects, it was just better to claim it through his father, the ruling male monarch who favored him all his life, than his mother. There was more political heft to Aegon IV's name than Daena's, and those who wish to gain power and aren't that sentimental or are hyper focused or whatever (we don't know what Daemon was thinking...yet) will use the parent who will get them there. It was Robert's grandmother that the maesters used after all.

Daemon himself was banking on a hypermasculinity & the anti Dornish sentiment to "makeup" for his bastardy and get lords, who despised Daeron II's dealing with the absolute primogeniture-practicing Dornish, to support him

Doylist: Even those men you mention of history use the woman precisely because there is no man they can use.

Daena is worse off than those women in terms of personal power or prestige that any of her kids could have benefited from because of her imprisonment and the fresh-kinda anxiety over strong female characters/female rulers. Daena was a princess...but how far was she able to, again, use that title to gain resources and prestige previously enjoyed by Rhaena the BB, Rhaenyra, Alysanne, etc?

Now, could GRRM write Daena to actually be free and more active at court and give more for her to do while showing how Targ men's power just overshadowed her even without direct PoVs (even the main ASoIaF books have many unreliable narrators as narrators...a PoV can still be a unreliable)? Absolutely, and I think the intention was to show this transition from more power-wielding women into the Blackfyre Rebellions in a more constricted and contained setting (time frame) and so he thought showing the "what could have been" with Daena's imprisonment required a story of her escape and birthing a child.

[horizon-verizon]

I could be thinking about this too much because this may just be due to bad writing, but the page makes much less sense beyond it being supposedly Alicent trying to appeal their past friendship to a woman whose kids she nearly stabbed.

Otto says this to Rhaenyra:

Queen Alicent has not forgotten the love that once existed between you. There is no need for bloodshed to continue peace in the kingdom. Queen Alicent is impatiently waiting for your answer.

Here is an post with a link to an article that began this post's line of thought:

But if only Alicent had read up more on Nymeria, she might understand the irony of her own actions. Though Rhaenyra does not say so in that scene under the tree, Nymeria’s house, after years of conquest, took over Dorne, and Nymeria ruled as Princess of Dorne for more two decades. She survived over a dozen assassination attempts, quelled two different rebellions, and drove back a couple of invasions. She abolished gender-based succession in Dorne, and her eldest daughter succeeded her.

It’s a little rich for Alicent to send Rhaenyra a history of a ruler who abolished gender-based succession—after leading a coup to place her son on the throne based on the premise that his elder sister should not inherit the crown. (It was equally eye roll inducing when Alicent told the Queen Who Never Was, Rhaenys, last week that she was better suited to rule than Viserys while simultaneously lobbying Rhaenys to support her drunken son Aegon II’s claim to the Iron Throne.)

It's possible that Alicent sends Rhaenyra this Nymeria page less as a way to hark on their friendship and girlhood innocence, but to use Nymeria as a cautionary figure against Rhaenyra's desires & moves towards war & accept Aegon as the ruler.

🎨: JENNIFER DRUMMOND: [in AWoIaF]

Remember, the Dornish aren't looked at...favorably by most non-Dornish Westerosi despite them having the same language and the same religion (and I mean most Dornish, even those Daeron I called "salty" way later). and that's because of their not only thier accent but the higher status and agency their women have of themselves and in politics through the Rhoynish practice of absolute primogeniture. Where the oldest child, regardless of gender, are customarily see as true inheritors. Before Nymeria & her people's arrival, Dorne was like other Westerosi Andal people, as in they were likely pale and practiced male-preference primogeniture and spoke the Common tongue like other Andal-descents.

Nymeria is, like Rhaenys & Visenya, more of an abnormal figure to those "up north" for being a female ruler who was able to survive several devastating setbacks and went on to conquer several Andal Dornish lords with her Martell husband (but he never would have been able to dominate those other lords without her mainly female-warrior army, his house wasn't even the "mightiest", like the Targs in Valyria) to ensure her people's survival, which itself also involved what I'd call a "Great Integration", when Nymeria's people intermarried with the Dornish men and exchanged their equipment, etc.. Westeros is obviously culturally and physically divided into "the savage northerners" from those who worship the Seven and have been for generations, such a thing isn't...feasible nor desired. Her waging war, though, to go back to that, is another remarkable and feared aspect of her, despite it being obvious that it was necessary and inevitable if she wanted her people to live (AWoIAF "Ten Thousand Ships"):

Nymeria didn't change pre-Nymeria Dorne for any reason that prioritized the pre-Nymeria Dronish lords then, but for the self-oriented reason of survival. And she's brought about a huge change; that in of itself is terrifying or at least anxiety-inducing, to see a woman even carry out something relegated to men...and even do it better. (Or, you know, that's the PoV)

In this way, Alicent giving that page is very much par for the course not only for her character, but also for how we can look at F&B being itself propaganda for "women-ruler bad! Cause "unnecessary" strife!" But it still doesn't really make sense for Rhaenyra to fully & sincerely accept that line of persuasion or to accept that idea that allowing Aegon to become king and render those oaths made to her worthless, the long years she spent practicing being heir worthless, and/or her father's long walk to "defend" her worthless, the danger to her children if she ever accepted the terms and ironically the danger presented if a lord were to try to use these 2 boys against the greens.

If we used some people's argument of why Alicent had to fear Rhaenyra becoming queen, why can't I also point this out in reverse for Rhaenyra in the case she does hand over her boys to the greens? Situation is similar in terms of "danger", bc those boys were never doubted as trueborn and they come from the named heir. Plus Otto is the person actually running things at the Red Keep...the same guy who wanted to kill Rhaenyra and said so at the HotD episode 9 green council!

In other words, we shouldn't be saying Alicent's reasons AND way of ending a war are purely justified or good...because she's still stealing something, one of the only things Rhaenyra has had that a man is allowed in this world. If what I said abt Alicent trying to use Nymeria as a cautionary note to Rhaenyra and not something like "remember when we used to be friends?!" way.

Or it's just Otto being manipulative and Alicent never actually sent that page...I can see these writers doing that, too. Still wouldn't justify Rhaenyra's reaction.

But IDK. I wonder what others think. Would this be a better rewrite, or do you think the show already tries to convey this and it was just bad writing?

[horizon-verizon]

I don't know if this is exactly in your area of ​​interest but do you know why the vitriol against Daeron II? Personally, I am more interested in the main story of Asoiaf and the period from the conquest to the dance, but I've seen a couple of posts that are very pro-DaemonxDaenerys and very Anti Martell and Daeron.Is it a ship problem or an anti-martell problem? Because what I remember is that Daenerys had the water gardens built to make her feel more comfortable and it is said that her husband was in love with her (I don't remember if it is said if at some point it was reciprocal or if they had a bad relationship)and I remember that we have rumors that Daemon liked Daenerys but I don't remember that it was said that it was reciprocal.

From what I have seen, these opinions seem to be qualified by a kind of anti-hatred towards the Martells, not because of them but because of the fans and the reading that they do pro-elia anti-rhaegar, which in reality Anti-dany and I really don't understand why these posts villainize Daeron as if it were his fault that the war broke out? And wasn't Daemon married? Or does that get in the way of the epic love story with Daenerys?

(AWoIaF -- "The Targaryen Kings" -- "Daeron II")

The people you refer to who hate Daeron do so because he married off a 15 year old Daenerys to much older Maron Martell to build an alliance with Dorne and bring them into the official fold and under the crown's authority. AND because they believe that DaenerysxDaemon B. had a mutual love for each other, so Daeron separated two lovers. From what is told to us, the impression is that Maron treated her well, if his allowing her to bring critique of Dorne's class divides has any indication (the Gardens). Daemon hadn't been married at this time. And we don't have proof that their feelings was reciprocated or even which side had feelings for each other and which did not, etc. They also had only 2 years between them in age, Daemon and Daenerys.

"It has been said in the years after Daemon Blackfyre proved a traitor that his hatred of Daeron began to grow early."

One, like Fire & Blood, A World of Ice & Fire is, in-world, a historical text written by a maester and its geared towards showing Robert Baratheon & the Lannisters in a more positive light with typical maester/Faith anti magic, xenophobia, & ignorance (sometimes acknowledged) of Essos at certain points.

Two, It's possible that this relationship only exists for a way Daemon's supporters to maintain Daemon's rightfulness towards his legacy, or that they exaggerate. A few of his kids survived, as we know, and would birth/sire people who'd attempt to take the throne.

On the whole, I am like you, prefer to think about and discuss pre-conquest-Dance and the main series and largely because there's dragons and there's more women in the center of the narratives told. I'm the other side of the phenomenon of men losing interest in stories with women centered more; if I see stories with little active or centered women, irdgaf.

[horizon-verizon]

am i being oversensitive, or are targ antis particularly focused on hating targaryen women? aemond and daeron murdered thousands of innocents with their dragons, but they still paint rhaenyra as the most evil of them all. or how they love faegon, even though he is invading and sacking a war-torn country and trying to restore the targaryen dynasty, something they hate dany for, *even though she hasnt done it*.

at this point, if we ever get a blackfyres adaptation, i fully expect they will focus their hatred on daena, shiera and elaena while woobifying their male relatives

don't doubt yourself, it's happening and the Dany-loving/defenders of the fandom has been saying this when they try to bring Dany into it--and when it's Rhaenyra, so have some TB fans.

And yeah, they hate women and women who "act like men" or desire for more or the same level of autonomy or authority as men are socially graced with and granted. Daena and Elaena, women who have had sexual liasions outside of marriage and/or with men they despise:

Elaena is a "homewrecking whore who deserves no sympathy bc she should have not hurt another woman if she was herself trying to have freedoms"--Lyanna-style bc she likely fucked around with a married dude, Alyn Velaryon, husband of Baela Targaryen

Daena is also a whore and a pathetic one because 1) she sought out another man for freedom instead of depending on herself and did it through sex as if she were a prostitute 2) birthed a bastard boy who in the future become the house's and Westeros' biggest problem for years 3) loved her colonizer of a brther Daeron I over the religious and most nonValyrian/Targ dude Baelor I 4) slept with her cousin

[horizon-verizon]

It puts me to good sleep every night knowing that Daenaera’s son, Daeron the Young Dragon, is literally mentioned as the hero of one of ASOIAF’s big 5 in his introductory chapter, and that there’s a statue of him in Oldtown, the seat of House Hightower.

Anon refers to this ("Samwell V" - A Feast for Crows):

The path divided where the statue of King Daeron the First sat astride his tall stone horse, his sword lifted toward Dorne.

I wrote about Daeron HERE. Largely, I don't care so much for him bc I suspect his successful conquest of Dorne would have transitioned into very dark, say systematically racist, times for the Dornish. On the personal level, sure we could say that the "honors" of having such an ideal (by Andal and Targ standards) son be given to Daenaera and not Jaehaera is pleasing just to fuck with greens stans and "neutrals". Still, bigger picture, thank goodness Daeron died.

Jon admired Daeron exactly for the assumed spirit of the man and his daring. He obviously was a comforting & inspirational figure for him as a many famous young men are for young boys. But for Jon especially, a bastard.

[horizon-verizon]

Daeron I & Baelor I

*EDITED/EXPANDED POST* (11/28/23)

HERE, I answered an ask about Daenaera's fate and family, where this post stems from a question that came up as I went to edit that post.

After the loss of dragons, the House Targaryen struggled with defining themselves without the existence of dragons and being able to ride them. Aegon III hated dragons after seeing his mother die between Sunfyre's jaws and yet later tried, his Viserys (II) to revive some eggs with 9 Essosi mages means and failed. His reluctance to battle with his need to subdue enemies or use them as a deterrent against other possible reluctance might have not helped and even hindered his relationship with his own heritage and relationship with his brother and older sisters, which is hinted at in Rhaena's offense at Aegon not allowing Morning into the castle walls. Even he and Viserys's relationship took a serious dip after Aegon removed all eggs from the Keep to Dragonstone after Baela's daughter Laena's mutated and deformed dragon took a chunk out of the newly-born girl. It would have also made some of the mental alienation he had in his depression, further exacerbating the alienation from those closest to him (though I can't blame him for the egg-transport one, Laena, like Rhaenyra, was eaten by a dragon!). This would have been felt and observed/passed down to his children, who all had different responses, but I want to talk only about his sons here.

The very meaning of what a Targaryen is came into question.

🎨: Amok

Daeron

Daeron--in trying to subjugate Dorne and pull it into Targ-Andal domination while probably looking back at the Dance's consequences (no dragons and lords' resentment towards his father's "coldness")--developed an interest in displaying his and Targ power. He seemed to wish to say to his subjects, esp the nobles, that he/the Targs still had the quality of supremacy or "strength" from the first of their line, Aegon I, without having to have actual dragons and sort of redeifng what a "dragon" was. It's like he was saying, yes, we won bc of dragons but there is something within us-me that allows me-us to accomplish our duties and more.

It could have reflected the already present Andal-Targ blood consciousness and relied on that element running in the back of everyone's collective social consciousness and means to politically define themselves apart from other nobles as well as smallfolk. As this is a militaristic, patriarchal society that prizes military achievements above almost all else, Dorne remained independent and already practiced equal primogeniture since Nymeria, not long ago the throne was fought over a woman ruling or not and the "precedent" against women leading became stronger then ever, Dorne may have gotten more attention. As a state, it was out of monarchial control and its people were equivocally ambiguous as to their relations to other parts of the Targs' realm, perceived as an "Other", and thus became the first part of Daeron's mission, his target. It also explains why and how Daeron even bothered to begin a racialization of Dornish folk: "salty" vs "stony" vs "sandy".

He tries to suppress the Targness-is-being-only-a-dragonrider while still using the heritage of dragon-riding to define his/Targ supremacy. Thus an internal conflict with his own masculinity, heritage, etc.

Baelor

Baelor's problem came from him trying to use only & purely Andal core principles to justify his Valyrian-descent house's right to rule with a very specific principle of socio-religious "devotion" that is actually extreme mortification ("denial of the flesh", the Christian terms), or self-denial.

By claiming he was cleansing his house of sin through his own interpretations of Faith or Andal principles of anti-carnal devotion and martyrdom through denying the body's (his own and others') expressions or movements, he was also:

blinding himself to others' feelings or motives aside from what he felt they were/could be -> one way paranoia and abuse get encouraged

ensuring carnal/sexual rebellion from those he oppressed/repressed and tried to make look evil through his shows of extreme religious mortification

exposing himself to actual physical danger

stoking the urges to perform "sinful" behavior bc the lack of nuanced thought prevented him from thinking rationally about his own motives and urges to begin with

Before going on, it's crucial to understand that Baelor sincerely believed in the Faith religion's principles. Religion whoever, does not escape political history and can never be claimed to be completely non-affective in how people organize their societies and behaviors...

His Sisters

*(11/28/23)* As I already alluded to later in this post, one of the "sins" the house Targaryen performed, in Baelor's public and private policies, was also the house/dynasty's central principle & means to self-affirm or separate itself from Andals to justify its own right to rule: incestuous marriage between siblings. Thus him imprisoned his own sisters. Check out the previously known Brideoffires' Twitter thread about how Baelor works against himself specifically in how he treats his sisters:

In this thread, OP makes it very clear that there WAS a threat of rape against these women: "by claiming his actions were to purify the sin of incest, baelor inadvertently revealed his own sin of incest, by seeing all of his sisters as temptations of the flesh, beyond just the one he married dissolving the marriage only to imprison Daena and her sisters because he was so possessive over them. he wanted to keep them to himself." Others have added that he could have sent them or just Daena to other regions like Essos and a theory that he eventually believed and justified their imprisonment from a fear that they'd usurp him. Perhaps his spiritual/Seven advisors/hallucinations guided him toward this. Then OP points out how Baelor, if he was serious about them remaining faithful and spiritually "pure", could have forced them to become septas. Rhaena was already one.

If dragons had continued to exist as they were before and during the Danc, the man also would have tried to at least stay away from dragons and see them as a curse or imprison them just as he did his sisters and either refuse to let dragonkeepers properly take care of or organize their eggs later in his life if he were still king OR reject any attempt to let others inform him of them. It would be a mistake to think Baelor was, in his heart of hearts, totally against violence or didn't use violence to affirm himself and the dynasty.

The act of jailing someone or forcibly separating them into an isolated space is itself still an act of violence and a show of force. Again, add this to how he had many options on keeping them "pure" or removing the "threat" of incest and temptation he instead keeps them all together and relatively close to him where he can keep an eye out for their movements WHILE if he ever felt he couldn't stop said temptations...oh lookie there, a fresh sister to make "sin" with and blame his own actions on....

Chilvary, Religion and Masculinity in Real Medieval History & Westeros

The thematic inspiration behind Baelor's fervent faith in the Faith and how he imprisoned his sisters stems from the same things that inspired Daeron in his conqueror mission: the Dance's effects (personal and political regarding gender) and the loss of the dragons while having to marry Targs to the dominant religion of the subjects for the dynasty to maintain its own hegemony (not that kind, the racial one. just the kind where he has authority over other states that you see in any period of hierarchical human history).

A knight is described in Andal-Westeros as a "devoted" protector of the weak, women, children, and of God/the Faith. They are supposed to be morally positive forces of good who uphold the feudal order through violence. Baelor could have felt this internal struggle between the Andal militaristic masculinity, the image of a king being "generous" but also "strong", and the memories of Rhaenyra, his father and now his brother, and after Daeron's death he might and probably have felt that House Targaryen had to prove its importance and position by the mode of self-sacrifice serve its subjects through the Faith/the dominant religion AND the house brought it's own tragedies to itself, having had multiple "punishments" from the gods after his brother's and grandmother's heretical "arrogance".

Instead of forcing rule to display strength of arms, he felt he had to express first remorse towards the previous aggression (especially with the small of Dorne rising up after their lords lost) and then show leadership through something inspired by what Catholic-Christian medieval societies of real-life described as "martyr" strength of doing extreme, sacrificial actions facing intense persecution for that faith and doing anything to protect God's word and presence on Earth against "infidels" and "pagan" disbelievers. It is why several saints have stories of great suffering and violent deaths in the Catholic canon. It was and still is to many, a means to display a uniquely Christian sort of bravery, especially as Christianity is/was not an ethno-religion but a religion dependent on converting people. Thus, martyrdom is absolutely needed/needs violence wasn't ever far away from Christian identity. With the Andals and lords' already present history of "promised land"ness justifying their migration to Westeros thousands of years ago, the Faith of the Seven mincing Catholism's own principles and role in society, and how knighthood and chivalry themselves come to be defined from their Andal roots, that importance about self-sacrifice in "trials" of great danger would have been a huge factor in how Baelor felt he must appeal to even those in Dorne but especially to lords at home. (We know that the Warrior's Sons were a group of nobles' sons who claimed to protect the Faith through violence and we know that the Andals desperately fought against the First Men for resources, presumably with their ASoIaF "chosen people's" justification--or at least enough of them used that excuse.)

Now while Dornish people do worship the Seven and it is the dominant religion, being the target of violence for months from one of the same family and wanting their political independence would have been part of why--if not all--Lord Wyl was so unimpressed with Baelor's Boneway walk and his request to release his captured uncle Aemon the Dragonknight. Instead, he decides to play with him, and we, the readers and maybe some of Yandel's readers, see through Lord Wyl's action straight at the folly of zealotry disguised as perfect devoted bravery.

What is interesting is that the Christian mode of bravery made bravery and strength themselves more accessible to people who were not men--many women were canonized as saints for their great personal and public humiliation and violent acts for not converting away from Christianity, converting to the religion, or--less often told in narratives--putting themselves into direct harm's way for their fellow Christians through housing them or helping them escape from authorities or even leading banned services. We see that Baelor eschews the Andal notion of masculinity (facing your enemies with a sword and intention to violently push off and kill) in his self-subordination rituals of the walk, his attempts to abase and put himself in danger for the sake of his uncle, and his later fasting to death as if he made sin (but really expressing his ability to inflict on himself his own determined punishment). Because part of sainthood and the martyr's bravery is to submit yourself totally to God's will and mercy while you "advocate" for his rule on Earth, which decidedly crosses over with the Andal idea of femininity.

All may explain why Baelor was so adamant about locking his sisters up for, what he planned, for the entirety of their lives not shortly after he became king (besides the info in the linked Twitter post by former brideoffires). It's already been noted and discussed how dragons and female Targs are narratively and phenomenonologically linked together. In the Faith and maesters'/Citadel's perspective, dragons by themselves were anathema by being "impossible" creatures of fire that most people cannot dominate. And since Targ women can and have bonded/claimed dragons and their Valyrian heritage was less restrictive against female authority and autonomy (Alysanne, Rhaenys, Rhaenyra, and Visenya), the Targs just were too seen as "Other" and always have been, will continue to be so. Both Valyrian and Andal/FM lords drew their house identity from patrilineality and patriarchal customs, but out of the Andals and the Vlayrinas (who also had women go out to those conquered Essosi outposts to rule in the name of Old Valyria), which had women actually practice leadership and real autonomy? The Faith and the Targs have always had contention over the supremacy of Westerosi society after the Conquest, enough that there is a running theory that they and maesters are responsible for several mysterious tragedies the Targs suffered (multiple miscarriages for certain periods, Syrax going off, the Shepherd, etc.). There are multiple instances of Targ women's autonomy being linked to the decline of Targ power and political integrity, and the consequences of its suppression:

the last female Targ's death and personal loss spelling the end of dragons

(but) the last dragon rider before Daenerys was Rhaena, Daemon and Laena's child, bc she independently successfully hatched Morning and got to bond/ride with her

Daenerys Stormborn reviving dragons towards her own rise, it is pretty clear that

Daena is described as a typical "dragon" out of all her siblings except Daeron maybe and retaining pride from Daemon (even if not her own father Aegon) to her son Daemon -- her daring to have a bastard in her own way of claiming back some of her autonomy --> from that event of her imprisonment, she births a "superstar" player in the next Targ conflict and probably instills in him his right to a place in the Targ lineage despite his bastardry

Queen Dowager Rhaena giving her siblings Alysanne and Jaehaerys their dragons (by legend) out of sisterly love and her dragon Dreamfyre being the one who probably birthed Dany's dragons / her conflict with her daughter

Aerea, who claimed Balerion and found both freedom and danger with him after her great uncle/new stepfather held her and her mother hostage -> leads to her mother's trauma and bad handling \/emotional imprisonment of her, thus her flight on Balerion -> against

Saera trying to get a dragon to run away from the imprisonment and abuse Jaehaerys put her in after her sex debacle -> making the first of two rifts b/t the Golden Couple (Alysanne & Jaehaerys)

Alysanne, while faithful to the Seven, also has a dragon and supplies most of the most well-known policies protecting women and a few protecting KL infrastructure with the help of Septon Barth's support (right of the first night, the Gift, improved North-Targ relations, KL's sewage and water system; unfortunately, no girls in the Citadel, but again that theory...)

Visenya and Rhaenys have their own dragons and not only participate in warfare but out of warfare making laws in the absence of their brother and thus making several laws and an institution for the better of Westeros and the beginning of the entire dynasty: the Kingsuard, the rule of thumb and the rule of seven, Rhaenys' masterful manipulation of the court, and Visenya's conquest of the Eyerie // Visenya's instrumental role in making Maegor king and supporting his reign and her better advice to Aenys before then, before Aenys allowed Targ-Faith relations to worsen so bad open rebellions came and Maegor's firmer hand was needed

Anyway, thematically, Targ dragons and Targ prosperity need its women free and competent, which cannot come from patriarchal oppression of women's bodily autonomy and authority. Thematically, Baelor proved to be the antithesis of the conventional image of Targness to better and fulfill that long and steady attempt at full Targ-Andal assimilation I talk about HERE. Part of Andal masculinity itself is to have and show control over female sexual partners, which translated into having control over who they marry and have children with (competition or allies). By isolating and reserving his sisters' bodies away from his physical presence but just close enough where they are still more limited and controllable, he assures the less chance of his own temptations for their bodies (as traditions of incest would and could encourage genuine attraction but again, he himself obviously was just attracted to them all or thought that he'd become so...it's not as if he couldn't have self-control), debilitates their access to accruing power amongst the court for themselves, and outwardly expresses his devotion to Faith anti-sibling marriages (he canceled his betrothal to Daena).

Therefore, it is a means of self-repression as well as his way of reassuring his masculinity, focusing on the aspect of being obedient to the religion above all and acting as a "godly" king who may "protect" the gods' dominion on Earth. That displays his generosity-openhandedness-ability to provide sustenance (another expected kingly trait) for the smallfolk: "he emptied the treasury regularly to fund his charitable acts, including the year when he donated a loaf of bread daily to every man and woman in the city" (AWoIaF; The Targaryen Kings -- Baelor I). However he also eventually took septon's vows after cancelling his betrothal and thus prevented himself from producing any direct heirs completely--which is another knock against his claim to conventional masculinity as well as his kingship.

Ironically, because he put away his sisters in a very accessible way, Baelor basically created/encouraged his own temptations and thus his continued devolution into worse and worse zealous narcissism that stuck him in various self-contradictory phases that only a scandal or another internal act of rebellion--Daena's escape and her sex with their cousin Aegon--could change immediately. He even tried to use tax exemptions to encourage others to prevent their daughters from "losing their 'sacred' virginities" in marriage with chastity belts. And the zealous narcissism grew worse in some way like Cersei's narcissist preoccupancy with gaining destructive power over men to become like a man.

He was not actually acting self-sacrificing for the sake of Dorne's real well-regard but for the sake of fulfilling his role as the gods' king, using Andal principles of martyrdom. He was fueled by his own performance of martyrdom, but maybe like Cersei, never really got complete satisfaction both because his arduous emotions cyclically kept getting in his own way and he could not seem to accept that he could never quite be the perfect Faith-Andal king, which I think breeds his own need to prove his uniqueness amongst his family.

[horizon-verizon]

So...it appears Baela was dead at least by the time Elaena was pregnant....need to do more research (informed by bookpurism of Twitter).

IDK if this was just a fanfic writer being creative, though, since i can't find this entry on the So spake Martin Website.