#but king/queenship is not about the individual person

[lunamond]

Hot take, but neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon deserve to be queen/king.

Not, because they are incapable of ruling or because they are bad people, but because nobody is deserving of this much power.

Aegon obviously would just be a continuation of the status quo, but so would Rhaenyra. TG are all about working inside the rules of the established power system (i.e. sons over daughters inherit, bastards = bad, kings>nobility>everybody else, etc).

But Rhaenyra does not really have a problem with this hierachy itself. The only time we see her dispute the system as it is, is in ep2 when Rhaenys warns her that the lords of the realm would want Viserys' son to inherit. Rhaenys calls it this "the order of things", and Rhaenyra says that, she would create a new order. The only thing she objects to in the current order is that she as a woman isn't allowed to be ontop. It's not about changing the world for all women, to make it better for the people at the bottom of the hierarchy, this isn’t Dany’s break the wheel speech (which has it's own issues ofc). This is about Rhaenyra's right to power.

Every other moment, when Rhaenyra talks about her position as future queen, it's as a continuation of her father’s reign. And, that's why I can't get behind the idea that Rhaenyra would be some kind of wonderful ruler.

She just wouldn’t. Not because she is a bad person, but because nobody can be a good king/queen. The best they can do is be less worse than the rest.

She would continue to up hold the status quo same as Aegon. For the smallfolk the only thing that would change is the gender their oppressors are allowed to be. But a tyrant is a tyrant, no matter if they are a man or a woman.

The issue isn't WHO sits the Iron throne, but that SOMEBODY does in the first place. Any character who aspires to sit the throne will ultimately lead to more suffering no matter their intentions.

[alaynestcnes]

Thanks for the answer and the links, but I have already seen and even read some of it. I am now even more convinced that Kit and Sophie’s chemistry did a trick on you guys and made you assume there is something there, otherwise you’d be crushed by post s8 grief. You were asking yourself, “it all had to be for a reason, right?” when the ship crashed and burnt in the show, so to save yourself from disappointment you had to create an intricate version of got where they could be together. This version is not in George’s books, unfortunately.

I feel like you’re projecting. Most Jonsa’s really didn’t find the show ending that disappointing from a shipping perspective…but I know one group of people who took it like a bullet to the head. Just saying.

Anyway, let me guess, your idea for GRRM’s intended ending is Targ restoration with Jon on the IT and Sansa married to Tyrion or Sandor or some other random man as Lady of the Eyrie or Riverrun or some other location that gets her out of the way and has no connection to her broader arc. A flat, boring ending for everyone that complies with none of the broader themes of ASOIAF.

Like idk what version of ASOIAF you have been reading but book Jonsa is exactly everything GRRM has ever been about. It’s ‘the heart in conflict with itself’, it centres Jon’s struggles with belonging as a Stark, Sansa coming full circle confronting social prejudices and her old desires, it fulfils the individual desires they held at the start of AGOT in an unpredictable way (which I believe is GRRM’s intent with all the main charas), it fulfils the themes of King/Queenship and rebuilding Winterfell that both Jon and Sansa share, it takes two ‘good’ characters and puts them in a very morally grey situation that tests all their ingrained ideologies, and it concludes the almost perfect symmetry of their stories. It makes sense politically in canon and thematically in the narrative. It’s an almost fairytale that is just twisted enough to be unthinkable to most readers. In short, it has GRRM written all over it.

I know you antis love to believe Jonsa’s popped into existence from the big bang that was the Kit/Sophie chemistry and we just exist in our little silo, oblivious to the rest of the fandom. Sadly (for you), this isn’t the case. Kit and Sophie are cute and all but let’s be fr, you and I would not be here debating Jonsa over five years later if either of us thought that random chemistry between two actors was all there was to it. The clues in the books had people discussing Jonsa wayyy before Kit and Sophie ever shared a scene. Personally, I like to think I’ve read a wide range of theories coming from all different angles. Jonsa is not my defining, limited interest in ASOIAF (shocking, I know). I’m just as keen to know what happens to everyone else, or what other potential ends for Jon and Sansa other people foresee. The endless amount of ways people have pieced together the puzzle GRRM has given us is one of my fave things about this fandom. It’s just a result of that broader reading that I’ve found that, personally, no other ending for Jon and Sansa actually works as well as the potential endings I’ve seen from Jonsas.

The foreshadowing of ruling Winterfell and parenthood/marriage is so dominate in both their stories, yet most people will dismiss these themes in either Jon or Sansa’s stories in order to make an ending for one work. Without Jonsa, the conclusion is that only one can have that foreshadowing satisfyingly fulfilled, and for the other that same foreshadowing is just pointless and not to be discussed. I don’t know why it’s so frowned upon to say, wait, what if there was a way for them both to fulfil that foreshadowing and reach the natural satisfying conclusion both their stories individually demand? But no, of course not, they’re siblings and that would be icky. But hold on! What if there was a secret that had been harboured for years that just might make it possible? Well, wouldn’t that be creative, well-thought out and unprecedented storytelling…but nooo you’re right, GRRM would never play around with yucky things like pseudo incest. That version is not in George’s books, unfortunately 🤡

[agentrouka-blog]

We've talked about House Stark and House Lannister legacy, what do you think the Tyrell's will be? How do you think they - the core family (Mace, Olenna, Margaery, Loras, Garlan etc) will be remembered? Will they be remembered fondly? Or will they serve as a sort of a parallel to the Lannisters?

When the fandom (or my corner of the fandom, which is Sansa-centric) talks about legacy, it's usually about the patriarch specifically, and how family dynamics affect their children, OR how their approach to rulership affects the political future of their house.

Ned's legacy compared to Tywin's is one of generally loving pack dynamics, and forging loyalty through personal bonds, integrity and commitment to duty. Tywin has a fear-based approach that doesn't buy him true loyalty and love, and his abuse gets him killed by his own son and leaves his twins absolutely dysfunctional.

In those terms, the matriarch Olenna (who is the real power over Mace) is the one whose legacy we would look at, and that has less to do with how anyone remembers the individuals of the core family, and more with how they end up, and that is ”sacrificed at the altar of ambition”.

Olenna is witty but unbelievably harsh. Anything less than perfection sees you cut down verbally. No one is safe. She may, deep down, love all of them, but she also communicates very viciously that they have to perform to be worthy of anything. And perform they do. Willas tried to be a tourney champion far beyond his ability, Garlan is constantly training and seems to cling to a chivalric code to be able to cling to anything, Loras is the tourney knight Willas could never be (and gramma’s willing tool in using his lover to push for Margaery’s queenship) and Margaery herself is as smooth and polished as a diamond - she knows what to say when to say it how to say it, how to play off Olenna’s cues, how to manipulate those she is told to manipulate. She barely ever slips, because she has been taught that it’s not an option. She grew up wearing the armor that Sansa had to don in response to horrific trauma. Imagine never ever being able to relax and feel safe, emotionally. Ever. That’s the family dynamic.

So.

That smooth-polished surface means that the Tyrells have few genuine bonds outside the family business. They look great from the outside, but literally who will even remember them for anything but being smooth and rich? Maybe a bit opportunistic? Bland and mass produced. 

Unfortunately, being remembered for their good pr is probably all they will be, because they’re going to perish in pursuit of something they never had: which is the historical legacy of millenia. As far as Westerosi standards go, the Tyrells are noveau riche, upstarts with barely 300 years of rulership under their belt, and they never even wore a crown of their own. Olenna says she never wanted to marry that Targ prince, that it’s Mace who wants the crown for Margaery, but come on. She’s pulling all the strings. She is running the show in the background. It’s her own ambition that damns them all.

They don’t know how to quit because Olenna never let them be anything but successful, and Loras and Margaery will die as a result of Olenna picking a fight with a wounded lion to sooth her ego.

Maybe once she’s gone, Willas and Garlan can extricate themselves from her toxic influence. 

That’d leave the legacy of House Tyrell in their hands, and as a whole what is it? A steward who embraced the conqueror who killed his king and was handed the lordship as a reward, an ambitious opportunist, in other words. A century-old enmity with Dorne. A failed grab for the crown. 

We already know that Willas was friends with Oberyn in spite of his injury, that Garlan is perhaps the most emotionally distant from his own family. I think these two would be ideally placed to start the “House Tyrell Redemption Arc”. One that might or might not be tragically cut short when their alliance with acient enemy Dorne and new king Aegon is met with a second field of fire - this time with the Tyrells in it, actually fighting, filling the pretty surface with actual content.

[the-blue-fairie]

I sometimes feel like being in fandoms makes people see things in black and white. Everything becomes an “either/or” situation. You are either for something or against something, pro a storytelling aspect or character or anti a storytelling aspect or character. The nature of fandom tags on tumblr kind of cultivates this attitude. In order to categorize your thoughts on your blog, you need simple phrases that help with easy categorization, so that’s why we get things like “pro-this movie” or “anti-this movie” or “pro-this character” or “anti-this character.” But the simplistic quality of such categorizations kills nuanced analysis - or makes it more difficult to enunciate one’s thoughts when they fall into a grey zone.

I’ve written a fair number of analyses of Frozen on this blog and they’ve been met with a lovely and positive reception. But because, as I’ve said in the past, I have mixed feelings about F2, I always worry about how other people will read my posts. Will they think I am being too negative about the film and then question me when I profess to like it? Will they feel I’m being too positive and call into question my critiques? Depending on their perspectives, how will other people try to categorize me?

It’s not merely anxiety on my part - although anxiety makes it worse. In the past, sometimes my words have been misconstrued by others or, in other cases, I’ve not explained myself clearly enough and so they’ve been taken for something outside my intent. This has exacerbated my anxiety at times because I feel I walk a fine line where I both agree and disagree with all sides in the fandom to a certain degree. But that nebulousness defies easy categorization, so I always worry people will look and my posts and think things like...

Oh, you feel F2 didn’t  reflect enough on how Agnarr and Iduna’s actions hurt their daughters? Does that mean you’re anti Agnarr and Iduna? No. I love Agnarr and Iduna dearly. I think they are incredibly rich and compelling characters. I also think that the backstory F2 gives them only makes them more interesting characters, giving them layers that go beyond the layers they already had from their limited presence in the first film. I also think that Agnarr and Iduna are good people and that they loved their daughters dearly, that they were caught in a terrible position and did everything to protect their daughters. And I further think that, given the time to come to terms with their parents’ actions, it’s perfectly valid for Elsa and Anna to still love them. As I said before, they are good people with their own fears for the future, wanting to protect their children. But I also feel that, by ignoring Agnarr’s and Iduna’s role in the sisters’ separation as children (and actually, by avoiding discussion the childhood events altogether), F2 never allows Elsa and Anna to come to terms with their parents’ actions. It never acknowledges their parents’ part in the hurt the sisters experienced as children (and, of course, it never acknowledges the trolls’ part in it either, even though the trolls were acting as guides for the king and queen and all their choices impacted the lives of these two children negatively.) It never acknowledges that people can love you - and still hurt you. And it never gives the sisters’ closure for that even though the narrative of F2 is all about their parents and (Elsa, at least) finding some form of closure with Iduna. But, in spite of my issues with the narrative, I like Agnarr and Iduna as characters - ESPECIALLY Iduna, whose backstory in F2 makes her fascinating.

Oh, you feel Elsa’s arc in F2 could have been written better? Does that mean you’re anti-Elsa/”Elsa-critical?” No. When I say that Elsa’s arc could have been written better, I am criticizing the structural elements that make up her arc, not criticizing Elsa herself. In fact, it’s my love for the character of Elsa that inspires my meditation on her arc. I’ve loved and deeply related to Elsa since the first film. Even when people got to rolling their eyes at the oversaturation of Let it Go, I’ve always kept the song close to my heart because it means something to me. I actually don’t particularly care for the tag “Elsa critical” because I think people using that tag are sometimes too quick to condemn Elsa for things when they should be condemning pacing issues in F2 or writing issues that made the writers’ intent unclear or moments that feel slightly OOC for Elsa compared to the first film.

And keep in mind, when I say “moments that feel slightly OOC for Elsa,” I’m not saying that Elsa feels “completely OOC” the way some people do or trying to dismiss what the writers were trying to do for her character. There are actually elements in F2 with Elsa that I feel are great character elements and they should not be disregarded - but there is also a dubious focus on her connection to the abstract concept of magic instead of her connection to other people. This undercuts some of the strong character moments that do exist in the film. 

And again, keep in mind, when I say, “a focus on the abstract concept of magic rather than her connection with other people,” I’m not saying that Elsa loses her humanity in F2. She doesn’t. There are still moments that show her humanity and her human connections with other people. What I’m saying is that those human elements take a backseat to her connection to Ahtohallan, which does a disservice to her arc and its emotional impact, in my opinion.

Oh, you feel that aspects of the ending of F2 feel unearned to a certain degree? That sounds like you dislike F2. Didn’t you say you liked F2? Which is it? Are you just trying to confuse people? No, I’m not trying to confuse people. It’s just that you can like certain aspects of a film and dislike others, feel parts of a film were well-done and other parts less so. My feelings on F2 are... complicated. I love Anna as queen of Arendelle, I think she makes an amazing queen. A part of me wants Elsa to stay in Arendelle because I like the idea of the sisters being physically together and I feel the films and shorts have built a better connection between Elsa and the people of Arendelle than Elsa and the Forest. BUT, at the same time, I deeply love the Northuldra and want to see both Elsa and Anna bond with their mother’s people more and I love the idea of Elsa living with the Northuldra and connecting with them. My issue is the film doesn’t emphasize building Elsa’s connection with the Northuldra when that is the most emotionally resonant human element that connects her to the Forest. I actually want to see more of the Northuldra in F2′s narrative to give the ending greater depth.

(Also, I think it’s a shame that the film kind of brushes aside Anna’s connection to the Northuldra and her making bonds with her mother’s people. I know the film wants to set up Anna’s connection to Arendelle to foreshadow her taking the queenship but... both is good, as I’ve said in other posts.)

And I guess that’s what separates me from other people who dislike the ending. Yes, I’ve said that I prefer the sisters being physically together, but I’m not against F2′s ending on principle the way some people are. F2′s ending could work perfectly with a few rewrites to the narrative. I like it in concept, but not execution. I love Anna’s arc and Elsa’s arc has beautiful elements, conceptually at least. I love the idea of her being able to broaden her horizons and meet new people. The trouble is, the film doesn’t emphasize her bonding with those new people and writes them out of the narrative for no good reason for the second half of the film. And because I feel that Elsa’s connections with other human beings are what help me relate to her, more than the abstract concept of her individuality and abstract connections to magic and the spirits, that makes the ending of the film ring a little hollow for me. Especially when the sense of emotional connection I feel to the sisters reconnecting in Frozen Fever is so much stronger to me on a personal level than F2. (That last sentence I mentioned is personal feeling, but I hope that otherwise, I have supported my perspective with references to the text that readers feel are valid.)  

Again, I’m not trying to take anything away from people who love Elsa’s arc and the film in general. There are many things I love about it. myself I recognize the beauty they see in it and I value that beauty.

I apologize. Maybe this is just rambling born of my anxiety - or reiteration of points I’ve made before. But I hope, if you read this, you feel I discuss these things with clarity, respect, and fairness for different perspectives. Thank you.

[scholarlypidgeot]

Okay, so world-building questions. What do holidays look like in this world? I know you said that it's Catholic, but what does this look like in universe? What about specific secular cultural holidays? And what about the Seelie and Unseelie holidays? What do those look like? I have been thinking about this all afternoon, and I just want to know.

Okay so this isn't something I've put too much thought into, but here we go!

Seelie celebrate whatever they can, for whatever excuse. They are, as I've said before, natural-born hedonists, so any reason to party calls for a party. Birthdays, anniversaries, achievements, even failures, sufferings, misery - all of these call for celebration. Every day of the year might as well be a holiday for them.

Unseelie, meanwhile, don't really have a set annual culture. Some of them celebrate personal moments, or the holidays of whatever culture they find themselves in at the time, but with immortality, there's the sense that time stops to matter. Especially a material-based immortality. Their nature lends itself to boredom and nihilism, which can also lead them into the Seelie mindset of "celebrate whenever you can for whatever reason because nothing even matters anyway, and you've got time to kill!"

In Aurbea and the Golden Crown Protectorates, there are a few appointed festival days, divided by season, including the summer solstice, the winter solstice, the first day of spring, and the first day of fall, among others like a harvest festival, a day celebrating the Golden Crown, and a few victory celebrations held among the auxiliary class. There are no personal holidays, however, given that the structure of the people is based on the Republic and how no one really has any idea about their individual birthdays or anything. Everything is national, or occasionally divided by your class as determined by the nature of your soul (bronze, silver, gold). This also determines the nature of the celebration in your class. Workers, or bronze-souls, are kept under the strictest supervision but also given the most leeway in how they celebrate, so these festivals look different between communities. Auxiliaries are more firmly set, and will have a feast, some semi-formal activity, and a day of rest when not on duty. Guardians have the least supervision but also the most formal events on holidays, in a very Upper-Class, come-when-called-on, spend-the-day-thinking-and-the-night-at-a-formal-event way.

Under the Iron and Silver, I've based most major festivals around the Holydays of Obligation in the Catholic Church, and a few other major feasts as well. (Disclaimer: I am still working and praying about actually including Catholicism in the work. Mostly for fear of risking sacrilege or misguidance about the Faith. It's a work in progress.) But, essentially, the major national holidays would be: New Year's Day, Jan. 6, Sunday after the first full moon of March (Easter), May 31 (Queenship of Mary), 40 days after that (Ascension), 9 days after that (Pentecost), 12 days after that (Corpus Christi), August 15, the last Sunday in October (Christ the King), November 1, December 8, and December 25. The in-universe associations of these days are still under construction, but this is the definite outline for them. In addition there are personal celebrations - wedding anniversaries, coronation days, birthdays, even anniversaries of deaths are celebrated in a semi-holiday fashion. Many are celebrated with feasts, the national holidays are held with public celebrations, and a few even resemble some of the feasts as we know them, like New Year's, Christmas, and the Queenship of Mary (or May-Day).

Thanks for the ask! I hope this answered the question well enough.

[suvichastro]

What does the state of the planet represent in the life of human beings?

What does the state of the planet represent in the life of human beings?

Astrology is a wide subject and there are many factors in astrology that affect human life specially planetary influences. In these factors, Planets play a significant character in an individual's life. In astrology, each planet has a different meaning and character from ancient times. According to the ancient astrologers each planet represents almighty. But in modern astrology, the planets are referred to as the flow of energy and its dimension. Each planet grants different characters and various qualities. Planetary influences astrology as well. The planets are connected with 12 zodiac signs and in 12 houses. Planets are somewhere related to each other and influence human life.

What are the roles of planets in astrology?

Planetry influence the astrology in many ways. Now people must be wondering about how a planet that is rotating on its axis millions of miles away can affect the life of human beings? and how an astrologer can predict the past, present, and future just by studying the position of planets. If yes then how? Let's readout.

As we all know that the human body is made of physical elements. We all are made up of atoms of various elements that are combined by the bond of the universe. As planets are also made up of binding of atoms with an available source of energy that is the sun. Human beings and planets are made up of the same components and surviving with the same source of energy, as the rotation of planets may affect the daily life and behaviour of humans. To know more about Planetary influences and influence of planets on human beings stay connected with and start reading below.

Planetary influences and influence of planets on a human being

According to the SUVICH - The Real Astrology, planetary influences on astrology are in a wide range all the planets are connected and as well as human beings. Each planet has different properties, different vibes, and different energy that present different phases of our life. Planets rule our psyche, mental state, personal life, career life with financial status. Each planet distinctly affects our lives and if you are studying your horoscope then you should remember that if a particular planet is weak then it doesn't mean it will give you bad results and the strong planet will lead a guaranteed success. These effects are based on their significance of planet position in kundali.

According to Vedic Astrology, there are only 7 Planets that affect individuals' life, that is,  the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn. Where Rahu and Ketu are the so-called shadow planets in the horoscope. If you are eager to know the different effects of planetary influences on human beings then continue reading, SUVICH - The Real Astrology will answer all your questions. Let us start.

Effects of Sun

As we all know that the sun is the source of energy for all human beings and the universe also and according to astrology it also affects individuals' life.

The sun is the ruler of the zodiac sign Leo and the representative of power, wellness, self-respect, etc. This is a masculine planet, that is highly major male influence.  The golden glow of the sun represents the glow of childhood and adulthood. The people who have sun in their kundali are kind and live the life king size and it also affects the authority of individuals along with health, wealth, ambitions, and sense of humor.

Effect of Moon

This is the best way to define the character and behavior of humans as it is the king of emotional behavior as it is the ruler of a person's inner feelings and senses. This planet rules the Cancer zodiac sign. Moon is the female influencing planet cold and moist nature. Moon represents the phase of females such as queenship, motherhood, childbirth, etc. The white color of the moon shows the purity, calm nature, and innocence of individuals. People who are moon dominant are very emotional and sensitive. But when the moon is affected by any other planet then it causes sleeplessness, diabetes, appendix problems.

Effects of Mars

As mars is the symbol of war, it represents the aggressive nature of any person. When a person is Mars dominant he or she may fall into enmity, aggression, and fight very soon. But when it comes to facing difficult situations they are the most brave and self-empowered among all. Mars is the ruling planet of Aries and Scorpio. A person whose mars is affected may face injuries, pain, and personal life problems.

Effects of Mercury

This is the strongest planet among 7 and directly connected with your brain. When mercury is at the home of air signs like Libra, Aquarius, Gemini it gives more power to their thinking and logical capacity, and when in earth sign like Capricorn, Taurus, Virgo it gives the mind a down to earth nature, and when with fire signs like cancer, Scorpio, Pisces it gives a sensitive but filtered mind.

It represents the education, knowledge, and schooling phase of a person. If someone has strong mercury in their horoscope then it affects the human in a positive way and the opposite when in a weak position. You can easily check your horoscope through Suvich.

Effect of Saturn

This is related to the death of any person. If this planet is not in an unfavorable condition then it can end someone's life and can also increase the lifetime when in favorable conditions. When Saturn is dominant in someone's horoscope then they have to work hard to get what they deserve.

This planet is a symbol of justice and a teacher who punishes you for your bad work in a negative way and also compensates you for your good deeds.

 Effects of Jupiter

Jupiter rules over two zodiac signs, Pisces and Sagittarius. It is a symbol of good deeds, spirituality, power, yellow color, authority, and positions. When a Jupiter is affected the person may face health complications such as kidney problems, liver disease, and diabetes. But when Jupiter is in the right native house it brings the best version of you and makes you a good teacher and social worker.

Effects of Venus

The venus is the symbol of glorious and luxurious life and other glamorous things such as beauty, love, music, and dance. This planetry influences the female's marriage, income, good clothes, flowers, wifehood, etc. Strong Venus position places you with glorious things but the wrong position of Venus may reduce the civil behavior, physical appeal, and love life failure.

 Effect of Shadow planet [ Rahu and Ketu ]

Rahu is the symbol of virtual things in your life as it is very powerful, it is considered a planet. This planet may cause laziness, obstacles, and late work. When it is placed in a good position it shows its brighter side too.

Whereas Ketu is a symbol of spiritualism and independence from the materialistic world. It influences the people who are born with Aries, cancer, sagittas, Scorpio, and Pisces zodiac signs. Affected Ketu may give you many health-related problems such as lung disease, brain disorder, and physical and mental weakness.

As we read in the above blog that there is a significant influence of planets on human life. It is important to know about your powerful planets so that you can lead a successful life. With the help astrology app of SUVICH - The Real Astrology you can find the effects and positions of planets in your kundali.

[him-e]

Wasn’t Daenerys’s behaviour supposed to be reminiscent of US intervention in countries like Vietnam or Iraq rather than representative of a revolutionary leader? And how is Daenerys a revolutionary in the context of Westeros? She has a claim because she was the last of the dynasty who ruled it and she had dragons because of that ancestery? Her aim was to reinstall a monarchy as her as the monarch, wasn’t it?

You gotta look at the bigger picture, because of fucking course the show wants you to buy the “she DOESN’T WANT TO END TYRANNY SHE JUST WANTS TO BE ON TOP OF IT, EVEN IF SHE’S TOO MAD TO REALIZE IT!” bullshit. But it IS bullshit. It’s a smokescreen to dress up their absolutely conservative political take as a *critique of imperialism and violent political leaders*.

Dany having a white savior trope written all over her storyline doesn’t automatically make her arc a good critique of US intervention. In fact, it makes it twice worse. Because as long as Dany was liberating slaves and ending tyrannies in Essos, the narrative APPLAUDED her. But the moment she began to threaten the western-coded status quo of our very white, very upperclass-coded, very not-in-need-to-be-saved main characters, she suddenly turned into a power hungry female Stalin, whose utopia of breaking the wheel and “answering injustice with justice” was always going to degenerate in a blood bath and a violent power grab because *something something Targaryen grandeur*.

If the show, and GRRM, wanted to make Dany’s story a critique of US intervention, they shouldn’t have made Dany a lonely, misfit, abused, orphaned girl who has lived in exile her entire life and was sold as a slave. They shouldn’t have made her entire army be comprised almost entirely of former slaves and people of color who support her because she gave them a choice, and an identity, and agency, and took them to the other side of the world as brothers and sisters to conquer a place that never gave a shit about them if not to exploit them. If they wanted to criticize the white savior trope, then THEIRS should have been the voices to carry this criticism through. Their voices, and their perspective. But no. They were villainized alongside her. Missandei said Dracarys, and Grey Worm enacted her no prisoners orders without batting an eyelid and even with some personal satisfaction under Jon’s shocked civilized eye. So what are we talking about, exactly?

And no, Dany’s downfall isn’t her arrogance and “Targaryen privilege”. There is no consistent criticism of monarchy as an institution in this narrative. At no point the show challenges the notion that people shouldn’t have a claim on castles and other people because of their birthright. In fact, Sansa’s entire ascension to queenship and later character arc is founded on that birthright. Same as Bran’s becoming king. Same as Jon’s, really—bastard or not, it’s his Stark blood that made the northerners raise their swords and proclaim him the king in the north, and his Targaryen blood that made people like Varys think he could be the solution to their problems. Hell, they even had to shove a cringey scene in the finale to make fun of Sam’s attempt to introduce the concept of democracy. Monarchy is still cool in Westeros, but only when it’s respectful of the status quo and neoliberal-coded. Only when it’s given to someone who doesn’t want it, and doesn’t have to actively fight for it, because it’s always been in his league thanks to his gender and class.

On the other hand you have Dany who starts as a downtrodden among the downtrodden, she has extremely noble ideals and identifies a sympathetic cause in becoming a champion for the poor and the slaves and the smallfolk all over the world, wages war and employs her resources to liberate them from their oppressors, then gets corrupted by her own reiterated use of violence, begins cannibalizing and alienating even her original “intellectual” supporters (though the “base” of her support remains enthusiastic, because, you know, the masses have no critical skills or individual personality), and is eventually rightfully crashed by the moral superiority of western liberal democracy—ooops, I meant enlightened monarchy. um, what does this remind me of.  

there’s an Italian facebook page called “Comunisti per Daenerys Targaryen” and while it’s a satirical account, I’ve seen more accurate political meta from them than from anyone else at this point. Because Dany’s arc tragically fits in a long tradition of american media telling horror cautionary tales about communism and in general radical movements aimed to dismantle the established socio-economical hierarchy. 

And while I can appreciate what the show did (or, to say better, could have done) with Dany’s personal descent into alienating depression and nihilism, or the idea of righteous violence as an inherently corruptive force in an existential, individual sense, when I take a step back and look at the political subtext implicit in her downfall, my heart sinks. Because it’s literally just the same old story about revolutions being bad and heroes defending the status quo because you don’t want innocents to die, do you?

[ednyfedfychan]

“What Henry’s treatment of Anne of Cleves also suggests is that an impossible standard of beauty continued to be upheld for queens, even when experience revealed again and again that human imperfections strained against it. Moreover, the whims of individual preference challenged the very notion of such an ideal; Anne was the only one of Henry’s six wives he had not personally seen and selected. Nonetheless, queen candidates continued to be assessed against the illusory criteria. The narrative constructed of Henry’s spousal choices has been that each queen was chosen in contrast to her predecessor. Thus, Anne of Cleves’s alleged unattractiveness was cited as an explanation for why Henry settled on Katherine Howard, a young, attractive wife from his own country to succeed her. Just months after Anne’s arrival, Henry was already scouting out his next wife; Marillac reported, ‘It is commonly said that this King will marry a lady of great beauty’. A Spanish chronicler described Katherine as ‘the handsomest of his wives and the most giddy’ and diplomat William Thomas thought she was ‘a very beautiful gentlewoman’. Chapuys described Katherine as ‘fatter and handsomer than ever she was’ though this description is difficult to read given that she was at this time awaiting her execution. Most accounts of Katherine are generalized praise, though she was often said to be petite and dark-haired. Perhaps the most interesting description of Katherine is one that has nothing to do with her appearance but is relevant to this discussion. When the demoted Anne of Cleves came to court in January 1541 for the New Year festivities, a potentially awkward meeting of two living queens was prevented by their gracious behaviour. According to Chapuys, ‘Having entered the room, Lady Anne approached the Queen with as much reverence and punctilious ceremony as if she herself were the most insignificant damsel about Court, all the time addressing the Queen on her knees, notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties of the latter, who received her most kindly, showing her great favor and courtesy’. Chapuys adds that Anne and Katherine danced together and that Katherine gave Anne one of the New Year presents she had received from Henry. Though Katherine was the youngest and most naïve of Henry’s queens, this episode offers a rare counterpoint to the culture of rivalry between queens.”

‘The Fairest of Them All: Queenship and Beauty’, Fairy Tale Queens: Representations of Early Modern Queenship, Jo Eldridge Carney

[hyacinth-halcyon-blog]

Norse sacred queenship in a modern heathen context

In this post here I discussed the historical roles of Old Norse queens. In this post, I wanted to discuss what this means for practitioners of Norse religions being pushed into sacred queenship duties today. A lot of this is based on my own experiences of sacred queenship so far so my experiences won’t match those of everyone else. However, they might serve as a marker to help guide others.

First off, what is sacred/sacral queenship? Who practices it? - Generally speaking, this term is a role used by those whose spiritual practice has put them into ties with queenship. (Note: this doesn’t have to mean the practitioner is a woman especially in a society that split defined roles between king and queen like heathen ones did.) Typically, this is because of entities they work with being affiliated with king or queenship. They may also have roles in the Astral relating to queenship. Historically, a sacral monarch meant that the monarch was seen as embodying the divine or serving as a link between the sacred and profane worlds. So priesthood can also be a part lumped in with the queenship role.

In my case, I have been pushed into the role of queenship due to my relationship with Surtr. 

What does this mean for the practitioner? - Sometimes, ‘queen’ or ‘king’ can be nothing more than a title to wear due to marriage to a monarch entity. For others, the title can come with responsibilities here, in the Astral, or both. It doesn’t place the practitioner over any other devotees. It's simply a different set of duties than another devotee may have.

What is the particular flavor of queenship for Norse religions? - In the post I linked to at the start of this post, I stated that the main duties of Old Norse queens were tied to healing, peace-keeping, secret keeping, providing wise counsel, divination, gift-giving, and hospitality. In addition, she may have been a symbolic embodiment of the land itself. Furthermore, there was an important ritual tied to queenship that entailed bearing the sacred mead cup as an offering to the king and his followers.

Okay, but how do those actually play out in a practical way in one’s practice as a queen? - While this will obviously differ from individual to individual, I can discuss how these concepts are playing out in my own practice so far.

Land ties - I mentioned in the one post that the queen may have embodied the land itself or otherwise represented it symbolically. As such, land work can become a practice tied to queenship especially, from my understanding, in a self-care sort of way. If you embody the land symbolically then taking care of it takes care of you and in turn, taking care of yourself enables you to take care of the land better. 

Healing - So far, healing has played no role in my practice but healing magic was integral for a queen and other nobles to know. 

Hospitality, gift-giving - Hospitality and gift-giving, at least in the form of offerings, play a huge role in my queenship role. Or at least will be as I adjust more fully to things. I’ve been informed about a need to play host to jotnar who will visit my home and expect all hospitality given to them. It also plays into my role as cup-bearer for Surtr as the ritual is intrinsically tied to these concepts. In any case, playing host on this plane or in the Astral - or both in my case - are important roles tied to Norse queenship. Hospitality to guests was highly valued in Old Norse culture and the queen was the host extraordinaire.

Divination - I don’t know that divination or providing it are integral to my roles as queen. My role as diviner for people has been a thing long before queenship so it’s hard to say. However, queens were linked to knowing fate, including the queen of the gods Frigga as she was said to know the fates of men. As such, divination and magic of specific sorts might be linked to one’s queenship especially depending on why one got nudged to it in the first place.

Secret keeping, counsel - Queens were explicitly expected to be keepers of confidences both for the king and the people who relied upon them. In addition, queens were renowned as gives of wise counsel. As such, it’s more than possible that one in a queenship role would be expected to become a counselor sort of person or guide for spirits under their care. (For those wondering, yes, it’s not unheard of for people in king or queenship roles to have spirits placed under their care in some form or another. I don’t know how common it is but it’s a thing I’ve seen mentioned.) 

“Motherhood” - I put this in quotation marks because it’s not a literal parental role. It’s more symbolic than that. In his book Lady With a Mead Cup, Enright writes about how the Germanic queen represented a symbolic mother figure to the king’s retinue of thegns. I feel like this ties in strongly with potential guidance roles but is slightly different as it might involve more nurturing, teaching, and the like than pure counseling would hence my putting it separately. 

Cup-Bearing - This ritual is a duty that was important to keeping peace among the king and his retainers. In addition, it was a magically charged ritual that bestowed blessings upon the recipients of the cup. (Not to mention alcohol itself was believed to be magical with its links to poetry and speech.) It also functioned as an act of hospitality as it was a gift given from the queen to the people as it was a gift of drink. I won’t go into full details of the ritual set up here but it’s one I’ve performed for Surtr and in addition to the things mentioned above, I’ve noticed it serves as a way to affirm Surtr’s importance and centrality in my life and practice. Therefore, it would likely do the same for others and their corresponding entity if there is one who put them in such a role of queenship.