#rhaenyra has plenty of flaws

[daeneryseastar]

watching a certain… green character’s (🤨) stan claim that they aren’t able to have conversations about rhaenyra’s character flaws without being jumped while simultaneously stating that their fellow stans are the only ones capable of doing exactly that is so fucking funny.

when rhaenyra’s flaws are brought up these same people jump right into using her having bastards, her being a whore, her being groomed, her being a mary sue/self-insert (even more hilarious considering mary sues are known for their perfectness, but i digress), her being an apparent rapist??? these arguments are never made in good faith, and usually are a gateway into antis being even more openly misogynistic. they’re also neither flaws nor supported by the show/original text/even the horrible producers for house of the dragon.

i will not listen to you, and you do not deserve to be listened to if this is your line of thinking.

[drakaripykiros130ac]

“The devil wears the mask of goodness.”

Describes both Alicent Hightower and Criston Cole to a tee.

I am pleased that more and more people are starting to understand the significance of a character like Criston Cole, and why he was designed to be one of the most hated characters in this Dance.

He wears a pure white cloak for years. A cloak which is supposed to signify purity, honor, and loyalty.

Criston Cole strikes out on all three, and is undoubtedly, the worst Kingsguard in the history of Westeros.

He has a black heart, and projects the image of a justiciar in order to cover up his heinous deeds.

The same goes for Alicent Hightower: a woman with a black heart, indifferent towards her own children whom she uses for her own gain. She is filled with greed and jealousy, hiding behind a well-constructed image of “piousness”.

In contrast, Daemon and Rhaenyra are just human. They are both flawed human beings, but not once did they attempt to project different images other than the ones which showed their true selves.

It’s easy to perceive Daemon as a villain. He himself makes it very easy for the simple-minded. He has the right image for it. However, he had proven along the years, to have plenty of qualities which contributed to his redemption: his love for his brother, his love for Rhaenyra, and his love for his children.

Daemon does what Daemon wants, sure, but even so, there is a sense of loyalty in him that knows no bounds. Despite his own ambitions, despite obsessing about the Targaryen legacy, he cares a whole lot for his family.

And so, we have a reverso: Daemon Targaryen looks like a villain, but inside has plenty of heroic qualities (making him the perfect anti-hero), whereas Criston Cole has the “Prince Charming” image, but hiding underneath is cruelty, viciousness, jealousy and disloyalty. He has little to no heart.

Same for Rhaenyra and Alicent.

Rhaenyra, the “cruel harlot”, who wears her heart on a sleeve, who craves love (not power), who raises her children with love and care, who protected a gay man’s reputation, who was wiling to forgive her siblings for their betrayal, who had the mercy to spare the life of her cruel stepmother after she took back her throne.

Alicent, the “pious”, who abuses a little girl of eight, usurps a throne for her own blood, shows hatred towards three boys who did her no wrong, letting her husband’s body rot for days, promotes a knight for the single reason being his hatred for Rhaenyra, permits her son’s indiscretions around Court, demands a child’s ear to be removed for the sake of keeping the enemy armies at bay, demands of her granddaughter to kill her husband by slashing his throat.

Who is the greater evil here?

I believe GRRM has already answered that.

[alicentflorent]

I don't know if this will make sense but the women on game of thrones (when they were adapting the full source material ASOIAF) actually felt like women living in a feudalistic society and most of them were layered, three dimensional female characters and there was enough world building that we understood the world they lived in and how this impacted who they were. In HOTD however, it doesn't feel like they even live in a feudalistic society and they are clearly being written and viewed through a modern lens and this is obvious when you see the people involved in the show constantly comparing their women and the storylines involving them to the modern, real world ("women for trump", Hilary Clinton losing the election etc) when there are plenty of historical women and historical examples they can compare it to, I mean Rhaenyra was literally based on empress Matilda!! but they aren't capable of world building this medieval style society despite the fact that the books have already done it, another show has already done it but these showrunners and writers aren't capable of writing a story without allowing their modern world views to affect it and not in a critical but authentic way but in a "I'm going to treat these women as if they haven't been socialised in a feudalistic society where misogyny is the norm and another fatal flaw in the system and write these characters like they should know better than to act like Noble women living under feudalism.

[sansa286]

F&B Propaganda: Paternity Disputes (or Lack Thereof)

Something that's always confused me when reading Fire & Blood is why some characters have their paternity placed under scrutiny due to a lack of resemblance to one parent, while others are given a pass. These are some thoughts and analysis I had on the subject.

So, we all know F&B is a pseudo-history book written from a plethora of unreliable pseudo-sources, some of whom very well may be telling the truth, other's who are fibbing a bit (or a lot), and the rest that told flat-out lies and regurgitated gossip. Therefore, certain inconsistencies, like paternity debates, are not showing that GRRM is an inconsistent writer, but rather him pointing out the blatant favoritism and narrative spinning that happens when history is written. Simply put: unless/until we get the events of F&B written in an ASOIAF style multi-POV structure, most of the stuff in F&B is meant to be taken with a grain of salt, some grains bigger than others. For example: Visenya being "jealous" of Rhaenys over Aegon preferring her romantically is clearly out-of-character, but treated as legit because Visenya is not a well-liked person in the grand-scheme of Westerosi history and culture. Therefore, painting her as envious is a way to spin her as "bitter" and "unlikable," when she more than likely just had a lot of ambition, and/or did what she thought was right for the Targaryen cause (flawed those actions may be).

We all know Rhaenyra was the subject of side-eyes over her three eldest sons, Jacaerys Velaryon, Lucerys Velaryon, and Joffrey Velaryon, who are officially recorded as sons of Laenor Velaryon; however, it's widely believed (and canon in the show) that they are biologically the sons of Harwin Strong, who Rhaenyra had an affair with because Laenor was gay and their attempts to conceive children were not successful. The reason in-universe people believed (both in the books and the show) that they were Harwin's is due to their dark hair and eyes (Harwin has green eyes in the show, but in the books it's inferred that they're brown like the Velaryon boys'.)

However, the Velaryon boys are not the only ones who don't share the same coloring as their parents (or the parents on paper). There are actually two others that come before them in the Targaryen bloodline that share that in common, however their paternity is never called into question. They are Alysanne and her daughter, Alyssa.

Biblically accurate Alysanne Targaryen. "Her eyes were blue rather than purple, her hair a mass of honey-colored curls." - Fire & Blood (pg. 131, ch. "The Year of the Three Brides")

Alysanne is the fifthborn child and secondborn daughter of Aenys Targaryen and Alyssa Velaryon. Her older siblings were Aegon, Rhaena, Viserys, Jaehaerys (who she married), and Vaella (passed away in the crib). All of Aenys and Alyssa's children are inferred to have had stereotypically Valyrian features (silver hair and purple eyes); Rhaena is the only one we get a full description of outside of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, but if the others didn't look Valyrian, it definitely would've been noted in the book. Aenys and Alyssa are noted for both having Valyrian features (par. 3 here & F&B p. 127; Aenys weirdly enough never gets hair color mention, but if it were anything other than silver we'd know, but we'll get to Aenys in a minute). We're told explicitly Alysanne has a head full of honey colored curls and blue eyes. But this is never brought up as a point of contention or placed her paternity up for debate. It's just assumed that it's due to her maternal grandmother, Alarra Massey, being an Andal woman.

However, this assumption is never mentioned in F&B. Her features are just mentioned and that was it. The theory laid-out by fans is that her hair and eyes come from her grandmother, however, Alarra's looks are never detailed in F&B. We only know that she was considered very beautiful (p. 127); and there are plenty of people of Andal descent who do not have blonde hair and blue eyes.

"Her [Alyssa Targaryen] hair was a dirty blonde tangle with no hint of silver to evoke the dragonlords of old, and she had been born with mismatched eyes, one violet, the other a startling green." - Fire & Blood (pg. 287, ch. "The Long Reign-Jaehaerys and Alysanne: Policy, Progeny, and Pain")

Which brings me to her daughter, Alyssa Targaryen, who was also noted for having non-traditional Valyrian features (dirty blonde hair, green and purple heterochromia eyes). But Alyssa's paternity is also never brought up as possibly being anything other than what was recorded at her birth. (As for the show, Daemon's perspective on his mother is warped due to being knee-deep in the Targaryen sauce, so that's why I think his mother doesn't look like what she's supposed to in the show. If they ever do an adaptation of Jaehaerys' reign, I hope they don't throw a silver wig on her, but given what they did to Rhaenys who tf knows?) Interestingly, Alyssa is also described as long-faced, which is a trait associated with the Starks, and Alysanne was noted for being close to...Alaric Stark (I'll spare you that theory though.)

This is all fascinating with the knowledge of the dance being in the exact same book, because Rhaenyra has three dark haired and dark eyed boys and there's all of this speculation. Some may assume it's because both Rhaenyra and Laenor have silver hair and purple eyes, but so did Alysanne's parents, Aenys and Alyssa V. And like their great-great grandmother, Alysanne (if we're to believe she simply looks like her grandmother), Jace, Luke, and Joff also have a grandmother with non-Valyrian looks in Rhaenys, who in F&B had dark hair. There is no report of catching Rhaenyra and Harwin screwing around, jut observing the differences in looks of her children and Laenor. Surely, if we're to never assume that Alysanne is not a bastard because her grandmother (may have) had the same features/genes that simply skipped a generation, we could also do the same for them?

Sidebar: I am not saying that Alysanne is secretly a bastard or that the Velaryon boys' actually are trueborn, just that the reasons for this assumption are silly. If one kid is going to have their paternity scrutinized for not resembling their parents coloring-wise, then all kids who fall in that category should. That being said it is important to point out that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for Alysanne and the boys being/ not being a bastard to be true. It's been pointed out for years by the fandom that the people in ASOIAF don't understand genetics. The only reason Ned had a leg to stand on is because Cersei straight-up admitted to sleeping with Jaime, and letting him father her kids. Had Ned realistically went to Robert without Cersei's admission, and said that her children are not his because they have blonde hair and green eyes, he would be laughed at because a child resembling their mother and not their father is common. And on the off-chance that he does get some traction with it, well, not enough people would believe him, and Tywin would make a bigger example out of House Stark than he already has.

But again, secret-bastardy/secret-trueborness is not the point I'm trying to make. And if Alysanne were really a secret bastard, then, honestly, more power to her. She'd only become more iconic in my eyes.

So this begs the question: why are some people not speculated on for not resembling one or both parents coloring-wise while others aren't? It brings me back to the introduction: F&B is propaganda and certain pseudo-historical figures need to be portrayed in a certain light in order for the story they want to tell to be successful. This goes doubly-so for those that were close to Jaehaerys, and in this case: his mom (Alyssa V), his wife (Alysanne), and his daughter (Alyssa T).

Jaehaerys is considered the peak of the Targaryen dynasty and well liked by the establishment in Westeros (the Citadel, the Faith, various lords and ladies of the major houses). He is the Great Conciliator. Therefore, certain "creative liberties" being afoot is quite expected and this is not above the antics we see take place during his reign. Just look at how the true cause of Gael's death was covered up for years and the fishiness of Saera's disappearance and Viserra's death.

Alyssa V is considered a perfect mother, despite the less-than-stellar choices she made with her children outside of Jaehaerys. She's considered to be so great that the lords that sat the Small Council were able to put aside their misogyny and allow themselves to be ruled by a woman until Jaehaerys came of age. She is one of the main reasons Jaehaerys was able to take the Iron Throne in the first place. It would not go well if the man who was considered to be the greatest king of Westeros had a mother who may have cuckolded his father. Compare this to Aenys, who despite having Valyrian features had a one-off rumor about him being the secret bastard of Rhaenys the Conqueror and one of her male favorites mentioned in F&B; and this is 100% due to the fact that Aenys is considered by Westerosi historians to have been a weak and incompetent king. (Just think: if Aenys, who resembled his parents, had bastard rumors - do you seriously expect us to believe that neither Alysanne nor Alyssa ever had any?) "But, Jaehaerys is strong, brave, diplomatic, wise, etc... of course he comes from a mom who embodies Westerosi ideals to a tea. She even died trying to give her second husband more heirs despite her delicate age. Such a moral [debatable] man could only be born from a woman who was nothing but dutiful."

Alysanne is considered the perfect wife and queen consort, highly regarded for the active role she took during her husband's reign. She was intelligent, altruistic, birthed many children, and rode a dragon. She was so good at her job as queen she got several laws passed that now share her name. "Not only could such a woman not be born a bastard, but she in addition to being Jaehaerys' wife is also his sister, and could surely not be born from a woman who would ever risk bringing a bastard into this world."

And then, there's Alyssa T, the secondborn daughter and fifthborn child overall of both Alysanne and Jaehaerys, and was a wife to the highly regarded Baelon (also her brother), which means she was never going to be on the receiving end of those accusations. She even escapes having the usual witchcraft practitioner and/or lesbian/queer rumors that are usually thrown at women in Westeros who do not fit the traditional ideas of being a woman (even Visenya had those accusations). Her preferring boyish activities is never painted as a negative by the narrative unlike with other women in Westerosi culture. "Of course she's straight as an arrow and brags about how much sex she's having with her well-beloved and cherished-by-all brother-husband who was considered a peak heir and would neverrrrrr marry a bastard. Of course she thought most girls were idiots. Of course she brags about how many sons (never daughters) she's going to give her husband. Of course she does not care about anything outside of being a broodmare after being married like all good girls do. Bastard? Never. Two of her grandsons were kings we fondly remember. She is trueborn like her mother. She is Athena if she fucked."

But Jace, Luke, and Joff? Their mother was the first ever female heir apparent (not presumptive, apparent) to the Seven Kingdoms, and kept this status even after her father had three sons. She never apologized for this. And she entered a war over for her claim. "She wore a braid like that crazy warrior-witch Queen Visenya. She's breaking tradition by going ahead of her brothers in succession. She's bitchy sometimes. She's not thin like good women are supposed to be even after birthing several children. Speaking of children, yeah she did her duty and had many male heirs but some of them have dark hair and she's a whore, so they must be bastards. She's trying to take over a man's place. Of course she's evil and reveled in the deaths of her baby nephews. Of course she fucks outside of marriage. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if they weren't bastards!"

TL;DR: F&B uses paternity debates as a way to attempt to delegitimize/sow doubt against people the narrators don't like, this only prove by how inconsistent one's potentially faulty paternity is evoked on the basis of looks and nothing else. The chances of any of your trueborn faves secretly being a bastard is never zero. Now, I kind of want Alysanne to be a secret bastard.

UPDATE Sept. 5, 2024: Edited for grammar, word-flow, and minor spelling mistakes.

[darklinaforever]

While it’s not homophobic to disagree with a ship it’s also not demanding of this much vitriol either

I’m sure there’s plenty of ships you support that others don’t

As for your point of the text in F&B

This show is barely based on the text for better or worse

Historically speaking it’s actually a common place element that women’s queerness is hidden. How many female poets/writers and their “close female companion” been buried by straight male historians?

I’m no saying you have to like it, or agree, just the fact that there is room for flaw in some of these arguments

Let's be clear, if it is important to recall the original text.

Because without him, HOTD would simply not exist. It exists because of that.

Then, at the beginning the writers proudly claimed that HOTD was the truth about the events of Fire and Blood, it was after the broadcast of season 1 that they changed their tune by saying that F&B and HOTD had separate canons.

Without forgetting that Ryan Condal boasts about the consistency of the Lore which therefore comes from the GRRM books and therefore ASOIAF / F&B in all cases, while in the end, he does not respect it either.

Stop trying to tell me "yes but HOTD has almost nothing to do with Fire and Blood". You can't have one without the other, sorry.

On the other hand, you must be careful to differentiate them and not mix them up.

And I don't care if the context is ideal for queer stories. There are other queer characters besides Rhaenyra in the dance, including women.

Oddly, no one ever talks about their erasure to defend this shitty storyline with Mysaria in relation to the Queer community, which sounds like hypocrisy to me.

So take these characters, instead of inventing queer stories in Rhaenyra that have no basis, basis or consistency with what has already been established in HOTD and even with the source material. Rhaenyra isn't the character for that, that's all.

It's not hard to understand though.

[nrilliree]

https://www.tumblr.com/blissfulphilospher/748378340909531136/so-i-dont-know-why-i-am-posting-this-but-i-had?source=share

Reading this was quite amusing because the more you read, the more you realize that this person doesn't really like book! Rhaenyra, but rather the version they had in their head, which ironically aligns closely with the idea that most people who hate and vilify her have.

Show! Rhaenyra has plenty of writing flaws, but book! Rhaenyra isn't exactly what that person described in their post. Book! Rhaenyra is more than just an ambitious and ruthless woman.

Furthermore, are you telling me that you like "evil" women and can't even tolerate a angry teenager who has lost her mother, has to watch her father build a new family, and witness people using her new brother's birthday to promote him as the heir and disrespect her? Are you telling me that her not wanting to be at that birthday is being mean to Aegon, even though she hasn't said or done anything against him? Unless that person considers calling Aegon "the son of Alicent Hightower" an insult... Am I supposed to believe that you like evil and ruthless women when you're even using the word "spoiled" as something against her, and you consider her not wanting to be at her brother's birthday to be mean to him, when Cersei, a character you supposedly like, has ordered the killing of children?

I won't really say anything about this post because I'm blocked by the user. I didn't even know I had so many of these blocks 😂

I feel like it's often like "Rhaenyra in the TV series is so boring 🙄 Aegon should be king because Rhanenyra in the TV series is so boring and nothing like the book version!", but when Rhaenyra does anything to do with the book or when we use the argument from the book in a conversation, it turns out that the book's Rhaenyra is not a good character either. Some people try to justify their sympathy for Aegon in this way, some pretend that they are not misogynists, and some show that they are "neutral". Yes, there are many people who prefer the book to the series, I am one of them, but it doesn't work like that and what I mean here is not just sympathy, but just such a strange justification.

[pixieyong]

team green vs team black

some thoughts on the debate between rhaenyra, aegon and the iron throne. not a completely rounded argument just my own thoughts put down quickly. mentions of SA, miscarriage.

with season two over the debate between team green and team black still continues. HBO completely pushed the notion that 'all must choose' for the promotion of the season as a way of creating conversation around the show. i think the urgency for everyone to pick a side has its shortcomings because it's made for a very biased viewing of the show that has divided the fandom (though this might be intentional to reflect the divisions of westeros).

before season two aired i was under the impression that most people, if not all, were team black. i thought the hypothetical choosing of sides was contained to the show (which doesn't completely make sense either because some of the great houses didn't declare either way) but evidently, the fandom has made their decisions too. it is an interesting marketing strategy but we've seen it plenty of times before.

for me, rhaenyra is the obvious rightful ruler in westeros. arguments of succession in the show only exist because of westerosi patriarchy but i think responses from the external fandom are shaped by our own misogynistic ways of thinking, wether explicit or internal. at its very core, the only reason rhaenyra is not on the iron throne is because she's a woman.

character

there is an argument that it's her character and her personality that don't make her a fitting ruler but this simply isn't true. targayrens have sat the throne since the conquest and have ruled in all kinds of ways, aegon the conquerors own sons, aenys and maegor who ruled after him, were completely different, the first son criticised for being too weak the and the other too strong. in the world of westeros, rhaenyra's throne is only usurped because she is a woman.

when it comes to the fandom, her personality is supposedly judged in isolation to her sex (although i don't think that's even possible) and people have called her weak, passive and unbefitting of rule (ironic considering these are traits stereotypically attached to women). the less convincing part of this argument is who she compares to. if rhaenyra's hesitance to act and her caution are seen as weak and should stop her ruling, then surely aegon exhibits better, more ruler-like behaviour, yet he doesn't.

in season one, aegon tells aemond he '[has] no wish to rule, no taste for duty' and that he is 'not suited' to which aemond agrees. aegon is presented throughout the show as having an unlikable personality. he makes fun of and bullies aemond throughout their lives. he mistreats heleana as she admits that for the most part aegon ignores her 'except sometimes when he's drunk.' instead he frequents brothels and as a result has bastard children who grow up in the fighting pits. what cannot be ignored is aegon's sexual offences, he rapes dyana, one of the servants and has no regard for it whatsoever and this transgression is largely ignored in discussion.

aegon does not show the behaviour associated with a good ruler and though this wouldn't matter so much if he was the sole heir (because he isn't the first targaryen to abuse his power) it does matter when compared to rhaenyra. rhaenyra is not perfect, i don't mean to suggest she is. but as recognised by rhaenys, rhaenyra's caution is a strength, she does not rush into war and seeks out peaceful alternatives. this does not make her weak but instead shows her wanting to avoid violence and harm to her people. similarly, aegon's flaws are not all the fault of his own, having no believed he would be king, he never prepared for his duties as such and had more scope to act undutifully. neither character is without their own problems but i don't think discrediting rhaenrya's right to the throne whilst uplifting aegon's based on their characteristics is a productive argument.

birthright and succession

in westeros, succession of the throne is assumed to pass to the firstborn son of the king. this of course requires each targaryen monarch to have at least one son. but, this isn't always the case, at the start of the series, viserys is crowned jaehaerys' heir through vote above rhaenys despite her having the stronger claim. after the death of aemma and her infant son the council question viserys on who should succeed him. with only one child of his own, rhaenyra, it is suggested that the crown should pass to daemon. however, daemon doesn't exhibit behaviour befit for rule, the council worry that he might bring terror to the realm as maegor did, or in fact be even worse. these worries are shared by viserys, eventually, he even tells rhaenyra that 'daemon was not made to wear the crown' but that she was.

rhaenrya is named as viserys' successor and the lords and ladies of the realm bend the knee to her. from then on, viserys prepares rhaenyra for what it means to be queen, evidently in telling her about the song of ice and fire which has been 'passed from king to heir since aegon's time.' rhaenrya's claim to the throne is validated when she sees the rare white hart during the hunt for aegon's birthday, the animal is used by otto once talk of a sighting has been uncovered to try and push aegon's legitimacy as heir. the hart is a symbol of royalty (before the dragons ruled over westeros, the white hart was a symbol of royalty in these lands'), and is seen by many as a message from the gods. whilst it takes men to hold back the deer visery's kills, the white hart shows itself naturally to rhaenyra. i think this signifies the way in which aegon's claim is approved and uplifted by the power of man whilst rhaenyra's claim is validated by the gods.

viserys is not unwavering in his loyalty to his decision, a few times as rhaenyra gets older he questions whether or not he made the right choice, even during the hunt when she runs away from the celebrations for aegon's second name day as he questions his choice to alicent. ultimately however, viserys never changes his mind, he is never convinced that aegon should follow after him as king, even claiming, despite having four children with alicent, that rhaenyra is his 'only child.' it is therefore rhaenyra's birthright to become queen with an oath sworn to viserys by the people to honour his wish for her to succeed him.

but what of aegon? once aegon is born from visery's second marriage expectations from the realm change, which rhaenys warns rhaenrya about. viserys is steadfast in rhaenyra being his heir, not once changing his mind offically. tradition would have it that aegon should be named heir, 'no woman has ever sat the iron throne.' is it therefore aegon's birthright as the firstborn son to be king? viserys has years to change his mind but as he watches aegon and rhaenrya grow up, he remains loyal to his words and his chosen heir.

by the word of the king, the final authority (maybe other than god) rhaenyra should be queen. it makes unfortunate sense why people in westeros would contest her as heir, there is very little gender consciousness in the realm and patriarchy is normal and unchallenged by the masses. but why is the external audience, living in today's society so persistent in aegon being king?

why do fans want aegon to be king?

when viserys dies, alicent mistakes his final words about aegon the conquerer's dream for viserys' wish for aegon to be king. otto does not need to hear this justification, hungry for his blood to sit the iron throne he, alicent and the council crown aegon whilst rhaenrya is on dragonstone. aegon does not want to be crowned, but as thousands of people cheer for him and his reign, his dislike seems to fade (though not entirely).

on dragonstone, rhaenrya must mourn the loss of her daughter, her father, her crown and soon luke whilst planning the inevitable war to come and gather her allies. otto takes to dragonstone and attempts to make rhaenyra bend the knee, though her ('i'm queen rhaenyra now') and daemon ('i would rather feed my sons to the dragons then have them carry shields and cups for your drunken, usurper cunt of a king') will not accept aegon as king. otto begins to justify aegon's crowning further stating that he 'has the conqueror's name' and 'wields the conquerer's sword' but this isn't convincing, these are things given to aegon, not that he has earnt.

aegon has been made king, breaking the oath sworn to viserys and we watch rhaenyra grieve and lose what is rightfully hers in a graphic but realistic depiction of miscarriage and vulnerability. the show gives me an enormous sense of annoyance because of how well-done i believe it is, it is an injustice that aegon is crowned, at least to me. so why do fans love aegon, especially women?

firstly i think part of it is just internalised misogyny. no matter how 'liberated' we believe ourselves to be in the 21st century, society is still innately patriarchal and women are still hated for being women. feminism can now reach more people because of social media but so can misogynistic rhetoric. because we are socialised to accept sexism, many people grow up and remain disillusioned into accepting patriarchy. male domination is so pervasive in every single thing that we do that it's just seen as the norm. the world is still largely built for men, women are expected to perform and act for men so i hardly find it surprising that female audiences applaud aegon as king. a man is a natural leader, a notion we are bombarded with as children, one that is hard to escape unless you consciously unlearn all you've been taught about gender roles.

or maybe we are seeing an incapability to separate show from reality. westeros is a patriarchal society, much like the one we live in today, only westeros is a fantasy world, drawing inspiration from historical events (that may however still ring true) from a variety of different cultures. much of it can be seen in similarity to medieval history in its monarchical structure, attitudes toward sex and marriage as well as the role of religion. as discussed, rhaenyra's reign would break hundreds of years of tradition and so is contested by the characters in the fictional world. but maybe some viewers internalise the world presented and almost put themselves into the narrative, abandoning their personal beliefs about the external, real-world and instead viewing the story as if they are someone in westeros. in today's world we can become utterly consumed by fiction, when the show was running, i was rewatching season one and game to thrones, reading fire and blood, watching lore videos on youtube, scrolling through hundreds of tiktok edits, looking at instragram posts from the cast, reading and watching interviews and the majority of my free time was taken over by house of the dragon. along the way i started thinking about myself in the world i was so heavily infatuated by and evidently so did many fans. i think because of the content we get now, its harder to see shows/film as just escapism or entertainment, for some people it really takes over and if you are living in your head thinking about this fictional world like i was, almost every day, at what point do you start to make judgements in isolation from your own knowledge? maybe people leave behind what they know of contemporary feminism because they want to escape further into the fictional world. therefore, its much easier to see aegon as the rightful heir as you begin to internalise westerosi ideology.

similarly, the internet has an obsession with bad men and villains, especially when they are conventionally attractive. i do not think for a moment people would claim to love aegon as much as they do if he was ugly. aegon and his big sad eyes, aegon and his daddy issues, aegon and his pretty face, i can fix him. he's mean and he's rude but maybe he'll have a soft spot for me. tom glynn carney is a very good looking man and a fantastic actor, i'm not denying the obvious. but if we want to talk seriously about who should rule in westeros why are we so disillusioned. the bad guy with a broken spirit trope is so rampant now in media and women have been conditioned to love it. 'maybe i can fix him' is just another way of making women responsible for men's behaviour and taking accountability away from them and 'he hates everyone except me' shows how much value society places on male attention, making woman compete for the good opinion of men. aegon is not a 'bad boy' he is a rapist. the forced king narrative is intriguing and makes aegon's character more complex but to want this guy king because he is conventionally attractive is kind of wild. and yeah, maybe it's not that deep and i'm not saying people shouldn't edit him or write fanfiction about him, i'm merely trying to articulate how much physical beauty matters in our response to media. it would be easy to see aegon's actions as criminal and unbeffiting of a king if he didn't look so much like one. we find sadness in his position, we feel sympathy for him when we don't rhaenrya and support him as ruler because of the tragedy of it all.

some viewers also just prefer the content of the team green characters more than they do black. i saw a lot online this season about how the greens are better written and have more depth. people enjoy the villainy of the greens and their political scheming, often this season rhaenyra was shown to be hesitant, wanting to scope out her options before acting and whilst this makes for a good leader (in my opinion) maybe that just didn't make for entertaining viewing for some. maybe some fans liked aegon as king because it meant they spent more time with him and his reign. i think this is valid to an extent, although i also think the team black characters are much more complex than people give them credit for. maybe aegon's darkness is just more watchable then the 'safeness' of rhaenyra. but when we talk seriously about who should rule, who is best for the realm, i don't know how far this can be argued.

conc

rhaenyra vs aegon for the iron throne both in the world of the show and in the viewer's reception of it is just based on misogyny and centring our lives around men and the internet's obsession with glorifying everything an attractive (or any) man does whilst discrediting everything a woman does

[queenvhagar]

"And then they just... included no fire or blood to these characters." but...there’s no shortage of "fire and blood" in the show? not to defend it or anything, but let’s be honest—there’s plenty of "fire and blood" going on. Rhaenyra had the dragonseeds burned by Vermithor, Rhaenys torched a heap of smallfolk during Aegon’s coronation, and Aemond casually set Sharp Point ablaze. The Rook’s Rest battle itself was basically akin to an atomic bomb going off. These acts alone already reflect the destructive, violent nature the Targaryens are known for. And that’s just the beginning—next season’s bound to bring even more war crimes, with Viserys' children at the forefront of the mess (sans Heleana). At the end of the day, all these characters—Rhaenyra, Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron—are neck-deep in violence. Whether or not their reasons are justified doesn’t really matter because they're all guilty. And it is expected because the Dance is a civil war filled with atrocities on both sides. Black and Green do not matter. Every major player gets their hands dirty in some way. The show doesn't shy away from the brutal nature of these characters or their actions. What it does—and what fans often fall into—is minimizing the severity of their deeds by justifying them with backstory or motivation. Fans latch onto these reasons to the point where they start romanticizing aspects of these characters, searching for the "good" in them (gag in disgust), when in reality, they’re all meant to be deeply flawed, even horrible. Let them be bad! That is fine!!! IS FINE!!!! So yeah, the show has many problems regarding narrative arc and artistic decisions, but it isn't shying away from the fire and blood of the Targaryens; it’s woven into their legacy, and we’re seeing that play out. What we really need to do is move past these no-nonsense teams. No more Team Black or Team Green...my god! Just choose Team Evil!!!

My main problem that I'm getting at is the idea that any Targaryen, after their own kin is slain by the enemy and said enemy is actively opposing you, is willing to sue for peace. ESPECIALLY when in Fire and Blood the deaths of Jaehaerys and Lucerys were these ultimate moments where all out fire and blood mentality kicked in for everyone and not only was war inevitable but it was desired. They wanted fire and blood. They wanted vengeance for harms inflicted upon them through any means and at any cost. These are Targaryens at the height of their absolute power. There is nothing they feel they cannot do or will not do. There is no one capable of opposing them, and if anyone tries, they shall face fire and blood.

I understand the argument of there being plenty of actual fire and actual blood being present in the show... as in yes, the dragons still breathe fire and the war is still killing people. But the house words of fire and blood? The mentality of taking all that is owed to you, no backing down, raining annihilation down upon all that oppose you? That's just not present. It's barely even allowed to be hinted at.

Rhaenyra burned Dragonseeds to get dragonriders? Sure, there was technically fire and blood involved and one could argue there were wisps of a true fire and blood Rhaenyra being hinted at for the single scene. But afterward? There's no acknowledgment narratively, nor is there any character growth: Rhaenyra immediately reverts to only wanting to have dragons as a deterrent to war. After she's lost her throne. Her father. Her only daughter. Her son. Her aunt. Their dragons. And despite the fact that the only way she can press her claim when there's already a crowned king is to wage war, and the only reason there is a war is because she is pursuing it in the first place in order to get her throne.

My problem is that there is such a lack of that fire and blood mentality to Rhaenyra and many other Targaryen characters that should be there and was there in the source material. They're not allowed to be real humans let alone real Targaryens. Their fire is extinguished. Their actions illogical. Their emotions suppressed. They do shy away from the brutal actions of these characters by removing their motivations or distancing them from the actual events that they cause. Any blood they spill is not their intention or is done with the goal of preventing a war that they should want at all costs but continuously, unrealistically, try to back away from.

So yes, of course the characters are still involved in terrible things and their actions get people killed. But the drive behind those actions is gone. Instead it's a series of happenstances and misunderstandings and peaceful aspirations that move the plot along. Where is fire and blood? The fiery boldness and anger, the burning desire for vengeance, the willing violence to grab at power and hold it, the inherent self-entitlement and superiority complex that leads them to believe they deserve the throne at all costs, no matter who is in the way and why they have to do to get it? That mentality is gone, as are representations of the true Targaryens of the books. The family that willingly destroyed itself through the embodiment of fire and blood mentality, taking what they believe is owed, seeking total annihilation of the enemy, using living weapons of fire and force submission. These new characters of the show are shadows of what they should have been. That's my problem with the show. The fire and blood mentality that defined this family is gone. In its place are shells of actual characters.

[atopvisenyashill]

4, 7 & 23

4. what was the last straw that made you finally block that annoying person?

lately it’s been the hotd “can’t believe they’re saying everything rhaenyra does is morally correct” thing after the last episode, as if showing her there smirking at the bloody ruin of peasants isn’t a clear sign she’s heading somewhere bad 😭😭 like do we need morality spoon fed to us!? these writers have plenty of faults why are whacking them for stuff that we’re making up in our heads!!

i think the last person i remember blocking tho said they were pro tb but they hate the velaryon boys for ~usurping their younger brothers~ and i was like why do you do this. why do you read the book like this.

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because of how the fandom acts about them?

hmmmmmm. you mentioned it in one of your asks how frequently rhaenicents will jump you for shipping alicent with a man and i’ve had that problem too and it definitely turned me off discussing alicent for awhile. esp bc it’s like yeah i do even agree that alicent is a lesbian but i also think that like,,,she clearly has a romantic & sexual dynamic with various male characters bc this is not a world where she can deny the advances of a man nor would alicent even THINK to do that, i just don’t feel like it’s morally wrong to explore the canon relationships she has with the men around her 😭😭 it’s exhausting omg

i think i Could find rhaegar interesting if he didn’t have the most annoying stans in the world. being convinced he’s the hero of the story and acting with that confidence like the narrative is his only for everything to crumble could be interesting, and i find his marriage with elia intriguing but his whole fandom is people yelling that he was right and it’s like even if you ignore the glaring flaws in his personality surely….we can agree he’s a fucjing idiot right. no? okay.

23. ship you've unwillingly come around to

i feel like i’m always more willing to sour on a ship than i am to come around to it akskdjd i think my terys anon has unwillingly lead me to think about tywin’s romantic relationships so often that i have become begrudgingly fond of the tywin/aerys/rhaella/joanna dynamic that exists in that anon’s head aksjsjsjs. like i’ve even read tywin character study fanfic over it and i would Not say i have ever found him all that compelling.

[duxbelisarius]

The Dance of the Dragons, A Military Analysis: Conclusion

This is the fourteenth and final part of my analysis (2 parts for each of the Seven, heh); thank you so much to everyone who has followed this series from the start, and those of you that have come across it and followed along! Here's the Master Post for anyone that's a first time reader, as well as links for my AO3 and Reddit uploads of the series!

I've been quite harsh towards George R. R. Martin throughout this series, perhaps more so than he deserves; the man has been writing professionally since 1970 at least, and has probably forgotten more about the World of Ice and Fire than any of us fans could ever hope to learn. Responsibility for continuity issues within the story and between it and George's larger mythos can be laid at the feet of Linda and Elio, George's continuity and editing team, and likely the publisher as well. Rightly or wrongly, George has taken plenty of flak from the fandom and beyond for a variety of reasons (cough cough Winds cough cough), but it was not my intention to heap any further calumnies upon him with this series.

I began my first re-reading of ASOIAF while working on this series and have enjoyed it immensely; GRRM is an excellent writer, and deserves every ounce of acclaim he has received despite his flaws. If you'd told me five years ago that I'd wind up watching HOTD, purchasing F&B along with Rogues and Dangerous Women, watching theory/lore videos regularly and rereading ASOIAF, let alone doing an c.30k word military analysis of the Dance, I would've looked at you like you had a third head. While I might have read the books again at some point, my interest in George's series was casual at best after I stopped watching GoT following season 6, and witnessed the season 8 debacle from the sidelines. For all it's flaws, I enjoyed House of the Dragon and interacting with fans online has been a fun experience (albeit not always). I would never have poured so much time and thought into this analysis if I didn't care about the series, or considered George to be a vastly superior writer than F&B would indicate. The problem with the Dance of the Dragons is not the idea itself but it's execution, with contradictions, contrivances and inconsistencies within the story weighing it down at every turn. This does not mean the Dance is unworkable; in fact there are numerous ways to fix these issues and make the story work.

Instead of Aegon, Aemond, Helaena and Daeron being Viserys' biological children, you could have Aegon son of Baelon survive childbirth and marry Alicent instead. Alicent's children become nephews to Rhaenyra instead of half-siblings, and their father could die before or shortly after Daeron's birth. Viserys could then marry his youngest brother's widow to placate those demanding that he remarry, thereby placing Alicent's children and Rhaenyra between Daemon and the Iron Throne. This means that Viserys still has no biological children that could threaten Rhaenyra's claim, and it could be argued via Widow's Law that these new children are Alicent's by blood and not Viserys' and thus cannot disinherit Rhaenyra of her claim. On the other hand, the Greens can argue that the marriage of Alicent and Viserys makes them the king's children by law, and can point to the Decision of 92 and the Council of 101 choosing a male claimant over the female claimant, regardless of whether the female's claim was stronger legally.

Introducing Aegon son of Baelon to the story as a dragonrider further improves the narrative, by making him Silverwing's rider after Alysanne. This gives the Greens an additional dragon under their control, and would also allow Ulf the White to play a more active role in the Dance by having Ulf be recruited by Larys following the 'Red Sowing.' After defecting to the Greens by providing information about Jacaerys's planned attack on King's Landing, this information could assist the Triarchy's attack on the Gullet, earning Ulf the trust of the Green Council and the opportunity to claim Silverwing. With Meleys and Vermax dead, Caraxes in the Riverlands and Syrax unlikely to participate in an attack due to the risk to Rhaenyra, this leaves only Vermithor, Sheepstealer and Seasmoke to attack King's Landing. Aemond's strategic gamble is easier to justify in this timeline (ITTL), with Aemond marching on Harrenhal while Ulf remains to protect the city, while the Blacks could attack after Harrenhal has fallen and take the capital thanks to Ulf's treachery.

Giving the Greens another dragonrider makes it easier to justify Aemond's Riverlands campaign, and would made better by having Aegon's supporters there continue the fight after TTL's Burning Mill. With Lannister forces to the west, Cole and Aemond to the east and Green supporters fighting a guerrilla war, it would make more sense why Cole and Tyland Lannister would support this plan than in our timeline (IOTL). Daemon could then withdraw his army north of the Trident and fly to Dragonstone via the Vale, to further support the idea that he had gone North. When Daemon reappears to attack King's Landing, this would enrage Aemond like it did IOTL), esp. if we assume he felt some responsibility for Aegon's injuries at Rook's Rest and Blood & Cheese. The Winterwolves' arrival could then see the Black forces march south to attack the Westerlands army; Cole wants to march west to join Jason Lannister, whereas Aemond wishes to draw out his uncle, with the two men falling out as IOTL. Cole marches west and is defeated alongside Jason Lannister, which could be the result of the Winterwolves falling upon one of the Greens flanks amidst a snow storm, ensuring that the encroaching winter weather matters to the plot while demonstrating the prowess of the Northerners without making them superhumans. Cole and Lannister are killed, with the remnants of the Westermen withdrawing over the Red Fork while those of Cole's forces defect to Rhaenyra, and Aemond begins his campaign of razing the Riverlands.

The situation at sea can be improved by simply having the Ironborn intervene earlier in the conflict; the Hightower and Redwyne fleets can thus be occupied by the Ironborn and the Shield Islands, as well as supporting the Hightower army. Combined with the poor autumn weather mentioned throughout ASOIAF causing storms in the narrow sea, and the risk presented by Rhaenyra's dragons on top of the strength of the Velaryon fleet, the Hightower and Redwyne fleets have sufficient reason to remain in the Sunset Sea without their existence being ignored by the narrative. Events in the Reach can be further improved by having the Tarlys support Aegon initially, agreeing to protect the lower Mander with the Florents and the Peakes against the Rowans and Caswells marching south. Ormund leads his own forces and those of House Redwyne, Cuy, Bulwer and Blackbar to besiege the Mullendores, Beesburys and Costaynes, but the Tarlys betray him and route the Green forces to the north, leading to the Battle of the Honeywine and Daeron's intervention. Houses Tarth, Fell and Buckler can take up arms against Borros Baratheon in support of Rhaenyra, with raids by the Velaryon fleet further accounting for the Stormlands' delayed support of the Greens. The raids by the Vulture King could be retained with the suggestion that Daemon was involved, as we know historically that the Vulture King movements were not supported by the Martells. Having Daemon's contacts in the Free Cities smuggle funds and weapons to the rebels allows him to create trouble for the Greens, while getting payback for Dornish support for the Triarchy during the War in the Stepstones.

The strategic positions of the Blacks and the Greens as of Maiden's Day 130 AC ITTL would be almost identical to IOTL; if Aemond is allowed to actually inflict serious damage on the Riverlords, this can also explain why Cregan Stark would avoid sending more troops south via the Neck. Joffrey Velaryon and Tyraxes leaving the Vale for King's Landing could also lead to a revolt by House Royce, in retaliation for Jeyne Arryn making common cause with Daemon, providing set-up for their support of Arnold Arryn following her death in 134 AC. This along with the threat of Aemond would explain the absence of the Vale's armies; having House Royce join forces with the Mountain Clans would strengthen this plot point, while giving a prelude to the raids by the Clans after the Dance. The Two Betrayers actions at Tumbleton are more plausible with Ulf being Larys' agent from the start; a more sensible choice for Nettles and Daemon's story could be to have them both battle Aemond, with Nettles being the lone survivor. Addam Velaryon finds Nettles and warns her of Rhaenyra's intentions, with Nettles fleeing as IOTL while Addam remains to rally what forces he can to oppose the Greens at Tumbleton.

The Tumbleton plot can be fixed by having the command crisis revolve around Daeron and the Two Betrayers from the start. While Unwin Peake, Hobert Hightower and other Greens fall-in behind the prince, former Blacks in the Hightower army turn to the Betrayers in light of Aegon's disappearance and Rhaenyra's downfall. The sides attempt to negotiate for a march on King's Landing while TTL's 'Caltrops' plot to murder the Betrayers and vice versa, devolving into fighting between the 'Daeron men' and the 'Betrayers brood.' The Riverlords would arrive during this struggle, leading to Addam and Daeron opposing the Betrayers together, creating interesting possibilities for the story. Ulf and Hugh's fates could be the same as IOTL, leaving Daeron and Addam to oppose Vermithor, or Hugh could fight them while riding his dragon. All four riders could fight atop their dragons and be killed as well, with Silverwing dying alongside Vermithor or fleeing to Red Lake as IOTL. In retrospect, Second Tumbleton could be seen as where the rifts of the Dance began to heal, with the town's postwar recovery being driven by veterans of both sides visiting to pay respects to the graves of Addam and Daeron.

The losses from Tumbleton and the Ironborn raids in the Sunset Sea can prevent the Reach from aiding Aegon II, while Cregan Stark's army could assist the Lads in defeating Borros Baratheon before marching on King's Landing. As suggested in Part 13, Cregan's army and the Valemen could be sent west to crush Dalton Greyjoy, with the Dance of the Dragons ending on July 7th 131 AC as IOTL or at some point after that date. A final change I would make would be to have Aegon II's murderers remain anonymous, with Corlys returning to Driftmark and Larys being dismissed as Master of Whispers and denied a seat on the Council of Regents. Clubfoot's fate could be as the first victim of Harrenhal's new 'witch queen,' his bastard half sister Alys Rivers.

This is a basic outline of the changes that could be made to fix some of the Dance's issues while retaining much of the story and characters as written by George. There's still elements such as Rhaenyra's tax policy that I haven't discussed, which would require further alterations, but I maintain that the story itself can work. HOTD has already made changes of it's own, and it will be interesting to see if Condal and co. take the Dance in any new/interesting directions. Regardless, I hope you've enjoyed this analysis of the Dance or at the very least found it interesting.

[thesilverlady]

What is so good in Show! Alicent lacking the slightest bits of agency? What is so good about a character who is nothing but an eternal victim whose 24/7 miserable? Is that what fans say is better than Grrm writing?

i generally don't agree with the opinion of the show being better written than fire & blood. Despite how rushed the book is and some flaws it has, it's insane to claim the deep themes don't evoke a better storytelling.

With that being said, if you separate the two completely and take the show as a product of its own I suppose the appeal to show Alicent in particular is a character who has suffered a lot due to her circumstances.

Alicent in the show starts by being a 14 year old who is best friends with the princess. Her father forces her to "seduce" the king who has recently lost his wife and the king completely goes along with it.

As a consequence, she's brought into a marriage unwillingly where she has to fulfill her duty (marital rape) and she loses the only friendship she had because the princess viewed the action as a betrayal....

Safe to say those are already enough to give the audience room to sympathize.

in episode 5, there's this strange shift where young Alicent is supposed to be heading towards an "antagonistic" role by wearing her green dress at rhaenyra's wedding and she seems to be embracing her family's (the Hightower's) support. <- I use the word "supposed" because the whole thing is very strangely written and Alicent’s feelings over criston & rhaenyra never made sense. It doesn't help the cast has all said different things about it, so let's leave it vague.

Moving to ep6-10 Alicent who is an adult and meant to be more shady (depending on the interpretation you go with). Some people still love her because they pity her, she's a character who has suffered and continues to suffer. She never really gains agency in the years; her father is still controlling, her rotting husband is still shitty, her unruly sons are heading towards being awful and she cannot understand the daughter she has.

There are plenty of actions that make her dislikable to other people; the holier than thou attitude, disrespecting/attacking rhaenyra publicly, her hypocrisy over passing judgement towards others and not her own family etc

But for the people who root for show Alicent sympathy & empathy seem to be the key. Some acknowledge her flaws and still love her despite them while other pretend they're not here or they justify them.

It's also important to mention than while this definitely doesn't apply towards all Alicent fans I've definitely seen the extremists ones loving her due to her being a submissive character who accepts the abuse in the patriarchal environment without fighting back and as a matter of fact supporting this way of life and of course she's doing all that while looking pretty because Olivia Cookie is objectively a beautiful woman

[thenatco]

You know, I’ve seen plenty of posts and YouTube videos discussing how Rhaenyra would make a bad queen. I wish someone would be original and make a post about why Aegon would make a good king other than the fact that he was born with dangly bits. Despite all of Rhaenyra’s flaws, like her sense of entitlement and lack of diplomacy, she actually was trained to rule. Has Aegon even attended one small council meeting? The people who think that any of Aegon’s short comings can be shored up by the guidance of either Alicent or Otto need to remember that they’re not the ones who’ll be sitting on the Iron Throne. A good King’s Hand is ineffective if the king won’t take their advice. Of course, I’ve already read Fire and Blood so I know how the story ends. I just don’t believe that Aegon would be a good ruler even if Rhaenyra had agreed to support him. Now if Rhaenyra had had the support of the entire realm? Maybe.

[lemonhemlock]

I can’t find the post now, but recently you reblogged something about how the show didn’t think through the implications of making the Velaryons black- it phrased mte very well! I love the actors chosen to portray all these characters- Steve Toussaint is wonderful, and as you said, Wil Johnson absolutely maximized his time as Vaemond. Both actresses for Laena were criminally underused, and Phoebe and Bethany are excellent! I have no complaints about casting! But the writing for the Velaryons specifically just makes it so uncomfortably obvious. For one, in F&B, this family is already shafted by team black. Laenor cuckolded and eventually killed, Vaemond murdered and the cousins mutilated- in the context of the show, for saying the very obvious truth! Like I’m shocked they didn’t think through how this would play on TV, aside from allowing Laenor to live (which is its own thing that has weird ripples they also didn’t seem to think through)

The show then takes it a step further and makes Rhaena and Baela little more than set dressing for the first season. In F&B, we know both girls have plenty of significant moments to come, and if they were white characters played by white actresses, it wouldn’t seem so glaring. But obviously they aren’t, and it instead reads like black characters getting shelved in favor of white leads. It’s just so frustrating to see major showrunners not seem to comprehend how these choices will be viewed by modern audiences. Sorry to rant in your ask! It was the first time I’d seen that touched on in a way that really spelled out the problem here.

Hello there, thanks for dropping by. I'm torn on the issue of the Velaryons, because, on the one hand, for all the criticism, it does make a difference, especially for the actors. You have to question whether HotD would have really been improved upon if everyone were white. It's a ridiculous question to ask, because networks trying to be more inclusive and hire more actors of colour is always going to be a good thing at least for said actors' careers. And the Velaryon actors really hit it out of the park with their limited screen time. Even so, the visibility spike they must have had by appearing in a very popular show watched by millions can't hurt, no matter how mangled their character's development is. So, ultimately, are we really worse off with making the Velaryons black? Not saying I have the answer to these problems, but it's not as easy as just dismissing this decision for diversity points.

On the other hand, there's really no way to say this differently, but not only are the Velaryons shafted hard by the Targaryens in the book, they also end up shafting each other. Corlys does his darnest to prevent his granddaughters from inheriting, Baela and Rhaena bring their 6-year-old cousin Daenaera to marry her off to their brother, Alyn cheats on Baela etc. It's very messy. All of these characters are flawed and meant to be critiqued, but race-swapping them has also geared the conversation away from that, since they already suffer from being shelved in favour of white leads, like you said, so fans are perhaps more wary of being critical of them.

It's true that Baela and Rhaena are reduced to set dressing in the show, but their participation in the war is very limited in the books too. I've criticised their acquiescence to Rhaenyra's betrothal plot in the show, but they're content to be the consorts and not heiresses in the books, as well. So this is not just a show-only thing, it's in line with their book behaviour.

There is also a popular interpretation of Rhaena's character as a symbol of hope and reconciliation for the Targaryen dynasty. It's true that she is the more diplomatic and gentle of the sisters, but, in the wake of HotD... how do you chime into the conversation to point out that ultimately this is a character that was designed to be a white Targaryen girl who just hatched a fire-breathing monster and could very well partake in that supernatural power? (Baela is worried she might use Morning to avenge her first husband's death) I realise that mine is decidedly the unpopular interpretation, but for a corner of the fandom that is so hellbent on criticising the Targaryens for their use of dragons and wholeheartedly agrees that Westeros is better off without them, Rhaena gets off the hook a lot for perpetuating this very system.

In addition, no one bothers to point out that Morning also dies pretty shortly afterwards (for a dragon). Where exactly is the hope here and for whom? Not for the King, certainly, as Rhaena leaves court because her brother cannot stand to be in the presence of dragons (she says she feels unwelcome). He is known to history as dragonbane as the last known dragon dies in 153 AC, so there's no way Morning was older than 24 when she died. After that, House Targaryen's obsession to bring dragons back will haunt them for the rest of their history.

[This is more of an aside, not criticism, but indicative of the same environment. Rhaena's marriage to Garmund Hightower is also seen through rose-tinted glassed. Fans like to think that her six daughters are indicative of a happy relationship, but they do not take the Lady Sam situation into account. If you look at the Hightower family tree, the High Septon refused to marry Lyonel, the heir, to Lady Sam and for a good chunk of time, all their six children were illegitimate. Martyn, the second son, had no issue. Which means that the High Tower would pass to Garmund's line. Perhaps we should interrogate if the reason they had so many children was because what Garmund needed/wanted was a boy, but they just kept having girls. In any case, this exercise was rendered futile at one point, as the new High Septon did indeed agree to marry Lyonel and Lady Sam, after which they got their children legitimized.]

[darklinaforever]

The number of inconsistencies in the series that aren't even in the core book is quite staggering.

1) The tournament in honor of the heir in episode 1, where the participants literally massacre each other to death.

2) No ladies-in-waiting for Rhaenyra. (While she has some in the book, Harwin's sisters)

3) Apparently Alicent can hang out in the king's apartments without her reputation suffering. (It never happens in the book)

4) Criston Cole who flouts guest rights and gets away with it. (While in the book Cole kills Joffrey by accident during a tournament)

5) Rhaenys and Corlys apparently having a say in who Baela and Rhaena marry... Lol. I hear they know that the sons of Rhaenyra are illegitimate unlike the daughters who are "pureblood" Velaryon. I hear Rhaenys took Baela as a ward and Lucerys can't marry anyone just because he's Driftmark's heir, but the thing is, it doesn't work that way. For Rhaenyra to seek an agreement with Rhaenys makes sense, but for Rhaenys to declare loud and clear in front of the court that she wholeheartedly agrees to it, as if she was the one who had rights over the girls is complete bullshit. For once, I don't even think it's done to minimize Daemon as a father. These jerks just can't write a historical series, obsessed with their cheap feminism. (And again, in the book it's Rhaenyra, Daemon and Laena who decide the engagement)

I'm sure there's plenty more crap like that, but I'm too tired to fully think about it. Clearly, you have to suspend your credulity on several levels in front of this series. She's nice, but we're far from THE series of the year, let alone being one of the best series, period. The fact that the Landa audience seems blind to all the flaws in the show, including the treatment of the characters, is beyond me. Everyone acclaims it as a masterclass. The writers are going to get so overwhelmed after that...

[horizon-verizon]

Some Aemond stans are extremely annoying. Like, I do think Aemond is an interesting character in the show, but a lot of his stans act like he literally did nothing wrong ever and that he’s actually a good person. It’s true that he was insecure and bullied as a kid, and that’s awful, but he very clearly had a darkness inside him even as a kid, and it came out in full force after he got Vhaegar.

Even before that Aemond was calculating and clever, so much so that it was almost unsettling. I get why he wanted a dragon so badly, but he was very callous in the fact that he went after Vhaegar the same day her rider just died. And I don’t believe that Aemond as a kid didn’t realize it was wrong to do that.

As I said before, Aemond is very smart. He knew he was doing something wrong which is why he made sure to go after Vhaegar when everyone was asleep. And it’s not like Vhaegar was the only available dragon. As Daemon says later, there are plenty of riderless dragons.

Aemond just wanted Vhaegar because she was the biggest and so he didn’t care who it would hurt if he got her. Aemond also showed absolutely no compassion for his cousins who had just lost their mother. Instead he took pleasure in being able to tell Rhaena that a pig would suit her.

The physical fight was not started by him, but he certainly kept escalating it even though he was clearly stronger than all four of them. He clearly enjoyed being in power and seeing all the kids terrified. I don’t think Aemond was really going to kill either of his nephews or cousins, but I do think he enjoyed seeing them scared of him and at his mercy.

Aemond is a complex character. He has suffered and been wronged but he isn’t just a victim and he has a very real dark side and flaws.

Yes, HotD Aemond is not a totally helpless victim.

Nonetheless, the show seems to want us to feel that he has some justified victimhood or that he’s “just” trying to prove how much of a Targ warrior he is. 

His chasing down Lucerys and “accidentally” killing him instead of just killing  him because he wanted to encourages the viewer to see him as this guy that doesn’t know what his own limits are, doesn’t know how to control himself or his dragon (even after years of being with her) because he’s so desperate. 

It mirrors how Sara Hess once said that Aegon II doesn’t know what rape is, that he is like a man who pushes for more sex with his girlfriend in jail in that one episode she wrote for Orange is the New Black. 

So Aemond has no accountability, because he “didn’t know”?! No, he had ample reason to understand the dangers of his own actions. He just chose not to care and believe in his control until his control swept away from him.

But if we take the episode at face value and Aemond was just trying to scare Lucerys.....he’s old enough then to pick and choose the battles he finds himself in, and this was not even a battle. He chose to make it one. He decides to go forth after already winning Storm’s End. Why? 

Because he feels entitled to do so and is trying to prove his masculine Targ strength--not because he was bullied. The one bullying scene with no scenes of him antagonizing the Velyron boys makes it seem that he is more vulnerable than he would have been, with Alicent’s words in his ears. Which is the whole point behind him insulting & fighting the V boys after he already won?

The show can’t make up its mind and truly contradicts itself way too much to be taken as a coherent story/a piece of media. Yet it clearly leans more towards the villanous greens than it should.

And with Ryan saying that we’re not going to like the blacks very much next season (and I know precisely why as a book reader), I do not anticipate all of the green stans later coming into my asks and harassing me about how “wrong” I was for supporting Rhaenyra and Daemon.

[themovieblogonline]

House of the Dragon Season 2 Episode 3: A Thrilling Ride in Westeros

Welcome back, fellow fans of #DemDragons! We’re diving into House of the Dragon Season 2 Episode 3. This episode delivers a rollercoaster of emotions and plot twists coming out of the events of the last episode. We’ll keep it spoiler-free, but trust me, there's a lot to unpack. https://youtube.com/live/vxfNJq20Gbs The Good One of the standout aspects of this episode is the dynamic character development. We see some of our favorite characters like Aegon and Ser Cristin evolving in unexpected ways. Aegon's transformation from a reckless youth to a determined leader is both fascinating and engaging. His newfound resolve adds a fresh layer to his character that keeps us on our toes. Ser Criston takes his new title as The Hand to heart, while still feeling the guilt of the events of the last episode. The actors continue to deliver powerful performances that elevate the episode. Rhaenyra and Rhaenys stand out with their intense and heartfelt scenes. Their interactions are filled with tension and emotion, adding depth to their characters. These performances are a testament to the talent of the cast and their dedication to bringing these complex characters to life. House of the Dragon also continues to master the art of political intrigue. The episode introduces new alliances that promise to shake up the power dynamics in Westeros. These alliances are intriguing and leave us guessing about each character's true motives. The shifting loyalties of characters like Daemon, Otto, and Allicent keep the plot engaging and unpredictable. The visual effects in this episode are top-notch. The scenes are beautifully shot, capturing the grandeur of Westeros in stunning detail. Whether it's the updated opening credits or the epic battle scenes, the visuals do not disappoint. They enhance the storytelling, making the episode a feast for the eyes. The Bad While the episode is thrilling, it suffers from pacing issues. Some scenes feel rushed, while others drag on a bit too long. This uneven pacing disrupts the flow of the episode and can make it hard to stay fully engaged. A more balanced approach to scene length could enhance the overall experience. A few subplots feel underdeveloped. There are moments where the show hints at deeper storylines but doesn't fully explore them. This can be frustrating for viewers who are invested in these characters and their arcs. More time spent on these subplots could add richness to the narrative. At times, character motivations feel inconsistent. Ser Criston and Aemond are the biggest offenders in this episode. Some decisions made don't align with their established personalities or previous actions. Overall Thoughts Despite its flaws, House of the Dragon Season 2 Episode 3 is a thrilling and visually stunning episode that keeps us hooked. The dynamic character development, intriguing alliances, and gripping plot twists make it a must-watch for fans. While it has pacing issues and underdeveloped subplots, the powerful performances and breathtaking visuals make up for these shortcomings. Whether you're a longtime fan or a newcomer to Westeros, this episode offers plenty of excitement and intrigue. Stay tuned as we continue to unravel the mysteries and dramas of House of the Dragon! Read the full article