#the lyanna relationship is complicated and one i have to define but I think I would prefer

[godblooded]

big write up on how my rhaegar is my own interpretation (and how behind i am on westerosi literature) coming soon to a dash near you.

[maevelin]

I didn't watch the episode, I just read recaps, so I didn't have any context for that picture, and when I saw it I legit thought that was Viserys. I was wondering what the hell he had to do with anything, then I read that it was supposed to be Rhaegar and was like 'what the hell?' Wasn't Rheagar supposed to be like the most beautiful man in the 7 kingdoms? Also, I think I would have honestly preferred it had he actually kidnapped Lyanna, instead of this 'let's shit on Elia' crap that's going on.

Let me start with this because I find it quite interesting:

Also, I think I would have honestly preferred it had he actually kidnapped Lyanna, instead of this ‘let’s shit on Elia’ crap that’s going on.            

That is debatable. And this is where the inability of the writers to convey right their story comes in. Basically the Song of Ice and Fire and subsequently Game of Thrones are based on the European Medieval history. Basically the War of the Roses.

Now back then the term annulment had a different meaning in the way we view it today. But it was not that uncommon when it came to dissolving Royal Marriages. It was not easy but it was not impossible either. The war of the Roses ended in the fall of the Plantagenet dynasty and the foundation of the Tudor dynasty. The Tudors are known mostly for Queen Elizabeth and her notorious father King Henry viii and his quests for annulling his marriages and having many wives.

Let us go back a little bit.

Truth is that the Plantagenet Dynasty on the Throne actuallybegan with the conqueror Henry II and… an annulment. Eleanor of Aquitaine was at first married with the King of France Louis VII. When she had at first asked for an annulment of her marriage her request was denied by the Pope. However a few years later and since she had not produced a male heir for the French Crown (only two daughters if I am not mistaken) she got her annulment and married Henry Plantagenet (King Henry II) bringing with her more regions and wisdom and influence and power. Later on they had children that furthered the line (sons and daughters) and their relationship turned bad (revolts and betrayals and whatnot) but that is another story. The point is that Eleanor was seeking to have an annulment and was empowered by it. That is the one side of the coin.

Fast forward to the end of the War of the Roses and the children that presented the union of the red and the white roses (Lancaster and York). Arthur and Henry sons of the King Henry VII. By the time Henry VII’s reign ended only his son Henry was alive and was considered by everyone in England as something that most people forget as they focus on how his reign eventually unfolded and ended. But at the beginning he was considered the hope of the nation. A good beautiful prince. An idealist. A romantic young man. A warrior even. The beginning of a bright era after the bleak one his father left behind with all his mistrust and fears and seclusion. Hard to believe but he was beloved.

Prince Henry represented hope. He was raised believing in the tales of King Arthur and Camelot. He believed in chivalry and he liked to joust and be active. At first after the way his father had mistreated Catherine of Aragon he actually treated her right. He married her (a choice he consciously made) and he actually cared for her. Loved her even. Not the head over hills kind of passionate love but the sweet love and caring. He was attentive and gentle and happy with Catherine. Something many people forget due to how their story ended but at the beginning they were a happy couple. Henry was there for her when they mourned children and miscarriages and Catherine won for him a great victory (which made him both proud and resentful since he had lost the war he was at while she defended England in his absence in a defining moment in English history). But Catherine could not give him what he wanted. A son. The Tudor dynasty was new at the throne. Fragile still. His father’s mistrust and doubt were Henry’s teachings and obsessions. He wanted to ensure that the crown would remain to his family line. He did not want any more civil wars and to be the one to end what his father (and let us face it his grandmother Margaret Beaufort!) had created. He sought for an annulment but Catherine refused to give him one. Then the story goes on as we all know it. And Catherine turned miserable but her strong stance would later on ensure the rise of her daughter on the Throne. That was the other side of the coin.

But it is all a game of thrones literally as it was with the beginning of the Plantagenet line too and with how the Tudor line began and ended.

All that is what could have inspired Rhaegar’s story. There are many parallels to draw from. More so than just giving an easy cope out annulment so to ensure Jon’s rightful right to the throne which since the Targaryen Dynasty fell Jon know technically has no right. Unless he claims it by conquest as Daenerys is about to do and if she succeeds the crown will be hers by right of conquest and not so much of blood since she will be the founder of the Targaryen’s new dynasty on the Throne. But that is all too complicated for this discussion.

Back to Rhaegar. Either he kidnapped Lyanna or not that is not the issue.The problem is how the writers aimed to simplify it the way they did. Yes this is a tv program and some things need to be differently conveyed than how they are in literature but still the way the worked with this was plain ridiculous. Rushed and just superficial. And not only superficial as a solution for their show but superficial in the way they even handled their own idea inside the show.

But either way we do not know Elia’s stance on the annulment. Either she was like Eleanor of Aquitaine of Catherine of Aragon. Elia is portrayed as the victim because of how the rebellion ended but Rhaegar could not have known when he annulled his marriage that this was how it was going to end. Elia back then had two children first in the line of succession after Rhaegar and House Martell was backing her up. House Martell that was infamous for supporting the rule of women too and how much more of Elia that was so close to the crown.

Rhaegar was known to be noble and an idealist as Henry VIII once was. This was only but the beginning of his story (which ended before it even began) and it must have been easy to compare a gentle young and unattested prince with the Mad King and favor him in the comparison. But Rhaegar was also the crown prince. He was there to also play the game of thrones. In his mind he wanted to ensure the prophecy and to produce three children for the dragon to have three heads. Maybe he was even waiting for the third child to be born in order to depose his father.

No one in the Game of Throne is or was an innocent. Making Rhaegar the monster of the story would not work either. He was not the white prince or the dark prince either. He met a tragic end because he did not play the game of thrones right and his story became a romantic or terrible tale depending the point of view. But either Rhaegar fell in love with Lyanna or wanted a third child Elia could not give him or was obsessed only with the prophecies or all of the above together is not so much the issue as it is how he played the game. And how Elia played the game. Let us not be so hasty at putting her in the position of the victim. Margaery Tyrell in the show for example will be remembered as a tragic tale of a beautiful maiden. A sweet beauty. But how many will remember her years down the line for the cunning mind she truly was. For her shrewdness and ambitions and conniving nature. For her brilliant strategic mind and her intelligence. History is also unfair to the victims too. Because it might present them in a more forgiving tragic light but it removes all agency from them. And truth is that we do not know how Elia’s mind worked. She was the sister of Oberyn and Doran Martell. How possible it is you think for her to have been the damsel in distress. Yes she was a loving mother. Yes she might have had a fragile health because giving birth in that time was dangerous for women (and if  you think about it Lyanna that is portrayed as the wild spirit died in childbirth). Yes she was murdered. But she lived under the thumb of a Mad King and a husband that turned his eyes to a young child bride. How did she endure? How was she surviving the Targaryens? What was her true power in all of that? We do not know that either. How was it possible for the annulment to have been kept a secret. Even by Varys? Was it because Elia agreed and wanted it to remain a secret too until the opportune moment? Did she not object at all? Not knowing about it would be impossible.

Elia was also trapped by the Mad King and then she and her children became casualties of war and victims. But we do not know her stance and the grounds of the annulment. We know that her fate and her family elevated her to the pedestal of a martyr saint and maybe she was. But she was also the mother of the first male Targaryen heir and of a Targaryen daughter. Would her son still have a claim to the throne or Rhaegar planned to depose him too. Would her daughter not matter at all in the equation? Would Elia allow this? Would Rhaegar allow this?

Doubtful. Because Elia was a Martell. Unbowed unbent unbroken. And we do not even know what Elia thought of the prophecies either.

Also doubtful because Rhaegar was obsessed with having three children not just one. Unless he planned to have three children with Lyanna. Or he probably believed that his child with Lyanna would be a girl just like Aegon the conqueror had two sisters. But based on the annulment and Rhaegar’s mistakes even if he had won the battle of the Trident then Westeros could be heading for another civil war after his death  (or even before his death too) if he had left an issue of two male heirs claiming the throne and one more daughter that was born before Jon.

Not to mention that the GoT writers ended up giving Jon the same name Elia’s son had. Which was either sloppy writing or showed the depth of Rhaegar’s obsession with ensuring that the prophecy would come to fruition by his bloodline by honoring how the Targaryen dynasty had began. Question mark here too. And to all that mess the writers literally responded by saying hey Jon is the rightful heir of the Iron Throne because you know…there was an annulment. Sure.

In any case the point was not how to portray Rhaegar as clearly being the fuckboy of the story and not shitting on Elia. Elia was already in a very complicated place either Rhaegar fell in love or not and chances are that she was about to enter the game of thrones too and protect the rights of her children if she had not already. But Robert won the Rebellion and Tywin made sure the Targaryen heirs would die (aside those that would get to Ned’s witness program lol) so we will never know.

The point was for the writers to nail the nuances and actually give a realistic background that would make sense. Throwing in the annulment as a deus ex machina for empowering more Jon’s position in the narrative is a very superficial way to say a story. This was such an epic and complex backstory and the just threw in the easy loophole and moved on.

And last but not least:

I didn’t watch the episode, I just read recaps, so I didn’t have any context for that picture, and when I saw it I legit thought that was Viserys. I was wondering what the hell he had to do with anything, then I read that it was supposed to be Rhaegar and was like ‘what the hell?’ Wasn’t Rheagar supposed to be like the most beautiful man in the 7 kingdoms?

[him-e]

Sansa and Ned, kingmakers

x, x

It’s been often discussed how Sansa and Ned share some character traits and how their storylines have common points (Littlefinger being a mutual false ally, the Vale, etc). But with season 6, everything clicked into place, at least for me. I know many viewers were frustrated that Jon was made king instead of Sansa, and while I think it would have worked MUCH better if the writers had kept Robb’s will in the story, I would make the opposite argument—that it was a good writing decision, as it highlights Sansa’s political trajectory as a mirror to Ned’s. Because, like Ned before her, it isn’t in Sansa’s cards (at least at this stage) to be a queen, but to ride at a king’s side, and be, at least in part, the architect of his success. (warning: spoilers for season 7)

(pictured: Ned and Sansa smiling affectionately at their bffs)

to begin with, there are a few narrative parallels between Robert’s rebellion and Jon&Sansa’s /Reconquest of Winterfell/.

both are a reaction to a violent, sadistic tyrant;

both were sparked by an explicit threat to the rebels’ right to exist: Aerys wanted Ned and Robert’s heads, Ramsay more or less threatened to rape, torture and kill everyone with the Pink Letter;

both are in response/connected to unforgivable crimes committed against the blood of Winterfell (Rickon is Brandon, the trueborn heir horribly executed, but he’s also Lyanna, the captive Stark, the other catalyst of the war, dying tragically in front of her brother who came to her too late);

both wars end with a bittersweet victory, tainted by the burial of (a) beloved sibling(s);

the prelude to both is a… complicated journey back to Winterfell that begins in the Vale. In Sansa’s case, it happens long before the wheels of the war are set in motion; in a sense it is what sets those wheels in motion (although I’m talking specifically about her arc in the show, I’m moderately confident that she will make that journey in the books too, and it might be an even closer parallel to Ned if she, as it’s often speculated, travels by boat from the Vale to White Harbor) 

Sansa’s saving the day with the knights of the Vale is reminiscent of the battle of the bells, where Ned came to Stoney Sept with a Stark/Tully/Arryn army (!!!) in time to save the wounded Robert and turn the tables against the royalists;

finally, both wars bookend the secret of Jon’s parentage: the end of Robert’s rebellion marked the beginning of Ned’s lie about Jon, the conclusion of the battle for Winterfell, with Jon being crowned king at Sansa’s side, heralds the end of the secret and the unveiling of the truth—clearly for the audience, and soon for the characters as well.

Father and daughter, in different times and circumstances, make the history of the seven kingdoms through a war that sees them as co-leaders and that ends with the extinction of an entire house and the rise of a new king. 

it’s interesting how Sansa’s position in the war mirrors and contrasts Ned’s. 

neither of them were supposed to raise the banners during their life. Ned as a second son, Sansa as a girl, they weren’t prepared to deal with this. But due to extreme circumstances and extreme violence perpetrated against them and their blood, they had no choice but take the survival of their home in their own hands.

not unlike Sansa with lord Glover & Lyanna Mormont, Ned was initially met with skepticism and had some trouble convincing people to jump on the rebel bandwagon.

they both have extremely high, personal stakes in this war (even more so for Sansa, who has directly experienced Ramsay’s sadism on her own skin). 

but they take almost a sidekick role, more or less implicitly pushing their partner forward as as they recognize the latter makes for a better “face” for the rebellion (Robert because he had an actual claim to the iron throne, Jon because he’s male and a relatively experienced commander)—it is Robert’s rebellion, much as it is the battle of the Bastards.

they’re at his side when he triumphs (Sansa literally, as she’s seated next to Jon during his crowning), but the victory is tainted by an opening rift between them. For Ned and Robert, it was the disagreement over the brutal murders of Elia’s children, for Jon and Sansa it’s a mix of mutual trust issues and Sansa’s growing resentment for being passed over; in both cases, what began as a closely-knit duo evolves into at least one person being severely disillusioned about the other (and we know that in Ned’s case the disillusionment re:Robert was never really resolved, but intensified when 15 years later he is named Hand).

unlike Ned towards the Iron Throne, however, Sansa has an interest and an actual claim for the seat of Winterfell (that she’s only partially and ambiguously aware of during the whole campaign), and Jon’s rise as King in the North happens at the expense of her own birthright being literally bypassed in front of her eyes. This makes the conflict between Jon and Sansa more layered, and possibly running deeper, than the one between Ned and Robert.

there’s a sibling or sibling-like relationship between both Ned and Robert (fostered together) and Jon and Sansa (raised as half-siblings). While Ned knew that Robert wasn’t his actual brother, seeing him in that sense was a deliberate choice of the heart. For Sansa, it’s almost the opposite: the reason she trusts Jon and is willing to ride at his side is largely because of a sibling bond they actually don’t share (though a family bond still stands, via Lyanna). Who knows if Sansa eventually comes to make Ned’s choice—prioritize nurture over nature and accept Jon as a brother despite not sharing any parent with him. It will be interesting to see how this evolves post r+l=j.

at some point, both Ned and Sansa end up doing something against the other person’s back and keeping a dangerous secret that could be perceived as a betrayal and does contain the seed for a potential threat to the other person’s rule. Ned secretly adopts the last natural son of Rhaegar Targaryen, passing him off as his own bastard. Sansa secretly asks for LF’s help, allowing him into Winterfell’s politics, with all his schemes and personal agendas (and we know LF will try to undermine Jon’s rule). Notice how we’re supposed to sympathize with Ned, but not with Sansa. Ned’s protecting his nephew, while it looks like Sansa’s motivation is either ambition or a lingering hostility towards Jon’s bastardy, neither of which seems particularly noble.

again sooo unlike Ned, Sansa is (seemingly) positioned as the ruthless one in dealing with the remnants of house Bolton AND those who didn’t support their cause despite being bound to house Stark by centuries of vassalage. See: “they can hang”, her execution of Ramsay—and even before that, in season 5, her possibly planting in Ramsay the idea of killing Roose, Walda and the newborn heir (I’m not saying that Sansa intentionally used Ramsay as a proxy to wipe out the entirety of house Bolton, but… yeah, it makes an interesting counterpoint to Ned’s righteous fury at the deaths of little Aegon and Rhaenys).

one of the reasons why Ned was frustrated with Robert at the end of the Rebellion is that Robert ignored his advice to send Jaime to the Night’s Watch as punishment for breaking his oath. Guess who’s also frustrated that the king doesn’t listen to her advice?

yeah.

NOTE: due to the purpose of this post, Jon takes Robert’s place in this Rebellion 2.0, but it goes without saying that’s merely a circumstantial parallel, as the two couldn’t be more dissimilar in personality. Of course, Jon is also = Ned in this scenario, as many of the things above also apply to him, see especially the /going to war against a tyrant who left him no choice and committed atrocities against his family/; also the whole parallel/contrast situation re: Lyanna and Sansa, with Ned rushing to save his sister who was dying inside a tower VS Jon watching his sister come to him after saving herself by jumping off a tower (and how both Sansa’s and Lyanna’s captivities were a major factor in the war, though in different ways). (there ARE some fascinating aspects to Sansa’s season 5 storyline, imo).

I’m not going into this in depth, but it would also be interesting to compare/contrast all the above with the other “kingship” experience in house Stark’s recent history, Robb/Cat. (note how Catelyn has a “breaking of trust” moment too, when she released Jaime behind Robb’s back.) I’ve often seen Sansa compared to Cat via their common role of counselors/supporters of the newly made king, and not without reason, given the deliberate similarities between the two king in the north scenes and the two storylines in general (they were pretty heavy-handed with the Cat/Sansa parallels throughout season 6). But while Catelyn’s role is more in line with a typical mentor figure, due to the generational gap and, well, Catelyn being Robb’s mother, Ned and Sansa are, respectively, Robert’s and Jon’s age peers. Their role is less of advisors and more of co-leaders. 

Catelyn generally took a socially-conscious sidelined role, and exerted her influence through soft power and private conversations, or as an envoy. Sansa’s role is more upfront. She marches at Jon’s side, not behind. She participates to parleys and war councils. She discusses military plans. She addresses their allies and bannermen directly, and personally demands fealty, even when Jon’s right at her side. She even shares with Jon the same cloak and Stark insignia, establishing the two of them as part of the same package. 

A package that she personally designed, btw.

(just a thought, does this make Dadvos the Jon Arryn of the situation? I bet it does.)

But here’s the problem: Sansa is a woman. She doesn’t physically lead her men to battle. She’s a leader, but not a military commander. This makes her political role in all of this harder to define, compared to the one Ned had in Robert’s Rebellion. Is Sansa a part of Jon’s retinue? A privileged advisor? Is she the equivalent of some, huh, queen consort, minus the consort part (I guess)? Is she Hand of the King? Is she Lady of Winterfell, implying that the two titles, lord of winterfell and king in the north, are now de facto distinct? And if so, is she Jon’s first vassal?

Or is she nothing but the king’s sister and the next one in line for succession (until Bran shows up)?

It’s all very blurry because it’s an unprecedented situation, at least in the North, and I think this confusion is at the root of a lot of the current tension between Jon and Sansa. It’s also why we see her in various stages of assertiveness throughout season 6: she is, herself, uncertain of her role, of what her prerogatives and boundaries are (see the war council pre-botb, in which she waits until everyone leaves to question Jon’s plans: it’s like, the more Jon grows into his role as military commander, the nearer the big battle gets, the more Sansa retreats to the shadows, painfully conscious that this is not her purview. The more anxious she gets, too). It’s clear that one of the main future challenges for Jon and Sansa as a team will be to sort out this confusion and define their respective roles.

in light of these parallels, what to expect from season 7?

It looks likely (and spoilers confirm) that Jon and Sansa will have to part ways, at least for a while. Like Robert and Ned at the end of the Rebellion, Jon has to consolidate his rule across the country and this will bring him South, to Dragonstone and King’s Landing, while Sansa stays in Winterfell, entrenched behind its walls, reluctant to ever leave it again, like Ned himself did for so long. But fast forward 15 years after the Rebellion, and you’ll see Ned in King’s Landing again, sitting on the Iron Throne in Robert’s stead, as Hand of the King, and that’s exactly what Sansa is going to do in Winterfell during Jon’s absence. This will be a great testing ground to exercise her political skills, but what I’m actually interested in is how she might—like her father before her—be involved in a mission to thwart a treasonous plot against the King, a plot that features Petyr Baelish in a prominent role. The person Ned trusted to help him expose Robert’s enemies, and who betrayed him. This person is now whispering in Sansa’s ear, earning her trust, making himself *indispensable* like he did with Ned in King’s Landing. This person is simultaneously one of the puppeteers behind the War of the Five Kings, orchestrated Ned’s execution by manipulating Joffrey behind the scenes, and is now trying to use Sansa to undermine Jon and take control of the North. This person has to be dealt with VERY carefully, because, not unlike the Lannisters in AGOT, he holds a good portion of the wealth and the military resources that allow Jon and Sansa to maintain their rule.

It’s time for Sansa to come full circle, by confronting and defeating her father’s nemesis and fix the ultimate wrong, the original wound** that split house Stark in several broken pieces and sent it on a downward spiral: Ned’s death. Where Ned failed—his begrudging trust in Littlefinger being the reason of his fall—his daughter, his legacy, will prevail, by virtue of knowing the enemy intimately enough to predict his strategy and use it against him. The Ned in Sansa has shrunk (a bit) to make room for something of Littlefinger’s, and that’s precisely why she’s going to win this battle.

** because it is the original wound, it makes sense that Sansa, despite being formally in charge, isn’t alone in this. That Arya and Bran will play a role in casting LF down. It will be a joint effort by all of Ned’s children to bring the end of the man who destroyed their father.

in conclusion:

season 6 has firmly convinced me of Sansa’s potential as a political agent, but not necessarily as a queen—a ruling lady of an important castle or region, or, even better, a /hand of the king/ type. She’s still learning, she’s made some obvious mistakes along the way, and the fact that her political training comes from Littlefinger whereas Ned’s came from Jon Arryn inevitably makes her approach to /power/ a bit different than Ned’s—a bit more on the *scheming* side, as it seems that Sansa is growing more and more confident with the Game, in a way Ned was never able to be. 

But that’s only for the better. 

[thelegendofclarke]

(Part 1) I wanted to add to your discussion on compulsory femininity by saying everyone talks about it reference to Arya & Brienne which is fair discussion because they are perhaps the most negatively effected by it but compulsory femininity is a thing forced on ALL WOMEN IN THE SERIES EVEN IF THEY LIKE FEMININE THINGS OR PERFORM FEMININITY WELL and rarely do people talk about that in the discourse! Sansa is forced in KL while under Joff's thumb to perform femininity for him for example and

(Part 2) Cersei’s chapters make it very clear she was coerced and pushed into learning femininity and how to perform it as a little child, which she is most bitter about. Sansa may enjoy the performance of femininity and may be excellent at it but it does not mean she had anymore choice that Arya at choosing it, especially not as an 11 yr old. Femininity is FORCED on every woman in Westeros from the time they are babes, no woman in Westeros is free to choose it by their own will.

Hey Anon!

Yep, I totally concur… I think at this point this conversation is coming back around to where it started. (At least I think that’s where this specific conversation took off? God idek anymore tbh, I’m exhausted.) 

But yes definitely, that is where I started: with the point that compulsory femininity was forced on all the females in ASoIaF. In the Westerosi patriarchy, being traditionally feminine was the only way to be a “good woman,” and inevitably there are a vast array of reactions to this attempt at forcing conformity. That’s what happens any time there is a societal standard, or “mold” basically: some people fit into it seamlessly, some people force themselves to fit into it, some people chafe under it, some people flourish under it, some people can’t conform, some people refuse to conform, and some people never think to do anything but conform. The problem, at least for me, is when you remove one character (i.e. Sansa) from the context of the setting or the story. 

It’s interesting though, that you bring up both Brienne and Cersei. Thinking about the pure range of reactions from female characters to their gender, womanhood, and femininity in the series is honestly fascinating… 

I suppose it depends on how you define “negatively affected,” but to me the character that harbors the most anger and resentment toward her gender is not one of the more “masculine” female characters like Arya or Brienne, but Cersei. Cersei, who of all the female characters is probably one of the most overtly (traditionally) feminine in her appearance and her actions, is the one who seems to have the most veraciously negative mentality about her gender and her role in society. Not only is Cersei often highly critical of other women and what she perceives to be their weaknesses, there are several instances where she outright wishes she had been born a man:

Cersei’s face was a study in contempt. “What a jape the gods have made of us two,” she said. “By all rights, you ought to be in skirts and me in mail.”- AGoT

Cersei sniffed. “I should have been born a man. I would have no need of any of you then. None of this would have been allowed to happen. How could Jaime let himself be captured by that boy? And Father, I trusted in him, fool that I am, but where is he now that he’s wanted? What is he doing?”- ACoK

“We were so much alike, I could never understand why they treated us so differently. Jaime learned to fight with sword and lance and mace, while I was taught to smile and sing and please. He was heir to Casterly Rock, while I was to be sold to some stranger like a horse, to be ridden whenever my new owner liked, beaten whenever he liked, and cast aside in time for a younger filly. Jaime’s lot was to be glory and power, while mine was birth and moonblood.”- ACoK

“If the gods had given her the strength they gave Jaime and that swaggering oaf Robert, she could have made her own escape. Oh, for a sword and the skill to wield it. She had a warrior’s heart, but the gods in their blind malice had given her the feeble body of a woman.”- ADwD

“His sister liked to think of herself as Lord Tywin with teats…” (Tyrion POV), AFfC

She is outwardly very feminine, but she has some traits that don’t read as traditionally effeminate at all. She aims to be ruthless, is ambitious, craves domination, and has virtually no empathy; and she frames all these traits as masculine in her head. Cersei learned how to perpetuate and perform femininity in a socially acceptable way, despite her constant frustration and contempt for its constraints. And above all she is bitter and angry.

Brienne on the other hand, couldn’t look or act less like Cersei. She is one of the most “masculine” female characters in appearance and stereotypical behavior. However, she doesn’t seem to resent her gender nearly to the extent that Cersei does. Internally, we also know that Brienne’s POV is a sharp contrast to Cersei’s. Brienne is often times insecure; she shows vulnerability; and she is idealistic, romantic, and profoundly empathetic on levels that Cersei never comes close to expressing. She wants to be a knight, but she never tries to pass as a man nor wishes she had been born male. Yes, she recognizes and resents the limitations placed on her because of her gender, but she also actually expresses respect for women as well:

“No, but you have courage. Not a battle courage perhaps but… I don’t know… a kind of woman’s courage.”— ACoK

“[L]adies die in childbed. No one sings songs about them.” — ACoK

Brienne identifies as a woman, she just has a hard time framing who she is within the very narrow standards and constructs of how a lady “should look” and “should act” and “should be.”

Similarly Arya, another stereotypically “masculine-acting” female character, deeply and strongly identifies herself as female. So strongly in fact, that she corrects people who misgender her:

“Yoren, as it please m’lord. My pardons for the hour.” He bowed to Arya. “And this must be your son. He has your look.”“I’m a girl,” Arya said, exasperated.— AGOT

“…It’s too big for you, lad, and besides, Anguy here could put three shafts through you before you could hope to reach us.”“He could not,” Arya said, “and I’m a girl.”— ASOS

And challenges people who express disregard for women:

“The woman is important too!” -  AGOT

Not only that, Arya displays an immense amount of respect, and admiration for other women. Her most adored heroes are figures like Wenda the White Fawn, Visenya Targaryen, and Queen Nymeria or Rhyonar. She also expresses high regard for women like the Mormonts, Lady Smallwood, as well as her mother Catelyn and her aunt Lyanna. Arya’s issues with femininity and issues with her gender don’t seem to be directly externally at women in general but manifest more internally with feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, as well as frustration with being pigeonholed and confined to a role she has no true desire to fill.

Characters like Brienne and Arya’s issues aren’t with femininity and womanhood itself, but with the confines of compulsory femininity that their patriarchal society aggressively forced upon them. Their problem is not with the fact that they are women, but that society is presuming to tell them they are “doing it wrong.” Their rebellion and rejection is not focused on prescribed gender roles, not on gender itself. Whereas Cersei, who outwardly seems to be the epitome of a Good Westerosi Woman, in reality loathes and disdains femininity and views her gender as weak on the whole. She’s been taught to view her womanhood as a detriment and she despises it. Cersei essentially views her gender as the root cause of all her problems, and I think she truly believes that if she were a man all those problems would be solved. 

All three of these women have very complicated relationships with gender and femininity; in a society with such extremely rigid and constrictive prescribed gender roles, I think its more than understandable. But I would say that, at least mentally, Cersei fell victim far more drastically to the patriarchy that indoctrinated women to hate no only each other but also themselves.

[poorshadowspaintedqueens]

masha-russia replied to your post “masha-russia replied to your post “lyannas: things im here for: jon...”

She just birthed a baby and was dying. Obviously she wanted the baby to live safely. I don't think Lyanna asking her own beloved brother - the only person who she saw before dying if we don't count the maids she might have had - to protect her baby is something exceptional or worth fangirling over. Almost every woman on Earth would do exactly what she did in her situation. It is just sad and touching maybe, nothing more.

And I am not hating on Lyanna or anything, I am just genuinely surprised that something as trivial as "keep my baby safe from harm" from a dying Mom is considered amazing and an accomplishement. You'd think that, with the enormous amount litterature

Oops sorry *enormous amount of litterature dedicated to the trope "Mothers love their children so much they'd die/kill for them", Lyanna's plea to keep Jon safe would be considered as ... just something normal.

The reason it’s taken me as long as it has to reply to this is partly because I was out all day yesterday, but also because I’ve had to think on it.

On the one hand, I agree with the accuracy of what you’ve posted here, at least as far as literature is concerned. Sure, literature is absolutely crammed with stereotypes and tropes about mothers’ relationships with their children--they love them too much, not enough, too hard, not hard enough, etc, ad nauseam.

(Now, I do want to clarify that what is being discussed here is the literary trope of motherhood as it pertains to ASOIAF, and that parenthood in the real world is WAY more complicated and nuanced across the gender spectrum and should be treated as such. Nor is it--or should it be--a conversation limited to those who possess uteruses.)

But one of the irritating and infuriating things about Lyanna Stark in canon is that we know approximately three things about her: She had the ‘wolf blood’ (whatever that means), she died giving birth to Jon Snow (assuming R+L=J), and she extracted a promise from her brother to protect her son and hide his identity. Her entire life is defined alternately by her identity as a mother and by the identities imposed upon her by the men surrounding her--the lost sister, the lost love, the face that inspired a hundred thousand corpses.

But we know nothing about her.

And that is what these posts are about. Characters in canon make an effort to understand and rationalize Rhaegar Targaryen in a way that they rarely, if ever, do for Lyanna or for Elia Martell, who is always tangled up in this story no matter how often canon (and fanon) wants to forget. So, what you’re saying above is accurate--in the sense that you’ve listed a variety of tropes about motherhood that, rightly or wrongly, permeate Western literature--but it’s kind of beside the point?

Thanks for commenting, though. I hope this explains my viewpoint effectively, and I’m happy to clarify if that’s needed/wanted.