Yep.

Absolutely.

But you see, "we must obey the law of the land"...the same land that has 15-year old child bride Alicent marry a seemingly over30 yr old!? Thought that Alicent's child-brideness was the defining reason for why she "deserved" to see her kids safe and sound from their sister "having" to kill them off to secure herself? Or that child brides was an absolute, horrible state? So we do support misogyny and sexual violence against women, even Alicent's?

Plus, the bk even still had Alicent having to use intimidation and cajoling to persuade the council members into crowning/stealing the crown for Aegon...much more than what show!Alicent was doing, who just kept saying that "it was what Viserys wanted" and "we can't kill Rhaenyra!" you'd think they'd want their fav/poor forever 15 to develop into an astute manipulator, to show some political prowess and persuasion ability, but noooo. they simply wish to avoid the blatant misogyny they already believe in so they can claim she's just helplessly trying to do "what's best".

Well, they've been claiming they were feminists even while supporting how Alicent's been changed and bashing both book and show Rhaenyra for being "spoiled", "a NLOG", and "not doing her duty" or "using her class above teenage, child bride Alicent and taking advantage of her privilege to do whatever she wants without thinking hos it would affect Alicent and her kids' safety" since episode 1/2 of the 1st season. So...yeah.

You can check out my blog's tagged posts of "perfect victim post" "tradwives" "tradcaths" "alicent stans" "Rhaenyra vs alicent" and "rhaenicent" for more if you like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I talked about Daeron, Daenerys, Maron, and the Blackfyres HERE.

Nice points! Esp considering that he was already marrying Myriah, why send off Daenerys to be married early?

I think that it has to do with Daemon Blackfyre, that he wanted to preserve his and his sister's reputation, (prevent "relations" b/t her and Daemon, and so there isn't another bastard as with Daena and their father for a multitude of reasons), OR he couldn't persuade Maron from including Daenerys in their deal. Maybe all at once, esp when he's trying to consolidate his own reign/legitimacy/authority. HERE is an interesting essay about his problems and how Daemon Blackfyre would have likely used Daeron's perceived "weakness" to bolster his own claim.

Still don't think the Martells are PoCs or the rest of Dorne (except those of the Greenblood or the "sandy" Dornish), BUT bc the Martells are still not really considered like the other Andal-worshippers bc of that Rhoynar ancestry giving them that absolute primogeniture and the particular accent they have (no most of them do not speak a different language, they just have an accent). So the bigotry against Dornish people is there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

that sounds good, particularly because she already has a sister named "Rhaena". Yeah, Targs had many different people sharing the same name and even an uncle-neo=phew did (Aegon the Elder & Aegon the Younger) while they lived and knew each other. But it's very different to make your kid share a name with your sibling. And those 2 Aegons barely interacted, seemingly, until after Rhaenyra died.

GRRM says this:

Yeah, they fell in love at some point but Daemon didn't act until 8 yrs passed after Daenerys' wedding. He seemed to moved on enough to have more than 5 kids with Rohanne of Tyrosh. That number of kids reveals that there is likely a strong bond between husband and wife. The same goes for Daenerys and Maron Martell.

And while you are attributing Daeron's unfitness to rule based on the amorality of his sending a 16-year-old to marry a grown man in a foreign place away from all she knew, Daemon did not rebel out of this sentiment. He also uses his own daughter, Calla, to have an alliance with Aegor Rivers. His reasoning/motives were:

Yes if we had a PoV, we'd likely see:

But his main motive towards the throne is much more than just Daenerys and his love for her. To me, it seems like the desire to get out of that bastard identity that follows him even after legitimization by becoming the winner in a succession crisis/rebellion/usurpation attempt.

I got into an argument with someone about this and my thought son him are there (you can also read the earlier reblog/rebuttal to that person), and back then I argued that Daemon Blackfyre seemed very much the would-be usurper/traitor of his brother Daeron II. I haven't seen or considered how he isn't, since he marries his daughter Calla to his other, 100% rebellious brother, Aegor Rivers.

I could be too harsh on Daemon, but again, I can't see him not thinking of himself as the one meant to rule. Perhaps this would upset some people, idk.

It’s fine to be tolerably religious, anon. I only speak of what religion -- as a sociopolitical institution that heavily influenced how people think and then interacted with each other and perceived the world around them, influencing them to see people who do not share their religion as “Other” and even inhuman (conquest and destruction of native lands/persons colonization, slavery to imperialism) -- has supported.

Throughout those events, we have Church officials sanctioning those acts as morally righteous. The Papal States licensed and organized public executions like the mazzatello and burning at the stake for crimes of heresy and politics, again, were never far behind like with Giancarlo Savonrola and the Pope Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia (Holy League against the French). Tales of the “Promised Land” for English religious sects (progentiors of todays’ non Catholic Christians) encouraged them to migrate away from persecution in England to the Americas, where they attacked indigenous groups and did much the same as Catholic conquistadors. The Anstey case of the 1160s had lawyers or just students of law used Church doctrine about marriage so that noble persons can obtain certain lands from a bastard-born relative. And ever afterwards, bastardry took on more and more meaning of “child out of wedlock”, rather than the prior “child with unimpressive lineage” the more and more people did this until it solidified.

Politics/religion were never not influencing/defining each other. 

It wasn't until the 18th century, a little of the 17th that we started seeing the Church/any religion start to actually be separated from the state, you see. And in the medieval ages, church-state could not, was not, and cannot now be separated when studying how people thought.

With that in mind, we can’t say that “the religion was perverted”, since religion came hand in hand with what we moderns would call “secular” life. and religion was always changes to fit political needs.

In ASoIaF, bastardy became more of an anthema after Daemon Blackfyre. After him, the Seven and its “Pope”/high Septon and its organization explicitly says this (The Sworn Sword) of bastards: 

AND from the official wiki under “Practices”:

This teaching is what strengthens and justifies the already-existing anxiety felt many lords and ladies have towards  bastard children and their participation/consideration in succession events. To revile children born out of wedlock even though such a thing is hardly something to be fearful of or ashamed of....unless you live in a feudal patriarchy where women’s bodies are policed and restricted into child-delivery and sex devices for their father, husbands, even sons’ political aims AND children’s “blood”/nature and selves are judged in a hierarchy before they are even aware that they exist.

I wrote this POST about how Alicent’s beliefs are self and outwardly destructive. Mind you, this is a teaching that solidified after Daemon Blackfyre rebelled, but it was always there ideologically and Church doctrine supported it before it became it: that bastards were untrustworthy as they did not come from marriages/controlled unions.