mouthporn.net
#stannis baratheon – @horizon-verizon on Tumblr
Avatar

editorialized torpedo

@horizon-verizon / horizon-verizon.tumblr.com

she/her -- ASoIaF Enthusiast -- (I will be changing the title of this blog frequently just because I want to)
Avatar
reblogged

The Wall and the Waning of Magic: 1/2

(this was originally a Twitter thread; re-posting here for ease of reading)

The Wall is an edifice created, best guesses conclude, some 8000 years prior to the events of A Game of Thrones; it was constructed by some combination of the First Men, led by Bran the Builder, those they called ‘Children of the Forest’, more rightly known as those who sing the song of earth (hereafter ‘singers’) and giants. It is patrolled by the Night’s watch, who protect the realms of men from what lies beyond; notably the Others, although this mission has been forgotten until very recently, with the so-called ‘Wildlings’ (Free Folk) taking the place of the great foe.

It is commonly accepted that the Wall is a net good, both in-universe and without, and that any distaste we may have about the necessity of the Night’s Watch pales in comparison to the horror that will occur when the Wall comes down.

I propose differently; I propose that the Wall is sickening and weakening the world, and it coming down will be one of the greatest moments of the tale – and moreover that the Wall was potentially always intended by its makers to be thrown down.

Magic Lingers

ASOIAF takes place in a world where magic is waning, to the point that learned men will insist magic is gone from the world entirely – and many of them consider this a good thing. The disappearing of magic is largely attributed to the death of the last dragons, and the revival of magic following Daenery’s miraculous rebirth of dragonkind seems to be proof of that.

However, the truth is more complex; we learn from several sources that magic is not entirely gone from the world, even prior to the dragons’ cradle-pyre. It is simply gone from the west of the world following the Doom of Valyria – further east, we are told, magic still exists and its practitioners endure, and even thrive in places such as Asshai.

More intriguingly is this from Maester Luwin, that supposes magic was fading even before the Doom, describing Valyria (a magical empire lasting thousands of years) as merely an ‘ember’. It cannot therefore solely be the death of dragons that caused magic to fade in the West.

The Sad Fate of the Singers

Westeros was once home to a large number of magical beings; unicorns, mammoths, direwolves, ‘great lions’ and, of course, the giants and the singers. All of these are now believed to be extinct, as per Maester Luwin above. Those who venture or live beyond the Wall know that this is not the case; these beings cling on, albeit in scant numbers.

We know that the singers fought and lost a terrible long war with the First Men, and that they retreated to the deepest forests upon the Pact that saw the end of the war. We know also that they were still present in the South in some numbers when the Andals arrived.

However, common wisdom says the singers have been extinct for thousands of years; we know they still linger beyond the Wall...but why? The North remained a bastion of the Old Gods, yet even the northmen believe them gone. Why did they not remain in the deep forests of the North? Why did their numbers continue to decline even after the wars? Why go beyond the Wall, closer to the Others?

The Evil of the Wall Magical and Mundane

The Wall is made of ice. This is an obvious statement to make, but its curious to consider what it means in the context of this world, where cold is the enemy and ice represents death, darkness and crucially – the Others.

If we take as given that Bran the Builder built the Wall, why was it made of ice, when his other claimed works are all of stone? The magic of the singers likewise is in earth and tree and water. So why is the Wall made of ice, the very symbol and strength of the enemy the Wall was built, allegedly, to keep out?

The Wall has its own collection of spooky, disturbing myths that have grown up around it, many of them centring around the Nightfort, formerly the seat of the Night’s Watch. The one that concerns us here is that of the Night’s King, allegedly the 13th commander of the Watch who took to wife a woman commonly been believed to be one of the Others – and from the description of her, that’s highly likely.

However, observe that the Night’s King brings that woman back beyond the Wall to his fortress – it does not keep her out, any more than it keeps out the two wights that awaken in Castle Black in AGOT.

But the Wall was created to keep the Others out, no? Coldhands indeed asserts that he, almost certainly some kind of dead man, cannot pass beyond the Wall due to the spells it is imbued with, presumably those created by the singers; but there is a gate.

The Black Gate, situated beneath the Nightfort, is itself a source of much theorising; it is magical, made of weirwood, and a sad construction that sheds a tear as Bran passes beneath it. The use of weirwood – and the face especially – suggest that this is the work of the singers, who made a door that only the Night’s Watch could open.

It seems unlike that the singers, aiding in the building of an anti-Others defence, would create a door that an Other could pass through; Bloodraven’s cave seems thus warded, so far successfully. But why is the Gate blind? Why is it described as resembling a corpse? This could be a function of the sheer age of the Gate, but I believe it to be more significant than that.

Of Silverwing

Queen Alysanne Targaryen made a visit to the Wall and visited the Nightfort in particular. The castle gave the Queen such bad vibes that she arranged it to be abandoned – immediately – paying for the replacement herself.

That’s quite a reaction, and one that should be contrasted with Stannis, who plans to make the place his seat (and note that Sam considers the possibility that the Black Gate is not permanent – which is very intriguing).

More interesting than Alysanne’s reaction to the Nightfort is her dragon Silverwing’s reaction explicitly to the Wall itself. She is disturbed by the winds from it – and I reject the notion that this was solely the cold, as the cold at Winterfell makes Vermax ‘ill tempered’, not disobedient and disturbed.

It is suggested that the Wall is anathema to creatures of fire – and yet Melisandre is seemingly stronger at the Wall than she is Asshai!

It is also suggested that Silverwing feared not the Wall but what lay beyond – but the Others had not yet begun to stir, so what was she sensing? I posit that the Wall was drinking in the magic that Silverwing generated, effectively draining her.

Also pertinent is the fact that Jon Snow loses all sense of Ghost when the Wall is between them. An unbreakable powerful bond that endures over great distances is rendered inert due to the Wall. This could be a matter of inexperience on Jon’s part, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Waning of Magic

Taking everything together, I propose that the Wall is draining the magic from the world. The magical peoples and creatures of Westeros exist only beyond the Wall, having died out everywhere else, notably the singers who have disappeared even from presumably safe strongholds.

Dragons, whose mere existence makes magic stronger (and possibly what is actually empowering Melisandre), mislike and possibly even fear the Wall, to the degree that Alysanne was deeply disturbed for long after. It needs must be noted also that the dragons of the Targaryens did not reach the size and strength of their forebears in Valyria, dwindling ever more with the years. Perhaps this was due to the Dragonpit, to the betrayal of the house’s women, tied so completely to its dragons. Perhaps it was something more insidious.

Where magic does exist still, it exists in the further East; in Qarth, Asshai and so forth. These places also had a lack of dragons post-Doom, also endured the Long Night, so it cannot be solely these factors. But they are much further away from the Wall; their magic is weakened but endures.

To touch also on the seasons as an aside, WOIAF offers some further credence to the Wall-as-problem. The seasons used to be normal, we are told, only in the most ancient tales. Tales presumably predating the Wall.

If the issue of seasons were solely one of balance between Ice and Fire, when why were there no world-ending catastrophes when Fire was ascendant? The Doom impacted only Valyria, after all.

We must return to the symbolism; where Ice is death, silence, darkness and inhumanity and Fire is life, song, light and passion.

TBC

My Questions:

  • in light of the Black Gate being, in this theory, being a door that only the night's Watch could open...and the Night's King obviously being a traitor to humankind canonically...could the night King have asked a singer/"child" or a group to create such a door for his mysterious lover? It still baffles me that a singer would create a door that can let an Other in when they helped to create the Wall? Why be so careless (even if we say they trusted the Night's Watch) unless they were tricked? But what exactly, then, could the singers believe this door would be made for? A door within the Nightfort or some other castle, thereby not needing an anti-Other element? Or has the Night King corrupted the Gate into allowing an Other to pass after he acquired it from a singer/singers? And then, if so, how? By the instruction form his lover/an Other?! Or were the children/singers forced/coerced to create the Gate?
  • When we see the Undying, we see they hunger for Dany/her dragons/the magic here and also try to drain Dany. Is it possible that even if in Essos magic is more or less "flourishing" that that emptiness is not just their greed but also their way of trying to "replenish" a core/huge element of their own magic, thus suggesting that they have lost so much from the dragons' loss years ago and slowly became what they were, unmoving mono-colored evil beings resembling ice in their seeming immortality? Or is it that they have corrupted themselves either through slavery/exploitative destruction and it's just greed and the self attrition created by their greed that increases their "hunger"? In other words, I'm still very unclear how how different these two entities--the Undying and the theorized magic-eating Wall--have different mechanisms AND purposes of energy-draining. If at all.
  • So if the purpose of Dany bringing the dragons back is so much more for Westeros then for the "entire world"? If so, all this Wall-as-drainer feels like material for the Dany-loses-most-or-all-her-dragons-during-the-new-Dance theory.
  • Why then, does Melisandre's powers get more potent, as noted? If the dragons can't be that close to the wall and even get drained by it if closer, then how would Melisandre be getting stronger even if she is passively using the dragons' magic?
  • If we go by the theory that the Wall as always meant to go down [in part 2], then it'd have been a temporary solution against the Others to be addressed by later generations OR it'd be foretold already amongst the first builders that magic would decrease and they were desperate; it'd then be a little more feasible to suspect that it was created to ward off the Others and got corrupted to then be too potent/overpower/outpace the now-scant magic from the severely decreased/disabled numbers of the children, giants, and magic practitioners in the West, which kinda works nicely with the implied idea of the "balance" of the world not being the entire world's magical system point blank, but that there is a mistake in how the Westerosi understood there needed to be a "balance" that they interpreted as keeping their exploitative systems alive, their man-made boundaries and classes present? Or is this something more meta, that we the readers are purposefully confounded on what sort of balance the dragons restored/begin to restore. in other words, what exactly kind of "balance" have people been misunderstanding and what the Planetos/Westeros needs? And what was the purpose of the Amethyst Empress/The Blood Betrayal and the implied imbalance from that in Essos?
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Imagine thinking Stannis is a morally good person when he literally forces the Free Folk to convert by starving, besieged and pillaged them, makes them burn their weirwood to grant them passage to Westeros, burns people in the name of a religion he doesn’t even believe in, and called a teenage girl raped by her own father a “whore” and her son “abomination”.

Nothing about Stannis is unique or disruptive. He’s just another whiny, bitter and misogynistic sour faced bald man with an inferiority complex who thinks the world is unfair to him and that’s exactly why incels relate to him. He’s the perfect representation of basement-dwelling dudebros who are terrified of women.

THANK YOU, anon, this is exactly right!

And no, his parents dying doesn't mean he gets a pass on sexism and mass murder in his stint of using religion he doesn't believe in to become a king. He suffers from his own humorlessness, and I don't just mean "funny" humor, but just not willing to really understand or relate to others as well.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

It’s funny to see some delusional Stannis’ stans pretending that he wouldn’t murder Myrcella and Tommen.

Stannis means Myrcella and Tommen will be executed as part of his “scouring” of the court. Their mere existence is perceived as a sin. GRRM uses the word “abomination” for a reason. It’s lost so much of its power in today’s society, but it means the worst possible thing, something that’s a horror, something that goes against nature, something that shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Abomination = not worthy of life.

“Joffrey is not my brother’s seed,” Stannis said bluntly. “Nor is Tommen. They are bastards. The girl as well. All three of them abominations born of incest.” –ACOK, Catelyn III

The Lannister woman gave him horns and made a motley fool of him. She may have murdered him as well, as she murdered Jon Arryn and Ned Stark. For such crimes there must be justice. Starting with Cersei and her abominations. But only starting. I mean to scour that court clean.” –Stannis, ASOS, Davos IV

“Traitors have always paid with their lives. […] It is law. Law, Davos. Not cruelty.” –Stannis, ASOS, Davos IV

Stannis here refers to Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen as crimes. For which there must be justice. He follows it up by talking about scouring the court clean. He means to murder Cersei’s children, given the chance. He tried to sacrifice his own nephew, Edric Storm only survived because Davos acted behind Stannis’ back and smuggled Edric away. There’s no way in hell he’d let “bastards” born of incest and adultery live.

NOW, here’s a queen consort who actually have legitimate reasons to fear for her children’s lives....

Aside from liking how his character presents the conflict that is in hypocrisy and being sexist, I never understood the allure or hype for Stannis. I even understand Robert's stans, at least Robert had some amount of humor or charm or provided some funny lines.

And yes, 100%, anon. It's pretty in your face. And I don''t think modern people "don't know" the implications of when people use the word "abomination" bc we still will use this word for the exact meaning. People just love to be contrarian to the pressure to practice accountability or be bothered in acting out the process of understanding others' boundaries. Stannis is a rules man....but if it works for him. So no one can be really "safe" with him unless you manage to be able to shift "perfect" obedience to whatever value system he has in his moments when you have to.

So people will pretend that the implications of words and the spacing, syntax, vocab don't mean what they imply to mean or likely do bc it makes it easier for them to not be subject to the processes of being held accountable.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Stannis anf Rhaenyra are NOTHING alike, Rhaenyra had the popular claim, if she was like Stannis then she’d have had to use magic to get rid of her opponents and obtain bannermen. Unlike Stannis, the majority of the realm supported Rhaenyra.

Yes, Rhaenyra and Daenaerys are extremely different, but Rhaenyra is not like Stannis either. Stannis is a kinslayer who murdered his younger brother meanwhile Rhaenyra was murdered by her younger brother. A character like Stannis, who lives in his patriarchal honor like it’s the only thing he knows, would never do what Rhaenyra did and defy tradition. Rhaenyra having children with harwin strong and passing them as Laenor Velaryon’s is just something Stannis would never entertain doing because Stannis is a misogynist who looks down on and resents female sexuality.

Well, I mean Rhaenyra would have preferred to have trueborn children in her first marriage, or kids that couldn't be doubted as trueborn at least. But it's true that she had a bigger heart for otherwise and it doesn't seem like she was someone who allowed herself to be ashamed of what she needs to do both for herself and the family she had. Stannis does not. And you're right about her support. Who is saying otherwise?

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The ASOIAF fandom discourse online is dominated by bitter incels and male supremacists who were infuriated that Stannis, the character they projected onto got a (GRRM confirmed canon) villainous ending so they’ve tried to manipulate and dominate discourse around Stannis and Daenerys for years. I’m happy to see the tide to turn in our favor and Daenerys’ fans critiquing and pushing back against their laughable essays and podcasts.

Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension skills can clearly see that Stannis, FAegon and Euron Greyjoy are foils to Daenerys’s hero’s journey, the “lies she must slay”, anyone who says otherwise is a side character/NPC stan, a contrarian or misogynist.

It's so interesting that Dany is the "slayer of lies" in such a big way, it really gets into an inevitable intersection of philosophy and politics. I wrote a anti-Euron Greyjoy post HERE,

So I won't get into why Euron is a "liar" and a "Father" of lies both the normal way and a sort of spiritual way where he's looking to just exploit magic, belief systems like the Seven, and people through magic to dominate others and realize a dream of being a "god". And because he's supposedly inspiring and charming and seemingly devoted to his crew, he also seems to inspire a lot of blind loyalty.

So he often reminds me of a wannabe cult leader, megalomaniac as he is. It parallels the horror of the Greyjoys' invasion of the Riverlands pre-Conquest, which brings up some interesting queries of Dany re-represented by her ancestor Aegon I (who though not altruistic seeming, maybe) burning down Harrenhal to a less-maintain husk of itself, even thought still "inhabitable." The ironborn, specifically Harren Hoare and his ancestors later, also drove several people many people (esp lower classed) to death to build their castle (as Maegor did the Keep)...

Anyway, FAegon is probably not only not Rhaegar & Elia's son and thus not a claimant, the people who have raised him up (possible Blackfyre supporters) have constructed lies around him to try to control the future throne that way. A simulation of autonomy.

Finally, Stannis doesn't believe in the religion he's using for his own ends, but he does see the results of its very real magic. And as as a TikToker named HallowedHArpy notes, he not only doesn't believe in this god that Melisandre worships and is suing Stannis for to spread the religion, she herself was a real slave and is still a sort of "slave" to the priests' construction of the faith of R'hollor. She is an agent of this spread of religious lies about the Azor Ahai and she will go through a crisis where she realizes it was Dany all along. Which will be painful...as fire is both a cleanser and inflicts pain that can "shock" a thing out of it current state.

Those men & every Dany anti/doubter prefer to think of this fantasy series as purely political...too bad for them.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The idea that Stannis is more flexible than Daenerys is so hilarious. Stannis cuts off the knuckles of a man who saved his life because he broke the law meanwhile Daenerys can’t even execute Jorah for betraying her.

It's always something with these people. Dany is supposedly the least "inflexible"

When she hangs back on violently hunting down Harpies for the safety of her people...Stannis is set to kill his own daughter in total subservience to his own desires and pretence of faith, plus what you mention w/Davos. He is one of the least adaptive and humorless people in this entire franchise...Tywin is more flexible & enjoyable than this guy. Fuck them, for real.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Wills do in fact exist in the world of Westeros. And more specifically they’ve been plot points in regards to chosen heirs. Robb Stark has an entire debate with Catelyn about choosing his heir. Sansa is ostensibly his heir with Bran and Rickon considered deceased. And yet Robb and Catelyn believe they can skip over Sansa by naming another heir. Why would they believe this possible if there isn’t precedent for a King choosing his heirs ?

“Young, and a king, he said. A king must have an heir. If I should die in my next battle, the kingdom must not die with me. By law Sansa is next in line of succession, so Winterfell and the north would pass to her. His mouth tightened. To her, and her lord husband. Tyrion Lannister. I cannot allow that. I will not allow that. That dwarf must never have the north.” 

“No,” Catelyn agreed. “You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son.” She considered a moment. “Your father’s father had no siblings, but his father had a sister who married a younger son of Lord Raymar Royce, of the junior branch. They had three daughters, all of whom wed Vale lordlings. A Waynwood and a Corbray, for certain. The youngest... it might have been a Templeton, but...”

“Aryas gone, the same as Bran and Rickon, and theyll kill Sansa too once the dwarf gets a child from her. Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice.”

We also know that even lords can also seemingly choose their heirs and even have stipulations for those heirs. Why ? Because it’s actually a plot point in The Sworn Sword. Rohanne Webber (Tywin Lannister’s paternal grandmother) is her father’s named heir but there’s a stipulation, she has to be married or she will lose her rights to inheritance and it will instead go to her cousin Wendell Webber:

“Her lord father’s will demands it. Lord Wyman wanted grandsons to carry on his line. When he sickened he tried to wed her to the Longinch, so he might die knowing that she had a strong man to protect her, but Rohanne refused to have him. His lordship took his vengeance in his will. If she remains unwed on the second anniversary of her father’s passing, Coldmoat and its lands pass to his cousin Wendell.”

How is that a possible stipulation that Rohanne takes extremely seriously if not for the fact that inheritance is not clear cut and can be overridden by a will ? And this evidences further that a Lord or King can choose their own heirs.

Maegor disinherited Jaehaerys and made Rhaena’s daughter, Aerea, his heir.

Jaehaerys went against Andal inheritance tradition to pick Baelon over Rhaenys.

The lords at the Great Council doubled down on that decision by picking Viserys over Laenor which Jaehaerys upheld.

Aegon III’s regents pick Rhaena as his heir over Baela, despite the fact that Baela is the elder twin, because she’s too willful and wild and won’t accept a marriage pact they made for her.

Jeyne Arryn picks a distant cousin to be her heir instead of a closer relative with more traditional claim, the King’s regents back her decision.

Aerys II picked Viserys to be his heir when Rhaegar’s son Aegon was the traditional choice.

Doran Martell planned to make his son Quentyn his heir because he wanted his daughter Arianna to be queen conosrt of the Seven Kingdoms, she doesn’t know this and just assumes he’s pick Quentyn over her.

Walder Frey talks about picking his unborn son as his heir over his dozen or so adult sons.

Rodrick Harlaw offers to make Asha his heir to stop her from participating in the Kingsmoot.

Stannis offered to make Renly his heir instead of Shireen.

You will love this video by the former ozymalek, anon (now they are Youtube and Tiktok's "PhoenixAshes"). It basically speaks of exactly what you emphasize for Westeros--how heir voluntary designation was a real thing in real medieval Europe.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

https://www.tumblr.com/lady-phasma/751676108988088320/the-dance-of-dragons-game-of-thrones-i-wouldnt?source=share

I'm fed up with people who bring out this scene to make people believe that they are right to be neutral...

To an extent this is true, the sides ravaged the land during the war....and then you see that the greens began this war just for their own gain, most of them were responsible for most of the disasters (the riverlands burnings, Strong extermination, Bitterbridge; invitation to Dalton Greyjoy [yes Daemon later invites him, Otto did first and the blacks anticipated so this is "both" kind-sorta]). And later the greens stole the treasury so Rhaenyra couldn't properly feed or "restore" KL as much as you can during an active war.

I think that it's important to remember that Shireen is talking to her father/the man trying to gain the throne thru his maledom and blood relation to the last king AND her entire life has been relatively in the shadows. She's a kid dependent on him raised by both him and her mom to be more or less obedient to authority figures and keep most of her thoughts to herself as to not stir shit, from what I remember. Finally, in Westerosi history, it's been taught ever since the Danc ended that the war was more a tragic travesty that decimated the kingdoms and not that Rhaenyra was a usurper, as Stannis thinks. Yes, there would be some who cite her gender as reason enough for her not to be queen AND by and large women are seen as incapable of fully ruling, the other thing is that the Targs and Robert by extension (bc some have used his Targ grandma to legitimize his rule) derive their claims through Rhaenyra's bloodline. Not Aegon's. And still, she had more supporters based on a head-of-house' right to choose and others to mind their business about it. Aegon was thought of as "grasping" by the respected Grandmaester Kaeth. So again, an unfortunate and catastrophic event where siblings fight each other and the realm (ironic, bc those lords chose to fight 🙄) suffers for it.

Even if she thought, genuinely, that Rhaenyra was the rightful ruler, she's not gonna tell her dad that (likely). Finally, I don't know if she ever said something similar in the books, I always count down the pages when I read through Davos. Not conducive to fair understanding of characters.

Still, Books > show adaptations. Esp when it's GoT and HotD, both which have adapted the orig characters form not well to horrifically ands way off base. You're just reinforcing Condal's ego thrashing that's already been shown to mirror D&D's.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

DNA doesn’t matter. If the father accepts the children as his, they’re legally his and have all the rights of inheritance. Period, full stop.

As far as the law of the land was concerned, Stannis, Renly, Balon Greyjoy, and Robb Stark were all illegal rebels. Ned literally had to falsify Robert’s deathbed proclamation to try and take the throne from Joffrey. In terms of the law of the land, he was trying to usurp the throne from the rightful heir.

Without a DNA test, the father’s word on whether or not his “children” are actually his children under the law is the final word. And Robert died before knowing the truth. Renly is dead. Stannis will never sit on the Iron Throne and die after murdering his only child. So who, in all of Westeros, has the legal authority to officially declare that Cersei’s children are not Baratheon ?

Also, let’s not pretend that Joffrey’s parentage had any impact whatsoever on Renly’s decision to try and seize the throne. He indicated that he didn’t even believe Stannis’s proclamation about Joffrey’s parentage, in their meeting at Storm’s End.

Arianne Martell went out of her way to crown Myrcella, never thinking or caring about the rumors of bastardy, and the only argument Arys Oakheart make to oppose her is ‘a son comes before a daughter’, not ‘she isn’t Robert’s daughter, she can’t inherit’.

Declaring someone a bastard is a classical way to usurp the throne. You can just make rumors about a person being a bastard, but as long as they’re born under their father’s name, it’s absolutely impossible to prove. Meaning it really is about how big your army and how competent your soldiers are.

In the words of Littlefinger in AGOT, it’s treason ‘only if we lose’.

GRRM about the noblemen and "laws" of Westeros:

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

https://www.tumblr.com/a0random0gal/731982293103738880/guuys-im-back-and-with-the-finest-team-black?source=share

I read that post and now I have four questions for you:

  1. does the death of Rhaenyra's children have any basis in AsoIaF or historical basis? All I can think about was Robert but Ned himself did not think the best of his friend when it came to dealing with children.

2. how different are Cersei and Rhaenyra's situations from a legal perspective? The way I see it, Jace, Luke, Joffrey (both), Mycella and Tommen are legit.And I think we see that it really doesn't matter whether or not they were born to their married parents because until it was proven THEY WERE legitimate in everyone's eyes and we see that with Renly thinking that the bastardization of his "nephews" was an interesting plot from Stannis but in the end it doesn't matter because rebel is rebel.

3. Do you have any parallels between Stannis and Alicent's motivations? Given the weight of faith, I would dare say that both believe that their arguments have "legal" weight., but while Stannis is motivated by a rigid sense of duty that prevents him from seeing the gray areas (correct me if I'm wrong but Stannis follows the reasoning that If those children are bastards ~ Robert has no legitimate heir ~ with Robert dead I am now the heir ~ I have to fight for the crown)while Alicent... My instinct tells me that she relies more on the faith part? Those children are bastards and therefore Rhaenyra and the children should suffer any consequences? (I spoke of course about show!Alicent even though I referred to the books above, book!Alicent is motivated by ambition and I personally think that's enough of an explanation)

4. In the best case scenario with Rhaenyra being discovered she would have had to make the trek, right?Wouldn't that be just as damaging to the crown? I know there is a post that says that If Cersei's father were alive he would never have allowed it because it would not only be a humiliation for her but for all the Lannister.

This will be long.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

GRRM writes Stannis as a failure for a reason and it’s not because he’s meant to be praised for his morality or temperament. He’s not a ‘teenage girl’, he’s a horrible misogynistic and bitter loser, I’m so tired of these people woobifying him yet demonising Daenerys.

His incels and tradfems fans always present Melisandre as the evil witch who causes all his mistakes and think he’d be so successful without her… like no, Stannis is a grown man making his own decisions and when he eventually murders his own daughter and brings about his downfall, it will be no one’s fault but his own.

It's weird because the text explicitly tells us that no one, not even his brothers, really like Stannis. And that he was a drag to pretty much everyone, with poor humor or affability. Yeah, he saw his own parents die when he was a kid, but it's also because he also has a humorless streak that neither his older nor younger brother have. And he is still the guy who decided to accept Melisandre and give up on the Seven Faith for her god.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

I’ve never seen any critique of Jon or Stannis fighting and subduing the Free Folk to the point that the Wildlings at hard home were left defenseless and resourceless and decimated, and thus vulnerable to slavery.

That's because ONE--we're not confronted with any scenes or encounters w/the Freefolk after such events and neither /Jon nor Stannis come face to face with those people's fates (cant be credited with this, brideoffires in Twitter points this out). TWO--Daenerys is a woman.

Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

Stannis didn't actually decide not to burn Edric Storm, Davos just took the option away from him. Stannis was prepared to go through with it until then. Stannis has already had his own brother killed. When does he stop being a just and fair man ? When he burns his bannerman ? His family by marriage ? He's already a kinslayer, a cursed man, so I wouldn't say it's past him to double down on the kinslaying.

it's constantly highlighted just how accursed kinslayers are. stannis already killed his brother and his family from his wife's side. he was ready to kill his nephew and would do this if davos didn't save him. the same people who constantly talk about how dany burns everyone who goes against her conveniently ignore that stannis burned far more people. i don't remember correctly but didn't he burn alester florent because he wanted to surrender to the lannisters?

burning shireen is a 100% logical character progression for him. anyone in denial about this just whitewashes his crimes and takes their wishful thinking ahead of what is foreshadowed time and time again

Avatar
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

the people who are like “we just hate the targaryens because monarchy bad, rooting for dany or rhaenyra to end up on the throne makes you a monarchy simp” like ok then don’t be a hypocrite! you’re not allowed to like the starks, or aragorn from lotr, or any monarch character from a period drama or fantasy series! better kiss those qitn!sansa headcanons goodbye if you don’t wanna stan for monarchy in fiction lmao

or how they run around and yap about true king stannis the mannis who doesnt even have the loyalty of his own men burns people left and right and is gonna burn his daughter and lose like the loser he is LOL. monarchy only bad when its women who arent tradcaths ruling

Avatar

I'm stealing "Stannis the Mannis". That's good wordplay.

Avatar
reblogged

it’s 2023 and people, including the big name fans and experts, are still in denial about stannis burning shireen. yes, it will happen. yes, he will be the one to do it, not selyse or melisandre. he has already burned several people and always had a ready justification for it (they were cannibals/they betrayed me etc). maybe you’ve projected obsession with burning people on another character way too much?

^ this isn’t true btw

People be really playing themselves...

Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

i genuinely can’t believe stannis has stans like… people gas him as this amazing iconic badass character whose so noble and complex and interesting, and then you actually read the books/watch the show and it’s like ??? am i missing something? he’s just a selfish stupid asshole whose obsessed with power, he’s a horrible person, and he’s frankly a very dull character. like i don’t get the hype?

i despise stannis and his fans, too. they project on him because they are also balding losers. he committed the biggest taboo in that world which is kinslaying, his sword is fucking fake and i'm supposed to believe the narrative will somehow reward him because he's a self insert for dudebros? i was probably the only person who was not at all surprised at him burning his daughter and i knew it's gonna happen in the books, too. we have a confirmation from grrm himself. but they still deny this 💀

my favorite is when people think hes gay because he hates his wife. lol maybe hes simply a misogynist? 💀

Avatar
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net