Disclaimer:
The parts about explaining feudalism is supposed to recontextualize how the hierarchy is not itself based on a good ethics system or fair/good morals, not to justify said hierarchy.
The system (unjustly) does not enforces nor expects the King to be equally sociopolitically or emotionally accountable to his Queen Consort.
................................................
A)
You make the mistake of thinking that in a feudal society/Westerosi/Andal culture, the King and his house are obligated to do anything for the Queen Consort except to:
- not publicly humiliate her (and "humiliate" can look different according to the thing done) -- with Aegon IV, it was an exceptional situation since he targeted Naerys and Aemon simultaneously out of jealousy. As long as the King doesn't disinherit her children (if they are OLDER than his mistress' kids AND those mistress' kids ARE NOT legitimized) he is, by custom, not seen to be doing anything wrong
- not deny her access to the appropriate clothing, shelter befitting her station, and food
- take care of any child she brings forth
In feudal societies, the Queen Consort’s “job” is to provide heirs and like everyone else in the kingdom, she has to obey her husband’s orders. She is subject to him, she has no privileges or rights over him.
The King/Monarch is always the legal/official/customary authority over literally everyone else. This is not a democracy nor an oligarchy.
Therefore, it is actually Alicent who customarily should obey Viserys’ commands and declarations. That is her place in this hierarchy.
You may think this is unfair, but:
- Alicent was definitely a victim of her father & Viserys, but she blames the wrong person for it (Rhaenyra) bc the answer is to totally buy into the sexist and authoritarian ideals against female sexuale and other sorts of autonomy--as Alicent fails into & chooses to perpetuate.
- That is feudalism (the economic-socio-political system) AND absolute monarchy (the form of government). Again, she's fallen, then chooses, to sincerely buy into this system partially bc she has no choice but she also is much too inflexible to reflect on how she's essentially hurting herself and those around her or performing a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. That was the entire point! Alicen tis not unique, too, in how the patriarchal feudal system uses her up! Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, etc, too!
Feudalism is a system of servitude based on giving up your freedom in exchange of protection by a higher lord. It binds serfs to their lords, and lords to other lords all the way to the king. Yes, the whole “Protector of the Realm” is propaganda, but it’s what they believe the job of the king to be. They will give it to the strongest who can protect them from foreign invasions: and it’s hard to think of stronger than “family that literally owns dragons”. This fandom has feudal mentality completely upside down, thinking they loathe their subjugation because subjugation is an affront to freedom. Feudalism IS subjugation. What they loathe is to submit to a weakling. They despise (and hunt, and murder) the Free Folk, calling them “wildlings”, because they’d rather be free than be bound by feudal oaths of subjugation. Feudalism is the rule of “might makes right”. At its roots, it’s a military hierarchy of warlords who bind each others with feeble and fickle treaties until one of them decides to break them and attempt to conquer the others, and either wins or fails.
However, no one is given rights in these societies, not even men - not the way we would define rights. Their idea of “right” is just as arbitrary as their idea of “freedom”. They are societies based on privileges, and privileges are always revocable, unlike rights.
Alicent has no independent “rights” apart from what I already listed above. At all. Especially since she isn't blood-related to Viserys. Rhaenyra has a birthright, but only once Viserys bestows it upon her.
Alysanne was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Visenya & Rhaenys had more law-changing power than Alysanne did while being Consorts and not Regnant Queens, but Aegon’s word was final and he was the Monarch.
And all these women were the sisters of the then-Kings as well as their wives. You’d think that they would have more say, but no. They were obey their husband-kings' final words by Andal/feudal/monarchial custom and law.
There is no contract where it says that Viserys owes Alicent or the Hightowers -- all of them his subjects -- anything except military protection. This is feudalist absolute monarchy as GRRM sets it up and models after the common set up of real life feudal monarchies.
B)
Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable.
Already addressed what a Consort’s repeated purpose is.
a.
And when was this dynasty “most vulnerable”? By all accounts, Viserys’ court and reign was prosperous and peaceful (expect with the Stepstones and towards the end of his reign with Rhaenyra, Alicent, and their kids of course -- but the Stepstones war didn’t affect the actual subjects [peasant or nobles] of Westeros too much to make huge differences in and the stuff with his personal family happened insularly):
Many consider the reign of King Viserys I to represent the apex of Targaryen power in Westeros. Beyond a doubt, there were more lords and princes claiming the blood of the dragon than at any period before or since. Though the Targaryens had continued their traditional practice of marrying brother to sister, uncle to niece, and cousin to cousin wherever possible, there had also been important matches outside the royal family, the fruit of which would play important roles in the war to come. There were more dragons than ever before as well, and several of the she-dragons were regularly producing clutches of eggs.
[...]
The reign of the Young King, as the commons called him upon his ascent, was peaceful and prosperous. His Grace’s open-handedness was legendary, and the Red Keep became a place of song and splendor. King Viserys and Queen Aemma hosted many a feast and tourney, and lavished gold, offices, and honors on their favorites.
(“A Question of Succession”)
b.
If you mean Viserys having a girl as his only scion, I must remind you that:
- the Targs had dragons (more dragons than ever and Aegon I/Visenya/Rhaenys, conquered Westeros with only 3)
- there were no mentioned, burgeoning signs of rebellion against Rhaenyra until Alicent and Otto started to make waves (post by @theblackqveen)
While this is in the text:
Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.
After Viserys makes it clear that he won’t change his mind, it gets more settled, and again, we hear absolutely no mention of any real attempt to prepare against Rhaenyra except from the greens.
c.
THIS is what GRRM says about laws of succession:
There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases… but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.
In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars.
[...]
The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.
Still, if Alicent really is all about just following the rules and being “good”, the she would follow her husband’s order and not antagonize or contradict Rhaenyra. Because part of her Westerosi/Andal customs is that the King/Monarch is paramount and their word is law.
She hypocritically doesn’t follow the law to such a particualr "degree" or whatever that she ends up going against the authoritarian regime's ideals of King's rule and all that for her own stake...mostly unconciously.
So really, she’s about power and misogyny, since she chooses to still make her rapist son King and reap the rewards from his ascendance (who’d follow along for her and her house’s interests more than Rhaenyra would). In the show, she goes after Rhaenyra for presumably sleeping with a man not her husband....while she gives up her feet to fulfill Larys' sexual titillation in exchange for information. So Rhaenyra's sleeping with another man in a consensual setting is wrong, but somehow Alicent allowing herself to be used (she is Queen Consort, she can definitely order Larys around) and silencing one of her son's victims is okay? Both of these things that support sexual abuse? In the book, she turns against Rhaenyra when Rhaenyra is 10, and we can see the implication that they began to actually fight ever since then, so Alicent antagonizes a 10 year old. At the tourney where Daemon comes back in the book, there were Essosi people who witnessed the tension between the two.
And why does she do all that? Because she wants to empower herself, her son, and disempower Rhaenyra. At the same time, Alicent fosters an environment where this is justified.
This is why she is hated. Book!her tries to use Rhaenyra having extramarital sex as pretext for deposing her, yet she is the one going against the King’s word when it is obvious he doesn’t give three shits.
@theroguewyrm answers this ASK where the asker breaks down more of Alicent’s hypocrisy:
[...] Alicent as she has constantly held Rhaenyra accountable for having illegitimate relations with men but when it comes to her she can do it as she cloaks it under the hood of duty. The hypocrisy was also shown when Alicent tolerates every single sexual crime committed by her son in the premises of the Red Keep and outside. If it is benefitting her then she’ll permit them, she’ll stay quiet, but will simultaneously use Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin to vilify her.
C)
It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.
That’s because he distrusts Otto and knows Otto wants his grandkids/these green boys to inherit the throne. Otto went so far as to continue to demand/suggest Viserys change the order of succession several times until Viserys dismissed him:
The amity between Her Grace and her stepdaughter had proved short- lived, for both Rhaenyra and Alicent aspired to be the first lady of the realm...and though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights.
[...]
The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit. Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.
(“A Question of Succession”)
Viserys was being a bad dad here, I agree. Otto was also stupid as fuck for this. Both him and Alicent. And when it comes to feudalism, the personal and the political are one and the same often. Viserys never learned, I think, to separate himself from kingship because the position and society doesn’t allow for this metaphysical existence, or for it to be practiced seriously and without consequences.
And these are the details of Rhaenyra’s naming-as-heir:
Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.
(“A Question of Succession”)
Now from a more pragmatic standpoint, these lords already gave their oaths to Rhaenyra. To go back on it, while maybe welcome to some lords, would also diminish Viserys’ monarchial word’s value because of how huge the chnages are, and how he seems (publicly) to value oaths in general.
While Tyland Lannister says that he never took oaths, oaths are still very seriously taken and regarded generally in this society (or like to think of themselves as doing so).
Viserys was a bad dad. Doesn't make what Alicent did excusable.
D)
a.
The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated.
We’re talking about the greens, here, not the Hightowers. Two, though related, separate entities for now.
The greens (Alicent, Otto, Aegon, Aemond, Daeron [Helaena is not a real player]) are hated because they are misogynists turned up 11, with an over-inflated sense of their own male privilege. It causes them to maim, rape, cause genocide, attempt assassination against Rhaenyra, even disregard and turn against each other. And at last, make a 10 year old watch as his mother is eaten alive by a dragon.
Even with universal misogyny, I doubt that most other noblemen/individuals would be as murderous, stupid and audacious as these specific people.
BTW, you slipped. Aegon, Ameond, Helaena, and Daeron and the kids from Aegon/Helaena are all Targs. Not Hightowers.
b.
If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.
Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon, who had just turned twelve.
(“A Question of Succession”)
We understand through this and through real life feudal politics that a king/Monarch was expected to have as many kids as possible so that in the event one or some die, the others could take their place.
The moment that Otto allowed Alicent to marry Viserys after Rhaenyra had been heir for 2 years, all of Alicent’s kids would have been “spares”. This would be true if Rhaenyra was male.
Alicent and Otto both signed up for this.
However, Rhaenyra is female, so Otto got greedy. It is only the thought that Viserys would automatically change heirs that Otto even contemplated it would be an easy thing to have Alicent’s kids as Viserys’ heirs because he thought Viserys would pass her over.
Take a look at the sociopolitical patterns. This is always the deal for second wives/Queen Consorts. If the monarch had kids from a first marriage , those kids are always before the ones in the second because they came first/are older.
Viserys makes Rhaenyra continue to be his heir and treats her like he would his male heir in that her siblings remain the “spares” they would be if she were male. thereby putting into practice equal primogentiure.
Otto has been with Viserys as his hand for years.....why did he not anticipate something like this?
