Anonymous asked:

did TG invented this? Why am I reading that Otto has more children besides Alicent and Gwayne? so that's why his bloodline didn't end?

This is a guess, but I'd say those people are either talking about Otto's other unnamed kids or Rhaena of Pentos marrying Garmund Hightower for a 2nd husband and having Hightower daughters. Yes Otto canonically had other kids--"youngest" implies there were at least other kids and it could mean he had more sons ("A Question of Succession"):

Either way, they're deluded or trying to direct what we're actually talking about or care about to something else, bec when we talk about "line", we're talking about the ROYAL line. Pointing out that his HIGHTOWER sons are or could still be alive and sired sons of their own is not the flex they think, bc this was not Otto nor alicent nor Aegon's goal!

Otto's "line" that he was concerned about was the ROYAL issue that would come from him/Alicent and continue from them. That was his goal, and what people who argue AEGON'S line was destroyed, which means Otto's hopes and ambitions were completely dashed. He wanted to both be a director of the royal succession AND be an ancestor and a primary propagater of the main, RULING ROYAL line and point blank AWoIaF states he wanted Aemma (Arryn's, Rhaenyra's mother)'s legacy cut but his own "blood" through Aegon succeeding and Aegon's child and heir, then their child and heir and so on, soon succeeding the throne ("Targaryen Kings" -- "Viserys I"):

And this is only if we took TG's argument at face value and said that it's been about Otto a non royal, this whole time or that he mattered much in this debate about "whose line was it anyway?". When have people actually cared about Otto's "line"? It was always about AEGON vs RHAENYRA'S line (you know....the royals competing for the throne), not his. That's what I mean by they're trying to divert from the actual issue being debated so they feel like and trick others into thinking they've somehow "won" equally or over the blacks.

#asoiaf asks to me #the hightowers #otto hightower #green stan nonsense #westerosi society #fire and blood characters #otto hightower's characterization #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

The sovereignty angle does not really hold to medieval societies. All the kingdoms Aegon conquered had themselves been forged through conquest and subjugation of other kingdoms: the Starks had subdued the Boltons, the Dustins, etc; the Martells had subdued the Yronwoods, the Daynes, etc; the Arryns had subdued the Royces, etc. Aegon did nothing the Andals and the First Men had not done earlier.

I know, anon, and I have said this for forever. Others have too. You can look at my "targaryens as colonizers" tag to see more.

#asoiaf asks to me #the evil targaryens #targaryens as colonizers #the targaryens #fandom critical #westerosi society #westerosi history #asoiaf #awoiaf #agot #fire and blood #nymeria #the starks #the arryns #the martells #asoiaf war #definitions

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

Genuine question, but why do fans on both sides treat who was the wife and mother of Aegon III's children as a "victory"?

If I understand the dance fans (I am almost tempted to say "scholars" because the way and the fanaticism with which some argue I really think they deserve it) have argued that victory consists in having their blood on the throne. So it has been an argument made by TB that with Aegon III sitting as King Rhaenyra and her side are the victors.

Now TG seems to start from this same argument saying that Alicent (somehow) is ancestor of the Hightowers and Tyrells for AsoIaF (she is not) or that Jaehaera SHOULD be Aegon's queen and mother of his children, either because they think that they deserve it as a reward for the victim or because they believe that it is narratively more satisfactory to unite both claims as if it were a parallel to The War of the Roses and not of Anarchy.

I've also seen TB posts talking about how Vaemond Velaryon should feel good from the grave because his granddaughter was queen or TB telling the TG to shut up because his blood still achieved a good status.

My problems with these arguments are:

A. I think no one won the war, that it was a loss for House Targaryen as a whole from which they never recovered. However, I think the narrative pushes us to see Rhaenyra as the right side given the Alicent bloodline being extinct and the stark difference in deaths on both sides.

B. If you're going to use the argument of perpetuity of blood on the throne... Aegon ends up being a dead end and his descendants end up being generation after generation of would-be usurpers.

Actually the descendants of Viserys II and Larra Those who end up sitting, holding and now fighting to regain the throne.

Who Aegon III's queen was matters because: a. It's part of the worldbuilding and consistently that woman was named Danaena Velaryon B. Jaehaera's death is part of the story and the themes that Martin is trying to tell.

Having Jaehaera stay as his queen ruins those two points, but I don't understand how it's a win one way or the other which of the two is the mother of his children with the argument that TG and TB are making.Sometimes I think they don't know that it is Viserys' children who will eventually perpetuate the Targaryen lineage*...

*In that aspect I recognize that Daemon Darkfire He is a descendant of both Aegon III and Viserys II, however he is not officially a Targaryen and never sat on the throne.

Anon, you're just basically repeating why Rhaenyra/the blacks are the ones who end up HAVING THE MOST PRESERVED, thus "winning". It was a pyrrhic victory, in that it was "a win that comes at such a high cost that it resembles a defeat" (google search). why are you making as if your points abt Aegon being a "dead end" and Viserys II (who was RHAENYRA'S SON STILL AND WHO COULD HAVE DIED OR NEVER RETURN TO WESTEROS IF AEGON AND JAEHAERA DIDN'T BECOME ""DEAD ENDS") is some new information and doesn't matter as to how Rhaenyra "wins"? Of course it does and no you are not the one to think of these things.

A)

The point of someone "winning" the Dance was to seat either Rhaenyra or Aegon as the ruler, sure. Though Rhaenyra ruled for a few months, Aegon also only ruled for a few months even though he ultimately killed her. If we took that aspect as the end-all-be-all, neither won. but it isn't the end-all-be-all, because the point of having children/heirs is to reaffirm your own rule and make sure it is you who "lives on"; fighting for the throne is next to meaningless without being assured that your heirs become the next rulers, as we saw when Stephen of Blois (Aegon's real life inspiration in the English war Anarchy) was recorded to feel some type of way when Matilda's reps and the writers' of a treaty that made him king also said that his children would not be his heir. Instead it would be Empress Matilda's son who would be Stephen's heir. Matilda still got soemthing out of that, even if she herself could't rule AND it basically made Stepehen's work futile if he can't even pass on the throne to those he wanted to rule and "continue" his lineage. Thereby, it's obvious that to these people, this ALWAYS mattered.

Here is an example from the text to show how important that was to them/Westerosi nobles (F&B -- "The Sad Short Reign of Aegon II"):

Again, it is not just about who gets to sit the throne, but also, who got to propagate the Targ lineage...bc in a feudal system, who gets to propogate the lineage is the one with the conventional "glory" because, literally, it is your line who goes on to do anything and anything at all, which includes infamous and positively famous things. Which couldn't occur without you (here Aegon or Rhaenyra) existing and passing on surviving heirs. This is just how it works, anon, for this society. Rhaenyra and Aegon both were fighting for themselves AND their heirs to rule/pass down more heirs.

This all began with people in the fandom debating whether or not this story is as "neutral" and balanced in its critique of patriarchal violence, which should have never been the case because it's clear that the greens were the more punished villains AND antagonists no matter how you slice it. They lost the most.

And fans who deny such either never read the books (which can include the main ones and AWoIaF), are lying about it, are sexist, or just very stupid. could be all of the above, whether they read them or not.

B)

Sometimes I think they don't know that it is Viserys' children who will eventually perpetuate the Targaryen lineage*... *In that aspect I recognize that Daemon Darkfire He is a descendant of both Aegon III and Viserys II, however he is not officially a Targaryen and never sat on the throne.

I understand that some fans who aren't TB or TG think that such identifiers mean that both teams equally don't know what's really happening in the orig text from the mere "audacity" to declare themselves as either TB and TG juvenilely. Because they somehow think the Dance wasn't that much about misogyny...even the events before the Dance somehow wasn't about how stupid and destructive misogyny is for the "health" and balance of the entire world, much less Westeros. They have taken Condal at face value or wnat to validate Hotd, or don't understand what colonization vs conquest is or hate Dany and/or don't want her to be azor ahai/the prince that wa promised. Or to admit/see F&B is written to contextualize queenship, leadership, and therefore Daenerys Stormborn's arc, narrative role, and characterization. Which has beena thing for years.

However, they are wrong. As they always have been.

What exactly do you even mean by "Viserys' children...perpetuate the Targaryen lineage"? And? Aegon and Rhaenyra both are his kids and the Dance was about who would get to sit the throne AND be which of these two will be lineage-propogater. It was by itself and by definition something that was supposed to go to ONE of these two....why you trying to make as if someone has said it wasn't a child of Viserys who would and/or got to do this? Are you trying to confuse people on purpose?

Finally, it's Daemon BLACKFYRE, and no one said that the Blackfyres were the ones to rule? He's pointed out bc people said the none of Daenaera xAegon's kids live on or propogate any sort of lineage of current, relevant storyline/"glory"/historical deeds and events....when this is blantantly false because both Elaena and Daena mother still-living scions form house Plumm or the Blackfyres.

Without Jaehaera or Aegon II being involved bloodwise/lineage-wise.

Go back and re-read. Let go of your claim to superior "neutrality", when the fandom has never been fait in its assessments of characters and the writing and the arcs. It's never been objective in this fandom and never will be; there are headcanons and fanons upon fanons about Dany going Mad for god' sake! People believing Brothel queens happened.

ASoIaF may not be didactic, but it does have ideas that sit in moral contemplation and has moral arguments. It's just that, like most fantasy fiction, it's not spelled out for you; it's shown, not told.

#asoiaf asks to me #the dance of the dragons #asoiaf war #westerosi society #fandom critical #asoiaf fandom #hotd fandom #hotd neutrals #asoiaf #hotd #aegon ii

horizon-verizon

The real reason, the true reason why I always say that you have to review how the maesters' anti-dragons, anti-magicness, classism and misogyny color how they/Gyldayn write despite them being those in the kingdoms who compile knowledge and rightly go through the methods of historical assessments and procedures is precisely because those biases might lead them to ignore or distort certain information and events (2nd hand or not), whether purposefully or not.

Gyldayn and any other writer(s) still genuinely try to record events as they are witnessed to the best of their abilities, but they have those biases we the reader have to sift through and identify as possibly distorting the events just as they must do the same when they looked through and read their sources.

#maesters #fire and blood writing #westerosi society #westerosi sexism #westersoi classism #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

George saying that Jaehaera is Aegon's heir is quite contradictory to what he wrote in the book itself because she was NEVER even seen as a possibility of being heir, perhaps by 1/2 houses that were still supporters of the greens but not by her own father the most important? Aegon was already thinking about the heirs he would have with the Baratheon girl for god sake...

("The Sad Short Reign of Aegon II")

I believe that he uses "heir" in the sense that Jaehaera was the only living candidate to be his heir...but while Aerea and Rhaella were Maegor's true "heir presumptives" (a person entitled to inherit a throne, peerage, or other hereditary honour, but whose position can be displaced by the birth of a person with a better claim to the position in question), Maegor declared them as such and so they were. Aegon never declared or claimed Jaehaera as an heir presumptive at any point in time, and instead, as you say, marriage for male heirs. So she was neither his heir apparent, nor his heir presumptive. And no, just because he said that Jaehaera's children by Aegon III--if allowed--could become inheritors, doesn't mean Jaehaera is a "legally" declared heir just as Henry VII's mother--Margaret Beaufort--wasn't a heir apparent nor an heir presumptive but could birth possible claimants and pass down their "right" through her own lineage.

So if George wants to express that Jaehaera was Aegon's "heir presumptive" or that "heir presumptive" means something a little different in Westeros, then he should have said so in the text somehow. Yes, I'm being firm even with the author of the series, bc this is how lore/fantasy writing works. You need to be consistent and clear for some things if you make statements about how such a detailed world works.

There is still, again, also the possibility that either he forgot or was, again, just trying to express Jaehaera's new only-child status offhandedly.

#asoiaf asks to me #grrm #jaehaera targaryen #fiction vs reality #westerosi society #aegon ii #westeros succession #asoiaf #fire and blood #fire and blood writing

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

Something I think about a lot is the comment I once read that AsoIaF is a world where men and women are not socially equal, but that equality is not inherent.

Despite being a man and the male gaze often being felt (even in a painful and uncomfortable way), Martin managed to clearly outline a world where gender, sex and class converge in a complex way and no two characters react the same to the challenges they face.

I was thinking specifically about Cat today.I think she is an interesting case of gender, power and privilege because Cat has a lot of power given to her throughout her life by the men to whom she is subordinate (her father and her husband) , is aware of the differences expected according to gender and class and... She is comfortable with that.

When you compare her to Cersei and Lysa, two other women in equivalent situations, Cat seems comfortable in the way she navigates her position, what is expected of her, and what she can do. And I think part of her comfort and her inability to empathize with Arya and Lysa is that Cat wasn't hurt by being born a woman and the impositions that she carried.

Cersei, I think there's no denying that she suffers from penis envy. She sees the female gender as inherently lesser (dumber, weaker, pathetic) and herself as the exception, as limited and confined by virtue of her gender. Her femininity is a weapon and a symbol of prestige but there is also evident contempt. Cersei may have wanted to marry Robert at first, and she's no saint, but that doesn't mean that Robert constantly humiliated and abused her and that she feels the pressure to be the most beautiful because otherwise its value decreases.

Lysa grew up in Cat's shadow, being considered less pretty and less intelligent, which generated hatred towards her sister for something that was not the fault of either of them but of the system. She was forced to have an abortion, damaging her ability to have children (something she wanted and also a way in which her worth was socially mediated) and abused by all the men around her.Only with her husband dead and her father away can she take her son's power and exercise it (only to hand it over to the man she loves who is only using her).

Brianne and Arya deal with being considered unattractive and having a taste for fighting, which is a male sphere, So the elements of their femininity are denied and they are socially considered less worthy of being treated with love and respect.

Cat maintains the system because the system has not hurt her, for her there is nothing wrong with the system because in her experience if you do what you should and behave, everything should be mostly fine.Cat seems to have had certain privileges as the eldest daughter. She was loved, respected and held in esteem by her father and uncle. She has a small age difference with her husband, who respects and listens to her (You could say that Ned's only fault is not even having fathered a bastard but humiliating her by bringing him to be raised alongside her legitimate children.) She has had several children, which again is a social achievement and also personally she has loved each one of those children and those children love her. She seems to lack Cersei's vanity and her concern for her hair is that Ned loved it (which given all the context I actually see as kind of sweet).

Even when Cat feels frustrated and left out, or when she herself becomes aware of certain injustices committed against other women, on a deep, visceral level Cat cannot understand. She feels sorry for Brianne, she doesn't understand Arya, she doesn't seem to notice the terrible situation Lysa has been through and she understands Cersei as a mother, but I would be unable to understand Cersei's hunger for power because it was given to her and she is fine with the amount they gave her.

Maybe it's just me and I'm not saying that Cat had to suffer or that only through suffering could she understand (Cersei and Lysa have suffered under the same system and are more critical of other women than empathetic) but the impression I get is that the privilege and luck that have surrounded Cat have left her blind to the difficulties other women may face and how unfair the world they live in is.

Ahhh, discussions about blindspots created by privileges. Classic.

It's not just you, I agree. Maybe not so much "blind", I do think she's aware of how differently Lysa has it at least, but she, as you say, has had it relatively "easy" until Ned's death.

There is, too, though, the element of her performing a masculinized role after her brothers and then her mother died (A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VI):

I have always done my duty, she thought. Perhaps that was why her lord father had always cherished her best of all his children. Her two older brothers had both died in infancy, so she had been son as well as daughter to Lord Hoster until Edmure was born. Then her mother had died and her father had told her that she must be the lady of Riverrun now, and she had done that too.

She was a sort of undeclared "heir" for her father for years, if not just his favorite surviving child. And she didn't really investigate why male heirs were preferred so much as performed the duty she thought she needed to perform, therefore "earned" her father's esteem and sorta "relinquished" the heirship to a younger brother (not saying that she had the power to do so, I'm saying that she didn't even conceive of herself as deserving actual heirship).

It's all so very interesting.

#asoiaf asks to me #catelyn stark #catelyn stark's characterization #agot characterization #agot #asoiaf fav posts #women in westeros #westerosi women #westerosi society

horizon-verizon reblogged

dragonsfromthemoon

Anonymous asked:

Just because Rhaegar told Elia that 'There must be three heads' doesn't mean that she would have known anything and everything that is there to know about Rhaegar's prophecy. An intelligent woman would have smacked Rhaegar on his head and said to take his head out of prophecies and asked him to deal with his deranged father instead.

Also, is it realistic that anyone in their right mind would ask their husbands to go and humiliate them in front of the entire Seven Kingdoms ??? Not happening. Besides there are Rhaegar fanatics who blame Elia for his pursuit of Lyanna, actually thinking that Rhaegar absconded with Lyanna because of Elia's failures.

Such claims of Elia showing the greenlight to Rhaegar/Lyanna relationship doesn't necessarily makes it better. That would naturally have Elia dirtying her hand with the start of the war and sent ten thousand Dornishmen off to die, including her own uncle.

Babies are cute yes, but let me ask you one question. If you were ever placed in a situation where you have to choose between your own child or some other child of a friend/stranger, who would you choose ? You could only ever save one of them ? Who would you choose or anyone else ? I pray that no one find themselves in such a situation but everyone is going to save their own child. No matter how cute the other baby is, or how important the other baby is, to a parent their offspring comes first. And as such Elia would naturally prefer her children over Jon.

Besides Jon is in a position where Daemon Blackfyre exactly was. And there was a Blackfyre rebellion in the recent memory with Maelys the Monstrous. People can say, Elia is of Dorne and Dornish don't hate bastards and such, but is that how Myriah Martell's mindset would have been when Daemon Blackfyre was hoping to murder her sons and usurp their claims ?

Elia is a Dornish princess, on her way to become queen, and the Dornish have never been popular in Westeros. She can't afford to look despised, cuckhold, weak or naive. Especially if she wants what is best for her children, which definitely wouldn't be allowing a threat to their throne go around freely.

dragonsfromthemoon answered:

Anon, the truth is that we do not know the extent of what Rhaegar told Elia. How much she knew of his plans. We could argue back and forth all day; we would be merely speculating and having our own biased headcanons. However, let’s work with the canon material we have to build an argument.

ONE. By the way, the scene you mentioned is ambiguous in itself, because it happens to be a vision in the House of the Undying. Dany herself cannot be sure who Rhaegar was addressing.

"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked. "He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads." He went to the window seat, picked up a harp, and ran his fingers lightly over its silvery strings. Sweet sadness filled the room as man and wife and babe faded like the morning mist, only the music lingering behind to speed her on her way. [Daenerys IV, ACOK]

Here, I even highlighted the passage for you. Not hard to understand we cannot take it at face value, right?

TWO. Rhaegar had plans to deal with his father. The only one who had a pacific way of deposing Aerys, actually, through a Council.

But if indeed there was a shadow, who was he, and why did he choose to keep his role a secret? A dozen names have been put forward over the years, but only one seems truly compelling: Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone. If this tale be believed, 'twas Prince Rhaegar who urged Lord Walter to hold the tourney, using his lordship's brother Ser Oswell as a gobetween. Rhaegar provided Whent with gold sufficient for splendid prizes in order to bring as many lords and knights to Harrenhal as possible. The prince, it is said, had no interest in the tourney as a tourney; his intent was to gather the great lords of the realm together in what amounted to an informal Great Council, in order to discuss ways and means of dealing with the madness of his father, King Aerys II, possibly by means of a regency or a forced abdication. If indeed this was the purpose behind the tourney, it was a perilous game that Rhaegar Targaryen was playing. Though few doubted that Aerys had taken leave of his senses, many still had good reason to oppose his removal from the Iron Throne, for certain courtiers and councillors had gained great wealth and power through the king's caprice and knew that they stood to lose all should Prince Rhaegar come to power. [The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring, TWOIAF]

This claim is supported by Rhaegar’s own words, in a conversation with Jaime.

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return." Those were the last words Rhaegar Targaryen ever spoke to him. Outside the gates an army had assembled, whilst another descended on the Trident. So the Prince of Dragonstone mounted up and donned his tall black helm, and rode forth to his doom. [Jaime I, AFFC]

So you cannot claim that Rhaegar was not aware of Aerys II’s inaptitude to sit the Iron Throne and did not mean to do something. However, there are three issues regarding Aerys II: 1. TWOIF remarks he had his own supporters, men that hated Rhaegar and wanted him passed in favor of Viserys; 2. he was still the king; and 3. he was still Rhaegar’s father. Rhaegar could not commit treason, nor kinslaying or kingslaying. Those are all taboos in Westerosi society. It was not as easy as we would like to depose a king, who would have imagined, right?

THREE. Rhaegar did not crown Lyanna with the intent of humiliating Elia, as you put it. It is speculated to be a move to curry favor with the lords attending the tourney, especially the Starks and the Baratheons, for his political purpose of deposing Aerys II.

The cheers of the crowd were said to be deafening, but King Aerys did not join them. Far from being proud and pleased by his heir's skill at arms, His Grace saw it as a threat. Lords Chelsted and Staunton inflamed his suspicions further, declaring that Prince Rhaegar had entered the lists to curry favor with the commons and remind the assembled lords that he was a puissant warrior, a true heir to Aegon the Conqueror. [The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring, TWOIAF]

And when the triumphant Prince of Dragonstone named Lyanna Stark, daughter of the Lord of Winterfell, the queen of love and beauty, placing a garland of blue roses in her lap with the tip of his lance, the lickspittle lords gathered around the king declared that further proof of his perfidy. Why would the prince have thus given insult to his own wife, the Princess Elia Martell of Dorne (who was present), unless it was to help him gain the Iron Throne? The crowning of the Stark girl, who was by all reports a wild and boyish young thing with none of the Princess Elia's delicate beauty, could only have been meant to win the allegiance of Winterfell to Prince Rhaegar's cause, Symond Staunton suggested to the king. Yet if this were true, why did Lady Lyanna's brothers seem so distraught at the honor the prince had bestowed upon her? Brandon Stark, the heir to Winterfell, had to be restrained from confronting Rhaegar at what he took as a slight upon his sister's honor, for Lyanna Stark had long been betrothed to Robert Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End. Eddard Stark, Brandon's younger brother and a close friend to Lord Robert, was calmer but no more pleased. As for Robert Baratheon himself, some say he laughed at the prince's gesture, claiming that Rhaegar had done no more than pay Lyanna her due...but those who knew him better say the young lord brooded on the insult, and that his heart hardened toward the Prince of Dragonstone from that day forth. [The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring, TWOIAF]

Well, here we have hints of Rhaegar participation in the jousts and his posterior crowning of Lyanna as a political move (as well as to honor her for The Knight of the Laughing Three). Did it go wrong? Of course! The Starks and Robert were distraught and not too pleased. Rhaegar tried, nevertheless. He thought his gallantry would earn him support for his cause (in comparison to Aerys II’s appearance and overall behavior, mind you). As you might have noticed, we can understand a little more of Rhaegar’s reasons, but not Elia’s perspective on the whole ordeal. However, if she was aware of what he wanted to achieve at Harrenhal, it is safe to conclude a sensible woman such as Elia would not begrudge him for making a move. Again, we cannot be sure about her, because GRRM did not bother to give us Elia’s perspective. It does not even matter, frankly.

FOUR. The circumstance of Rhaegar and Elia’s relationship was this: a political match made by the Princess of Dorne; borne out of duty, not out of love. However, there was good feelings between them, even if it was not love. Whether she was aware or Rhaegar’s feelings for Lyanna or not, I cannot say. But nothing about her (arranged) marriage, personality and upbringing suggest that she would have raged or hated Rhaegar and Lyanna’s guts because he took a mistress he loved. We have to remember she was a Dornish noblewoman, born and raised in a faux-medieval society. Alliances by marriage were the order; and people had lovers they desired and loved. Her context differs much from ours.

FIVE. The Rebellion (and thus the deaths of thousand of dornishmen) did not start because Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped. It started because of Brandon’s impulsiveness and lack of tactic (shouting for the death of the Crown Prince is a treason, a huge crime paid with death), and because Aerys II not only murdered Rickard Stark, but demanded the heads of Ned and Robert as well. Then Jon Arryn raised his banners in war. It was a situation that got out of control.

SIX. Why are you talking babies? It quite does not have anything to do with the situation at hand. Elia was not put in a situation in which she had to make such a choice for her son’s life (unless you consider Young Griff to be the real Aegon).

SEVEN. Why do you think Jon would have risen in rebellion and comparing this situation to the Blackfyre’s Rebellions? Do you have anything to back up your claim? It seems you have a bias against bastards, quite frankly. And this is a mere hipotetical situation, because we know how the Rebellion ended.

EIGHT. At the end of the day, you seem to forget that, despite of Rhaegar’s relationship with Lyanna, Elia was still his legal wife. She was the mother of his heir, the next queen consort and the second in the line of succession to Dorne. Lyanna’s status highly differs from hers. Unless claimed otherwise on the next books, Lyanna was a lover (a mistress, if you would), with no legal marital status. Again, unless claimed otherwise, Jon would still be a bastard. Even if Rhaegar legitimized Jon to give him the Targaryen name, he would still be the second son, under Aegon in the line of succession. I do not see any lord going against that or tempted to usurp Aegon. Even more so that Aegon had the Targaryen look, whilst Jon does not. I quite doubt a lord would rise in rebellion to supplant the heir ir favor of a Northern-looking boy, in those circumstances. Actually, Viserys was the one to be feared here, not Jon. Because Aerys II’s supports wanted to take Rhaegar and his children out of the line of succession, fearing they would lose power and wealth. Tell me the truth now. Who would have Elia feared: her son’s legitimate and Targaryen-looking uncle or Rhaegar’s Northern-looking baseborn son? I think the answer is obvious.

horizon-verizon

Although I think anon brings up the Blackfyre Rebellions to say that Elia, as a noble woman and the legal wife and the mother to the oldest boy of the prince, couldn't bank her child's safety on Lyanna's boys' disposition alone rather than just straight-up bastardphobia on their part...esp his [the bastard child's] future disposition. When Daemon Blackfyre rose up against the brother who we never hear ever treated him harshly or coldly.

The parts abt the Dornish, too--"the Dornish have never been popular in Westeros. She can't afford to look despised, cuckhold, weak or naive"--in the events before the Blackfyre Rebellions, the anti-Dornish sentiment was worse because this is Daeron finally getting the Dornish "in" by his marriage, giving seats in court and council to Dornishmen, which esp Stromlanders hated after years of marc battles and growing a deep, xenophobic disdain for the Dornish. I can see Elia not being "fine" with RhaegarxLyanna=Bastard Boy in her anxiety about old wounds being reopened against Dornish people/herself/her family.

Two fair judgements & counterpoints to support the idea that she wouldn't have been copacetic at all.

My counterargument to both is that Aegon IV legitimized Daemon Blackfyre so that he became Daemon Blackfyre and could press for the throne and gather followers...all to spite Daeron II, Naerys, and Aemon. Before he was just Daemon "Waters". And there isn't any proof or suggestion that either the Starks nor Lyanna would demand--and successfully get what hypothetically wanted--for either Aerys or futre-King Rhaegar to legitimize his children/son by Lyanna...since there is no such precedent at all for such. Otherwise we'd have Aegon IV have demands up to his chin with families demanding he legitimize his bastards. That sort of decision is customarily up to the parent/father. When and how and why would Rhaegar legitimize Lyanna's child when it would further destabilize a realm he'd be trying to rule well (after getting his Stark girlfriend and the dust settles in this hypothetical situation where we're past everything except Elia's hypothetical concerns)?

Perhaps bc:

Lyanna was already betrothed
she was the daughter of a Lord Paramount that isn't that close (neither socially nore by physical proximity) and thus not under the crown's practical influence as much as the Darklyns or even the Riverlands were, we could argue this
we saw how both Brandon and Rickard Stark (Ned's father and brother) go directly to Aerys to demand Lyanna back, then we can surmise that they'd also, just as stupidly

one could argue that "House Stark" (Rickard and Brandon) would demand for Rhaegar to legitimize the son/children.

But then:

to legitimize the children vs. start a battle/war against the crown are two different demands entirely; one's an attempt to force the monarch to modify the royal succession; the other is outright violence that, as it did, plunges the entire realm into danger -- both are treasons, but one at least possibly transition into first negotiations AND there's really no precedent for the first where any lord or subordinate or lower house/family member could just go up to a ruling head of house--not just the monarch!, other houses--and start trying to demand things of them
how likely is that then they'd made that demand when they'd also have to consider how other lords will react to that and demand that their daughters' bastards be legitimized for their new husband's families to consider as a possible heir?

My counterargument to the second one is that there's also still the possibility of it not being too bad for the Dornish/Martells' standing in court or getting hate bec Daeron/the Martells won the Rebellions and the present Targs have Dornish ancestry...there's not much those wishing to leverage the a history of Dornish hatred can do even with Aerys going out of his way to be xenophobic to spite his own son. In fact, more of the stigma would have been and still is more on Rhaegar supposedly stealing Lyanna and disrupting the betrothal plans laid out for her, causing her father and brother to--we know what happened.

#rhaelya #lyanna and rhaegar #elia and rhaegar #elia martell #rhaegar targaryen #lyanna stark #lyanna stark's characterization #rhaegar's characterization #elia martell's characterization #asoiaf theory #asoiaf asks from others #westerosi bastards #westerosi women #westerosi society #westerosi politics #asoiaf #agot

horizon-verizon reblogged

lizzie-queenofmeigas

Anonymous asked:

Hi I saw a post of a question and I agree if he loved her why did he take her to dome to a tower why not a trial by combat or talk to the family or Robert come to an agreement with him I'm not a fan of Robert but come on they complain about him he slept with underage girls but Rhaegar did the same he turned a girl into his mistress he locked her up and on top of that come on Rhaegar was not going to risk the kingdom for love but for his prophecy

lizzie-queenofmeigas answered:

You're literally just making assumptions, we don't know enough.

And why would Rhaegar, the heir to the throne and father of two children, risk his life when him and Lyanna could very well have chosen to run away.

Talk with the family or Robert? Really? If he had done that Lyanna could've been married off inmediatly.

Rhaegar doesn't sleep with underage girls, he fell in love with Lyanna, meanwhile Robert did sleep with very young girls and didn't care about them.

#rhaelya #interesting question #lyanna stark #rhaegar targaryen #asoiaf asks from others #asoiaf shipping #canon shipping #shipping #agot characterization #lyanna stark's characterization #rhaegar's characterization #westerosi society #asoiaf #agot #comments...

horizon-verizon reblogged

rosehathaways-sidepiece

Anonymous asked:

do you think criston is still ridden with guilt even 10 years later for losing his virginity/honor or did he reclaim that when alicent granted him mercy and a new purpose but even now 10 years later that regained sense of chivalry and honor is somehow twisted by his misery/hatred for rhaenyra?

rosehathaways-sidepiece answered:

Oh anon, this is the juiciest of questions, thank you so much for asking.

I think on some level, his intense hatred of Rhaenyra has to stem from his sense of broken honor (and figurative loss of virginity), doesn't it? What I think is often missed in interpretations of his character is how much of it is self-loathing that he projects onto Rhaenyra because it's easier than having to sit with his own guilt, so I suspect some of that does remain to him. His broken honor is something that can never be repaired, not entirely, (because he did do it. He broke his oaths, he sullied his honor, and he remains in the Kingsguard, where that black mark must always be in the back of his mind) and I think on some level he is painfully aware that his honor cannot be repaired in its entirety and he hates that. Alicent provides him with a new oath, a way to redirect his fervency, a willing stand-in for the kind of relationship he wanted with Rhaenyra (sans quite as much romantic longing, I think, if only because he's been burned once and I doubt he wants to be again). She provides a shield of moral superiority, yes, but there is no way to repair what he had already done.

So, I suppose at the end of the day, Criston is so bitter because of this inner awareness that his newfound honor and moral superiority is a lie. And, in his mind, Rhaenyra made a liar out of him.

(As an addendum: I really do think one of the reasons, beyond guilt, that he's so bitter still is both because he's in the same castle as Rhaenyra (where they have to see each other) and also because he's close friends with Alicent. They both hate Rhaenyra, are forced into proximity with Rhaenyra, and undoubtably have radicalized each other's hatred of her over a ten year period. I think his guilt and misery over breaking his oath is the originating factor of his hatred but--have you ever had to be around someone you already didn't like? Because you will hate everything they do, even the stupid little things that don't matter. And ten years is a long time to let a hate like that fester into rot).

horizon-verizon

The Faith of the Seven is the origin and guide of many values in Westeros and it is the means by which to affirm its patriarchal structure through ideals of masculinity and womanhood. And it is a huge informant of the dynamics between the identities b/t man-woman, lord-vassal, the gods-humans, humans-animals as a black-and-white binary of ruler/source-subaltern/inferior (those who are recognized as having autonomy and authority over others versus those who live to serve & upkeep those with authority).

Criston is a warrior sworn to only the Monarch of the realm (protect them & those they are tasked to protect, keep their secrets, obey them, etc.) and part of the values Westerosis have is female submission and all that entails it maritally, military wise, etc. Andal, chivalric warrior tradition is to "protect" the ill, children, women and though protecting the vulnerable is necessary and important, part of how womanhood facilitates masculinity in Westeros is that a woman does not question or challenge much of masculinity. Rhaenyra does so by refusing to run away with Cole, who seeks to use marriage vows & them running off together to "restore" his own sense of honor while completely ignoring how this would destroy hers in the process. Patriarchy is the constant moving of goalposts to center the priorities and desires/needs of men. This is why he considers Rhaenyra a "whore" both in show and in the book. A "whore" or a "slut" is always a woman who refuses to limit/submit their body and their entire selves as a device for others sexually/reproductively.

So I disagree with the idea that sexism/misogyny is not why Cole hates Rhaenyra, since the point/root reason behind all this:

self-loathing that he projects onto Rhaenyra because it's easier than having to sit with his own guilt, so I suspect some of that does remain to him. His broken honor is something that can never be repaired, not entirely, (because he did do it. He broke his oaths, he sullied his honor, and he remains in the Kingsguard where that black mark must always be in the back of his mind) and I think on some level he is painfully aware that his honor cannot be repaired in its entirety and he hates that. Alicent provides him with a new oath, a way to redirect his fervency, a willing stand-in for the kind of relationship he wanted with Rhaenyra

is that he must put blame on the person who is not at fault for his own decision of choosing to break his own vows. It has to be Rhaenyra/a woman specifically bc said woman refused to give up her entire life just so he can feel better about a decision he made...instead of accepting that she wanted to do as many other men have already done: keep a side lover while ruling or anticipating rule and married for political alliance.

His "self-loathing" stems from his not being able to leverage his false victimhood against Rhaenyra, as that is the primary value of masculinity and being a warrior, which itself is masculinized in Westeros. He can't do so or force her bc Rhaenyra's being used to affirm Viserys' determination to make up for his own false prophesizing and use of Aemma for said prophecy/prophetic beliefs in needing a male heir. Viserys, the King, i.e., the highest "secular" authority and his direct "boss".

Rhaenyra has the protection/edge--unlike other women and girls if Cole had done the same to them--of her heirship/father/class. And she refuses to give up that edge not even some lord's daughters have when it'd be more convenient for Cole for her to do so.

With Alicent--who though the queen Consort also gives up much of her own possible powers (or what she can make of them, as bk!Alicent does often) to further Otto's both consciously and unconsciously--he's back to fighting for a "worthy" woman who herself is seeking to "restore" female submissiveness to a traditional, patriarchal (these are one and the same in Westeros, they can never be not) sociopolitical imperative: males determine female bodies' movements, purpose, etc. Politics and psychology are not unreciprocated, totally independent, mutually exclusive, un-informing, separate entities.

Alicent wishes to reinstate the feudal in order to feel as if she gets something out of the "deal" feudal patriarchy foisted onto her and other women. For her, he at least gets to be recognized as one who helped men to reinstate that power, thus she can finally be validated. (duty and sacrifice), and more than Aegon becoming king, it is about not letting a woman rise above the state of "second place" or her "natural" state as being the dependent/subject of/governed by/obedient/subordinate/attendant/collateral/secondary to/at the mercy of "man".

So yeah, Alicent "saved" Cole, bc Cole IS this need to subordinate women for this particular misogynist order that he inevitably bases his own worth on...that his vows he doesn't think critically about will always be based on.

#criston cole's characterization #criston cole #hotd characterization #westerosi society #faith of the seven #westerosi religion #asoiaf religion #asoiaf knighthood #asoiaf #hotd

horizon-verizon reblogged

pessimisticpigeonsworld

Anonymous asked:

Do you think Grrm hates Rhaenyra? I keep seeing this ever since he wrote that post.

pessimisticpigeonsworld answered:

See I don't think GRRM hates any of his characters, but especially not Rhaenyra. I can understand how people can interpret it that way to an extent, but it's very obvious he doesn't hate her.

In F&B, GRRM purposely writes it from the perspective of biased men, so of course Rhaenyra is portrayed badly. She's written by Munkin, Eustace, and Mushroom to be a negative example of women in power.

However, GRRM's MO has pretty much always been tackling medieval stereotypes and prejudices. Xenophobia, hatred of bastards, ableism, and sexism are all prevalent themes in ASOIAF. However, just because these themes are portrayed doesn't mean GRRM shares these views; in fact he uses ASOIAF to point out how destructive and wrong those ideas are.

Rhaenyra's story was written to show the destructive nature of the patriarchy. She as a character is meant to be morally gray and hated by historians. She's reflective of how history views ruling queens; she's demonized, wrongfully blamed, and disregarded.

The way readers are introduced to Rhaenyra is through people who hate her for being a woman who fought for her birthright. The way GRRM wrote his latest post about her is still from that perspective. People who claim he hates her are people who are unable to separate his actual views from those of his characters.

#rhaenyra targaryen #rhaenyra's characterization #fire and blood characters #pessimisticpigeonsworld #asoiaf asks from others #asoiaf fav posts #asoiaf #fire and blood #fire and blood writing #westerosi society

horizon-verizon reblogged

rhaenin-time

Not people calling Rhaenyra "lazy" for not flying into the Gullet when she had five other dragons to send and traumatized little Aegon was probably crying for her not to leave him as he watched little hero Stormcloud die. 😿

subduetheregret

Yeah, for some reason, some people seem to think that going into battle makes you a “good” ruler when we are shown the opposite in the main series. Robert Baratheon was a great warrior but in no way was he a good king. Robb Stark won every battle he was in but made disastrous political decisions that cost him everything. Aegon ll was nearly killed in his first ever battle and was unable to rule within months of taking the throne. His deranged little brother had ruled in his stead and promptly lost King’s Landing soon after (lol)

That’s not even mentioning that Team Black had way more dragons in their crew while Team Green only had three - not counting Helaena since I doubt she would have participated in the war even if B&C never occured. Obviously, Aegon ll had to participate and he got his ass kicked in his first ever battle, leaving TG with only two dragons. Rhaenyra was smart to focus more on war councils and to see which places were vulnerable to strike.

#rhaenyra's characterization #rhaenyra targaryen #westerosi society #robert baratheon #aegon ii #robbstark #asoiaf #agot #fire and blood

horizon-verizon reblogged

kataraavatara

i feel like we could move forward as a fandom if we all understood that the only way the Targaryens are significantly different than any other noble house in Westeros is brother/sister incest and dragons. that’s literally it. not defending brother/sister incest or war crimes dragon edition but it really annoys me when people stumble across problems in house targaryen that are there because they are endemic to all noble houses in westeros because the patriarchal feudal system is in fact bad and then act like they’ve discovered something. “House Targaryen is rotten, every second son live sin his brother’s shadow and daughters are just seen as walking wombs” oh buddy wait until i tell you about ned stark and lysa tully. “they conquered westeros they’re colonizers descended from the evil slave owning valyrians” ah yes as opposed to the starks who ruled over the north for 8,000 years with the power of friendship and democratic election, descended from the andals who very politely asked the children of the forest to leave their land

#the evil targaryens #the targaryens #westerosi society #the starks #westerosi history #twstsote #children of the forest #those who sing the song of the earth #fandom critical #asoiaf fandom #fandom commentary

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

This argument that no one won the dance doesn't make sense to me, whether you like it or not Rhaenyra won! YES! House Targaryen suffered immense damage but it continued, and continued with her sons

I suppose bc "won" to many people at most times means "got everything what was wanted/achieve the beginning goal", and Rhaenyra did not get what she set out to do. neither did Aegon her younger brother...but Aegon lost more than Rhaenyra did in terms of lineage, yes. Their real-world counterparts, Stephen Dubois and Empress Matilda? Stephen became a king when she didn't and there have been markedly much more male rulers than women, but his successor was her son and all English kings for a time came form her lineage, not his. And From Matilda, we get Elizabeth I--we're not talking about how every one of these monarchs were evil in some shape way or form, we're just talking about "winning" their politics.

Material vs meaning (not mind over matter, that's something different).

#asoiaf #asoiaf asks to me #rhaenyra i and aegon ii #fire and blood #westerosi society #westeros succession

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

The Stark succession crisis is set up to be the funniest thing in the world because it just doesn’t exist for its delusional fans.

According to grrm’s affc and adwd outline, Sansa resolves to take the North, which means it’s not just going to be Littlefinger doing it without her input, she’s actively going to want him to mobilize the Vale army. Then you have Jon who’ll have a faction supporting him + Robb’s will legitimizing him and declaring him his heir. Then you have Bran who is the actual heir to Robb, but no one knows he’s alive. Then you have Rickon, whom the Manderlys support. Then you have Arya, who has some of the Northern lords too.

Then you have the Northern lords wanting to use the direwolves to legitimize the identity of each Stark kid. Then you have the North who has always operated under an inheritance system of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. In short, it’s hilarious as fuck because unless each of these kids says “no you have it,” I doubt “Stark unity” will easily resolve it. But hey, since everyone says the Starks are immune to the problems that plague the other houses, I’m sure they’ll all sacrifice their claims to give to their siblings and usher in a communist and anti imperialist utopia! (but without giving back the North to the CotF of course).

And the push back to this is even funnier because it proves that the Starks are probably the worst written “heart” of a narrative in fantasy literature. None of the other families are immune to conflict and angst. The Lannisters and Targaryens may be extreme examples, but the Baratheons, Martells, and Greyjoys have internal conflict as a foregrounding aspect of their arcs too. Sibling rivalry is supposed to be a central theme of asoiaf. The resolution is there too, but none of the other families just get a “well we’re the protagonists and our genes bestow protection against conflict so we’re fine.” The notion that genetics produces a family of ontologically benevolent people who are incapable of moral harm or internal conflict is explicitly fascist, btw.

So, either GRRM is writing a fascist narrative that privileges the Starks based on their bloodline and genetic destiny, against all of these other families and houses that apparently aren’t blessed with Honorable Unity Genes (tm), or he’s showing that no feudal house is immune to the effects of the game of thrones. Moreover, even beyond the reactionary optics of highlighting one specific house as unique among a sea of selfish warmongers, it’s just not good or interesting writing.

In short, it’s hilarious as fuck because unless each of these kids says “no you have it,” I doubt “Stark unity” will easily resolve it. But hey, since everyone says the Starks are immune to the problems that plague the other houses, I’m sure they’ll all sacrifice their claims to give to their siblings and usher in a communist and anti imperialist utopia!

Well, I think many fans whatever conflict that might or inevitably brew between the remaining Stark siblings with what you bring up will have it "quickly" resolved and all of a sudden it'll be bc "Winter is Coming"/the Others' encroachment on their "home".

The notion that genetics produces a family of ontologically benevolent people who are incapable of moral harm or internal conflict is explicitly fascist, btw.

Really love this bit. Bc, yeah.

#asoiaf asks to me #the starks #asoiaf fandom #fandom critical #westerosi society #westerosi history #asoiaf fav posts #asoiaf #agot

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

The way GRRM almost confirmed that even though genetic might have a part on it but the concept of “madness” is mostly part perspective and it is placed in the eye of the beholder like the light we choose to see the characters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8WT9vmXcAA5hlm?format=jpg&name=900x900

Take Baelor I for example. For godly people, religious zealotry is perceived as the epitome of morality but for others, Baelor sounds mentally ill. Same with 14 years old Daeron I who wanted to conquer a kingdom which his ancestors with dragons couldn’t. For martial people he sounds like a badass, but for others ? They think he’s a madman. And yet, Daeron I is seen as an ideal of martial grandeur and prodigious achievement and he remains as popular among the nobility as his brother Baelor is among the smallfolk.

“Can be interperted in many different ways… I want complexity and subtlety in my fiction”. Boiling everything down to eugenics and determinism is not complex or subtle. The type of things that GRRM hates to write about. ASOIAF ain’t Harry Potter.

The way in which people in this fandom talks about mental illness just puts me off. Pretty much everyone equates cruelty and violent behavior with mental illness. The fandom tend to use “mad” as a shorthand for any Targ that behaves in an extremely cruel or violent way like them insisting that Maegor was a mad Targ as well. But it so interesting that you still don’t see them calling Aemond a madman.

shots fired. (the tags are just ways of org, and sometimes they are sarcastic/ironic)

Yeah, I've noticed the fandom's tendency to both demonize mental illness & conflate mental illness (characterized as a pejorative) with straight up willful cruelty when it wants to vilify a Targ. Like you can still hold mentally ill, cruel people accountable for their cruel actions, but the fandom tends to preemptively assign any Targ who acts cruelly and violently as "crazy". AND then in a way meaning "they are a menace that needed/s to be put down", rather than when they assign victimhood-mental illness to another non-Targ or just male who does a cruel, vicious, and/or selfish act and they try to explain that away with mental illness. As if the person doesn't know or cannot stop themselves from doing horrific actions, a slave to their own afflictions.

And it's bec this habit is inherited/continues to be used to reason why Dany should not either survive nor rule anything. People use mental illness (real or not) to claim that women should not live and be present amongst "normal" society and villainize her emotions or though processes, esp when she's being confrontational or trying to go against expectations and desires of the public/men. As a way to get collective consent for her punishment by banishment or death, a way to get her out of the way and for it to be seen as morally righteous. And with Dany, the way to do that is to keep constantly referring to her lineage as inescapably and "naturally" "mad"; so it's very easy and often that when they wish to express a certain Targ was not worth studying or understanding and just be hateful, they will use this tactic against women or the Other against them.

I said before that it's not just nonTargs but men people tend to assign this "is crazy, no empathy or attempt at intellectually assessing for understanding of human shit". So why not SOME Targ men like Maegor or Daeron? And when do people decide that a man's violence & cruelty is not salvageable, understandable, or excusable? Basically:

Maegor went far beyond the boundaries that men in/out world would consider "necessary"; violence against the majority status quo males of the Seven and his own court (he beheaded one male courtier who said he didn't get the thorn legitimately or something, I forget) AND he was helped by Visenya
Maegor was also aop suffered a massive head injury that only Tyanna of the Tower was capable (as by record) healing, so one might say that much of his willingness post-injury to be violent also came from that injury...before that injury, he was pretty intimidating, but not violent...but at the same time, even before said head injury, he displayed pretty machismo, self centered actions [taking Blackfyre with little protest, leaving Visenya's sword she gifted him when he got the "better" one, killing a horse at 13-ish?, taking Alyssa Velaryon's teasing abt not having a dragon way too seriously, etc.]
Daeron wasn't "crazy" nor mentally ill - he was just extremely ambitious, young, and eager to prove himself/be the one to first bring the Targ dynasty a new sort of prestige in their dragonless beginnings, esp--as you said I said in another post--in the light of his family having lost the dragons - Daeron had the same social condition as many other young men who want to make a hero out of themselves AND that personal desire to be "Great", Alexander the Great style.
Baelor I constantly did stuff that were annoying to nobles or about to be harmful while also granting smallfolk some alleviations to get that "loved" factor among the most hapless of the population, which I think def fed into his religiosity-ego even as I think that he DEF had an mental illness...

I think that a lot of machismo/masculinity compels men to do extreme, stupid shit bc Western masculinity itself means that one must push boundaries, dominate, take, confront, etc. with other men knowing about it in order to "prove" you are "strong". "Strength" = masculinity; it works to be very flat and that flatness gets disguised as "naturally" simple, which lends to its own credibility as "real" strength. So whether they do some things that are logically illogical in a spectacle or publicly, it's so easy for people to try to claim men are just being boys and/or switch that up with "he was just mentally ill" when he decides to shoot up an Asian nail salon or a school. To be a man--esp a white one, but white masculinity = default masculinity--IS itself to be the real type of "crazy" that they will characterize as "bad" crazy in women or minority races/ethnic groups.

Thus Valyrians/descendants can also easily get this "madness" thing even if they are male.

Male "strength"--which is the general Western idea of "strength", period--is a very loaded double standard in that it's automatically assigned to the vague notion of masculinity as if the two are one thing, but it constantly shows itself to be two-trying-to-be-one through this notion of "proving", and this is the eternal conflict with men that they never want to actually address or think about bc thinking and self reflecting is not necessicity when masculinity is assigned as perfect in of itself. Some men do, but they are/have been a minority. Most/enough men will either flagrantly deny, attack, or not speak at all.

I wrote a whole post about religion, Baelor I, and Daeron I HERE.

#asoiaf asks to me #baelor i #daeron i #westerosi society #asoiaf writing #the targaryens #the evil targaryens #mental illness #targ madness #fandom ableism #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon reblogged

horizon-verizon

rhaenin-time asked:

This had been bothering me for awhile but I only now stumbled into this by accident. Certain people love to whine that Rhaenyra is a "hypocrite" for not forcibly instituting realm-wide genderless succession. They favour the line "this isn't Dorne" and then claim that she's a bad person for not making it into Dorne, while pretending that they wouldn't call her reckless or tyrannical if she'd tried to do so.

Of course (at least, people should see it as "of course"), that simply wouldn't work. Not just because it would be unprecedented for the Crown to enforce their own rules of succession, but also because you just cannot implement an involuntary system like that in a patriarchal society. If you left it uncertain, enforcing it on a case-by-case basis upon Houses that did not agree to it, you create uncertainty from which countless succession crises will occur after the head of house dies without naming the daughter over the younger son. If you implement it on a universal basis, you pretty much guarantee mass rebellions in a realm like Westeros. Those were the concerns of the Black council. But there's yet another. Even if the Crown had the power to enforce genderless succession, to squash or dissuade rebellion, you're left with yet another inevitability that we have seen in real life when you tell families in a patriarchal society that their legacy might be reduced to only a daughter.

In my opinion, there is no "realistic" way to write a change like that going through, being forced through in Westeros that doesn't result in mass infanticide and abandonment of first-born girls. And that's on top of the rebellions.

And this whole time I've been assuming that "Dornish" genderless succession was either a world-building error on GRRM's part, or something he meant to clarify or flesh out later on (misunderstanding or not, Arianne's worries must have had a deeper, environmental foundation after all). Because it's been so long since I read the books cover-to-cover (between GoT seasons 6&7 do NOT make me think about the year and time passing) I suppose I might have just let "fanon" shape my view of it. Because there IS a very widespread assertation, one that's gotten very loud as of late (very interesting how one "other" is so often used to tear down the worse "other." For another time though.) that all of Dorne somehow has embraced genderless succession and this is of course for some reason mostly brought up to argue about how Rhaenyra is a bad person for wanting to be the special exception, or how House Targaryen is bad for wanting to be the special exception in this regard.

But these are GRRM's words.

A ruling princess of Dorne would =not= take the name of her consort. And some of the major Dornish lordlings also follow this custom, in imitation of the ruling house.

And this is why before diving in further to a Targ-Martell comparison I ask you, resident expert in remembering and cataloging all those kinds of details, if there's some line in the main series outright contradicting this. Because if not, I'm pretty sure House Martell made itself a special exception. That the genderless succession they follow is the exception and not the rule even in Dorne. And by making themselves a special exception, they ended up setting an example that some houses follow on a voluntary basis.

And for some reason... no one is whining about it. 🤔

horizon-verizon answered:

No, it is true other houses in Dorne have female heads and heirs before/during the main series timewise and thus practice absolute primogenture:

Delonne Allyrion, the Lady of Godsgrace (heir = Ryon, male) [current]
Larra Blackmont, Lady of Blackmount (heir = Jynessa, female) [current]
Clarisse Dayne, the Lady of Starfall [Maegor I's reign]
Myria Jordayne, heir of the current lord Trebor Jordayne of the Tor

So yes, some Dornish houses do practice absolute primogeniture and the Martells are not an "exception". It's not ubiquitous nor is it rare or uncommon. Nymeria had her warrior women marry many pre-Nymeria Conquest Andal-dornish lords as well as shared Rhoynar metal and customs that over time simply reshaped a lot of Dorne forever; the northmost Dornish tend to be "less" Rhoynar in custom or practices, but apparently the non-Dornish marcher lords still see them as Other and gripe about their accents a lot. The northenmost Dornish are called "stony" by Daeron I, and tend to have members who can be lighter in ski and hair than other Dornishmen. Same tredn for absolute primogeniture, though yes, much less specific bc George doesn't really get into Dorne aside for the Martells, Arianne, Dorna, and the Sand Snakes/Areo Hotah.

rhaenin-time

When I say "exception" I mean more the way naysayers refer to Rhaenyra as an "exception" (in a way she never did for herself) rather than a literal exception that implies some kind of broader law or staunchly enforced rule. "Exception to the rule" as in, not the default. Because Nymeria doesn't seem to have taken a different approach to succession of other houses than Rhaenyra did. No law was passed declaring "henceforth, genderless succession is the law across all of Dorne." Absolute primogeniture was not implemented and enforced upon houses that did not voluntarily adopt the custom for their own heirs, as far as I have seen, that is.

Or more accurately, Rhaenyra did not distinguish herself from Nymeria in that regard. Or at least she didn't have the chance to. The Targaryens didn't come into Westeros with the numbers the Rhoynar did, and the other two Valyrian houses were seemingly more Andalized or "Valyrian" in a different way than the Targs were. So there's not an equivalent between the two in that way. And we're never given an example of what Rhaenyra would do if a leal lord/lady declared that they wanted to emulate the royal family and name their daughter heir over their son. That was in fact the deal-breaker when it came to Rosby-Stokeworth — they were not named heirs, their houses had not opted for absolute primogeniture, and the Crown was not in the business of overruling the wish of a lord or standard custom of an individual house.

I guess we could go into the whole "Rhaenyra would have reverted back to male preference for TARGARYENS." But that's kind of a separate argument (one I disagree with for a variety of reasons but not now).

The main difference just seems to be, aside from not having Rhoynar numbers, that we don't have a centuries-long scope where those practices are "adopted" by others. There's no reason to believe that some other houses wouldn't eventually see it as fashionable to adopt the same system, if that's indeed what happened with the many Dornish houses that didn't marry/merge with Rhoynar newcomers. Either that, or many of them simply never did make the change. Because neither GRRM's words nor anything from the text suggests it was enforced the way people cry that Rhaenyra or Viserys should have done. And unless anything else comes up, it kind of seems like Dorne had the same approach the rest of Westeros did: there is no one "law" imposed from above, and a lord decides upon succession. They just had the absolute/genderless option while the rest of the realm oscillated between agnatic and male-preference. And less misogyny due to... *gasp* cultural exchange and quite possibly Nymeria's legacy???? Which is why I find all the "but in Dorne" comments around the Dance... more than a little unfair.

Edit: After looking into those examples, I don't think any of them are noted to have brothers. Which kind of makes it ambiguous about whether they're cases of absolute vs. male preference primogeniture. Another example of how the subject is so murky, I suppose. Part of me wonders if it's intentional on GRRM's part. Either because he wants people to make some kind of assumption that he'll later challenge, or because he didn't feel like answering that question in detail and wanted to leave options for himself in the future.

horizon-verizon

Perros Blackmount is the younger brother of Jynessa, Larra Blackmount's first child and heir. (A Storm of Swords) So we can surmise if not all, there is a good possibility that some or most Dornish houses that practice absolute primogeniture aside from the Martells will have still have firstborn girls inherit/lead before the younger existing brother.

However, I did see what point you're making about Dorne's history towards getting a absolute primogeniture NOT coming from an actual law or dictation form the Martells/Nymeria but from the houses' successive decisions to do it this way from the cultural reset that comes from a woman/women (again, Rhoynar's mostly female warrior population at the time and many intermarrying with the "local" lords while assumedly still having backing from the rest and Nymeria AND the other exchanges of cultural items and practices like the iron and foods and ideas which would have occurred over a large period of time) conquering them.

So trying to use Dorne as the example for how Rhaenyra should do that (dictation, law) is a really insufficient and thus unfair argument against her character as well as a misunderstanding of non-Dorne Westeros vs Dorne.

#asoiaf asks to me #fandom discussion #asoiaf fav posts #dorne #westerosi history #rhaenyra targaryen #westerosi succession #westerosi society #fandom critical #hotd fandom #asoiaf fandom #fire and blood characters #rhaenyra's characterization #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon

Reasons Why the Westerosi Houses Didn't Overthrow the Targs After they Lost their Dragons

feudal oaths and ideology of loyalty to one's monarch...yes it matters, even though lords have also been known to break oaths or press for their own interests, this is still something considered relatively taboo (remember Ned's hatred for Jaime killing Aerys).....this is still a feudal society, guys.
(if you have in mind that they should have ousted the Targs out of some idea the Targs caused too much havoc or misery to the lords and peasants) #1, the Targs actually provided more years of sustained peace [ozymalek/PheonixAshes] than when the houses were all leaders of kingdoms pre-Conquest [list of a lot of warring across Westerosi relams pre-Conquest], inclu the years AFTER the Dance -- the Targs were "dramatic" but also most of their issues stem from patriarhcal abuses adopted from pre-conquest Westerosi leading into inevitable succession crises...if there ha dbeen no Targs and a Westerosi lord somehow "unifed" the realms through Conquest (even Dorne), you can't tell me there wouldn't be any wars or crises of succession...come on! The War of the Five Kings occurred even without any Targ tomfoolery, bc by then they were long (1 and a half generation away) gone by then.
The Targs were pretty and pragmatically tolerant of nonTarg Westerosi customs and never tried to stop them from practicing MOST (right of first night to be excluded); plus the Widow's Law was pretty beneficial as well.
some houses actually got to become Great Houses or Paramount Houses BECAUSE the Targs made them so: the tullys, the Baratheons, the Tyrells.
Post Dance, Rhaenyra's sons Aegon III and Viserys II were more or less pretty good at keeping things together...Viserys esp so before and during his own reign. And esp by keeping the women of their family out of politics or practicing enough autonomy and authority, since some felt the Dance happened bc they had authoritative and powerful queens (F&B tries to convince use female rulership was a disorderly and dangerous thing) so that the lords or any possible rivals couldn't or had not much to protest, etc.

#the targaryens #the evil targaryens #westerosi society #westerosi history #westerosi sexism #westeros feudalism #feudalism #asoiaf war #westerosi wars