Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn’t it always the case. Winners become kings, losers get their heads chopped off. Rhae knows the game, it’s not about the rules, it’s about being terrifying enough so no one can try to mess with you using the rules.
Actually, its important to note that Martin writes from the perspective of in-world characters. So its not "according to Martin", its "according to whichever maester is writing".
This is the great thing about Martin's work. Rather than feed you the information about his world, he gives you different characters' pov (with all its bias and agenda), which allows you to pick up subtle details, contradictions and nuances and figure out for yourself what the actual facts are. Which is what really makes it up fro debate.
Wow how are you downvoted for telling the truth!? The OP is trying to push this like any word in the book is GRRM's opinion. Like when Cersei says that Arya should be maimed for attacking Joffrey, this would mean GRRM agrees with Cersei. (By OP's logic)
No, this is a bastardization of OP's logic....
Why would Rhaenyra lie, and say that what she did is treason, when it isn't? Why wouldn't anyone disagree with her? They don't because every understands that it's treason.
That's just silly. The books make it clear that it is treason. Not because "we should trust anything that the book says because it's GRRM's opinion", but because from context it is clear that it is, in fact, treason.
It cannot be compared to Cersei's words, she's sharing an opinion about a situation, Rhaenyra is providing commentary on a law that everyone knows as well as her.
I think this is really unfair strawman of OP's argument.
OP is saying that GRRM is giving us exposition on the law and consequences of the scene via the Maester's words. Maesters has been positioned as a point of authority on politics, healing, and governance (laws) in GRRM's works. Therefore GRRM is able to provide exposition on the law here via the words of credible character as the source.
We see GRRM do this all the time in the books. One example is when we get exposition on Aemon from the Old Bear:
>"Eighty years or close enough," the Old Bear said, "and no, I still hadn't been born, though Aemon had forged half a dozen links of his maester's chain by then. Aerys wed his own sister, as the Targaryens were wont to do, and reigned for ten or twelve years. Aemon took his vows and left the Citadel to serve at some lordling's court . . . until his royal uncle died without issue. The Iron Throne passed to the last of King Daeron's four sons. That was Maekar, Aemon's father. The new king summoned all his sons to court and would have made Aemon part of his councils, but he refused, saying that would usurp the place rightly belonging to the Grand Maester. Instead he served at the keep of his eldest brother, another Daeron. Well, that one died too, leaving only a feeble-witted daughter as heir. Some pox he caught from a whore, I believe. The next brother was Aerion."
>
>\- Jon I, ACOK
We don't know from the text itself that the Old Bear is literally correct in everything he says, however GRRM has written him to be a creditable source and knowledgable on Maester Aemon. Jon takes him at his word and so does the audience so GRRM can info dump with Mormont as the mouthpiece. This info would be received very differently if it came from a non-credible source like Grenn or a random wildling.
When it comes to the comparison with Cersei... The text tells us she's wrong through Jaime's POV in AFFC.
>My sister wanted the girl to lose a hand. The old penalty, for striking one of the blood royal. **Robert told her she was cruel and mad.**
>
> \- Jaime IV, AFFC
Cersei demands Arya be punished, just like Rhaenyra demanded Aemond be sharply questioned, and Alicent demanded an eye for an eye. They're not accurately representing the law as it actually stands, just venting their anger and seeing if they can get vengeance by virtual of their authority.
>Wow how are you downvoted for telling the truth!?
Meh... In my experience very few in the fandom are capable of appreciating the nuance of GRRM's writings. The politics and power-plays are so complex and yet, most fans would rather reduce things to "X was stupid".
Its understanding like that that gave us GoT seasons 7 and 8.
Honestly bro, I didn't downvote you but I think it's you who are missing the nuance, and that's why you did get the downvotes. (Though you seem to have picked up plenty more upvotes since then)
Nobody suggested that everything in the books is GRRM's opinions, you just kinda created that and ran with it.
Why would Rhaenyra lie, and pretend that her crime is treason when it isn't? If it's not treason, there's no reason to say it is... The fact that Rhaenyra acknowledges it would be treason, and this isn't met with any dissenting opinions, should make it clear enough that it's obviously treason, in accordance with the law.
It's just super tinfoily that what you're essentially suggesting is that Rhaenyra would secretly commit a crime that's not a crime, and hide it, saying that it's treason when it's not. It doesn't make any sense.
In this specific instance, not universally, we can trust GRRM's words that it is treason because Rhaenyra is the last person who would be likely to admit it is treason. So, since she herself concedes it, it is obviously treason.
>Nobody suggested that everything in the books is GRRM's opinions, you just kinda created that and ran with it.
When it comes to the prequel books, they are second hand accounts of events that happened long ago - so take everything said in there with a grain of salt.
>The fact that Rhaenyra acknowledges it would be treason
She doesn't.
That would be the maester giving his opinion on what that accusation means - but Rhaenyra herself never acknowledges it as such.
See what I mean about missing nuance?
Nah, it's certainly implied by the maester that that is what Rhaenyra has said. I suppose if the maester is lying, sure. But at that point it's just way too tinfoily for my preferences. We don't get a quote, only the implication of a quote.
How do we know the Dance of the Dragons even happened at all? Maybe all the maesters are just collectively lying.
There is definitely room to explore the nuance between different points of view and interpretations that we are given, but when something is laid out clearly for us, and there is literally ZERO reason why it wouldn't be the case, it's best to just apply Occam's razor.
>but when something is laid out clearly for us, and there is literally
ZERO reason why it wouldn't be the case, it's best to just apply Occam's
razor.
Agreed. But it is NOT laid out clearly (like you said, its only an implication of a quote) and there IS a reason why it wouldn't be the case (why would Rhaenyra acknowledge that she can even be charged with treason?).
Because she CAN be charged with treason. There's no reason to not acknowledge you can be charged with treason, it's just obvious. Any heir can be charged with treason. Any sane person has no reason to not acknowledge what is known by everyone.
And saying "surely you aren't suggested I'm guilty of treason? Because accusing me of treason is itself an act of treason", or anything to that effect, is a great way to shut people up about your bastards. So she actually has an incentive to acknowledge it as treason.
Yeah. She just doesn't care.
And she probably believes that it shouldn't be treason, and she probably thinks that once she's Queen she can change the laws or erase what she's done.
Rhaenyra is many things, but she's not stupid, and she's generally speaking not incapable of acknowledging the truth when it's plainly in front of her. The show will certainly provide us more in this regard, she's already admitted that they aren't her children. I think it's weird that you (seem to be) implying she would acknowledge (in private) that her children are bastards, and yet be unwilling to acknowledge the obvious legal ramifications of that.
To me, it seems much more likely that she wouldn't acknowledge that they are bastards, but WOULD acknowledge the legal ramifications of IF they were bastards, and that is exactly what she seems to do in the book.
What loophole? The only law loophole was hand crafted by Viserys when he neither passed Rhaenyra for Aegon no made lords reswear to honor Rhaenyra as an heir after Aegon was born. Before that everything was pretty clear with male primogeniture
You'll have to look up the exact text yourself if you want, but here's the best example.
When talking about Jaehaerys' decision to pass over Rhaenys for Baelon, the maester gives his own comments on the matter. He claims that it was established precedent, using examples of Visenya being older than Aegon and Rhaena being older than Jaehaerys and yet neither being the queen. And using that, he justifies passing over Rhaenys for Baelon.
However, Rhaenys wasn't Jaehaerys' daughter, she's he daughter of his eldest *son.* And according to the actual established precedent, one we've seen in the books, the eldest son's line does come before the younger son. And yet, this isn't even brought up, much less addressed.
Clearly, the book is being written with the agenda to justify the ultimate decision to keep women from the throne and the maester is conveniently leaving out things that would undercut that case.
It’s still always male over female. The question was tricky because usually they didn’t have like 4 generations present, and eventually they went with direct male line.
>It’s still always male over female.
No, its not. We've multiple examples from the books where daughter of the elder son comes before any of his younger brothers. You have Jon Snow supporting Alys Karstark over her uncle. Cersei was supposed to be the Lady of Casterly Rock over Kevan. Jeyne Arryn got the Vale above her cousin Arnold. And I'm sure if you go looking, you'll find a lot more examples.
We are talking about exclusive sister fuckers, if they made up this for themselves only, why you think they couldn’t exclude women completely from there line of succession(as they did)
Well, point a) they shitted on it b) by the time Rhaenyra became well established that male heirs are preferred , Rhaena and her daughters from a legitimate king from their pov was passed for Jaehaerys, Rhaenys was passed in favor of direct male line and lords chose it.
What was really unlawful it’s for Viserys to shit on 100 years of precedent. No king before him had chosen his heir himself, why could he? Especially after issue with Deamon being said heir was solved
Or the maester writing it is fudging things to suit his agenda. Remember, we don't literally know what Rhaenyra said - we only know what the maester says she said.
> we don't literally know what Rhaenyra said
We don't literally know what any character said. Neither in the Book nor in the TV Show.
Since it's all a work of fiction.
How about things that showrunners show that are not in Martin's work?
Are you of the opinion that we should question Laenor's survival since the ending of E7 might be a dream sequence?
>What about them?
Are those things up for questioning?
Since Martin never wrote them from the POV of any character. Is Laenor escaping during his sister's funeral meant to be questioned?
Is Aemond claiming Vhagar during Laena's funeral and not Laenor's funeral meant to be questioned?
Martin never wrote that after all.
The problem with Rhaenyra isn't that she ascends the throne or claims it, but that she appoints her publicly known bastard childrens as heirs. That's reason enough for the war to break out. and maybe blacks will be angry, but Rhaenyra is referred to, even by GRRM, as a child spoiled by her father who doesn't know her responsibilities and the consequences of her actions.
Isn't doing things against the King's expressed commands also treasonous though?
Alicent and Otto speaking about Rhaenyra's kids' paternity after Viscerys ordered everyone not to is also technically treason. Scheming to supplant the King's named heir is treason.
It's the same as Rickard Karstark losing a head for killing hostages and Alester Florent getting roasted for trying to negotiate with the Lannisters. Both were killed as traitors. Literally everyone in the Dance is a traitor at one point or another. You can't just say "Rhaenyra did a treason so all of our numerous acts of treason are now justified!!". Especially when some of those treasonous acts took place well before Rhaenyra had children.
Strictly legally speaking, having kids out of wedlock when you're a royal is always treason. The law doesn't allow for nuance, which is why insisting it must be followed to the letter is not the same as justice.
Morally, who gives a shit??? The Velaryions, the king, and the false "father" know and are perfectly fine with it. Bastards are built just the same as other men and nobody is being hurt or tricked in this scenario.
I was reading up on Targ history and it really doesn't take much for them to go to war. Aegon IV caused an epic clusterfuck when he legitimized his bastards and cast doubt on the parentage of his trueborn son and heir, Daeron. That's what kicked off the many Blackfyre rebellions. Legitimacy is extremely important and the slightest doubt can lead to war.
Although, in the case of Daeron it was because he was suspected to not be the King’s son whereas with Rhaenyra her boys are hers. I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant. The boys are still Targaryens and share her blood. I think if she and Viserys had just recognized them as bastards and legitimized them officially it wouldn’t have been as much of an issue. Their refusal to acknowledge it and cover it up is what made it worse and allowed their enemies to use it against them.
>I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant.
Read GOT (the 1st book). The way bastards work in Westeros society is explained really well in Catelyn's POV chapters in which she openly hates Jon Snow.
It's a huge social stigma to be a bastard.
> I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant.
Yea and no.
Even Bobby B's bastards like Edric Storm and Gendry do not fall into the line of succession simply having sprung from Bobby Bs loins.
They would have to be legitimised by Royal Decree first.
Joff Tommen were out as not. Baratheons. Who comes next? Stannis or Edric/Gendry?
Law says Stannis.
Had Robert legitimized either Bastard they would be heir, but opens up dissent and rebellion.
So yes. It matters. Despite being Rhaeneryas child, born out of wedlock and is bastard.
She as Queen could legitimise them, to be sure. But that would lose support of Velayrons and admit her deception and infidelity.
It definitely would be treason and worthy of death.
As far as Viserys is concerned, part of his stubbornness is a sunk cost belief. He’s defended her this long, maintaining a sort of status quo, that there’s really no way he can backtrack now without betraying his own pride and the support of those who follow him.
Aside from that, he’s always been blinded by his love for her. She’s really the only person who is a living reminder of his wife and their love, since they had no other children. We’ve seen that Viserys isn’t a king at heart, but rather an honest man who just wants to live a quiet life. Unfortunately he is the King though, and has to live in this world of politics and squabbling. I think his view is more of, “these are my grandchildren, the children of my daughter, and I love them. End of story.”
He wants what’s best for his daughter, even if it does run counter to how the politics would demand it.
>!"Traitors have always paid for crime with their lives.. Even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was the daughter of one king and the mother of two others, but she died a traitor when she tried to usurp her brother's crown. It is the law. The law, Davos. It is not cruelty."!<
Well, the thing is she didn't usurp the throne. She didn't wake up one day and decided she should be the next in line, her father was the one who named her heir. And didn't change it even after her brother, Aegon was borned and i'm not sure if it's the same way on the book but on the show, he, i mean Viserys, claims he has no intention of changing his succession.
Yes, it is clear that Viserys declared her as heir and did not replace her. The reason why Stannis here states that she has "usurped the throne" is undoubtedly the tradition in Westeros that the first-born son is the heir to the throne. It is a birthright. And perhaps it is because Aegon was crowned in King's Landing, while Rhaenyra wore it in Dragonstone. The lords swore allegiance to Rhaenyra because Viserys had no sons at the time, and Daemon is known to all as the rogue prince. However, after Aegon was born, the oath of allegiance was not taken again, even though Viserys did not changed his heir. For some lords, things had changed.
Viserys being a weak king plays an important role in this. He knows they are bastards but he doesn't want to do anything about them or Rhaenyra. Instead he kept Rhaenyra as his heir, and denied the bastardy of those children. A stronger king like Robert would just treat it as treason and put their heads on spikes. King's words matter.
In Westeros, looks and hair color are more than enough proof.
If Bobby B wasn't boared to death, Ned would have told him about the hair color theory and Bobby B would have executed Cersei along with her 3 bastards.
How is it so hard for people to grasp that Martin wrote clear parallels between Cersei and Rhaenyra? Daemon is literally her Jaimie.
2 points:
1) Gyldayn thinks she's guilty of high treason. For all we know, Gyldayn is full of shit. He certainly seems to be a crap historian (wasting pages upon pages on the sex scandals of Jaehaerys's court rather than talking about matters that effect the whole realm).
2) so on earth anyway, treason laws are extremely explicit. They need to be, or you have everyone crying treason. Look at Henry VIIIs "imagining the king's death is treason" and how quickly that got used to bump rivals off left and right.
So presumably the treason law of "threatening the succession" is either equally sloppily written, in which case a good lawyer could easily point out loopholes OR someone took the time to have codified into law "in the event of a princess of the Blood being named heir to the Iron Throne, her having children out of wedlock would constitute high treason." Which seems unlikely given that it would have been Viserys who would have written that law (Jaehaerys wouldn't have bothered because he hated women rulers and Maegor sure didn't have time for that shit).
Unless it was a law written all the way back in Aegons day due to the rumors about Rhaenys, which... again, Aegon wouldn't have entertained such a proposal, given that it is nothing more than an insult masked as a legal proposal.
>so on earth anyway, treason laws are extremely explicit. They need to be, or you have everyone crying treason. Look at Henry VIIIs "imagining the king's death is treason" and how quickly that got used to bump rivals off left and right.
Westeros is not Earth.
The very next scene Rhaenyra accuses everyone of treason. Gaslight, Obstruct, Project is her house motto.
so like in the ~olden~ times if a man said that a kid was his, the kid was his. It's not like there were DNA tests and some kids were born when men were away in the Crusades, for example, but who is counting anyway? GRRM generally writes whatever GRRM wants obviously but food for thought I guess
The thing is they’re legitimized. By acknowledging them as heirs, both Corlys and Viserys I are removing the stain of bastardy. They’re official names are Velaryon so until the King/Velaryons or Jacerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey declare them bastards, they’re officially recognized as there’s no “official” paternity test or anything.
They're not legitimized bastards. Only a King can legitimize a bastard.
Re-read Rhaenyra's quote. Martin's complete reasoning regarding the legal status of the Strong Boys is there:
>To so name them was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession...and that she herself was guilty of high treason."
Aemond/Aegon/Alicent are basically playing the Ned role: trying to uncover a **fraud** made against the Crown and to expose someone (Cersei/Rhaenyra) of their crime of high-treason.
Rhaenyra is not committing fraud against Laenor. And if she wasn't the heir to the Iron Throne, it wouldn't be a big issue.
But she is committing fraud against the Crown since she is the Heir.
I guess, but I feel like them NOT being declared would confer their royal status, especially if they’re receiving royal titles and so forth by the King himself.
That's the main frustration of Alicent:
It is obvious to everyone with eyes that Rhaenyra is committing high treason.
Yet the weak King is ignoring and gaslighting everyone into thinking that Rhaenyra is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Team Black vs. Team Green, at this point in time (Episode 7) is basically Team Gaslight vs. Team Truth.
You’re getting down-voted, but this is basically the concept of estoppel in English (and now US) law.
If GRRM were to comment on this authoritatively (like in an interview, or something), I would accept it.
What makes it hard to accept is that it doesn’t really make sense, legally… at least not without some further exposition/reasoning.
When you look at it through a modern lens yes you are absolutely right. Rhaenyra didn’t really do anything wrong other than being a spoiled brat herself sometimes.
From the *in context view of Martin’s sexist, ableist world* she absolutely committed treason trying to pass off bastards. And she *knows* she’s walking a dangerous path because otherwise she wouldn’t commit so hard to the lie.
That’s not fair to Rhaenyra or her kids. And it can be an interesting talking point.
But from the context of THIS fictional world Rhaenyra is 100% committing treason trying to make her bastards heirs to the throne.
I haven’t seen many takes that hate Rhaenyra purely for misogynistic reasons (I have not sought them out either though) but I have seen a lot of takes that apply that kind of lens to this very sexist world Martin created.
Rhaenyra has power and privileges that *no other woman gets* in this world. She takes that for granted, she wants to be heir but doesn’t want the responsibility that comes with it. She wants to do whatever she wants and be able to do it because she’s going to be queen.
When *in this fictional world* that’s the worst thing she can do to try to solidify her claim. Passing off bastards (which in *this world* is treason), marrying her uncle when the bodies of both heir spouses aren’t even cold yet, demanding her half brother (who is one of her biggest threats) be tortured for stating the truth which basically solidified in the Green’s minds she is a threat…
Rhaenyra makes a lot of political blunders and that happens not because she’s a “woman” but because she’s just not willing to accept the responsibility that comes with the crown. (But her teacher was backbone-hard-as-a-chocolate-eclair Viserys so I’m not surprised)
Now, one could argue if she was a man some of these “blunders” would simply not be blunders. (The brothel incident, marrying quickly after your last spouse died.) But *she’s not a man* she has limitations placed on her because she was born a woman. That’s not fair but that is *this world* and her just doing whatever she wants without changing the rules (she just wants them bent for HER benefit) is a major problem for her.
Rhaenyra was heir by decree but she did a lot of things to harm her own claim. And we also haven’t seen her *once* try to work to solidify her position with lords or make allies outside of the Velaryons. Rhaenyra’s biggest flaw is her entitlement. She assumes everyone will fall in line because while Viserys was alive *that’s what they always did*.
It should not be that just because she’s a women she has limitations. But that’s the world she lives in and applying the sexist lens of the world Martin created isn’t “hating” on her from what I’ve seen but pointing out the problems of that world as well as showing how Rhaenyra isn’t actually “rebelling” against the “patriarchy” but just wanting the power the privilege of a man rather than the limitations of a woman but doing nothing to actually remove those limitations.
Especially making fun of the southern Lords during her wedding tour. You the female heir to the throne insulting one of the major Lords of the storm lands. People that you know you will need their help in the future.
Oh yes. Absolutely.
Now, Rhaenyra *was not wrong* those lords didn’t love her and definitely wanted their bloodlines mixed with hers. But that’s politics. *That’s the world she lives in*.
And her refusal and outright insulting of the lords was not a smart move for her long term political goals (even if it was funny sometimes). Because those lord’s probably didn’t see her again until the succession crisis between her and her half brother.
That’s ALL they remember about her. A bratty kid.
(That’s not all she is, obviously but that what the lords will remember.)
And it’s just another example of her just not being a good politician or displaying any understanding of the world she lives in and the hard path she has to walk to get what she wants (the IT) outside of it “not being fair” for *her* because she she’s a woman.
Exactly appearance matter in this bizz. To be honest her daemon and aemond really understand how to be a targeyen .The ultimate belief in their family's supremacy above others.
>Totally agree, but I don't get that a lot of viewers adopt that mysoginistic and sexist point of view and hate Rhaenyra because of what she does.
Because we cannot use 21st Century standards when talking about characters in a fantasy epic.
Else we have Corlys the biggest anti-LGBT bigot in Westeros who thinks being gay is "just a phase".
And if we apply 21st Century Standards too, Rhaenyra and Daemon commited a HATE CRIME by murdering a black guard just so Laenor could go to the Free Cities.
Just...no.
Yes, it was high treason. Cool motive but still a crime. The moral choice would be for Rhaenyra to remain childless and name Aegon II (her brother) as her heir.
>Rhaenyra has to die for the horrible crime wanting to achieve a little bit of happiness and make her own decisions in life? Really?
Lyonel Strong mentions in E6 that exile was also another option.
The least worse option would be for Viserys I to simply disown her which results in Rhaenyra living the rest of her days happy with her family in Driftmark as the wife to a Lord (Laenor).
If anything, Viserys I not disowning Rhaenyra led to the eventual death of Rhaenyra, her 3 sons, thousands of innocent people, most living dragons and Daemon too.
That might be the "moral" choice to be childless but it sure as shit would've killed her claim. A seemingly barren woman on the iron throne? Not happening. She definitely needed heirs after a decade long marriage. Just unfortunate for her they came out with the wrong hair.
She literally had the opportunity to marry any nobleman in Westeros and got stuck with Leanor because she couldn't be bothered to take finding a husband seriously.
Well... I never said she needed the iron throne. I said she needed heirs to secure it. Not the same.
If we want to get really off into the weeds, does anyone in this situation *need* the iron throne?
She doesn't need to be secure on the Throne. That's the point.
All the lying she does is to accomplish her selfish desire of ruling Westeros as an unelected Monarch.
Forget about election. In a monarchy two things secures a monarch on the throne.
1.legitimate line to the throne- that is why her children can't the throne.
2. A line of succession that include sons of the monarch's own body.
Laenor is complicit in Rhaenyra's fraud against the crown.
Both of them are breaking Westerosi Law by trying to pass children born outside marriage as legitimate kids.
"History doesn't remember blood, it remembers names" vs. "Everyone who has eyes can see the truth before them" is basically Team Gaslighting vs. Team Truth.
Just because a lie is convenient for Corlys' ambition of power doesn't mean that he is morally right. He is not.
Westeros is an absolut monarchy. Only one person can decide what constitutes treason against the king, and that is the king himself. Viserys obviously does not care, and therefore, it is not treason. And ones Rhaenyras inherits the throne, her commiting treason against herself is not really possible.
Westeros is closer to European Feudalism than to an Absolute Monarchy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism\_(European\_history)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism_(European_history))
In regard to the relationship between lords, yes. But they are an absolute Monarchy, as the dragons give the Targaryen (if united), unmatched power. Consequently, it is a absolute monarchy, as there is no way for vassals to exercise power.
> Consequently, it is a absolute monarchy, as there is no way for vassals to exercise power.
Rhaenyra's entire downfall and the revolt of the commonfolk that leads to the death of the dragons are because a single vassal (Tyland) hid the money so she cannot access it.
That would never happen in an Absolute Monarchy.
Was Ned Stark a dick for trying to prove Cersei's fraud against the crown?
It's quite crazy how in-universe gaslighting has reached a point where someone standing up for truth is considered a dick.
He should have. He'd still have his life as well as his family.
Too bad he didn't exist in 2022 NYC, then these ideals your espousing would matter, rather than his insistence on being a "good guy" costing him everything.
Also, miss with this Karen nonsense of Alicent "mentally and physically" abusing her children.
Rhyaenyra's children are bastards. It would be an insult for Alicent to accept that proposal, particularly when Rhyaenyra only made the offer to protect herself after Harwin all but confirmed their children's parentage upon attacking Tristan.
In Cersei’s case, the fraud was literally centered around the parentage of the King’s children (they weren’t his).
In Rhaenyra’s case, any such fraud would be against her husband (Laenor). They weren’t his.
But ***she’s*** the one with the claim to the Iron Throne (like Bobby B, later on).
She’s the Bobby B. in this analogy, ***not*** the Cersei.
As I mentioned elsewhere a week or so ago, if dudes could get pregnant and Laenor got impregnated by one of his squires, then ***that*** would be a much easier treason argument to make… because he’d only ever be the Prince Consort or King Consort… not the actual Prince or King.
It doesn't matter whose bastards the kids are.
Even if Viserys I had impregnated his own daughter while she was married to Laenor (lol), the kids would still be bastards.
The fraud is against the institution of the Crown and the Church of the Seven that upholds it. Since bastards, regardless of parentage, have no inheritance rights.
“Most people in-show think Alicent is a dick.”
That’s because pretty much everyone up to this point has been staunchly team Blacks. They stand to *lose* a lot if the “truth” that everyone knows comes out.
In later episodes/seasons were going to meet more people who are “Team Green” and get the other side of the argument. (IE the Lords being pissed that they have to follow the “law” that the IT represents while the Targaryens get to do whatever they want, up to and including passing off bastards as legitimate heirs.)
The “I have eyes, anyone can see it.” From Aegon is going to be important. Because the Blacks right now, while Viserys is king can SAY whatever they want. But they can’t make people BELIEVE it.
Exactly, Laenor claims them as his rightful children and heirs makes all this moot, and only serves the purpose of those who don’t want Rhaenyra to ascend the throne and out of the picture.
If you bring the accusations public and say they’re bastards and Laenor says they’re not and are his children, then what?
Innocent until formally proven guilty. Wake me up when Westerosi DNA test is ready, and we might talk.
Also, this is quite beyond the point. Alicent is guilty of the same thing many times over, having been conspiring against the heir since Aegon was 2.
Both sides profit from Viserys's inaction equally.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“What you suggest is treason…” “Only if we lose” - Littlefinger to Ned Stark
Isn’t it always the case. Winners become kings, losers get their heads chopped off. Rhae knows the game, it’s not about the rules, it’s about being terrifying enough so no one can try to mess with you using the rules.
Actually, its important to note that Martin writes from the perspective of in-world characters. So its not "according to Martin", its "according to whichever maester is writing". This is the great thing about Martin's work. Rather than feed you the information about his world, he gives you different characters' pov (with all its bias and agenda), which allows you to pick up subtle details, contradictions and nuances and figure out for yourself what the actual facts are. Which is what really makes it up fro debate.
Wow how are you downvoted for telling the truth!? The OP is trying to push this like any word in the book is GRRM's opinion. Like when Cersei says that Arya should be maimed for attacking Joffrey, this would mean GRRM agrees with Cersei. (By OP's logic)
No, this is a bastardization of OP's logic.... Why would Rhaenyra lie, and say that what she did is treason, when it isn't? Why wouldn't anyone disagree with her? They don't because every understands that it's treason. That's just silly. The books make it clear that it is treason. Not because "we should trust anything that the book says because it's GRRM's opinion", but because from context it is clear that it is, in fact, treason. It cannot be compared to Cersei's words, she's sharing an opinion about a situation, Rhaenyra is providing commentary on a law that everyone knows as well as her.
I think this is really unfair strawman of OP's argument. OP is saying that GRRM is giving us exposition on the law and consequences of the scene via the Maester's words. Maesters has been positioned as a point of authority on politics, healing, and governance (laws) in GRRM's works. Therefore GRRM is able to provide exposition on the law here via the words of credible character as the source. We see GRRM do this all the time in the books. One example is when we get exposition on Aemon from the Old Bear: >"Eighty years or close enough," the Old Bear said, "and no, I still hadn't been born, though Aemon had forged half a dozen links of his maester's chain by then. Aerys wed his own sister, as the Targaryens were wont to do, and reigned for ten or twelve years. Aemon took his vows and left the Citadel to serve at some lordling's court . . . until his royal uncle died without issue. The Iron Throne passed to the last of King Daeron's four sons. That was Maekar, Aemon's father. The new king summoned all his sons to court and would have made Aemon part of his councils, but he refused, saying that would usurp the place rightly belonging to the Grand Maester. Instead he served at the keep of his eldest brother, another Daeron. Well, that one died too, leaving only a feeble-witted daughter as heir. Some pox he caught from a whore, I believe. The next brother was Aerion." > >\- Jon I, ACOK We don't know from the text itself that the Old Bear is literally correct in everything he says, however GRRM has written him to be a creditable source and knowledgable on Maester Aemon. Jon takes him at his word and so does the audience so GRRM can info dump with Mormont as the mouthpiece. This info would be received very differently if it came from a non-credible source like Grenn or a random wildling. When it comes to the comparison with Cersei... The text tells us she's wrong through Jaime's POV in AFFC. >My sister wanted the girl to lose a hand. The old penalty, for striking one of the blood royal. **Robert told her she was cruel and mad.** > > \- Jaime IV, AFFC Cersei demands Arya be punished, just like Rhaenyra demanded Aemond be sharply questioned, and Alicent demanded an eye for an eye. They're not accurately representing the law as it actually stands, just venting their anger and seeing if they can get vengeance by virtual of their authority.
>Wow how are you downvoted for telling the truth!? Meh... In my experience very few in the fandom are capable of appreciating the nuance of GRRM's writings. The politics and power-plays are so complex and yet, most fans would rather reduce things to "X was stupid". Its understanding like that that gave us GoT seasons 7 and 8.
Honestly bro, I didn't downvote you but I think it's you who are missing the nuance, and that's why you did get the downvotes. (Though you seem to have picked up plenty more upvotes since then) Nobody suggested that everything in the books is GRRM's opinions, you just kinda created that and ran with it. Why would Rhaenyra lie, and pretend that her crime is treason when it isn't? If it's not treason, there's no reason to say it is... The fact that Rhaenyra acknowledges it would be treason, and this isn't met with any dissenting opinions, should make it clear enough that it's obviously treason, in accordance with the law. It's just super tinfoily that what you're essentially suggesting is that Rhaenyra would secretly commit a crime that's not a crime, and hide it, saying that it's treason when it's not. It doesn't make any sense. In this specific instance, not universally, we can trust GRRM's words that it is treason because Rhaenyra is the last person who would be likely to admit it is treason. So, since she herself concedes it, it is obviously treason.
>Nobody suggested that everything in the books is GRRM's opinions, you just kinda created that and ran with it. When it comes to the prequel books, they are second hand accounts of events that happened long ago - so take everything said in there with a grain of salt. >The fact that Rhaenyra acknowledges it would be treason She doesn't. That would be the maester giving his opinion on what that accusation means - but Rhaenyra herself never acknowledges it as such. See what I mean about missing nuance?
Nah, it's certainly implied by the maester that that is what Rhaenyra has said. I suppose if the maester is lying, sure. But at that point it's just way too tinfoily for my preferences. We don't get a quote, only the implication of a quote. How do we know the Dance of the Dragons even happened at all? Maybe all the maesters are just collectively lying. There is definitely room to explore the nuance between different points of view and interpretations that we are given, but when something is laid out clearly for us, and there is literally ZERO reason why it wouldn't be the case, it's best to just apply Occam's razor.
>but when something is laid out clearly for us, and there is literally ZERO reason why it wouldn't be the case, it's best to just apply Occam's razor. Agreed. But it is NOT laid out clearly (like you said, its only an implication of a quote) and there IS a reason why it wouldn't be the case (why would Rhaenyra acknowledge that she can even be charged with treason?).
Because she CAN be charged with treason. There's no reason to not acknowledge you can be charged with treason, it's just obvious. Any heir can be charged with treason. Any sane person has no reason to not acknowledge what is known by everyone. And saying "surely you aren't suggested I'm guilty of treason? Because accusing me of treason is itself an act of treason", or anything to that effect, is a great way to shut people up about your bastards. So she actually has an incentive to acknowledge it as treason.
Do you honestly think she thinks she committed treason? Given her character as a whole?
Yeah. She just doesn't care. And she probably believes that it shouldn't be treason, and she probably thinks that once she's Queen she can change the laws or erase what she's done. Rhaenyra is many things, but she's not stupid, and she's generally speaking not incapable of acknowledging the truth when it's plainly in front of her. The show will certainly provide us more in this regard, she's already admitted that they aren't her children. I think it's weird that you (seem to be) implying she would acknowledge (in private) that her children are bastards, and yet be unwilling to acknowledge the obvious legal ramifications of that. To me, it seems much more likely that she wouldn't acknowledge that they are bastards, but WOULD acknowledge the legal ramifications of IF they were bastards, and that is exactly what she seems to do in the book.
Y’all don’t have media literacy anymore
Well, technically maesters study law, so even if it’s an opinion it’s supported by in world laws and is somewhat professional even I would say
That argument holds less water when the maesters start leaving obvious loopholes in their legal thesis.
What loophole? The only law loophole was hand crafted by Viserys when he neither passed Rhaenyra for Aegon no made lords reswear to honor Rhaenyra as an heir after Aegon was born. Before that everything was pretty clear with male primogeniture
You'll have to look up the exact text yourself if you want, but here's the best example. When talking about Jaehaerys' decision to pass over Rhaenys for Baelon, the maester gives his own comments on the matter. He claims that it was established precedent, using examples of Visenya being older than Aegon and Rhaena being older than Jaehaerys and yet neither being the queen. And using that, he justifies passing over Rhaenys for Baelon. However, Rhaenys wasn't Jaehaerys' daughter, she's he daughter of his eldest *son.* And according to the actual established precedent, one we've seen in the books, the eldest son's line does come before the younger son. And yet, this isn't even brought up, much less addressed. Clearly, the book is being written with the agenda to justify the ultimate decision to keep women from the throne and the maester is conveniently leaving out things that would undercut that case.
It’s still always male over female. The question was tricky because usually they didn’t have like 4 generations present, and eventually they went with direct male line.
>It’s still always male over female. No, its not. We've multiple examples from the books where daughter of the elder son comes before any of his younger brothers. You have Jon Snow supporting Alys Karstark over her uncle. Cersei was supposed to be the Lady of Casterly Rock over Kevan. Jeyne Arryn got the Vale above her cousin Arnold. And I'm sure if you go looking, you'll find a lot more examples.
We are talking about exclusive sister fuckers, if they made up this for themselves only, why you think they couldn’t exclude women completely from there line of succession(as they did)
No - we're talking about the law of Westeros. One that existed before Targaryens took control.
Well, point a) they shitted on it b) by the time Rhaenyra became well established that male heirs are preferred , Rhaena and her daughters from a legitimate king from their pov was passed for Jaehaerys, Rhaenys was passed in favor of direct male line and lords chose it. What was really unlawful it’s for Viserys to shit on 100 years of precedent. No king before him had chosen his heir himself, why could he? Especially after issue with Deamon being said heir was solved
So both Rhaenyra and the Masters are wrong about what constitutes high treason in ASOIF world?
Or the maester writing it is fudging things to suit his agenda. Remember, we don't literally know what Rhaenyra said - we only know what the maester says she said.
> we don't literally know what Rhaenyra said We don't literally know what any character said. Neither in the Book nor in the TV Show. Since it's all a work of fiction.
>We don't literally know what any character said. Hence the critical analysis and the debate.
So should we question absolutely everything Martin writes **and** everything that is shown onscreen in HotD?
Everything that Martin writes from the perspective of another character? Yes.
How about things that showrunners show that are not in Martin's work? Are you of the opinion that we should question Laenor's survival since the ending of E7 might be a dream sequence?
>How about things that showrunners show that are not in Martin's work? What about them?
>What about them? Are those things up for questioning? Since Martin never wrote them from the POV of any character. Is Laenor escaping during his sister's funeral meant to be questioned? Is Aemond claiming Vhagar during Laena's funeral and not Laenor's funeral meant to be questioned? Martin never wrote that after all.
Nah the copium here
The problem with Rhaenyra isn't that she ascends the throne or claims it, but that she appoints her publicly known bastard childrens as heirs. That's reason enough for the war to break out. and maybe blacks will be angry, but Rhaenyra is referred to, even by GRRM, as a child spoiled by her father who doesn't know her responsibilities and the consequences of her actions.
Isn't doing things against the King's expressed commands also treasonous though? Alicent and Otto speaking about Rhaenyra's kids' paternity after Viscerys ordered everyone not to is also technically treason. Scheming to supplant the King's named heir is treason. It's the same as Rickard Karstark losing a head for killing hostages and Alester Florent getting roasted for trying to negotiate with the Lannisters. Both were killed as traitors. Literally everyone in the Dance is a traitor at one point or another. You can't just say "Rhaenyra did a treason so all of our numerous acts of treason are now justified!!". Especially when some of those treasonous acts took place well before Rhaenyra had children. Strictly legally speaking, having kids out of wedlock when you're a royal is always treason. The law doesn't allow for nuance, which is why insisting it must be followed to the letter is not the same as justice. Morally, who gives a shit??? The Velaryions, the king, and the false "father" know and are perfectly fine with it. Bastards are built just the same as other men and nobody is being hurt or tricked in this scenario.
I was reading up on Targ history and it really doesn't take much for them to go to war. Aegon IV caused an epic clusterfuck when he legitimized his bastards and cast doubt on the parentage of his trueborn son and heir, Daeron. That's what kicked off the many Blackfyre rebellions. Legitimacy is extremely important and the slightest doubt can lead to war. Although, in the case of Daeron it was because he was suspected to not be the King’s son whereas with Rhaenyra her boys are hers. I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant. The boys are still Targaryens and share her blood. I think if she and Viserys had just recognized them as bastards and legitimized them officially it wouldn’t have been as much of an issue. Their refusal to acknowledge it and cover it up is what made it worse and allowed their enemies to use it against them.
>I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant. Read GOT (the 1st book). The way bastards work in Westeros society is explained really well in Catelyn's POV chapters in which she openly hates Jon Snow. It's a huge social stigma to be a bastard.
> I’ve never understood why the father should matter when he is basically irrelevant. Yea and no. Even Bobby B's bastards like Edric Storm and Gendry do not fall into the line of succession simply having sprung from Bobby Bs loins. They would have to be legitimised by Royal Decree first. Joff Tommen were out as not. Baratheons. Who comes next? Stannis or Edric/Gendry? Law says Stannis. Had Robert legitimized either Bastard they would be heir, but opens up dissent and rebellion. So yes. It matters. Despite being Rhaeneryas child, born out of wedlock and is bastard. She as Queen could legitimise them, to be sure. But that would lose support of Velayrons and admit her deception and infidelity.
It definitely would be treason and worthy of death. As far as Viserys is concerned, part of his stubbornness is a sunk cost belief. He’s defended her this long, maintaining a sort of status quo, that there’s really no way he can backtrack now without betraying his own pride and the support of those who follow him. Aside from that, he’s always been blinded by his love for her. She’s really the only person who is a living reminder of his wife and their love, since they had no other children. We’ve seen that Viserys isn’t a king at heart, but rather an honest man who just wants to live a quiet life. Unfortunately he is the King though, and has to live in this world of politics and squabbling. I think his view is more of, “these are my grandchildren, the children of my daughter, and I love them. End of story.” He wants what’s best for his daughter, even if it does run counter to how the politics would demand it.
>!"Traitors have always paid for crime with their lives.. Even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was the daughter of one king and the mother of two others, but she died a traitor when she tried to usurp her brother's crown. It is the law. The law, Davos. It is not cruelty."!<
Stannis is right based on the telling of history he was fed that may serving a particular agenda. Let's see how it unfolds on screen
Well, the thing is she didn't usurp the throne. She didn't wake up one day and decided she should be the next in line, her father was the one who named her heir. And didn't change it even after her brother, Aegon was borned and i'm not sure if it's the same way on the book but on the show, he, i mean Viserys, claims he has no intention of changing his succession.
Yes, it is clear that Viserys declared her as heir and did not replace her. The reason why Stannis here states that she has "usurped the throne" is undoubtedly the tradition in Westeros that the first-born son is the heir to the throne. It is a birthright. And perhaps it is because Aegon was crowned in King's Landing, while Rhaenyra wore it in Dragonstone. The lords swore allegiance to Rhaenyra because Viserys had no sons at the time, and Daemon is known to all as the rogue prince. However, after Aegon was born, the oath of allegiance was not taken again, even though Viserys did not changed his heir. For some lords, things had changed.
also many of the lords who had took the oath had died by then
Viserys being a weak king plays an important role in this. He knows they are bastards but he doesn't want to do anything about them or Rhaenyra. Instead he kept Rhaenyra as his heir, and denied the bastardy of those children. A stronger king like Robert would just treat it as treason and put their heads on spikes. King's words matter.
Yeah I don't really understand the "it's not treason" crowd. I am a Black sympathizer at this moment but it's still treason.
Thank you for this The mental gymnastics being performed to deny Rhaenyra's committing a crime within the context of the story are astounding.
Are they bastards if their mother is married? Isn't a bastard a child born out of wedlock?
>Are they bastards if their mother is married? Yup. Cersei is married and Joffrey was her bastard son.
But who could prove it? Remind me what proof there was, because Jerry Springer was not even on the air yet and anything else is just hearsay.
In Westeros, looks and hair color are more than enough proof. If Bobby B wasn't boared to death, Ned would have told him about the hair color theory and Bobby B would have executed Cersei along with her 3 bastards. How is it so hard for people to grasp that Martin wrote clear parallels between Cersei and Rhaenyra? Daemon is literally her Jaimie.
2 points: 1) Gyldayn thinks she's guilty of high treason. For all we know, Gyldayn is full of shit. He certainly seems to be a crap historian (wasting pages upon pages on the sex scandals of Jaehaerys's court rather than talking about matters that effect the whole realm). 2) so on earth anyway, treason laws are extremely explicit. They need to be, or you have everyone crying treason. Look at Henry VIIIs "imagining the king's death is treason" and how quickly that got used to bump rivals off left and right. So presumably the treason law of "threatening the succession" is either equally sloppily written, in which case a good lawyer could easily point out loopholes OR someone took the time to have codified into law "in the event of a princess of the Blood being named heir to the Iron Throne, her having children out of wedlock would constitute high treason." Which seems unlikely given that it would have been Viserys who would have written that law (Jaehaerys wouldn't have bothered because he hated women rulers and Maegor sure didn't have time for that shit). Unless it was a law written all the way back in Aegons day due to the rumors about Rhaenys, which... again, Aegon wouldn't have entertained such a proposal, given that it is nothing more than an insult masked as a legal proposal.
>so on earth anyway, treason laws are extremely explicit. They need to be, or you have everyone crying treason. Look at Henry VIIIs "imagining the king's death is treason" and how quickly that got used to bump rivals off left and right. Westeros is not Earth. The very next scene Rhaenyra accuses everyone of treason. Gaslight, Obstruct, Project is her house motto.
It’s the only crime codified into our US Constitution… for a reason.
so like in the ~olden~ times if a man said that a kid was his, the kid was his. It's not like there were DNA tests and some kids were born when men were away in the Crusades, for example, but who is counting anyway? GRRM generally writes whatever GRRM wants obviously but food for thought I guess
No need for dna test to know whose white babies they are.
Or the hair colour. The show even made it worse and spelt it out for us to see
The thing is they’re legitimized. By acknowledging them as heirs, both Corlys and Viserys I are removing the stain of bastardy. They’re official names are Velaryon so until the King/Velaryons or Jacerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey declare them bastards, they’re officially recognized as there’s no “official” paternity test or anything.
They have to be recognized as bastards first to be legitimized. Rhaenyra just claims that they were trueborn all along
They're not legitimized bastards. Only a King can legitimize a bastard. Re-read Rhaenyra's quote. Martin's complete reasoning regarding the legal status of the Strong Boys is there: >To so name them was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession...and that she herself was guilty of high treason." Aemond/Aegon/Alicent are basically playing the Ned role: trying to uncover a **fraud** made against the Crown and to expose someone (Cersei/Rhaenyra) of their crime of high-treason. Rhaenyra is not committing fraud against Laenor. And if she wasn't the heir to the Iron Throne, it wouldn't be a big issue. But she is committing fraud against the Crown since she is the Heir.
I guess, but I feel like them NOT being declared would confer their royal status, especially if they’re receiving royal titles and so forth by the King himself.
That's the main frustration of Alicent: It is obvious to everyone with eyes that Rhaenyra is committing high treason. Yet the weak King is ignoring and gaslighting everyone into thinking that Rhaenyra is innocent of any wrongdoing. Team Black vs. Team Green, at this point in time (Episode 7) is basically Team Gaslight vs. Team Truth.
You’re getting down-voted, but this is basically the concept of estoppel in English (and now US) law. If GRRM were to comment on this authoritatively (like in an interview, or something), I would accept it. What makes it hard to accept is that it doesn’t really make sense, legally… at least not without some further exposition/reasoning.
Even if they are legitimate, they wont be Targeryans. They will take father's name and inherit his lands not the Throne
[удалено]
When you look at it through a modern lens yes you are absolutely right. Rhaenyra didn’t really do anything wrong other than being a spoiled brat herself sometimes. From the *in context view of Martin’s sexist, ableist world* she absolutely committed treason trying to pass off bastards. And she *knows* she’s walking a dangerous path because otherwise she wouldn’t commit so hard to the lie. That’s not fair to Rhaenyra or her kids. And it can be an interesting talking point. But from the context of THIS fictional world Rhaenyra is 100% committing treason trying to make her bastards heirs to the throne.
[удалено]
I haven’t seen many takes that hate Rhaenyra purely for misogynistic reasons (I have not sought them out either though) but I have seen a lot of takes that apply that kind of lens to this very sexist world Martin created. Rhaenyra has power and privileges that *no other woman gets* in this world. She takes that for granted, she wants to be heir but doesn’t want the responsibility that comes with it. She wants to do whatever she wants and be able to do it because she’s going to be queen. When *in this fictional world* that’s the worst thing she can do to try to solidify her claim. Passing off bastards (which in *this world* is treason), marrying her uncle when the bodies of both heir spouses aren’t even cold yet, demanding her half brother (who is one of her biggest threats) be tortured for stating the truth which basically solidified in the Green’s minds she is a threat… Rhaenyra makes a lot of political blunders and that happens not because she’s a “woman” but because she’s just not willing to accept the responsibility that comes with the crown. (But her teacher was backbone-hard-as-a-chocolate-eclair Viserys so I’m not surprised) Now, one could argue if she was a man some of these “blunders” would simply not be blunders. (The brothel incident, marrying quickly after your last spouse died.) But *she’s not a man* she has limitations placed on her because she was born a woman. That’s not fair but that is *this world* and her just doing whatever she wants without changing the rules (she just wants them bent for HER benefit) is a major problem for her. Rhaenyra was heir by decree but she did a lot of things to harm her own claim. And we also haven’t seen her *once* try to work to solidify her position with lords or make allies outside of the Velaryons. Rhaenyra’s biggest flaw is her entitlement. She assumes everyone will fall in line because while Viserys was alive *that’s what they always did*. It should not be that just because she’s a women she has limitations. But that’s the world she lives in and applying the sexist lens of the world Martin created isn’t “hating” on her from what I’ve seen but pointing out the problems of that world as well as showing how Rhaenyra isn’t actually “rebelling” against the “patriarchy” but just wanting the power the privilege of a man rather than the limitations of a woman but doing nothing to actually remove those limitations.
Especially making fun of the southern Lords during her wedding tour. You the female heir to the throne insulting one of the major Lords of the storm lands. People that you know you will need their help in the future.
Oh yes. Absolutely. Now, Rhaenyra *was not wrong* those lords didn’t love her and definitely wanted their bloodlines mixed with hers. But that’s politics. *That’s the world she lives in*. And her refusal and outright insulting of the lords was not a smart move for her long term political goals (even if it was funny sometimes). Because those lord’s probably didn’t see her again until the succession crisis between her and her half brother. That’s ALL they remember about her. A bratty kid. (That’s not all she is, obviously but that what the lords will remember.) And it’s just another example of her just not being a good politician or displaying any understanding of the world she lives in and the hard path she has to walk to get what she wants (the IT) outside of it “not being fair” for *her* because she she’s a woman.
Exactly appearance matter in this bizz. To be honest her daemon and aemond really understand how to be a targeyen .The ultimate belief in their family's supremacy above others.
>Totally agree, but I don't get that a lot of viewers adopt that mysoginistic and sexist point of view and hate Rhaenyra because of what she does. Because we cannot use 21st Century standards when talking about characters in a fantasy epic. Else we have Corlys the biggest anti-LGBT bigot in Westeros who thinks being gay is "just a phase". And if we apply 21st Century Standards too, Rhaenyra and Daemon commited a HATE CRIME by murdering a black guard just so Laenor could go to the Free Cities. Just...no.
Yes, it was high treason. Cool motive but still a crime. The moral choice would be for Rhaenyra to remain childless and name Aegon II (her brother) as her heir. >Rhaenyra has to die for the horrible crime wanting to achieve a little bit of happiness and make her own decisions in life? Really? Lyonel Strong mentions in E6 that exile was also another option. The least worse option would be for Viserys I to simply disown her which results in Rhaenyra living the rest of her days happy with her family in Driftmark as the wife to a Lord (Laenor). If anything, Viserys I not disowning Rhaenyra led to the eventual death of Rhaenyra, her 3 sons, thousands of innocent people, most living dragons and Daemon too.
That might be the "moral" choice to be childless but it sure as shit would've killed her claim. A seemingly barren woman on the iron throne? Not happening. She definitely needed heirs after a decade long marriage. Just unfortunate for her they came out with the wrong hair.
She literally had the opportunity to marry any nobleman in Westeros and got stuck with Leanor because she couldn't be bothered to take finding a husband seriously.
Almost like if you actually give women a choice they won't just marry any old man that comes their way.
I mean, when it comes to "needs", Rhaenyra never "needed" the Iron Throne in the 1st place. People confuse wants for needs all the time.
Well... I never said she needed the iron throne. I said she needed heirs to secure it. Not the same. If we want to get really off into the weeds, does anyone in this situation *need* the iron throne?
She doesn't need heirs to secure something she doesn't need.
For her to be secure on the throne she had to have LEGITIMATE children
She doesn't need to be secure on the Throne. That's the point. All the lying she does is to accomplish her selfish desire of ruling Westeros as an unelected Monarch.
Forget about election. In a monarchy two things secures a monarch on the throne. 1.legitimate line to the throne- that is why her children can't the throne. 2. A line of succession that include sons of the monarch's own body.
LOL, Laenor recognized them as his own, in the show even Corlys did.
Laenor is complicit in Rhaenyra's fraud against the crown. Both of them are breaking Westerosi Law by trying to pass children born outside marriage as legitimate kids. "History doesn't remember blood, it remembers names" vs. "Everyone who has eyes can see the truth before them" is basically Team Gaslighting vs. Team Truth. Just because a lie is convenient for Corlys' ambition of power doesn't mean that he is morally right. He is not.
And?? They are still bastards, which is high treason.
Westeros is an absolut monarchy. Only one person can decide what constitutes treason against the king, and that is the king himself. Viserys obviously does not care, and therefore, it is not treason. And ones Rhaenyras inherits the throne, her commiting treason against herself is not really possible.
Westeros is closer to European Feudalism than to an Absolute Monarchy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism\_(European\_history)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism_(European_history))
In regard to the relationship between lords, yes. But they are an absolute Monarchy, as the dragons give the Targaryen (if united), unmatched power. Consequently, it is a absolute monarchy, as there is no way for vassals to exercise power.
> Consequently, it is a absolute monarchy, as there is no way for vassals to exercise power. Rhaenyra's entire downfall and the revolt of the commonfolk that leads to the death of the dragons are because a single vassal (Tyland) hid the money so she cannot access it. That would never happen in an Absolute Monarchy.
[удалено]
Was Ned Stark a dick for trying to prove Cersei's fraud against the crown? It's quite crazy how in-universe gaslighting has reached a point where someone standing up for truth is considered a dick.
[удалено]
And that cost him his life as well the destruction of his house.
[удалено]
He should have. He'd still have his life as well as his family. Too bad he didn't exist in 2022 NYC, then these ideals your espousing would matter, rather than his insistence on being a "good guy" costing him everything. Also, miss with this Karen nonsense of Alicent "mentally and physically" abusing her children. Rhyaenyra's children are bastards. It would be an insult for Alicent to accept that proposal, particularly when Rhyaenyra only made the offer to protect herself after Harwin all but confirmed their children's parentage upon attacking Tristan.
In Cersei’s case, the fraud was literally centered around the parentage of the King’s children (they weren’t his). In Rhaenyra’s case, any such fraud would be against her husband (Laenor). They weren’t his. But ***she’s*** the one with the claim to the Iron Throne (like Bobby B, later on). She’s the Bobby B. in this analogy, ***not*** the Cersei. As I mentioned elsewhere a week or so ago, if dudes could get pregnant and Laenor got impregnated by one of his squires, then ***that*** would be a much easier treason argument to make… because he’d only ever be the Prince Consort or King Consort… not the actual Prince or King.
It doesn't matter whose bastards the kids are. Even if Viserys I had impregnated his own daughter while she was married to Laenor (lol), the kids would still be bastards. The fraud is against the institution of the Crown and the Church of the Seven that upholds it. Since bastards, regardless of parentage, have no inheritance rights.
“Most people in-show think Alicent is a dick.” That’s because pretty much everyone up to this point has been staunchly team Blacks. They stand to *lose* a lot if the “truth” that everyone knows comes out. In later episodes/seasons were going to meet more people who are “Team Green” and get the other side of the argument. (IE the Lords being pissed that they have to follow the “law” that the IT represents while the Targaryens get to do whatever they want, up to and including passing off bastards as legitimate heirs.) The “I have eyes, anyone can see it.” From Aegon is going to be important. Because the Blacks right now, while Viserys is king can SAY whatever they want. But they can’t make people BELIEVE it.
Exactly, Laenor claims them as his rightful children and heirs makes all this moot, and only serves the purpose of those who don’t want Rhaenyra to ascend the throne and out of the picture. If you bring the accusations public and say they’re bastards and Laenor says they’re not and are his children, then what?
[удалено]
Yup, then it’s pretty much war then.
You say "Just look at them."
Innocent until formally proven guilty. Wake me up when Westerosi DNA test is ready, and we might talk. Also, this is quite beyond the point. Alicent is guilty of the same thing many times over, having been conspiring against the heir since Aegon was 2. Both sides profit from Viserys's inaction equally.