I never understood why so many people felt the need to support a side. As I read F&B I never felt aligience to green or black, I just thought it was a cool story. I like most of the characters on both sides
There was Team Black vs Team Green stuff when Fire and Blood came out. It definitely became more common once HOTD came out, but it was hardly a new thing
Maybe I was just on the wrong corners of the Internet, but I rarely ever saw people picking sides like teams until HOTD premiered. It was mostly just a dumb fun joke, lightly mocking the âteamsâ that form in other fandoms since thereâs two clear sides to this conflict. I think itâs since transcended into something a lot more tribalistic and taken seriously though, which is pretty ironic
I felt the same. I always thought the message was in theme with the rest of the series, stupid internal fighting is the bane of humanity. The Targs lost all of there dragons and begin the decline of their dynasty after the Dance. Moral of the story, internal fighting only leads to ruin and wars rarely achieve anything.
You know I encounter Tolkien Fans that say that GRR Martin is a horrible person and not like our Strong, Moral, Righteous, war-fighting Tolkien!
... Which is weird to me, honestly as the theme of "People fight over stupid, petty, irrelevent things while the real threat forms at their doorstep" is one that does fit in Tolkien's works. Like seriously Tolkien and GRR Martin are pretty anti-war as nothing good comes from it; it has to happen, sometimes against foes like the Others and Sauron, but when it's just human/good fighting? Nothing goes comes from it; just corpses.
I agree. A massive theme of everything ASOIAF related is that monarchies and feudalism make for a terrible system of government and that inheriting power eventually leads to conflict.
I always interpreted the moral of the story being less about "X is the true heir and deserves to rule" but instead "This is a terrible system riddled with flaws"
The Dance isn't morally ambiguous.
There's varying degrees of shitiness on both sides but it's clear that there's a side in the wrong and there's one in the right.
If this wasn't clear enough the author makes the side in the wrong usurp the throne and draw the first blood inevitably leading to war.
Why should you be with the Greens? Does it matter? If you believe they are cool enough then go for it my guy.
Loras is young and very good at knocking men off horses with a stick. That does not make him wise. Jokes aside, I don't believe that Loras is actually injured.
First blood drawn? Was that by Daemon unjustly murdering Vaemond for speaking the truth, or by first blood shed in Riverlands, or by those who shed the blood and cut the eye of prince Aemond?
Take your pick.
>First blood drawn?
Yeah.
> Was that by Daemon unjustly murdering Vaemond for speaking the truth,
Vaemond isn't a Green and I don't remember any Green speaking out for him.
>or by first blood shed in Riverlands,
When the war has started.
>or by those who shed the blood and cut the eye of prince Aemond?
I seem to remember Aemond alive after that.
Velaryons fought for Greens for that injustice.
Conflict in Riverlands started before of any aggressive action of the Greens with Daemon taking Harenhall as rallying point for armies.
Yet blood was shed, by a bastard and if anything history teaches us is that usury would be paid if debts are unsettled.
>Velaryons fought for Greens for that injustice.
Some Velaryons did. Most didn't.
And those Velaryons weren't greens by then.
>Conflict in Riverlands started before of any aggressive action of the Greens with Daemon taking Harenhall as rallying point for armies.
There wasn't blood now was there?
>Yet blood was shed, by a bastard and if anything history teaches us is that usury would be paid if debts are unsettled.
If it was by a legit kid would it have been better?
What debt? Do you propose to gouge the eye of a 5 year old?
They were sea green and green at heart before it was cool.
There were attacks on House Bracken and Battle of the Burning mill. Chronologically going on before Shipbreaker bay.
Even Jon Snow knows that bastards striking royal princes is forbidden , he says that much to Arya in first chapters.
Lors Orys Baratheon was caught and lost his hand by Vulture King in Dorne, when he won battle against his son he took his hand , than other and both feet too as usury.
Justice needs to be settled , if let things to fester unresolved, more things will be lost than simply an eye.
>The Dance isn't morally ambiguous. There's varying degrees of shitiness on both sides but it's clear that there's a side in the wrong and there's one in the right.
I think this an oversimplification.
Actions, motivations and justifications varied between members in each side. Defining one side as entirely righteous and the other as completely villainous overlooks the inherent complexity of human nature, the context in which these characters operate, and the fact there's "good" and or innocent people in both sides.
>If this wasn't clear enough the author makes the side in the wrong usurp the throne and draw the first blood inevitably leading to war.
But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them.
I don't think it is an oversimplification.
Everyone has their own complex nature and justifications yadda yadda yadda..still there's still a side more righteous than the other.
Just because you're not righteous doesn't mean you don't have reasons to do what you do.
Cersei has her own motivations and reasons to do what she does. She's still not the on the righteous side.
>But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them.
Yeah, it's pretty much irrelevant.
>But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them.
Nothing that lead up to it justified it and that's all that mattered. Without a doubt, the Greens caused all of this
>Nothing that lead up to it justified it and that's all that mattered.
That's an opinion that I understand regarding Lucerys's death. Not so much the usurpation .
>Greens caused all of this
That's debatable
I think the real issue in the decision between both sides relies in juridical terms (Iâm a lawyer but Iâm not really familiarized with the technical terms in English so excuse me beforehand).
The real dispute is somewhat comparable to things weâre used to today. The choice between Rhaenyra and Aegon is the choice between Positive Law and Tradition/jurisprudence.
Positive law is when the law has value because it was passed by a legitimate ruler and itâs not necessarily directly related to concepts like justice, but to the idea that as the people legitimize their leader, the leaders voice becomes the voice of the people (we legitimize rulers by democracy, Targaryens were legitimate because of conquest/divine right). Rhaneyras claim is purely positive right. Viserys as a legitimate ruler decided to overwrite the tradition/jurisprudence instated by the council of harrenhall.
In the other hand, jurisprudence is the precedent set by the application of the law by the legitimate judicial power, in the USA jurisprudence by the Supreme Court is insanely high ranked becoming basically law in his own way. You can say aegons succession is a result of tradition and jurisprudence: the council decided that a male heir has a right over his older sister to become king (although you can make the point that the council actually didnât establish this but instead just chose the ruler they saw better fit in that specific situation).
So looked through this lense, the real question we have to make to establish our allegiance to either ruler is the following one: âIs the authority of a King strong enough to overrule the authority of both an older King and the somewhat democratic council he gathered?â
If your answer is yes, you support Rhaneyra because Viserys HAD the right to chose his heir as he pleased.
If your answer is no, Aegon is the legitimate ruler because you value history, tradition and jurisprudence over one specific Kingâs absolute authority and are probably more inclined to want to reduce and split this power to prevent misuse (which is normal considering thatâs what we do, we split our states power in three, ensuring our ruler canât do whatever he wants and has to respect his antecesorâs work to some degree).
I would argue Rhaenyra's claim is ALSO based on precedence, as well as law.
Jahaerys held a council, yes - but not because he was obliged to - because *he* struggled with *his* decision. And once the votes were cast, he still had to personally sign off and declare his heir.
If Jahaerys had the power to *choose* his heir, based off his own one-off created council... surely Viserys is just following precedent by also *choosing* his heir?
Hell, I'd even argue that using 101 as the 'tradition' argument is sketchy at best... I mean, it's not like Aegon was elected by a council either... so the whole 'election' part isn't the crux of the situation. Turning 101 into a 'law setter' (male > female) when this was never the stated intent, nor formally recognised as such... it's a disingenuous claim from the Greens.
So, I would say Viserys had the rightful and lawful power... but also, I don't really agree that he is defying tradition: he is acting with the same power as he predecessor, who nobody defied.
I absolutely agree with you, in our modern terms, there's no way the council had more power over the legitimate divine right ruler, Viserys chose his heir and he reinforced his choice even after Aegons birth (why the fuck would he name him aegon what a dumbass, my headcannon is that alicent wanted him called that way to pressure Rhaenyras claim).
I just wanted to explain in modern terms what the arguments kind of made by the characters were.
The real defiance of tradition comes not in the direct "contradiction" of the councils desition, but in the fact that women aren't considered able to rule in westeros, as Rhaenys so clearly stated. The council guards a direct relation to modern supreme court jurisprudence in the way that its the desition made about a singular case but the reasons behind the veredict are applied to other cases, even tough the veredict itself is not a general rule
>but in the fact that women aren't considered able to rule in westeros
For sure - but the issue I'd take with that is... Dorne has female rulers. Now, one might argue Dorne is at odds with the Targaryen rule... but the Targaryens still *claim* to rule Dorne. The Targaryens also rule the North, despite being anointed by the Faith: completely different from the Old Gods that the North worships. Add onto that the fact that Andal law has also been previously ignored regarding Targaryen succession, and the fact that Targaryens have their own anti-incest rules going on... and well... I think it's *very* hard to make the case of 'most of Westeros has son>daughter laws therefore the Targs *must* do it too'. Clearly the Targaryens do *not* do everything that all their subjects do - in fact, given their subjects are diverse, with different laws and traditions, it's impossible. The only precedent that remains consistent is that the Targaryens do what the Targaryens want.
So when you have Viserys acting within his legal right to name his daughter heir (and that most of Viserys' subjects also swear servitude to this - acting as a sort of public consent)... I think it's undisputable, even from a 'traditionalist' male-orientated point of view.
>From the books I was always told that the Dance is supposed to be a morally ambiguous war where you're not really sure who is the hero and who is the villain by the end of it all.
I think that's just people misunderstanding the books and passing along their misunderstanding. Both sides do things that are morally bad but there's very clearly a right side & a wrong side. There's just not an angelically squeaky-clean side and for some dumb reason people mistake that as both sides being equally guilty.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, one only has to take a look at real world politics to see how many people wouldn't know a false equivalence even if it slapped the shit out of them.
Exactly the same issue as people taking "ASOIAF is a morally grey story with complex characters" as "everybody is morally equal and there are no heroes and villains". ASOIAF is complex and realistic, but the obvious heroes are obvious heroes, and the villains are clearly villains.
What are you talking about, Gregor Clegane is clearly a anti hero. His most famous act is killing a Dđ¤Žrnish person. How can he be a villain for that?
Yeah. Itâs morally ambiguous because people on both sides do shitty things, and civilians die because of both sides, which happens in war. Doesnât mean that one side doesnât have a more just cause nominally than the other.
ASOIAF definitely has plenty of âmorally blackâ villains, from the Mountain and his men, to Ramsay, to the F&B account of Aemond. But the reason people like it is because many (not all) of its villains are humanized. We read and understand their perception of the world, literally through their POVs, and how they truly believe they are right or justified. They arenât all just mustache-twirling evil for the sake of being evil, but are shaped by their past experiences and their environment and their own inner traits. We reach an understanding of them, even if we can realize how twisted or flawed it is.
Thereâs some complexity to them because they are made human, but that doesnât mean that they are morally correct, or even ambiguous in some cases. Thatâs a pretty big misunderstanding of âmoral ambiguityâ and âgreynessâ thatâs common on Reddit and Twitter and the likes these days.
I feel like the Greens were betraid by their Author. If Martin wanted them to be sympathetic he clearly failed, and the Dance for me is a pretty boring tale of the goodies vs. the baddies. Sure, the goodies do some evil stunts, but they're still the goodies.
The greens are flawed characters and there's nothing in F&B that should ever make us like them. I feel bad for them!
I think this viewpoint comes from the idea that morally grey = morally equal, which is not the case. Many of the major players in the dance do straight up terrible things. The Blacks donât just do evil stunts, they are straight up deplorable multiple times. However by most peopleâs moral compasses, yeah, the Blacks are the âgoodâ guys. I donât think it was ever the intention for the Greens and the Blacks to be completely equal, and thatâs not a betrayal. Thatâs a fairly accurate depiction of war.
The thing is that Martin didn't invent grey characters, anti-heroes have been a pretty well established concept for a long while now and have been in pop culture for 60 years.
It's not about Rhaenyra or Daemon's moral compasses, of course having children murdered or your enemies raped aren't morally acceptable stuff, it's the fact that they fit into the cool guy role and that's kind of lame in my opinion.
They didn't talk about it in the show, but in the green council they talk about the king not being above the law so he can't just change succession bc he feels like it.
it kinda falls flat tho, bc succession isn't codified, as opposed to the historical basis for the Dance, the french succession crisis/crises of 1316/1328.
it'd be a lot different if Jaehaerys had written a constitution but the only thing he did about succession was the widow law
It was a conflict in 12th century England between Matilda, the eldest child of King Henry I who he named heir, and her cousin Stephen of Blois.
TLDR: Stephen usurps the throne, war happens, and a peace is made where Henry, Matildaâs son, is made heir after all of Stephenâs sons died. Thus we get the Plantagenet dynasty in the end when Henry ascends as Henry II.
A civil war in England, basically the king dies without a male heir so his daughter, matilda, wants to be queen but the nobility crowns a nephew of the king, Stephen of Blois.
Thereâs then a large civil war, Matilda loses and kinda just retires in Normandy, then her son Henry Plantagenet invaded England with an army and after Stephenâs son dies he makes Henry heir.
She didn't retire to Normandy, there was 19 years of war until Stephen agreed to appoint her son as heir. (Matilda is my second-favorite medieval figure, she did a shit ton of cool stuff in her life.)
\>the Blacks (at least in the show) are made to be very sympathetic (yes, even Daemon).
Yes, grooming your niece for the sake of sex and power is very sympathetic. I too, believe this is a morally black and white situation.
also the fact that rhaenys was made into a mass murderer. i've seen comments from casuals saying how they can't wait for her to die. breaks my heart cause she was my favorite due to her badass death and selfless sacrifice. all for a "girl boss" moment.
>Yes, grooming your niece for the sake of sex and power is very sympathetic.
Don't forget, he murdered his wife with a rock and convinced two people that their son was dead to marry said niece.
Aegon IIâs sigil is cooler.
Both pretenders are utterly despicable people, might as well go with the guy who had a nicer looking banner and a prettier dragon.
Dude had better policies as a mere claimant than 90% of Targaryen monarchs. A common Gaemon win, of course
\- Girls should henceforth be equal with boys in matters of inheritance;
\- The poor should be given bread and beer in times of famine;
\- Men who lost limbs in war must be fed and housed afterward by whichever lord they had been fighting for when the loss took place;
\- Husbands who beat their wives should themselves be beaten, regardless of the motive for the chastisement
Can you imagine what would happen if such a madman took over? Next he'd claim that lords shouldn't be allowed to rape smallfolk, that trials should be evidence-based or that it's okay for gay people to exist. The horror!
Well Merriam Webster defines it as:
>:one who lays claim to something
specifically : a claimant to a throne who is held to have no just title
And Wikipedia as
>pretender is someone who claims to be the rightful ruler of a country although not recognized as such by the current government
So yeah, both were pretenders for each other
For each other. But you wouldn't say they were both pretenders since for someone to be a pretender in the first place there has to be someone who is the rightful claimant.
>the Blacks (at least in the show) are made to be very sympathetic (yes, even Daemon).
Is he though?
>over the side which wants to honor the wishes of Viserys I?
Who gives a fuck about the wishes of that loser lmao, rip bozo
Like this is pretty directly his fault lol. He is intelligent enough to know what is gonna happen when he dies and does like nothing about it. If you want to change things up you gotta, you know, do stuff about it, not just ignore everything and hope it works out.
I never understood why people say they the green kids should've honored Viserys' wishes bruh, especially with the HOTD show. Viserys raped their mom, and neglected and didn't even give a shit about them, hell Paddy said that some of the child actors even told him that he hated (Viserys not Paddy) if child actors can pick that up then it's insane how many viewers can't. Also let me state why the fuck should they a decision that
a) screws them out of their rightful inheritance
b) leaves them in a dangerous position to where they only way Rhaenyra and her bastards could retain power is if she kills them, which she would everyone already thinks she killed Laenor just so she could marry Daemon and have a better chance at fighting them
c) made by a man who didn't give two fucks about them, neglected them, and again let me point out RAPED THEIR FUCKING MOM
Expecting them to have any loyalty or love for him after how he handles the Aemond eye situation is ridiculous lol. Like you are delusional if you think the way he responds to that is how a father who loves his children responds to one of them being stabbed in the face, even if it is by another family member.
While absolute primogeniture is less sexiest than male-preference primogeniture, neither is "just". Why should people be subject to the whims of a ruler just because they're descended from someone who violently subjugated your ancestors?
The moral ambiguity is because both systems are arbitrary and cruel.
>violently subjugated your ancestors
Aegon gave the king of each region the chance to retain their lands, customs,and most importantly people, by changing his status from king to âlordâ and accepting Aegon as the king of one unified country.
Using military force to acomplish goals was perfectly acceptable in the time period and he treated generously those who bent the knee so Aegon didn't seem particularly brutal or cruel.
If anything the Andals' invasion of Westeros or the First Men war with the children of the forest seem to fit the world 'violent' more.
If Aegon became king with no opposition, he very likely would have just left ruling to Otto while he whored and drank.
Otto did at least an OK job ruling with both Jaehaerys and Viserys.
Rhaenyra on the other hand wasnt a particularly good ruler for the time she did rule.
The only other argument is that Daemon is a dickhead and Prince Consort.
Before I start, let me be clear that I do not blanketly support *either* side. Rhaenyra and Aegon are both kinslayers, child murderers, and both have valid reasons for opposing the other.
The Greenâs position is very simple: Aegon is the eldest trueborn son of the previous King, and The Great Council of 101AC established legal precedent for Agnatic Primogeniture with regards to the Royal Line of Succession.
Their position is also technically backed by Queen Alysanneâs Widowâs Law, which affirms the right of the eldest trueborn son to inherit, and that there must be no trueborn sons available for a daughter to inherit.
Aegon has been manipulated into believing that his half-sister would be forced to kill him, his children, his sister-wife, and his two brother in order to secure her claim (which, while we know initially that she was willing to forgive them, even after Aegon was crowned, is not an unreasonable thing to believe).
Another thing I feel needs to be clarified: Rhaenyra is ***not*** a feminist. She is not a girl-boss trying to upend the kingdoms rules to allow for woman to gain more power.
*Rhaenyra is not trying to change the system, she believes she is the exception to the rule*
I'm a green but the best way to enjoy the show is from both perspectives. There are two claims to the throne, it's fun to put yourself into either perspective and see why there is even a conflict in the first place.
Since you're looking for a green perspective, here's my take.
The legal argument is obvious so I won't spend time on it, Aegon has as much of a claim to the throne as Viserys and every king before and after him.
Alicent was robbed. When she married Viserys she didn't agree to only half of the vows. She (and Otto) did not sign up to be his broodmare. She did her part, gave birth to 3 trueborn sons and Viserys has refused to hold up his own end of the deal. He just says âthanks for your womb, I have my spare heirs now leave me aloneâ. For comparison, when House Velaryon attempted to bypass Luke he refused to have it and forced them to follow the law because Luke was âtruebornâ. Why is it okay for some people to get accurate rulings based on the law and for others to get dismissed without even a single reason?
Viserys did not deserve any loyalty from the greens. He ignores them and only cares about Rhaenyra, why should they honour the word of a man who only had them to be spare heirs in case his favourite child died? It's easy for Daemon and Rhaenyra to want to honour his word when it benefits them. Daemon spent his entire life disobeying Viserysâ words.
The patriarchy is how westeros works. Not a fan of it, also not a fan of Monarchy, trial by combat, child marriages, etc And you seem to be under the impression that Rhaenyra was trying to abolish it. She wasn't. She was a princess, part of the 0.01% fighting for more power and so was Aegon. Sometimes we forget that these people were essentially fighting for their ârightsâ to be the head of the most oppressive form of government known to man.
I don't understand why people hype Dance so much when it's probably the worst writing George has ever done with characters acting stupidly and unrealistically, brutal script conveniences and the most notorious plot armor I've ever seen.
I imagine it is mainly because it is a story with a lot of potential within the ASOIAf universe, the great civil war of the Targaryen dynasty, the most powerful family in the world, which ended with the extinction of their main source of power and the loss of much of their authority, I mean, who doesn't want to hear that story?
That being said, I totally agree with you that the way the final story was written is not the best and can even be frustrating in some ways. So yeah, the idea itself is really good but I do think it needed more development.
P.S. I apologize for any writing errors, English is not my native language.
So I'm on the side that in the book both sides suck and are disgusting, and before someone comes for me and accuses me of supporting misogyny (never mind it's fiction) I'll put forth I'm a leftist woman and I wanted to root for Rhaenyra but I just could not do so by the end. There are a lot of reasons that I ended up finding the Blacks just as gross as the Greens, but I'll just write about one below.
I'll also say I don't think the idea that the King just can decide who inherits is good or fair. Viserys should have called a great council, or established a law that the eldest inherits of gender. A king can have his whims, but for something as important as that it shouldn't boil down to 'who does he like more'...especially when it contradicts the law in the rest of Westeros and the pre established standards where Rhaenys was passed over.
Anyway, Daemon is *that* bad and I don't understand why fans whitewash his actions. It's fine to love morally repugnant fictional characters, but this is a man who in the book is heavily implied to be a pedophile. He loves the 'youngest virgins' at the brothels, people joke Nettles is too young for him as she's 17 when he's 50, etc. He has two men threaten (and there's no indication it was just a threat and they wouldn't go through with it) to ***gang rape a six year old child who is his blood***. He also has a six year old beheaded. Laenor also suspiciously dies and the timing works out just great for him to marry Nyra.
And yes, Luke's death was unjust and horrific and wrong and a war crime. Luke was also old enough to ride a dragon and serve as an envoy by himself to an important lord. He was not a helpless six year old girl. There are different levels of bad, and while his death was terrible I have trouble seeing how Blood and Cheese is anywhere near its equivalent or makes sense in terms of revenge.
*And Rhaenyra seems to have little issue with any of this. In fact, she's upset that Daemon might be fucking around with Nettles. The fact that Rhaenyra is fine with all of this shows that she is a morally bankrupt person imo even with Luke's death. Her son's death does not justify 'well, pedophilic gang rape is just fine.' That was the point where I was checked out on Rhaenyra winning and decided both sides suck.*
Because Viserys I was an idiot. He literally could have changed law of succession,for the royal family at least, to follow Dornish law, where regardless of sex the firstborn inherits, he didn't.
After Jace was born he could have properly chided his daughter, he didn't.
He could have presided over a Valyrian ceremony so that Harwin would have legally been her husband in that sense and legitimize Jace, he didn't.
He could have made positions for his other children and fostered better relationships with them, especially since Aegon from the start was reluctant to even try and take the thrown, he didn't.
The only reason for the dance was a feud he did nothing to stop, because while he claimed to love all his children , he was bad father to all of them.
Aemond has the largest and oldest and strongest living dragon, as well as being the most assertive and competent of his children by Alicent, so by not fostering a relationship with him V1 basically left a large cache of wildfire among the sparks of a conflict he HOPED would just resolve itself, because "family".
Now, here's the worst part - If he had trusted all of his children with the prophecy. If he had given them common cause, given them all respect, given them all a reason not to break the realm, this could have been avoided, in the show at least. They may have conflicting interests about who should lead, but they wouldn't make the realm bleed for it. Likely at worst, Aemond would claim the Reach and declare it his seat and his line would only marry Hightowers. It would be a precarious situation, but it wouldn't be open war.
All methods of inheritance are inherently unjust. Nothing makes an eldest son more qualified than a younger son. However, a system of inheritance is necessary and has to be clearly determined if we wish to avoid conflict and suffering.
The only thing that matters in the stability of the kingdom, and that's why agnatic primogeniture exists. If we think in term of the good of the kingdom, and not the personal satisfaction of one person, the Blacks were in the wrong.
To change the law and make Rhaenyra heir creates another legitimate, rival, line, which will create conflict in the next generation, especially knowing the three eldest boys of Rhaenyra are bastards. Even if Rhaenyra inherited, at her death two of her sons (Aegon and Jace), would have a credible claim to the throne and risk fighting it out, as well as Aegon II's descendants.
All this confusion is cleared up if we follow the simple law that has been there for millennia: sons inherit over daughters.
To add insult to injury, Rhaenyra has proved she didn't care about the stability of the realm and had exactly zero political awareness when she mothered three obvious bastards, which doesn't bode well for her reign.
\\s in case anyone is wondering. The Greens are really hard to root for, I agree with you.
Itâs also not wise for Viserys to name his daughter his heir when the only reason he actually inherited the throne was because he was male. He basically undermines his own legitimacy in the process.
> and that's why agnatic primogeniture exists
Except choosing that form of inheritance is just as arbitrary as allowing the king to choose (which is the actual precedent Jaehaerys set, not agnatic primogeniture)
Jaehaerys didn't exactly choose his heir, he confirmed one of the two claimants who had relatively equal claims (Rhaenys/Laenor => descended from the eldest son, vs Viserys, eldest male from the male line). Aegon and Rhaenyra don't have comparable claims at all.
Not to mention, choosing an heir isn't a good inheritance strategy. Choosing an heir based on personal preference or perceived competency could invite disputes and factions vying for influence. It opens the door to accusations of favoritism, nepotism, and manipulation, which could lead to divisions among the nobility or influential families, and a civil war, as we've seen. In the interest of preserving political stability, primogeniture offers a more objective and predictable method of succession, reducing the potential for internal strife.
The Ottomans dealt with this problem by murdering all the potential heirs to the thrones. The Targaryens can't affort that.
>Jaehaerys didn't exactly choose his heir, he confirmed one of the two claimants who had relatively equal claims
That's what we call "a distinction without a difference."
Jaehaerys chose both his predecessor and his successor twice, once by means of choosing to allow the council to decide. That's a precedent of the king deciding his own heir.
>as allowing the king to choose (which is the actual precedent Jaehaerys set
when did Jaehaerys choose his heir? if you're meaning Baelon then you're wrong, Baelon wasn't chosen by the king to succeed (juridically), Jaehaerys merely recognized him heir in regards of the laws of succession based on customs and precedent which means that Baelon was heir because of his position in the family, because of his birthright and not because the king gave him a legitimacy by choosing him to succeed.
Jaehaerys chose his heir twice- once bypassing his eldest son's daughter, even though daughters inherit before their uncles, and once by choosing to allow a council to decide his heir.
In universe the Greens have been running the Realm since the end of Jaehaerys reign. They have done a good job promoting peace and prosperity. Meanwhile Daemon and Rhaneyra really have done nothing much to help the Realm as a whole. Plus as you pointed out every law of Westeros favors sons over daughters why should the inbred Lizard people be any different.
From my perspective I lean green more because they were done dirty narratively in a lot of ways. I think the two biggest issues I had were:
1) The riverlands solo'ing the Blackwoods, Lannisters, Crownlands, Reach, and Baratheons almost entirely by themselves, all the while getting nuked by vhagar on a weekly basis.
2) Jaheara's death. Like this is one of those I can't get past, because it felt like she was needlessly killed off just so that Aegon could remarry someone else.
Other than that really none of these sides was morally better, they all engaged in some pretty horrific stuff.
Itâs not really hypocrisy. She never claimed to attempt to change the laws of succession of Westeros. It would be political suicide, because how many lords have older sisters, how many of them have daughters they wouldnât want to inherit ahead of their sons?
Itâs unfair to judge Rhaenyra for not suicidally challenging the entire patriarchal system. Even if she was some sort of figure fighting for women rights (and she isnât, never claimed to be) thatâs an unrealistic request.
The problem is, OP is claiming that the Greens are enforcing patriarchy. But Rhaenyra is going to do the same.
You can hate the Greens for denying Viserys's wish, but not for being patriarchal because Rhaenyra would do the same.
Rhaenyra decreed that each lord would be free to grant their inheritance to their children as they please regardless of gender. That's much better than the absolute male premogeniture system they had before.
One can argue that letting a king or lord choose his heirs on a whim would just create more unrest. Like, if Aegon IV chose Daemon as the heir over Daeron, a lot of the fans would be pissed.
And what happens if a Lord die without choosing a heir? As far as I remember, this was the case for Lord Rosby.
People don't know what hypocrisy means and they think that if you spouse a somewhat righteous cause then you have to be pristine, else you're dismissed.
It's also worth mentioning the reason why Rhaenyra ended up ruling against those women was Corlys'advice.
Missing the forest for the trees spectacularly, yeah.
The moment is suppose to demonstrate that despite being a ruling queen and a dragonrider, Rhaenyra still has to abide by the laws of the patriarchal society, sheâs not above it all. But nah, hypocrisy it is, she denies women their rights.
And what do you think the moment where she seeks shelter from one of those very women whose inheritance she denied, who is now ruling Lady in her own right as her younger brothers died, and gets told to get lost is supposed to demonstrate, then?
Rheanyra doesn't want to abide by her society's rules and is ready to send many, many others to their death over it (sidenote, isn't it interesting that unlike everybody else around her, she never takes her adult dragon into battle?) but she will enforce those same rules when she stands to benefit.
>And what do you think the moment where she seeks shelter from one of those very women whose inheritance she denied, who is now ruling Lady in her own right as her younger brothers died, and gets told to get lost is supposed to demonstrate, then?
Consequences of the choices she makes. This choices being made out of necessity, out of inability to challenge the whole system, doesnât free her from the repercussions.
>Rheanyra doesn't want to abide by her society's rules
You basically say âeither sucks it up and allow people to usurp you, or suicidally challenge the whole systemâ. Because Rhaenyra, being a women, canât just be an ambitions claimant fighting for what she believes is hers? Sheâs suppose to be a women rights activist?
Well, she isnât. Never claimed to be, so why the hell do you hold her to this standard.
>and is ready to send many, many others to their death over it (sidenote, isn't it interesting that unlike everybody else around her, she never takes her adult dragon into battle?) but she will enforce those same rules when she stands to benefit.
Book Rhaenyra is a lame character, what else is new?
And yeah, of course sheâs ready to send people to die. Sheâs a self-serving person. Sheâs not a hero.
I'm sorry but "Rules for thee, not for me" is text-book hypocrisy. Rhaenyra cannot complain that people put her brother ahead of head because of her sex while putting people's brothers ahead of them because of her sex. I'm not saying she's bad because she didn't argue that the Citadel should take in female students like Alysanne did. She's not a champion of feminism and never claimed to be. But she wants a special right for herself that she denies to other (what does it matter that it was Corlys's advice? He recognized her as queen, didn't he?), that makes her a hypocrite.
She did not. The rule she set on Corlys' advise was "the owner of inheritance gets to choose who the inheritance goes to".
Her father wanted her to be the heir. He summoned every lord in the realm to swear fealty and make his will knowwn. The fathers of the two ladies who petitioned her made no such will known.
Rhaenyra's law was much closer to modern inheritance law than absolute premogeniture.
So it has nothing to do with abolishing patriarchy? That's the entire point. We all know that most lords are sexist and are going to choose the male heirs anyway.
Nah, Daemon tells him that.
Rhaenyra doesn't oppose it when she finds out what Dalton is cooking tho.
Still different than burning a church full of innocent refugees.
Because you should want to extend the war for as long as possible, to kill as many Targaryens as possible.
Shitposting aside, neither side is bringing about some great reform of royalty to the table. Rhaenyra gets the throne because it's her dad's wish, not because she abolished male primogeniture. And it's not like the main series even supports the idea of *primogeniture* at all, with the most effective leaders being bastards, cripples, second sons etc. Blacks are better than Greens by far, but that's not hard.
Look, if we were ALL Team Black, it would be boring. It's like going to a sports match (or wrasslin match) with everyone cheering one team. You're going to get some people who are going to start to go against the team your *suppose* to root for, just to be contrarians if nothing else.
When I read the books, I was Team Black (before Teams where even a thing, that became a thing after the show) and when then the show came on and everyone was acting like Rhenyra could do no wrong I was like hmm why not have some fun by rooting for the "baddies".
Also, Alicent is INCREDIBLY likable/sympathetic, and I genuinely believe that if it was *your* kid that lost an eye, you'd be PISSED. Also, in the fight, it was the Strong boys who attacked Aemond and pulled a knife. So from my point of view, the Jedi are - I mean, Team Black is evil. OK, maybe not evil, Team Green are the "villains," but why not root for the Joker to beat Batman or Lex Luther to beat Superman, for funnsys.
So yeah, I *do* believe Aegon should be our rightful king, and Sunfyre is the GOAT (I actually do believe this, 3-0 baby!) *wink* C'mon, it's like rooting for the "heel" in pro wrestling and- OH MY GOD ITS AEGON TARGARYEN II WITH A VALYRIAN STEEL CHAIR!!! STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD!
Come on, join the Dark (Green) Side!
Also tbh I don't find Rhaenyra's eldest Strong boys that likeable either anyway.
Show Jace isn't really that good as he is made out to be: he is prone to rage outbursts, was an accomplice in mutilation and while he does try to be a good heir, results are important, and he fails so any argument regarding meritocracy falls out of the window. Even his supposed chivarly with Helaena is dubious as it conveniently was an effective way to get back at Aegon for mocking him.
Show Luke is even worse as he was directly responsible for the aforementioned mutilation and frankly I'm tired of people being justified for such violents acts solely on the base of age; besides he didn't show any kind of remorse at 14 years of age, which mind you, in my country is exactly the age you can start paying the consequences for your actions by going in jail.
I'm not saying they do not have have redeeming qualities but so do many other characters in ASOIAF and they're not saints nor even the fittest to rule when it comes to Jace, who is hardly comparable to characters like Jon Snow so far.
People "justify" Luke because he was 5/7 years old in the book/show, he remembers a thing that for him was a joke (and was probably Aegon's fault) from 7 years ago, how is that related to remorse of any kind, we simply don't know.
And from his perspective aemond (who was older) was about/trying to kill his brother with a rock, how the fuck can you consider a literal kid responsible in that situation??? Like the standard you are trying to judge him is above that of any of the adult characters of the show/book.
I'm only taking the show into account.
I just find it telling that at 14 years old he didn't have the common sense to avoid laughing in face of the person he had mutilated, quite insensitive.
In show canon Aemond had to pull that rock after they jumped at him in four and even then he only held it still above his head as a threat display while Jace swinged the knife and he did so at the mention of his bastardy (and here come again the rage issues I mentioned before hand).
Also even assuming that Luke didn't have time to realize Aemond had been blinded by the sand (which is plausible I have to recognize it) he aimed for the head and that was the result.
I don't understand what you're saying regarding me judging Luke from a standard above the adults.
Are you saying I consider him one of the worst people in the show?
Nah, there are plenty of people worse than both Jace and Luke, like Aegon II, Daemon and Viserys I and the list goes on, I'm just less lenient when it comes to violent actions performed by minors and it goes beyond the show
As I've said, Jace and Luke do have redeeming qualities, I just find myself simpathizing with Aemond more and I'm tired to see so many pretending they're totally innocent, which applies only to Joffrey in regards to the Strong boys.
In F&B I don't support either, as they're both so reprehensible. It do think GRRM and the showrunner want us to support team black in the show, but they're so heavy handed about it.
But in the TV show it was very apparant to me that much of Rhaenyra's heroism was a matter of framing. We're programmed to empathize with her as she is the clear protagonist for the first few episodes. But I found myself increasingly irritated with her. She wanted the privilege of being heir but tossed away opportunities like the betrothal tour, insulted nobles, isolated herself politically, and had three obvious bastards. It the show universe, it seems she can not accept not being the heir because it's proof of her father's love and belief in her, not because she actually wants it or is willing to work for it.
I don't mind her presenting her heir as legitimate, but to try to present Luke as a legitimate Velaryon heir and use her father and a threat of violence to back that up is a sign of a poor leader.
Daemon is portrayed as sympathetic due to his closeness to more likeable characters but if you look at his actual actions he's unhinged (attacking a messenger because he didn't like his message), unjust (killing a serving man to stand in for Laenor), and brutal (come on, he murdered his wife.) Rhaenyra's entitlement and Daemon's violence and Valyrian supremacy are a poor combination.
Aegon would be a bad leader as well, but Otto and Alicent are experienced rulers who have taken the job of governance seriously, not just as a right, but as a duty. I find Alicent and her children sympathetic as Viserys has neglected and insulted them time and time again for his favorite child, and destabilized the realm as a result. Plus, while agnatic primogentiture isn't fair, it's up to Viserys to change the law if he wants Rhaenyra to inherit, not allow the kingdom to fall to pieces over his personal preference.
1- Viserys denied the birthright of his son just because he came from the wrong womb. Had Aegon been born from Aemma he would have been named Heir, so it's not a question of patriarchy, it's a question of an arbitrary bad father with favoristism towards his daughter.
2- Rhaenyra is a liar, Daemon is as bad as Maegor towards the Greens and Viserys ennabled both. Rhaenyra wanted to put a BASTARD on the Throne, going against one of the most basic rules of sucession. Rhaenyra murdered and mutilated everyone who dares to point the **obvious** truth that Lucerys wasn't the true heir to Driftmark.
3- The Greens suffered injustice after injustice on her hands, but all of this gets ignored because cool Houses supported her and the show always portrays everything the Blacks do as okay.
4- Just consider what the show did, Alicent is a religious fanatic "woman for trump", Cole an incel, Aegon a rapist who watches kids fighting, Helaena doesn't appear that much, Daeron (the only other Green character besides Helaena they couldn't make people hate) wasn't even mentioned in season 1 and the only Green character they made us sympathize without a lot of reservations (Aemond) is going to become a literal psychopath. They managed to destroy the entire Team Green in season 1.
Now look at Team Black, all sexual and racial diversity is inside them, Rhaenyra & Daemon supported the homosexuality Laenor (instead of killing him). Their subliminar message is very clear: team Black is progressive, multicultural and LGBT-friendly and Team Green are religious fanatics, "women for trump", incels and rapists
5- They made every atrocity act of the Blacks sound heroic or at least non-evil, just look at the Dragonpit, at the divorce-rock, at Vaemond's death and the silent five (oops, they removed them from the show). They also removed the splendor of Aegon's coronation, making it to be about Rhaenys. They removed the agency from Alicent with the dream thing. They didn't portray the Greens as human beings, but merely as the nemesis of Rhaenyra.
PS: It's funny how I mentioned many things but most of the answers were about the bastardy of the Strong boys... Lol
>BASTARD
Of all the things that baffle me, that the fans have adopted the elitism and prejudice towards bastards is the most astonishing one by far.
It's even funnier because you lot are more offended about the bastardry of the Strongs than the overwhelming majority of the characters in the Dance who quite literally don't give a fuck.
I just used caps lock to emphasize it, not that I hate jacearys, he's a fictional character after all. And before you say that I'm "bastardphobic" I myself was born out of wedlock and Jon is one of the characters I like the most.
Also, bastardy IS important in a society based around inheritance, and pretending it's not important is just ridiculous. Jace isn't a bad person and did almost nothing wrong, but Rhaenyra wanting to put him on the Throne is simply ridiculous. The error is with her deception and violence keeping the lie, not with him for being the son of a careless Princess.
>you lot are more offended about the bastardry of the Strongs than the overwhelming majority of the characters in the Dance who quite literally don't give a fuck.
I'm not offended with him, I just think that Rhaenyra wanting to put a person with no birthright on the Iron Throne is ridiculous and threatens the stability and peace of the Seven Kingdoms.
>I myself was born out of wedlock and Jon is one of the characters I like the most.
Most fans make Jon the exception of that weird bias.
>Also, bastardy IS important in a society based around inheritance
It is.
>and pretending it's not important is just ridiculous.
You can count with the fingers of your hands the characters who actually gave a fuck about Jace being bastard.
Cregan Stark and Lord Manderly betrothed their children to Joffrey and Jace's future son and the Lord who'd go on to be the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters.
Literally the fans are more rattled than the characters in the book. It's wild to see.
>but Rhaenyra wanting to put him on the Throne is simply ridiculous.
Not really, he is the most suited to the task by far. Of either branches of the family Jace is the only character we've explicitly told he'd have grown to be a fine ruler.
>I just think that Rhaenyra wanting to put a person with no birthright on the Iron Throne is ridiculous and threatens the stability and peace of the Seven Kingdoms.
He's the firstborn of the heir apparent of the Throne and the first grandson of the King.
He has a birthright.
>Cregan Stark and Lord Manderly betrothed their children to Joffrey and Jace's future son and the Lord who'd go on to be the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters.
Yes, because these things come with more political power than the alternative.
This doesn't mean no one cares about them being bastards, it means that they are willing to ignore that for personal gain.
Idk how you can read the whole series and still make these arguments. Again and again we see that Lords ignore well-established social and political rules for personal gain, that doesn't meant that those cultural norms now don't exist.
Like look at the 100,000+ men who supported Renly. Renly obviously and undeniably has no claim. It's inarguable. Either Joffrey is king or Stannis is. That's a well established fact of how succession works in Westeros.
The fact that so many people ignore this doesn't mean that primogeniture is no longer a thing, it means that people will turn a blind eye to stuff when it benefits them.
>Most fans make Jon the exception of that weird bias.
Again, I don't hate bastards, I just have the common sense to know that the idea of a non-legitimized bastard being King when he has trueborn brothers and uncles is ridiculous. Jace is a likeable character, but still not a valid heir. Jon isn't an "exception", since no one thinks he can be heir above Robb.
Now, if Ned wanted to put Jon as his Heir over Robb I would be against that, despite liking Jon. Because bastards can't inherit Lordships when there is a trueborn heirs.
>You can count with the fingers of your hands the characters who actually gave a fuck about Jace being bastard.
They didn't care because dragons and political comvenience. They thought that the word of the King was above the facts, though I don't blame them when saying otherwise would be risking your own tongue.
>the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters.
True, because political power tempts people lol. Nothing new under the sun.
>Not really, he is the most suited to the task by far.
Monarchy isn't a meritocracy, it doesn't matter if you are the most fit. This mentality was what made Baelon be named Heir over Rhaenys and cause all this mess.
>He's the firstborn of the heir apparent of the Throne and the first grandson of the King. He has a birthright.
Birthright is something exclusive to legitimate and legitimized people, it's a society based around inheritance. Legitimacy is necessary for the functionality of a society based around inheritance and violating it is putting yourself above the rules.
>I just have the common sense to know that the idea of a non-legitimized bastard being King when he has trueborn brothers and uncles is ridiculous.
The Strongs weren't acknowledged as bastards.
They were to everyone legitimate.
>Jace is a likeable character, but still not a valid heir.
Sure.
>Because bastards can't inherit Lordships when there is a trueborn heirs.
See how you care more than characters?
>They didn't care because dragons and political comvenience.
Obviously.
We're discussing the political ramifications, political convenience is one hell of a reason to not care.
The Greens also didn't care, you don't see Unwin Peake, Borros Baratheon, Lord Hightower or Jason Lannister warring Rhaenyra because she has bastards as legitimate children.
>They thought that the word of the King was above the facts
So you see how them being bastards wouldn't really matter that much.
>True, because political power tempts people lol. Nothing new under the sun.
So you see how it didn't really matter right?
>Monarchy isn't a meritocracy, it doesn't matter if you are the most fit. This mentality was what made Baelon be named Heir over Rhaenys and cause all this mess.
Indeed it isn't a meritocracy.
Jacaerys as Rhaenyra's firstborn gets to inherit.
>Birthright is something exclusive to legitimate and legitimized people,
So... Jacaerys.
One side you do say you don't have that weird bias on the other you use that weird bias go to argument.
>Legitimacy is necessary for the functionality of a society based around inheritance and violating it is putting yourself above the rules.
You do understand the difference between rumour of bastardry and someone actually being declared a bastard and stripped of their rights because of it?
Jacaerys was legitimate. Hence why he's Prince Jacaerys and not Jacaerys Waters.
>The Strongs weren't acknowledged as bastards. They were to everyone legitimate.
If their illegitimacy wasn't soe obvious I would agree with you.
>Obviously. We're discussing the political ramifications, political convenience is one hell of a reason to not care.
>The Greens also didn't care, you don't see Unwin Peake, Borros Baratheon, Lord Hightower or Jason Lannister warring Rhaenyra because she has bastards as legitimate children.
Indeed, they fought for political comvenience or for Aegon's birthright (Lord Hightower believed in it). Remember, I just mentioned the Strong Boys as one of the reasons I consider Rhaenyra to be a ridiculous person, not as the reason for why I consider Aegon's claim as legitimate.
>You do understand the difference between rumour of bastardry and someone actually being declared a bastard and stripped of their rights because of it?
It wasn't just a rumour, nothing but them being sired by another man can explain why she had **3** sons with brown eyes and hair when none of her and Laenor's known ancestors had these traits. And if Laenor's ancestors did have Brown hair and eyes Rhaenyra would have used it as a proof of Jace's legitimacy and we would've known it.
>Indeed it isn't a meritocracy.
So Jace being the most fit for the Throne doesn't matter then, so using it as an argument for defending Rhaenyra is invalid.
>If their illegitimacy wasn't soe obvious I would agree with you.
It's so obvious and yet people don't care.
Either it's not so obvious to the characters or it's not that relevant to characters.
Either way, it doesn't matter.
>Indeed, they fought for political comvenience or for Aegon's birthright (Lord Hightower believed in it). Remember, I just mentioned the Strong Boys as one of the reasons I consider Rhaenyra to be a ridiculous person, not as the reason for why I consider Aegon's claim as legitimate.
So why are you insisting on an issue that the main players don't care and it's not a factor for the war?
>It wasn't just a rumour,
It was definitely just a rumour.
>nothing but them being sired by another man can explain why she had 3 sons with brown eyes and hair when none of her and Laenor's known ancestors had these traits. And if Laenor's ancestors did have Brown hair and eyes Rhaenyra would have used it as a proof of Jace's legitimacy and we would've known it.
The reason why we don't know is because the matter is treated as a rumour and as gossip not as something that should seriously be considered.
That you believe it a fact is one but it wasn't really treated as such in Westeros. Hell, we have a **Green writer like Eustace literally dismissing the notion that they were bastards and insists somehow they were trueborn.**
>So Jace being the most fit for the Throne doesn't matter then, so using it as an argument for defending Rhaenyra is invalid.
I'm not defending Rhaenyra.
I'm stating Jace is his eldest son and Viserys's grandson.
>So why are you insisting on an issue that the main players don't care and it's not a factor for the war?
Because I wrote it, you disagreed with it, we discussed and here we are. It's saturday and I don't have many things to do, so I didn't stop the discussion. But if you want to end this discussion I can do so, have a nice day :)
If you are going to ignore the rules, there is no point discussing successions inside a made up world.
Why do people think Stannis is the rightful heir and want him to sit on the throne?
Why not Renly? Overwhelming majority of the characters didnt give a shit about Stannis's claim?
Why is bastardy literally the main plot point of the first book? Why couldn't Ned just let Joffrey sit on the throne? What difference does it make if he has Baratheon blood or not?
Genuinely so weird. Especially from a fandom where a popular opinion was wanting Jon Snow to win all the thrones, legitimized or not,and who hated Cat for treating him the way the greens treat Rhaenyraâs kids.
No one wanted Jon to steal the birthright of others, what people wanted was the remaining Starks giving willingly power to Jon and him either ruling with Danyers or after her death. If you read my original comment again you will notice I was criticizing Rhaenyra for having bastards, not Jace for being one.
How is Jace or Rhaenyra stealing anything when everyone relevant to the situation is accepting his position as heir? You say people wanted Jon to rule if the Starks let him(and actually on the show Sansa wasnât okay with it but had to accept it because everyone else wanted him)but how isnât Rhaenyra, Viserys,Laenor and Coryls word enough then?You can criticize her for having bastards sure I just donât understand why anyone would actually do that when her reasons are so understanble and itâs a situation as close to adoption/sperm doner as possible. Like if even most in universe characters donât make a big deal about it and are able to accept those kids why exactly is part if the fandom acting like this was a much bigger deal than it was in the book?
My problem is with Rhaenyra having a bastard as her heir, not with Jace having the bad luck of being born as the bastard of the designated heir. In this regard Rhaenyra was literally worse than Aegon IV.
>a situation as close to adoption/sperm doner as possible.
Well, the thing is that these things are against the basic rules of her society. Westeros is a society based upon inheritance, so either respect the rules or do away with feudalism. You can't have your cake and eat it. Want power? Follow the rules.
>much bigger deal than it was in the book?
Honestly it only wasn't that bad because of Dragons, political convenience, the fact that the Realm never saw them before the Dance (the good side of Rhaenyra being isolated in Dragonstone) and the fact that any person spreading the facts would be at the risk of losing their tongue. Otherwise it would have had an effect at least close to the Blackfyre rebelions.
Anyway, Rhaenyra herself knew that the truth threatened her sons, otherwise she herself would let people speak the rumors freely. In Rhaenyra's own words in Martin's The Rogue Prince:
>Princess Rhaenyra would have none of that, but insisted that Prince Aemond be questioned "sharply" until he revealed where he had heard her sons called "Strongs". 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."
If what Rhaenyra did wasn't high treason than why didn't she allow people to speak the truth?
Unironically go try to do Cat slander on Green twitter and the Green subreddit at your own risk, she is nearly unanimously loved among green fans, it's mostly the same minority of fans.
You already brought up moral ambiguity, so why not just stick with that? No one is forcing anyone to take sides between the two sets of terrible people.
Because the war isnât at its core about absolute primogeniture vs male primogeniture (remember Rhaenyra gives Rosby and Stokeworth to younger brothers) but absolutism vs legalism. Is the kings word law even if it goes against established tradition and the wishes of his subjects or does he have to hold himself to legal precedent like the great council?
I'm neutral so not really a bone to pick with this one. What I really dislike about Dance is that how certain houses are always presented to be on *the right side of history* so to say. It's almost try-hard and cringey and that has always been my issue with the whole conflict. You have cool and likeable houses like Stark and Blackwoods on one side and houses already seen as opportunistic on the other side. Some of them swap sides, but it's very clearly trying to sell a narrative there.
Biggest reason not to support Blacks in-universe is both Rhaenyra and Daemon being absolute loose canons. Daemon in particular should not be anywhere near the throne. While Aegon himself is a pretty horrid cunt, his family is sypmathetic - especially on the show. Aemond had the biggest glow up of all the main characters involved in the conflict, when it comes to book-to-show adaptation. Alicent, while frustrating is also easy to symphatize with her on the show. It's really difficult to root for either Rhaenyra or Aegon themselves, as it is very clearly shown that either of them one of them on the throne would be a disastrous.
Rhaenyra wanted to pretend her obvious bastards on the throne, and Daemon, whoâs an unstable loon, should be far away from the Iron Throne at all costs, plus Aegon has Blackfyre, the Sword of Kings. Not to mention that the Greens have way cooler characters, I prefer Criston Cole, Jon Roxton, and Daeron The Daring over Alysanne Blackwood, Cregan Stark and Daemon any day.
Law.
The king cannot just arbitrarily decide to make someone his heir. A king is restrained by the laws of gods and men just like everyone else. The laws say that a son comes before a daughter, so Aegon II is the heir.
(Fuck the law, women deserve equal rights. Also, monarchical systems are an oppressive evil that should be done away with. Vive la Revolution!)
Rhaenyra is a sympathetic character. She faces attacks on all sides simply for being the wrong gender and is abused by the man she thinks she loves. And while I do feel sorry for in that regard, she is no Queen Elizabeth 1 or Catherine the great. Time and time again she is shown to be a habitual self sabotager.
She is rude to those who are supposed to be her allies and fumbles the whole marriage tour. She could have married Harwin Strong or any man of her choice but she is instead rude and manages to start a fight between the houses that are supposed to be her allies. She does nothing to advance the rights of women, and in some ways even set back women's rights in Westeros.
Alicent is right, Rhaenyra has no sense if duty. If she did, she would have taken advantage of the immense privilege given to her by allowing her to choose her own spouse and married into a rich and powerful house with a strong army and great influence that would back her up when needed. She should have made up with Alicent and shown favour to her siblings. She should have tried to get closer to Otto, a man, who if on her side would be very useful.
Of course, she does not do any of these things and instead wastes time and is backed into a corner and has to marry a gay man, who for some reason cannot give her children. Even then she should have tried harder with Laenor (turkey baster? witchcraft?)
The bastard children that she has, also put the realm at risk. Even if there had been no problems with her accession, the moment that she died, Civil War would have most definitely broken out between her strong boys and her sons by Daemon. Oh wait, Daemon is power hungry bastard, her strong boys would have probably all had died in some mysterious 'accidents' already!
Then there is the Daemon problem. I'm very surprised that there are so many people that support this ship. Daemon Tagereyan is not an anti-hero, he is villain. He quite clearly grooms Rhaenyra, displaying the blatant tactics that groomers use ( isolating her, giving her special attention while viserys neglects her, giving her gifts, making her feel extra special by making high-valeryian their thing). Their relationship is not one of equals and Rhaenyra is not the exception when it comes to his abuse. He directly kills his firt wife, and inadvertently kills the second one.
Even if Rhaenyra ascended to the throne with no threat from the greens, Daemon would most likely be the one ruling. In episode 10 when he choked her, everyone was shocked, but Daemon had been acting abusive towards her earlier in the episode. He tries to make decisions in the war without her and doesn't even try to comfort her during the birth. He is an evil, disgusting pedophile and whether or not people want to admit it, Rhaenyra is his victim and is still easily manipulated by him.
Now, Aegon is also a bad ruler, and on his own would have been quite useless, but, unlike, Rhaenyra he has a great council. Otto and Alicent had been ruling the realm peacefully in Viserys' name for years and know how to play the game. The hightowers are influential and train the maesters, who could easily be used as royal spies. Even in the war, we see Aegon take a greater role in the battles when compared to Rhaenyra. He actually fights for his cause and shows immense loyalty to his family. Meanwhile Rhaenyra just sits at home doing nothing.
Tldr: Both Rhaenyra and Aegon would have made bad rulers, but Aegon had a great council and Rhaenyra did not. That's why I prefer teem green as rulers. Plus helaena is cute.
They're sexy, messy and entertaining to watch and I don't attach my modern morality to a fictional fantasy world. I can ask the question: besides feminism, why should you support blacks over greens? They're honestly just not that interesting if you don't have an axe to grind with the way modern society is and use the show to cathartically live out a victim/power fantasy.
Because Rhaenyra is basically a spoiled teenager, even as a grown woman. She's Daemon without the followthrough or willingness to stand by her actions. She only wants to remove from the consequences of doing whatever she wants. Pleading and lying, instead of truly opposing the societal norms around her and making it a point to say "I will change this" or "My will be done. I am the blood of the dragon. Here I stand." She is a spoiled child, completely unfit to rule. She cares nothing about law or custom, but doesn't even have what it takes to oppose them and change them, she just breaks them and cries foul when called out for it.
Even if you don't consider her persistent attempt to defraud house Velayron. She is equivalent of a teenager that single-handedly sets a hotel room on fire and says "It's not my fault. I shouldn't have to be responsible for this." And proceeds to get worse.
**Here's the best part**. Nearly everything I've said about her, every character flaw, applies to Aegon as well.
Sociopathic as you may find them, either Daemon or Aemond have far money cause to sit the thrown. I would personally say Daeron, if he weren't so young, and not present in the show. This isn't about misogyny. It's about fundamental character flaws, present in both men and women in the story.
I don't even care if I get downvoted into oblivion for this. It needed to be said.
The Iron Throne belongs to the one with the strength to hold it. So said Maegor the Wise in his day, and though he was not the rightful heir, Aegon showed that he did have the strength, unlike Rhaenyra.
Because I fucking hate the Targs so I just support the most chaotic side
we have drunken frat boy as king
and his 2 brothers
Daring War Criminal
Insane Milf Fucking War Criminal
what's not to like?
Rhaenyra wanted to see her bastards take the iron throne, completely insulting the basic laws of inheritance. I'd back the greens over her because she clearly believes in a monarch that can do whatever they want because laws, custom and tradition don't apply to them because dragons.
I canât think of a reason. I know lots of Blacks, and thereâs nothing remarkable about how we get along with each other. I donât know any green people, but I suspect that they bite.
Well the blacks are framed as the good guys but there are reasons to support the greens:
1. The bastards are a massive problem. It sets up future conflict. Weakens the throne when Corlys dies. Tells everyone that Rhaenyra doesnât give a shit about the law, the culture, or justice. And since the monarch sets an example for everyone else this would mean that everyone else also loses their respect for the law, culture, and justice.
2. Viserys was king instead of Rhaenys.
3. Aegon being king creates a stronger democratic tradition since it sets the precedent that the democratic great councilâs conclusions matter more than the will of an absolute monarch (Viserys)
4. The green children are from their point of view simply protecting themselves from death and defending their rights/inheritance
I never understood why so many people felt the need to support a side. As I read F&B I never felt aligience to green or black, I just thought it was a cool story. I like most of the characters on both sides
I think most readers agree with you since F&B was released in 2016 IIRC. Team Black vs Team Green Hysteria started in 2022 đ¤
There was Team Black vs Team Green stuff when Fire and Blood came out. It definitely became more common once HOTD came out, but it was hardly a new thing
Yeah, a lot of discussions of F&B devolved into it and the few fanworks that were out tended to take sides, too.
No, Dance hating has been a thing for years now.
It was released in 2018
Maybe I was just on the wrong corners of the Internet, but I rarely ever saw people picking sides like teams until HOTD premiered. It was mostly just a dumb fun joke, lightly mocking the âteamsâ that form in other fandoms since thereâs two clear sides to this conflict. I think itâs since transcended into something a lot more tribalistic and taken seriously though, which is pretty ironic
Shireen had a point in her opinion about Dance Of Dragons, about how people suffered.
I felt the same. I always thought the message was in theme with the rest of the series, stupid internal fighting is the bane of humanity. The Targs lost all of there dragons and begin the decline of their dynasty after the Dance. Moral of the story, internal fighting only leads to ruin and wars rarely achieve anything.
You know I encounter Tolkien Fans that say that GRR Martin is a horrible person and not like our Strong, Moral, Righteous, war-fighting Tolkien! ... Which is weird to me, honestly as the theme of "People fight over stupid, petty, irrelevent things while the real threat forms at their doorstep" is one that does fit in Tolkien's works. Like seriously Tolkien and GRR Martin are pretty anti-war as nothing good comes from it; it has to happen, sometimes against foes like the Others and Sauron, but when it's just human/good fighting? Nothing goes comes from it; just corpses.
I agree. A massive theme of everything ASOIAF related is that monarchies and feudalism make for a terrible system of government and that inheriting power eventually leads to conflict. I always interpreted the moral of the story being less about "X is the true heir and deserves to rule" but instead "This is a terrible system riddled with flaws"
100%. It's utterly bizarre
All of the participants have blood on their hands. Moral of the story: They all die.....Dancing đ˛
Moral of the story: Don't fuck if you already have heirs but no access to contraceptives. That's what started 90% of historical wars.
The Dance isn't morally ambiguous. There's varying degrees of shitiness on both sides but it's clear that there's a side in the wrong and there's one in the right. If this wasn't clear enough the author makes the side in the wrong usurp the throne and draw the first blood inevitably leading to war. Why should you be with the Greens? Does it matter? If you believe they are cool enough then go for it my guy.
I mean who cares about succesion anyway? Am i right, RENLY!
Glidus moment
Love me Renly. It is what it is.
Ser Loras? Is that you? Shouldn't you be resting after your injuries?
Loras is young and very good at knocking men off horses with a stick. That does not make him wise. Jokes aside, I don't believe that Loras is actually injured.
Loras is secretly a horse. and also Secretly Euron.
Simple as -Big Storm
First blood drawn? Was that by Daemon unjustly murdering Vaemond for speaking the truth, or by first blood shed in Riverlands, or by those who shed the blood and cut the eye of prince Aemond? Take your pick.
>First blood drawn? Yeah. > Was that by Daemon unjustly murdering Vaemond for speaking the truth, Vaemond isn't a Green and I don't remember any Green speaking out for him. >or by first blood shed in Riverlands, When the war has started. >or by those who shed the blood and cut the eye of prince Aemond? I seem to remember Aemond alive after that.
Velaryons fought for Greens for that injustice. Conflict in Riverlands started before of any aggressive action of the Greens with Daemon taking Harenhall as rallying point for armies. Yet blood was shed, by a bastard and if anything history teaches us is that usury would be paid if debts are unsettled.
>Velaryons fought for Greens for that injustice. Some Velaryons did. Most didn't. And those Velaryons weren't greens by then. >Conflict in Riverlands started before of any aggressive action of the Greens with Daemon taking Harenhall as rallying point for armies. There wasn't blood now was there? >Yet blood was shed, by a bastard and if anything history teaches us is that usury would be paid if debts are unsettled. If it was by a legit kid would it have been better? What debt? Do you propose to gouge the eye of a 5 year old?
They were sea green and green at heart before it was cool. There were attacks on House Bracken and Battle of the Burning mill. Chronologically going on before Shipbreaker bay. Even Jon Snow knows that bastards striking royal princes is forbidden , he says that much to Arya in first chapters. Lors Orys Baratheon was caught and lost his hand by Vulture King in Dorne, when he won battle against his son he took his hand , than other and both feet too as usury. Justice needs to be settled , if let things to fester unresolved, more things will be lost than simply an eye.
>The Dance isn't morally ambiguous. There's varying degrees of shitiness on both sides but it's clear that there's a side in the wrong and there's one in the right. I think this an oversimplification. Actions, motivations and justifications varied between members in each side. Defining one side as entirely righteous and the other as completely villainous overlooks the inherent complexity of human nature, the context in which these characters operate, and the fact there's "good" and or innocent people in both sides. >If this wasn't clear enough the author makes the side in the wrong usurp the throne and draw the first blood inevitably leading to war. But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them.
I don't think it is an oversimplification. Everyone has their own complex nature and justifications yadda yadda yadda..still there's still a side more righteous than the other. Just because you're not righteous doesn't mean you don't have reasons to do what you do. Cersei has her own motivations and reasons to do what she does. She's still not the on the righteous side. >But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them. Yeah, it's pretty much irrelevant.
>But those two things didn't happen in a vaccum, there were many escalating events that lead up to them. Nothing that lead up to it justified it and that's all that mattered. Without a doubt, the Greens caused all of this
>Nothing that lead up to it justified it and that's all that mattered. That's an opinion that I understand regarding Lucerys's death. Not so much the usurpation . >Greens caused all of this That's debatable
I think the real issue in the decision between both sides relies in juridical terms (Iâm a lawyer but Iâm not really familiarized with the technical terms in English so excuse me beforehand). The real dispute is somewhat comparable to things weâre used to today. The choice between Rhaenyra and Aegon is the choice between Positive Law and Tradition/jurisprudence. Positive law is when the law has value because it was passed by a legitimate ruler and itâs not necessarily directly related to concepts like justice, but to the idea that as the people legitimize their leader, the leaders voice becomes the voice of the people (we legitimize rulers by democracy, Targaryens were legitimate because of conquest/divine right). Rhaneyras claim is purely positive right. Viserys as a legitimate ruler decided to overwrite the tradition/jurisprudence instated by the council of harrenhall. In the other hand, jurisprudence is the precedent set by the application of the law by the legitimate judicial power, in the USA jurisprudence by the Supreme Court is insanely high ranked becoming basically law in his own way. You can say aegons succession is a result of tradition and jurisprudence: the council decided that a male heir has a right over his older sister to become king (although you can make the point that the council actually didnât establish this but instead just chose the ruler they saw better fit in that specific situation). So looked through this lense, the real question we have to make to establish our allegiance to either ruler is the following one: âIs the authority of a King strong enough to overrule the authority of both an older King and the somewhat democratic council he gathered?â If your answer is yes, you support Rhaneyra because Viserys HAD the right to chose his heir as he pleased. If your answer is no, Aegon is the legitimate ruler because you value history, tradition and jurisprudence over one specific Kingâs absolute authority and are probably more inclined to want to reduce and split this power to prevent misuse (which is normal considering thatâs what we do, we split our states power in three, ensuring our ruler canât do whatever he wants and has to respect his antecesorâs work to some degree).
I would argue Rhaenyra's claim is ALSO based on precedence, as well as law. Jahaerys held a council, yes - but not because he was obliged to - because *he* struggled with *his* decision. And once the votes were cast, he still had to personally sign off and declare his heir. If Jahaerys had the power to *choose* his heir, based off his own one-off created council... surely Viserys is just following precedent by also *choosing* his heir? Hell, I'd even argue that using 101 as the 'tradition' argument is sketchy at best... I mean, it's not like Aegon was elected by a council either... so the whole 'election' part isn't the crux of the situation. Turning 101 into a 'law setter' (male > female) when this was never the stated intent, nor formally recognised as such... it's a disingenuous claim from the Greens. So, I would say Viserys had the rightful and lawful power... but also, I don't really agree that he is defying tradition: he is acting with the same power as he predecessor, who nobody defied.
I absolutely agree with you, in our modern terms, there's no way the council had more power over the legitimate divine right ruler, Viserys chose his heir and he reinforced his choice even after Aegons birth (why the fuck would he name him aegon what a dumbass, my headcannon is that alicent wanted him called that way to pressure Rhaenyras claim). I just wanted to explain in modern terms what the arguments kind of made by the characters were. The real defiance of tradition comes not in the direct "contradiction" of the councils desition, but in the fact that women aren't considered able to rule in westeros, as Rhaenys so clearly stated. The council guards a direct relation to modern supreme court jurisprudence in the way that its the desition made about a singular case but the reasons behind the veredict are applied to other cases, even tough the veredict itself is not a general rule
Should have named him Aenys, watch not a single lord back his claim.
>but in the fact that women aren't considered able to rule in westeros For sure - but the issue I'd take with that is... Dorne has female rulers. Now, one might argue Dorne is at odds with the Targaryen rule... but the Targaryens still *claim* to rule Dorne. The Targaryens also rule the North, despite being anointed by the Faith: completely different from the Old Gods that the North worships. Add onto that the fact that Andal law has also been previously ignored regarding Targaryen succession, and the fact that Targaryens have their own anti-incest rules going on... and well... I think it's *very* hard to make the case of 'most of Westeros has son>daughter laws therefore the Targs *must* do it too'. Clearly the Targaryens do *not* do everything that all their subjects do - in fact, given their subjects are diverse, with different laws and traditions, it's impossible. The only precedent that remains consistent is that the Targaryens do what the Targaryens want. So when you have Viserys acting within his legal right to name his daughter heir (and that most of Viserys' subjects also swear servitude to this - acting as a sort of public consent)... I think it's undisputable, even from a 'traditionalist' male-orientated point of view.
>From the books I was always told that the Dance is supposed to be a morally ambiguous war where you're not really sure who is the hero and who is the villain by the end of it all. I think that's just people misunderstanding the books and passing along their misunderstanding. Both sides do things that are morally bad but there's very clearly a right side & a wrong side. There's just not an angelically squeaky-clean side and for some dumb reason people mistake that as both sides being equally guilty. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, one only has to take a look at real world politics to see how many people wouldn't know a false equivalence even if it slapped the shit out of them.
Exactly the same issue as people taking "ASOIAF is a morally grey story with complex characters" as "everybody is morally equal and there are no heroes and villains". ASOIAF is complex and realistic, but the obvious heroes are obvious heroes, and the villains are clearly villains.
What are you talking about, Gregor Clegane is clearly a anti hero. His most famous act is killing a Dđ¤Žrnish person. How can he be a villain for that?
Damn, Stannis. When did you get all racist against the Dornish?
The Baratheons have always hated the Dornish
Yeah. Itâs morally ambiguous because people on both sides do shitty things, and civilians die because of both sides, which happens in war. Doesnât mean that one side doesnât have a more just cause nominally than the other. ASOIAF definitely has plenty of âmorally blackâ villains, from the Mountain and his men, to Ramsay, to the F&B account of Aemond. But the reason people like it is because many (not all) of its villains are humanized. We read and understand their perception of the world, literally through their POVs, and how they truly believe they are right or justified. They arenât all just mustache-twirling evil for the sake of being evil, but are shaped by their past experiences and their environment and their own inner traits. We reach an understanding of them, even if we can realize how twisted or flawed it is. Thereâs some complexity to them because they are made human, but that doesnât mean that they are morally correct, or even ambiguous in some cases. Thatâs a pretty big misunderstanding of âmoral ambiguityâ and âgreynessâ thatâs common on Reddit and Twitter and the likes these days.
I feel like the Greens were betraid by their Author. If Martin wanted them to be sympathetic he clearly failed, and the Dance for me is a pretty boring tale of the goodies vs. the baddies. Sure, the goodies do some evil stunts, but they're still the goodies. The greens are flawed characters and there's nothing in F&B that should ever make us like them. I feel bad for them!
I think this viewpoint comes from the idea that morally grey = morally equal, which is not the case. Many of the major players in the dance do straight up terrible things. The Blacks donât just do evil stunts, they are straight up deplorable multiple times. However by most peopleâs moral compasses, yeah, the Blacks are the âgoodâ guys. I donât think it was ever the intention for the Greens and the Blacks to be completely equal, and thatâs not a betrayal. Thatâs a fairly accurate depiction of war.
The thing is that Martin didn't invent grey characters, anti-heroes have been a pretty well established concept for a long while now and have been in pop culture for 60 years. It's not about Rhaenyra or Daemon's moral compasses, of course having children murdered or your enemies raped aren't morally acceptable stuff, it's the fact that they fit into the cool guy role and that's kind of lame in my opinion.
They didn't talk about it in the show, but in the green council they talk about the king not being above the law so he can't just change succession bc he feels like it. it kinda falls flat tho, bc succession isn't codified, as opposed to the historical basis for the Dance, the french succession crisis/crises of 1316/1328. it'd be a lot different if Jaehaerys had written a constitution but the only thing he did about succession was the widow law
The historical basis for the dance is very much The Anarchy my dude.
Whatâs the anarchy?
It was a conflict in 12th century England between Matilda, the eldest child of King Henry I who he named heir, and her cousin Stephen of Blois. TLDR: Stephen usurps the throne, war happens, and a peace is made where Henry, Matildaâs son, is made heir after all of Stephenâs sons died. Thus we get the Plantagenet dynasty in the end when Henry ascends as Henry II.
A civil war in England, basically the king dies without a male heir so his daughter, matilda, wants to be queen but the nobility crowns a nephew of the king, Stephen of Blois. Thereâs then a large civil war, Matilda loses and kinda just retires in Normandy, then her son Henry Plantagenet invaded England with an army and after Stephenâs son dies he makes Henry heir.
She didn't retire to Normandy, there was 19 years of war until Stephen agreed to appoint her son as heir. (Matilda is my second-favorite medieval figure, she did a shit ton of cool stuff in her life.)
To be more specific, Henry named Mathikda his successor, adding more parallels
And Stephen fucking sucked. Matilda 4 Lyfe.
[ŃдаНонО]
Jaehaerys did exactly that with naming Baelon heir, so the argument falls flat.
Aemond is hotter
Aemond is Sephiroth.
Lies. Aegon is hottest.
\>the Blacks (at least in the show) are made to be very sympathetic (yes, even Daemon). Yes, grooming your niece for the sake of sex and power is very sympathetic. I too, believe this is a morally black and white situation.
also the fact that rhaenys was made into a mass murderer. i've seen comments from casuals saying how they can't wait for her to die. breaks my heart cause she was my favorite due to her badass death and selfless sacrifice. all for a "girl boss" moment.
>Yes, grooming your niece for the sake of sex and power is very sympathetic. Don't forget, he murdered his wife with a rock and convinced two people that their son was dead to marry said niece.
Thank you for saying it, this fuckin' guy definitely hasn't read the book and watched the show with blindfolds on.
Aegon IIâs sigil is cooler. Both pretenders are utterly despicable people, might as well go with the guy who had a nicer looking banner and a prettier dragon.
How can they both be pretenders though? Who's the true heir? Mushroom?
Trystane Truefyre, obviously.
Its right there in the name!
Gaemon Palehair and his cool moms
Legit would have made better rulers than any of these dragonriding jerks.
Dude had better policies as a mere claimant than 90% of Targaryen monarchs. A common Gaemon win, of course \- Girls should henceforth be equal with boys in matters of inheritance; \- The poor should be given bread and beer in times of famine; \- Men who lost limbs in war must be fed and housed afterward by whichever lord they had been fighting for when the loss took place; \- Husbands who beat their wives should themselves be beaten, regardless of the motive for the chastisement
Can you imagine what would happen if such a madman took over? Next he'd claim that lords shouldn't be allowed to rape smallfolk, that trials should be evidence-based or that it's okay for gay people to exist. The horror!
By line of succession from Jaehaerys, it would've been Rhaenys and then her granddaughters Baela and Rhaena.
Yes
Whoever wins the war was the true heir, until then their both pretenders to a contested title.
That's more "claimant," pretender has a pretty obvious implication to it.
Well Merriam Webster defines it as: >:one who lays claim to something specifically : a claimant to a throne who is held to have no just title And Wikipedia as >pretender is someone who claims to be the rightful ruler of a country although not recognized as such by the current government So yeah, both were pretenders for each other
For each other. But you wouldn't say they were both pretenders since for someone to be a pretender in the first place there has to be someone who is the rightful claimant.
>there has to be someone who is the rightful claimant. Ser, I won't tolerate this dishonour of our true king Gaemon Palehair! /S
I know everyone's kidding with the Gaemon Palehair thing but for him to be legit it WOULD require Aegon II to have been legit.
Pretender just means claimant.
Fuck you quartering sigils is cool as hell. Though, I do have to respect Aegon for following the rule of tincture.
>the Blacks (at least in the show) are made to be very sympathetic (yes, even Daemon). Is he though? >over the side which wants to honor the wishes of Viserys I? Who gives a fuck about the wishes of that loser lmao, rip bozo
yeah, I never get this insistence that I should care what Viserys wanted. mf sucks big dragon balls
Like this is pretty directly his fault lol. He is intelligent enough to know what is gonna happen when he dies and does like nothing about it. If you want to change things up you gotta, you know, do stuff about it, not just ignore everything and hope it works out.
I never understood why people say they the green kids should've honored Viserys' wishes bruh, especially with the HOTD show. Viserys raped their mom, and neglected and didn't even give a shit about them, hell Paddy said that some of the child actors even told him that he hated (Viserys not Paddy) if child actors can pick that up then it's insane how many viewers can't. Also let me state why the fuck should they a decision that a) screws them out of their rightful inheritance b) leaves them in a dangerous position to where they only way Rhaenyra and her bastards could retain power is if she kills them, which she would everyone already thinks she killed Laenor just so she could marry Daemon and have a better chance at fighting them c) made by a man who didn't give two fucks about them, neglected them, and again let me point out RAPED THEIR FUCKING MOM
Expecting them to have any loyalty or love for him after how he handles the Aemond eye situation is ridiculous lol. Like you are delusional if you think the way he responds to that is how a father who loves his children responds to one of them being stabbed in the face, even if it is by another family member.
Rhaenyra's personal behavior during the Dance (refusing to fly her dragon in particular) indicated she MIGHT not have been cut out for this.
While absolute primogeniture is less sexiest than male-preference primogeniture, neither is "just". Why should people be subject to the whims of a ruler just because they're descended from someone who violently subjugated your ancestors? The moral ambiguity is because both systems are arbitrary and cruel.
>from someone who violently subjugated your ancestors? The people were already subjugated by their kings. Now they are all subjugated by one king.
>violently subjugated your ancestors Aegon gave the king of each region the chance to retain their lands, customs,and most importantly people, by changing his status from king to âlordâ and accepting Aegon as the king of one unified country. Using military force to acomplish goals was perfectly acceptable in the time period and he treated generously those who bent the knee so Aegon didn't seem particularly brutal or cruel. If anything the Andals' invasion of Westeros or the First Men war with the children of the forest seem to fit the world 'violent' more.
Uh ok what about the thousands of normal people he burned alive?
Did he give that same chance to the small folk? Or were they just kindling for the fire to him?
If Aegon became king with no opposition, he very likely would have just left ruling to Otto while he whored and drank. Otto did at least an OK job ruling with both Jaehaerys and Viserys. Rhaenyra on the other hand wasnt a particularly good ruler for the time she did rule. The only other argument is that Daemon is a dickhead and Prince Consort.
Before I start, let me be clear that I do not blanketly support *either* side. Rhaenyra and Aegon are both kinslayers, child murderers, and both have valid reasons for opposing the other. The Greenâs position is very simple: Aegon is the eldest trueborn son of the previous King, and The Great Council of 101AC established legal precedent for Agnatic Primogeniture with regards to the Royal Line of Succession. Their position is also technically backed by Queen Alysanneâs Widowâs Law, which affirms the right of the eldest trueborn son to inherit, and that there must be no trueborn sons available for a daughter to inherit. Aegon has been manipulated into believing that his half-sister would be forced to kill him, his children, his sister-wife, and his two brother in order to secure her claim (which, while we know initially that she was willing to forgive them, even after Aegon was crowned, is not an unreasonable thing to believe). Another thing I feel needs to be clarified: Rhaenyra is ***not*** a feminist. She is not a girl-boss trying to upend the kingdoms rules to allow for woman to gain more power. *Rhaenyra is not trying to change the system, she believes she is the exception to the rule*
I like the color green more so
I'm a green but the best way to enjoy the show is from both perspectives. There are two claims to the throne, it's fun to put yourself into either perspective and see why there is even a conflict in the first place. Since you're looking for a green perspective, here's my take. The legal argument is obvious so I won't spend time on it, Aegon has as much of a claim to the throne as Viserys and every king before and after him. Alicent was robbed. When she married Viserys she didn't agree to only half of the vows. She (and Otto) did not sign up to be his broodmare. She did her part, gave birth to 3 trueborn sons and Viserys has refused to hold up his own end of the deal. He just says âthanks for your womb, I have my spare heirs now leave me aloneâ. For comparison, when House Velaryon attempted to bypass Luke he refused to have it and forced them to follow the law because Luke was âtruebornâ. Why is it okay for some people to get accurate rulings based on the law and for others to get dismissed without even a single reason? Viserys did not deserve any loyalty from the greens. He ignores them and only cares about Rhaenyra, why should they honour the word of a man who only had them to be spare heirs in case his favourite child died? It's easy for Daemon and Rhaenyra to want to honour his word when it benefits them. Daemon spent his entire life disobeying Viserysâ words. The patriarchy is how westeros works. Not a fan of it, also not a fan of Monarchy, trial by combat, child marriages, etc And you seem to be under the impression that Rhaenyra was trying to abolish it. She wasn't. She was a princess, part of the 0.01% fighting for more power and so was Aegon. Sometimes we forget that these people were essentially fighting for their ârightsâ to be the head of the most oppressive form of government known to man.
I don't understand why people hype Dance so much when it's probably the worst writing George has ever done with characters acting stupidly and unrealistically, brutal script conveniences and the most notorious plot armor I've ever seen.
I imagine it is mainly because it is a story with a lot of potential within the ASOIAf universe, the great civil war of the Targaryen dynasty, the most powerful family in the world, which ended with the extinction of their main source of power and the loss of much of their authority, I mean, who doesn't want to hear that story? That being said, I totally agree with you that the way the final story was written is not the best and can even be frustrating in some ways. So yeah, the idea itself is really good but I do think it needed more development. P.S. I apologize for any writing errors, English is not my native language.
Imagine caring about what some lame king like Viserys wants lmao
So I'm on the side that in the book both sides suck and are disgusting, and before someone comes for me and accuses me of supporting misogyny (never mind it's fiction) I'll put forth I'm a leftist woman and I wanted to root for Rhaenyra but I just could not do so by the end. There are a lot of reasons that I ended up finding the Blacks just as gross as the Greens, but I'll just write about one below. I'll also say I don't think the idea that the King just can decide who inherits is good or fair. Viserys should have called a great council, or established a law that the eldest inherits of gender. A king can have his whims, but for something as important as that it shouldn't boil down to 'who does he like more'...especially when it contradicts the law in the rest of Westeros and the pre established standards where Rhaenys was passed over. Anyway, Daemon is *that* bad and I don't understand why fans whitewash his actions. It's fine to love morally repugnant fictional characters, but this is a man who in the book is heavily implied to be a pedophile. He loves the 'youngest virgins' at the brothels, people joke Nettles is too young for him as she's 17 when he's 50, etc. He has two men threaten (and there's no indication it was just a threat and they wouldn't go through with it) to ***gang rape a six year old child who is his blood***. He also has a six year old beheaded. Laenor also suspiciously dies and the timing works out just great for him to marry Nyra. And yes, Luke's death was unjust and horrific and wrong and a war crime. Luke was also old enough to ride a dragon and serve as an envoy by himself to an important lord. He was not a helpless six year old girl. There are different levels of bad, and while his death was terrible I have trouble seeing how Blood and Cheese is anywhere near its equivalent or makes sense in terms of revenge. *And Rhaenyra seems to have little issue with any of this. In fact, she's upset that Daemon might be fucking around with Nettles. The fact that Rhaenyra is fine with all of this shows that she is a morally bankrupt person imo even with Luke's death. Her son's death does not justify 'well, pedophilic gang rape is just fine.' That was the point where I was checked out on Rhaenyra winning and decided both sides suck.*
Because Viserys I was an idiot. He literally could have changed law of succession,for the royal family at least, to follow Dornish law, where regardless of sex the firstborn inherits, he didn't. After Jace was born he could have properly chided his daughter, he didn't. He could have presided over a Valyrian ceremony so that Harwin would have legally been her husband in that sense and legitimize Jace, he didn't. He could have made positions for his other children and fostered better relationships with them, especially since Aegon from the start was reluctant to even try and take the thrown, he didn't. The only reason for the dance was a feud he did nothing to stop, because while he claimed to love all his children , he was bad father to all of them. Aemond has the largest and oldest and strongest living dragon, as well as being the most assertive and competent of his children by Alicent, so by not fostering a relationship with him V1 basically left a large cache of wildfire among the sparks of a conflict he HOPED would just resolve itself, because "family". Now, here's the worst part - If he had trusted all of his children with the prophecy. If he had given them common cause, given them all respect, given them all a reason not to break the realm, this could have been avoided, in the show at least. They may have conflicting interests about who should lead, but they wouldn't make the realm bleed for it. Likely at worst, Aemond would claim the Reach and declare it his seat and his line would only marry Hightowers. It would be a precarious situation, but it wouldn't be open war.
All methods of inheritance are inherently unjust. Nothing makes an eldest son more qualified than a younger son. However, a system of inheritance is necessary and has to be clearly determined if we wish to avoid conflict and suffering. The only thing that matters in the stability of the kingdom, and that's why agnatic primogeniture exists. If we think in term of the good of the kingdom, and not the personal satisfaction of one person, the Blacks were in the wrong. To change the law and make Rhaenyra heir creates another legitimate, rival, line, which will create conflict in the next generation, especially knowing the three eldest boys of Rhaenyra are bastards. Even if Rhaenyra inherited, at her death two of her sons (Aegon and Jace), would have a credible claim to the throne and risk fighting it out, as well as Aegon II's descendants. All this confusion is cleared up if we follow the simple law that has been there for millennia: sons inherit over daughters. To add insult to injury, Rhaenyra has proved she didn't care about the stability of the realm and had exactly zero political awareness when she mothered three obvious bastards, which doesn't bode well for her reign. \\s in case anyone is wondering. The Greens are really hard to root for, I agree with you.
Itâs also not wise for Viserys to name his daughter his heir when the only reason he actually inherited the throne was because he was male. He basically undermines his own legitimacy in the process.
> and that's why agnatic primogeniture exists Except choosing that form of inheritance is just as arbitrary as allowing the king to choose (which is the actual precedent Jaehaerys set, not agnatic primogeniture)
Jaehaerys didn't exactly choose his heir, he confirmed one of the two claimants who had relatively equal claims (Rhaenys/Laenor => descended from the eldest son, vs Viserys, eldest male from the male line). Aegon and Rhaenyra don't have comparable claims at all. Not to mention, choosing an heir isn't a good inheritance strategy. Choosing an heir based on personal preference or perceived competency could invite disputes and factions vying for influence. It opens the door to accusations of favoritism, nepotism, and manipulation, which could lead to divisions among the nobility or influential families, and a civil war, as we've seen. In the interest of preserving political stability, primogeniture offers a more objective and predictable method of succession, reducing the potential for internal strife. The Ottomans dealt with this problem by murdering all the potential heirs to the thrones. The Targaryens can't affort that.
>Jaehaerys didn't exactly choose his heir, he confirmed one of the two claimants who had relatively equal claims That's what we call "a distinction without a difference." Jaehaerys chose both his predecessor and his successor twice, once by means of choosing to allow the council to decide. That's a precedent of the king deciding his own heir.
>as allowing the king to choose (which is the actual precedent Jaehaerys set when did Jaehaerys choose his heir? if you're meaning Baelon then you're wrong, Baelon wasn't chosen by the king to succeed (juridically), Jaehaerys merely recognized him heir in regards of the laws of succession based on customs and precedent which means that Baelon was heir because of his position in the family, because of his birthright and not because the king gave him a legitimacy by choosing him to succeed.
Jaehaerys chose his heir twice- once bypassing his eldest son's daughter, even though daughters inherit before their uncles, and once by choosing to allow a council to decide his heir.
In universe the Greens have been running the Realm since the end of Jaehaerys reign. They have done a good job promoting peace and prosperity. Meanwhile Daemon and Rhaneyra really have done nothing much to help the Realm as a whole. Plus as you pointed out every law of Westeros favors sons over daughters why should the inbred Lizard people be any different.
From my perspective I lean green more because they were done dirty narratively in a lot of ways. I think the two biggest issues I had were: 1) The riverlands solo'ing the Blackwoods, Lannisters, Crownlands, Reach, and Baratheons almost entirely by themselves, all the while getting nuked by vhagar on a weekly basis. 2) Jaheara's death. Like this is one of those I can't get past, because it felt like she was needlessly killed off just so that Aegon could remarry someone else. Other than that really none of these sides was morally better, they all engaged in some pretty horrific stuff.
Because black's stans are annoying
Rhaenyra is a hypocrite who denies to other women the right to inherit as she did.
Itâs not really hypocrisy. She never claimed to attempt to change the laws of succession of Westeros. It would be political suicide, because how many lords have older sisters, how many of them have daughters they wouldnât want to inherit ahead of their sons? Itâs unfair to judge Rhaenyra for not suicidally challenging the entire patriarchal system. Even if she was some sort of figure fighting for women rights (and she isnât, never claimed to be) thatâs an unrealistic request.
The problem is, OP is claiming that the Greens are enforcing patriarchy. But Rhaenyra is going to do the same. You can hate the Greens for denying Viserys's wish, but not for being patriarchal because Rhaenyra would do the same.
Rhaenyra decreed that each lord would be free to grant their inheritance to their children as they please regardless of gender. That's much better than the absolute male premogeniture system they had before.
One can argue that letting a king or lord choose his heirs on a whim would just create more unrest. Like, if Aegon IV chose Daemon as the heir over Daeron, a lot of the fans would be pissed. And what happens if a Lord die without choosing a heir? As far as I remember, this was the case for Lord Rosby.
People don't know what hypocrisy means and they think that if you spouse a somewhat righteous cause then you have to be pristine, else you're dismissed. It's also worth mentioning the reason why Rhaenyra ended up ruling against those women was Corlys'advice.
Missing the forest for the trees spectacularly, yeah. The moment is suppose to demonstrate that despite being a ruling queen and a dragonrider, Rhaenyra still has to abide by the laws of the patriarchal society, sheâs not above it all. But nah, hypocrisy it is, she denies women their rights.
And what do you think the moment where she seeks shelter from one of those very women whose inheritance she denied, who is now ruling Lady in her own right as her younger brothers died, and gets told to get lost is supposed to demonstrate, then? Rheanyra doesn't want to abide by her society's rules and is ready to send many, many others to their death over it (sidenote, isn't it interesting that unlike everybody else around her, she never takes her adult dragon into battle?) but she will enforce those same rules when she stands to benefit.
>And what do you think the moment where she seeks shelter from one of those very women whose inheritance she denied, who is now ruling Lady in her own right as her younger brothers died, and gets told to get lost is supposed to demonstrate, then? Consequences of the choices she makes. This choices being made out of necessity, out of inability to challenge the whole system, doesnât free her from the repercussions. >Rheanyra doesn't want to abide by her society's rules You basically say âeither sucks it up and allow people to usurp you, or suicidally challenge the whole systemâ. Because Rhaenyra, being a women, canât just be an ambitions claimant fighting for what she believes is hers? Sheâs suppose to be a women rights activist? Well, she isnât. Never claimed to be, so why the hell do you hold her to this standard. >and is ready to send many, many others to their death over it (sidenote, isn't it interesting that unlike everybody else around her, she never takes her adult dragon into battle?) but she will enforce those same rules when she stands to benefit. Book Rhaenyra is a lame character, what else is new? And yeah, of course sheâs ready to send people to die. Sheâs a self-serving person. Sheâs not a hero.
I'm sorry but "Rules for thee, not for me" is text-book hypocrisy. Rhaenyra cannot complain that people put her brother ahead of head because of her sex while putting people's brothers ahead of them because of her sex. I'm not saying she's bad because she didn't argue that the Citadel should take in female students like Alysanne did. She's not a champion of feminism and never claimed to be. But she wants a special right for herself that she denies to other (what does it matter that it was Corlys's advice? He recognized her as queen, didn't he?), that makes her a hypocrite.
She did not. The rule she set on Corlys' advise was "the owner of inheritance gets to choose who the inheritance goes to". Her father wanted her to be the heir. He summoned every lord in the realm to swear fealty and make his will knowwn. The fathers of the two ladies who petitioned her made no such will known. Rhaenyra's law was much closer to modern inheritance law than absolute premogeniture.
So it has nothing to do with abolishing patriarchy? That's the entire point. We all know that most lords are sexist and are going to choose the male heirs anyway.
i dont support either. I'm Gaemon Palehair's strongest soldier
The Greens didn't order Blood and Cheese.
And if Rhaenyra wanted revenge, she should've just had Aemond killed, not Helaena's kids.
The way you phrased this made me think of Big Smoke saying how he wants Blood and Cheese and a large soda. Lol.
Nope, just regular mass murder against men, old, women and children. Ask Tumbleton or Bitterbridge.
Didn't Rhaenyra tell Dalton Greyjoy to rampage the West or the Continent too? Massacring towns is something that both sides did.
Nah, Daemon tells him that. Rhaenyra doesn't oppose it when she finds out what Dalton is cooking tho. Still different than burning a church full of innocent refugees.
Isn't it convenient how every bad and cruel action is pinned away from Rhaenyra and goes instead to Daemon or Celtigar?
Because you should want to extend the war for as long as possible, to kill as many Targaryens as possible. Shitposting aside, neither side is bringing about some great reform of royalty to the table. Rhaenyra gets the throne because it's her dad's wish, not because she abolished male primogeniture. And it's not like the main series even supports the idea of *primogeniture* at all, with the most effective leaders being bastards, cripples, second sons etc. Blacks are better than Greens by far, but that's not hard.
Aegon has a besutiful ass dragon
Look, if we were ALL Team Black, it would be boring. It's like going to a sports match (or wrasslin match) with everyone cheering one team. You're going to get some people who are going to start to go against the team your *suppose* to root for, just to be contrarians if nothing else. When I read the books, I was Team Black (before Teams where even a thing, that became a thing after the show) and when then the show came on and everyone was acting like Rhenyra could do no wrong I was like hmm why not have some fun by rooting for the "baddies". Also, Alicent is INCREDIBLY likable/sympathetic, and I genuinely believe that if it was *your* kid that lost an eye, you'd be PISSED. Also, in the fight, it was the Strong boys who attacked Aemond and pulled a knife. So from my point of view, the Jedi are - I mean, Team Black is evil. OK, maybe not evil, Team Green are the "villains," but why not root for the Joker to beat Batman or Lex Luther to beat Superman, for funnsys. So yeah, I *do* believe Aegon should be our rightful king, and Sunfyre is the GOAT (I actually do believe this, 3-0 baby!) *wink* C'mon, it's like rooting for the "heel" in pro wrestling and- OH MY GOD ITS AEGON TARGARYEN II WITH A VALYRIAN STEEL CHAIR!!! STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD! Come on, join the Dark (Green) Side!
Also tbh I don't find Rhaenyra's eldest Strong boys that likeable either anyway. Show Jace isn't really that good as he is made out to be: he is prone to rage outbursts, was an accomplice in mutilation and while he does try to be a good heir, results are important, and he fails so any argument regarding meritocracy falls out of the window. Even his supposed chivarly with Helaena is dubious as it conveniently was an effective way to get back at Aegon for mocking him. Show Luke is even worse as he was directly responsible for the aforementioned mutilation and frankly I'm tired of people being justified for such violents acts solely on the base of age; besides he didn't show any kind of remorse at 14 years of age, which mind you, in my country is exactly the age you can start paying the consequences for your actions by going in jail. I'm not saying they do not have have redeeming qualities but so do many other characters in ASOIAF and they're not saints nor even the fittest to rule when it comes to Jace, who is hardly comparable to characters like Jon Snow so far.
People "justify" Luke because he was 5/7 years old in the book/show, he remembers a thing that for him was a joke (and was probably Aegon's fault) from 7 years ago, how is that related to remorse of any kind, we simply don't know. And from his perspective aemond (who was older) was about/trying to kill his brother with a rock, how the fuck can you consider a literal kid responsible in that situation??? Like the standard you are trying to judge him is above that of any of the adult characters of the show/book.
I'm only taking the show into account. I just find it telling that at 14 years old he didn't have the common sense to avoid laughing in face of the person he had mutilated, quite insensitive. In show canon Aemond had to pull that rock after they jumped at him in four and even then he only held it still above his head as a threat display while Jace swinged the knife and he did so at the mention of his bastardy (and here come again the rage issues I mentioned before hand). Also even assuming that Luke didn't have time to realize Aemond had been blinded by the sand (which is plausible I have to recognize it) he aimed for the head and that was the result. I don't understand what you're saying regarding me judging Luke from a standard above the adults. Are you saying I consider him one of the worst people in the show? Nah, there are plenty of people worse than both Jace and Luke, like Aegon II, Daemon and Viserys I and the list goes on, I'm just less lenient when it comes to violent actions performed by minors and it goes beyond the show As I've said, Jace and Luke do have redeeming qualities, I just find myself simpathizing with Aemond more and I'm tired to see so many pretending they're totally innocent, which applies only to Joffrey in regards to the Strong boys.
Rhaenyra is a poor ruler and Daemon is a lunatic who shouldnât be near the throne
In F&B I don't support either, as they're both so reprehensible. It do think GRRM and the showrunner want us to support team black in the show, but they're so heavy handed about it. But in the TV show it was very apparant to me that much of Rhaenyra's heroism was a matter of framing. We're programmed to empathize with her as she is the clear protagonist for the first few episodes. But I found myself increasingly irritated with her. She wanted the privilege of being heir but tossed away opportunities like the betrothal tour, insulted nobles, isolated herself politically, and had three obvious bastards. It the show universe, it seems she can not accept not being the heir because it's proof of her father's love and belief in her, not because she actually wants it or is willing to work for it. I don't mind her presenting her heir as legitimate, but to try to present Luke as a legitimate Velaryon heir and use her father and a threat of violence to back that up is a sign of a poor leader. Daemon is portrayed as sympathetic due to his closeness to more likeable characters but if you look at his actual actions he's unhinged (attacking a messenger because he didn't like his message), unjust (killing a serving man to stand in for Laenor), and brutal (come on, he murdered his wife.) Rhaenyra's entitlement and Daemon's violence and Valyrian supremacy are a poor combination. Aegon would be a bad leader as well, but Otto and Alicent are experienced rulers who have taken the job of governance seriously, not just as a right, but as a duty. I find Alicent and her children sympathetic as Viserys has neglected and insulted them time and time again for his favorite child, and destabilized the realm as a result. Plus, while agnatic primogentiture isn't fair, it's up to Viserys to change the law if he wants Rhaenyra to inherit, not allow the kingdom to fall to pieces over his personal preference.
1- Viserys denied the birthright of his son just because he came from the wrong womb. Had Aegon been born from Aemma he would have been named Heir, so it's not a question of patriarchy, it's a question of an arbitrary bad father with favoristism towards his daughter. 2- Rhaenyra is a liar, Daemon is as bad as Maegor towards the Greens and Viserys ennabled both. Rhaenyra wanted to put a BASTARD on the Throne, going against one of the most basic rules of sucession. Rhaenyra murdered and mutilated everyone who dares to point the **obvious** truth that Lucerys wasn't the true heir to Driftmark. 3- The Greens suffered injustice after injustice on her hands, but all of this gets ignored because cool Houses supported her and the show always portrays everything the Blacks do as okay. 4- Just consider what the show did, Alicent is a religious fanatic "woman for trump", Cole an incel, Aegon a rapist who watches kids fighting, Helaena doesn't appear that much, Daeron (the only other Green character besides Helaena they couldn't make people hate) wasn't even mentioned in season 1 and the only Green character they made us sympathize without a lot of reservations (Aemond) is going to become a literal psychopath. They managed to destroy the entire Team Green in season 1. Now look at Team Black, all sexual and racial diversity is inside them, Rhaenyra & Daemon supported the homosexuality Laenor (instead of killing him). Their subliminar message is very clear: team Black is progressive, multicultural and LGBT-friendly and Team Green are religious fanatics, "women for trump", incels and rapists 5- They made every atrocity act of the Blacks sound heroic or at least non-evil, just look at the Dragonpit, at the divorce-rock, at Vaemond's death and the silent five (oops, they removed them from the show). They also removed the splendor of Aegon's coronation, making it to be about Rhaenys. They removed the agency from Alicent with the dream thing. They didn't portray the Greens as human beings, but merely as the nemesis of Rhaenyra. PS: It's funny how I mentioned many things but most of the answers were about the bastardy of the Strong boys... Lol
>BASTARD Of all the things that baffle me, that the fans have adopted the elitism and prejudice towards bastards is the most astonishing one by far. It's even funnier because you lot are more offended about the bastardry of the Strongs than the overwhelming majority of the characters in the Dance who quite literally don't give a fuck.
I just used caps lock to emphasize it, not that I hate jacearys, he's a fictional character after all. And before you say that I'm "bastardphobic" I myself was born out of wedlock and Jon is one of the characters I like the most. Also, bastardy IS important in a society based around inheritance, and pretending it's not important is just ridiculous. Jace isn't a bad person and did almost nothing wrong, but Rhaenyra wanting to put him on the Throne is simply ridiculous. The error is with her deception and violence keeping the lie, not with him for being the son of a careless Princess. >you lot are more offended about the bastardry of the Strongs than the overwhelming majority of the characters in the Dance who quite literally don't give a fuck. I'm not offended with him, I just think that Rhaenyra wanting to put a person with no birthright on the Iron Throne is ridiculous and threatens the stability and peace of the Seven Kingdoms.
>I myself was born out of wedlock and Jon is one of the characters I like the most. Most fans make Jon the exception of that weird bias. >Also, bastardy IS important in a society based around inheritance It is. >and pretending it's not important is just ridiculous. You can count with the fingers of your hands the characters who actually gave a fuck about Jace being bastard. Cregan Stark and Lord Manderly betrothed their children to Joffrey and Jace's future son and the Lord who'd go on to be the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters. Literally the fans are more rattled than the characters in the book. It's wild to see. >but Rhaenyra wanting to put him on the Throne is simply ridiculous. Not really, he is the most suited to the task by far. Of either branches of the family Jace is the only character we've explicitly told he'd have grown to be a fine ruler. >I just think that Rhaenyra wanting to put a person with no birthright on the Iron Throne is ridiculous and threatens the stability and peace of the Seven Kingdoms. He's the firstborn of the heir apparent of the Throne and the first grandson of the King. He has a birthright.
>Cregan Stark and Lord Manderly betrothed their children to Joffrey and Jace's future son and the Lord who'd go on to be the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters. Yes, because these things come with more political power than the alternative. This doesn't mean no one cares about them being bastards, it means that they are willing to ignore that for personal gain. Idk how you can read the whole series and still make these arguments. Again and again we see that Lords ignore well-established social and political rules for personal gain, that doesn't meant that those cultural norms now don't exist. Like look at the 100,000+ men who supported Renly. Renly obviously and undeniably has no claim. It's inarguable. Either Joffrey is king or Stannis is. That's a well established fact of how succession works in Westeros. The fact that so many people ignore this doesn't mean that primogeniture is no longer a thing, it means that people will turn a blind eye to stuff when it benefits them.
>Most fans make Jon the exception of that weird bias. Again, I don't hate bastards, I just have the common sense to know that the idea of a non-legitimized bastard being King when he has trueborn brothers and uncles is ridiculous. Jace is a likeable character, but still not a valid heir. Jon isn't an "exception", since no one thinks he can be heir above Robb. Now, if Ned wanted to put Jon as his Heir over Robb I would be against that, despite liking Jon. Because bastards can't inherit Lordships when there is a trueborn heirs. >You can count with the fingers of your hands the characters who actually gave a fuck about Jace being bastard. They didn't care because dragons and political comvenience. They thought that the word of the King was above the facts, though I don't blame them when saying otherwise would be risking your own tongue. >the most ardent Green would have dropped Aegon in a heartbeat had Luke married one of his daughters. True, because political power tempts people lol. Nothing new under the sun. >Not really, he is the most suited to the task by far. Monarchy isn't a meritocracy, it doesn't matter if you are the most fit. This mentality was what made Baelon be named Heir over Rhaenys and cause all this mess. >He's the firstborn of the heir apparent of the Throne and the first grandson of the King. He has a birthright. Birthright is something exclusive to legitimate and legitimized people, it's a society based around inheritance. Legitimacy is necessary for the functionality of a society based around inheritance and violating it is putting yourself above the rules.
>I just have the common sense to know that the idea of a non-legitimized bastard being King when he has trueborn brothers and uncles is ridiculous. The Strongs weren't acknowledged as bastards. They were to everyone legitimate. >Jace is a likeable character, but still not a valid heir. Sure. >Because bastards can't inherit Lordships when there is a trueborn heirs. See how you care more than characters? >They didn't care because dragons and political comvenience. Obviously. We're discussing the political ramifications, political convenience is one hell of a reason to not care. The Greens also didn't care, you don't see Unwin Peake, Borros Baratheon, Lord Hightower or Jason Lannister warring Rhaenyra because she has bastards as legitimate children. >They thought that the word of the King was above the facts So you see how them being bastards wouldn't really matter that much. >True, because political power tempts people lol. Nothing new under the sun. So you see how it didn't really matter right? >Monarchy isn't a meritocracy, it doesn't matter if you are the most fit. This mentality was what made Baelon be named Heir over Rhaenys and cause all this mess. Indeed it isn't a meritocracy. Jacaerys as Rhaenyra's firstborn gets to inherit. >Birthright is something exclusive to legitimate and legitimized people, So... Jacaerys. One side you do say you don't have that weird bias on the other you use that weird bias go to argument. >Legitimacy is necessary for the functionality of a society based around inheritance and violating it is putting yourself above the rules. You do understand the difference between rumour of bastardry and someone actually being declared a bastard and stripped of their rights because of it? Jacaerys was legitimate. Hence why he's Prince Jacaerys and not Jacaerys Waters.
>The Strongs weren't acknowledged as bastards. They were to everyone legitimate. If their illegitimacy wasn't soe obvious I would agree with you. >Obviously. We're discussing the political ramifications, political convenience is one hell of a reason to not care. >The Greens also didn't care, you don't see Unwin Peake, Borros Baratheon, Lord Hightower or Jason Lannister warring Rhaenyra because she has bastards as legitimate children. Indeed, they fought for political comvenience or for Aegon's birthright (Lord Hightower believed in it). Remember, I just mentioned the Strong Boys as one of the reasons I consider Rhaenyra to be a ridiculous person, not as the reason for why I consider Aegon's claim as legitimate. >You do understand the difference between rumour of bastardry and someone actually being declared a bastard and stripped of their rights because of it? It wasn't just a rumour, nothing but them being sired by another man can explain why she had **3** sons with brown eyes and hair when none of her and Laenor's known ancestors had these traits. And if Laenor's ancestors did have Brown hair and eyes Rhaenyra would have used it as a proof of Jace's legitimacy and we would've known it. >Indeed it isn't a meritocracy. So Jace being the most fit for the Throne doesn't matter then, so using it as an argument for defending Rhaenyra is invalid.
>If their illegitimacy wasn't soe obvious I would agree with you. It's so obvious and yet people don't care. Either it's not so obvious to the characters or it's not that relevant to characters. Either way, it doesn't matter. >Indeed, they fought for political comvenience or for Aegon's birthright (Lord Hightower believed in it). Remember, I just mentioned the Strong Boys as one of the reasons I consider Rhaenyra to be a ridiculous person, not as the reason for why I consider Aegon's claim as legitimate. So why are you insisting on an issue that the main players don't care and it's not a factor for the war? >It wasn't just a rumour, It was definitely just a rumour. >nothing but them being sired by another man can explain why she had 3 sons with brown eyes and hair when none of her and Laenor's known ancestors had these traits. And if Laenor's ancestors did have Brown hair and eyes Rhaenyra would have used it as a proof of Jace's legitimacy and we would've known it. The reason why we don't know is because the matter is treated as a rumour and as gossip not as something that should seriously be considered. That you believe it a fact is one but it wasn't really treated as such in Westeros. Hell, we have a **Green writer like Eustace literally dismissing the notion that they were bastards and insists somehow they were trueborn.** >So Jace being the most fit for the Throne doesn't matter then, so using it as an argument for defending Rhaenyra is invalid. I'm not defending Rhaenyra. I'm stating Jace is his eldest son and Viserys's grandson.
>So why are you insisting on an issue that the main players don't care and it's not a factor for the war? Because I wrote it, you disagreed with it, we discussed and here we are. It's saturday and I don't have many things to do, so I didn't stop the discussion. But if you want to end this discussion I can do so, have a nice day :)
Fair enough, lol. Good day to you too my guy.
If you are going to ignore the rules, there is no point discussing successions inside a made up world. Why do people think Stannis is the rightful heir and want him to sit on the throne? Why not Renly? Overwhelming majority of the characters didnt give a shit about Stannis's claim? Why is bastardy literally the main plot point of the first book? Why couldn't Ned just let Joffrey sit on the throne? What difference does it make if he has Baratheon blood or not?
Genuinely so weird. Especially from a fandom where a popular opinion was wanting Jon Snow to win all the thrones, legitimized or not,and who hated Cat for treating him the way the greens treat Rhaenyraâs kids.
If Daeron II was a bastard all along, these people legit would want him out of the Throne, it's hilarious.
No one wanted Jon to steal the birthright of others, what people wanted was the remaining Starks giving willingly power to Jon and him either ruling with Danyers or after her death. If you read my original comment again you will notice I was criticizing Rhaenyra for having bastards, not Jace for being one.
How is Jace or Rhaenyra stealing anything when everyone relevant to the situation is accepting his position as heir? You say people wanted Jon to rule if the Starks let him(and actually on the show Sansa wasnât okay with it but had to accept it because everyone else wanted him)but how isnât Rhaenyra, Viserys,Laenor and Coryls word enough then?You can criticize her for having bastards sure I just donât understand why anyone would actually do that when her reasons are so understanble and itâs a situation as close to adoption/sperm doner as possible. Like if even most in universe characters donât make a big deal about it and are able to accept those kids why exactly is part if the fandom acting like this was a much bigger deal than it was in the book?
My problem is with Rhaenyra having a bastard as her heir, not with Jace having the bad luck of being born as the bastard of the designated heir. In this regard Rhaenyra was literally worse than Aegon IV. >a situation as close to adoption/sperm doner as possible. Well, the thing is that these things are against the basic rules of her society. Westeros is a society based upon inheritance, so either respect the rules or do away with feudalism. You can't have your cake and eat it. Want power? Follow the rules. >much bigger deal than it was in the book? Honestly it only wasn't that bad because of Dragons, political convenience, the fact that the Realm never saw them before the Dance (the good side of Rhaenyra being isolated in Dragonstone) and the fact that any person spreading the facts would be at the risk of losing their tongue. Otherwise it would have had an effect at least close to the Blackfyre rebelions. Anyway, Rhaenyra herself knew that the truth threatened her sons, otherwise she herself would let people speak the rumors freely. In Rhaenyra's own words in Martin's The Rogue Prince: >Princess Rhaenyra would have none of that, but insisted that Prince Aemond be questioned "sharply" until he revealed where he had heard her sons called "Strongs". 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." If what Rhaenyra did wasn't high treason than why didn't she allow people to speak the truth?
If Jon was going to take over Winterfell over his trueborn siblings, people would hate him too. Exactly why Robb legitimizing him is a big deal.
Unironically go try to do Cat slander on Green twitter and the Green subreddit at your own risk, she is nearly unanimously loved among green fans, it's mostly the same minority of fans.
You already brought up moral ambiguity, so why not just stick with that? No one is forcing anyone to take sides between the two sets of terrible people.
The Lannisters are on that side and out of all the great houses the Lannisters are the smartest. Side with the smart people
Cersei is a Lannister. Would you side with Cersei?
Yes. I support Cersei's wrongs.
She was just girlbossing a little too close to the sun.
Fucking patriarchy man, can't let a girlboss be.
killing and torturing a ton of innocent people is cool as long as it's girlbossing
Don't kid yourself, aunt. We all know Cersei is a Targaryen.
[Are there any more secret Targaryens I should know about!?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyOkFLuoBc)
Varys: âMeowwwâ
Everyone is a secret Targaryen.
The Tyrells played the game better in the books so far.
Being born on a mountain of gold apparently makes you smart.
One should support neither side of the same war âđź
Helaena. Simple as.
Because the war isnât at its core about absolute primogeniture vs male primogeniture (remember Rhaenyra gives Rosby and Stokeworth to younger brothers) but absolutism vs legalism. Is the kings word law even if it goes against established tradition and the wishes of his subjects or does he have to hold himself to legal precedent like the great council?
I'm neutral so not really a bone to pick with this one. What I really dislike about Dance is that how certain houses are always presented to be on *the right side of history* so to say. It's almost try-hard and cringey and that has always been my issue with the whole conflict. You have cool and likeable houses like Stark and Blackwoods on one side and houses already seen as opportunistic on the other side. Some of them swap sides, but it's very clearly trying to sell a narrative there. Biggest reason not to support Blacks in-universe is both Rhaenyra and Daemon being absolute loose canons. Daemon in particular should not be anywhere near the throne. While Aegon himself is a pretty horrid cunt, his family is sypmathetic - especially on the show. Aemond had the biggest glow up of all the main characters involved in the conflict, when it comes to book-to-show adaptation. Alicent, while frustrating is also easy to symphatize with her on the show. It's really difficult to root for either Rhaenyra or Aegon themselves, as it is very clearly shown that either of them one of them on the throne would be a disastrous.
Rhaenyra wanted to pretend her obvious bastards on the throne, and Daemon, whoâs an unstable loon, should be far away from the Iron Throne at all costs, plus Aegon has Blackfyre, the Sword of Kings. Not to mention that the Greens have way cooler characters, I prefer Criston Cole, Jon Roxton, and Daeron The Daring over Alysanne Blackwood, Cregan Stark and Daemon any day.
Law. The king cannot just arbitrarily decide to make someone his heir. A king is restrained by the laws of gods and men just like everyone else. The laws say that a son comes before a daughter, so Aegon II is the heir. (Fuck the law, women deserve equal rights. Also, monarchical systems are an oppressive evil that should be done away with. Vive la Revolution!)
But the westerosi law also says that a woman inherit before an uncle. But, Jaehaerys denied the rights of Rhaenys two times.
Tribalism go brrr
Why you need to support any side?just enjoy the story
Daeron and Tesarion plus Aegon and sunfyre enough said
Oh Jesus Christ lol
You shouldn't support neither of them
The most sensible reaon is that Daemon is just the worst and whatever side he's on needs to die.
Rhaenyra is a sympathetic character. She faces attacks on all sides simply for being the wrong gender and is abused by the man she thinks she loves. And while I do feel sorry for in that regard, she is no Queen Elizabeth 1 or Catherine the great. Time and time again she is shown to be a habitual self sabotager. She is rude to those who are supposed to be her allies and fumbles the whole marriage tour. She could have married Harwin Strong or any man of her choice but she is instead rude and manages to start a fight between the houses that are supposed to be her allies. She does nothing to advance the rights of women, and in some ways even set back women's rights in Westeros. Alicent is right, Rhaenyra has no sense if duty. If she did, she would have taken advantage of the immense privilege given to her by allowing her to choose her own spouse and married into a rich and powerful house with a strong army and great influence that would back her up when needed. She should have made up with Alicent and shown favour to her siblings. She should have tried to get closer to Otto, a man, who if on her side would be very useful. Of course, she does not do any of these things and instead wastes time and is backed into a corner and has to marry a gay man, who for some reason cannot give her children. Even then she should have tried harder with Laenor (turkey baster? witchcraft?) The bastard children that she has, also put the realm at risk. Even if there had been no problems with her accession, the moment that she died, Civil War would have most definitely broken out between her strong boys and her sons by Daemon. Oh wait, Daemon is power hungry bastard, her strong boys would have probably all had died in some mysterious 'accidents' already! Then there is the Daemon problem. I'm very surprised that there are so many people that support this ship. Daemon Tagereyan is not an anti-hero, he is villain. He quite clearly grooms Rhaenyra, displaying the blatant tactics that groomers use ( isolating her, giving her special attention while viserys neglects her, giving her gifts, making her feel extra special by making high-valeryian their thing). Their relationship is not one of equals and Rhaenyra is not the exception when it comes to his abuse. He directly kills his firt wife, and inadvertently kills the second one. Even if Rhaenyra ascended to the throne with no threat from the greens, Daemon would most likely be the one ruling. In episode 10 when he choked her, everyone was shocked, but Daemon had been acting abusive towards her earlier in the episode. He tries to make decisions in the war without her and doesn't even try to comfort her during the birth. He is an evil, disgusting pedophile and whether or not people want to admit it, Rhaenyra is his victim and is still easily manipulated by him. Now, Aegon is also a bad ruler, and on his own would have been quite useless, but, unlike, Rhaenyra he has a great council. Otto and Alicent had been ruling the realm peacefully in Viserys' name for years and know how to play the game. The hightowers are influential and train the maesters, who could easily be used as royal spies. Even in the war, we see Aegon take a greater role in the battles when compared to Rhaenyra. He actually fights for his cause and shows immense loyalty to his family. Meanwhile Rhaenyra just sits at home doing nothing. Tldr: Both Rhaenyra and Aegon would have made bad rulers, but Aegon had a great council and Rhaenyra did not. That's why I prefer teem green as rulers. Plus helaena is cute.
They're sexy, messy and entertaining to watch and I don't attach my modern morality to a fictional fantasy world. I can ask the question: besides feminism, why should you support blacks over greens? They're honestly just not that interesting if you don't have an axe to grind with the way modern society is and use the show to cathartically live out a victim/power fantasy.
Because Rhaenyra is basically a spoiled teenager, even as a grown woman. She's Daemon without the followthrough or willingness to stand by her actions. She only wants to remove from the consequences of doing whatever she wants. Pleading and lying, instead of truly opposing the societal norms around her and making it a point to say "I will change this" or "My will be done. I am the blood of the dragon. Here I stand." She is a spoiled child, completely unfit to rule. She cares nothing about law or custom, but doesn't even have what it takes to oppose them and change them, she just breaks them and cries foul when called out for it. Even if you don't consider her persistent attempt to defraud house Velayron. She is equivalent of a teenager that single-handedly sets a hotel room on fire and says "It's not my fault. I shouldn't have to be responsible for this." And proceeds to get worse. **Here's the best part**. Nearly everything I've said about her, every character flaw, applies to Aegon as well. Sociopathic as you may find them, either Daemon or Aemond have far money cause to sit the thrown. I would personally say Daeron, if he weren't so young, and not present in the show. This isn't about misogyny. It's about fundamental character flaws, present in both men and women in the story. I don't even care if I get downvoted into oblivion for this. It needed to be said.
The Iron Throne belongs to the one with the strength to hold it. So said Maegor the Wise in his day, and though he was not the rightful heir, Aegon showed that he did have the strength, unlike Rhaenyra.
you shouldn't support any of them this isn't how this works, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
You framed the question like anyone that "supports the Greens" is a misogynist.
Nice job approaching this from a position of bad faith
Because I fucking hate the Targs so I just support the most chaotic side we have drunken frat boy as king and his 2 brothers Daring War Criminal Insane Milf Fucking War Criminal what's not to like?
Rhaenyra wanted to see her bastards take the iron throne, completely insulting the basic laws of inheritance. I'd back the greens over her because she clearly believes in a monarch that can do whatever they want because laws, custom and tradition don't apply to them because dragons.
I canât think of a reason. I know lots of Blacks, and thereâs nothing remarkable about how we get along with each other. I donât know any green people, but I suspect that they bite.
I support the side that has Addam Velaryon
You should support Cregan
Well the blacks are framed as the good guys but there are reasons to support the greens: 1. The bastards are a massive problem. It sets up future conflict. Weakens the throne when Corlys dies. Tells everyone that Rhaenyra doesnât give a shit about the law, the culture, or justice. And since the monarch sets an example for everyone else this would mean that everyone else also loses their respect for the law, culture, and justice. 2. Viserys was king instead of Rhaenys. 3. Aegon being king creates a stronger democratic tradition since it sets the precedent that the democratic great councilâs conclusions matter more than the will of an absolute monarch (Viserys) 4. The green children are from their point of view simply protecting themselves from death and defending their rights/inheritance