S01.E07: Driftmark

[RobertDeSneero]

4 hours ago, LadyChaos said:

Don't forget that its okay to have two murderers in her employ.

Is it worse to employ two murderers or to marry one?

[sistermagpie]

6 hours ago, Constantinople said:

How is telling the truth talking chit?

3 hours ago, steelyis said:

Oh. I didn't think losing an eye was that big a deal the way some people around here hand-wave a child getting his carved out. Oop, I guess not. 🥱

Because it hurt the poor little bastards' feewings so they get to cut out people's eyes. They learned it from their mother, I suppose.

I think these distinctions between talking and violence are disingenous. Aemond's words actually were more hurtful than most of the violence visited upon anybody in the scene--until the serious injury. Words can be very painful. 

Was losing an eye a fit punishment for what he said? Of course not! But what happened at the end of the scene doesn't rewrite the beginning of it. His intentions were to just say hurtful things to the kids' who'd lost their parents, secure in the fact that he was stronger than all of them and had no similar weak spots for them to hit back with. When he was briefly overpowered, he was angered and humiliated enough to verbally abuse the boys about their dead father as well as the girls. That's what made him angry, not the fact that they weren't happy for him getting a dragon.

Perhaps he meant to end the fight by taunting them with the rock, rejecting the girls' horrified signals to him to not use it and enjoying the fear, and then throw it away knowing he won. Or maybe he did mean to brain the kid with it. Unfortunately he'd successfully both infuriated and terrified the two boys to make them react as if the threat was real. If they'd run at him again and he swatted them down, he would have downright enjoyed it (only slightly less than if they'd just cried, probably). Unfortunately for him, they turned out to do that more effectively than Aemond would have predicted.

Everybody had a perfectly good reason and right to be there to start with. There was nothing sketchy about Aemond walking in that entrance or the other four running down there when they discovered someone had claimed the dragon. If he did feel sad about the kids not being friends with him like they'd become with his brother, he hid it under arrogance. Up until it all went wrong his cooler emotional state was an advantage. 

2 hours ago, Constantinople said:

By passing off three bastards as legitimate heirs to the throne, she's already killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, they're just not dead yet.

The threat of Civil War has nothing to do with her children being bastards. In fact, she's about to try to remedy that by having trueborn heirs with her uncle. I don't know if she'll be successful, but if she is that's not going to make the threat any less at all.  Rhaenyra is vulnerable because she's a woman. Bastard sons are better than no kids at all--or even daughters--in that situation.

[Constantinople]

40 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Most obviously I identified the contrast in Viserys’ reactions.

Contending that Viserys didn't react as if Rhaenyra suggested torture presupposes Viserys gives a shit about Aemond. But the entire scene shows the opposite.

[Stardancer Supreme]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I think these distinctions between talking and violence are disingenous. Aemond's words actually were more hurtful than most of the violence visited upon anybody in the scene--until the serious injury. Words can be very painful. 

Was losing an eye a fit punishment for what he said? Of course not! But what happened at the end of the scene doesn't rewrite the beginning of it. His intentions were to just say hurtful things to the kids' who'd lost their parents, secure in the fact that he was stronger than all of them and had no similar weak spots for them to hit back with. When he was briefly overpowered, he was angered and humiliated enough to verbally abuse the boys about their dead father as well as the girls. That's what made him angry, not the fact that they weren't happy for him getting a dragon.

Perhaps he meant to end the fight by taunting them with the rock, rejecting the girls' horrified signals to him to not use it and enjoying the fear, and then throw it away knowing he won. Or maybe he did mean to brain the kid with it. Unfortunately he'd successfully both infuriated and terrified the two boys to make them react as if the threat was real. If they'd run at him again and he swatted them down, he would have downright enjoyed it (only slightly less than if they'd just cried, probably). Unfortunately for him, they turned out to do that more effectively than Aemond would have predicted.

Everybody had a perfectly good reason and right to be there to start with. There was nothing sketchy about Aemond walking in that entrance or the other four running down there when they discovered someone had claimed the dragon. If he did feel sad about the kids not being friends with him like they'd become with his brother, he hid it under arrogance. Up until it all went wrong his cooler emotional state was an advantage. 

The threat of Civil War has nothing to do with her children being bastards. In fact, she's about to try to remedy that by having trueborn heirs with her uncle. I don't know if she'll be successful, but if she is that's not going to make the threat any less at all.  Rhaenyra is vulnerable because she's a woman. Bastard sons are better than no kids at all--or even daughters--in that situation.

Listen, Aemond's slick mouth started the fight, but threatening to bash Lucerys' head in with a rock got him losing his eye.  Did y'all think Jacerys was going to let his uncle kill his little brother? Seriously?  Having Helaena foretell Aemond's injury last week dulled the horror of it for me. (Remember that these people aren't real. It's just a show.)

I'm still surprised that Alicent asked for Lucerys Velaryon's eye when Jacerys was the one who slashed Aemond. In front of Corlys, no less.  The fact that Viserys and company allowed her to lie that Jacerys had intended to ambush and kill Aemond was a bit much for me.  

And I feel a little sorry for Aegon. He got kicked, slapped, and yelled at for things he didn't even do! Looks like everyone abuses the would-be Heir...

[steelyis]

13 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Contending that Viserys didn't react as if Rhaenyra suggested torture presupposes Viserys gives a shit about Aemond. But the entire scene shows the opposite.

This!

And furthermore, everyone was under-reacting in that scene, because any broad response could be seen as a confession or a sign of guilt. Alicent losing her composure so badly is why she ultimately lost that confrontation. Her best move once it was clear no one was going to be punished on either side would be to get her kids out of there. There was no point in belaboring the issue. The die was cast the moment blood was shed, and Alicent needed to start planning for the worst.

[Meredith Quill]

1 hour ago, RobertDeSneero said:

Is it worse to employ two murderers or to marry one?

Both are equally bad at face value, however, when one of the two is a kinslayer to two family members who were never shown to have any beef between them... that's heinous.

17 minutes ago, Stardancer Supreme said:

Listen, Aemond's slick mouth started the fight, but threatening to bash Lucerys' head in with a rock got him losing his eye.  Did y'all think Jacerys was going to let his uncle kill his little brother? Seriously?  Having Helaena foretell Aemond's injury last week dulled the horror of it for me. (Remember that these people aren't real. It's just a show.)

I'm still surprised that Alicent asked for Lucerys Velaryon's eye when Jacerys was the one who slashed Aemond. In front of Corlys, no less.  The fact that Viserys and company allowed her to lie that Jacerys had intended to ambush and kill Aemond was a bit much for me.  

Small correction, you have it the wrong way round, it was Lucerys that slashed Aemond.

[Oscirus]

36 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

The threat of Civil War has nothing to do with her children being bastards. In fact, she's about to try to remedy that by having trueborn heirs with her uncle. I don't know if she'll be successful, but if she is that's not going to make the threat any less at all.  Rhaenyra is vulnerable because she's a woman. Bastard sons are better than no kids at all--or even daughters--in that situation.

Do you really think shes going to take away jack's birthright and give it to her younger sons? If not, having kids by Daemon fixes nothing.

[Stardancer Supreme]

9 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

Both are equally bad at face value, however, when one of the two is a kinslayer to two family members who were never shown to have any beef between them... that's heinous.

Small correction, you have it the wrong way round, it was Lucerys that slashed Aemond.

Got it. It was Jacerys who threw the sand in Aemond's face. I missed Lucerys scrambling for the knife.

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Do you really think shes going to take away jack's birthright and give it to her younger sons? If not, having kids by Daemon fixes nothing.

I wasn't thinking that far ahead, tbh, and it didn't seem like she was either. Having kids by Daemon makes her a Targ queen with Targ sons to inherit. If she had to skip over the brunettes I think she would. 

[LanceM]

1 hour ago, RobertDeSneero said:

Is it worse to employ two murderers or to marry one?

That depends if one knows she is marrying a murderer and I have seen nothing to indicate that Rhaenyra knows Daemon killed his first wife (not that it would stop if she did know.)

[Oscirus]

1 minute ago, LanceM said:

That depends if one knows she is marrying a murderer and I have seen nothing to indicate that Rhaenyra knows Daemon killed his first wife (not that it would stop if she did know.)

She still at the least okayed the murder of an innocent servant to be able to marry her uncle. 

[Stardancer Supreme]

8 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I wasn't thinking that far ahead, tbh, and it didn't seem like she was either. Having kids by Daemon makes her a Targ queen with Targ sons to inherit. If she had to skip over the brunettes I think she would. 

I disagree. Jacerys is a Targaryen by name because that is the deal Viserys struck with Corlys.  All of Rhaenyra's children are Targaryen, regardless of the fact that 2 of them are Velaryon by name. There probably won't be any skipping unless by death. 

[sistermagpie]

13 minutes ago, Stardancer Supreme said:

I disagree. Jacerys is a Targaryen by name because that is the deal Viserys struck with Corlys.  All of Rhaenyra's children are Targaryen, regardless of the fact that 2 of them are Velaryon by name. There probably won't be any skipping unless by death. 

Oh, I agree. I just meant I didn't think Rhaenyra was so devoted to her elder sons that she'd insist they sit on the throne no matter what *if* the situation arose where the only way she could do it would be through a younger son. I have no idea what that situation might be or if it would ever happen, of course, just saying that I don't think "no child but Jacerys on the throne" is not a hill I think she'd die on if she didn't have to.

[Meredith Quill]

29 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

She still at the least okayed the murder of an innocent servant to be able to marry her uncle. 

And Alicent gave tacit approval to three murders by continuing to associate with the murderers and not holding them accountable. 

You could argue that Rhaenyra's action of marrying someone who she knows murdered someone is more forgivable because she has an emotional attachment to him despite his behaviour. You could also argue that there's no such emotion involved in Alicent's association with two murderers, which makes her choice a more coldly calculated one. Moreover, I have little doubt that other folks could find an opposing rationale for each of them. However, I think it fairly futile to argue that either of them are better or worse in this regard as both are treading on dubious moral ground at this point.

[caracas1914]

Still having a hard time with the 180 turn in Alicent's character.   I know she's fearful for her children's lives , feels Rhaenyra betrayed their friendship (though Alicent did it first by secretly wooing her father), is scornful of Rhaenyra's sexual freedom, but in the miserable state that that is her own marriage may lie the root of her bitterness.  Just wish we could have seen some of that gradual  hardening of character. 

I dunno, in l GRRM fashion, that kid getting the dragon is going to backfire on him something fierce.  

[Oscirus]

18 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

And Alicent gave tacit approval to three murders by continuing to associate with the murderers and not holding them accountable. 

You could argue that Rhaenyra's action of marrying someone who she knows murdered someone is more forgivable because she has an emotional attachment to him despite his behaviour. You could also argue that there's no such emotion involved in Alicent's association with two murderers, which makes her choice a more coldly calculated one. Moreover, I have little doubt that other folks could find an opposing rationale for each of them. However, I think it fairly futile to argue that either of them are better or worse in this regard as both are treading on dubious moral ground at this point.

Alicents actions with Larys are definitely sleazy, but huge difference between being sleazy and being a part of a murder.

To make matters worse, her and daemon pretty much screwed over a staunch ally of theirs in following through on this action. Her actions are judged different than others cuz of the team shes on but that laenor business is really messed up

[Jack Shaftoe]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

The threat of Civil War has nothing to do with her children being bastards.

Technically the truth because the threat would always be there as long as her brothers are alive. However, Rhaenyra being perceived as an adulteress who wants to put her bastards on the throne would (or at least should if the show's worldbuilding is worth a damn) make it a lot easier for many vassals to break their oaths to her. So the threat is significantly higher if "everyone" (as stated and the assertion not contested by anyone in this episode) believes the princes are bastards. A Richard III type of character might decide to claim the throne even Rhaenyra were seen as the most virtuous woman ever, of course, but a convenient pretext is always helpful.

[Meredith Quill]

33 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Alicents actions with Larys are definitely sleazy, but huge difference between being sleazy and being a part of a murder.

To make matters worse, her and daemon pretty much screwed over a staunch ally of theirs in following through on this action. Her actions are judged different than others cuz of the team shes on but that laenor business is really messed up

Laenor was as much a part of that scheme and they're his parents, so...yeah. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[magdalene]

4 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

n the world of the show, the parentage of Rhaenyra's children is very much an issue.  Had she just taken lovers, no one would care.  It's that one of those lovers is very clearly the father of her children which is a serious problem.

People always say "oh, but in the MA things just were that way, or but in Westeros things were that way.  Westeros is a fictional place written by a fantasy author who lives in the here and now, like I live in the here and now. And I believe the patriarchy  only exists to benefit men and hurt women and keep them down. As a character Rhaenyra sabotages the patriarchy, so of course I am rooting for her.

[Oscirus]

Just now, SilverStormm said:

Laenor was as much a part of that scheme and they're his parents, so...yeah. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Laenors a piece of shit who contributed to this current situation more than anybody else but hes gone so I can only hold accountable those he left behind

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

Technically the truth because the threat would always be there as long as her brothers are alive. However, Rhaenyra being perceived as an adulteress who wants to put her bastards on the throne would (or at least should if the show's worldbuilding is worth a damn) make it a lot easier for many vassals to break their oaths to her. So the threat is significantly higher if "everyone" (as stated and the assertion not contested by anyone in this episode) believes the princes are bastards. A Richard III type of character might decide to claim the throne even Rhaenyra were seen as the most virtuous woman ever, of course, but a convenient pretext is always helpful.

I agree with that too. Rhaenyra would be in a much better position if she had legitimate children--even she knows that, and tried to have some. Her decision to have children any way she could makes sense to me, but of course it makes her really vulnerable that they're so obviously illegitimate. She has given everyone a pretext. Or, a second pretext, I should say, because everyone was already rooting for Aegon because he's the son of the king and she's the daughter. 

[caracas1914]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I agree with that too. Rhaenyra would be in a much better position if she had legitimate children--even she knows that, and tried to have some. Her decision to have children any way she could makes sense to me, but of course it makes her really vulnerable that they're so obviously illegitimate. She has given everyone a pretext. Or, a second pretext, I should say, because everyone was already rooting for Aegon because he's the son of the king and she's the daughter. 

Yes, look at the example from one of  the opening scenes from episode 1 of her Aunt Rhaenys, impeccable pedigree and yet because she wasn't a man, she was not made Queen.     

The fact that Vicerys had an heir, all Lords swore obeisance to his daughter's future rulership,  and yet was still pressured by his court to marry again  and produce a male son pointedly indicates that Rhaenyra would not be accepted by many.   

She could have had a dozen white haired Targaryen babies and still being a woman, could not be expected to rule without a battle.

[DigitalCount]

Am I missing something, or did Aemond not actually hit Jace with the rock? I'm seeing posts suggesting that the knifing was a belated response to Aemond's taunt rather than because Luke had just seen his brother get hit in the head with a freaking rock. If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole reason why it was Luke and not Jace who did it, because Jace dropped the knife after getting hurt.

[Constantinople]

7 hours ago, SilverStormm said:

And Alicent gave tacit approval to three murders by continuing to associate with the murderers and not holding them accountable. 

If Ser Criston wasn't held accountable that's on Viserys, not Alicent.

And how would Alicent hold Larys accountable? Tell Viserys, without proof, that Larys killed his father and brother to rid her of the father and grandfather of Rhaenyra's bastards? Viserys has made it clear that any matters that touch on the Strong boys are not to be discussed. 

[Oscirus]

2 hours ago, DigitalCount said:

Am I missing something, or did Aemond not actually hit Jace with the rock? I'm seeing posts suggesting that the knifing was a belated response to Aemond's taunt rather than because Luke had just seen his brother get hit in the head with a freaking rock. If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole reason why it was Luke and not Jace who did it, because Jace dropped the knife after getting hurt.

He hit him after Jace came charging at him with the knife.

[ursula]

9 hours ago, Stardancer Supreme said:

I'm still surprised that Alicent asked for Lucerys Velaryon's eye when Jacerys was the one who slashed Aemond.

1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

And how would Alicent hold Larys accountable? Tell Viserys, without proof, that Larys killed his father and brother to rid her of the father and grandfather of Rhaenyra's bastards?

Tell Viserys without proof that Larys killed his father and brother to become Lord Strong. Isn’t that literally why he did that or are we supposed to think he killed them to cover up for Rhaenyra?

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Yes, look at the example from one of  the opening scenes from episode 1 of her Aunt Rhaenys, impeccable pedigree and yet because she wasn't a man, she was not made Queen.     

The fact that Vicerys had an heir, all Lords swore obeisance to his daughter's future rulership,  and yet was still pressured by his court to marry again  and produce a male son pointedly indicates that Rhaenyra would not be accepted by many.   

She could have had a dozen white haired Targaryen babies and still being a woman, could not be expected to rule without a battle.

Being a female heir is a handicap, but so is being an underage male heir. Both are unable to lead the army (well, Rhaenyra has her dragon), so both need strong and faithful allies in order to keep their position.  

If Rhaenyra had had sense, she should have strengthened her position by marrying a man who could be the strongest ally and bring most resources. But she wasted years by moping.

Or rather, Viserys should have made the best match for her daughter years before. There was no sense to name her his heir and then let her in a vulnerable position after he had brushed away his brother who has also a claim to the throne.  

[Meredith Quill]

8 hours ago, Constantinople said:

If Ser Criston wasn't held accountable that's on Viserys, not Alicent.

And how would Alicent hold Larys accountable? Tell Viserys, without proof, that Larys killed his father and brother to rid her of the father and grandfather of Rhaenyra's bastards? Viserys has made it clear that any matters that touch on the Strong boys are not to be discussed. 

As someone who hinges her entire identity as being someone who plays by the rules, she's a hypocrite for not applying the same standards to her associates merely because their actions benefit her own cause. If she were so thoroughly 'this is right and that is wrong' in her beliefs, she would have 1. Had Krispy Kreme sentenced to death for forsaking his vow, let alone murdering a noble at a royal function. How is that on Viserys?? He is ignorant of Krispy Kreme's vow breaking? Additionally, Krispy Kreme asked to be put to death lol. If you're referring to Joffrey's murder, aka his second act that warranted him being put to death, then you've shot yourself in the foot with that argument as the show telegraphed - by giving us no other alternative logical explanation and only showing Alicent preventing what Krispy was going to do - that she must have intervened on Krispy's behalf in the aftermath. Ergo, her double-standards at play yet again  2. Had Larys thrown in the black cells immediately upon learning of his murdering his father and brother. 

If you believe that either of those actions would have been ill-advised, at the very bloody least, THE VERY LEAST, she should have distanced herself from those people... rather than remain in deep cahoots with them, lol.

Why are we speaking of proof? Lol, this isn't modern earth, this is fantasy world and dependent wholly upon what rules the writers decide to apply. If we go down the path of things making sense...so many actions and behaviours would require questioning; for example, how is it possible that Alicent could attack, with a lethal weapon no less, and injure the heir to the throne, a princess of blood royal, in front of multiple witnesses including the king himself, with zero consequences?!?!?? And, lest we forget, this was after defying the king, attempting to overrule the king and when that failed, stealing the king's own blade from the king's person. Regardless of the king's feelings on the matter, in a world that made actual sense, his courtiers alone would call for some form of punitive measure. So speaking of proof matters not here.

So I posit, her word, as queen consort, that Larys confessed would be enough because this is Larys and not someone of equal or higher station. Even if we put all that aside, now that Otto is Hand once more, you really think she couldn't ridiculously easily have him throw Larys into the black cells??? Please don't retort that Otto would refuse because it does benefit team Green - that isn't the point, the point is Alicent, who portrays herself as someone who plays by the rules, could have been shown to try acting according to the rules/her own *highly risible self-righteous moral standards in this regard but clearly that was never going to happen. #LOLhypocrite

Spoiler

*Now they see you as you are...indeed

I actually lol'ed whilst writing this.

[Constantinople]

As Queen Consort Alicent doesn't have the authority to sentence anyone to death or throw them in the Black Cells.

And the idea that Viserys saved Criston because Alicent interceded on his behalf is laughable. She can't even get Viserys to act to defend their own son much less someone else. Obviously Viserys, and probably Rhaenyra and the Velaryons, had their own reasons for covering up what happened to Ser Joffrey. The Seven know Viserys did.

[LanceM]

Oh please if Alicent had no sway over Viserys than Heleana would be married to Jace now and Otto Hightower would still be lounging around Oldtown. The only area she doesn’t have control over is getting a Viserys to go against his favorite child. It is also laughable to think Alicent had no role over saving Sir Crispin giving that she saved him from offing himself and that now he is her sworn protector.

Edited October 7, 2022 by LanceM

[steelyis]

2 hours ago, LanceM said:

Oh please if Alicent had no sway over Viserys than Heleana would be married to Jace now and Otto Hightower would still be lounging around Oldtown. The only area she doesn’t have control over is getting a Viserys to go against his favorite child. It is also laughable to think Alicent had no role over saving Sir Crispin giving that she saved him from offing himself and that now he is her sworn protector.

It's not just Alicent's refusal that blocked the match, it's also the refusal of all of House Hightower, and the strict tradition set by the realm itself.

The fact everybody knows Rhaenyra's children are illegitimate is what made the match a non-starter. Even a king dare not force a powerful house like the Hightowers to accept a match to one of their highborn daughters, a princess no less, to an obvious bastard. Setting such a precedent would be insane, and definitely start a revolt.

Would marrying the two gain the Hightowers the power they seek? Yes, and they'd have jumped at the chance if people in fucking Essos didn't know the truth behind Rhaenyra's kids' paternity. That open secret by itself would cast doubt on their right to rule for generations! Not to mention the offer is plainly insulting to highborn Westerosi who are mad proud of their pure bloodlines that date back to yada, yada, yada...

As for Ser Incel, that prick should be dead or at the Wall for the stunt he pulled. And I don't think it's a coincidence the show refuses to explain how he got away with it unscathed, and then rewarded arguably a better job.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Constantinople said:

As Queen Consort Alicent doesn't have the authority to sentence anyone to death or throw them in the Black Cells.

I think their point, though, is that she would have tried if this sort of thing was so important to her.

[ursula]

1 hour ago, steelyis said:

It's not just Alicent's refusal that blocked the match, it's also the refusal of all of House Hightower, and the strict tradition set by the realm itself.

House Hightower has no say on who the King’s children marry. 

[steelyis]

21 minutes ago, ursula said:

House Hightower has no say on who the King’s children marry. 

Oh, he could try to force the issue, but it would raise holy hell, guaranteed!

It'd be like Robert forcing a marriage between Myrcella and Jon Snow without legitimizing him first, and even that wouldn't fly. Because Tywin "Rains of Castamere" Lannister would literally burn Westeros to the fucking ground before he allowed his family's name be sullied! And if you think the Hightowers aren't just as proud as the Lannisters, you've been watching another show that doesn't have Game of Thrones in its title.

Edited October 7, 2022 by steelyis

[ursula]

48 minutes ago, steelyis said:

And if you think the Hightowers aren't just as proud as the Lannisters, you've been watching another show that doesn't have Game of Thrones in its title.

These characters are not HOTD expies of GOT counterparts. Helena and Jace are not Mycerlla and Jon Snow. Alicent is not Cersei (or Sansa), Rhaenyra is not Dany and Hightowers are not Lannisters. 

Otto pimped his daughter to the King (“wear your mother’s dress”) while Lannister negotiated marriages like business contracts. The Hightowers aren’t proud, they’re ambitious which while related, is not the same thing. 

Edited October 8, 2022 by ursula

[LanceM]

1 hour ago, steelyis said:

Oh, he could try to force the issue, but it would raise holy hell, guaranteed!

It'd be like Robert forcing a marriage between Myrcella and Jon Snow without legitimizing him first, and even that wouldn't fly. Because Tywin "Rains of Castamere" Lannister would literally burn Westeros to the fucking ground before he allowed his family's name be sullied! And if you think the Hightowers aren't just as proud as the Lannisters, you've been watching another show that doesn't have Game of Thrones in its title.

In GOT I saw two great proud houses Martell and Tyrell (twice) willingly marry bastards to get close to the throne. Don’t think the Hightower’s are an different if they weren’t already close to throne they would do it too. This is also why you are going to see lots of lords look the other way when war comes and do what is best for their houses even if that means supporting a queen whose children have questionable parentage.

[steelyis]

1 hour ago, ursula said:

These characters are not HOTD expies of GOT counterparts. Helena and Jace are not Mycerlla and Jon Snow. Alicent is not Cersei (or Sansa), Rhaenyra is not Dany and Hightowers are not Lannisters. 

Otto pimped his daughter to the King (“wear your mother’s dress”) while Lannister negotiated marriages like business contracts. The Hightowers aren’t proud, they’re ambitious which while related, is not the same thing. 

But the laws, beliefs, and expectations are 100 percent the same. Bastards are not accepted, and no noble house in the time of the Dance or after Robert's Rebellion would accept their highborn sons and daughters being forced to marry even royal bastards. No decree by a king can change that.

Catelyn Stark is hated to this day because of the stigma she placed on Jon. Cersei threatened to his face, Roberts own bastards after he talked about bringing them to the capital because it was an enormous insult to her and her house.

The acceptance of bastards is not and will never be a thing. Bastards are considered evil, pure and simple, and have been since the Seven became the dominate religion in Westeros.

You can't fanfiction that canon away no matter how hard you try.

And the Hightowers aren't proud?

Wow.

Every old noble house is proud. Like really, really proud. Did we not witness a ten-year-old boy gut another boy after he called him a craven? Aren't there people in this very thread going on and on about how Aemond (talking shit) insulting the pride of Rhaenyra's kids, by calling them bastards I remind, rightfully earned him a punch, then a knife to the face?

Wow, I know this is a no book only thread, but seriously, read. the. books! Because there's a lot of nuances in this show you're missing completely.

Edited October 8, 2022 by steelyis

[Ottis]

That ep was a half step away from the SNL soap opera parody, The Californians. Filled with close ups of Meaningful Looks at each other. Seems appropriate, since Matthew Needham looks so much like SNL's Mikey Day. Add a Christmas tree and it would have actually been a Hallmark production.

I've given up on this series being about anything meaningful. It's a lot of families jockeying for ... what, I'm not sure, since being king doesn't seem that great. In any case, who cares who wins? There is no Ned Stark here. The castle could crush them all Cersei-style, and that would be A-OK.

So I'll just go to a couple of logic questions.

First, that's how easy it is to control a dragon? You walk up to it, shout a few words and hang on? I don't know much about dragon lore in this franchise, but that's ludicrous.

Second, so all it took to have Ser Off to War *kill* his long-time boyfriend was some gold? He may have been disgruntled about what society allows, but seems like he pretty much has been able to have what he wants for 10 years. I guess he is just a tool? Would have been nice if we could have seen more evidence of that before he killed his man.

I cannot fathom what this franchise would call success. It feels like it is aimed at women, given how it portrays men ("Wench!") and women and society. Maybe there is an audience for that. It's essentially a creatively bankrupt show, though, feeding off the success of GoT and adding nothing. 

[steelyis]

27 minutes ago, LanceM said:

In GOT I saw two great proud houses Martell and Tyrell (twice) willingly marry bastards to get close to the throne. Don’t think the Hightower’s are an different if they weren’t already close to throne they would do it too. This is also why you are going to see lots of lords look the other way when war comes and do what is best for their houses even if that means supporting a queen whose children have questionable parentage.

The Martells are a whole different animal than the breed you find south of Dorne. Their pride isn't of the same cloth as houses like the Tyrells or the Lannisters, and they have different concerns over all. Not to mention, women can rule with zero issues in Dorne, something the rest of the Seven Kingdoms absolutely loathes. And bastards are far more accepted, which most Westerosi also despise.

And while some houses might look the other way, a lot of them won't. Unquestioned legitimacy is everything if one wants to secure their rule. Which means there can't be any easy options for your enemies to rally around should they turn against you, à la Robert Baratheon when he sat the throne after the Targs fell.

That's also why Robert was so gung-ho to kill Viserys and Dany. There were many houses, years after the Rebellion, who still called him usurper and they were waiting to supplant him at the first opportunity. The same can easily happen to Rhaenyra's children and grandchildren. In fact, it would probably be even easier to oust her heirs since there's a butt load of candidates with Targ/Velaryon blood who can take their place.

Edited October 8, 2022 by steelyis

[ursula]

1 hour ago, steelyis said:

Bastards are not accepted, and no noble house in the time of the Dance or after Robert's Rebellion would accept their highborn sons and daughters being forced to marry even royal bastards. No decree by a king can change that.

1 hour ago, steelyis said:

Catelyn Stark is hated to this day because of the stigma she placed on Jon. Cersei threatened to his face, Roberts own bastards after he talked about bringing them to the capital because it was an enormous insult to her and her house.

Not to state the obvious but you’re completely disregarding the difference between the way a bastard known as Jon Snow and bastards known as Joffrey Baratheon and Joffrey Velaryon will be regarded and therefore treated?
 

I mean what are we even talking about? Houses literally went to war to keep the Lannister bastards in power. Highgarden fought for Joffrey so they could get him and Marge hitched. 

When it comes to furthering ambition, great Houses are willing to marry and ally with “bastards”. If anything is fan fiction here, it’s the moral outrage that doesn’t exist in the story.
 

Otto would have probably taken Rhaenyra’s offer - that’s the same dude that wanted to marry Aegon to his 16 year older sister as a baby. 

[MrWhyt]

2 hours ago, Ottis said:

Would have been nice if we could have seen more evidence of that before he killed his man.

he didn't kill him, it was a fake out.

[steelyis]

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Not to state the obvious but you’re completely disregarding the difference between the way a bastard known as Jon Snow and bastards known as Joffrey Baratheon and Joffrey Velaryon will be regarded and therefore treated?

They cannot legally inherit over their true born siblings. They can not legally become lords (without some royal decree). They are all born in dishonor. That is the same for all bastard, everywhere.

1 hour ago, ursula said:

I mean what are we even talking about? Houses literally went to war to keep the Lannister bastards in power. Highgarden fought for Joffrey so they could get him and Marge hitched. 

There was reasonable doubt about Joffrey's legitimacy, which provides cover. There is none concerning Rhaenyra's children. None. Literally everyone knows they are bastards. Every. One.

1 hour ago, ursula said:

When it comes to furthering ambition, great Houses are willing to marry and ally with “bastards”. If anything is fan fiction here, it’s the moral outrage that doesn’t exist in the story.

No moral outrage? Well, clearly Alicent's outrage means nothing to you. Because, boy, is she nettled! And I promise you plenty of others in this world are just as outraged as she is.

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Otto would have probably taken Rhaenyra’s offer - that’s the same dude that wanted to marry Aegon to his 16 year older sister as a baby. 

I doubt it, but you're welcome to your opinion. But remember: Otto doesn't have the last word on the issue. He's a second son, and thus his brother has the final say. And we don't know much about his take on this situation yet.

Edited October 8, 2022 by steelyis
added a caveat

[LanceM]

20 minutes ago, steelyis said:

They cannot legally inherit over their true born siblings. They can not legally become lords. They are all born in dishonor. That is the same for all bastard, everywhere.

There was reasonable doubt about Joffrey's legitimacy, which provides cover. There is none concerning Rhaenyra's children. None. Literally everyone knows they are bastards. Every. One.

No moral outrage? Well, clearly Alicent's outrage means nothing to you. Because, boy, is she nettled! And I promise you plenty of others in this world are just as outraged as she is.

I doubt it, but you're welcome to your opinion. But remember: Otto doesn't have the last word on the issue. He's a second son, and thus his brother has the final say. And we don't know much about his take on this situation yet.

Jon Snow can’t inherit because he is legally recognized as a bastard. Rhaenyra’s children can inherit because they are legally recognized as legitimate, hence their last name Velaryon. That is the difference. That being said some people won’t be happy about that as we saw with Rhaenys last episode.

Edited October 8, 2022 by LanceM

[steelyis]

1 hour ago, LanceM said:

Jon Snow can’t inherit because he is legally recognized as a bastard. Rhaenyra’s children can inherit because they are legally recognized as legitimate, hence their last name Velaryon. That is the difference. That being said some people won’t be happy about that as we saw with Rhaenys last episode.

But they are bastards though. That's the truth. And, yeah, they can claim they're legitimate all they want to, but the fact everyone knows they are not, means that legitimacy can be taken away at any moment. The difference exists for only as long as the realm accepts they are true born.

And as we know,

Spoiler

half of the Seven Kingdoms won't accept them as legitimate, which is why the Dance happens.

That, and misogyny.

Edited October 8, 2022 by steelyis

[LanceM]

3 hours ago, Ottis said:

I cannot fathom what this franchise would call success

It is averaging 29 million viewers per episode which a little more than Game of Thrones averaged in season 6. That is whet they would call a success.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, steelyis said:

You can't fanfiction that canon away no matter how hard you try.

- - -

Wow, I know this is a no book only thread, but seriously, read. the. books! Because there's a lot of nuances in this show you're missing completely.

When the series is made on the basis of the book series, the showrunners have some liberty to differ from books. But once the show has started and the rules of the universe have been made clear to the audience, the rules must be followed. That doesn't mean that some characters can't act against the generally accepted morality of the universe, but either their action, if it's publicly known, must be reacted by other characters or there must be some explanation why there are no consequences. 

In this show the character who is the hardest to understand is Viserys who constantly refuses to act as the king, or father, should. Is he only blind and/or weak or is there any other reason that is not made clear? 

[Meredith Quill]

16 hours ago, steelyis said:

But they are bastards though. That's the truth. And, yeah, they can claim they're legitimate all they want to, but the fact everyone knows they are not, means that legitimacy can be taken away at any moment. The difference exists for only as long as the realm accepts they are true born.

And as we know,

  Reveal spoiler

half of the Seven Kingdoms won't accept them as legitimate, which is why the Dance happens.

That, and misogyny.

Their legitimacy cannot merely be 'taken away at any moment' unless the monarch decreed it, which as every.one.also.knows, Viserys will not do. You mentioned in another post how the monarch can legitimise bastards, which means in theory, Rhaenyra could legitimise her boys once she became monarch if she wanted to - instant solution to any noble handwringing. I'm not saying she would be wise to or should, merely that she could.

This isn't about her kids 🤨. It's about having Aegon take the throne instead of her because

1. In the realm; she's a female, and so regardless of whether she had 10, 20, 50 unquestionable legitimate heirs, she doesn't own a cock. The fact that there's suspicion in the realm about her kids legitimacy only fuels that already smoldering fire.

2. In the Hightowers view; apparently the mere fact that she's a female heir has always presented an inevitable mortal threat to Alicent's sons regardless of friendships or relationships involved.

The question of her kids legitimacy is a mere pretext upon which to hang any rebellion for those already predisposed to it due to the above.

[ursula]

13 hours ago, steelyis said:

No moral outrage? Well, clearly Alicent's outrage means nothing to you. Because, boy, is she nettled! And I promise you plenty of others in this world are just as outraged as she is.

Alicent's performative outrage over Rhaenyra's proposal is just that - performative. She would rather pursue her vendetta against Rhaenyra than take a peaceful option. This is a woman that would happily ally herself with murderers and kinslayers (if we're talking what people in Westeros find taboo, let's start with that). Her moral outrage is suspiciously selective.

2 hours ago, SilverStormm said:

2. In the Hightowers view; apparently the mere fact that she's a female heir has always presented an inevitable mortal threat to Alicent's sons regardless of friendships or relationships involved.

Tbf, Otto had no problem supporting Rhaenyra if it kept Daemon, someone he hated (and probably feared) out of power. And if Viserys had agreed to Aegon's engagement to Rhaenyra, he would have happily kept supporting her. His patriarchal morality/philosophy is entirely for self gain. Like father, like daughter. If the Hightowers should be characterized by anything, it's hypocrisy.

Edited October 8, 2022 by ursula

[steelyis]

2 hours ago, SilverStormm said:

Their legitimacy cannot merely be 'taken away at any moment' unless the monarch decreed it, which as every.one.also.knows, Viserys will not do. You mentioned in another post how the monarch can legitimise bastards, which means in theory, Rhaenyra could legitimise her boys once she became monarch if she wanted to - instant solution to any noble handwringing. I'm not saying she would be wise to or should, merely that she could.

Ned very nearly did it, and he was just a regent for five minutes.

And, yeah, Viserys wouldn't do it, but he easily could, and no one in Westeros would question the why of it because everyone knows Rhaenyra's children are bastards. The same is unlikely to happen to someone like Alicent, Rob Stark, or Larys Strong, because everyone accepts they are legitimate, and it would take a lot of strong-arming to de-legitimize them. And everyone would still know the bastardization was bullshit. That wouldn't be the case with Rhaenyra's kids: Because everybody knows they are bastards.

Look at Tywin with Tyrion: if he could have disowned and de-legitimize Tyrion as easily as Rhaenyra's kids can be de-legitimized, he absolutely would have done it day one.

And, yes, Rhaenyra can legitimize her children, but she has to win first. But if she loses...? Heads, spikes, walls...

If they're lucky.

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Alicent's performative outrage over Rhaenyra's proposal is just that - performative. She would rather pursue her vendetta against Rhaenyra than take a peaceful option. This is a woman that would happily ally herself with murderers and kinslayers (if we're talking what people in Westeros find taboo, let's start with that). Her moral outrage is suspiciously selective.

I thought it was very real. But there's no way I can convince you it was. Your mind is already made up, so there's no point in even trying.

Edited October 8, 2022 by steelyis

[Meredith Quill]

No spoilery book talk even in tags, in here please.