#ITS NOT GOOD GUYS | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mononijikayu · 1 year

Text

im rereading f&b today and found something interesting because i thought of so many historical and in universe parallels. now these thoughts are gonna be all over the place as its 5 am??? but ill probably correct myself when i wake up later on and decide to see if i actually made sense.

so in this chapter, in rhaenyra triumphant - there is a dispute regarding successions of rosby and stokeworth. by this point, rhaenyra had returned to the capital and had already gotten to sit the iron throne. now at this point, rhaenyra had a few nobles killed and that includes lords stokeworth and rosby, otto hightower and jasper wylde.

the reason lord stokeworth and lord rosby were executed was that they colluded with the greens to put aegon ii and the greens in power. prior to that they were black supporters, but being imprisoned by the greens - they bent the knee.

rhaenyra felt herself betrayed by friends she thought would fight for her. the way other lords defied aegon ii and his imposing of power. she viewed rosby and stokeworth as turncloaks for not holding up to their vows. that being said, the punishment was only for lords rosby and stokeworth, that did not extend to the rest of the family. because the rest of the family were still loyalists.

now the issue is that because rhaenyra beheaded the lords, the succession was a matter of contest. both lords had elder daughters but also two younger sons. now, successions like these are incredibly interesting especially if both sides of the party were young. rhaenyra had two pieces of advice from daemon and corlys.

daemon's perspective was to get the two daughters to be wed with both ulf and hugh, in that way - you not only secure the path to the crownlands with the protection of dragon riders, you also reward ulf and hugh for their usefulness so far. his sense is focused on making sure that they reward the dragon riders enough that they would actually be bonded closer to them in loyalty. which makes sense as one of them held the dragon vermithor who was to rival vhagar in ferocity and size.

but that begs the question - would hugh and ulf be loyal and satisfied enough to the black's cause because of these rewards?

to make this point, we gotta travel a couple centuries. this is akin to the brokering of the lannisters on the stokeworth inheritance. falyse stokeworth was fighting her sister lollys for the right to inherit the lordship of stokeworth. cersei supported falyse over lollys but she tried to marry off lollys to bronn to ensure that her brother tyrion does not have allies. but bronn outwits them by killing falyse's husband and deprieving them of rulership in stokeworth.

as hugh and ulf were greedy for power, would they not try to murder the younger brothers to ensure no rivals to the lordship of stokeworth and rosby? would they not try to deprieve their wives from having power anyway, relegating them in a trap of a marriage - especially how young they were??? and even so, would they have continued to even be loyal servants of the queen knowing that she was weary of them???

historically, we have had situations like this where men would be married to heiresses with equally high stations or higher stations by royals, specifically those who wanted to establish a new order by blood which would start out new bloodlines and loyalties to wipe away the old order.

we have marriages like henry vii and elizabeth of york. he won his crown off the battlefield but he won the country in itself by marrying elizabeth of york who was a direct descendant of the house of york, the legitimate line of edward iii. henry's claim comes from his mother who was descended from the beauforts - who were from an illegitimate line.

ulf and hugh would have used these marriages, both being bastards, to legitimize their stations higher through these noble marriages. with a marriage to legitimate daughters of a noble house, they can hold power in their own right by usurping their wives and becoming lords on their own whim.

so while its an amiable idea, which supported a woman's claim and allows them to reward their services to the blacks - that would also lead to a lot of uncertainty considering that ulf and hugh were not as trust worthy to many in rhaenyra's court and despite being dragon riders, there was no certainty how they would fair as lords and noblemen.

corlys on the other hand had the perspective that was rather interesting. he points out that while rhaenyra was named heir by her kingly father - this was specifically only to her case. they have yet to make a case where the widespread salic law was changed in all of westeros. because if it was the case, there would be no fighting happening regarding rhaenyra's claim to the throne. she was special in nature that she was chosen specifically as heir to amend the throne's line of succession from pure salic to semi-salic.

but again, the question is - would this work???

there is a compelling thought to corly's idea - which is in many levels shows us how fully unprepared westeros is as a whole for equal female rulership. corlys has been in patriarchal westeros for almost all his life. he has watched his wife get passed over to rule and even her bloodline shunned. and this is why they were fighting a war, because a man had decided to name his daughter heir to defy the conventions settled by westerosi tradition.

but alas, we understand that this was specific for the king's own heir. there was yet any plans to make that a whole thing. most lords get their right to rule by being born first or being a man. he himself points out that men would be up in arms for their right to inherit should rhaenyra start a tradition of providing a semi - salic tradition to try and make it possible for elder daughters to inherit before the male heir.

which proves that westeros in itself has to be dismantled first from the tradition of male to male inheritance but this would take time to even actually reinforce fully because the war for a succession where a woman herself is fighting is just as much under threat from male opression.

as much as it is true that rhaenyra needs to stand by other daughters who had inheritance rights as well, it also paints a tragic picture that it is true that rhaenyra would alienate a lot of support if she too decided to try and make an argument to try and give it to the daughters. hence, abandoning her cause.

because you'd have to discount - how much support do these daughters have over the brothers??? would the lower vassals of that house accept that decision??? would they then be deposed by their brothers anyway should they be placed in that situation??? would that then cause infighting between many other houses regarding the succession rights??? there's a lot of stuff to unpack.

within the universe, we see that this is something that is constantly argued on female rule in westeros - for all the great councils which passed over women and even so citing rhaenyra's being made heir as a stain on the legacy of the targaryen dynasty because to the patriarchy, it caused a wedge on the status quo. the status quo which to them works because it is lead by men.

throughout this, all i could think fo were various female rulers who were discounted upon their sex. henry viii for example legalized his two elder daughters from inheriting, making them bastards and not princess once he divorced or killed their mothers. this paved the way for him being able to name his bastard henry fritzroy as heir and later on make edward vi as the only legalized heir because mary i and elizabeth i were bastards under english inheritance law. they were the last option within the immediate family.

and it sucks to think about how prevalent this was because both choices lead to a disadvantage not only for the war in itself but also for the whole system which needs change. a change in the status quo of male domination. the partriarchal essence seeping through even the most amiable council that would probably do good.

because if she was in favor of ulf and hugh, then the ladies stokeworth and rosby could be puppets of their husbands. they could be reckless about how they run the houses. at the same time, the entire council especially corlys was weary of these two. so obviously, there would be bombastic side eyes about this matter.

then if she gave it to the sons, then the daughters get to be safe but they'll not have the opportunity to rule in their own right because even if she gives it to them, then maybe their brothers could take their right to rule. and even then, would those in their own local lords and ladies even try to support them??? would these knights sworn to this house decide to even support a daughter over a son???

this hard ass decision that rhaenyra had to make was what she thought safest bet at the time and yet that also basically put her in danger and caused just as much trouble she was trying to avoid. because she would be judged either way, especially with a male dominated society - her decision would be shunned and judged one way or another.

when you think about the circumstance of what she had to decide on at the time, it was a complicated position in the first place. one that had a lot of repercussions that were not going to be good one way or the other.

and yet the way people would judge her for making mistakes like this is even less than the repercussion that many other male counterparts have received. this is what makes the dance of the dragon more poignant about the double standards on women and men.

because when women make very decisive and strong decisions, its often called 'unnatural' and they are called names. as though the way the she-wolves of england were monikered as such because they made decisions that usually men only do.

for example, as mentioned before, rhaenyra beheaded otto, jasper wlyde, lord stokeworth and lord rosby under the charge that they betrayed her and their word by enabling aegon for starting a war that stole her throne, killed her children and caused chaos in the realm.

rhaenyra herself though that this was justice because otto and jasper were conspirators and lord stokeworth and lord rosby going along with it helped justify that by bending the knee and surviving aegon ii. however when you see other people react to that, its as though rhaenyra herself is the devil because she killed them to satisfy her need for justice in her own way.

yet if we compare that to aegon ii who had many lords and ladies beheaded and their heads put on spikes for trying to stay true to their vow on king viserys's settled line of succession. they were declared unloyal to the person who usurped the throne and were intimidated constantly with not only occupation but also terror.

the succession was to these lords and ladies settled for near two decades in favor of a daughter and suddenly declaring that the king changed his mind last minute was not something that would be easily believed, especially because the succession held firm for decades. and yet the moment it was challenged, it was accepted and aegon ii was supported by many for that act because the patriarchy said that he merely defending his right to the throne.

i don't know but these thoughts make it so intriguing to me that such decisions, especially made by a woman, is so often viewed as something that is done out of spite against other women when there are so many layers that you have to think about it. and its important to dive through them, to view perspectives that were more than what we have on the text. i like to think that makes the people in these pages so real, just as much as the hardships they feel. but i don't really know. i think it is as it is a sad reflection of even today's society, where women themselves are still judged for the hard decisions they make when they rule through different avenues of life.

#hotd #house of the dragon #hotd meta #fire and blood #fire and blood meta #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #rhaenyra targaryen #daemon targaryen #corlys valeryon #ulf white #hugh hammer #its 5 am #i really need to stop being curious like this #ITS NOT GOOD GUYS

14 notes · View notes