#ainedubh

[goodqueenaly]

@ainedubh reblogged your post “Reading the question about the lack of...”

Okay, I’ve been obsessing over this for days now, came to the conclusion that up to the point of Rickon’s death, he and Daena are the only viable Pact marriage, and it’s led me to a very tangential question I can’t believe I haven’t thought of before. Why were Daena and Baelor married? It obviously wasn’t a love-match. Were they betrothed as kids by Aegon III? If so, why did he skip over betrothing his heir to his eldest daughter, particularly since he seemingly didn’t betroth Daeron to anyone else? If they weren’t already betrothed, did Daeron arrange their marriage once he was king? Again, why not marry her himself? And even if he didn’t want to marry her, why not arrange marriages for each of them with useful allies for his Dornish war instead? Was this actually arranged by Viserys II while he’s Daeron’s Hand of the King? Why would he do this?

Me getting ready to answer an ASOIAF marriage making question like:

I do indeed have thoughts. 

While I don't think we have nearly enough information to pick one option definitively, I believe that there are three probable answers to the question of who arranged the marriage of Baelor and Daena: Aegon III (along with possibly Daenaera Velaryon, that is if GRRM feels like giving her agency and personality in Fire and Blood Volume 2), Daeron I, and the future Viserys II. Importantly, I do not believe these answers have to have been mutually exclusive with each other; it is entirely possible, I think, that aspects of any of these explanations or all three of them might end up being true. (Also this turned into a literal essay which is why I'm putting a cut for length.)

FIrst, why might Aegon III (and again, maybe Queen Daenaera as well) have arranged the marriage of Baelor and Daena? The reason might lie in the fundamental power shift occurring with the Targaryen monarchy during the adult reign of Aegon III. Remember that Baelor was born in 144 AC and Daena just a year later - that is, during the terminal decline of the Targaryen dragons. These animals, once the guarantors of Targaryen supremacy in Westeros, were growing fewer, smaller, and weaker, with the last one dying not even a decade after Baelor's and Daena's births. In their absence, the Targaryens were set to lose not just the physical means of enforcing their will upon truculent vassals or enemy invaders, but the semi-mystical cult of authority which their control of dragons had afforded them. It is a point I have brought up before, but it bears repeating here: if the Doctrine of Exceptionalism depended on the Targaryens being "the blood of the dragon", unique masters of dragons among all (surviving) families in the world, how Exceptional (capital E) could the Targaryens be once they no longer rode dragons? 

So perhaps Aegon III (along with potentially his queen) decided that a marriage between Baeor and Daena would serve both as an acknowledgement of and a response to the loss of the dragons. By openly arranging for a brother-sister betrothal, the king would have demonstrated that the Doctrine of Exceptionalism had lost none of its force in the absence of the dragons which had once justified it: the Targaryens were still "the blood of the dragon" even without the animals themselves, once dragonriders if no longer so, and thus continued to have every right to the sort of incestuous unions forbidden to their non-dragonlord subjects. At the same time, by arranging only for his second son's betrothal while leaving his heir Daeron nuptially free, Aegon III might have wished to quietly recognize the changing political balance in a post-draconic world. Without their dragons, the Targaryens could no longer stand so independently from their vassals; now more than ever, the (virtually) continent-wide feudal structure created by Aegon the Conqueror kept the Targaryens in their royal position - and those who protected a monarchy could just as easily overturn a monarchy (a bitter lesson learned by Aegon III, who had grown up first with the violent national fraction of the Dance and then the murderous rival ambitions of the regency years). The hand in marriage of the heir to the throne, a familiar diplomatic bargaining chip for eons in dynastic Westeros, might, so Aegon III could have believed, have aided the Targaryens in appealing to one of these powerful bannermen in the future. 

(It may also be worth pointing out that, insofar as Baelor may have been named in honor of Prince Baelon - and I do like to headcanon this - Aegon III and/or Queen Daenaera may have wanted to underline the connection between the two through such a marriage. Just as Prince Baelon, that loyal lieutenant and second (surviving) son of Jaehaerys I, had enjoyed an apparently happy marriage (my criticisms of the writing of it notwithstanding) with his sister-wife Alyssa, so perhaps the king and queen thought their Baelor, another second royal son, would be like Baelon not just as a (hoped for) loyal and brave lieutenant, but as the husband in a (so they might have hoped) successful brother-sister marriage.)

Now, why might Daeron I have arranged the marriage of his brother and his sister? Perhaps we might compare Daeron here to Robb in ASOS. Remember Robb's dynastic dilemma, as related in "Catelyn V": while Robb had found himself a wife and (without being too crude about it) was working on getting an heir by her, Robb also knew that he could very well die in his next battle - and he was planning on fighting plenty of battles in the near future, as he marched to retake Winterfell. Yet with Bran, Rickon, and Arya all ostensibly dead, with Sansa the new wife of Tyrion Lannister, and with his next closest (legitimate) Stark cousin a distant relation in the Vale who had never so much as seen Winterfell, Robb had no obvious heir presumptive to whom he could trust the dual crown of the North and Trident if (and when) he died. Robb's solution, of course, was Jon: a (supposed) half-brother whom Robb could legitimize, an adult male Stark in all but name and (again, supposed) son of Lord Eddard who could, so Robb hoped, easily assume the mantle of royal leadership.

I could very well believe Daeron I might have found himself in a somewhat similar position to that of Robb. While we don't know if Daeron ever planned on marrying himself (and it is a mixed bag on that score for Daeron's real-world inspirations), he definitely never did, nor fathered any known children. Certainly, Daeron did not lack an obvious heir presumptive in quite the same way Robb did: by both birth order and gender, Baelor would have been almost certainly expected to succeed Daeron if the latter died childless. Yet Daeron may have found himself lacking what we might call a spiritual successor: pious, peace-loving, unmartial Baelor may not, so perhaps Daeron thought, have been the man to entrust his kingdom to when he, Daeron, had (as he believed) worked so hard to conquer Dorne and assert Targaryen rule over this last independent Westerosi state (especially by 160 AC, when Baelor and Daena actually married, as Daeron’s military involvement in Dorne was far from over). Yet Daeron had no easy alternative heir to designate: while he might have found Daena most similar to himself in personality, Daeron only needed to remember the devastation of the Dance, just a few decades past, to refrain from naming another female heir when a male heir existed. 

Perhaps, then, Daeron believed the marriage of Baelor and Daena would remedy this dilemma. Even if Daeron himself died childless, the monarchy would be overseen at least partially by the now Queen Daena, the sister who idolized Daeron and shared his energy and martial spirit. Baelor would propagate the male line of House Targaryen, as the next male heir of Aegon III, but Daena, so Daeron may have hoped, would raise such a child in Daeron's image, with Daeron's ideals. Daena would not be queen in her own right (with all the potential for civil war that might have promised), but she would be the next best thing (or so Daeron might have thought): queen as wife to King Baelor, perhaps even a near co-monarch along the lines of Rhaenys and Visenya, and the guardian of the monarchy’s future through the children she would (again, so Daeron might have hoped) have with Baelor. Even if Daeron died in his next battle, the crown would have been left at least partially in the hands of someone he, Daeron, could trust would continue his work (although if true, in practice this proved a complete misreading of Baelor’s own strength of will). 

Turning to the third option, why would Prince Viserys have supported a marriage between Baelor and Daena? Perhaps Viserys thought he could avoid what he might have seen as a mistake of his grandfather and namesake, and avoid the potential for another civil war. If Daeron died without an heir, then the crown would, as I noted, have been assumed to pass to Baelor - yet Viserys might have worried that the succession would not flow so easily from one brother to the other. It was not so long ago from 160 AC, after all, that a strong-willed and determined princess had at the death of the king asserted herself as the rightful queen over her brother - and that very woman the mother of Aegon III and grandmother to his children. If Daena hero-worshiped Rhaenyra - and I think that’s very possible, with her fondness for dressing in all black as Rhaenyra did, her self-confident statements that she was “born to ride a dragon”, and her use of Rhaenyra’s infamous consort's name for her own son - then Viserys may have worried that, like Rhaenyra, Daena would claim the throne over brother Baelor at the death of Daeron.

Ideologically too, Daena may have represented a very different, and potentially very attractive, option for rulership. Would those lords who actively supported Daeron's conquest of Dorne (and perhaps personally benefited from it as well) have looked forward to the accession of a prince who embodied peace, piety, and a total lack of martial fervor? Or would they have gravitated toward energetic, athletic Daena who so adored the Young Dragon? If a war over such a political divide seems speculative, remember that nearly these exact circumstances led to the First Blackfyre Rebellion: Daeron II, pro-peace and pro-Dorne, who openly embraced his role as Baelor’s spiritual successor, versus Daemon Blackfyre, pro war and pro conquest, who was not only Daena’s son but seemed to embody the “old days” of Daeron’s conquest, “when Dornishmen were the enemy to fight, not rivals for the king’s attention or largesse”. 

In turn, perhaps Prince Viserys wanted to do what he may have felt his grandfather had refused to do, to his and the dynasty’s cost. Viserys I had rejected a marriage between Rhaenyra and Aegon the Elder, and while I don’t believe this marriage would actually have been a complete panacea to the brewing civil war between the black and green factions, Prince Viserys may have felt that a similar marriage, between the king's most senior male and female heirs, would have avoided the terror and destruction of the Dance. If so, then Viserys, his grandfather’s namesake, might have thought he had the chance to avoid the calamity of another succession dispute turned to war. Those who supported Baelor would have had no choice but to support Daena, and those who supported Daena would have had no choice but to support Baelor; their marriage would, so Viserys might have hoped, unite potentially clashing factions behind a single royal couple. 

Again, none of these are guaranteed to be the answer (F&B was hardly consistent in its political explanations of Targaryen royal marriages), but I could very much see one of these or a combination of these being used to explain the marriage in, say, Fire and Blood Volume 2.

[thelegendofclarke]

💖💖💖

ily 😚 💕💓💞💝💗💘💖

@jaimeofhouselannister: Happy Birthday!!!! I hope you have a wonderful day and a great celebration!

thank you so much darling Kat!

@afewreelthoughts: Happy Birthday Mere! 🎂 🎁 💜

REEL! thank you so much my dear 💜 💜 💜

@imagineagreatadventure: happy birthday!

thank you so much lovely!

@archmaestergilly: Happy birthday mere, the saltiest winter adult! Hope you have a nice one!

heheheeeljkdhsgjhsd thank you so much tia you sweet sunflower!

@ainedubh: Happy birthday to my favorite Sansa fam!

omfgjklshdagasjhgd what an HONOR AND PRIVILEGE! thank you so much lovely ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

@ainedubh​ asked:

Regarding your tags on the Lady Stark interiority / Tolkien thing, I feel like if Tolkien was ASKED about Bard or Thranduil's wives he would absolutely want to talk about them. "Oh, these are their names, and they mean this, and this is their entire ancestral line, and they met like this and their courtship went like this and..." Like, he wanted every detail fleshed out, and would never blow off a fan asking for them, even if he had to make it up then and there.

Hey, @ainedubh​! @joannalannister​’s a little overwhelmed with asks at the moment, and as your question was in reference to the tags she wrote in reply to my post and tags about Tolkien and female representation, she forwarded it on to me, hope you don’t mind! Note, she also deleted that post (because she reblogged another one with a further reply), so I can’t recall exactly what they said, but IIRC in reply to my tags:

#jrr tolkien #may have an awful proportion of female characters but every single one of them has interiority #that grrm is a tolkien fan makes me facepalm every time i read that interview

she wrote something wondering about Bard’s dead wife and Thranduil’s dead wife, both of whom are non-existent (except for Thranduil’s being used as a manpain plot device in the Hobbit movies), and are something she’s groused about before in reference to the Dead Ladies Club.

Now, I pretty much agree with you regarding Tolkien probably responding with lots of details if anyone asked. (I haven’t read most of his letters, but they’re quite educational and entertaining.) But the thing is, well, the problem of the missing wives is really a movie problem, not a book problem? That is to say, it’s a function of Peter Jackson’s adaptation, rather than a problem innate in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (except for certain elements I’ll get to in a moment).

See, in The Hobbit (the book), Bard isn’t a father, and neither is the Elvenking. (Who isn’t named Thranduil in the book; he’s not given a name or history at all.) Oh, we learn in LOTR that they are fathers, sure, because Brand son of Bain son of Bard is said to be ruling Dale, and Legolas son of Thranduil is a messenger to Elrond (and of course becomes a major character in the trilogy). But in The Hobbit, these men are barely sketched out. They have no known family, no known children, no known wives... and that’s pretty typical of almost all the non-central characters of the book. They exist to play roles, they have a certain amount of characterization and interiority, there are sometimes brief references to ancient history, but other than that they’re barely people, they’re just kind of there.

Elrond, for example, hosts the dwarves and finds the moon-letters on the map; but he has no children (Elladan and Elrohir and Arwen), he has no wife (Celebrian, who went to Valinor for solace), he has no parents (Earendil and Elwing), he has no in-laws (Galadriel and Celeborn) -- he just is, merely Elrond master of Rivendell, “noble and fair and wise”, who “comes into many tales”, but only has a small part in Bilbo’s. And that’s because, (a) The Hobbit is a children’s book, with a first-person narrator telling the story, far less complex and developed than the later Lord of the Rings, and (b) The Hobbit was written fairly early on in Tolkien’s works, before he’d even created most of Middle Earth and its characters. (And the information Tolkien had developed already, he wisely left out of The Hobbit for simplicity’s sake, except for the occasional tantalizing reference to the legendarium here and there.)

So it was with Bard and the Elvenking in the book. Bard is a “grim-voiced” descendant of the last king of Dale, he doesn’t think the dwarves’ adventure will bring gold to Laketown, he can understand the speech of thrushes, he has a lucky black arrow that he uses to slay Smaug, he helps lead the people of Laketown after its destruction and during the Battle of Five Armies, and becomes king of the rebuilt Dale at the end. That’s it. The king of the elves of northern Mirkwood hosts feasts in the forest, gets ticked off when the dwarves keep flailing into them (because they’re lost and starving) and disturb the giant spiders, gets further annoyed when the captured dwarves won’t explain what their mission is, has another feast during which Bilbo helps the dwarves escape, helps the people of Laketown after its destruction, loves jewels and has an old grudge against dwarves (not the dwarves of Erebor, probably related to the Elf-Dwarf enmity of the First Age), leads the Elves in the Battle of Five Armies, etc. But both these men are just simple characters, with no connection to any other characters other than being a member of a race and their leadership, they have no families, barely any background.

However, because Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the Hobbit became three movies, putting a 300-page kids’ book on the same epic level of the 1200-page LOTR, the simplicity of those characters was no longer enough. Legolas becomes a major character in the story, as does Thranduil, and their relationship is prominent. Thranduil gains a deeply personal motivation for his enmity with Thorin’s people and his desire for the Arkenstone (he contracted a necklace from Thorin’s grandfather for his wife, and was cheated out of it), a reason to keep Legolas out of the fighting (his wife was kidnapped by orcs and tortured to death), an angsty thing about love, and much more. Thus the fact that his wife isn’t even named makes her very much a Dead Mother trope and Dead Ladies Club member (LOTR edition). Bard’s example is much less egregious -- however, he too was far more developed with a much greater heroic role, and given three children who also play roles in the story (the daughters are wholly inventions of the movies, as is the son’s personality and actions), and a prominently nonexistent dead unnamed wife. 

So to be quite honest, these Dead Ladies of the Hobbit movies are Peter Jackson’s fault, not Tolkien’s. (Or Guillermo del Toro, or whoever wrote those parts of the scripts, but I’m going to assume PJ.) Yes, it is Tolkien’s fault that by LOTR Legolas is introduced and we know that he’s the son of Thranduil son of Oropher but his mother isn’t mentioned at all -- but hell, if PJ could invent Tauriel, could invent so much about movie-Thranduil (elk riding! dragonfire burns on his face that he hides by magic!), the fact that he made Thranduil’s wife a huge part of his backstory but didn’t bother giving her a name... that’s all on him, sorry. As for Bard’s son Bain, he’s only mentioned in LOTR because humans aren’t as long-lived as dwarves and hobbits and therefore the king of Dale by that point had to be Bard’s grandson, and Brand barely exists but to be in Gimli’s reports that the Black Riders had asked him questions, and to fall in battle in the northern front of the War of the Ring. (Alongside Dain; and that story is only briefly mentioned in the ROTK appendix.) That is to say, yes Tolkien didn’t create Bard’s wife either, but lbr he barely created her son. The fact that in the Hobbit movies Bard’s a widower with 3 kids with no mention of his wife’s personality or name or what happened to her is, again, all on Peter Jackson.

Now, I’m not excusing Tolkien for his severe lack of female characters, especially in the Hobbit. (I think Tauriel’s a great addition to the movies, and only wish they’d gone further with more.) But to reiterate, when Tolkien does have female characters, they all get stories, or close to it in the case of very minor background characters. In the Hobbit consider the “remarkable” Belladonna Took, Bilbo’s mother (who should have been developed in the movies more since they were adding so much already I’m just saying). In LOTR, besides Gilraen, even dead mothers such as Finduilas, Theodwyn, and Morwen get personality sketches. And the Silm goes much much further with women, there’s a huge variety there, minor and major.

Aaaanyway, yes. I do think that if asked, Tolkien would have given tons of details about Legolas’s mother, her history and lineage. (And whether she was still living at the time of the Hobbit and LOTR -- I very much doubt that whole captured by orcs thing would have been part of it, as that’s pretty much a copy of poor Celebrian’s story.) Maybe not so much detail in the case of Bard’s wife (I’d imagine she was also a descendant of the men of Dale), but probably a name at least. But I really don’t think that Tolkien would have ever done the GRRM sort of answer of “Lady Stark. She died.”, or a “I don’t know, probably dead by that time” (re Sandor’s mother’s whereabouts at his burning).

Ah, if only Tolkien had done that 1960s rewrite of The Hobbit (to bring it more in line with the style of LOTR) and not abandoned it...

[ainedubh]

I’m not doing too well right now because of personal shit and I don’t really want to talk about it, but if you are feeling kind and want to make me feel better, could you maybe tell me about something good in your life right now?

A project you’re excited about, your pet being cute, a fun activity you did, whatever is bringing you joy and good vibes.

[empiregalaxy]

ainedubh replied to your post “it erases your false idea that Sansa is pure and good in every way. ...”

"Well, I'm not going to be." Best. Conclusion. EVER.

Thank you :)

[elentaricosplay]

#sheracosplay #sheranetflix pic by the awesome @ainedubh https://www.instagram.com/p/BzrgE8ejLCH/?igshid=1l4wxz02kkkev

[fontainebleau22]

Mag7 and female representation

Two extracts from a much longer post on shipping:

Post from @ainedubh:

Also food for thought: the obvious correction to a lack of non-male representation in a story is to add more non-males. Female Original Characters are often decried as self-insertion or Mary Sues, particular if romance or sex is a primary focus.

and comments from @cieldelarose:

#long post#listen#i love mag7 to bits and pieces#but we have 1 female character#you know what would be cool?#a sequel to mag7 where sam emma billy red and vasquez team up with a band of outlaws (all females)#and kick the shit out of slave traders#or something along those lines#gimme more females pls

I’m sore about this as a writer because I do worry about the lack of female representation in Mag7 and I’ve tried to work on it by writing fics that tell the in-depth stories of some of the unnamed women in the background of the movie and how they interact with our heroes, introducing OCs like Martha Hamilton (a respectable struggling widow in Sweet Cider) and Tess (a young woman who works as a saloon prostitute in A Scent of Lavender).

But you know what? Just like @ainedubh says, stories with female OCs aren’t popular. A Scent of Lavender has the least kudos of any fic I’ve written, and both of them are in the bottom 10% of my stories for hits.

Of course it may be that my stuff is too dull and worthy and realist, and that stories with female outlaws and gunfighters would be more popular; but really, I doubt it. People say they want more female representation in fanfic, but they vote with hits and kudos, and what those tell you is that adding female OCs is a hiding to nothing because readers see ‘OFC’ in the tags and pass the fic by.

[zizq-d]

@ainedubh you are my #saltbae 💖

that one friend who hates the same shit i hate: can i be petty abt — me, thru 10 loudspeakers: release the salt

[yearlongchristmasong]

About Me

Tagged by @ainedubh

Rules: Answer the questions below and then tag 10 people you’d like to get to know better.

Relationship Status: Perpetually single. Simultaneously craving and super frightened of intimacy. Every person I start talking to with the idea that maybe we would become a couple bores me to death after about a week. In my life, there have been 2 people I would admit to loving in a romantic way and things just didn’t work out for us. I’m just tired of the idea of having to work so hard at something. I want it to come easy, but that will never happen.

Favorite Color: Coral/Salmon. My first thought is always “orange” for simplicity but I definitely love the range of colors between orange and pink.

Lipstick or Chapstick: Both. I either melt or crack at work since it’s outside, so I always have my chapstick on hand, and it’s definitely one of the things I would go back to the house for; keys, wallet, phone, chapstick. But I also love crazy bold and fun lipsticks for a day or night out. 

Last Song I Listened To: Something New by Girls Aloud. I just took a bath and I love to listen to 8tracks feminist playlists when I bathe or shower.

Last Movie I Watched: Uh... I don’t think I’ve watched a movie since I went to see The Last Jedi on Friday. I enjoyed it. Maybe too much, for a non-fan.

Top 3 Shows: Ever? Idk man. Currently, probably Runaways, Boku No Hero Academia, and Steven Universe.

Top 3 Bands/Artists: This is super hard! I’ve kinda been on a The Lumineers kick recently. Kongos and Cage the Elephant are the others that come to mind immediately.

Books I’m Currently Reading: Guilty as charged; I’m not currently reading any books... I do need to finally read the 6th and 7th Harry Potter though, so maybe those should be my next ones?

Tagging: @volkaija @fenrirfenrir @doodlecrab @youaremynewdream @cooshmoosh @idealmannerisms @harmoniesaremyweakness @witchimp @pastel-priest @hpjlover

[goodqueenaly]

@violetshadows1234 replied to your post “@ainedubh reblogged your post “Reading the...”

Btw grrm has said that daeron the young dragon was married and not gay in response to a fan asking questions.

I believe the statement you are referring to is this SSM from 2008:

[Was Daeron I gay?] No, Daeron I was not gay. He was married, but died without issue.

However, note that when TWOIAF was released in 2014, it included a Targaryen family tree which did not show any wife for Daeron I. While I certainly acknowledge this lineage does not have to be the final word on all matters related to the Targaryen dynasty (it obviously did not specify the marital partners of Aegon V's sisters, of course), I think it is fair to say that the most recent canonical dynastic information we have on Daeron I is that he was not married.

[zizq-d]

@ainedubh look at this absurdly delightful blog

take your carriage very slowly by your rival’s home, that she might see your latest hat

[elentaricosplay]

For Eternia... #sheranetflix #sheracosplay Pic by @ainedubh Filter from Picsart :) https://www.instagram.com/p/BzuiFX8jA04/?igshid=12rd9z9xa7gfy

[thelegendofclarke]

When you are just casually scrolling your dash and find weird aggressive asks posed to your fav and you gotta go to their page and scroll again, watching the drama in reverse. 🕵🏻‍♀️

I literally wish I had never gotten on tumblr today. 

Actually, scratch that… I wish I didn’t even HAVE a fucking tumblr today!

[leomatrem]

@ainedubh thank you very much

@secretlyatargaryen don't speak for me, I knew exactly what I was saying when I made that post. Do not presume to know what I am thinking just because you jumped the gun and judged me and have to face the fact you're wrong about all of your judgments against me. please take your discussion out of my post and into PM's that way my activity is not so much clogged. Discuss it in PM's or something, meta away there. I sincerely do not care about Tyrion nor what you think of him and fandoms treatement like THIS is exactly why. This is your final warning or I am blocking you.

[zizq-d]

@ainedubh

[respect-for-finn]

Thanks for doing this! 🖤

You’re welcome! I love Finn dearly and was so disappointed to find that his celebration week was being run by antis who only loved their fanon version of him