#gender politics in asoiaf

[atopvisenyashill]

"I remember a man throwing me in the air when I was very little. He stands as tall as the sky, and he throws me up so high it feels as though I'm flying. We're both laughing, laughing so much that I can hardly catch a breath, and finally I laugh so hard I wet myself, but that only makes him laugh the louder. I was never afraid when he was throwing me. I knew that he would always be there to catch me. Then one day he wasn't. Men come and go. They lie, or die, or leave you. A mountain is not a man, though, and a stone is a mountain's daughter. I trust my father, and I trust my mules. I won't fall."

I love this passage for a lot of reasons but I love the play on "a stone is a mountain's daughter" here because she's not just explaining why she wasn't afraid when she slipped, or even why she cares little for the opinions of others on whether she's a "proper" lady or not; instead, she's warning Alayne, warning a fellow daughter of the mountain that men are not to be trusted.

She's saying to Alayne, look at what has become of me. Your father is kind now but he will leave when he's bored of playing house or he will die without bothering to set up care for you, and then you will have no one to make sure you are safe. She is saying my Sister Stone, you must keep yourself safe because Petyr Baelish will not, anymore than Sweetrobin or Harry the Heir will. You have to have a skill that will keep you safe, and courage, or you will never make it as a bastard girl in the real world.

[visenyaism]

Jaime is the younger more beautiful queen for the rubrick

1. slay?

2. Jaime’s PR team is SOOOO bad. Even worse than cersei’s. NO shot he is getting to the throne because he is more LOVED and ADORED than cersei. no shot he’s getting the throne at all

3. as a younger twin myself LOVE the idea that a 10 minute margin is enough to qualify you to be younger and fresher enough to usurp your sibling for being decrepit and losing the gender war

[izzymrdb]

My favourite thing from the "Cersei used to swap places with Jaime so she could have sword fighting and politics lessons" is that it implies that Jaime wore a dress and went to Cersei's embroidery and sewing lessons. I have yet to see anyone address this beyond a vague 'yea, Jaime pretended to be Cersei with a dress'. guys. guys. Jaime probably had to attend multiple lessons with a septa and learn how to make pretty stitches. Fuck all your 'Cersei is a great lord and mother but a bad queen' rants, I want to hear your 'Jaime is a good lady and knight but a bad lord' rants. Give me detailed analysis of what lady lessons Jaime would be best in. I bet that it's dancing and one time with Brienne he got distracted and started doing all the lady's moves by instinct and everyone watching just blue-screened because he is way better and more practised at the feminine moves than the masculine ones.

[homonationalist]

Once the veneer of fantasy is stripped off, the setting terrestrialized, and the orcs recognized as human, then, all the classic themes of Western racist thought become immediately visible. Tolkien’s aesthetic judgment on Mongols and orcs simply repeats Meiners’ aesthetic classification of races, and the even earlier medieval hierarchy: “The figure prized in medieval romances corresponded to Greek statuary, physiognomy was important, and a ‘skin of dazzling whiteness’ exemplified true beauty. Such beauty symbolized goodness, while blackness, small stature, and an ill-proportioned body meant ugliness and evil.” Similarly, twentieth-century German racists would contrast Aryans and dark “ape-men.” Blacks themselves, of course, had traditionally been seen in racist thought as close to apes, and possibly even prone to couplings with orangutans. In keeping with the foregoing, Tolkien describes an orc as “a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground” (TT, 62), while at the siege of Helm’s Deep, we are told, the orcs “sprang up [the ladders] like apes in the dark forests of the South” (TT, 178). The pure-blooded orcs’ fear of the sun also has its precedent in one German anthropologist’s contrast of a diurnal Aryan and a nocturnal non-Aryan race.

Charles W. Mills from “The Wretched of Middle‐Earth: An Orkish Manifesto” (2022)

[thaliajoy-blog]

Like I'm sorry if "first born male gets to be heir" is unfair & terrible, narrowing it down to "first born child gets to be the heir" is kind of barely better in my book. That's still one hell of a coin toss. Aegon the Unworthy would still get to be king.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Is there anything support the populat interpretation that old valriya and valryians in general are more feminist, and progressive than the rest in Asoiaf?

Anon, thank you! I've been wanting to address this for awhile, so I'm going to actually answer this really fully, with as many receipts as I can provide (this ended up being more of an essay than I intended, but hopefully it helps)

I think there's in fact plenty of evidence to suggest that Valyria and the Valyrians in general were anything but progressive. Valyria was an expansive empire with a robust slave trade that practiced incest based on the idea of blood supremacy/blood purity. All of these things are absolutely antithetical to progressivism. There is no way any empire practicing slavery can ever be called progressive. Now, the Targaryens of Dragonstone have since given up the practice of slavery, but they certainly still believe in the supremacy of Valyrian blood.

And I'll see the argument, well what's wrong with believing your blood is special if your blood really is special and magic? Which is just-- if anyone catches themselves thinking this, and you sincerely believe that GRRM intended to create a magically superior master race of hot blondes who deserve to rule over all other backwards races by virtue of their superior breeding which is reinforced through brother-sister incest, and you've convinced yourself this represents progressive values, then you might want to step away from the computer for a bit and do a bit of self reflection.

And remember-- what is special about this special blood? It gives the bearers the ability to wield sentient weapons of mass destruction. It's also likely, according to the most popular theories, the result of blood magic involving human sacrifice. So there is a terrible price to pay for this so-called supremacy. Would any of us line up to be sacrificed to the Fourteen Flames so that the Valyrians can have nukes?

And if you are tempted by the idea that a woman who rides a dragon must inherently have some sort of power-- that is true. A woman who rides a dragon is more powerful than a woman who does not ride a dragon, and in some cases, more powerful than a man who does not ride a dragon, but that does not make her more powerful than a man who also rides a dragon. Dragonriding remained a carefully guarded privilege, and Targaryen women who might otherwise become dragonriders were routinely denied the privilege (despite the oft repeated "you cannot steal a dragon," when Saera Targaryen attempted to claim a dragon from the dragonpit, she was thrown into a cell for the attempted "theft,"words used by Jaehaerys). The dragonkeepers were established explicitly to keep anyone, even those of Targaryen blood, from taking them without permission. Any "liberation" that she has achieved is an illusion. What she has gained is the ability to enact violence upon others who are less privileged, and this ability does not save her from being the victim of gender based violence herself.

Politically speaking, it is also true that Valyria was a "freehold," in that they did not have a hereditary monarchy, but instead had a political structure akin to Ancient Athens (which was itself democratic, but not at all progressive or feminist). Landholding citizens could vote on laws and on temporary leaders, Archons. Were any of the lords freeholder women? We don't know. If we take Volantis as an example, the free city that seems to consider itself the successor to Valyria, the party of merchants, the elephants, had several female leaders three hundred years ago, but the party of the aristocracy, the tigers, the party made up of Valyrian Old Blood nobility, has never had a female leader. Lys, the other free city, is known for it's pleasure houses, which mainly employ women kidnapped into sexual slavery (as well as some young men). It is ruled by a group of magisters, who are chosen from among the wealthiest and noblest men in the city, not women. There does not seem to be a tradition of female leadership among Valyrians, and that's reflected by Aegon I himself, who becomes king, rather than his older sister-wife, Visenya. And although there have been girls named heir, temporarily, among the pre-Dance Targaryens, none were named heir above a trueborn brother aside from Rhaenyra, a choice that sparked a civil war. In this sense, the Targaryens are no different from the rest of Westeros.

As for feminism or sexual liberation, there's just no evidence to support it. We know that polygamy was not common, but it was also not entirely unheard of, but incest, to keep the bloodlines "pure," was common. Incest and polygamy are certainly sexual taboos, both in the real world and in Westeros, that the Valyrians violated, but the violation of sexual taboos is not automatically sexually liberated or feminist. Polygamy, when it is exclusively practiced by men and polyandry is forbidden (and we have no examples of Valyrian women taking multiple husbands, outside of fanfic), is often abusive to young women. Incest leads to an erosion of family relationships and abusive grooming situations are inevitable. King Jaehaerys' daughters are an excellent case study, and the stories of Saera and Viserra are particularly heartbreaking. Both women were punished severely for "sexual liberation," Viserra for getting drunk and slipping into her brother Baelon's bed at age fifteen, in an attempt to avoid an unwanted marriage to an old man. She was not punished because she was sister attempting to sleep with a brother, but because she was the wrong sister. Her mother, the queen had already chosen another sister for Baelon, and believed her own teenage daughter was seducing her brother for nefarious reasons. As a sister, Viserra should have been able to look to her brother for protection, but as the product of an incestuous family, Viserra could only conceive of that protection in terms of giving herself over to him sexually.

Beyond that, sexual slavery was also common in ancient Valyria, a practice that persisted in Lys and Volantis, with women (and young men) trafficked from other conquered and raided nations. Any culture that is built on a foundation of slavery and which considers sexual slavery to be normal and permissible, is a culture of normalized rape. Not feminist, not progressive.

I think we get the picture! so where did this idea that Valyrians are more progressive come from? I think there are two reasons. One, the fandom has a bit of a tendency to imagine Valyrians and their traditions in opposition to Westerosi Sevenism, and if Sevenism is fantasy Catholicism, and the fantasy Catholics also hate the Valyrian ways, they must hate them because those annoying uptight religious freaks just hate everything fun and cool, right? They hate revealing clothing, hate pornographic tapestries, hate sex outside of marriage, hate bastards. So being on Sevenism's shit-list must be a mark of honor, a sign of progressive values? But it's such a surface level reading, and a real misunderstanding of the medieval Catholic church, and a conflating of that church with the later Puritan values that many of us in the Anglosphere associate with being "devout." For most of European history, the Catholic church was simply The Church, and the church was, ironically, where you would find the material actions which most closely align with modern progressive values. The church cared for lepers, provided educations for women, took care of orphans, and fed the poor. In GRRM's world, which is admittedly more secular than the actual medieval world, Sevenism nevertheless has basically the same function, feeding the poor instead of, you know, enslaving them.

Finally, I blame the shows. While Valyrians weren't a progressive culture, Daenerys Targaryen herself held relatively progressive individual values by a medieval metric. She is a slavery abolitionist, she elevates women within her ranks, and she takes control of her own sexuality (after breaking free from her Targaryen brother). But Daenerys wasn't raised as a Targaryen. She grew up an orphan in exile, hearing stories of her illustrious ancestors from her brother, who of the two did absorb a bit of that culture, and is not coincidentally, fucked up, abusive, and misogynistic. He feels a sexual ownership over his sister, arranges a marriage for her, and even after her marriage, feels entitled to make decisions on her behalf. It is only after breaking away from Viserys that Dany comes into her own values. Having once been a mere object without agency of her own, she determines to save others from that fate and becomes an abolitionist. But because Game of Thrones gave viewers very little exposure to Targaryens aside from Daenerys, House Targaryen, in the eyes of most show watchers, is most closely associated with Dany and her freedom-fighter values. And as for Rhaenyra in House of the Dragon, being a female heir does not make her feminist or progressive, although it is tempting to view her that way when she is juxtaposed against Aegon II. Her "sexual liberation" was a lesson given to her by her uncle Daemon, a man who had an express interest in "liberating" her so that she would sleep with him, it was not a value she was raised with. In fact, she was very nearly disinherited for it, and was forced into a marriage with a gay man as a result of said "liberation." She had no interest in changing succession laws to allow absolute primogeniture, no interest in changing laws or norms around bastardy despite having bastards; she simply viewed herself as an exception. Rhaenyra's entire justification for her claim is not the desire to uplift women, bring peace and stability to Westeros, or even to keep her brother off the throne, it is simply that she believes she deserves it because her father is the king and he told her she could have it, despite all tradition and norms, and in spite of the near certain succession crisis it will cause. Whether she is right or wrong, absolutism is not progressive.

And let me just say, none of this means that you can't enjoy the Valyrians or think that they're fun or be a fan of house Targaryen. This insistence that Targaryens are the progressive, feminist (read: morally good) house seems by connected to the need of some fans to make their favorite characters unproblematic. If the Valyrians are "bad," does that make you a bad person for enjoying them? Of course not. But let's stop the moral grandstanding about the "feminist" and "progressive" Valyrians in a series that is an analogue for medieval feudalism. Neither of those things can exist under the systems in place in Westeros, nor could they have existed in the slavery based empire of conquest that was old Valyria.

[phntmeii]

♡ Dating Jaime Lannister Headcanons:

❝ You are still maiden, I hope? Oh, good... I only rescue maidens. ❝

[ SFW + No Gendered Terms]

A/N: This list of headcanons is before the events of ASOIAF :) This is assuming he previously let go of Cersei and has no romantic connection to her recently and accepts his role as Heir/Lord to Casterly Rock after being dismissed from the Kingsguard for being a Kingslayer.

Kingslayer Era:

> Now, likely this matchup would be at the hands of a political marriage by his father, Tywin Lannister. After all, Jaime is his prized heir so Jaime already knows you must be someone who has quite a lot of good attributes yourself.

> Jaime is well aware of what a good match he'd be for quite literally anyone even despite his reputation. He's attractive, the eldest son of a noble house, a Great House at that, and one that is rich as fuck. He's also one of the most skilled fighters alive and quite literally noted to look "like what a king should look like."

> Jaime is the MOST cocky and flirty mf alive. He has Lannister pride and ego flowing through his veins and he revels in it.

> As a result, Jaime has no issue approaching you if he finds you attractive and immediately letting you know how he feels. He has a tendency to not think before he speaks and is generally blunt with his words.

> He 100% believes he has you wrapped around his finger the moment you spot him. Who wouldn't? It's the Lannister ego you can't blame him. It runs in his genes.

> Now while playing into his ego is all good and fun, putting him in his place or humbling him once you're in a relationship with him is a surprise but one that only amuses him and he listens to. AKA he is absolutely more in love if you tell him to stfu sometimes LMAO

> Once he realizes that you have genuine care and respect for him regardless of his reputation, this is what piques his interest the best and will get him to chase even more. The thought of someone’s genuine care rather than feigned admiration gets him to feel genuine warmth that he can’t help but chase after.

> He'd find both stubbornness and easy blushing as both enjoyable reactions to his advances. If you played "hard to get", he'll gladly be the one to chase.

> If you easily blush/get shy or flustered when he flirts, he will 1000% take advantage and use his charm to get reactions out of you as much as possible.

> His main Love Languages to give: Gift Giving and Words of Affirmation.

> This man is a LANNISTER okay?? He will absolutely "randomly" find you around to spoil you with different gifts and romantic gestures to gain your favor.

> Whatever gifts you want is literally yours the moment you even glance in that direction. Jewelry? Already yours. Clothing? It's in your closet already. You mentioned you like a specific flower? Prepare to receive a bouquet the next day.

> Although he does think that expensive gifts mean more, he's attentive in his gifts and gets you things he knows that you'll like. Simply because something is expensive won't take precedence over your actual interests.

> Also... Words of Affirmation?? This man quite literally is Prince Charming because he will absolutely charm you at any given point.

> He is obsessed with telling you how much he loves you, thinks you look good at every given point and how lucky he is that you ended up falling in love with him.

> Absolutely calls you a series of different pet names and rarely uses your actual name unless it's in a serious context or public situation.

> You can't even bring yourself to be upset for long at him because he'll find ways to make you smile just with his words. You can't help it when he's smirking at you while cheering you up because he knows he'll get you to break.

> His favorite Love Languages to receive are: Physical Touch and Acts of Service.

> Having you hold his hand instinctively when feeling nervous easily melts him because it lets him know that you trust him to protect you.

> Hugs, kisses, etc. everything just to show you appreciate and love him even as quick, little reminders while passing by will put a smile on his face.

> He absolutely will reciprocate and be an absolute gentleman with physical touch like offering his arm on walks and kissing the back of your hand with a slight bow.

> Acts of Service, specifically regarding caring for him, means the world to him. Assisting in bathing him, taking care of any wounds, bringing him a meal if you know it's been a while since his last one, or simply doing your duties properly around the Rock.

> He is incredibly respectful and protective over you. He values your needs and opinions as his partner and is absolutely willing to defend you and your honor at any time.

> Thinking of those lines "I'll go to war with him if I have to." I'll kill him, Ned Stark, the king, the whole bloody lot of them until you and I are the only people left in this world."

> His cocky exterior is true and influenced by his skill but he does possess insecurities that he doesn't share until later on in the relationship. It would take even longer than that to learn why he became the infamous "Kingslayer".

> There are times where he simply enjoys laying with you and venting a bit. Considering his massive expectations by nearly his entire family, he'll vent but remind himself of said expectation and may cut himself short. If you encourage him that it's a safe space, he'll reluctantly continue but feel better with your reassurance.

> He would genuinely be a good husband and you can count on it. While he has his duties as heir/lord, he always sets aside time for you and gives exclusive attention to you. You are his lovely partner after all. Your needs never escape his mind through his days.

> Genuinely goes to the ends of the earth to make you happy. Even if you order him around, he’ll wrap his arms around you from behind, enjoying your warmth for a moment before going off to do as you wished once you continue complaining to him.

⤷ divider credits: @cafekitsune

[knightsickness]

i really enjoy ridiculous birth order/gender asoiaf hypotheticals (‘what if cersei was born a boy?’ ‘what if jace was born a girl?’) but my favourite is ‘what if all of alicent’s kids were girls?’ especially bc they always assume otto would still try to push girl aegon’s seconddaughter ruling queen claim over rhaenyra’s which i’m not saying would never happen (esp assuming strong boys situation remains the same) but i think it is unlikely. he’s ambitious but he’s not cartoon stupid evil ambitious there’s a reason the greens having a male heir (w two sons of his own) and two male spares is politically significant. realistically what happens in the case of four targtower girls is alicent has to keep going until she either gets a boy (making the four daughters a footnote bc you know that boy’s called aegon) or dies

[jackoshadows]

It's annoying how proactive female protagonists in Asoiaf are often labelled and seen as 'impulsive' by fandom in general. That's never a thing with the male characters. Female characters who get things done, who have agency and want to help people are very often characterized by fandom as wrongly and emotionally reacting to seeing injustice or even when they are engaged in policy making.

Arya is seen as impulsive for stepping in to help Mycah from a sadistic bully. Dany is labelled impulsive for not taking an economics course and reading Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy before freeing slaves. One popular post framed Arya and Catelyn as being similar because they apparently run around biting people.

Recall that Catelyn was one of Robb's most important campaign advisers, conducted the diplomatic negotiations for him, wanted less war and more of a peaceful resolution to the conflict and wanted to exchange hostages. And yet this fandom constantly frames the Arya/Cat parallels as them being impulsive and violent.

By the way, Arya does have parallels to Catelyn in terms of their proactiveness in maneuvering in a chauvinistic man's world, their loyalty to family and duty and doing what needs to be done. Fandom, however, always approach the Arya/Cat parallels negatively - as a form of critique of both female characters.

Do these characters have moments where they impulsively react in emotional situations? Yes, like pretty much ALL the characters do in the series. And yet these labels are singularly applied only to the female protagonists.

Arya for example is often careful, analytical and intelligent in her actions. When she escapes KL she carefully considers each step - where to go, where the guards would be, how the guards look, where the guards would search etc. - before planning her move. That's how she was able to outwit the adults like Cersei sending Lannister guards in disguise to catch Arya in enemy territory.

The same is true when Arya escapes Harenhall, where she strategizes, draws up a plan, identifies what she needs and where it is, collects everything and then gives the older boys - Gendry and Hot Pie - instructions on what to do

And then there is the way Arya and Dany are often characterized as violent in a way the male characters never are, when Planetos is a violent, medieval, feudal, grim dark fantasy setting.

To proactively get things done in a violent, patriarchal, chauvinistic world, one often has to engage in violence. Ned, Robert, Stannis, Jon, Robb, Tyrion, Jaime, Theon, Northern lords, NW brothers, KG have all killed people. Arya has to kill a guard to escape her captivity where the most horrible atrocities - including rape and torture - are especially committed on the female prisoners. No one is going to help her, she has to do it herself. And yet because of her gender, she gets condemned as 'violent', 'psychopathic', 'forever damaged', 'should feel guilty and bad about what she did' etc.

As ruler, Daenerys engages in the same medieval, feudal practices that other rules do - we are first introduced to the series' presumable hero Ned Stark, with him chopping off a man's head for desertion. And yet she is seen as violent and tyrannical in a way none of the male rulers are.

I still come across these jokes about Jon Snow counting beets ignoring his chosen one destiny when Daenerys also has an administrative arc in ADwD! Where are all the comments/jokes about Dany's problems with food, trying to grow food, trying to trade for food when she has encountered chosen one prophecy and yet stays behind in Essos doing the same thing Jon Snow is, except ten times harder because Meereen is a city state.

Especially jarring when all of GRRM's comments about ruling focuses on administration and specifically mentions Daenerys story in ADwD again and again. Like this for ex:

“I guess there is an element of fantasy readers that don’t want to see that. I find that fascinating. Seeing someone like Dany actually trying to deal with the vestments of being a queen and getting factions and guilds and [managing the] economy. They burnt all the fields [in Meereen]. They’ve got nothing to import any more. They’re not getting any money. I find this stuff interesting. And fortunately, enough of my readers who love the books do as well.” - GRRM

Dany, Tyrion and Jon's leadership arcs (In ADwD and ACoK) have parallels in that they are mostly of an administrative nature, dealing with money and food, making marriage alliances and unpopular decisions, with characters secretly undermining them. Jon's arc ends with mutineers assassinating him, Dany's arc ends with slavers trying to assassinate her and her fleeing on Drogon and Tyrion's arc ends with the Battle of Blackwater, Tywin coming back and Tyrion losing his power and position. No matter how well they did or didn't do as leaders, there was always someone in the shadows plotting against them, taking them down.

To single out the lead female characters alone as being impulsive and violent for being proactive and doing what needs to be done in order to survive in a violent, patriarchal world is misogyny at it's finest.

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

[zenkindoflove]

Elain Archeron and Sansa Stark: A Comparison

I’ve been wanting to make this post for a while because I have seen a lot of similarities between Elain’s character and Sansa Stark (ASOIAF/GOT), not only in their mannerisms and narrative but the way that the fandom unfairly undermines and outright despises them. So, this post is going to be a bit of an exploration of both of their characters, speaking mostly to the ACOTAR fandom, to try and give some predictions I have about Elain’s narrative journey and lessons learned from Sansa’s narrative.

Elain and Sansa fit a very similar female character archetype in fantasy (and other fiction genres), which is that they are more traditionally feminine characters that conform to their roles as women in their patriarchal societies as compared to their counterparts who buck gender norms often by learning to fight. In particular, Elain and Sansa are often directly compared to their sisters who fit the more beloved sword-fighting, sassy, smart-mouthed heroines. What is important to this post, is that these characters are almost always heavily maligned and criticized by fandoms at large with critiques that are often rooted in misogyny, which fundamentally undervalues expressions of femininity and feminine roles. 

Both characters also have a lot of other similarities when it comes to their personalities, characteristics, and narratives. Both Elain and Sansa are obedient daughters who are described as sociable and make friends easily. They both are well-skilled in navigating courtly politics, and they begin their journeys as deep romantics, dreaming and wishing to fall in love. They’re both betrothed to men for political gain, and both undergo tragic and heartbreaking violations to their bodily autonomy. They are also both frequently undermined by characters’ in their stories, often underestimated in their strengths and abilities, and in both stories, those assumptions are proven wrong.

Now, we do not know where Elain’s journey is going, but we do Sansa’s, at least from the show. Sansa eventually finds her independence and her strength, taking back her ancestral home and being declared Queen in the North. She did not do this by becoming a warrior or a great battle commander. No, she did this by leaning into her political skills, inspiring nobles and armies to fight for her because of her name and what it represents. And when she had some power, leading her people and putting their care first, a narrative journey I hope to see for Elain coming into her own leadership position one day. 

One of the ways I wanted to outline drawing some of these parallels, is to break down some of the criticisms that Elain faces now that Sansa Stark also faced by fans. And if you are reading this and these criticisms are ones you have expressed, hopefully you reconsider your assumptions about Elain and where her story is going. 

Elain is boring. 

This accusation is often ascribed to Elain based on her interests and hobbies and refusal to participate in more traditionally masculine roles in the narrative (fighting, swordplay). Elain is often described as gardening, baking, helping with domestic duties, and purposely kept away from the political and adventurous parts of the narrative. And yet, this does not mean that in order for Elain to be interesting, she suddenly needs to be thrust into her own version of a training montage to start learning to use swords and daggers. Elain is a powerful Made Fae. She has one of the rarest abilities, being a Seer. She is deeply connected with the Koschei plot, as she was the one to see a vision of him, Vassa, and the other cursed women, which brought about Lucien’s journey to the continent and connecting that overall plot to what is happening in Prythian. It’s very likely her story will focus on her exploring her magic more, likely with Lucien, to figure out how to break Vassa’s curse and destroy Koschei once and for all - none of which requires her to actually become a warrior. 

Elain will become evil. 

Sansa too was often criticized as being boring by fans. They saw her struggles, being passed from cruel husband to cruel husband, as signs she was weak. Sansa was often directly compared to her sister Arya who was learning to fight with a sword and training as an assassin. But Sansa was undergoing a very different sort of training. We see her shed her sheltered POV of the world, and instead, became deeply involved in the politics of the game of thrones. She learns from several characters how to play the game and play it right, as she is one of the few characters to survive until the end, having a true hero’s journey of ascension. We see that she uses people’s assumptions that she is stupid and naive to their disadvantage, allowing their underestimation of her abilities to make them turn away from how she outsmarts them in the end. Elain is also hinted at being deeply intelligent, in ways that even her sisters seem to ignore. She is also described several times in ACOSF as being sneaky, foreshadowing that she will surprise her family based on their assumptions of her. Ultimately, I foresee Elain leaning into her courtly knowledge and social skills, much like Sansa, to push forward her own journey.

Elain and Sansa are also both very inward characters. When they are struggling, they are more quiet and unassuming, to disarm others and draw attention away from them. As we know from Sansa's POV chapters, she was constantly strategizing her pretty words to save her skin. And I think Elain similarly shows the world one side of her, but hides a rich and complex inner world that we won't see until we get her POV.

This critique - which is also not always presented as a critique but sometimes as a wish for Elain to become a villain so she might be more interesting to those who find her boring - is one that I really dislike. And one of the biggest reasons I dislike it is because I saw the exact same predictions thrown at Sansa crash and burn. Often fans would revel in the idea that “finally, Sansa can become interesting” if she were to turn into the next Cersei or Littlefinger. But we did not see that happen. Instead, we saw that Sansa clung to her compassion, empathy, and her Stark morality, while shedding the blind trust that put her father and brothers into so much danger. She took lessons from Cersei and Littlefinger, but rather than becoming them, she bested them. Especially Littlefinger, where she outsmarted him when he tried to turn her and her sister against each other, and ultimately is the one who passed his execution sentence, achieving justice for all the crimes he committed against her family and Westeros. Sansa did not let the brutalization of her body and spirit turn her against her family. She never betrayed them, even when she was wed to their worst enemies. Instead, she made it her priority to serve and represent the North and its interest in all things, including standing up to Dany, because she understood to hold the North, she must not bend to other rulers and respect all that the North had sacrificed for the Starks. 

Similarly, I do not see Elain betraying her family. There are several times she asserts her loyalty and insists that she wants to help them and their interests. I think her story will be more about being underestimated by her family and overlooked for leadership roles and her insight (as was Sansa) and this will push her to branch out on her own to discover who she is outside of her family and the expectations they have of her. But I do not think she will become the antagonist to them. Instead, I see her using her own strength to “save” them too in ways they would have never imagined that Elain can do. Sansa was not an outright antagonist to Jon, for example, though she often challenged him (which upset many fans, more on that later) because she believed her perspective was valuable. I see Elain's difference in how she sees the world and what she values being in similar disagreement with the Night Court, and her having to "prove" herself to them that she needs to be taken seriously.

Elain and Sansa are also very similar in that they both are described as abhorring violence. Sansa, in the end, does sometimes use violence as a means to an end, and even is shown enjoying Ramsey’s brutal execution by being eaten by his own dogs. Yet, Sansa is never shown to enjoy moments like these again (and of course this moment is most understandable given all the torture Ramsey put her and others through). Sansa does not lead with anger or brutality like Cersei. Rather, she shifts from a bright, sunny girl to an authoritative woman who ices out her enemies and shows kindness and warmth to her friends and subjects. To me, in keeping with character archetypes, I do not see Elain straying from this core feature of herself as well. I don’t see her desiring to follow in the footsteps of others who use torture and violence to extract information or to hurt others who have hurt her. I do think should Elain come into a position of political leadership, that like Sansa, she will care for the people (as she is already shown to do in Velaris and was known to do in the human lands) and when needed, show her steely, authoritative voice that is unbending (much like the infamous quote from Sansa in the books “my skin has turned from porcelain, to ivory, to steel”). 

Basically, female characters do not have to be either warriors or evil villains to be interesting. Sometimes, female characters who are kind, compassionate, intelligent, and full of hope can still have badass stories and stand as heroines in their own right while maintaining all of those characteristics. 

Elain is two-faced/bitchy/spoiled/selfish. 

Of course, the classic, when the feminine character does anything SLIGHTLY unsettling to the reader, she is hated and tons of stereotypically misogynistic insults are thrown at her. 

I will first off start by saying that when people say this about Elain, it is when she is essentially displaying behaviors that counter their first argument - that Elain is boring. When Elain is being compliant and nice to the other characters, she is called boring. When she very briefly, pushes back on them at all, these insults are hurled at her. I don’t even want to waste time breaking down why these are just comically unfair. Because the fact of the matter is is that every character in the book displays moments of being two-faced/bitchy/spoiled/selfish. And yet, it is Elain who is given these monikers as if they are core features of who she is. Other female characters in ACOTAR are also called these names. However, Elain faces the unique situation of only ever being boring or bitchy to those who dislike her. She can't win either way.

Sansa, of course, had all these insults hurled at her too. She was a traitor and two-faced for having a girlish crush on Joffrey when she was 13 (11 in the books) and literally betrothed, by her father, to a prince. When Sansa at all stands up to characters like Jon or Dany and disagrees with them or argues with their logic about how to handle different choices, she is bitchy, even though Sansa is often proved to be correct in her logic, hesitancy, and how she thinks politically. And of course, in line with the previous point about becoming evil, it was assumed that Sansa would be two-faced with her family. And yet, we saw, time and time again, Sansa was loyal to House Stark. Even the ultimate “sin” of Cersei guilting her to write to Robb about their Father being a “traitor” to the crown - Sansa did it because she thought it was one way she could save her father’s life. Basically, Sansa’s crime was being a girl who didn’t win the audience over by being spunky like her sister. Sansa’s crime was her naivete early on - when she was only a child, and it haunted her throughout the entire series and how fans saw her. Even though, out of every character in the books/show, Sansa at her core, is the one who represents the audience the most. She is the most removed from the magical storylines. The way she lives her life is closer to our own modern way of living than any of the warriors or magical characters in their world. Sansa represents who we would be if we were suddenly thrust into a fantasy story - defenseless and easily abused. But most readers and watchers want to see who they are not, rather than follow a story of who they actually could be and what strength might follow. 

What I want to see from Elain’s story:

Following the lessons of staying true to my girl, Sansa, I hope that Elain, like Sansa, finds her own way in the empathy, kindness, and social skills that she has - along with exploring her powers. Now, as Elain is in a romance, and not a dystopian fantasy like Sansa is, her ending will have a HEA with her love interest. Sansa became Queen in the North, it’s true. But she has no love interest. Her family is all scattered. And there is a bit of a coldness to her now. Many suspect that she will play more of a Queen Elizabeth I role in her rule and never marry, as to keep House Stark as House Stark. But if she were to marry, it will likely be a political alliance, though, my hope is she will find love in it. Because while Sansa might have had her dreams dashed at an early age, I truly hope for the sake of that little romantic girl, she can find love after all the hurt she had to experience. 

Elain will end up with a romance at the end of her story. And I think harkening to her character archetype and who suits her narrative best, it will of course be with her mate, Lucien, who mirrors her characteristics, values, and morals the most. I imagine for them a story where they act as courtiers, helping piece back together Spring, working on alliances with the human lands, and eventually, once Lucien learns of his heritage, finding another home in the Day Court (though I do imagine them to be life-long travelers, making many friends and allies across Prythian and the continent together - as Elain always wanted to travel). Similar to how Sansa used her political intelligence and compassion for her people, I see Elain and Lucien as well using their courtier/emissary skills and knowledge and devotion to serving the people of the courts, putting diplomacy first, to heal a broken and divided world. I think especially the alliance with humans will be so important for Elain’s journey. Where Elain has struggled the most with no longer being human, Lucien has been immersing himself in human culture and political interests. And once they are ready to start their journey, I think both putting their heads together will be invaluable in representing both the interests of the Fae and the humans. I also think Lucien has more invested interest, as her mate, to push her to explore her powers rather than dismiss her ever exploring them like those in the Night Court do. Lucien’s connections through the world can also help her find ways to find the information she needs to learn more about being a Seer and whatever else is going on with her. He also has his own personal experience with exploring and learning of his multitude of powers as well, including what it means to suppress and hide them, as I suspect Elain has been doing. Where Sansa had to prove herself to every character in the story to take her seriously and respect her, I think the one person who has always and will always believe in Elain is the person who has a soul-to-soul connection with her. Who puts her and her needs before his own, and will serve as her devoted sworn shield (cries in Sansan) to fight for her if need be. 

Also maybe I wish and hope for the unlikely Lucien and Elain as High King and High Queen narrative which would fit so perfectly to Sansa’s own rise, but I suspect SJM won’t go in that direction.

Anyways, if you made it to the end, thanks for reading my desperate need to get all these parallels out of my head. I have adored Sansa since I first watched the show in 2011 and fell even more in love with her when I read the books in 2013. I have been defending her to nasty people ever since, and when I joined the ACOTAR fandom, the way people criticized Elain felt SO familiar. Which of course it did. These kinds of criticisms do not stop with Sansa and Elain. Most characters like them are disliked for being soft women with big hearts who are vulnerable to cruel people in their worlds.  

[atopvisenyashill]

Is Lyanna really as terrible as some people portray her as?

no, not even a little bit.

the absolute most important thing about lyanna is that when she dies she is only 16. i am someone who works with kids - i work in a library so i spend most of my days cleaning up after tweens and asking teenagers to please stop doing dumb shit- and the first thing anyone who has ever worked with kids and especially teenagers is that they may look like adults but they are NOT. they don’t understand boundaries, they have next to zero impulse control, and every bad thing that happens feels like the worst thing ever because it very likely IS the worst thing they’ve ever experienced bc they have not been alive that long!

and this goes for every single teen & tween character in this series, not just lyanna! shit, i am someone who feels an immense amount of sympathy for joffrey! on one side he’s got his mother telling him he can do anything he wants with no repercussions and on the other he’s got his father hitting him so hard that stannis thought joffrey was going to die. and then he is given unchecked power and told not to abuse it! EYE cannot even guarantee that i wouldn’t use unchecked power to do shady shit and i am a fully grown adult, not a traumatized, irrationally, and deeply vindictive 13 year old boy.

but honestly the most important thing about lyanna is that we have ZERO CONTEXT for what happens between her and Rhaegar. What we have is

Ned’s sparse & guilt ridden thoughts about Lyanna and one (1) comment about Rhaegar

Robert’s angry, entitled, and grief ridden outbursts about Lyanna and Rhaegar

Barristan’s incredibly romanticized, guilt & grief ridden take on their relationship

Meera’s second hand account of Lyanna, told to her by a father who is likely just as guilt & grief ridden as the others, who likely has his own view of Lyanna

What’s important to note is that our view of her is heavily filtered through the eyes of the men that knew her. Robert loves an idealized version of her that never existed. Barristan never actually knew her. Ned is not only viewing her under 200 layers of guilt and grief, but very obviously does not understand his sister, or why she made the choices she did, and struggles constantly with knowing that he will never know her the way he wishes he could, the way he thought he did. Given the way Meera describes Lyanna, I actually think Howland is our most accurate look at her but even that is buried behind years of grief & a fair amount of hero worship and affection (“that’s my fathers man you’re kicking howled the she-wolf” is a line that makes me WEEP for this exact reason; Howland sees Lyanna as his hero above all else!).

All of that to say - we don't even know what Lyanna did that was so terrible! Even if she was a grown woman capable of making rational decisions, we have no idea what her decisions were. She could have been lied to, misled, kidnapped, threatened, just as surely as she could have walked into the situation with open eyes. Even in the show, with a slightly aged up Lyanna - we get, what, just Sam's opinion on Rhaegar and Lyanna being in love because they got hitched? Completely ignoring the fact that we had several women in this series get married not because they were in love or willing but because someone more powerful decided on it and that was that, so there's still no evidence that Lyanna had enough information about the situation to make any sort of informed, consensual decision.

so no, i do not hold lyanna responsible for anything at all that happened regardless of how it happened because she was not mentally mature enough to understand what the hell was going on. a 15 year old is just not mature enough to think “if i run off with this married man, it’s going to cause a cascade of political issues that could have disastrous consequences.” what she’s probably thinking is “this man says he can help me and i am fucking miserable and no one else will listen.” it’s why we don’t throw 15 year olds who run away to meet up with old dudes they met online in jail when they’re caught (or theoretically why we don’t punish them at any rate). There is one person and one person only who is responsible for the massive fuck up that is the Elia-Rhaenys-Aegon-Lyanna-Jon mess and that is RHAEGAR, the person with the most amount of power who used it in the dumbest way imaginable and got himself, most of his heirs, his wife, and his teenaged mistress killed. The only other people responsible are the Kingsguard who kept Lyanna under lock and key while she lay dying and pleading for her brother to come save her.

[visenyaism]

i feel like you give me a very warped idea of what asoiaf is like

honestly it’s mostly about people eating very sumptuous dinners and describing each other‘s cool outfits and then at a distant second place like also the cycle of violence and gender and misogyny and class and the dangers of reactionary politics and false prophets and also dragons. and not in the fun way it is also about tits. and orientalism. but really what these books are fundamentally about is that blonde people are dangerous and evil. 

[ansheofthevalley]

It's so funny bc I thought I was DONE with GoT/ASOIAF (at least until TWoW came out), and Ryan Condal and Miguel Sapochnik had to center the Dance around a Yuri fallout basically, and my content-starved queer heart couldn't resist that shit.

You give me a princess who struggles with gender roles, more specifically, the ones that are set to her as a woman and the ones set to her by being heir to the throne. A woman who's walking the line between her duties. She is a woman with no true freedom, even though she's a Princess and next in line for the throne, always having to live up to the expectations set by the men around her.

Then, you have her former "best friend," who's been groomed by both her father and the King used as a pawn in political games, and ended up isolated as a result. She's also an extremely religious woman who's been repressing her true desires before she even realized what those desires really were. She's a woman with no true agency, even though she's Queen.

And to top it all off, they had a great relationship. They were there for each other. They confided in each other. And then, their relationship fell apart because of the ambition of the men who were supposed to have their best interests at heart but only had theirs guiding their actions.

They grow apart and are pitted against each other. Each of them defends their family fiercely, which, of course, causes conflict because, again, the men who should be taking care of them are selfish bastards. Then, for the briefest of moments, they manage to get close again. Not like before, because too much has gone down between them. But, of fucking course, Viserys has to die, but not before speaking about an ambiguous prophecy about who's to sit on the Iron Throne (too many Aegons, man), and of fucking course that opens the gates to a civil war, which, of course, takes 0.1 seconds to go from bad to worse and then all Hell breaks loose, making it impossible for these two women, who had once been the closest two people could be, ever to reconcile.

So yeah, Condal and Sapochnik have me hooked on toxic, doomed-by-the-narrative Yuri.

I'm just here for the ride.

[centrally-unplanned]

GoT is also a show that was in a lot of ways paying for present sins with the promise of future potential, that now we know it never resolves. Like its fanservicey sexposition scenes are really cringe right out the gate; not because hot sex scenes are bad or anything ofc, but because the show was afraid to either own it as hot fun or commit to deeper sexual exploration; being neither they are distracting & objectifying. But the books have all this really great depth on gender roles and politics in this medieval setting, so you are like "yeah okay these are a bit cringe but overall the show is gonna be good on the female character front". But then it wasn't, at all, it had all these weird decisions around girlboss 2010's feminism and rape politics and its at best unremarkable, and more likely embarrassing. So when you go back and see those scenes, now its like a sign, "oh yeah this show has no understanding of tone when it comes to sex".

And it isn't limited to the sex stuff - Oh Tywin & Arya become like buddies in Season (2? 3?) because Charles Dance could have chemistry with a broomstick? Sure, this is good on screen, lets give it a chance! Oh it... goes nowhere, makes Tywin act like a total idiot leaving a noble captive alone & unutilized, and Ayra is just a murdersword so learns no lessons from this. Oh...these scenes suck, and waste our time. Now I know that, they are annoying to watch, they are no longer good. Every scene where characters discuss "balancing the power of factions" or like Margaery talking about maintaining ones brand with the people, wtf no you don't need to do that, literally just blow up your rivals. Murder every single one of them in 9/11 - Pope Edition, and you will be completely fine, ruling uncontested. They were all dumbasses, those scenes are dumb now.

Of course the early seasons are better, but I don't know if you can really call them good anymore. ASOIAF is one big cohesive story, and they made a lot of decisions early on that were like "hm but okay it'll probably pay off" and then they don't. Some of it definitely does work still, but now its really hit or miss - I don't think any Season is unscarred.

[catcas22]

Fortissax is Fia Theory

Alright people, grab your red yarn and thumbtacks. I need to share this with someone, so you all get to read my deranged ramblings.

Real talk, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Thesis:

Proposition 1) Fortissax was consort to Godwyn and the mother of the Golden Lineage.

Proposition 2) Fia is the human form of Fortissax.

Some of this theory will be (I believe) airtight, some of it will be based on circumstantial evidence, and some will be reasonably plausible headcanon that I feel would enhance the lore. Take it or leave it as you like.

The part that I maintain is airtight.

In-game, Fortissax’s gender is never confirmed. Any time pronouns are used to refer to Fortissax, the game uses it/its pronouns.

This could be deliberate obfuscation on the part of the game devs. Fortissax’s gender could have been part of a big reveal that ended up being cut from the final product.

It’s also possible that the ancient dragons are capable of changing their sex (ASOIAF dragons seem to work this way), or they simply don’t attach the same significance to sex/gender that humans do.

The Golden Lineage intermarried with dragons at some point in history.

Godrick’s dialogue: “Mighty Dragon, thou'rt a trueborn heir. Lend me thy strength, o kindred. Deliver me unto greater heights.” [Emphasis mine]

Godwyn was the exalted noble who Fia was attempting to resurrect when she first saw the guidance of Grace.

Fia’s dialogue: “After I received the warmth and lifely vigour from a number of champions, I lay with the remains of an exalted noble, to grant him another chance at life.”

Fia after killing D: “Finally, it is returned to its rightful place. The stolen hallowbrand of the exalted noble. And now, I must bid you goodbye as well. Though I ask you deliver this message to the Roundtable Hold. I am Fia, Deathbed Companion. Hark, Roundtable. Disturb not the Death of Godwyn, the exalted.” [Emphasis mine]

The word choice here seems too intentional to be coincidence. Fia first refers to an “exalted noble.” Later, she refers to Godwyn’s half of the curse mark as “the stolen hallowbrand of the exalted noble,” then goes on to refer to “Godwyn the Exalted” within a few sentences. Godwyn is the Exalted Noble, the Exalted Noble is Godwyn.

Slightly less airtight, but still strongly implied.

Fortissax and Godwyn were an item. This is already pretty widely accepted fanon, but I’ll lay out the evidence anyway.

Basically any time Fortissax is mentioned, it is in the context of their close bond with Godwyn. On it’s own, this wouldn’t mean much -- strong platonic bonds are a thing.

But we also established that Godwyn’s descendants are also descended from dragons. Out of the four named ancient dragons (the game never gives any indication that feral dragons can take human form), Fortissax is the most likely candidate.

Gransax is dead by the time the war against the dragons is over.

Placidusax is in (self-imposed?) exile in Farum Azula.

Lansseax is a possibility, but we know from the description of Vyke’s dragon bolt that “Of all the knights, Vyke the Dragonspear was the one Lansseax loved the most.” This does not entirely rule out the possibility of a political marriage between Lansseax and Godwyn, but it’s worth noting.

Although it’s not airtight, Fortissax being Godwyn’s consort makes the most sense. When you take their close bond and Godrick’s dragon heritage together, the game does seem to be implying a union between the two.

Lichdragon Fortissax is a shade.

We have plenty of in-game precedence for echoes of a person remaining behind to fight while the individual in question goes on to do other things. See Royal Knight Loretta in Caria Manor, Festering Fingerprint Vyke in the Church of Inhibition, and Godfrey’s Golden Shade in Leyndell.

We never see Fortissax manifest in the physical world, only ever showing up in the mindscape (Fia’s mindscape? Godwyn’s? Fortissax’s?) where we fight him.

Think about the sequence of events here. Fia is sleeping beside Godwyn. We touch her, which takes us directly to the Lichdragon’s boss arena. We kill Fortissax, and exit the dream to find that Fia has brought forth the Mending Rune of the Death Prince.

The slightly shaky but still supported stuff.

Fia is the human form of Fortissax -- this is the big one.

We encounter Lichdragon Fortissax in what is seems to be either Fia’s mindscape or a shared dream between Godwyn and Fia.

If we accept the premise that Fortissax is Godwyn’s consort, it is worth noting that Fia also seems to have prior history with Godwyn.

Fia clearly considers herself Godwyn’s consort. Consider the lines: “For I am the companion of Godwyn, Prince of Death. I wished to be a mother to Those Who Live in Death.” And, “I will soon lay with Godwyn. To conceive my child, the rune.”

Fia also refers to herself as the mother of those who live in death. This would align with her being the consort of Godwyn, the progenitor of those who live in death.

Pretty clear-cut. Of course it’s possible that Fia is delusional and pursuing the fantasy equivalent of a para-social relationship, but I tend to doubt that due to this line, spoken if you try to kill Fia: “Godwyn... Is that you, dear?”

I don’t care how delusional you are, you don’t cry for your celebrity crush in your dying moments. She knew him before the Night of the Black Knives.

Fia’s “I was awakened by the guidance of grace, and chased from my birthplace” line actually fits with what little we know of Fortissax.

From the descriptions of the Aspects of the Crucible incantations, we know that the Crucible was the primordial form of the Erdtree. This supports the theory that the Erdtree is simply the latest iteration of the World Tree, which goes through different phases with each new age.

Dragonlord Placidusax was the god of the age preceding Marika. “The Dragonlord whose seat lies at the heart of the storm beyond time is said to have been Elden Lord in the age before the Erdtree.”

It seems logical that the ancient dragons would have their capitol/home base around their version of the world tree, just as the demigods do in the current age. Fortissax likely would have been born in the area that would later become the city of Leyndell.

Nothing in Fia’s lore contradicts Fortissax’s lore. Fortissax was probably Godwyn’s consort. Fia is Godwyn’s consort. We fight Fortissax in Fia’s mindscape. Definitely not an airtight case, but if you put it all together I think it logically follows.

The “moving into headcanon territory” stuff.

Fia was in Stormveil at some point.

The sorcery Rancorcall is found in the basement of Stormveil. This sorcery is notably used by Sir Lionel, Fia’s adoptive father.

If all of the above is true, this makes a ton of sense. After being driven from Leyndell, Fia fled to the castle of her son/grandson/distant descendant Godrick.

This also explains the Godwyn face in the basement. What little remained of Godwyn sensed that his wife was in Stormveil and attempted to quite literally grow closer to her.

Fia probably has Godwyn’s Great Rune.

Certain people were allowed to possess Great Runes prior to the Shattering. Rennala received the Rune of the Unborn from Radagon before he returned to Marika. Morgott used his Rune to authenticate his identity as a descendent of Godfrey (see Morgott’s Great Rune description), implying that he had it with him throughout his exile in the Shunning Grounds. It is plausible that Godwyn was also permitted to carry a Great Rune prior to the Night of the Black Knives.

Based on the image we see of the NBK during the opening cinematic, it does not appear that Godwyn put up much of a fight. We don’t see a weapon, dead Black Knife Assassins, or signs of a struggle. The staging looks more like an execution than a battle. Most likely, Godwyn was dragged out of bed and repeatedly shanked in the back before he had time to react.

We know that Tiche died covering the group’s retreat, confirming that the Black Knives did not make a clean getaway. Someone must have raised the alarm. It is highly unlikely that they hung around long enough to loot Godwyn’s Great Rune (if he had one).

Putting all of that together, if Fia/Fortissax was Godwyn’s consort, she was probably present during the assassination. She probably held him as he bled out, allowing his Great Rune to pass into her possession. Could Godwyn’s Great Rune plus the Curse Mark create the Mending Rune of the Death Prince?

The shade Fia left behind takes the form of Lichdragon Fortissax because Fortissax could have saved Godwyn from the assassins.

While Fortissax was by all accounts quite formidable, Fia appears to be much less martially inclined. We never see her physically fight in-game. She uses Death Blight to kill D and uses a death sorcery (I think it’s Rancorcall?) as a last-ditch defense if you attack her after killing her champions, but she would not have had access to either of these prior to the NBK.

If she witnessed Godwyn’s murder, she would certainly be tormented by the knowledge that she could have saved him had she been in her draconic form. I propose that this is the origin of Lichdragon Fortissax -- it is the manifestation of Fia’s guilt for her inability to save Godwyn from death, now fighting to save him from a fate worse than death.

Putting it all together...

            At some point following the war against the dragons, Fortissax wishes to settle down and start a family with Godwyn. To that end, the dragon takes the form of a human woman and takes the name Fia.

            On the Night of the Black Knives, Fia witnesses Godwyn’s murder. She is with him in his final moments, allowing her to see that he isn’t quite as dead as he should be. Despite her objections, the powers-that-be of Leyndell insist that he is definitely 100% dead and lay him in state in preparation for an Erdtree burial.

            Unwilling to accept Godwyn’s death and desperate to save him, Fia starts looking into death sorcery (probably under the priests of the Deathbirds -- see Death Ritual Spear description). She discovers a method that might allow her to resurrect him -- the rites of the Deathbed Companions.

            Fia does her hug/life-drain thing with a number of champions, most likely members of the Dragon Cult. She then attempts to lie with Godwyn in order to complete the ritual. In an incredible display of poor timing, Marika chooses that precise moment to send out the call to the Tarnished.

            Fia sees the guidance of Grace, she is caught with Godwyn’s body, and she is subsequently run out of Leyndell. Godwyn is buried at the foot of the Erdtree. Consciously or unconsciously, Fia leaves behind the Lichdragon shade in a last-ditch attempt to save Godwyn. For a time, she wanders the Lands Between alone, likely not doing very well in terms of sanity.

            Eventually she encounters Sir Lionel who, being a decent guy, appoints himself her protector and offers to escort her to wherever she’s going. With his aid, she makes her way to Stormveil, where she convalesces for a time.

            She eventually moves on to the Roundtable Hold, likely seeking access to more champions. Fia waits there, gathering life-energy and biding her time, until D arrives with his stolen half of the Curse Mark, at which point she enlists the aid of a helpful Tarnished to set her plan into motion.

So that's the Fia/Fortissax theory. What do you guys think?

Edit 1: I have been informed that Fia's defensive spell is actually Fia's Mist, not Rancorcall. My bad.

Edit 2: Showed this to my brother, and he had an interesting addition. What if Lichdragon Fortissax isn't just a shade, it's all the parts of Fia's psyche that make up Fortissax? Under this theory, she completely severs herself from her old life and gives up the ability to ever become a dragon again in an attempt to save Godwyn. Don't really have any evidence for it, but it's a cool interpretation.

Edit 3: Just a fun little coincidence. On one of the sword monuments, Forti is referred to by the title "Dread Fortissax." During the early stages of her assimilation into the Greek Pantheon, the queen of the underworld was often given the title "Dread Persephone." Probably doesn't mean anything, but I think it's neat.