praetor-of-fandoms

[horizon-verizon]

You know what truly annoys me in ASOIAF ? That there are no queen regnants apart from Rhaenyra and that was a disaster in terms of what happened [and the fact that she was ignored as such and disputed if she was one]. Sure, we’ve had regents here and there [Sharra Arryn, Johanna Lannister, Jeyne Arryn, Lysa Arryn] and a few other ladies who ruled as lords, but that’s not the same, and the Iron Throne only had Alyssa Velaryon and Cersei Lannister as queens regents. And, again, a regent’s power is limited and with the understanding that her time will end when her son will take his throne. (There’s obviously iconic queen regents such as Catherine de’ Medici or Isabella of France)

[To be fair, there are “queens” regnant in Dorne, princesses, technically speaking, such as Doran’s mother, but even though it was never “conquered” by the Targaryens and the rules that apply to the rest of the kingdoms do not apply to Dorne, they are still subservient to the Iron Throne.]

And the thing is that although GRRM is using historical inspiration, it is taken into a fantasy realm where you don’t have to stick to the rules of our reality and history. England had two queens regnants in a row, Mary I and Elizabeth I, and both women were legally bastards. That is the single point of my thought is that it is his choice, as a writer, not to have any queen regnants even in pre-ASOIAF or prior to Aegon’s Conquest, and when he does [disputed] it is not a success [Rhaenyra’s story, I suppose, can be read as the Empress Matilda/Stephen of Blois struggle]. It’s his choice to turn Rhaenyra into the loser of that battle, his choice to have her set on fire and eaten alive in front of her 10-year-old son, his choice to have her remembered as a paranoid and cruel tyrant, a usurper or traitor as Stannis calls her. It is also his choice not to have another female heir. That could have easily been done in the past events.

*EDITED POST* 4/12/24

I answered another aks like this HERE (especially the reblog I made of it OR post). Basically, yes, he does do that bc the point is that Targ assimilation into Andal violent patriarchy is a key ingredient to the Targs' downfall and loss of dragons. Misogyny was one critical phenomenon in killing the dynasty after it already killed or ruined several of the dynasties' women.

Focusing on "That is the single point of my thought is that it is his choice, as a writer, not to have any queen regnants even in pre-ASOIAF or prior to Aegon’s Conquest, and when he does [disputed] it is not a success [Rhaenyra’s story, I suppose, can be read as the Empress Matilda/Stephen of Blois struggle]. It’s his choice to turn Rhaenyra into the loser of that battle, his choice to have her set on fire and eaten alive in front of her 10-year-old son, his choice to have her remembered as a paranoid and cruel tyrant, a usurper or traitor as Stannis calls her. It is also his choice not to have another female heir. That could have easily been done in the past events."

I think some of us struggle with GRRM's insistence on "historical precedence" vs how he decides to use such events to end up with condensed re-imaginings and visions of these events through ASoIaF. Because he does well enough for us to notice his flaws or him limiting himself to what exactly anon is pointing out.

A) No Queen Regnants

1.

There were Andal-FM lady "regnants" or queen regnants in the various kingdoms before the Conquest, but as you state, they are either nameless or violently murdered/attacked/or denied leadership (Shiera Blackwood, Agnes Blackwood, Argella Durrandon, Marla Sunderland, etc.) GRRM is very guilty of featuring/showing/giving names or attention to those women who were deposed, put aside for any succession dispute, or violently put aside/murdered/mutilated for his female lady & queen regnants--either/both Targ or pre-Conquest Andal-FM women. And in association or necessary plot event to a man gaining power.

I already mentioned Rhaena (Alyssa Velaryon & Aenys I's firstborn child) in the linked post above but only for her w/Jaehaerys' decisions and not Aenys or Aegon I's decisions that made a female claim lose to her younger brother, Aegon the Uncrowned, when considering who'd succeed after Aenys.

This is how it happened "The Sons of the Dragon":

I also did not explain how this would have happened in that linked post.

Rhaena was born only two generations (23 A.C., "After Conquest", so 23 years after their Conquest) after the conquerors conquered Westeros, and unified it under their own new hegemony. We can see during Aenys' reign that the Faith expected the Targs to put away their incestuous sibling marriage custom and stick to first-cousin-to-unrelated Andal-Faith-approved marriages. They were very willing to militarize themselves against the Targs after Aenys announced Rhaena & her brother's marriage AND after Maegor took more than one wife after Ceryse Hightower didn't birth any kids. But even before all that, Visenya was even one to suggest not allowing Rhaena to be the heir apparent, but marrying her to Maegor to "combine" their claims while making Maegor the next in line for succession.

For the story & timeline GRRM created, yes he chose to make the 2 living conquering Targaryen rulers choose to make the succession less open to a female ruler for political convenience & Targayren-dynasty surety.

2.

But you: "And the thing is that although GRRM is using historical inspiration, it is taken into a fantasy realm where you don’t have to stick to the rules of our reality and history. England had two queens regnants in a row, Mary I and Elizabeth I, and both women were legally bastards."

Nothing against you, anon, but after you say "it's taken into the fantasy realm where you don't have to stick to the rules of our reality and history"...

you then go on to use Mary I & Elizabeth I ("our reality and history") to point out why we should have had more female monarchs specifically on the Iron Throne in Westeros. And neither of these women ruled when Henry already had a male heir in Edward VI, younger than them both. So it seems we are returning to using historical precedent to justify more women becoming rulers in their own, more little-to-uncontested and unshared right.

there were de jure medieval queen or lady regnants, some of them actually practicing real power and celebrated by some contemporary chroniclers--esp if they ruled well to (some) their standards OR they were co-rulers to husbands OR were seen as "helping" them rule: Urraca de León, Empress of "Spain" [1109 – 1126]; Isabella I of Castile and León [1474–1504]; *her daughter, Juana I of Castile [1504 –1555]; *Æthelflæd of Mercia [911–918 AD]; her daughter, Ælfwynn [918]; Mary of Hungary & Croatia [1382-1385; 1386-1395]; Jadwiga of Poland [1384–1399]; Tamar of Georgia [1184-1213]; her daughter Rusudan of Georgia, after her brother [1223–1245]; Claudine, Lady regnant of Monaco [1457–1458]; Joanna I of Naples, similar ascension story to Rhaenyra [1343–1382]; Joanna II of Naples [1414-1435]; Amalasuintha the Ostrogoths, who was deposed & killed after only a few months [534-535]; Petronilla of Aragon [1137-1164]; Berengaria of Castile [6 June – 31 August 1217]; *Blanche I, Queen regnant of Navarre [1425-1441]; Eleanor of Navarre [January 1479–February 1479]; *Catherine of Navarre [*1483, but really kinda 1494-1517 and even her rule is debatable]

the period after the medieval era is the "early modern period", when Henry, Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth all ruled England and when the original proceedings for a more powerful sort of monarch began, a pseudo-absolute monarch in England...while under Henry VIII this absolution was more concrete as he directed it more than it directed him, "ruling" his break away from the Church to become the head of England affected how much ability his kids would have to rule according to their circumstances

Mary & Elizabeth's legitimacy was reinstated by the Parliament passing the 3rd Act of Succession of 1543 so no they were no longer "bastards" -- but in Westeros, there has been no incident--extant or accepted -- where a parent delegitimizes their own child even though the parents were undoubtedly married, reverses it, and neither does Westeros have anything like a Parliament or a branch of government that in any way "checks" the monarch nor does this supposed body have the governemental power over the land...as Westeros never has nor has not a constitutional monarchy. It was also not exactly like a pre-17th century commonwealth, where the idea is that the state's government is for the "public welfare, general good or advantage", which even then is practically "an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown)". Presumably, no one has ever tried, which doesn't mean they couldn't if they had the mind and practical ability to do so, as Henry VIII did. Plus no council or legislative body can just rule for the reinstatement of two female claimants. The regents surrounding Aegon III, Unwin Peake, and his own council are not the same as a Parliamant or voting body. Even after Pope Pius VI declared Elizabeth illegitimate in 1570 in response to the failed Catholic uprising and attempt to bring her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots in the Rising of the North of 1569, Elizabeth continued to rule because other Catholic rulers didn't think it a pragmatic measure to take, instead encouraging more religious persecution of Catholics in England AND "provoked the English government into taking more repressive actions against the Jesuits, whom they feared to be acting in the interests of Spain and the papacy. This reaction soon seemed justified: it was the publication in England of Pius's exhortation that gave the impetus in 1571 to the Ridolfi plot, in which the Duke of Norfolk was to kidnap or murder Queen Elizabeth, install Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne, and then become de facto king by marrying her". The pope after Pius declared Catholics in England should obey Elizabeth. We don't have something this convoluted in Westeros because we just have Westeros as the "EU" monarchial power.

Again, England's monarchy had separated itself from the papacy's influence when in 1534 Henry VIII declared himself the head of the new English church through the Act of Supremacy, got involved with the English Reformation of the Church and its practices, and divorced himself from Catherine of Aragon to marry Elizabeth's mother Anne Boleyn. Meanwhile, Westeros' "papacy" is still very and officially a power in Westeros of its own right at the moment of Aegon-Aenys-Maegor. All this to say that England wouldn't have or would have had a less probability of getting its two queens without Henry breaking away from the Church altogether & limiting his succession options.

Westeros is styled more after a feudal monarchy, where the "rules" are bound more by individuals' power & ideals of leadership and is modeled more from England-France-Germany (northern EU) and Dorne is like a Spanish-Italian state that came under the Westerosi monarchy not because they lost any battle but because of a few diplomatic meetings plus some "lower" level violence.

3.

You also mention the "Empress Matilda/Stephen of Blois struggle"; yes, the Dance mirrors the 1138–1153 Anarchy civil war of England & Normandy. I would say that GRRM purposefully uses this specific event for the Dance to provide context for the stakes of Daenerys Stormborn's own claim and what she will have to face--the result of Rhaenyra losing precipitating the loss of cosmic and political balance not just for noblewomen ruling in Westeros or being safe(r) from abuse and gender violence, but also the loss of dragons for the Long Night/re-empowerment of the Others, as women having more autonomy and power is nearly synonymous with cosmic balance and potential political stability in ASoIaF's themes. Again, fantasy fiction using history as its base & really depends on the big strokes of how those real events -- who ruled in the beginning, what battles, who invaded whom, who ruled by the end.

Matilda the Empress did not die such a cruel or heinous death at her own brother or anything like it nor did her children die such gory deaths. Her son Henry Plantagenet/Henry II did not become this depressed ghost who could only receive happiness after marrying a girl whose beauty was as praised as his own mother's (Daenaera). The result of the anarchy was that Stephen of Blois became King, but Matilda's son became his designated heir over his own living son. He tried & failed to get his son Eustace to become his heir but Pope Eugene III refused, and Stephen got into a lot of intense arguments about it with the clergy... ironically Aegon II had an "easier" time of it since (if we argued that the Faith sent the Shepherd) he got rid of his "clergy" problem by just burning the Shepherd alive. This is what Wikipedia says:

Henry [Matilda's son] invaded England and built an alliance of powerful regional barons to support his claim for the throne. The two armies met at Wallingford, but neither side's barons were keen to fight another pitched battle. Stephen began to examine a negotiated peace, a process hastened by the sudden death of Eustace. Later in the year Stephen and Henry agreed to the Treaty of Winchester, in which Stephen recognised Henry as his heir in exchange for peace, passing over William, Stephen's second son. Stephen died the following year.

At the same time, Stephen of Blois got to rule for more than 10 years to Aegon's 2-yr, uncontested months-long rule. And instead of Aegon II ruling "peacefully", we get Corlys and Larys both plotting his assassination and paving the way for Aegon III PLUS Rhaenyra's supporters still trying to get Aegon off the throne after her death.

B) Legacy

1.

You're right that in fantasy we could have a lot more freedoms or changes AND we never even get to the sort of female rule/Queen regnant that even co-ruled with a man bc Rhaenyra is killed...

but the very acknowledgment of "changes" reveals that there is truth to how real historical accounts characterized, ignored, or left out critical details to make female monarchs or leaders seem to the less favorable option or to feed more into a particular male-prioritized agenda at the time of writing.

Even though some supported some women like Urraca and complimented her legacy there were still those main accounts against her or writing disfavorably of her, as I write about that HERE. poorpaintedshadowedqueens writes about sexist "historians" and some examples HERE:

For example, the Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, which dates from the first half of the 16th century, purports to cover the history of England from its mythological founding to the reign of Henry VIII. Vergil was actually quite meticulous about his sources and made decent efforts to incorporate a lot of different material, but especially as he gets closer to his own lifetime, his biases really begin to show. He includes a scandalous story about King Richard III lusting after his teenaged niece Elizabeth of York and poisoning his wife in order to marry her. Elizabeth, according to him, was disgusted by this prospect and swore she would kill herself before allowing him to dishonour her. But Vergil also includes the detail that Elizabeth’s own mother sent her daughters to court because “so mutable is that sexe” that she fell prey to Richard’s flattery.

Now, when Vergil first came to England, Elizabeth of York was the queen, so he had to tread lightly when talking about events from her own history. But his job was also to make her husband King Henry VII look better, and his predecessor (from whom he’d usurped the crown) look worse, so Elizabeth became a tool Vergil used to blacken Richard III’s reputation.

How does Rhaenyra become more remembered as more paranoid and cruel? Through the book, Fire & Blood's amalgamation of different accounts told both during and after the Dance, with only 3-4 account-tellers being used before the Dance. But before the book existed & Gyldayn wrote it (at the latest, Robert's rule), only these myriad and often conflicting but not first-hand witnessed accounts told Rhaenyra's story. And still, we know that it is only after Rhaenyra raises the taxes on the King's Landing'ers that she's been called "Maegor with Teats". Finally, the maesters have always been in league or supportive of both the Faith/House Hightower bc the Hightowers patronize the Citadel and have had its members joining both the Citadel or the Faith institution, even a few becoming High Septons. There is and is going to be some heavy bias against the female dragonriding Targ who pushes for her claim to the throne. Something the majority nor the most vocal of fans (esp men) have not truly analyzed or considered. Aegon II is not even remembered that fondly.

2.

I also think that is important to consider how in the canonical memory of Rhaenyra being just a tyrant, it is men who claim such. Arianne Martell claims the throne was always hers. Both are trying to legitimize their own political campaigns for the throne, not just focusing on performing acts that have nothing to do w/the Iron Throne.

C) HOWEVER!!!

Yes, GRRM could have chosen to have at least one or two more generations between Maegor and Jaehaerys by making Aerea Queen, then her having a daughter who'd become queen but then only rules for a few years until deposed, then we have a Jaehaerys I figure (I would have done it this way) and we still retain this point about women not being allowed to rule...BUT then we'd have to then question how strong the impact of Rhaenyra's fall would have been though, with a single female monarch existing before her already.

[covenawhite66]

The Vikings landed in Mauretania, present-day Morroco, and moved on the city of Nekor, now partially submerged by the reservoir of the Abdelkrim Khattabi dam. At the time, Nekor was described as one of the greatest centres of Arabic culture in the region of Rif.

The city was defended by Sa’id II ibn Salih, but fell to the raiding Vikings and was sacked over a period of eight days. According to some texts, many of the city inhabitants were taken as slaves, while other accounts claim that Hastein purchased ‘blámenn’, blue men, possibly Soussians or Tuaregs to be sold in the Irish slave markets.

The raid on Nekor is mentioned by Abdullah al-Bakri (based on earlier text), where he describes: “Majūs – God curse them – landed at Nakūr in the year 244 (858–859). They took the city, plundered it, and made its inhabitants slaves, except those who saved themselves by flight. Among their prisoners were Ama al-Raḥmān and Khanūla, daughters of Wakif ibn-Mu’tasim ibn-Ṣāliḥ. Muḥammed ransomed them. The Majūs stayed eight days in Nakūr.”

The same basic tale is recorded by a number of other writers, including the 10th century Andalusi historian Ibn al-Qūṭīya, and the later authors Ibn Idhārī and Ibn Khaldūn, and a version also appears in the late ninth-century Christian Chronicle of Alfonso III.

[intramir]

[bayesic-bitch]

Alt history idea: Populist socialist candidate becomes governor of Delaware, and immediately nationalizes state-izes all companies incorporated in Delaware, which is all of them. The US immediately falls into a weird two-capital situation, with Dover controlling the entire economy, and Washington controlling the military and state bureaucracy, kind of analogous to how medeival Europe had authority split between local kings and and the pope in Rome.

[smbrita3]

crossover prompt?

So I was watching historical based videos about european royalty the other day and just thought -hey, what if medeival Europe just popped in house of the dragon/asoiaf world. Or what if certain historical characters did. Or what if The Catholics did. Or what if Isabella I of Castille replaced alicent hightower like that fics everyone likes making right now about a character replacing alicent's mind/body(?

I mean it would have to involve the idea of God or some deity existing and it's direct involve with Europe, the possibilitie of this royals accepting or seeking magic(?

Or how they would be rather good and faith politic warfare and stuff. Like the Catholics warfare was kind of based in the faith and that. Like the borgias were originally from Aragón.

Come on let's hear you out.

Extra point, just imagine the possibility of Joanna having Phillip eaten by a dragon.😜

[kingsmoot]

re: Westerosi Jews- I always though that the Rhoynar (diasporic people scattered to distant lands by the destruction of their holy sites) and more specifically the Orphans of the Greenblood (culturally and religiously distinct from the majority community, in a legally vulnerable social position, hostages taken by their sovereign to "ensure their good behaviour") were informed by depictions of Jewish people in medieval Europe. Though they're generally having *somewhat* of a better time of it than medieval Jewish communities (they're not regularly subject to mass murder on religious festivals, for one).

:o this is such a cool interpretation of the rhoynar who i have legitimately never thought about before, omg, tysm for sharing! i will personally be incorporating this into my westerosi belief system

even if it wasn't an intentional reference to medeival jewry, i've never stopped to think about the rhoynar as a depiction of a persecuted ethnoreligious minority, you've given me a lot to think about and a lot to search the wiki for

[homely-lunatic]

ok this is hard to explain but like. you know how so much high fantasy draws so explicitly on medeival europe for its core worldbuilding principles but its..... also not at all set in medieval europe? like the fashion, social norms, titles/roles within a monarchy, government systems, architecture, general way of speaking, technology and so on will be so clearly inspired by medieval europe, yet the actual geography, the name of the country, the historical figures, religions etc will be totally unique and specified for the story?

I want that for other time periods. like I wanna see something that can best be described as "medieval europe is to asoiaf as 1970s america is to X." gimme 1920s london but not quite. idk.

[sub-rosa-love]

Fortress Hohensalzburg, Austria

[artthatgivesmefeelings]

Raphael [Italian. 1483 - 1520] An Allegory ('Vision of a Knight'). c.1504

[bewarethecheese]

#Medieval building in the old town of #Tallinn, #Estonia. - www.bewarethecheese.com #photography #travel #europe

[visionsandvistas]

Salzburg, Austria

[thevvitchbitch]

[mariasavidismarkatos]

Dubrovnik the Impregnable Fortress

For hundreds of years invaders from every direction were deterred or defeated by Dubrovnik’s imposing and soaring defensive walls and works. Intimidating to the unwelcome, but a comfort to the residents.

Dubrovnik, Croatia

https://photographybymariasavidis.com/Croatia.html

[timmurleyart]

Amazing Prague. Go see it! 🌟⭐️✨(mixed media in journal) 📓✏️

[shellysfilm]

straight out of a fairy tale ✨

[elena-k-photo]

Instagram