#medieval inheritance law

[synchodai]

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.

[nedlittle]

6 + 17 for the book ask! I started watching mash because of you!

flattered that i convinced someone to watch the 11 season army sitcom from the 70s. apologies if this is because i wouldn't stop yapping about women and mislead you as to what the show is actually about

6. Was there anything you meant to read, but never got to?

SO MANY THINGS. 2024 releases aside bc there are so many: home fire by kamilla shamsie, the women who knew too much: hitchcock and feminist theory by tania modleski, the way of thorn and thunder by daniel heath justice & monstrous regiment by terry pratchett were on my '10 books to read in 2024' list. i didn't do my montmaray journals reread this year and i really hope that the books of jacob by olga tokarczuk is written in the sort of 900-page book cocaine that makes me blast thru the whole thing in a week so i can read it before the year is done but i do not have faith in myself

17. Did any books surprise you with how good they were?

i did my mini tag essay in the last ask abt how surprised i was to find myself enjoying a variety of romance novels. so aside from that the chatelaine by kate heartfield ripped my wig off with such ferocity that it took a layer of grey matter with it. historical fantasy is not really my jam but 1) i've been into the 14th century this year 2) this book cares so much more about the intricacies of inheritance law in medieval belgium than it does about the fantasy aspects (maybe i'm just stupid and bad at understanding fantasy worldbuilding). also the phoenix bride by natasha siegel. i did not like her debut last year but this was a strong improvement. good job natasha

end of year book asks

[theangryhistoriananna]

When someone asks me why it’s taking so long for me to get my book out I’m just gonna send them this.

[deception-united]

Worldbuilding: Questions to Consider

Government & authority:

Types of government: What type of government exists (monarchy, democracy, theocracy, etc.)? Is it centralised or decentralised?

Leadership: Who holds power and how is it acquired (inheritance, election, divine right, conquest)?

Law enforcement: Who enforces the laws (military, police, magical entities)?

Legal system: How are laws made, interpreted, and enforced? Are there courts, judges, or councils?

Laws:

Criminal laws: What constitutes a crime? What are the punishments?

Civil laws: How are disputes between individuals resolved?

Cultural norms: How do customs and traditions influence the laws?

Magic/supernatural: Are there laws governing the use of magic or interaction with supernatural beings?

Social structure:

Class/status: How is society divided (nobility, commoners, slaves)? Are there caste systems or social mobility?

Rights & freedoms: What rights do individuals have (speech, religion, property)?

Discrimination: Are there laws that protect or discriminate against certain groups (race, gender, species, culture)?

Economy & trade:

Currency: What is used as currency? Is it standardised?

Trade laws: Are there regulations on trade, tariffs, or embargoes?

Property laws: How is ownership determined and transferred? Are there inheritance laws?

Religion/belief systems:

Religious authority: What role does religion play in governance? Are religious leaders also political leaders?

Freedom of religion: Are citizens free to practice different religions? If not, which are taboo?

Holy laws: Are there laws based on religious texts or teachings?

Military & defense:

Standing army: Is there a professional military or a militia? Who serves, and how are they recruited?

War & peace: What are the laws regarding war, peace treaties, and diplomacy?

Weapons: Are there restrictions or laws regarding weapons for civilians? What is used as a weapon? Who has access to them?

Technology & magic:

Technological advancements: How advanced is the technology (medieval, steampunk, futuristic, etc.)?

Magical laws: Are there regulations on the use of magic, magical creatures, or artifacts?

Innovation & research: How are inventors and researchers treated? Are there laws protecting intellectual property?

Environmental/resource management:

Natural resources: How are resources like water, minerals, and forests managed and protected, if at all?

Environmental laws: Are there protections for the environment? How are they enforced? Are there consequences for violations?

Cultural & ethical considerations:

Cultural diversity: How does the law accommodate or suppress cultural diversity?

Ethics: What are the ethical foundations of the laws? Are there philosophical or moral principles that underpin them?

Traditions vs. change: Does the society balance tradition with progress? How?

Happy writing ❤

Previous | Next

[kiwianacat]

My ADHD riddled brain is rreeally driving me to do anything other than catch up on important deadlines right now, so here's not one but two family trees for my increasingly convoluted, vauglely medieval set Warriors au.

The first tree shows all of Crookedstar and Oakheart's descendants (excluding Storm and Reed's eventual families), while the second would be a more "in-universe" tree, that shows the four most recent stewards of River's Kingdom and their closest adult relatives. There'll be a couple errors here to ignore; I've already spotted that I forgot to fix Reedwhisker's name.

I chopped and pasted together a few different families for the sake of fun succession dramas. I've also written a ramble about succession and family history because whyy nott.

Succession: 

In the four kingdoms things like “bloodlines”or “birthrights”are considered to be of great importance and you cannot be adopted into a given bloodline. ((*this isn’t a concept I agree with, but is standard in medieval settings and would be actively challenged within the au)) These laws are also mostly only applicable to the higher classes of noble families. Families of common-born folk (such as Firestar’s birth family) are “nameless”having no surname, house or lands to pass on.

I’m trying to make the rules of inheritance/succession in this au dependent mainly on birth order regardless of gender which would've been typical in most medieval settings. This makes things slightly convoluted, but bear with me lmao. 

Across all four kingdoms it’s standard for the first born to inherit/pass on the titles of their house while the second born adopts the titles of whomever they marry and cannot inherit a lordship. The third and further born can only pass on titles if they marry someone of a “lesser”family, or with a weaker connection to their bloodline (such as being second born or later in the birth order). However if the first or second born dies they instead adopt their responsibilities meaning they can potentially become heirs/lords, unlike second borns. It’s typically preferred to have at least three children for this reason; with two there’s a greater risk of the house’s name dying.

Having a child out of wedlock is incredibly taboo and in certain contexts (largely depending on the current ruler) can result in exile, forfeiting all names and titles. It’s not technically illegal to have a relationship across kingdom borders; but these relationships will very rarely be ordained by a legitimate priest/cleric, especially in times of conflict. Children can be born through surrogacy in the case of same-sex marriage, but the surrogate must be from the same house as the second parent for them to have inheritance rights (although there are ways to hide illegitimate children under this rule)

House Chell

Stewards and Heirs of the King River Chell

River’s Kingdom considers the River Chell to be their rightful king, possessing the spirit of King Riverstar and his “truest” descendants act only as his stewards to carry out his will. Stewards (or Highlords as they are titled) essentially have the same rights and rulings as the kings of the other three kingdoms however. They also still wear crowns, because I like to draw them (although they would not inherit the original founder's crown as the other rulers typically do, instead having unique crowns per ruler)

Typically Highlord’s will choose their own heirs, ideally their firstborns as they can pass on their titles (the “strongest”line of succession always follows the first born), however they can also choose from any descendant that inherits the Chell name. If they die without naming a successor it’s the duty of the lords to decide the next Highlord communally from this pool of descendants.

In this au Misty, Stone and Moss are bio kits of CrookedBlue, raised by GreyOak. Crookedstar named them Stonepath and Mistywood in reference to his past meetings with Bluefur, hidden in the woods near the Sunningrock Ruins.

(this also changes Stormfur's name to Stormpath, as I always hcced is Warrior name as being in honour of his mentor)

((also GreyOak are probably in more of a QPR type relationship, the romantic label is an over-simplification))

Crookedstar had named Silverstream as his heir and failed to name a new successor after her death. At the time Mistywood and Stonepath were considered ineligible as the children of the late second born Oakheart Chell. Leopardfur had inherited the Chell name through her mother Brightsky, a third born daughter of Hailstar and was chosen by the lords over Silverstreams’s kits, although she had to accept Storm as an heir until she had alternate choices.

Leopardstar technically had a weaker claim to the throne than Storm and Feather and a much weaker claim than Mistywood and Stonepath, once they were exposed as Crookedstar’s bio kits. This was a motivating factor for her joining forces with Tigerstar and she campaigned against all four, declaring them invalid as heirs due to their mixed heritages, stripping their knighthoods and titles and forcing Stone to fight to regain his in a bloody execution. 

She married Tigerstar in a political move (she didn’t love him; they were using each other), and Hawk and Moth were born to this marriage, Hawk named as heir.

Public opinion of this was mixed at the time and tides turned against her after Tigerstar’s death, eventually leading to her being usurped and disposed of, with Mistywood inheriting her title. Hawk, Moth, Storm, Feather and Reed grew up alongside each other as potential heirs. Hawkfrost grew to become a political pawn of a faction of nobles who still held support for Leopardstar, resenting that Mistystar eventually chose her son Reedwhisker to succeed her despite initially preparing Hawk for the role.

Much much later on a succession crisis occurs after Mistystar and Reedwhisker both die, leaving a large pool of descendants that carry the Chell name (Curlfeather and her kits, Splashtail and others who were potentially born to Feather, Storm or Hawk, I’m not sure yet)

I'd love to have a look at the other Kingdom's and their royal families at some point, I already have a good idea of how the Kingdom of Thunder's works. It's worth stating that in all Kingdoms it's required for the ruler to directly inherit the blood of a founder to have the "right"to rule, which is eventually challenged when Bluestar makes Fireheart her heir, leading to conflict and political change.

I'm having too much fun, I really want to make some maps and location sketches and mounts and weapons and timelines and more family trees aughhhhh

[ilikefelines]

Sigh.

No, Westeros isn't an absolute monarchy it's a medieval vassalage and the king's word is only law when he can enforce it. Rhaenyra's - I like her book character not so much the show where they white washed her - children aren't legitimate just because the king and the Velaryon's pretend they are. Blood and legality are inextricably linked in this world - it was made pretty obvious in the main series of books.

Now, some people will argue that it's fine that her kid's aren't Laenors because their claim comes through her. The thing is

a) people can only have a claim when they're trueborn/legitimised by royal decree. Example: If a bastard of House Mooton said that his bastardy didn't matter and that he could press his claim to lordship of Maidenpool because it rests solely on the fact that he has his lordly father's blood, irrespective of legitimacy, people would laugh at him.

You need to be trueborn as well, because then what would stop bastards with noble blood from attempting to usurp their noble family's inheritance? Noble blood and being trueborn is what makes a claim, elsewise we could argue that even dragon-seed's have a right to the throne.

b) this whole line of argument ignores the dynastic reasons behind Rhaenyra's marriage to her cousin Laenor. It was to combine both of their powerful claims to the throne. Laenor was the son of Rhaenys, who under Andal Law, had more right to the throne than Viserys. Viserys hoped that by marrying Rhaenyra to Laenor he could bolster her children's claim to the throne.

Combining the two powerful claims - and prior to Viserys's kingship Laenor's claim was more powerful that Rhaenyra's and arguably after - was the entire purpose of the marriage. If they'd produced trueborn children those kids would've have been able to assert their claim to the Iron Throne because of both their mothers - and crucially as much as the fandom likes to ignore this - their father's blood.

This is what I think and what I believe the source material to be telling us. You've a right to agree or disagree but PLEASE keep it respectful. No, I don't hate TB stans I just really disagree with them but that shouldn't stop us from having a polite conversation, right?

[bunnyshideawayy]

a rumored bastard and a proven, disinherited, legally illegitimate recognized bastard are not the same.

Rhaenyra’s sons are rumored bastards, i know the show has a lot of team green stans feeling bold but just as in the books, they are never legally considered bastards in the show either. they are speculated to be via their physical features and Laenor’s apparent sexuality, but since Laenor and the KING (btw Westeros is a absolute monarchy, meaning the king IS law) both claim all three boys as legitimate heirs, unless someone demands a medieval dna test, those kids are legally Laenor’s true sons.

this is apparently a very hard concept to understand for some, hell even Alicent in the show says something like “we can all tell” which fair point, but that is not proof enough. looks, accusations, and rumor are not the same as actual proof of adultery or bastardy.

someone i was having a “discussion” with used Joffrey as an example to point out a flaw in my logic, but ultimately proved my point. Joffrey was a rumored bastard. Ned himself had no more proof than Alicent does, just hair color and a hunch, so Joffrey was never legally disinherited from the line of succession. I hate to defend either of these men but King Robert never publicly disowned him and called him bastard, which is why Joffrey ascended to the Iron Throne. now the rumors did hurt, and caused huge political issues leading to the War of 5 Kings, which is exactly why Alicent and Team Green is so insistent that Rhaenyra’s children are illegitimate, they know they cannot legally or physically prove her children are bastards, especially when Laenor and the King are claiming them are true born, but they can spread the rumor and call into question Rhaenyra’s honesty and morality. think episode 8 when team green takes their chance with Vaemond to attempt a coup of sorts for the Driftmark Throne, why would the succession of Driftmark need to be settled if Rhaenyra’s sons are true born? why would Alicent / Otto need to make this decision in place of the sick king and mia lord of tides who both had already been stating Luke would inherit for years. it’s all apart of the scheme to tarnish Rhaenyra’s reputation as Vaemond has no other proof either, and promptly loses his head (both metaphorically and literally) by calling the recognized heir to the throne a whore and her children bastards with no proof in front of the whole court.

it is a political scheme on both sides, Alicent cannot prove anything, and Rhaenyra cannot disprove the rumors no matter how many times they are claimed as true born sons. Rhaenyra has to live in the comfort the law gives her, as legally her sons are seen as legitimate, and thus legally they are protected. and from an unbiased pov with both in universe and historical references, those kids might be bastards in actually but not legally.

Rhaenyra goes through hell to keep her children legally protected, not only for their sake but for hers because should the truth come out both her and Laenor would be seriously punished, i wouldn’t go as far as executed but that would depend on if Viserys was old and bed ridden or dead. which is why im making this incredibly long post repeating myself in every point. you can argue all day about Rhaenyra’s children and their parentage but i am making this to make it clear that her children are not *legally* bastards by Westeros law. in order for Jace, Luke, and Joffrey to be illegitimate bastards Laenor, Rhaenyra, Harwin, and/or Viserys would have to publicly acknowledge them as such and disinherit them. no, Laenor and Viserys dying do not magically make Rhaenyra’s children legal bastards either. they would, again, need to be claimed and proven as such and disinherited.

and at the end of it all, true or not true, the rumors made a lasting impact on the story. so much so this fandom is still debating this topic, and frankly i am dreading the season 2 release when all the bad takes and bad faith arguments start up again.

anyway other famous rumored bastards are in Targ history are:

Maegor

Daeron II

[gyno-supremacy]

FEMDOM Lit No. 2

RECOVERED BY FEMDOMLITERATURE.TUMBLR.COM

FemLit # 931 - The International Gynarchy Movement ([From] The A to Z) - Long Read

Introduction.

Most of society has lived under the failed patriarchy system, which exists in denial of the true superiority of the Female gender. The time has come for society to make the final shift and both acknowledge and embrace the truth that is Gynarchy and Female superiority. To truly make the world a better place, society doesn’t need gender equality, only a total global Gynarchy can help. Gynarchy proclaims the natural and biological superiority of Woman over man, and to the benefit of the planet and to all people, male or Female, of the empowerment of Woman.

A Gynarchy is a society and government by and for Female interests, including any establishment of laws and bureaucracies that benefit Women. A Gynarchy is synonymous with what is also commonly referred to as “Feminist governance,“ a "Femocracy,” or a “Petticoat government.” Under a Gynarchy, Women are the superior gender with men being second-class subservient citizens. Under a Gynarchy, individual households would be run in a Matriarchy fashion where the Wife is not subject to, but superior to Her husband. The aim of Gynarchy is to reorganize society and government in such a way as to empower Women, prioritize the interests of Women, and to enable every male to develop and use all his capabilities and powers in subjugation to the Female will. This will be achieved by means of the permanent transfer of private property in the form of land and inheritance to exclusively Female hands, and by the indenture of males to individual or collective Feminine groups, within a new Gynarchic society. Ultimately, the end result is that Female domination of the family, politics, business, school, and society in general will solve or improve the social problems that currently plague the world.

There will be many stages to the rise of the Gynarchy, including developments in politics, economics, society, and culture. Many of these changes will occur naturally, but as Women and men become more aware of the benefits, and become more Gynarchy minded, these changes will come faster as society actively moves itself in the right direction. The beginning of the declared Gynarchy will come when Gynarchic parties have secured a clear mandate, Female supremacy ideology is publicly acknowledged and promoted. The Gynarchy will be declared with the passing of the marriage act. The marriage act will define the Wife as the head of the household in Female-male couples, and give the Wife full power of authority over Her husband. While exercise of the full extent of this power will be entirely up the each Wife to choose, at any time She will have the legal right to overrule Her husband, and will essentially own him in a legal sense for the duration of their union. This will give all Women a taste of the dominance they can enjoy in the new order, rapidly speeding up Women’s participation in bringing about total Female supremacy. The changes brought on by this first act will make the Gynarchy a reality and begin the transformation of society in a totally Female dominated direction.

The new world under a Gynarchy will be very much the same as the world today, only much improved in many ways. As the Gynarchy develops, and culture changes to fit the interests and mentalities of the Women and men living in the society, there will be fundamental shifts in popular art, entertainment, sports, public life, home life, and interpersonal relationships. As total Female dominance becomes generational, younger generations will be so totally immersed in the culture that it would be hard to imagine what life was like before the Gynarchy. Ask young people of today if they had a choice would they prefer to live in medieval society, or in the society of the 1870s. Most with any knowledge of what life was like for most people in those time periods would find those societies to be fraught with social problems, injustice, and misery, and would not prefer to live in such a world. Those living in the realized Gynarchy will likely have a similar view of the late-20th and early 21st centuries, and few would see the “loss” of some “rights” for men as a worthy excuse for the barbarism, excesses, and miseries of the patriarchal world. True, men will be in some ways second-class citizens in the Gynarchy, but the world filled with the love, beauty, and compassion of Female leadership will not be something many men would be interested in giving up. Most men will be far too concerned with the happiness of the Women in their lives, whom they care for deeply, to worry themselves with such backwards notions anyway.

Politics & Law.

A Female dominant society is dependent upon transforming global governments into a Gynarchy. In a Gynarchy… politics, leadership, law and management will be the realm of Women. While the support of “enlightened” men will be important to the transition to Gynarchy, ultimately the ability of men to vote will be logically removed. Some laws will need to be enacted to ensure the total compliance of men to the new order.

Absolutely essential to bringing about the Gynarchy and all it’s benefits are five laws:

1.-) A law banning men from voting:

In a Gynarchic society, only Women will be allowed to vote in government elections. Removing the ability of men to vote is important, not only for its symbolism, but also equally as vital for removing the male ego from ruining the world through greed and violence. This will also make bringing about other important changes to law much easier.

2.-) A law banning men from holding key positions in office:

Just like a law banning men from voting, removing the ability of men to hold office is equally as important for its symbolism, as well as removing the male ego from ruining the world through greed and violence. This will also make bringing about other important changes to law much easier.

3.-) An amendment redefining existing sexual harassment laws:

Existing laws defining sexual harassment would need to be amended to state that harassment or showing disrespectful behavior towards Women by a man will be forbidden and made legally punishable. Furthermore, the amended law would also have to state that harassment and speaking or showing disrespectful behavior towards a man by a Woman will be legally protected.

4.-) An amendment giving the right to each and every Woman to discipline men:

The right of Women to discipline men, within legally described limits of safety and situation, will need to be fully protected under law. On the other hand, violence or physical force of any kind against a Woman by a man will carry heavy punishments.

5.-) An amendment banning men from inherit land and wealth:

In a Gynarchic society, only Women must be allowed to inherit land and wealth. The right of Women to inherit land and wealth from their Female relatives must be given in the new compendium of Gynarchic laws, making inheritance an exclusive Women’s right, excluding males from any economic or financial system. It means that in a Gynarchic Family, the Daughter must be the only one who should take care of Her Family assets. It must be the Daughter the only one who must have the right to inherit all the land and wealth from Her Mother, even  overriding Her own father in hierarchy on this right. Being the only two exceptions for this rule:

1.-) When there is not a Female descendant;

In this case a financial Female-guardian must be appointed to both father and son or any other Female-relative, in case the Mother suddenly passes away, it will be their Female-guardian or Female-relative the one who must look for the good of father and son, only if the Mother passes away.

2.-) When a Mother decides to transfer some part of Her wealth directly and exclusively to Her Daughter in law, aka Her son’s Mistress Wife;

In this case a Mother can decide to inherit 80% of all Her wealth to Her biological Daughter, and 20% to Her Daughter in law, or whatever She decides fit better for Her Gynarchic Family.

While different places may have additional Gynarchy based laws, these simple changes will be all that is necessary to bring about the positive social effects a Gynarchy government can bring. Little else will change, but crime, poverty, war, and many other social problems will be drastically reduced or even eliminated all together. It seems a very small price to pay for an end to so much human suffering. Men will still be totally free to make life choices for themselves, and to come and go, within the limits of their own lives. As in any society, there will be some people who don’t agree with the principles of the prime culture, and imagine that things would be better without the Gynarchy. Due to Female supremacy education, and the great benefits the society imparts towards Women, few Women will feel strongly enough this way to undermine the gains of the Gynarchy. Similarly, most men will realize the great virtue of Female leadership, and will be increasingly raised to find it normal and preferable.

Nonetheless, there will be ”male agitators” and an undercurrent of “male liberation” gender equality supporters. While any agitators will be given a stern response, peaceful male disagreement will be tolerated, albeit widely ridiculed in culture and public discourse. Due to the end of male suffrage, and the teaching of history showing the horrors of the patriarchy, these ideas will not be widespread or ever achieve any meaningful political traction.

Gender Roles.

In the Gynarchy, Female domination of men’s personal lives will be omnipresent, institutionalized, culturally celebrated, and even enforced. Imagine a gender-reversed 1950’s, with the sexual spirit of the late 1960’s, the tolerance of all people arising in our present day, with the technology of the near future. Certainly Women will occupy all political offices, positions of authority, and all managerial or executive jobs, and certainly, many Women will prefer to keep their men at home in the role of “househusband.”

Men will still be free to choose their own lives. Those that end up there will end up there because they will choose it willingly, and usually gladly. However men can be just as bright, creative, insightful, and inventive as Women, and humankind would not benefit from losing all those talents that men have to offer. Men can still learn and take a career in any field they choose, they will simply be barred from having authority over Women. There is no reason any administrative position can’t simply be filled by a competent Woman instead. Men holding leadership positions is absolutely not necessary in any way, and serves only their vanity and petty competition for dominance over other men. If a man does not have a valuable contribution to make as an artist, designer, scientist, mechanic, engineer, or other intellectual occupation, there is no need for him to be involved in any job that could be filled by a Woman instead. The world is just as it is today, only if the job is to be the boss of anyone, that job will only be held by a Woman. Even with future advances in robotics and automation, there will still be plenty of jobs for men as laborers. In addition, instead of military service, men will be able to enter into service of society in the State Service run by prominent Female-led societies. Male fashion will be indicative of their gender’s role, because Women will largely be controlling what their men wear, and more so as time goes on, but also because all the clothes for men will be designed and produced by companies run by Women.

As Women will have the general authority to overrule, control, and manage men, society wide attitudes and practices will shift accordingly. As Women will have direct and specific authority over the men subordinate to them in different areas of their lives, management of smaller and more day to day aspects of a man’s life will eventually become a natural part of life.

Society.

Under a Gynarchy government, the world will be entirely run by Women, with the needs, interests, and preferences of Women made the focus of all social activity. Society will be geared around maximizing independence, recreation, and happiness for Women. Men’s happiness will be the secondary goal, except in any way in which it interferes with maximum possible happiness of all Women involved. Men will be raised and encouraged to take pleasure in social events and arrangements that make Women happy and try always to satisfy even the smallest desires of a Woman.

Public Life.

Public life in the first years of the Gynarchy will see the beginning of changes in dress, behavior, and activities, but will not be drastically different from before. Within a decade or two, however, social life will have been totally transformed by the interests, behaviors, and priorities of the Women raised in the Gynarchy. The social taboos and repressed culture of the patriarchy will be totally replaced by the practical, enjoyable, and uninhibited environment of the Gynarchy.

Fashion.

Among the earliest signs of the Gynarchy will be the decline of men wearing pants. This will prove to be one of the Gynarchy’s most important cultural developments, as it will speed along and solidify the rise of Female supremacy in society. The change will happen as Women in relationships stop allowing their men to wear pants, single men begin desiring their new clothing options, and over time as designers and clothing companies stop making pants for men. This will make the new world order highly visible, allowing Gynarchy prone men to embrace and promote the changes in society, and helping resistant men accept, embody, and internalize their new roles and positions.

While Women’s fashion will still include a huge variety of clothing choices, there will naturally be some shifts to styles that reflect Women’s power, domination, and authority. This will mean more business and professional looks, more pants in general, more boots, and more intimidating looks. However Women will still choose all the styles they enjoy, and as their sexuality is a huge part of their dominance and control of men, there may be an increase in sexy and revealing styles, with Women choosing options that highlight and celebrate the Female body. Despite shifts in popularity of styles, Women will choose any fashion styles they like, and Women will choose a wide range of choices just as they do today. The effect of Gynarchy fashion on other aspects of society will be manifold, as it visibly reiterates the primary basis of the new society - the enhancement of Women’s privilege, and the removal of male privilege.

Culture.

Culture is a reflection of the interests and values of the society that produces it. Cultural products are dictated by the needs and wants of that society. Culture evolves when it’s products influence members of society, imparting common beliefs, practices, and attitudes. The culture of the Gynarchy will initially be a Female dominated take on the culture of the patriarchy, but over time will build and reinforce itself until its products are uniquely Gynarchic in origin. This will mean new art, sculptures,  statues, paintings, parks, literature, social groups, media, music, fashion, film industry, theater, TV series, TV shows, TV Ads, TV nightly news, marketing, internet, architecture, furniture, clothing, machines, tools, sex toys, sports, games, public events, and any other aspect of society.

Relationships.

Relationships in the Gynarchy will come in all shapes, just as today. There will be a variety of heterosexual relationships, depending on the personalities involved, but generally speaking most could be described as ‘Female lead’, 'Female dominated’, or 'totally Female controlled’. While homosexual couples of both sexes will experience little difference in the range of relationships they would find in the present day, heterosexual couples will be experiencing a total transformation and reversal of normalcy from back in the dark ages of the patriarchy.

In the early years of Gynarchy there will still be many men seeking out Women who exercise as little of their right to dominance as possible, and enough Women out there who don’t want to be dominant towards men, that certain patriarchal forms will still persist. After the first generation fully raised in the Gynarchy, and even more so after the second, the majority of Women will have been raised with the confidence, attitude, and expectation of male submissiveness that will empower them to fully actualize the spirit of the Gynarchy.

Similarly, men raised by Gynarchic institutions such as in their public school, government, workplace, and social groups, will still become immersed in proper Female-led education, even if their Mothers still runs a backward boy-coddling home. This will mean that eventually it will be hard to find a Woman to date that is not at least moderately dominant towards men, and equally hard to find a man to date that isn’t looking for Female leadership from his partner. Each gender will have been raised to expect and feel comfortable in those roles, and this will mean more often than not, will enjoy the completeness and deep satisfaction that Female dominated relationships bring. Sure, there will always be some Women who prefer the sub-culture of some male authority in private, and this is of course their preference and choice. An even greater percentage will probably have tried some role playing, or role reversal to change things up or for fun from time to time, but this kind of thing is always a word away from being back under Female control. It is a world where the Woman is free to be Herself, to dress in as much or as little as She wishes, in any style, to love Her interests and share them or keep them to Herself as She wishes, and to expect and demand that a relationship is all about impressing, pleasing, and obeying Her, no matter what Her life preferences are.

Men will have the right to choose as well, but their choices will be different. Not getting into a relationship with a dominant Woman will mean very little chance of any kind of regular release from their chastity devices, in other words less ejaculations. Instead finding a partner that is right for them will be still very much part of a man’s life under Gynarchy, although the constancy of male chastity will be essential since a very early age in his life, the best way always will be to enforce male chastity on boys since they reach puberty, this way they will get  accustomed to it and will not have struggles later in life, this will certainly make most men far less picky, more passive and submissive towards Women and far more accommodating than they are today.

While breaking up with a man that is not working out, or isn’t a good long-term fit will be easy for a Woman, relationships are a bit more of a commitment for a man. A man can date a Woman just as simply as today, even get sexual with his mouth, ass, and hands, but to get his chastity key into the hands of a Woman from the Department of Men or his own Mother, She has to agree to become into his Keyholder, referred to as his 'Mistress’ or his 'Girlfriend.’ Both terms have the same meaning in a legal and societal sense. This means She had to arrange to get his key from his Mother, Female-guardian, the Department of Men, his current Female Boss, or his previous Girlfriend or Mistress.

When a break-up occurs, the key either returns to the previous holder, or the ex-girlfriend can simply retain it. This means breaking up with a Girl that does not want to break up isn’t always a simple proposition or a good idea for a male under Gynarchy. While a boy can certainly get a legal injunction to have his key returned to the Department of Men, or his Female Boss, or his Mother/Female-guardian, this requires a bit of effort and is not a quickly process, as it requires schedules. This should seriously improve the seriousness with which men enter into relationships in Gynarchy, and help to improve their behavior during a relationship, and if it comes to it, at the end of one. There is also the possibility that if a now ex-Girlfriend and/or Witnesses testify regarding the man’s behavior that lead to the break-up, a judge might not even allow the key to be returned.

There are also legal provisions which allow the transfer of keys to other Women entirely at the Keyholder’s consent. These are primarily used for situations where a Woman is travelling for work or other reasons and wishes to assign another temporary Authority. Due to this, a Woman can sign over a key legally to another Woman and break up with a man, leaving him to choose between convincing Her to return it somewhere else, allow him to have releases, or wait the four to six months waiting period before a temporary Keyholding permit expires. This is another freedom of choice that is a man’s right, and he can choose which ever of those three options he wishes!

The male’s choices after a Keyholder Woman breaks up with him under Gynarchy, regarding his male chastity device:

1.-) Convincing Her to return his keys somewhere else. It could be another Woman/Mistress/ex-Girlfriend/current Female Boss/his Mother/his Aunt/any other Female-relative.

2.-) Convincing Her to allow releases for him. This option is very unlikely to happen, as it was the Woman the one who wanted to break up with him.

3.-) Waiting from four months for adolescents to six months for grown up males for the Department of Men until the temporary Keyholding permit expires. A waiting period that any male on Gynarchy must get used to when a break up with his Girlfriend/Mistress occurs.

Marriage.

Most heterosexual marriages in the patriarchy are Female dominated, although that domination is often subtle, unspoken, or otherwise framed to placate the male ego. In the Gynarchy, this very normal state will be institutionalized, openly acknowledged, and legally enshrined. Women in Female-male marriages are for the most part the full legal owners of their husbands, and enjoy a number of privileges in regards to their male property.

These ownership rights include a wide range of powers, such as power of attorney, full power over property and finances, medical procedures, body modification, dress and appearance, chastity belt key, right to orgasm control, right to discipline, right to use of body, right to unlimited sexual access, and right to enforce obedience.

Unlike options for breaking off a relationship with a Girlfriend, options for divorce instituted by a male are extremely limited if not null, though not entirely impossible. Essentially, marriage is a permanent ownership situation, unless one partner passes away, or the Woman institutes divorce. There is nothing in society requiring men or Women to get married, and thus marriage is simply a beautiful, total, and legal affirmation of the devotion of a man to a Woman, and of the dedicated mastery of a man by a Woman. Married men can expect to be as busy, controlled, and limited as their Wives choose, or don’t choose, and obviously this is something they should have a good sense about what to expect before they enter into marriage.

Married Women can expect that they have full power to alter the nature of their life, relationship, and how time is spent, as they please, and in the state of marriage have even less concern about enforcing changes upon their male partners than they do when dating or in a committed relationship.

Every Woman is a Queen of Her relationship, and absolute Ruler in Her own home, and thus the vast majority of Women have a throne, a seat of any kind that is kept in the home as a symbol of their Rule. As Royalty, Wives can dictate as they please as much or as little rules of behavior in their presence and in their home upon their husbands. In essence a married man is an active extension of his Wife’s life and person, and is expected to act as such accordingly to Her likes, personality, commands and wishes.

Yet another thing that would change under a Gynarchy is the patriarchal traditions of a man asking the father of his Girlfriend permission to marry Her and a father giving away the bride at the Wedding. These traditions harks back to the time when young Girls were considered the property and financial burden of their fathers and were handed off as such to their husbands. But even without those connotations, neither of these patriarchal traditions make sense in a in a Gynarchy society.

In the Gynarchy it will be the Mother/Female-guardian the one who will be asked by Her son’s Girlfriend/Mistress to marry Her son and the Mother/Female-guardian will be the one that will accept or deny a request of permission to marry him. The Gynarchic Weddings may vary but they will be the same from Gynarchy district to Gynarchy district, it will be Weddings where in most of the cases the Mother will pass Her son’s chastity keys to Her Daughter in law, aka Her son’s new Mistress Wife at some point during the Gynarchic Wedding ceremony.

Yet another patriarchal tradition that will end under a Gynarchy is the tradition of a Woman changing Her last name to the name of Her husband once they are married. Under Gynarchy, it would be common practice for both the Woman and the man to keep their given names, unless the Woman decides to change either Her last name or Her husband’s last name. Ultimately, it is the Woman’s decision whose name gets changed, if either name gets changed. Thus in the majority of cases, the Woman will require Her husband to take Her last name, because of the culture under Gynarchy. At some point in the coming Gynarchy, it will be totally normal for husbands to take upon their Wife’s names, as a part of the societal standards and it will be institutionalized and fully promoted by the Gynarchic State.

BLESSED BE THE GYNARCHIC GODDESS.

Our most sincere thanks to FemdomLiterature here on Tumblr for their effort to preserve these important articles in Female Domination (FEMDOM,) Female Supremacy (FS) & Gynarchy (Gyn) which will help grow in their Gynarchic values & principles to the future generations to come.

"Among millions of stars you shone."

[calisources]

𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑? 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐔𝐂𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐔𝐂𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐒.

All these quotes are taken from different media and some made from scratch about the royal succession line and the troubles it brought during a medieval/fantasy period. Change pronouns, names, titles and locations as you see fit.

You poison a king so that they may take his place.

Have no fear, Stark. I was only keeping it warm for our friend Robert. It's not a very comfortable seat, I'm afraid.

I swear to you, sitting a throne is a thousand times harder than winning one.

Seat Stannis on the Iron Throne and I promise you, the realm will bleed.

I will claim the Iron Throne by myself, with your swords and your allegiance.

If Daenerys is no more than a sweet young girl, the Iron Throne will cut her into sweet young pieces.

Princess Catherine. Your loss has endeared you to the people. They share your grief.

 You've had your courses for days, but you do not tell anyone. I don't understand.

God would have me wed Prince Harry.

But you are his brother's widow. It is impossible. It is forbidden.

I am every inch the soldier... And commander.

In England, widows don't handle swords, much less a widow carrying a prince in her womb. 

And I'll wager that you were praying for a boy.

My mother is already planning my next marriage, though in God's eyes it will be my first marriage.

If you are still a maid, then, Catherine, I can be your husband. 

I will raise you up, you... you and all of England. You will be my princess and... and my queen.

Ten years since the king has been on the throne and there is no heir apparent. Only his brother, gods forbid. 

Daughters don’t inherit, sons do. 

You have a son but you must have a spare too. Gods know what would happen if the boy dies.

The line of succession is clear on these matters. Girls are the last resource.

I am a woman, whoever I marry must be clear on his duty. He is not the crown, I am.

His Majesty has no male heir and will have none but he, Buckingham will succeed to the throne.

By assassinating His Majesty.

Right of Conquest is still a rightful way to gain a throne. Has anyone banned it as a law?

Will you like it when an old man tries to make love to you?

 God forbid that the king should abandon her just to ease his own conscience. I don't think the English people would ever forgive him.

She is threatening the peace in this realm by playing the king with empty promises. No one can predict a son. 

Perhaps the succession must change, this dynasty is large and will survive.

Your Majesty, I beg that you yield to the King's will.

To your wife, the mother of your child. You treat me so unkindly and in public neglect me.

You think he might invade England in support of the queen?

You underestimate the support he/she has with the smallfolk and highborn alike. They would  go to war if you dismiss them.

Perhaps, one day this little girl will preside over empires.

Now I am indeed Queen.

Perhaps Elizabeth isn't even mine! 

Perhaps there should be reasons to annul the marriage and make the king consider marry another. He is still young. 

Nothing like a young bride to make a man forget his troubles. 

He will have his heir or else he will have my head.

Tell Sir Francis to double the guards around the Princess Mary and defend her with their life- for if the King dies, some will be for the boy, others for her.

There shall be a proclamation soon, the king shall announce his heir and the realm will rest.

A lifetime of building an empire can fall in a day because of the wrong successor to the empire.

It is not by blood, anyhow, that man's true continuity is established.

He became their king by right of blood; he's held the position by beating the crap out of anyone who tries to take it away.

When the crown is weak and struggles, anyone can come and sweep it away. And in this world, it is allowed.

This small council tried to work out what that meant for the line of succession.

If she were to wed him, her claim to the throne will increase, as her popularity. 

While the king entertains the highborns, the prince/princess makes friends with the people they rule. The decision is easy.

Whoever he marries is as important as how many heirs he can produce. 

Sons are good for the realm, Daughters are good for alliances. 

My father chose me, his firstborn child, to succeed him. He held to his decision until death.

They stole my crown and murdered my daughter, and they shall answer for it.

I would rather feed my sons to the dragons, than have them carry spears and cups for your drunken, usurper cunt of a king.

I understand why you're angry. And you are my sister and technically have a claim to the throne. And believe me, I would love for someone else to rule. But it can't be you.

Father would hate to see you sit in his seat, when it was never you he chose.

The pretty decent king split the crown between his heirs.

Proclamations are good, but this should have been in written, send to every corner of the world. Now we have war.

When the king needed to be replaced, one of the royal family would be elected to be the new king.

Succession is never peaceful. The King new this and the reason he called a council for his new heir to be chosen.

The line must always continue.

That little bit of dragon blood in him allowed Robert Baratheon to sit on the throne and continue.

Our son is a wastrel and a halfwit. We shudder to think of the throne in his hands.

My greatest hope is that you will surpass me in every way, consigning my name to some forgotten corner of history.

What's most important is what he isn't like—his father. I think you'll find him to be a reasonable man.

The King is easily controlled by those in his council. All too happy to give some of the power away to another.

A king is a martyr to their ideals.

If the world of men is to survive, a Targaryen must be seated on the Iron Throne.

Women can rule as wise as men, perhaps even more.

Men would sooner put the realm to the torch than see a woman ascend the Iron Throne.

Have you never imagined yourself on the Iron Throne?

We have royal wombs, you and I. The child bed is our battlefield.

Ten years you’ve been king, and yet not once have you asked me to be your Hand.

The princess remains your best bet to step closer to the throne. Seduce her, marry her. 

In the end, history will remember little, as history is written by the winners.

You have not one son now but two, Your Grace. Perhaps some changes to the successions are to be made.

I know why you are here. Men want my crown as much as they want the pleasure of a woman. 

I need to give the realm an heir and plenty of spares. 

What use is to gain a throne if you are already in crisis by having no heir by blood?

I can give you what she never gave you. Another son. 

Are the rumors true, then? There is a child in your belly? 

All of my father’s work will crumble if I leave it all to a weak sickly child.

[applepie2523]

"Hot Take: Rhaenyra Ascending the Throne Wouldn't Make Life Better for Women

One thing I always debate with many Black fans is the notion that Rhaenyra becoming Queen would therefore help improve life for women in Westeros. I just saw a post online claiming if Rhaenyra had ascended peacefully the life of Targaryen women after her wouldn't have been so bad. Examples cited included Naerys not being forced to marry her brother for example, or that there would be more Queen Alysannes or Queen Visenyas who fought or passed laws. Therefore by taking the throne, the Greens are then directly responsible for the misery of every woman after the Dance. I can understand where they're coming from I mean Rhaenyra is a woman who is well aware of the issues facing her on the basis of her sex in Westeros. Naturally, one would believe she would be inclined to help fellow women out. Rhaenyra in the show is pretty white-washed at times, so naturally she appears far more virtuous than she actually was. The women in general in the show are portrayed as far-more peace-loving and competent than the men, which is disegenous in itself.

However, I am of the belief that even if Rhaenyra ascended peacefully and didn't get any backlash for her actions or her faction's actions (ex- B&C, suicide of Helaena, taxation of the smallfolk, knight inquistors executing supposed traitors, violating guest right to attempt to assasinate Nettles, arresting Corlys Velaryon, torturing Tyland Lannister, etc.), Rhaenyra wouldn't have been able to really deeply improve the lives of women in Westeros and life wouldn't have been so so much better. Here are my reasons why, and feel free to join the conversation.

1. Societal and Major structural change is slow.

Ultimately, this is a medieval world based in medieval values and belief systems. These systems include women being second-class citizens and beholden to men. I mean look at our world! It took thousands and centuries for women to get to where we are today. Life for women in medieval societies are sad and oppressive, hence the way most women gained power and agency was relying on their relationship to other men. I remember a line from the dubious Tudor film The Other Boleyn Girl where Elizabeth Boleyn stated that essentially the way to get power isn't by stamping your little feet, but allowing the men to believe they are indeed in charge. That is the epitome of how most women got their power in medieval societies, very few could claim power in their own name without relying on men to a large degree.

Ultimately, what I've come to learn from studying history is societal change is slow and it takes a long long time for real structural change and equality to occur. Just look at how long it took for women's rights to take flight in the West. There were always whispers throughout history, but it took so long for the whispers to become crowds of shouting, using a metaphor here. Look how long it took for slavery as a whole to be outlawed. It takes a long time for morals and beliefs deeply ingrined in societies like normalizing slavery or women being less than men to change. Rhaenyra becoming Queen wouldn't leave her without enemies. People would still doubt her, undermine her, view her as less than. Rhaenyra becoming Queen wouldn't have been so much of a "Look women can do it too!" moment as one would hope. She isn't an absolute monarch so it would be harder for her to implement societal changes, especially when she is inheriting a country after a war or major tensions. It's about pulling the realm together. Rhaenyra could inspire more changes in the future but no major changes or improvements would happen in her lifetime.

2. Rhaenyra Isn't Always "for the women" she takes plenty of advantage of male primogeniture and patriarchal oppression

Because of how much they changed in the show, naturally Rhaenyra appears far more virtusous or "for the women" than she actually was. A book-accurate Rhaenyra wasn't pursuing the throne to prove a point to men or actually create societal change, but rather out of her own ambition and belief to be the rightful heir. She wasn't fighting for women's rights to inherit but rather HER right to inherit.

The lords supporting her weren't trying to put their daughters ahead of their sons. The lords supporting her were still plenty sexist in a way, they chose her because they either detested Aegon and the Greens, still felt some obligation towards vows made by order of King Viserys, etc. They were still putting their first-born sons ahead of daughters they may have had before then.

Even so, Rhaenyra herself isn't a feminist. She in the books especially takes advantage of patriarchal rulings and male primogeniture as well. Laena Velaryon is older than Laenor Velaryon by I think 2 years or so. By Rhaenyra's logic and the logic of the Blacks who believe in her shouldn't then Baela being the eldest of her children get Driftmark. Laena was older than Laenor yet she wasn't set to inherit Driftmark once Laenor was born. she was excluded. As Laena was the eldest, shouldn't her daughters be set to inherit Driftmark. Maybe not Baela as she is bethrothed to Jace to become Queen should Jace inherit, but then how come Rhaena was only set to be Luke's consort versus Lady of Driftmark in her own right? Because of male primogeniture. Rhaenyra was taking advantage of male primogeniture to name her (bastard) son of Laenor Luke as the next Lord of Driftmark rather than Rhaena who has a stronger claim using the same logic.

Rhaenyra as well denied inheritence claims for Lady Stokeworth and Lady Rosby. That being said its not out of the question that Rhaenyra can't take advantage of patriarchal rulings, as plenty of medieval women in real life and in Westeros do so, but don't ignore that.

3. Isn't it disengenous to expect one woman in a position of power to be responsible for "unappressing" fellow women

I wrote about this topic a while back so let me just quote myself from a previous post on Feminism in Westerso:

"To me, it’s disingenuous to believe one member of an oppressed group (women in this case) in a dubious position of power, whether it’s Rhaenyra or Alicent, is therefore solely responsible for finding a way to free the oppressive group within the system and the ultimate key to social change and if they don’t actively try to do so or fail to do so they are horrible people. It’s more complicated than that. It takes more time than that and it takes more than one single person in a position of power. It’s a gradual change. When living as a marginalized person (despite being in high positions of power Alicent and Rhaenyra are still oppressed) in a system that is oppressive and built against you, it takes more than just you to make social change. Society in Westeros and in the real world resists change. It takes more to make significant social reforms. It takes a lot of time and patience and it takes an effort that spans more than your lifetime and even that of your great great great great great grandchildren"

I think this states it all when I wrote this. Despite being in a high position of power, how much change could Rhaenyra truly inspire or implement in the present and the future, especially since the oppression of women goes so deeply structurally? It will take more than just her becoming Queen, it will have to continue after her, and can we really guarantee any of her descendants will advocate for women?

4. Women were Oppressed Even Before Rhaenyra, citing Visenya and Alysanne doesn't count, the Targaryen/Valyria society is oppressive as well.

The post I found cited Visenya and Alysanne as examples of strong women but I think failed to realize they too were oppressed and downgraded by men, so this issue of structural oppression of women goes far deeper than one could acknolwedge. THe Targaryen family isn't as progressive as one may want them to be. Values of Old Valyria aren't exactly helpful for women at times. I mean a man in Valyria could have as many women as he wanted, but women couldn't do the same. Visenya herself was older than Aegon, but was denied inheritence of Dragonstone and couldn't be Queen in her own right and rather had to settle as being Aegon's consort. Alysanne herself was denied by Jaehaerys at times and part of why she was so respected was based not just in her intelligence but how much Jaehaerys respected her, but even so she coudldn't implement as many of the changes she could want. Ultimately her value as a Queen was deeply tied to her fertility. If she wasn't able to have so many children, the opinion of her and respect of her in Westeros would be impacted and her marriage to Jaehaerys strained. Of course, one could cite the relationship of Aemma and Viserys, but even then... still.

I mean, the show failed to mention too that the succession crisis with Jaehaerys wasn't even fully about Viserys vs. Rhaenys. It was really more so about Viserys versus Rhaenys's son Laenor. At the later point, after Rhaenys was rejected, Corlys and supporters advocated on the behalf of the young Laenor.

5. Rhaenyra Isn't the Best Example

Ultimately, yes Martin is commenting in the Dance how flawed feudal systems and medieval politics are---people are excluded from leadership or the lines of succession on characeristics out of their control like their sex or their parentage, however, even so if Rhaenyra was being rejected on the basis of being a woman, that is not the full answer as to why she wasn't considered a good candidate by others. I mean 1/3 of the country supported Aegon. Yes, Rhaenyra being a woman ties into why many did not support her, but there were other reasons why that were just as important.

For one thing, Rhaenyra was siring obvious bastards and defying another tradition that turned so many lords and ladies alike. Rhaenyra having bastards is a bigger issue than the show fails to realize and emphasize, especially since they portrayed them as so obviously bastards versus the book which is slightly more subtle. Bastards were believed to be born in lust and decietful by nature. Even Jace knows deep down his reputation and position as a future King will be deeply impacted by his parentage. Having bastards was a huge scandal. She also married a man who was denied inheritence, the man whom she stepped over to become Viserys's heir because he was deemed too dangerous. There were other examples besides misogny as to why Rhaenyra was deemed not a good choice by some.

Ultimately, she wasn't even the main being fighting for her rights. I liked book-Rhaenyra and i found her character very compelling, but even I as a Green who liked book-Rhaenyra (just not as much as I liked Aegon) acknolwedge she wasn't a warrior queen fighting for her rights, a good chunk of the work was done for her because she was grieving her children. Daemon, Jace, Corlys, so much heavy-time work was done for her. Rhaenyra never dragon battles the way Aegon does (foolish as it seems).

Which is why I felt the season 2 did poorly because this was the chance for Jace as her heir and Corlys to shine and show their leadership skills and political intrigue, because Rhaenyra is supposed to be swimming in her grief. There is a way to give her more agency whilst still highlighting that her grief deeply impacted the way she operated and how she lead her faction.

That being said, just because Rhaenyra isn't a feminist who will help foster the change needed to help women in Westeros have more rights doesn't mean you can't root for her."

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.

[whencyclopedia]

Matilda of Tuscany

Matilda of Canossa (c. 1046-1115), the Countess of Tuscany (r. 1055-1115) and Vice-Queen of Italy (r. 1111-1115), was the final head of the noble House of Canossa following the deaths of her father in 1052 and her elder brother in 1055. One of the most influential women of medieval Europe, Matilda is noted for her military and political prowess, her ceaseless patronage of the Christian Church, and her defense of Papal authority. Though a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire, Matilda often acted independently. Her conflict with the imperial state included a nearly lifelong military conflict with Henry IV (1050-1106), the German king (r. 1056-1105) and Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1084-1105).

Most of Matilda’s holdings, including her family’s ancestral castle of Canossa, were located across the plains of the Po Valley in northern Italy, an invaluable intersection of trade routes between the Italian peninsula and Italy’s northern neighbors beyond the Alps. In the southern part of Matilda domain beyond the Po Valley was the Duchy of Tuscany, rugged with mountains in its north, rural hills throughout, and vital roads connecting to Rome. With these possessions and an impenetrable alliance with the Christian Church, she became an influential political figure in medieval Europe. Matilda was often referred to as the Great Countess (la Gran Contessa) by contemporaries and scholars, despite this title being lesser than her truer title, that of the Margravine of Tuscany. Although she was considered the rightful heir to her father’s northern Italian holdings, Henry IV never recognized her claims to the lands within the Holy Roman Empire.

Early Life

Matilda was a descendent of the House of Canossa, a noble family established by her great-grandfather Atto Adalbert of Lucca (d. 988), a 10th-century Lombard military leader from Lucca and vassal to the German kings of Italy. Adalbert and his son Boniface expanded their domain and by 1027, the Canossa family's influence encompassed the counties of Brescia, Cremona, Ferrara, Mantua, Modena, Reggio Emilia, and Veneto. In 1027, Roman Emperor Conrad II (r. 1027-1039) transferred the Duchy of Tuscany to Boniface. As Schevill explained,

With Tuscany added to his strength ... Boniface completely dominated central and northern Italy; and since he clung to his superior, the emperor, with more consistency than was usual among feudal magnates, he served as the main pivot of the imperial power in Italy in his day. (53)

In 1037, Boniface married Beatrice of Lorraine (c. 1020-1076), a direct descendent of Charlemagne and Conrad’s niece by way of marriage. Matilda was born to Boniface and Beatrice in 1046 after two older siblings: Frederick and Beatrice. Matilda’s place of birth has been disputed, though scholars have suggested Canossa, Lucca, and Mantua. On 6 May 1052, when Matilda was six years old, Boniface was killed by an unknown assailant, likely by an assassin of Holy Roman Emperor Henry III (r. 1046-1056). Frederick inherited the feudal land of their father while Beatrice governed on his behalf. Matilda’s older sister died shortly after Boniface in 1053, though details are unclear.

In 1054, Beatrice married her first cousin Duke Godfrey the Bearded of Upper Lorraine, while Matilda was betrothed to the elder Godfrey’s son, Godfrey the Hunchback. Although Pope Leo IX, another cousin of Beatrice, gave them his blessing to marry, neither received consent from their king, Henry III.

Using the marital transgression to his advantage in 1055, Henry imprisoned Beatrice and Matilda at Bodfeld in current-day central Germany and claimed their holdings. Frederick, the only son and heir to Boniface, is thought to have died in 1055, leaving the young Matilda as the sole child of the Canossa dominion. Since women did not have the right to own, govern, or inherit feudal land under imperial law, Frederick’s death made not Matilda but Henry III, Beatrice’s closest adult male kin, the rightful heir to Boniface.

The mother and daughter remained in captivity until Henry III suddenly died in October 1056. Until the adulthood of Henry’s heir, Henry IV, the widowed Queen Agnes acted as regent to the young king. In exchange for a renewed oath of fealty from Godfrey the Bearded, Agnes freed her deceased husband’s prisoners and authorized the marriage of Godfrey and Beatrice. Godfrey, therefore, controlled the Canossa holdings and established his court in the Duchy of Tuscany, where the family returned by the spring of 1057. Information concerning Matilda’s youth beyond these events is terse.

The marriage of Beatrice to Godfrey the Bearded remained intact despite Henry III’s efforts and was recognized by Queen Agnes. Matilda’s inheritance in Italy was passed to the governance of her stepfather, who, in 1064, also inherited the Duchy of Upper Lorraine. With her role as heir forfeited to her stepfather, Matilda abandoned her ancestral home in Italy in favor of her husband’s in Upper Lorraine. The betrothal to her cousin Godfrey the Hunchback was not fulfilled by marriage until May 1069 when Matilda was 23 years old and the elder Godfrey was expected to die after falling ill. Upon his death, the titles in Italy and Lorraine were transferred to the younger Godfrey. The only child of Matilda by Godfrey was Beatrice, named after her grandmother, but she died shortly after birth, sometime between May and August 1071.

Continue reading...

[furinana]

The rock stars that were the base for SMTIV's moral representatives

Queen and Sex Pistols contrasting each other like LAW and CHAOS? It's more likely than you think.

Disclaimer: This is a post made for highlighting similarities behind the musicians and their music contributions to the SMTIV alignments they're inserted into; in other words, there's not an intent to necessarily argument that the characters were planned to reference them to the same extent explored here.

Brian May

Brian May (born 1947) is an English musician with a highly educated and overachiever background encouraged by his parents. He's most known as the lead guitarist and backing vocalist of Queen, which he co-founded with singer Freddie Mercury and drummer Roger Taylor. His guitar work and songwriting contributions helped Queen become one of the most successful acts in music history.

He's still active as of 2025 at the age of 77.

Politically, Brian May would reiterate that he always believed in compassion towards people and grew to loathe corruption, inequality and discrimination.

“I don’t like all this separatist stuff and you know this sort of illusion that we can all stand on our own, to me the future lies in co-operation." Blabbermouth

Brian May had a sheltered childhood where he wasn't really a kid that would argue with his parents. He recalls the love of affectionate (albeit overprotective) parents that would later become a hurdle in his music career: “Dad was mortified when I chose the band over finishing my PhD. He thought I was throwing away my education. [...] When Queen was taking off, we didn’t speak for nearly two years."

The rift had a devastating effect on his mother’s health as she desperately tried to make the peace. “It drove her to a nervous breakdown. I inherited my dad’s stubbornness and she couldn’t get either of us to budge. I still regret that I wasn’t more conciliatory, but Dad and I were just too much alike.”

May only found out later there was an underlying reason for his father’s initial dislike of his lifestyle. “Dad confided in me that when he came out of the RAF, he’d like to have taken off and joined a band. But he had me on the way and needed job security. I realised then that he’d found it hard to accept my choice because it was a dream he’d been forced to reject.”

After his father's death, his mother would confess that they had a difficult relationship. "But as a kid I had no idea, it just felt like a secure and loving home. She felt she’d just submerged herself in Dad, as wives did in those days."

Queen

Founded in 1970, Queen released their self-titled debut album in 1973. Despite not being an immediate success, they quickly gained popularity in Britain with their second album Queen II in 1974.

Both were concept albums set in a medieval fairy-realm that "follows a royal line's magical battle against forces of darkness".

Notice the obvious similarity to Kaneko's depiction of a seraph. In SMTIV, Seraph is an end-game boss in both Neutral and Chaos routes that prevents Flynn from further entry into Purgatorium, a maze divided into "Crowns".

Here's a song from Queen II.

A word in your ear From father to son Hear the word that I say I fought with you Fought on your side Long before you were born Joyful the sound The word goes around From father to son To son And the voice is so clear Time after time it keeps calling you Calling you on Don't destroy what you see Your country to be Just keep building on the ground That's been won Kings will be crowned And the word goes around From father to son To son Won't you hear us sing Our family song? Oh, yeah Now we hand it on But I've heard it all before Take this letter that I give you Take it, sonny, hold it high You won't understand a word that's in it But you'll write it all again before you die

Initially characterised for its combination of acoustic/electric guitar extremes and fantasy-inspired multi-part song epics, the band later became known for their anthemic songs which are a staple of sports arenas and stadiums the world over, with several songs being written with audience participation in mind, such as We Will Rock You" and "We Are the Champions.

Additionally, the main reason behind the name 'Queen' was clever marketing on Freddie Mercury’s part. The crest mirrors the multifaceted meaning of the band’s name as it resembles the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom.

Freddie studied fashion and graphic design so he thought ahead on the visual potential:

"I thought up the name Queen early on. [...] It was a very regal name and it sounded splendid. It’s strong, very universal, and immediate. [...] It lent itself to a lot of things, like the theatre, and it was grand. It was very pompous [...] I was certainly aware of the gay connotations, but that was just one facet of it." Freddie Mercury: A Life, In His Own Words

According to the same source, Freddie was also in good terms with Prince Andrew during their career and had "a lot of respect for royalty", declaring himself a patriot.

Brian May seems to share a similar mentality since he performed a guitar solo of the British national anthem God Save the Queen from the roof of Buckingham Palace as part of the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II celebrations in 2002 and accepted knighthood from King Charles in 2023.

By the way...

Here's the impact of Brian May in 1970s shoujo manga.

Left: マーシイは物理が苦手 Right: 恋のクッキング・タイム Some discuss that his figure also potentially influenced works like Rose of Versailles.

Sid Vicious

Simon John Ritchie (1957–1979), better known by his stage name Sid Vicious, was an English musician most famous as the second bassist for the punk rock band Sex Pistols. Ritchie grew up in a poor household with an absent father that provided no financial help so his mother resorted to selling drugs. His troubled family situation reached a point of being kicked out of home at 16 and getting accustomed early to drug addiction that came from his own mother.

In 1973, he befriended fellow classmate John Lydon "Johnny Rotten", who nicknamed Ritchie "Sid Vicious" after Ritchie was bitten by Lydon's hamster that was named after ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. Ritchie reacted by saying: "Sid is really vicious!". Lydon found hilarious that his friend could be harmed by his pet that he would describe as “the softest, furriest, weediest thing on earth”.

In 1975, John Lydon formed the Sex Pistols with Steve Jones, Paul Cook and Glen Matlock. Jah Wobble (a teen friend of Lydon and Sid) recalls these early years where the suggestible Sid would frequent pubs to watch the Sex Pistols as a dedicated fan and become shaped with the rebellious and drug-addicted behavior of the regulars.

In February 1977, Sid stepped into the role he felt he was born to play, replacing Glen Matlock as the Sex Pistols bassist.

The Sex Pistols

"The Sex Pistols' music was not formally groundbreaking, yet their simple meat-and-potatoes rock was filled with a power and aggression that was all but unknown in the mid-'70s, and the ferocious, sneering vocals of Johnny Rotten (as well as his pointed, accusatory lyrics) upended all expectations of how a rock frontman should look or sound. Even as the media treated them as pariahs, the potency of their music and their image spoke to an audience waiting for something different than the prog and soft rock sounds that ruled the charts in the 1970s, sparking a revolution that is still playing itself out." Mark Deming

The band gained widespread attention from British press after swearing live on-air during a December 1976 television interview. Their May 1977 single God Save the Queen, which described the monarchy as a "fascist regime", was released to coincide with national celebrations for the Queen's Silver Jubilee. The song was promptly banned from being played by the BBC and by nearly every independent radio station in Britain, making it the most censored record in British history:

God save the Queen Her fascist regime It made you a moron A potential H-bomb God save the queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want to want to And don't be told what you want to need There's no future, no future No future for you God save the Queen We mean it, man We love our Queen God saves God save the Queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead Is not what she seems Oh, God save history God save your mad parade Oh, Lord, God have mercy All crimes are paid When there's no future, how can there be sin? We're the flowers in the dustbin We're the poison in your human machine We're the future, your future

The band’s "(mis)manager", as they liked to call him, Malcolm McLaren, co-owned a clothing shop on King’s Road with his then-partner, designer Vivienne Westwood. A centerpiece of the punk movement and a kind of headquarters for the band, this shop was unlike any other at the time. Simply named SEX, it was a shock-and-awe clothing boutique of the latest fetish “anti-fashions” – chains, whips, rips, rubber wear, and all. Back when Sid was homeless, hanging out in McLaren's clothing store was how he spent time as he already had a penchant for fashion as a means of standing out from the crowd.

In The Filth and the Fury documentary, McLaren explained he wanted a group that seemed dangerous, but alluring, in other words, something to represent his store. “[I] launched the idea in the form of a band of kids who could be perceived as being bad.” Therefore the name Sex Pistols invoked an image of “sexy young assassins", with pistol as a double entendre for male body part.

Journalist Vivien Goldeman comments of a certain facet of punk where kids like Sid would "piss off parents on purpose" and camouflage their insecurities through edginess such as wearing swastika motifs for shock value (Sid obviously wouldn't be a Nazi as his dying love Nancy Spungeon was a Jewish girl).

With this intent in mind, their music manager would purposefully set the band into situations where chaos would broke in for scandals and sensationalism. Sid Vicious would be the most infamous example of the group, being chosen to play as a bassist for his looks and attitude while being encouraged to be drunk and disordely.

"Sid was offered up as a sacrificial lamb by the people around the Pistols. None of them would have gone over the top. He was their kamikaze pilot, and they were all too happy to strap him in and send him off." The Guardian

His romance-turned-tragedy with Nancy was another facet of this environment, with both being attracted by and ultimately aggravating their own self-destructive tendencies on the company of the other.

Even after the intoxicated accident that caused Nancy's death, Sid still couldn't leave his addiction and would reply in a cracked voice "I can't straighten up. I just can't be straight". For Sid, this grim reality was his basic nature and was going to kill him no matter the outcome, to which became reality when he passed away from overdose with only 21 years old.

In Jah Wobble's words, he embodied "everything in punk that was dark, decadent and nihilistic". Wobble would also reflect that even when Sid was still a bright kid, he would recall of "another side of him that was weird and brooding" thus realize his peer must already have been very hurt mentally.

Although their initial career lasted just two and a half years, the Sex Pistols became culturally influential in popular music. The band initiated the punk movement in the United Kingdom and inspired many later punk, post-punk and alternative rock musicians, while their clothing and hairstyles were a significant influence on the early punk image.

Sid Viciouses in Japanese pop media: Ren (Nana), Ritchie (Listeners) and Leon Kuwata (Danganronpa).

Queen and Sex Pistols' well-known beef

While Freddie Mercury is considered by many as one of a kind that broke molds in the music industry specially regarding rock masculinity, Freddie didn't want the Queen to be seen as revolutionary and never addressed publicly his own sexuality.

Queen drummer Roger Taylor has commented that Freddie wouldn't allow political themes and very early in their career they consciously decided that Queen's material would refrain from commenting on social affairs.

So understandably there would come a certain clash between them and a certain genre which Sex Pistols come from:

Queen's music couldn't have been further from the punk movement. In fact, the youth-propelled backlash of punk music and its iconography was very much seen as an antidote to bands like Queen. Of course, we're not just referring to the fact that the rock legends shared their name with Queen Elizabeth II, the focus of the Sex Pistols' snarling anthem 'God Save The Queen'. But Queen and their arsenal of songs that merged rock, opera, and unbridled theatricality was starting to be seen as snooty and elitist by segments of the youth population. As the decade unfolded, kids were in search of new meaning amidst the backdrop of political and economic turmoil, and punk music was the answer. No longer were musicians beholden to actually having to learn an instrument, they could just thrash out three chords on a guitar and vent down a microphone. What came of it was a cultural explosion that shook the foundations of music, art, politics, and society at large. However, Freddie Mercury wasn't too enamoured by the punk movement [...] Performing to thousands upon thousands of adoring fans every night was where Freddie considered his best work to come from. On the other hand, he couldn't quite understand why punk bands insisted on keeping their audiences niche, harnessing the power of community in smaller venues. Freddie revealed: "I think everybody wants to be successful. I don't care what they say. I know there was a fashion with the punk movement or whatever." "They said, ‘Oh, we want to play to the small audiences because we're being intimate' and all that. Load of rubbish!" he spat incredulously. [...] It's no secret that Freddie wasn't an overt supporter of punk music and its associated members, likely because he and Queen were very much the target of their vitriol. There's the infamous scenario where he got one over on his punk detractors, namely the Sex Pistols' Sid Vicious when both bands occupied the same studio during a recording session. A smirking Vicious tainted Mercury by saying: "Have you succeeded in bringing ballet to the masses yet?". Freddie told one interviewer: "I called him Simon Ferocious or something, and he didn't like it at all." and dragged him out of the studio by his collar like a naughty school boy. Gold Radio 1 / 2

Of course, while the Sex Pistols was an important vehicle for newcomers to discover the punk scene and radicalize themselves, it's also relevant to bring the debate within the punk community itself surrounding the authenticity of Sex Pistols: they're judged by many as one of the "earliest industry plants" with their primary motive being of profitting over a bad boy image.

As far as their manager McLaren was concerned, Sid Vicious was perfect in assisting Sex Pistols' career as national and international outrages, not caring less about even his total inexperience as a bass player. Guitarist Steve Jones would go as far as stating "Actually we're not into music, we're into chaos."

What doesn't help much their image either is that (now ex-)frontman John Lydon himself would later state in a 2012 interview that he never considered himself an anarchist despite having a hit called Anarchy in the UK. John Lydon went as far as paying tribute to Queen Elizabeth in her death and show support for far-right politicians, to the dismayal of many fans and to fellow members of the band that are still active. Vivienne Westwood that was the mind behind the punk fashion utilized by the band also showed to be someone that could be on good terms with the monarchy over the decades.

At the end of the day, both Queen and Sex Pistols at the time "played their parts" in order to give what the people wanted to hear through different methods.

Queen played "within" the system. Sex Pistols played "against" it.

The third 1970s rock icon representative

Surprise, surprise! It wasn't only Law and Chaos that got representatives based off rock stars.

A certain Neutral-aligned character was inspired by a figure of great importance in the early Japanese punk scene.

We're talking about Fujiwara.

He is Makoto Ayukawa from Sheena & the Rokkets!

Sheena & the Rokkets, sometimes abbreviated as Shinaroke, is a band formed in 1978 by Makoto Ayukawa (1948-2023) and his wife Etsuko (1953-2015).

The couple, who were already parents to twins, were able to start their career together thanks to Sheena's father's support, who pushed Ayukawa to go and try his luck in Tokyo while leaving the kids under the care of Sheena's family.

Etsuko adopted the name Sheena after the Ramones' song Sheena Is a Punk Rocker. "Sheena & the Rokkets" come from "Rock + Etsuko = Rockets", to which Ayukawa gave an old-fashioned spin and the quirky spelling for "more rock style".

Ayukawa received a Gibson Les Paul Custom from a friend when Sheena & the Rokkets was formed in 1978, and played the same guitar for over 40 years since moving to Tokyo. He is said to be the only musician in the world who has achieved this feat, even at a Guinness World Record level.

Despite having no experience as a musician at all up until that point, Sheena's confidence in her high spirits and unshakeable mental strenght led the band in a good direction and became a pioneer of Japanese female rock vocalists.

Holding a baby who loves rock A cute mommy is going away By the time this child turns twenty, the world will surely be a better place So for a while, mommy and you Let's do our best, let's do our best When I see you laughing with rock, I always feel courage I made you because I loved you, I gave birth to you because I have love I've been told all sorts of things, But until the world turns with rock, Let's believe in humanity and do our best This world is still ugly, But someday it will change for the better There's no point in hating each other, so let's keep smiling, let's keep smiling When I touch you asleep with rock, My heart starts dancing by itself Because I loved you, you're here Because I have love, Tomorrow and the future will surely come with you Until we can talk with rock, let's love humanity and keep smiling

If you asked an average fan to describe the music of Shinaroke, you'd get the strong impression of a live band that combines blues-derived rock and roll with punkish beats, with Ayukawa's edgy guitar as the core and Sheena's husky, powerful vocals. However, their early albums were also influenced by techno and new wave, showing they had a curious and flexible attitude that embodied the free spirit of rock.

Ayukawa was also sensitive to the changes of the times by using computers before the Internet became widespread in the world and being one of the earliest examples of a band launching their official website, "Rokket Web", in 1996.

Examples where Ayukawa's influence is seen: Left: the heroine Madoka Ayukawa of Izumi Matsumoto's Kimagure Orange Road. Right: Ayumi Hatsuyuki (鮎見初雪) from Kamijo Atsushi's TO-Y.

In the middle of a busy schedule, Sheena fell ill and was diagnosed with stage 4 cervical cancer, but at her strong request, her condition wasn't revealed to anyone other than her family and continued performing live until two months before her death in 2015.

Many fans admire and feel encouraged to this day by Sheena for her positive mindset and stubbornness in continuing to follow what her heart set her to do:

"Sometimes we rise up, sometimes we sink down. However, no matter how lost she'd become, Sheena's words and actions were always positive and powerful [...] Her lifestyle as a vocalist who performed dozens of times a year, a mother of three daughters, and a woman who stayed close to the man she loves [...] was dazzlingly pure, simple, and full of love." YOU MAY DREAM review

Regarding future activities, Ayukawa stated that he would carry on his beloved partner's wishes and continue with Sheena & the Rokkets. Ayukawa continued performing as a three-piece with original members Nara Toshihiro and Kawashima Kazuhide (with Ayukawa and Sheena's third and youngest daughter, LUCY MIRROR, later joining the band as a main vocalist) until he passed in 2023.

Ayukawa would say, "If everyone listens to rock, there will be peace. There will be no wars." and "Even if I were to be reborn again, I would still love Sheena". That was his will that he wanted messages of love and peace to continue to be passed on to future generations through rock music.

Sheena and Ayukawa's energetic live performances over the years, regardless of major or indie, have been supported and loved not only by music fans but also by many peers and juniors and shaped the Japanese punk rock scene. Even with their front couple gone, the music of Shinaroke still lives on.

The nuances behind Ayukawa's image

When describing about his style, Ayukawa said "I may have a strong image of rock, but when I was a kid there was no such word as rock, so music lovers called it pop. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Kinks were all classified as pop. So Sheena & the Rockets' music is rock, but it also has the atmosphere of what is now called 60's pop." He was also close friends with the members of the Ramones, showing the influence of New York punk and London punk in the band.

Add that to nowadays' interpretation of the genre:

[...] Japanese punk rock has evolved into a distinctive blend of Western influence and Japanese precision. [...] Japanese punk culture is characterized by its meticulous attention to detail and a unique blend of rebellion and respect. Unlike their Western counterparts, Japanese punks often maintain a level of politeness and social awareness that might seem at odds with the genre's confrontational nature. This duality is evident in the way Japanese punks interact at shows, where they might thrash wildly in a circle pit one moment and politely bow to make their way through the crowd the next. Punk Rock in Japan: A thriving subculture of rebellion and precision

Relevant to the discussion is also the famous song My Way, described as "a song for those who have overcome, for those who are victorious." We have not only Sid Vicious but Ayukawa also partaking in it with their own interpretations.

And now, the end is near And so I face the final curtain My friend, I'll say it clear I'll state my case, of which I'm certain I've lived a life that's full I traveled each and every highway And more, much more than this I did it my way Regrets, I've had a few But then again, too few to mention I did what I had to do And saw it through without exemption I planned each charted course Each careful step along the byway And more, much more than this I did it my way Yes, there were times I'm sure you knew When I bit off More than I could chew But through it all When there was doubt I ate it up and spit it out I faced it all and I stood tall And did it my way I've loved, I've laughed and cried I've had my fill, my share of losing And now, as tears subside I find it all so amusing To think I did all that And may I say, not in a shy way Oh, no, oh, no, not me I did it my way For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught To say the things he truly feels And not the words of one who kneels The record shows I took the blows And did it my way

Sheena talked about how meaningful it was for them in her book:

"Many people in Japan think that this song is a sentimental song that looks back on one's life, but that's not true! 'My way' means 'the way I do things.' 'My greatest pride is that I've lived my life my own way.' This is a song that only Sinatra, who has survived the cutthroat world of American show business, could sing. So everything is never someone else's fault, it's one's own. I'm always positive. I don't have time to complain. I get a lot of power from the audience. The stage gives me magic. There have been countless times when the band was in trouble, both mentally and financially. But I'm lucky to be able to continue, and I'm happy just to be alive."

Another interesting cover is the classic Japanese nursery rhyme​ from the Showa era called Kono Michi that can be translated as "this road" or "this way". Sheena and Ayukawa were fond of it as they similarly were by Frank Sinatra's My Way (going as far as saying it was the Japanese equivalent) and made an arrangement with a punk tune reminiscent of the Sex Pistols that was also a source of influence for Sheena & the Rokkets.

This road is the one I once traveled Ah, that’s right Acacia flowers are blooming That hill is the one I once saw Ah, that’s right Look, it’s the white clock tower This road is the one I once traveled Ah, that’s right I went with Mother in a carriage Those clouds are the ones I once saw Ah, that’s right Hawthorn branches are drooping

Kono michi's lyrics give the impression of a thin haze, with the predominant color of the song being “white”: the flower sung as “Acacia” being actually a white locust tree; the white clock tower; the flashback image of his mother in his childhood; the white clouds and the white flowers of the three terns.

The composer, Yamada Kousaku, was very fond of this song:

Kono michi is a song that reminds me of my childhood days. I couldn’t help but recall the nostalgic paths I used to stroll down with my mother’s warm hand pulling me along, and the faint feelings I had back then. [...] I couldn’t help but recall the faint feelings of those days. However, even such a famous song has been dropped from music textbooks, and more and more children say they have never heard of it.

Despite Ayukawa's and Sheena's dedication towards a rebellious and uncertain lifestyle specially for what's expected in the conformist Japanese society, they broke against the preconceived notion that "punk youths are anti-family and destined to destruct themselves" by not only giving value to their roots but also having a happy marriage with love for their three kids and support from family members towards their dream.

Now....

for our last topic..........

Let's talk about the predecessor that influenced all bands mentioned.

One that contributed significantly towards the counterculture of the 1960s that shaped the alignments of SMTIVA. Can you figure out who I'm referring? He's the

rock representative of SMT4☮️

The design motifs that envelop the jumpsuit of our sequel protagonist says it all: a peace symbol pin, an imperative anti-war message and the most explicit of them all, the lyrics of a certain song...

Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one

John Lennon (1940–1980) was an English singer, songwriter, musician and political activist. He gained worldwide fame as the founder, co-lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist of the Beatles. He was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame both as a member of the Beatles and as a solo artist.

John Lennon was an only child and due to clashes between his parents, his custody was given to his aunt. Lennon commented about his family and his rebellious nature:

"A part of me would like to be accepted by all facets of society and not be this loudmouthed lunatic poet/musician. But I cannot be what I am not... I was the one who all the other boys' parents – including Paul's father – would say, "Keep away from him"... The parents instinctively recognised I was a troublemaker, meaning I did not conform and I would influence their children, which I did. I did my best to disrupt every friend's home... Partly out of envy that I didn't have this so-called home... [...] I would infiltrate the other boys' minds. I could say, "Parents are not gods because I don't live with mine and, therefore, I know." All we are saying (2000)

At the age of 15, Lennon formed a skiffle group, the Quarrymen. By the summer of 1957, the Quarrymen played a "spirited set of songs" made up of half skiffle and half rock and roll. Lennon first met Paul McCartney at the Quarrymen's second performance and asked him to join the band.

In 1958, Lennon's mother was killed by a car driven by an off-duty police officer while she was walking home. His mother's death traumatised the teenage Lennon, who, for the next two years, drank heavily and frequently got into fights, consumed by a "blind rage". At college he began to wear Teddy Boy clothes and was threatened with expulsion for his behavior, and was "thrown out of the college before his final year". Lennon's bond with McCartney whose mother had already died of breast cancer in 1956 became tighter from then on.

The Beatles

"The Beatles" was formed in early 1960 and completed the four-piece line-up with Paul McCartney, George Harrinson and Ringo Starr in 1962; that would remain until the group's break-up in 1970. McCartney said that the other Beatles idolised Lennon: "We all looked up to John. He was older and he was very much the leader; he was the quickest wit and the smartest."

The Beatles achieved mainstream success and sparked the "Beatlemania" phenomenon in 1963, gained international superstardom in 1964. By the end of the decade, the Beatles were seen as an embodiment of the era's sociocultural movements, exemplified by the sentiment of their 1967 song All You Need Is Love.

In the wake of Sgt. Pepper (1967), their eighth album, the underground and mainstream press widely publicised the Beatles as leaders of youth culture, as well as "lifestyle revolutionaries". The elaborate cover depicted the group as the fictional band referred to in the album's title track standing in front of a crowd of cardboard cut-outs of celebrities and historical people. The heavy moustaches worn by the group reflected the growing influence of the hippie movement while the group's clothing "spoofed the vogue in Britain for military fashions" with their brightly coloured parodies in anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment display.

Viewed as an embodiment of "the social, the musical, and more generally, the cultural changes of the 1960s", Sgt. Pepper conveyed the optimism and sense of empowerment at the centre of the youth movement. Critics have also identified loss of innocence and the dangers of overindulgence in fantasies or illusions as its most prominent themes, with its underlying philosophy attributed not only to the drug culture and freedom from parental control but also to the non-violent approach of the flower power movement, the latter being explored by Lennon in its most evident form through his solo career.

Political and religious views

Lennon met Yoko Ono for the first time in 1966. Two years before the Beatles disbanded, Lennon and Ono began public protests against the Vietnam War and would use the publicity of their own honey moon in 1969 towards promoting world peace.

They often combined advocacy with performance art, as in their "Bagism": by catching the attention of the masses with an outlandish premise, they would deliver underneath it a social and political message to the world, whether by covering their bodies with a bag in order to strip the viewer from prejudices or doing week-long bed-ins because "people should make love, not war".

During this period, Lennon released Give Peace a Chance, being quickly interpreted as an anti-war anthem and sung by a quarter of a million demonstrators against the Vietnam War in Washington on 15 November, the second Vietnam Moratorium Day. In December, they paid for billboards in 10 cities around the world which declared, in the national language, "War Is Over! If You Want It".

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."

Among other types of activism, Lennon and Ono acted in solidarity for blue-collar workers, towards the release of those arrested for possession of marijuana and against British Imperialism by giving support to the IRA. They also attended several meetings of the White Panther Party, a far-left group against racism and capitalism.

God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I'll say it again God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I don't believe in magic I don't believe in I-Ching I don't believe in Bible I don't believe in Tarot I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in Mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in Yoga I don't believe in Kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles I just believe in me Yoko and me And that's reality The dream is over What can I say? The dream is over Yesterday I was the dreamweaver But now I'm reborn I was the walrus But now I'm John And so dear friends You just have to carry on The dream is over

In this song, Lennon chants a list of things he does not believe in, ending by stating that he just believes in himself (individuality) and Yoko (his wife). The final section describes Lennon's change since the break-up of the Beatles. While the Beatles were basically his family throughout the 1960s, he refers to Paul McCartney's 1965 Beatles song Yesterday, and states that he is no longer the "Dreamweaver" or "The Walrus", but just "John". The final line of the song, "The dream is over", has been seen as declaring the end of the 1960s quest for meaning. "If there is a God", Lennon explained, "we're all it".

While neither he or The Beatles explored the ground of proto-punk compared to other contemporaries, there's still fairness in considering that John Lennon espoused punk values before punk had begun to germinate; John Lennon made a statement in jest in a 1966 interview for Evening Standard that crystalised the anti-establishment ethos that would develop into a vital aspect of the punk spirit over the coming years: “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink.” A perceptive opinion for even back then as religion was in decline owing to the advent of science, technology and music. However, he did not stop there. He opined that The Beatles were “more popular than Jesus”. This wasn’t all, either. He concluded that “Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.” Some elements of society were so enraged that it lead to protests, death threats and to The Beatles being banned from apartheid-era South Africa. Lennon’s quip made such an impact that even after the Beatles called it quits in 1970, his solo work was also banned from the airwaves of South Africa. In the most sensational yet hilarious reaction to Lennon’s comment, the South Carolina Ku Klux Klan nailed Beatles records to a cross and set them on fire. Retrospectively, the furor that ensued in the wake of Lennon’s comments may seem ridiculous to the 21st-century reader, but it does hold some significance. A lot of the shift in opinions and attitudes would come via the punk movement of the late ’70s, and it is clear now that Lennon turned the anti-establishment feeling up a couple of notches. So fast forward to 1980, and John Lennon would unsurprisingly show himself to be a fan of the ground-swallowing punk movement. In an interview with Playboy that year, the former Beatles frontman revealed: “I love all this punky stuff. It’s pure. I’m not, however, crazy about the people who destroy themselves.” He was then asked by the interviewer to share his thoughts on the iconic Neil Young lyric, “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”, which was taken from My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue): “I don’t appreciate worship of dead Sid Vicious or of dead James Dean or of dead John Wayne. It’s the same thing. Making Sid Vicious a hero, Jim Morrison… it’s garbage to me. I worship the people who survive.” Lennon continued: “I don’t want [my kid] Sean worshipping John Wayne or Sid Vicious. What do they teach you? Nothing. Death. Sid Vicious died for what? So that we might rock? I mean, it’s garbage, you know. If Neil Young admires that sentiment so much, why doesn’t he do it? Because he sure as hell faded away and came back many times, like all of us. No, thank you. I’ll take the living and the healthy.” This statement is wickedly ironic given that later that year, Lennon was to be murdered by the religious fanatic Mark David Chapman, owing in part to his Evening Standard comments fourteen years prior. Although he was the world’s biggest rockstar, his legacy was really cemented by his tragic death, affording him a mythos that his bandmates did not have. His frank discussion of not making cult heroes out of the dead is something that society could learn a thing or two from, as we have a tendency to fetishise death, particularly within popular culture. Far Out Magazine

The U.S. vs John Lennon

Following the impact of Give Peace a Chance and Happy Xmas (War Is Over) on the anti-war movement, the Nixon administration heard rumours of Lennon's involvement in a concert to be held in San Diego at the same time as the 1972 Republican National Convention and tried to have him deported, as Nixon believed that Lennon's anti-war activities could cost him his reelection. The next month the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings, arguing that his 1968 misdemeanour conviction for cannabis possession in London had made him ineligible for admission to the United States.

In 1973, Lennon was ordered to leave the US within 60 days. In response, Lennon and Ono held a press conference at the New York City Bar Association, where they announced the formation of the state of Nutopia; a place with "no land, no boundaries, no passports, only people". Waving the white flag of Nutopia (two handkerchiefs), they asked for political asylum in the US. Soon after the press conference, Nixon's involvement in a political scandal came to light, and led to the president's resignation 14 months later.

In 1980, John Lennon was shot and fatally wounded in New York City. The killer, Mark David Chapman, was an American Beatles fan who claimed that he had been enraged by Lennon's infamous, much-publicized remark in 1966 that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus", and by the lyrics of Lennon's songs God and Imagine. Despite advice by his lawyers to plead insanity, Chapman pleaded guilty to the murder, saying that his plea was the will of God.

After Lennon's death, historian Jon Wiener filed a Freedom of Information Act request for FBI files that documented the Bureau's role in the deportation attempt. The FBI admitted it had 281 pages of files on Lennon, but refused to release most of them on the grounds that they contained national security information. In 1983, Wiener sued the FBI with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. It took 14 years of litigation to force the FBI to release the withheld pages.

The CIA and FBI spying on Lennon due to his left-wing activism and the actions of Chapman have led to conspiracy theories postulating CIA involvement in his death.

And to wrap it up...

Partnership with McCartney

From all band members, Lennon's most intense feelings were reserved for McCartney. In an interview three days before his death, he said: "Throughout my career, I've selected to work with... only two people: Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono... That ain't bad picking."

When McCartney and Lennon met as teenagers and began writing songs together, they agreed that all songs written by them (whether individually or jointly) should be credited to both of them. In Lennon's 1980 Playboy interview, he said of the partnership:

[Paul] provided a lightness, an optimism, while I would always go for the sadness, the discords, the bluesy notes. There was a period when I thought I didn't write melodies, that Paul wrote those and I just wrote straight, shouting rock 'n' roll.

Although Lennon and McCartney often wrote independently—and many Beatles songs are primarily the work of one or the other—it was rare that a song would be completed without some input from both writers. In many instances, one writer would sketch an idea or a song fragment and take it to the other to finish or improve; in some cases, two incomplete songs or song ideas that each had worked on individually would be combined into a complete song.

A Day in the Life, the final track of their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper, is one of their highest acclaimed songs done in collaboration:

I read the news today, oh, boy About a lucky man who made the grave And though the news was rather sad Well, I just had to laugh I saw the photograph He blew his mind out in a car He didn't notice that the lights had changed A crowd of people stood and stared They'd seen his face before Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords I saw a film today, oh, boy The English Army had just won the war A crowd of people turned away But I just had to look Having read the book I'd love to turn you on Woke up, fell out of bed Dragged a comb across my head Found my way downstairs and drank a cup And looking up, I noticed I was late Found my coat and grabbed my hat Made the bus in seconds flat Found my way upstairs and had a smoke And somebody spoke, and I went into a dream (Aah, aah, aah, aah) I read the news today, oh, boy Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall I'd love to turn you on

A Day in the Life was centered around drug use, being strongly informed by Lennon's LSD-inspired revelations, where the "concerned 'reality' was only to the extent to what had been revealed in the eye of the beholder by the drug. The separate song fragment by McCartney ("Woke up, fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my head ...") was used to flesh out the middle of Lennon's composition ("I read the news today, oh boy...").

It is a drug song, but not a drug song in the way that other drug songs have often been interpreted or misinterpreted. The narrator clearly finds the real world disturbingly mundane and meaningless and wishes to “turn you on.” He is disillusioned by the media, in terms of what it presents and how it presents it. The impetus was an article in the British press that Lennon read concerning the death of Tara Browne, a young rich society friend of the Beatles. Browne drove his light blue Lotus Elan at high speed through a red light in South Kensington and was killed instantly. Presumably he was tripping or at least Lennon assumes so. From this tragically commonplace incident comes a searing critique of the modern condition. The same newspaper also contained an article about the deplorable conditions of the road in Blackburn, Lancashire. The article stated that there were “4,000 holes in the road, or one twenty-sixth of a hole per person, according to a council survey.” Lennon matched this up with a reference to the Albert Hall and the war. Again the tragic mixed with the mundane. The middle Paul section is that of a man awaking from a dream and then falling back into one. The lyrics have a feeling and emotion not present in Lennon’s flatter emotionless delivery. The subconsciousness and mysticism of the dream world meets the real world and trumps it, albeit only temporarily. But that final chord suggests the conflict never ends. Nick Moyne

As Lennon stated in 1969, "We write how we write now because of each other. Paul was there for five or ten years, and I wouldn't write like I write now if it weren't for Paul, and he wouldn't write like he does if it weren't for me."

When reporters asked McCartney for his reaction to Lennon's death when it just happened, his response ended with "Drag, isn't it?". McCartney later said that he had intended no disrespect and simply was unable to articulate his feelings, given the shock and sadness he felt over Lennon's murder. Reflecting on the day two years later, McCartney said the following: "How did I feel? I can't remember. I can't express it. I can't believe it. It was crazy. It was anger. It was fear. It was madness. It was the world coming to an end. And it was, 'Will it happen to me next?' I just felt everything. I still can't put into words. Shocking. And I ended up saying, 'It's a drag,' and that doesn't really sum it up."

Paul McCartney would later open up about his friendship with John Lennon in an emotional interview in 2019, when asked if he still thinks about his late Beatles colleague:

"I dream about him. When you've had a relationship like that for so long, such a deep relationship, I love when people revisit you in your dreams. I often have band dreams and they're crazy. I'm often with John... I have a lot of dreams about John. They're always good." Sir Paul spoke of how he has often thought of his Beatles bandmate as the "villain" in terms of their friendship, but was reminded by a photo of the pair together - shared by Colbert - that "we were good friends". "Knowing really, we were, but there were so many rumours about it. That photo, when I saw that, it's like, 'Yes. We were friends.' It's a beautiful photo for me because it just reminds me of us working together and how cool it was."  Lennon, much like McCartney, lost his mother at a young age. The Beatle said that the tragedies bonded them together. "We both knew about that. We both knew that feeling," he said. "I never thought it affected my music until years later. Gold Radio

Epilogue

After reflecting on the parallels to the alignment representatives, some might think "John Lennon is linked to Bonds/Peace because he was a pacifist messenger, correct? What about Massacre/Anarchy? Where's its rep?".

the anarchist "punk" vs the pacifist "hippie"

The truth is, Lennon's ethical trajectory in his professional and personal life was, to say the least, troubled. Before meeting Ono, Lennon was aggressive towards people, including women. And as shown above, John Lennon also rejected religion, was sympathetic towards punk and had other themes that could be associated to what Dagda's ending represents.

It cannot be understated specially that John Lennon's political lyrics emboldened many musicians to be anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment, complementing with the growth of what would become the punk movement of the 70s. This is even more evidenced by Sex Pistols's John Lydon commenting of Lennon's song Working Class Hero that "for the first time in my life, I felt that this anger and frustration was real." and former Police member Sting saying, "It's because of John that we rock musicians can say anything."

One can reach the conclusion that John Lennon ultimately had the "seed" for both SMTIVA alignments, befitting our SMTIVA protagonist of dual nature.

[where-theres-smoak-2]

For me the whole question of who is the rightful heir to the throne and the whole reason why I am team black all the way is very simple. Rhaenyra is the rightful heir to the throne because Viserys, who was the King at the time, named her his heir and he got all the lords to swear fealty to her when he did. The King's word is law, it really is that simple.

It's the same with the whole Jace, Lucerys and Joffrey debate, I don't consider them bastards and therefore excluded from inheriting lands and titles because Viserys, the King at the time declared them, publicly and on several occasions as legitimate and the rightful heirs. We know from the og show that a king has the power to make a bastard legitimate so if Viserys is standing up in front of witnesses and saying these boys are legitimate then they are legitimate end off.

Also whilst on the subject I have seen claims in the past that Rhaenyra is trying to trick poor Corlys and Rhaenys into believing that those boys are Laenor's and that makes her an evil bitch of a whore apparently. But here's the thing, those boys are Laenor's, like he claimed them as his own, both he and Rhaenyra referred to them as their boys. We know that Rhaenyra and Laenor tried and failed to conceive a child and so they looked to other methods of producing an heir. Look I don't really like using modern day constructs etc when talking about medieval set stories but I can't think of a better way of explaining what I mean, but the way I see it is like if a couple want a child but can't conceive so they get a donor, using this donor they are able to have a child. You wouldn't then go around and say that the father wasn't really that child's father because they weren't genetically related. So what we essentially have is a couple using a donor situation but set in a medieval fantasy society which complicates matters. Unlike in a modern setting where the couple could be open and honest about using a donor, Rhaenyra and Laenor could not but it still doesn't change the fact that the three boys were planned by Laenor and Rhaenyra and were seen as their children. This isn't a Cersei/Robert situation where Cersei was trying to pass Jaime's kid's off as Robert's without Robert's knowledge. Everyone involved knew what was going on and agreed to it. Laenor knew that genetically they were Harwin's, Harwin understood that legally and in all other ways those boys were Laenor's and not his. Yes Harwin was involved in their lives, yes Harwin clearly loved those boys, yes those boys were lucky enough to have two men in their lives who loved them and cared and protected them in a fatherly way, but that doesn't change the fact that they were still Laenor's sons. Rhaenyra chose Harwin to have children with because he was someone she trusted and cared for and who she knew cared for her, considering in their society if Laenor's sexuality was discovered or it was discovered they had used Harwin as a 'donor' to have their children, it could have really bad consequences of course she would want to chose someone she was sure would keep her secret.

I guess my overall point here is that its not as simple as Rhaenyra lied to Corlys, Rhaenys and her own boys about who their real father was, because their real father was Laenor. This situation came about because both Rhaenyra and Laenor were under pressure to produce heirs, so they found a way, together, of producing those heirs, so really when Rhaenyra tells her boys that Laenor is their father its the truth, he is in every way that matters. When she tells Corlys and Rhaenys these are your grandchildren, again its the truth. Because at the end of the day if Laenor himself knew and agreed with how those boys came to be and considered them his own, then its no one else's business how Laenor and Rhaenyra had those children, they are still their children.

Anyway I've rambled on enough and its 2am where I live and I should really be getting some sleep. But yeah, as far as I am concerned Rhaenyra is the rightful heir and her three eldest boys are the true sons of Laenor and are legitimate and the rightful heirs of the throne and driftmark, I will not budge on that. Alicent, the greens and everyone else just needs to mind their own damn business when it comes to those boys.

[writers-potion]

Royalty Universe …

They are promised by their families at birth

They're given away to end a war

Marriage law dictates that every royal must marry a commoner chosen by the advisor to keep the bloodline clean

Every princess/prince must be married before they can assume the throne

"It's just until we produce an heir … "

Mythology …

Fate of the couple is foretold by the gods

The prophecy claims that person A and person B are meant for each other!

Hades and Persephone - you know what I mean.

Cupid and Psyche (kinda like Beauty and the Beast, if you ask me)

Medieval Universe …

To unite person A and person B's families (courts, etc.)

Person A's father chose person B, also it's the law

To end a long-running feud

Person A is "sold off" to person B's family for a hefty some of money

Person A is a prisoner of war, held captive in person B's lands.

Fae Universe …

The Fae King (person A) tricks person B into eating something Faerie.

Person A's hapless parents promised them to the Fae King (person B)

A non-Fae (person A) and Fae (person B) being "soulmates", but meant to kill each other.

Person A raises an orphaned Fae (person B) in their house

Regency Universe …

Either person A or person B is in danger of being ruined socially

Person A is inheriting person B's father's estate and the only way to keep person B's family out of the poor house is for person B to marry person A

One of them compromised the other

Old West Universe …

Mail order spouse (person A) to keep person B's house because person B is a dirty single person and a mess alone

Person A needs money to pay off their debtors, person B needs a spouse for decency's sake.

Person A's parents sent them out west to marry someone. That someone is person B and person B is also the only sheriff round these parts.

Others …

Person A is trade to the Vikings for sake passage and subsequently married to the jarl's oldest child, person B

Person A's crew raided the village and their cut of the booty is a locked chest. With person B inside.

"You don't have to love me"

"We're all the other has now, we'd do well to play nice."

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

[kingdoms-and-empires]

Like this IF so much!! Tho i do have a question concerning the romances. How are the romances going to be handled now that they’re open to all genders? Will this be more explored in game since the need for heirs or is it something that doesn’t really get addressed and just happens? Will there be struggles in that type of society since it’s more of a medieval time? Also good luck getting that vitamin D !

It'll be explored ingame of course, but there's already current lore that explains why all this is "allowed" and accepted.

The Goddess Herself and the theme of love helps in this regard.

There's some Canon Law from the church that answers questions on inheritance, and you'll get to see what a big deal it is for one person to marry INTO a family. The drama is in which partner is marrying INTO whose, as that changes inheritance stuff.

There won't be as much struggle as there would be if this were a Historical Fiction work, which it aint. It's a fantasy work. Im inspired by the "medieval times" not confined or constricted by it! Hope this answers some questions you may have had!!! EDIT: Someone reminded me I literally already did this question as an article on Patreon for free lmfao, here you go!