Tumgik
#westerosi society
horizon-verizon · 15 days
Text
Maybe this Will Put Things into Perspective about Rhaenyra & Cersei's Kids Being Bastards or Not...
Feudalism is an early period or a economic phase of a millennia-managed con against anyone who isn't a noble man, and most men are the active conmen.
Neither set of kids were ever declared bastards. Nor were they ever or "acknowledged" as bastards, because noblemen "acknowledge" a child they father onto another woman. noblewomen, in theory, can, but if their having had sex premaritally/extramaritally isn't already known outside of the household they do not. Because to do without it already being known (like with Alys Turnberry) would publicly ruin her prospects for marriage in the future, ruin her reputation, and likely muddy the family's as well.
Robert probably would have removed those kids from the line of succession had he known (and he didn't) if not outight remove them from the mortal coil. But instead, he got gutted. Therefore, Cersei's kids are not officially or "legally" bastards. That prior declaration is what is required to have them "legally" known as bastards.
Bastardry has always been more of a legal question in its nature than a biological fact of nature. Of course, we the audience and most of ther know that Rhaenyra's kids aren't Laenor's biologically; Ned correctly deduced that Cersei's weren't Robert's biologically. However, he was never able to get his information to matter "legally", or to get it to Robert to make a decision on. Whereas Laenor, Corlys, Viserys all knew and decided to maintain the boys as their heirs. And they made this decision based on the lack of knowledge the public has/what they can control. Which is often what any noble does; once again, GRRM has explicitly stated that the lords of Westeros often take advantage to twist "laws" (customs) according to the circumstances around them & their own desires, and it's is not exclusive to bastards already "acknowledged".
The purpose of marriage as an institution is entirely for the lord/nobleman's benefit. It is an institution that was created and developed entirely for a man's political interests (a father's, a brother's, a husband's, a son's, etc.). And it was made to consolidate/monopolize the noble woman's (or really any woman) body and reproductive labor so as to produce living products to pass on the resources/titles mainly the lord and his ancestors have aggregated. To try to make sure those resources are passed to the people the lord wants passed own to, the sexual purity culture imposed on women and girls works to construct shame & suppress female extramarital and premarital sexual activity, which is an aspect of her overall agency. Her agency is re-confined/socially reduced to her sexual activity because she has no other primary function nor legal privileges aside form being a wife, mother, daughter, virgin, etc. Or sometimes the protectoress of her husband's/son's assets: the castle at times of war/siege when the lord is not present; director of his household's activities and servants by being its head overseer of accounts. Therefore, the lord is literally claiming his wife as his effective property through her womb & this is often why when we see women like Daena sleeping with a man not her husband, it is an act of reinforcing her authority or political agency in spite of how she was raised to see her own body.
Think about it: why do we not have a world or society (fictional or not) where even though the wife births a child not her husband's the husband's do not willfully or are "legally" compelled to adopt that child as their own, effectively de-fathering the biological father? Because men want to feel as if they have as close to total ownership over female companionship and labor so they consolidate power to themselves and not to women. Having all these designations of gender and "bastardry" that everyone are compelled to follow makes that easier without expending energy or sharing power. Medieval customs put the social-legal identification of "bastard" from the institution of marriage, its compulsions on women, and their reproductive labor/bodies/uteruses being claimed by the men who are "licensed" to own them. Which is why when we say that neither Cersei's nor Rhaenyra's kids are "bastards" it is true, because the purpose of bastardry is to attempt to reclaim the product of reproductive labor and Viserys/Corlys/Laenor/Robert have already done that. To protest about how Robert didn't know about his kids not being his kids is really to protest how he didn't not get the products of Cersei's reproductive labor in the usual male-prioritized business of objectifying female labor that is intrinsic in this feudal society. Whereas Viserys/Laenor/Corlys accepted the products of Rhaenyra's reproductive labor.
All this is also why I really don't care for the impassioned argument of these women were being "unfair" to the system (Rhaenyra) or to their husbands, fathers etc. (Cersei) or them being "liars" or "destructive". Feudalism is itself an objectifying, unfair, unequal system. It is designed to benefit men and mainly men inherently, and directly at the expense of women who risk death itself while a man fathering any sort of kid never risks death. Men lie and destroy the women who birth their children, manage their household, protect their castle, rear their children....and it is all "licensed" and justified under the constructed institutions of marriage, oath-making, knighthood and principles of chastity, virginity, the different sub-meanings of "honor" for men vs women, etc. Men are themselves already objectifying or making an exclusive economic use of their female counterparts as well as going back on their vows (a deal that is still in feudal marriages, even for men) through their socially-allowed extramarital and premarital affairs producing bastards.
38 notes · View notes
fromtheseventhhell · 5 months
Text
I ignore about 95% of the conversations surrounding Arya having killed people because, outside of Arya stans, people refuse to include the context of the very violent circumstances she experiences + her trauma which influences her actions. She wasn't destined to be a killer and her being forced on the run, having to survive during a war (at times on her own), having to witness countless people being tortured and murdered, being enslaved as a prisoner of war, having to witness the deaths of her family, etc. are all hugely important factors. Not to mention the times when her life is literally on the line and she has to make tough decisions to ensure her survival. The only time her trauma is acknowledged is when people are using it to prove she's "too far gone", otherwise it's essays on how she hasn't suffered that much. It's so boring how people ignore well-developed characters just to reduce them to one or two aspects of their story. And this treatment is only for certain characters; let someone mention Sansa being part of the plot to poison Sweetrobin and all of a sudden, people can understand being forced to make questionable decisions under difficult circumstances.
111 notes · View notes
eggblackwood · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
73 notes · View notes
alicentes · 21 days
Text
Genuine question for the hotd fandom in general - what could Alicent have done differently when it came to Dyana’s rape? What would have been a better but realistic outcome for Dyana?
11 notes · View notes
hdhdhbdjrjfn · 1 month
Text
the thing about the brienne discourse of whether she's pretty "by our standards" or just objectively ugly is that IT DOESNT MATTER thats why it annoys brienneheads (me). It just comes off as people desesperately wanting to make her beautiful and just. Why do you care so much about that? Brienne could very well look like a modern supermodel (she doesn't) but that means nothing to her bc she's in westeros. And in westeros, she doesnt even come close to the beauty standard and her story + personality is shaped by of the prejudice she endured
7 notes · View notes
queennyra · 1 month
Text
sometimes i wonder who alicent would have been had her father let her choose
9 notes · View notes
turtle-paced · 1 year
Note
You said that Cersei raped Lancel because he is a minor and i agree that you have a point.
But by this logic, everyone who is married to a minor and consumed the wedding is a rapist, Edmure for instance
Yes, it's like adults marrying minors is bad or something.
93 notes · View notes
feydrautha · 2 years
Text
"If you dont pick a side - aka the side I personally prefer for moral reasons - in HOTD, then you miss the entire point GRRM wanted to make, and are immoral"
Have you considered that you can do two things at once, understand the deeper meaning of the Dance and also watch this in the same way you would follow a telenovela or a soccer match between two bitter rival teams where you don't really have a horse in the race
60 notes · View notes
fruitageoforanges · 1 year
Text
on the back of my last reblog —
daemon supports rhaenyra’s claim to the throne because he wants to live out his fantasy of being viserys’ queen. that’s it, that’s the post.
29 notes · View notes
greenbloods · 1 month
Text
if they dont include mushroom in season 2 ill start biting
6 notes · View notes
horizon-verizon · 1 year
Note
This is about the show only:
Viserys, as the King, is the patriarchy, and Rhaenyra is only able to get away with rebelling against it because Viserys lets her. Viserys expects Alicent to be a dutiful childbearing wife but let’s Rhaenyra do basically whatever she wants because he feels guilt for what he did to Aemma. And Rhaenyra is okay with that. She doesn’t care about other women suffering. She only wants to bend the rules for herself.
Instead of being angry at Viserys for marrying Alicent she is angry at Alicent, who had no choice. Alicent has been maritally raped by Viserys for years. She dutifully bore him three sons and daughter. They even all have the Targaryen look and ride dragons. She did her duty, and he still doesn’t give a shit about his kids with her and clearly favors Rhaenyra. Still, Alicent took care of Viserys for years when she could have just let him rot. She may not love him romantically but she clearly cares about him, despite what he did to her.
Alicent has been a saint, because if I were her I would have poisoned both Daemon and Rhaenyra and also Viserys to protect my children. Alicent, as a victim of Viserys has every right to advocate for her children and put them first. She has every right to want Aegon to be king, not because she’s some woman hater like y’all think, but because she’s simply a mother who wants to protect her children and frankly deserves to have her bloodline on the throne after everything she went through.
She doesn’t even want Rhaenyra dead, she still cares for her despite everything. Alicent isn’t perfect but neither is Rhaenyra. You can support and root for Rhaenyra while acknowledging that Alicent does have a point and that the story is not black and white. I understand why Rhaenyra wants the throne but I also understand why Alicent thinks crowning Aegon is necessary.
Special Note: Since the show's world is the same as the ASoIaF canon's, the cultural, legal, and political laws and situations and contexts I will bring up are all valid. Plus, I've made several posts as to how this show is garbage in terms of writing and characterizations & basic consistency. This post will put that aside (for the most part) to be Watsonian.
*EDITED POST* (4/7/24)
Can you do something for me, anon? Point out to me a single scene or family that is actively preparing to usurp Rhaenyra before any of the greens did. We see Borros shout at Lucerys, but did you actually see him with troops and supplies stored places in preparation to usurp Rhaenyra BEFORE Aemond arrived?
Alicent's kids were always safe. You, like her, took Otto's words for granted, and for why?
I explain how Otto and Alicent were wrong about the lords rebelling (w/o green interference) all in my points below.
A)
Let's take a breath. Imagine what having a female Queen Regnant--not just a Queen Consort, Queen Dowager, or Queen Mother--would do for any other woman seeking power in a male-dominated society that frequently abuses its own women from noblemen to common blacksmiths (Megelle).
There is now a precedent (since people shout "what about precedent?!") of a female leader. Such that would socially justify and legitimize further other female claimants of noble seats across the realm.
Jeyne Arryn is an example of a woman who would have benefitted even more from Rhaenyra ruling, even w/o Rhaenyra being Aemma's daughter and thus Jeyne's cousin. Her rule of the Fingers, Vales, etc. would have had much more confidence and power than if Rhaenyra hadn't had an unencumbered reign as a woman in her own right.
("The Blacks and the Greens") -- the greens looking over list of those who could support them:
Tumblr media
("A Son for a Son") -- Jeyne's reasoning for supporting Rhaenyra:
Tumblr media
But because Rhaenyra not ruling, what happens? For years, women/girls like Arianne Martell, Sansa and Seren Stark, and Jeyne Poole (Arya Stark, if she hadn't gotten out) are even more abused--physically and emotionally--by power-seeking/misogynist men.
You bleat about how Alicent is abused. Well, by her participation and actions in usurping Rhaenyra, she made life worse for all women in Westeros. Because the idea that women should not be leaders and that men should always have power over them became stronger (posts and reblogs by brideoffires).
If Rhaenyra had been allowed to rule, would any of what happened (during the Dance) to the common-born or any noble person in and out of King's Landing have happened? NO!
B)
Rhaenyra had been heir for at least 12-13 years in the show and Lord Caswell was killed for trying to escape and alert her. I'll bring up the book once here just so my point is supported: those oaths that Viserys had the lords make for Rhaenyra? Most followed through and supported her throughout the actual war...that the greens started. Many of them enthusiastically did so. (Frey, Blackwood, the Arynns/Jeyne Arryn). Even a Stark, Cregan, kept fighting for her.
And a quick note: Also, do you know another person who plunged Westeros into war based on their anger at a handful of people for merely personal AND unjustified reasons (I will explain how Alicent is unjustified to be against Rhaenyra way below)? Aegon IV against Naerys and Aemon for their possible affair and Naerys birthing Aemon's child. It was said that Aegon believed Daeron, his official son, to be the bastard son of his siblings Aemon and Naerys.
In this case, Aegon IV was the type to prefer everyone suffering if he had no control, instead of doing as Viserys I did (if it was true or not, that part really doesn't matter politically) and kept hypothetical non-bio-son as his protected heir. I say "protected" because by naming all his bastards legitimate on his deathbed, Aegon IV endangered Daeron II's body and claim.
Yet this show will have us think that Alicent thinks always or mostly in the favor of "the realm" and unselfishly. And a huge reason why I that Alicent presents as "unselfish" more than hypocritical by the show's wriitng rather than her own hypocrisy is because Rhaenys--the resident supposed "wise" woman--has named Alicent as "wise" depsite immediately following that up with Alicent only making "windows" in the "prison" their patriarchal system shoves her into.
Another way is the effect of the Nymeria page she sends to Rhaenyra to try to dissuade her from war and just accept Aegon's rule...reminder, this page is of a woman nonDornish Westerosi would think a woman abnormal for her being a ruler onto herself AND Nymeria was a woman who while had to flee her past home and war with many lords for her people to survive....like Rhaenyra in this situation, aso had to fight wars (even when they were of conquest) to ensure her people's survival. She changed Dorne not for any noble reason, but for necessary self-oriented reasons of survival. And she's remembered as one of the most influential, important figures of Westerosi history, having created an entire different and lasting society in Dorne. Nymeria being framed as abnormal or cautionary--like Rhaenyra & Alicent have been in the in-world document of Fire & Blood--is par for the course and if Alicent was trying to be cautionary to Rhaenyra through the cautionary example of Nymeria, it would make sense for Alicent to do that. But it doesn't, really for Rhaenyra to fully & sincerely accept that line of persuasion. In other words, we shouldn't be validating--if what I said abt Alicent trying to use Nymeria as a cautionary note to Rhaenyra and not something like "remember when we used to be friends?!" way--and saying her reasons AND her way of ending a war are justifed or good...because she's still stealing something, one of the only things Rhaenyra has had that a man is allowed in this world.
MOST of the Westersi lords were in support of her and her "bastard" son Jacaerys. There were no real, substantive pushback or material war preparations against her for a real rebellion. Helaena was safe to marry Jaecaerys and become Queen herself, but Alicent refused why exactly? Because Jaecaerys was, to her, a bastard unworthy of her daughter...
C)
AND because she was still angry with Rhaenyra for...what exactly? Because Rhaenyra lied about "losing her virginity"?
Why does this matter to Alicent, when it is the fault of her father for making this public news? Why couldn't this be kept secret, as all the other times a noble girl/woman has had affairs and bastard children? (I get into real-life scenarios of kings actually allowing their wives to birth bastards and have lovers way below). Hint: Otto wants Rhaenyra to be replaced above him doing his "duty" to Viserys and actually being a good Hand. To pretend otherwise is a delusion.
Let's review the context of Rhaenyra's lying to Alicent (scroll down to "The Context of Rhaenyra’s Lie in Episode 4").
D)
You: "Viserys, as the King, is the patriarchy, and Rhaenyra is only able to get away with rebelling against it because Viserys lets her."
1.
Did you witness episode 6, where Alicent nearly lead most of the council meeting while Viserys sat close to her?
Tumblr media
We are meant to understand that over the years, Viserys lets Alicent do more and more. He also allows her to demand Rhaenyra's children be brought before her every time they were birthed or not long afterward, knowing that Alicent wants him to call them bastards and declare them as such.
Customarily, Queen Consorts don't sit in councils unless their husbands allow it. Otherwise, they aren't included. Alysanne was involved because Jaehaerys allowed it.
But do you hear of any Queen Consorts joining the council After the Dance? Was Naerys involved when Aegon IV ruled? What about Daenaera and Aegon III? Shaera and Jaehaerys II? What about Rhaella and Aerys II? Cersei and Robert?
No, again, it is after the Dance that women are customarily excluded from substantive politics even as a Queen Consort. (Queen Dowagers or Mothers do not count because the king is usually their son/stepson who is either too weak to rule independently or officially too young like Alyssa Velaryon was for Jaehaerys).
You need to remember that Alicent is trying to force Viserys' hand and reveal the boys' parentage to everyone so her own sons get support, knowing he did not want this, knowing that he is king.
Like Rhaenyra pointed out about Otto tailing her, questioning the heir/princess about their business and especially the parentage of their kids is treasonous (without concrete proof, and honestly she has none because one can never prove another's parentage at this point in history AND they had room to claim that the boys could very well have inherited darker features from their Baratheon kin).
In this light, we can say Alicent acts "treasonously". Yet Viserys lets her get away with it instead of putting his foot down. Doesn't really matter that he was ill and rotting, he was able to muster the strength later when he was sicker so that anyone who questioned Rhaenyra would not be left alone to live. Why couldn't he do this earlier, when he was healthier and stronger?
Yes, Viserys ignored her about the Velaryon boys...what did you expect him to do, renounce and abandon his daughter just because she birthed kids, not Laenor's? And make Corlys' ire worse? The guy who WANTS Luke to inherit Driftmark? Not only that, ruin his daughter and the house's images more than if he did as he did and allowed them to be legitimate? Then wouldn't Viserys be a worse father? Alicent was suggesting trash "advice" on that, both politically and personally.
So really, it seems you want him to be evil to Rhaenyra alone, rather than actual fairness.
2.
I don't think you watched episode 4 well.
I agree that HotD!Young Rhaenyra is freer than Jaehaerys I's daughters of the book. But what Viserys gives Rhaenyra is actually not much choice or room at all. unlike Jaehaerys' daughters, who have both parents one of whose problems were that there were too many children,
Rhaenyra's mother's death by Viserys mission to get a son AND her immediately being named his heir gave her new unique anxieties and burdens.
Her distance and rebuttals are all results of Viserys taking her friend as a wife and breaking one of those few bonds left to her. Because you can't be your stepmother's/Queen Consort best friend when she will birth other competitors (at this point, show!Rhaenyra was in deep doubt).
In that episode, we see how much choice he actually gives Rhaenyra:
Not letting her speak, not working with her to shut down Otto
dismissing her concerns about Otto until she gave him an ultimatum, which only seemed to work because he already suspected or disliked Otto
Not considering how it would rather benefit her claim to marry her uncle, as was the point of all those incestuous marriages between cousins and siblings and uncle-niece/aunt-nephew both in Valyria and Andal/FM Westeros.
*not in the episode, but still a part of this* marries her only friend, knowing that she is literally her only friend, all so he can avoid marrying another younger girl and have his cake/eat it too--attracted...knowing that they would never be the same again
He wanted obedience, anon. "You are my political headache!" Meanwhile he doesn't see how it would be politically better for her to marry Daemon.
3.
Laenor is gay. We already know that he and Rhaenyra tried but nothing came of it. There were never going to be any kids from that union.
What did you expect Rhaenyra to do exactly? Rape Laenor? Get a Lysene sex slave to impregnate her? You'd be the first to call her terrible for either of these.
Not have kids? That is even worse than not birthing her husband's children. For someone like her, the heir to the throne, to be called "barren" and unable to produce heirs herself. A thing Otto can use against her and promote Aegon the Elder as heir, which would give Otto more power over Rhaenyra.
Find another Valyrian-descent-male noble or blonde guy? And what guarantee do we have that he wouldn't try to take advantage of Rhaenyra though his blood link to any children he would sire and endanger her--plus those kids'--lives and reputations and positions?! We see how men in Westeros and beyond reach for power through even those children they do love...Rhaenyra was with Harwin bc he didn't demand anything of her nor looed for advancement through their kids. He was there just for her.
Do you want that, maybe because you already have a deep hatred for Rhaenyra that is irrational?
4.
Viserys got Rhaenyra into the mess that she was in with Laenor for his own ends and by his own cowardly need to have Alicent/someone that he thinks he chose as freely.
He is not only responsible for Alicent's misery but Rhaenyra and Laenor's as well. He also was responsible for Rhaenyra having to have kids whose parentage would always be doubted since it was an open secret that Laenor was gay.
Again, what do you think Rhaenyra was supposed to do? Demand an annulment and risk insulting the already ruffled Corlys? We already saw how Viserys was determined to have her marry Laenor to ensure a Velaryon alliance and smooth over his rejection of Laena. Do you really think that she could have done much there, when she already depends on Viserys for the said inheritance for the throne, as you have stated WHILE battling her other feelings of grief, anger, etc.?
So no, Viserys doesn't give her much choice or many allowances.
5.
In real-life medieval, Tudor, and early modern history, kings, lords, etc, there are many examples of husbands and fathers (latter less occurring) actively encouraging or allowing their wives, daughters, etc to have their own lovers or even children with said lover that the husband then names as his own.
Whether because:
the lover is an accomplished politician who takes the burden of rule off of him
wanted to stay married to said wife because of her dowry, other inheritances, or political connections
because the husband is infertile
because the husband is gay and unable to impregnate his wife
or because they already have kids and the king/lord/husband/etc do not want to jeopardize or draw suspicion of their kid's legitimacy -- better to claim all than to risk some
Sometimes it is even the court and territory's nobles and courtiers who want the queen/lady/wife to have lovers and children outside of her legal marriage just for the heirs, to avoid the madness of said king/husband, or to obtain a more competent politician/commander. The open secret if you will.
This means that Viserys sees many benefits in Rhaenyra having any sort of kids, which explains how he was willing to claim her sons as legitimate. I also have to remind you that Corlys also accepted these boys because he also wanted an heir.
Yes, Viserys loved his daughter in some capacity and wanted to protect her, but we can't ignore the political benefits that come with her having children within the cover of a legal marriage to a gay man.
In this way, Rhaenyra is further trapped in marriage, popping out sons and kids that while she comes to love, are also there to be heirs for another man. Does this sound familiar?
You should take read of Eleanor Harman's Sex with the Queen to learn more. Here's an excerpt:
With regard to royal children, the only consideration more important than their kingly blood was the monarch’s self-interest.  Many kings acknowledged children they knew had been fathered by someone else. Often, kings did not want to cast doubt on the paternity of older children they knew to be their own. In the case where the king could not father children, sometimes court factions heartily desired the queen to bear bastards in order to stabilize the throne and cement their own interests.
Fortunately, the queen’s complete and utter disillusionment with her husband usually set in after the birth of the heir.  And so it was not deemed worthwhile to lose international prestige, throw the nation into tumult, and question the paternity of all royal children, simply to deny the one cuckoo in the robin’s nest. In the early nineteenth century, the last son of King John VI and Queen Carlota Joaquina of Portugal was extremely good-looking and slender - unlike either of his parents - and happened to be the spitting image of the handsome gardener at the queen’s country retreat. Other than a few snickers behind painted fans, no one said a word.
E)
You: "Viserys expects Alicent to be a dutiful childbearing wife but let’s Rhaenyra do basically whatever she wants because he feels guilt for what he did to Aemma. And Rhaenyra is okay with that. She doesn’t care about other women suffering. She only wants to bend the rules for herself."
Already explained the little-to-no choice for Rhaenyra aspect.
Yes, Viserys does expect Alicent to do this, because, unlike Rhaenyra, Alicent is not facing 10% of usurpation or pushback that Rhaenyra--as heir--would/could.
She is Queen Consort, not soon-to-be-present Queen Regnant. Alicent is not his heir. She is his wife and the person who bears him other children, his "spares". Unfortunately, that is the way of feudal, monarchial patriarchy. Of which Alicent wants to use it for herself and uses it to judge/make Rhaenyra seem unfit...the very system and principles that oppress her, Alicent.
This does not mean Alicent had no right to pursue power for herself by principle, even though I want Rhaenyra. Show!Alicent, however, lives to give up power for conformity's sake in comparison.
And Viserys should be held accountable for sleeping with a teen girl who clearly didn't approach him with full willingness. And if not Alicent, it would have been any other girl or woman. Because girls are socially eligible to become wives as soon as they get their periods in Westeros, even if the practice is that parents and guardians usually wait until the girl is in her later teens (16-19). That's a societal problem that both he and Otto can and did take advantage of.
But again, anon, what exactly did you expect Rhaenyra to do? The girl was also 15, like Alicent!!!!
You seem to give the mantle of responsibility if Alicent's suffering to her. I said this already in another post, but Rhaenyra just lost her mother a few months earlier (something Alicent has experienced) and she has taken to her duties as heir. Alicent is the one who was more available for her than she was to Alicent. Can Rhaenyra read minds, now? Why didn't Alicent let Rhaenyra at least know that Otto was forcing her to do this? That, at least, was within Alicent's power.
What is Rhaenyra supposed to have done when Viserys and Alicent both explicitly told each other (episode 2) they'd keep their meetings secret from Rhaenyra, thus keeping Rhaenyra totally out and in the dark whilst she was mentally preoccupied?
NOTE: I want to clarify that I don't think Rhaenyra would necessarily become Alicent's savior and stop Viserys from choosing her and use chess moves against Otto, or that Alicent should have thought Rhaenyra would 100% deliver her from this situation. Rhaenyra may or may not have been at least able to bring them together to think of how they could Viserys to know of Otto's plans, but that is not the point I make when I compare Alicent and Rhaenyra during this time. Alicent seems to have lived her entire life pressured into suppressing her desires for the sake of obeying her overbearing father, and it would be terribly hard to overcome that and see through those teachings instilled in you. But just by these statements alone, Rhaenyra proves to not be her actual enemy nor the cause of her suffering.
I could flip it around: If we say they were truly friends, why not say something--if we presume that they always talked about Otto's suffocating expectations of Alicent and their supposed many years of close friendship? The show--by not letting us see how they actually related their relationship with their families to each other (the jump cuts and lack of any flashbacks)--refused to allow us to better qualify the character of their communication habits. (I already answered this in the paragraph above). How close were they really? We only get their relationship through the lens of Rhaenyra's family's succession crisis. Before the events of episode 1, did these two girls tell each other a lot of things that they wouldn't tell others, and I mean the most private things--or do they hold those back and why? Would Alicent tell Rhaenyra about her father sometimes drunkenly bemoan her mother's passing if Otto did that? Would Rhaenyra tell Alicent any of her crushes? Would she tell her what she thought about the Faith, and if so, where did she stop if ever? Either way, with what is presented on-screen, the onus of their relationship did not/does not rest fully on Rhaenyra, esp when she didn't even know and could not spare time or thought to Alicent while going through shit herself.
So it doesn't look like Alicent gave Rhaenyra much of a choice either, to even attempt to help her out or give room to process information and respond, choosing to keep it close to her chest. Maybe to not lose her friendship sooner than she liked, it being due to obedience to her father and Viserys keeping it secret, or afraid of Rhaenyra not believing that she wasn't being overly ambitious and disrespectful towards Aemma's memory, etc. Once again, the point is that Rhaenyra had less ability to anticipate all this happening, so there needed to be just one person who told her all this. And in friendships & any relationship, one has to know when the ball is in their court, and in this instance, it was Alicent and Viserys. But both chose to keep Rhaenyra out of the loop completely until the last minute bc neither wanted to deal with what they both knew would be very hurt & angry feelings from her.
Meanwhile, before Viserys announced his marriage, Rhaenyra was actually being very helpful and "obedient", performing her tasks/duties. If you think ignoring Otto and choosing a capable fighter, specifically saying that "my father needs a worthy fighter with experience" and choosing Criston is her not following the rules or thinking of Viserys, you'd be dead wrong. This also goes for her suggesting they use dragonriders to join Corlys in the Stepstones, to which, once again, Viserys refuses and makes her look dumb, all because it was an interruption in "adult", manly matters. (Yes he allows her on the council later, but first events matter and he allowed a bad image to be made that day of her. Stupid of him.)
Finally, Rhaenyra is ranked lower than Viserys, THE KING, despite being his daughter. It appears you want some grand gesture or a big power play from Rhaenyra to protect Alicent from soemthing she doesn't even know is happening. What would you want her to do? To repeat myself, demand an annulment or a cancellation after it's already been announced? Again, if she had known prior, maybe something could be done and she could persuade him otherwise, but we'll never know, will we? And risk insulting Corlys? Again?!
So really, you should be angry at Otto and Viserys more than anyone. They are the ones with the power to put Alicent into the position that she is in. That's the patriarchy talking. That's not Rhaenyra's doing.
As for Rhaenyra's anger:
mother just died
Alicent's silence/keeping such secrets from her
Viserys' public dismissals
feeling some self-hate and disappointment for not having a male's value in her society
If you are going to advocate for Alicent finding fault in Rhaenyra's ability to find holes in the patriarchal mold made for her, we should keep in mind that Rhaenyra was deliberately kept out of even knowing what would happen to her and what she'd be up against later on in the first place. Would this not sting at least? Especially after she's told Alicent, presumably, about her fears for Aemma, her disappointment in Viserys' disregard for her before Aemma died, and her fears of being discarded once a male child arrives? All those years of friendship and thinking Alicent would tell her such important information? If we can forgive Alicent for thinking Rhaenyra would literally kill her kids or endanger them bc she fears her father and believes everything from him, why can't we "forgive" or cut Rhaenyra some slack for being angry that her best friend didn't tell her anything that could determine her future?!
When you've been doubted and sidelined all your life, it would take a lot of ability to compartmentalize (certainly more than anyone in this show has) to see past the nail in the coffin before it came down, which is not necessarily a good thing bc you risk repressing too much of your own emotions and thus debilitate yourself from making more rational decisions or debilitate your own ability to process information and get to conclusions as fast as you could.
Honestly, both girls are beleaguered and have much in common in terms of suffering from patriarchal authorities. Both are forced to have children for the sake of politics, one sexually abused and denied sexual exploration alrogwthwr before she hit 18, and the other totally shut down in any participation in politics as well as trapped in a position more vulnerable to others machinations if she hadn't had kids.
Their fathers both are the ones truly trifling.
F)
You: "Alicent has been maritally raped by Viserys for years. She dutifully bore him three sons and daughter. They even all have the Targaryen look and ride dragons. She did her duty, and he still doesn’t give a shit about his kids with her and clearly favors Rhaenyra. Still, Alicent took care of Viserys for years when she could have just let him rot. She may not love him romantically but she clearly cares about him, despite what he did to her."
1.
I wrote a post about feudalism, Queen Consorts, spares, etc for Alicent and Viserys, and the claim that just because she birthed him, children, doesn't mean he customarily owes her anything, much less making her kids heirs. Because this show's world still has the same sexist circumstances, same as what I said there for the show.
Anon, it's misogynist to go "Alicent did her duty by bearing four 'obvious' Targ children" when Rhaenyra's kids also ride dragons while not looking "typically" Targaryen.
You're saying that Alicent's kids are "worth" more than Rhaenyra's because she was a good girl and birthed heirs. You also fell for the court idea of "trueness" being "obvious" in appearance--blood purity.
Finally, are Alicent and Rhaenyra only worth their wombs, now? Is that what you want from your (assumed) fav, to just be a pawn spawning out "true" heirs for her father to take advantage of? Whose fault is it that Alicent is put into her position? Viserys is obviously partially at fault for choosing her at all, but who put her there? Otto. For purely selfish reasons. Why are you so devoted to hating a girl for mourning and being busy, whilst the true perpetrator of Alicent's suffering is Otto?
Why do you think that suffering for doing your "job" of being a baby factory and enduring marital rape = having "good morals"?
2.
*Disclaimer*: I do recognize how show!Alicent was sexually abused, as she was obviously unwilling.
My point is that why does sexual abuse have to be or is a requisite for respect and a tool of exchange for power? Why is it characterized as a thing that Alicent "let" happen to her, instead of just socially forced onto her? You do this when you argue that she "did her duty" and consented to give Viserys children without it being a problem about how Otto put her there in the first place, a place where she had little to no options. You don't mention this.
Children trump wives/husbands/spouses/SOs, as you argued that Alicent's love for her kids trumps whatever she feels towards any hypothetical husband/Viserys.
Why are we asking him to emotionally abandon Rhaenyra altogether for Alicent's kids? Romantic love is a nonfactor. Romance doesn't get top priority when we're talking politics, nor is it always or should be the final authority on who gets more favor. I mean, if we're talking about the characters only, Rhaenyra is Viserys' daughter. You're revealing that you'd prefer if Viserys gave his political favor to his wife over his daughter, which is pretty crazy considering that Rhaenyra is his heir and his eldest child, the child he's known and emotionally engaged with far longer than he's known Alicent. And this is coming from a person who agrees wholeheartedly that he was a terrible dad to any/all of his kids in different ways but was worse towards the green kids with his comparative neglect.
While it's fair to say Viserys should pay more attention to his other kids, I don't think that's all you want. I think that you want him to just name Aegon heir, that he can only express true love for his other kids by giving the heir title to Aegon and removing Rhaenyra. Because you think that the throne is Aegon's birthright. And you think it is his birthright just because he has a penis and Andal male-preferred primogeniture exists. Meanwhile, if you go through Westerosi history and read carefully, you will see that while girls are not as preferred to boys, you will see examples of girls leading houses even with male relatives available. Jeyne Arryn is one, who had male cousins and uncles by no brothers after they and her father died. You may counterargue and say either Jeyne had to take power to have it and/or that in Westerosi tradition the girl can only inherit if she has no nuclear-male relatives, and you would be correct.
Problem there is that you would be defending a patriarchal setback for women, and are therefore misogynist because you do not want women to have real autonomy. Autonomy is the power of self (it's in the word). Power that comes from and is practiced from the self, exists by itself and is generated from the self. It is the ability to make decisions for one's self, by oneself, as far from others' always-biased-and-never-fully-understanding-of-you's perspectives or abilities. More substantial power is not when a woman/girl only gets power when all other male options are unavailable, is that actual autonomous power or a pure autonomous claim the same as a man's? No.
So if you, anon, are upset with the idea that a woman seeks power for herself or ways to shape her life how she wants it without a man or man-lead/filled/prioritized institution making decisions against her, then you yourself prove to be misogynist and hateful of women seeking autonomy.
3.
What about when she grows older? Do you suggest that Alicent remains powerless then? Again, what I pointed out about Viserys letting her have a lot of power for years from episode 6. You should be troubled by how it's told how the Queen consort's only true job is to be a fertile womb, not congratulating her fertility under this context. Why is passive "power" the only power you want to afford a woman?
Once again, Alicent is Queen Consort. Not a Queen Regnant as Rhaenyra would have been.
After Viserys gives her that power and she gains much more in episode 8 in his illness, she is the next in the show's hierarchy/authority, as we saw by her giving orders to the Kingsguard. At least next to the King's Hand. She is also in charge of the running of the castle in that she dismisses servants and makes sure that whoever is in charge of collecting and organizing accounts of food, supplies, etc. (usually a castellan or a steward). Servants including those who dress and take the king's piss/poop out. Those who are literally close to Viserys. We see it in episode 3, where Alicent sends the servants away and cleans Viserys herself.
She has more influence or power than she or some fans think bc she is closest to the King. Not official policy-making, law-making, war-waging power, but a lot of social court power. Power that does not come from Otto.
In Westeros, it appears the heir officially outranks the Queen Consort because we haven't seen a Consort boss around the heir on their rank alone [a parent can do do with a child, but what about if the Consort isn't the parent of that child?] but in the show, they try to reverse that in episode 6. This doesn't track at all unless the writers do what they should have done and show accumulations of moments where Alicent gains more unofficial power as Viserys deteriorates and lets her go off to the races OR/AND she more and more gets him to feel that he needs to give her such power. Queen Consorts don't sit at council with the King, once more, it's a privilege granted to them and is actually an anomaly. Therefore, it would have been that much more meaningful to show how Alicent got where she got in at least 3 episodes preceding what we get in episode 6, even though it still wouldn't b match what happens in the original story. This is an example of the writers creating a new lore point but not sticking to their own invention or being logically consistent abt it.
Yes, her main and defining "job" -- by those patriarchal more she herself is trying to enforce -- is to give Viserys children and be the model of female chastity that Andal tradition dictates to her (alms, faith to the Faith, only having sex with Viserys). Plus run/oversee the royal inner household (its resources [ex. food] & the royal offspring), and possibly arrange marriages. She is even expected to bear with her husband's bullshit because he is her husband and she is a woman. (You'd be surprised at what Queen Consorts had to put up with in real-life history.) But she is not completely helpless & she doesn't have 0 agency. She just doesn't have any imagination and is resentful of Rhaenyra instead of the real perpetrators. Mostly because her imagination or independent thinking has been stifled by her social role as a female noble.
No, she could not have let Viserys rot with no (at the very least) supervision because that would put a social mark against her and her public image as a merciful Queen--the customary standard for a Queen--and be seen as her neglecting her husband. And Alicent had no intention of inviting that sort of censure. I recognize that she grew to have some sort of care for Viserys enough to be upset at his suffering and death, but that is something that is unequally expected of her as a wife and Queen Consort. the pressure is more on her to fulfill her duties to her husband than it is on Viserys to his wife, and he does not have the same duties as her, thus less pressure. He can take a mistress all he wants if he's adamant or sexually seeking enough. This is a world that is harsher and more expectant on the wife than the husband, even placing conditions of legal treachery into the mix. What do you expect as a "reward"? You don't get power or respect by complying or submitting to already oppressive systems/individuals' oppressive actions. Do you think that if you are a "good girl", you get to be happy and safe and compensated? That's not how hierarchies work. As a commentator below states. No, you get crumbs that you are taught to "enjoy" or have no other choice but to swallow.
So, it is not black-and-white "pure" & "free" devotion that she just wanted to take care of Viserys. She's also motivated by what she thinks she has to do to be a good woman/Queen/wife, which is all patriarchal bullshit. She thinks she has to be so accommodating towards Viserys because she knows that is her feudalist role as a Queen/woman/wife and that that will somehow give her peace. She thinks being perfectly chaste and caring will bring her some sort of satisfaction with how her life turned out, but suppresses her anger and probable feelings of shame that she seems to ignore.
Shame for having been spent to Viserys at all while having been above reproach before then (there should have been court gossip, but that's another thing).
Shame or guilt for not letting Rhaenyra know.
Shame for replacing her friend's mother when she listened to her speak about her family drama AND lost her mother herself.
All works as a paradox for living as a Queen Consort.
4.
It is by Andal tradition (not Valyrian) that the husband has nearly full power over his wife's life and that a wife obeys her husband. Rhaenyra is Viserys' eldest and Alicent gave birth to Viserys' "spares", which by the Widow's Law, we very well can make a strong case for how these kids do not go before Rhaenyra in the line of succession:
To rectify these ills, in 52 AC King Jaehaerys implemented the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same conditions they enjoyed before their husband’s death. A lord’s widow, be she a second, third or fourth wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law also forbade a man to disinherit the children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat or property on a later wife or her children.
Rhaenyra can use this law to argue -- not that she should be put on trial, she's made heir by her father and since it was his will/word that's the definite LAW -- and strengthen her monarch-given right to ascend.
Your wife/Queen Consort can be good to you all she is. If you, the king, say that the heir is a specific person, they are that person regardless of who his wife is or how dutiful she is. State matters can and have been influenced through marriages and interpersonal care, but it can just as well not be because it all depends on the king's/monarch's disposition and the political context. That was the risk Otto took and used his own daughter to try and manipulate. Not Rhaenyra's fault at all.
That Alicent failed to see that until the 9th episode (the show itself, for all its flaws, is telling you this, anon!) shows how intelligent/narrow-minded/unrighteous Alicent has been from the time she set herself against Rhaenyra in their conversation of episode 4. And even before, when she never told Rhaenyra Otto's instructions to her and for years pushed that burden of responsibility on Rhaenyra..
When she's yelling about "having one child like that", she's referring to children born out of wedlock to a girl who doesn't act within her patriarchal sexual restrictions. Said restrictions are that women/girls should expect to only sleep with the man/boy their authority figure designates for them while their husband sleeps around and fathers bastards indiscriminately.
So, yeah, Alicent is a misogynist towards Rhaenyra.
G)
You: "She doesn’t even want Rhaenyra dead, she still cares for her despite everything. Alicent isn’t perfect but neither is Rhaenyra."
1.
Anon, you really don't get human psychology. A parent's love and care for their kids is such a visceral thing.
How is it in any way feasible that 8th episode-Alicent's behavior is realistic or consistent with how real people behave toward what they think is a threat to their kids? It doesn't make any sense how Alicent changed her tune after Rhaenyra apologized in episode 8. By:
calling Rhaenyra's sons bastards, endangering them all (whether by social shaming/ostracism [which can and has caused mental deterioration in human history], exile, or actual execution)
humiliating Rhaenyra by demanding that Joffrey be brought to her right after Rhaenyra birthed him to show the entire court that she doubts his parentage
by dismissing all her concerns and demands to deal with the Stepstones problem in a much more substantive way than just leaving it up to Daemon to stave off the Triarchy
There was no coming back from the years Alicent spent antagonizing Rhaenyra. She herself broke that connection based on false notions. Alicent has shown malice before episode 8. HERE is my past post about how Show! or Book!Alicent was never going to be a woman I rooted for when a possible Queen Regnant was available.
2.
Rhaenyra is the rightful heir and has always been so. Therefore, what Alicent was doing was usurping her.
...Usurping means killing people 80% of the time (an arbitrary number, but you should get it). And of the two sides, the greens were the group who'd be more willing to carry out unprovoked assassinations (Aegon after Jaehaerys' death [book, who knows if the show will include this], Aemond killing Lucerys, all the ploys Otto made behind Viserys' back, Aemond firing on the riverlands and killing all the Strongs, etc.)
To quote a lot of green stans and flip it: looking back in real history, people killed for thrones and power more often than they did in imprisonment, and even with imprisonment, it's usually not long before the person mysteriously dies in prison. Know your history and upgrade your understanding of human behavior and motivation. If any person who seeks to usurp someone else truly-duly thinks they can do so without killing them or having one of their supporters kill them (unprovoked), they are delusional. Or at least if you use this argument for why Alicent should act as she did, why isn't this the same for Rhaenyra/the blacks' end?!!
As I've said, Rhaenyra had several supporters who even fought for her after she died.
Watching episode 9, how could you think that Alicent actually had any influence and power over Otto and the councilors, who plotted behind her back to kill Rhaenyra? That she had to give her feet up for Larys to masturbate to in order to just get verbal info? (This is all after Viserys dies, so do not try to use me saying she had power under Viserys above when she loses much power after he dies, which is my point and which HotD exaggerates).
She couldn't use her brain to figure out Otto was behind her suffering all along? Until episode 9?
Show!Alicent never claimed power, so she was in a worse state than book!Alicent was. Your fave is an eroticized doormat for the male gaze (xenonwitch's reblog), not a powerful, self-driven woman.
3.
Their friendship never made sense anyway. From a Doylist standpoint. And show!Alicent herself is a terribly constructed character; Rhaenicent doesn't make sense (article in Polygon).
4.
Sure, Viserys supposedly treats Rhaenyra well and lets her get away with a lot of behavior that these other fathers of ASoIaF would never, BUT he also doesn't:
[book & show] give her enough political training, or equal to that of an male heir--though he does makes her his cupbearer and allows her to sit in council to hear said council (passive learning), he does seem to properly engage, quiz, test, etc. her in decision-making for economic, political, etc. stuff; he does not seem to ever ask for her opinions of certain laws or policies, existing or currently considered; he does not let her make many decisions without lecturing her or ignoring her in front of others (episode 3 with her suggestion about taking dragons to meet Daemon); NOR does he get some sort of tutor through some sort of training, military-wise--likely strategy, not actual combat training (a tutor even from Essos, there would have been many businesspeople and wealthy business families available and eager to work for the royal Targaryens)--that Dany in the main series had to herself must learn and continue from her earlier exilic education on the go. Rhaenyra herself must learn most of what she knows by herself when she heads to Dragonstone! If you can give your heir/child the material to help advance their understanding of certain things even in ordinary education, why are you holding back for this specific instance when the stakes are higher?!
[book & show] he does not firmly, properly, and publicly denounce Alicent's harassment and accusations
[book & show] make one or more of her sons his cupbearer/transition him into being a part of the council as well
[book & show] he does not try to prevent other's talk of Rhaenyra's sons until much later when it is way too late
[show] he doesn't question Alicent's asking for baby Joff at all or pursue why Rhaenyra was even there and bleeding apart from how she shouldn't be there--he quickly moves on, too
[show] In the book, he does send her on a "meet-and-greet" tour or "progress" of the realm to: put a face to the woman in her oath-bound lords/houses' minds -> amplify her "Realm's Delight" image, and reinforce her attractiveness/desirability/sexual purity -> make her more real and appealing. Show!Viserys sends her out on a point-blank marriage-tour where she hears marriage suits after her. The book version explicitly has Viserys/his council at least make Rhaenyra meet her subjects and hear their desires, concerns, and what they think of her. There is less of the kind of formality and distance than what the sho made in changing it into a straight-up marriage tour, so the ladies and lords seeing Rhaenyra for the first time only get to see her under the more stressful (for them as well as for her) and less emotionally engaging context of a mere business exchange. Also, Laenor was always both show!andbook!Viserys' final choice for Rhaenyra. Book!Viserys is just a little bit smarter and more careful than show!Viserys.
Viserys is better than most Westerosi men in how he treats Rhaenyra--book and show--, at least those fathers we get to hear about or get to know. Better, but not still not enough to meet the demands of his daughter's actual needs.
(8/21/23):
THIS is a great post by mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social “order”, and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn’t even know about Matilda’s husband being comparable to Rhaneyra’s Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!
Excerpt:
just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures. […]  it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 
108 notes · View notes
pacificprincen · 2 years
Text
Not me angry at Alicent for focusing on the fact that Rhaenyra isn’t “innocent” anymore instead just being upset with her lying 🙄 The Seven forbid communicating with and supporting other women
6 notes · View notes
astancerseiblog · 2 years
Text
i understand it is to establish her sons as legitimate heirs but something about rhaenyra trying to put her white son on the seat and the only seat of the black people in westeros just doesn’t sit right with me.
4 notes · View notes
Text
"You know nothing, Jon Snow" isn't a phrase that should determine Jon's cleverness or indicate he's among the most ignorant characters.
Context is always important. When Ygritte told him this quote for the first time, he was a teen boy raised and educated in westerosi society- a society with strong prejudice against the Free Folk. So, he was as clueless about them as all the other westerosi people ( other pov characters are all included).
What truly matters is that Jon didn't remain stuck in his bias but actually observed and listened to Free Folk's perspective on things. Unlike what he was taught - that those people were savages - he came see them as fellow human beings who deserved the same protection westerosi people had ( aka the Wall protecting them from Others). Some of the people he truly admires and respects are among the Free Folk.
I know there is a notion in this fandom that Starks' views remain unchanged but Jon is a very adaptive character. He always listens different perspectives and has no problem to change his former views if he realises they were wrong. He's far from the " know nothing" stereotype of someone who is ignorant about the world and willfully continues to be so.
A quote I believe that highlights the type of person Jon is and actually has links to the original "Know nothing" Ygritte quote is this one below:
They know nothing, Ygritte. And worse, they will not learn.
365 notes · View notes
queenvhagar · 1 month
Text
"Actually Jace and Luc aren't bastards and are in fact legitimate heirs because Rhaenyra/Laenor/Viserys/Corlys etc are playing along that they're legitimate and still consider them in line for succession, therefore anyone calling them bastards or trying to stop them from inheriting are just bastardphobic and problematic"
Okay, once and for all... let's look at the reality of Westerosi society and its laws, traditions, and customs. It's true that bastards in fact can be legitimized by the king and/or lords of houses. That's indisputable.
But crucially, they first have to be acknowledged as bastards and officially be made legitimate by a legal decree.
A famous example of this occurring is the case of King Aegon IV Targaryen. He had several bastards that he then claimed as legitimate on his deathbed. However, Aegon IV never tried to hide that they were of illegitimate birth and acknowledged them as bastards first. Then he officially decreed that his bastards were now legitimate and had claims to the Iron Throne after his death. Crucially, he didn't just pretend they were legitimate all along and try to convince anyone otherwise - Aegon IV made a decree to legitimize them because he and everyone knew they were bastards, and only an official act could change an illegitimate heir into a legitimate heir. Because he did this, all of his illegitimate children became legitimate in the eyes of Westerosi law.
In an example of how failing to do this could create problems, Cersei Lannister had bastards that she tried to pass off as legitimate Baratheons. Ned Stark deciphered the truth based on hair color and obviously took issue with the fact that Cersei's children were not Robert's children and were not legitimate heirs to Robert's throne. Because Ned knew that Joffrey was illegitimate and Cersei was trying to usurp lawful, rightful succession with her bastard, he tried to prevent Joffrey from taking Robert Baratheon's seat of power after his death. Of course, Cersei never could have feasibly acknowledged their illegitimate birth and then had them be made legitimate by decree - doing so would have exposed her incest with her twin brother, and the king would never support her or the children in legitimization. Cersei did not have the support of the king. So, because people knew that Joffrey was not Robert's child, they did not consider him to be the rightful inheritor of Robert's throne. This is basic feudalism. Whether it's just or unjust, according to our modern perspective, that is just how feudalism works, and it works like this based on centuries of precedent and law that was created to maintain societal order. It is based on these laws that the entire feudalist society operates. Had the king officially legitimized Joffrey, though, there would be less ability to dispute his succession. He would be seen in the eyes of the law as Robert's lawful heir.
In a very similar yet uniquely different situation, Rhaenyra Targaryen had bastards that she tried to pass off as legitimate Velaryons. Everyone (literally, at least in the show - even Daemon and Laena knew from an entire continent away) deciphered the truth based on hair color (and skin color, in the show) and many took issue with the fact that Rhaenyra's children were not Laenor's children and were not legitimate heirs to seats of power, especially Laenor's (or his father's) seat of power. Because people, like Vaemond Velaryon, knew that Lucerys was illegitimate and that Rhaenyra was trying to usurp lawful, rightful succession with her bastard, they tried to prevent Lucerys from taking Corlys Velaryon's seat of power after his death (and based on illegitimacy, they would likely challenge Jacaerys' inheritance of the Iron Throne after his mother). Having illegitimate children created a huge problem for Rhaenyra.
However, unlike Cersei, Rhaenyra was a woman who had a considerable amount of political power given the context. Rhaenyra was the heir to the Iron Throne, and she also had the full support of her father the king. At any point, it was extremely possible that the king and Corlys could and would officially legitimize the Strong boys and let them take their place in the line of succession. They could even justify it as "Targaryen exceptionalism" if they want, as many Targaryen rulers had done with the law in the past (see: incestual marriage and Jahaerys I Targaryen). This would especially make sense in the case of Jacaerys, who many argue naturally gains his legitimacy to sit the Iron Throne from being Rhaenyra's son. Others at the same time argue that Laenor and Corlys' adoption and acceptance of Lucerys as a "true Velaryon" gives him legitimacy to sit the Velaryon seat of power, and Corlys and the king could have officially decreed this by legitimizing Lucerys as a legitimate heir to the Velaryon seat of power. The act of legitimizing Rhaenyra's sons was possible and always an option.
Of course, this would mean that Rhaenyra would have to declare them first illegitimate and admit to an extramarital affair with the heir to Harrenhal. However, the king could protect her from the fallout, much like he protected her from other consequences she created by her actions. He could claim "Targaryen exceptionalism" and provide justification for her actions (like that argument that she had to, as Laenor was infertile or otherwise unable to produce heirs, for example) and then not only would you have the king's word as law but you would also have the king's decree as law. There would be no room to argue that. Her claim to the throne would be cemented again by the king and her sons would be officially and legally made legitimate heirs. Everyone already knew they were bastards. Officially legitimizing them would have been the solution to any problems that created.
There is no doubt that having her sons officially legitimized would strengthen her claim more than trying to continue to (unsuccessfully) gaslight everyone that they were always legitimate, instead demonstrating that she believes herself to be above the law or somehow smarter than everyone else. However, that's truly the crux of this issue here. Rhaenyra sees no need to legitimize her sons officially, because she believes that the wants of those she is destined to rule are "of no concern" to her. She views herself as above others due to her blood and birthright, so she would never take the politically aware and advantageous step of actually trying to solve the problem she created when she birthed not one but three obviously illegitimate children. She would instead prefer to continue to rely on her father to defend her, even in his dying days. The problem comes, then, when her father is gone. With the king dead, who else could she rely on to solve her problems for her?
In summary, Jace and Luc could have been officially legitimized at any point. This was uniquely a situation where they could have been officially legitimized and this would have solved a lot of problems. But they weren't.
178 notes · View notes
thesunfyre4446 · 4 months
Text
ok, so i've been getting a lot of "rhaenyra would never kill her siblings" asks recently.
first of all, no one is saying that rhaenyra WANTS to kill her brothers. but there's just no way that a woman & a bastard can inherit peacefully when 3 legitimate sons (with legitimate sons of their own) exist. this is not how westerosi politics work. the men in power wants to keep the men in power, this is the definition of patriarchy. and i'm not saying that's a good thing - because obvs it's not - but that's the truth. westeros is a patriarchal society.
the lords of westeros - the men in power - wants to preserve the existing order. legitimate sons inherit over daughters, bastards can't inherit. it's important to them because their own power is dependent on this very system. let's say rhaenyra becomes queen, and all of the sudden other firstborn daughters start to stand up and demand to be named heirs to their houses . let's say jace becomes the prince of dragonstone, and suddenly bastards that are older then their legitimate siblings start to demand their rights as well. from our modern pov - that's a great thing, but for the lords of westeros that's literally their worst nightmare.
"but a lot of houses supported rhaenyra". true! i'm not saying every lord in westeros will not accept her, i'm saying some of them def won't, and as long as aegon\aemond\daeron lives, there will always be someone advocating for their rights - and that's dangerous for rhaenyra and her family. so yeah, to protect herself and her children she will 100% kill her brothers. i'm not holding it against her - she's obvs going to care more about her children & herself then her brothers.
"but dorne ..." i feel like GRRM has made it abundantly clear that westeros does not want to become like dorne. dornish people are stereotyped and discriminated against - especially dornish women, that are viewed as promiscuous and are constantly oversexualized. westeros becoming like dorne is def not something westerosi men want.
ironically, jace will have to face the exact same situation with his own brothers aegon and viserys, but i digress.
also, did we forget how easily rhaenyra offered to have her 10yo brother tortured when she felt like her children were in danger? do you guys really believe that she's above murdering to protect them?
304 notes · View notes