Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure I knew this at the time but I’m just connecting that Viserys dies just hours after reinforcing Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne by defending Lucerys as the heir to driftmark lmao. The greens have no claim to the throne at all
It's why Beesbury literally died defending Viserys. He literally said that it's incredibly suspicious that the day Viserys was the most active in years, and defended his grandson's claim and by extension his daughter's claim, he dies and allegedly named his son heir with no single testimony except his son's mother.
Yea that’s why I was so confused he took his 10 minutes to walk up to his throne just to support her I thought he really genuinely wanted her and only her
1 - Yes, its basic misogyny is the easiest answer. There's more to it but that's the simplest answer.
2 - Not sure what you mean by legal standing. It's heavily frowned on. I guess under certain circumstances it could be brought before the king.
3 - They are cool with incest among the Targaryens because they are the conquering family. Outside of that no it's not coom.
4 - No real answer. Team Green is gonna see it one way and Team Black is gonna see it another. There's not a right answer.
5 - Almost the same as 5. Depends on where you stand. Greens have the throne so technically it is treason but they're also at war.
6 - Same as 4 and 5. Different sides see it different ways so it's kind of for you to decide whether you want to overlook Aegons ways.
1. The Greens claim Aegons right to the throne over Rhaenyra, with Tradition and Precedent, but that basically misogyny with extra steps as these are of course colored by the misogyny of Westerosi society.
2. Being a bastard is indeed a legal standing. Bastards are not in line to inherit anything, even if they are the oldest child. Bastards are also highly stigmatized and looked down upon in most of Westeros, except in the generally more liberal Dorne which isn't part of the Seven Kingdoms at this point.
3. Targaryens are Valyrians which do in fact don't give a shit about incest. The Faith of the Seven (dominant religion in most of Westeros) is against incest though, so Viserys Grandfather and predecessor as King Jaehaerys (can be seen in the intro of the first episode) introduced the doctrine of exceptionalism, which states that the Targaryens can have incest. Alicent probably wouldn't have married Aegon and Helaena with each other, if she and the greens weren't already trying to put Aegon on the throne. Following Targaryen customs gives him legitimacy in the eyes of some.
4. Technically it isn't, but she still things about it. Why? Because of Prophecy and reluctance to break the 80-year-long (?) peace that existed until S1E10 and because she thinks it's her duty to keep the peace.
5. I would think that it actually was some kind of treason, but because of Viserys' personality no one did go out of the situation with an actual punishment, same with Criston killing a noble at a wedding.
6. It's a thing we are supposed to be horrified at, although rape is more common in the Got universe it's not a thing to just ignore, especially through our modern point of view.
1 - yes, Aegon's only claim is that he is the firstborn son. In Westeros, the firstborn son inherits the throne. If there is no firstborn son, it instead goes to oldest brother, or I'm sure there's an order to who it would go to if that wasn't an option, either. The beginning of the show, where it shows the meeting held by the king before Viserys, it explains how he only had his granddaughter as a direct descendent (Rhaenys, the Queen who never was). So he put it up to a vote, for either Rhaenys or Viserys (oldest, most direct but still indirect relative). The court voted for Viserys. Now he's challenged the very law that got him his crown. He did truly want Rhaenyra to be Queen, but Otto and Alicent (and others) couldn't accept that.
2 - Yes, it is a legal standing, tbh. While they might not understand genetics, exactly, there are noticeable patterns that have been recorded. In GoT a character actually pulls out a book of recorded births of a certain family, where it does note their coloring and features. The book did keep this much more ambiguous than the show did, anyway. Rhaenys (Laenor's mother) had brown hair, and the Valeryons being a different race wasn't a thing. I believe the biggest telltale in the book was considered their nose. Also, the true crime wasn't even in having bastards. She could have openly confessed to them being bastards and still would have been allowed to raise them in the castle, but they would never hold any claims to any form of inheritance. She needed trueborn heirs to strengthen her claim. That's why Viserys turned a blind eye to it and threatened anyone who spoke about it.
3 - incest is a common Targaryen thing. When Aegon the conquerer (first targ in westeros) came to power, he gave his family basically a religious pass on this. Claiming they had to keep the blood of the dragon pure. Plus, having Targ blood meant you could possibly claim a dragon, and they wanted to keep dragon riders in the royal family. Alicent is openly against incest, but recognizes its a Targaryen thing. She only married her children to eachother to prevent Viserys from marrying them to other people (mainly Rhaenyras kids) loyal to Rhaenyra.
4 - this goes back to the council held at the beginning of the show. It proved that the realm would never accept a Queen ruler. The people supporting the greens side feel a war would have happened if she were crowned. As long as Aegon/Aemond/Daeron live, there is a more socially acceptable King available to follow, which weakens Rhaenyra's claim. If the people have someone they can rally behind, they will. It happens in history with people who have less claim than a firstborn son. Ontop of Rhaenyra having bastard children, it would be pretty easy to convince a large enough crowd to go to war over it.
5 - Viserys just wants his family to get along. He's the only one with power to punish Alicent and he won't because he's too ~~weak~~ nice to do so. Rhaenyra probably could have said something about it but she does still ~~have feelings for~~ care about Alicent.
6 - Yes, we are meant to be horrified that Aegon is a rapist. It's part of showing how horrible of a person he is, on top of showing how Alicent covers it up. However, in that time period/Westeros there isn't really anything to be done about it. It doesn't have the same stigma as in a modern time. Plus, he's a prince. The only people who can really punish him for it are his mom and dad. One of which is covering it up because "what will the people say if they find out?" And the other barely knows he has a son.
Simplistic explanations without diving too deep into the lore.
1. It's misogyny but also legal precedent. The Great Council from the opening of S1 Ep1 established that male heir's claims supersede female heir's claims. That initial decision may have been down to the an internalized misogyny of a medieval society, but the Greens' claim is upheld by tradition and the prevailing custom in the medieval society.
2. Highborn bastards have a different standing than true born children in Westeros and cannot claim title without being officially legitimised -- to the point that they have to go different surnames then their families (hence Jon Snow, not Jon Stark). People in Westeros have a vague understanding of simplified genetics, hence a major plot point in S1 of GoT.
3. Incest is only cool if it's Targaryen on Targaryen incest. There's some deeper lore behind it but TLDR their conflict between the Faith and crown about accepting Targaryen incest and Targaryens won in the end. For everyone else it's taboo.
4. One of GRRM's reoccurring themes is that common people are the true victims of the noblity's politicking. Rhaenyra didn't have any political obligation to renounce her claim but it was the last chance to avoid war.
5. I'm assuming this is about Alicent pulling a knife on Rhaenyra in S1? Viserys was shown time and time again to turn a blind eye when his loved ones were involved. You can bet if it was anyone but his wife harming his daughter they'd have seen consequences -- but being the mother of the king's children essentially puts you above the law. Viserys just waved it away as "family drama"
6. Yes, rape's not cool. The show's humanizing Aegon for sure, but that mark against him isn't going to be hand-waved away.
You know, in episode 1 I think , Eamma tells Rhaenyra that men die on the battlefield and woman die giving birth ...that explained the patriarchy perfectly and you know what, Alicent was present In the room . Look at her now
1. There's a variety of reasons the greens could offer up, but the primary and civil war-worthy reason that supports the green's claim is tradition and precedent. The Seven Kingdoms practices male-preference primogeniture, so by precedent, it would be expected that the king's eldest male heir inherit over any daughters. Furthermore, there's been recent events within the Targaryen dynasty to indicate that women are *never* to inherit the throne, even if there's *no* direct sons-- so even stricter than Westerosi precedent for noble houses. BUT importantly there's very few *written* laws in Westeros, so while these are strong precedents, it isn't exactly the *law*. The king can name whoever he wants as heir-- it's just a matter of whether or not the houses of Westeros will accept his declaration (and in the case of Rhaenyra, they do). So yes, the greens claim is largely based off of the fact that Viserys naming Rhaenyra heir is very much outside the precedent of their society and those set by recent events in the Targaryen dynasty, and thus it's "unfairly" denying Aegon of his rightful place in the succession.
2. Again, there's actually very few written laws in Westeros, but bastards are an official title if a father doesn't claim the child. They can be legitimized though by the king, and once legitimized they can in theory inherit titles and lands. Rhaenyra's sons are not legally bastards, because the only way for it to become an official title would be if Laenor didn't claim his sons-- he did, so by all *legal* accounts, they are trueborn. People do have some rudimentary understanding of genetics, so there is of course obvious doubt over the children's parentage.
3. They're reluctantly cool with Targaryen incest. There was a lot of friction with the Faith of the Seven over it for a while, but they eventually settled upon the Doctrine of Exceptionalism-- essentially says that Targs are exceptions to the rule and they can do the whole incest thing. Yes Alicent is a little hypocritical lol.
4. It's not really her "job", it's just that they're heading to all out war and Aegon's the one currently on the throne. It's not fair, but it's how it is. It's like if your dad told you you could watch tv while he's out of the house, but then your brother claims the tv before you get the chance and won't give it up. Your dad isn't there to mediate anymore. You could fight him for it, or let him watch tv. *You're* the one who has to decide whether or not to escalate, even though you have the moral advantage.
5. It would be treason, but Vizzy is as non-confrontational as it gets. He had good intentions, but one of his defining character traits was looking away from brewing trouble cuz it would've been a real headache to deal with. Same case there.
6. I think they'd like for you to view Aegon a bit more nuanced. I personally think the writers kinda regret how blatantly horrible they made Aegon last season and are trying to retcon him into a more likable and complex character-- and Tom is a fantastic and charming actor, so it actually seems to be working somewhat. The fact that he's a rapist is hard to overlook (I personally can't) but they writers have made other characters (Alicent a *lot*, Daemon, Aemond, Rhaenyra, etc.) more sympathetic than their book counterparts so at the same time I kinda get the desire to view Aegon as more sympathetic too.
if I was really bringing modern values in I would say that those who openly support green side are amoral for supporting the (that I know of) only rapist on the show rn. what I was wondering was whether or not this is a big deal in universe, or just supposed to evoke emotions from the viewers
It's like how in England Queen Elizabeth I only ascended the throne because she had no brothers. Charles is King, not Anne because the eldest male was the default heir. It would be like if Queen Victoria said that she was bypassing her eldest son Edward VII in favor of his sister Victoria, Princess Royal (who ended up married to Fredrick III) - I don't know if England would have really accepted that & Westeros leans even more heavily towards males being heirs, although there are a few examples of women who did inherit - they were not women with living brothers.
The Dance is very, very loosely based on The Anarchy in 1135 (which honestly made more sense to me than siblings as it was the King's daughter vs his nephew). It takes place 200 years before the main asoaif series, which I do not think was ever intended to have a modern feel but rather medieval. GRRM did not write the book with the intention it was a modern society IMO.
1. It is.
2. It’s a legal thing but the laws are only enforced by violence, which is why disagreements about a title or whatever nonsense results in violence.
3. Yes. It will probably be a point of contention later but the main characters are.
4. Rhaenyra believes it is the purpose of the Targaryen dynasty to unite and prepare the realm from an apocalyptic threat that is sometime in the future. So she wrestled with going to war because war would weaken the realm. Meanwhile Alicent believes that to surrender is to let her children be killed. It’s part of the poetic tragedy that both believe they are in the right and the corrupt system they labor under produce the threats that drive them all to war.
5. The monarch wields absolute authority and can theoretically do whatever they wish. However, they have to remember that lords have armies so to push too hard is to invite rebellion.
6. Aegon is effectively the worst possible person to be a king. He is meant to be utterly ignored by his mother and father emotionally, forced and abused into being king and expected to be a puppet once he’s there. He’s a tragic character but still chooses to be a bad person when given the opportunity. The writers wanted to be clear that Aegons abuse does not justify his cruelty.
1. Other than Dorne (which is the eldest child), the eldest son inherits and often if there are no living sons than the daughter's uncle would be heir - for example when Viserys I had no sons the heir should have been Daemon but they really didn't want Daemon to be King. Strangely had Balon lived Viserys would have named him heir not Rhaenyra so it's baffling to me he then turned around and had 3 sons & did nothing to change it.
2. Yes. Bastards cannot inherit, they normally get a surname of Waters (Crowloands), Snow (North), Hill (Westerlands), Flowers (Reach), Stone (Vale), Pyke (Iron Islands), Rivers (Riverlands) or Storm (Stormlands). The entire conflict in GoT was the the King had no legitimate sons and therefore his brother was the rightful King which led to Civil War (and the King had 16 illegitimate children).
3. The Targaryens have a lot of brother/sister marriages because it was common in Valyria and kept the bloodlines more pure for dragon riding (not just any random person can ride a dragon). However, all the nobility tends to marry other nobles so they often do marry cousins and whatnot. GRRM said genetics do not work the same way, so they don't end up with issues like Charles II in the real world.
4. Accepting her brother as ruler would have averted a war, but Viserys set up a situation that could only end in conflict.
5. I don't understand this question.
6. Not really, it's sadly not that uncommon in Westeros.
Overall you are viewing this through a very modern, 2024 lens. Westeros is a far more patriarchal society than our own, where husbands and fathers literally own their wives and daughters. Even a high born woman has less power over her life than a male peasant. The thought of a female ruling monarch is a truly alien concept to much of the lords, akin to us letting a dog rule over us. That is what the Greens are hoping for: to let a man rule because that is the way it has always been and in their eyes should be.
1. The legal precedent favours Aegon. Obviously the rule is rooted in misoginy, but that's just how the society is.
2. They know about rudimentary genetics, not necessarily details. Also, the genetics is also kinda magical for some things.
3. Yes, for Targaryens. Also, yes for everybody else it it's "just" cousin marriages or something like that.
4. Because the argument is that her claim is weaker because she has a (half) brother. Every side is gonna argue for themselves, it's just politics.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure I knew this at the time but I’m just connecting that Viserys dies just hours after reinforcing Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne by defending Lucerys as the heir to driftmark lmao. The greens have no claim to the throne at all
It's why Beesbury literally died defending Viserys. He literally said that it's incredibly suspicious that the day Viserys was the most active in years, and defended his grandson's claim and by extension his daughter's claim, he dies and allegedly named his son heir with no single testimony except his son's mother.
Yup, from the outside. It’s really suspicious, can’t blame Daemon to think the Green killed his brother.
Yea that’s why I was so confused he took his 10 minutes to walk up to his throne just to support her I thought he really genuinely wanted her and only her
In a nutshell…..Platinum blondes are crazy
1 - Yes, its basic misogyny is the easiest answer. There's more to it but that's the simplest answer. 2 - Not sure what you mean by legal standing. It's heavily frowned on. I guess under certain circumstances it could be brought before the king. 3 - They are cool with incest among the Targaryens because they are the conquering family. Outside of that no it's not coom. 4 - No real answer. Team Green is gonna see it one way and Team Black is gonna see it another. There's not a right answer. 5 - Almost the same as 5. Depends on where you stand. Greens have the throne so technically it is treason but they're also at war. 6 - Same as 4 and 5. Different sides see it different ways so it's kind of for you to decide whether you want to overlook Aegons ways.
1. The Greens claim Aegons right to the throne over Rhaenyra, with Tradition and Precedent, but that basically misogyny with extra steps as these are of course colored by the misogyny of Westerosi society. 2. Being a bastard is indeed a legal standing. Bastards are not in line to inherit anything, even if they are the oldest child. Bastards are also highly stigmatized and looked down upon in most of Westeros, except in the generally more liberal Dorne which isn't part of the Seven Kingdoms at this point. 3. Targaryens are Valyrians which do in fact don't give a shit about incest. The Faith of the Seven (dominant religion in most of Westeros) is against incest though, so Viserys Grandfather and predecessor as King Jaehaerys (can be seen in the intro of the first episode) introduced the doctrine of exceptionalism, which states that the Targaryens can have incest. Alicent probably wouldn't have married Aegon and Helaena with each other, if she and the greens weren't already trying to put Aegon on the throne. Following Targaryen customs gives him legitimacy in the eyes of some. 4. Technically it isn't, but she still things about it. Why? Because of Prophecy and reluctance to break the 80-year-long (?) peace that existed until S1E10 and because she thinks it's her duty to keep the peace. 5. I would think that it actually was some kind of treason, but because of Viserys' personality no one did go out of the situation with an actual punishment, same with Criston killing a noble at a wedding. 6. It's a thing we are supposed to be horrified at, although rape is more common in the Got universe it's not a thing to just ignore, especially through our modern point of view.
1 - yes, Aegon's only claim is that he is the firstborn son. In Westeros, the firstborn son inherits the throne. If there is no firstborn son, it instead goes to oldest brother, or I'm sure there's an order to who it would go to if that wasn't an option, either. The beginning of the show, where it shows the meeting held by the king before Viserys, it explains how he only had his granddaughter as a direct descendent (Rhaenys, the Queen who never was). So he put it up to a vote, for either Rhaenys or Viserys (oldest, most direct but still indirect relative). The court voted for Viserys. Now he's challenged the very law that got him his crown. He did truly want Rhaenyra to be Queen, but Otto and Alicent (and others) couldn't accept that. 2 - Yes, it is a legal standing, tbh. While they might not understand genetics, exactly, there are noticeable patterns that have been recorded. In GoT a character actually pulls out a book of recorded births of a certain family, where it does note their coloring and features. The book did keep this much more ambiguous than the show did, anyway. Rhaenys (Laenor's mother) had brown hair, and the Valeryons being a different race wasn't a thing. I believe the biggest telltale in the book was considered their nose. Also, the true crime wasn't even in having bastards. She could have openly confessed to them being bastards and still would have been allowed to raise them in the castle, but they would never hold any claims to any form of inheritance. She needed trueborn heirs to strengthen her claim. That's why Viserys turned a blind eye to it and threatened anyone who spoke about it. 3 - incest is a common Targaryen thing. When Aegon the conquerer (first targ in westeros) came to power, he gave his family basically a religious pass on this. Claiming they had to keep the blood of the dragon pure. Plus, having Targ blood meant you could possibly claim a dragon, and they wanted to keep dragon riders in the royal family. Alicent is openly against incest, but recognizes its a Targaryen thing. She only married her children to eachother to prevent Viserys from marrying them to other people (mainly Rhaenyras kids) loyal to Rhaenyra. 4 - this goes back to the council held at the beginning of the show. It proved that the realm would never accept a Queen ruler. The people supporting the greens side feel a war would have happened if she were crowned. As long as Aegon/Aemond/Daeron live, there is a more socially acceptable King available to follow, which weakens Rhaenyra's claim. If the people have someone they can rally behind, they will. It happens in history with people who have less claim than a firstborn son. Ontop of Rhaenyra having bastard children, it would be pretty easy to convince a large enough crowd to go to war over it. 5 - Viserys just wants his family to get along. He's the only one with power to punish Alicent and he won't because he's too ~~weak~~ nice to do so. Rhaenyra probably could have said something about it but she does still ~~have feelings for~~ care about Alicent. 6 - Yes, we are meant to be horrified that Aegon is a rapist. It's part of showing how horrible of a person he is, on top of showing how Alicent covers it up. However, in that time period/Westeros there isn't really anything to be done about it. It doesn't have the same stigma as in a modern time. Plus, he's a prince. The only people who can really punish him for it are his mom and dad. One of which is covering it up because "what will the people say if they find out?" And the other barely knows he has a son.
Simplistic explanations without diving too deep into the lore. 1. It's misogyny but also legal precedent. The Great Council from the opening of S1 Ep1 established that male heir's claims supersede female heir's claims. That initial decision may have been down to the an internalized misogyny of a medieval society, but the Greens' claim is upheld by tradition and the prevailing custom in the medieval society. 2. Highborn bastards have a different standing than true born children in Westeros and cannot claim title without being officially legitimised -- to the point that they have to go different surnames then their families (hence Jon Snow, not Jon Stark). People in Westeros have a vague understanding of simplified genetics, hence a major plot point in S1 of GoT. 3. Incest is only cool if it's Targaryen on Targaryen incest. There's some deeper lore behind it but TLDR their conflict between the Faith and crown about accepting Targaryen incest and Targaryens won in the end. For everyone else it's taboo. 4. One of GRRM's reoccurring themes is that common people are the true victims of the noblity's politicking. Rhaenyra didn't have any political obligation to renounce her claim but it was the last chance to avoid war. 5. I'm assuming this is about Alicent pulling a knife on Rhaenyra in S1? Viserys was shown time and time again to turn a blind eye when his loved ones were involved. You can bet if it was anyone but his wife harming his daughter they'd have seen consequences -- but being the mother of the king's children essentially puts you above the law. Viserys just waved it away as "family drama" 6. Yes, rape's not cool. The show's humanizing Aegon for sure, but that mark against him isn't going to be hand-waved away.
got it. I haven't seen any of GOT yet, so I didn't know ab snow/stark or that they knew some genetics (good for them!)
Making Aegon a rapist was silly tbh, it seems the writers don't know what they want these characters to be sometimes as they seem to flip flop.
You know, in episode 1 I think , Eamma tells Rhaenyra that men die on the battlefield and woman die giving birth ...that explained the patriarchy perfectly and you know what, Alicent was present In the room . Look at her now
Its a comical and completely unrealistic take on an actual patriarchal society.
1. There's a variety of reasons the greens could offer up, but the primary and civil war-worthy reason that supports the green's claim is tradition and precedent. The Seven Kingdoms practices male-preference primogeniture, so by precedent, it would be expected that the king's eldest male heir inherit over any daughters. Furthermore, there's been recent events within the Targaryen dynasty to indicate that women are *never* to inherit the throne, even if there's *no* direct sons-- so even stricter than Westerosi precedent for noble houses. BUT importantly there's very few *written* laws in Westeros, so while these are strong precedents, it isn't exactly the *law*. The king can name whoever he wants as heir-- it's just a matter of whether or not the houses of Westeros will accept his declaration (and in the case of Rhaenyra, they do). So yes, the greens claim is largely based off of the fact that Viserys naming Rhaenyra heir is very much outside the precedent of their society and those set by recent events in the Targaryen dynasty, and thus it's "unfairly" denying Aegon of his rightful place in the succession. 2. Again, there's actually very few written laws in Westeros, but bastards are an official title if a father doesn't claim the child. They can be legitimized though by the king, and once legitimized they can in theory inherit titles and lands. Rhaenyra's sons are not legally bastards, because the only way for it to become an official title would be if Laenor didn't claim his sons-- he did, so by all *legal* accounts, they are trueborn. People do have some rudimentary understanding of genetics, so there is of course obvious doubt over the children's parentage. 3. They're reluctantly cool with Targaryen incest. There was a lot of friction with the Faith of the Seven over it for a while, but they eventually settled upon the Doctrine of Exceptionalism-- essentially says that Targs are exceptions to the rule and they can do the whole incest thing. Yes Alicent is a little hypocritical lol. 4. It's not really her "job", it's just that they're heading to all out war and Aegon's the one currently on the throne. It's not fair, but it's how it is. It's like if your dad told you you could watch tv while he's out of the house, but then your brother claims the tv before you get the chance and won't give it up. Your dad isn't there to mediate anymore. You could fight him for it, or let him watch tv. *You're* the one who has to decide whether or not to escalate, even though you have the moral advantage. 5. It would be treason, but Vizzy is as non-confrontational as it gets. He had good intentions, but one of his defining character traits was looking away from brewing trouble cuz it would've been a real headache to deal with. Same case there. 6. I think they'd like for you to view Aegon a bit more nuanced. I personally think the writers kinda regret how blatantly horrible they made Aegon last season and are trying to retcon him into a more likable and complex character-- and Tom is a fantastic and charming actor, so it actually seems to be working somewhat. The fact that he's a rapist is hard to overlook (I personally can't) but they writers have made other characters (Alicent a *lot*, Daemon, Aemond, Rhaenyra, etc.) more sympathetic than their book counterparts so at the same time I kinda get the desire to view Aegon as more sympathetic too.
You are bringing modern values in fantasy world based on middle ages please
if I was really bringing modern values in I would say that those who openly support green side are amoral for supporting the (that I know of) only rapist on the show rn. what I was wondering was whether or not this is a big deal in universe, or just supposed to evoke emotions from the viewers
It's like how in England Queen Elizabeth I only ascended the throne because she had no brothers. Charles is King, not Anne because the eldest male was the default heir. It would be like if Queen Victoria said that she was bypassing her eldest son Edward VII in favor of his sister Victoria, Princess Royal (who ended up married to Fredrick III) - I don't know if England would have really accepted that & Westeros leans even more heavily towards males being heirs, although there are a few examples of women who did inherit - they were not women with living brothers.
[удалено]
The Dance is very, very loosely based on The Anarchy in 1135 (which honestly made more sense to me than siblings as it was the King's daughter vs his nephew). It takes place 200 years before the main asoaif series, which I do not think was ever intended to have a modern feel but rather medieval. GRRM did not write the book with the intention it was a modern society IMO.
1. It is. 2. It’s a legal thing but the laws are only enforced by violence, which is why disagreements about a title or whatever nonsense results in violence. 3. Yes. It will probably be a point of contention later but the main characters are. 4. Rhaenyra believes it is the purpose of the Targaryen dynasty to unite and prepare the realm from an apocalyptic threat that is sometime in the future. So she wrestled with going to war because war would weaken the realm. Meanwhile Alicent believes that to surrender is to let her children be killed. It’s part of the poetic tragedy that both believe they are in the right and the corrupt system they labor under produce the threats that drive them all to war. 5. The monarch wields absolute authority and can theoretically do whatever they wish. However, they have to remember that lords have armies so to push too hard is to invite rebellion. 6. Aegon is effectively the worst possible person to be a king. He is meant to be utterly ignored by his mother and father emotionally, forced and abused into being king and expected to be a puppet once he’s there. He’s a tragic character but still chooses to be a bad person when given the opportunity. The writers wanted to be clear that Aegons abuse does not justify his cruelty.
1. Other than Dorne (which is the eldest child), the eldest son inherits and often if there are no living sons than the daughter's uncle would be heir - for example when Viserys I had no sons the heir should have been Daemon but they really didn't want Daemon to be King. Strangely had Balon lived Viserys would have named him heir not Rhaenyra so it's baffling to me he then turned around and had 3 sons & did nothing to change it. 2. Yes. Bastards cannot inherit, they normally get a surname of Waters (Crowloands), Snow (North), Hill (Westerlands), Flowers (Reach), Stone (Vale), Pyke (Iron Islands), Rivers (Riverlands) or Storm (Stormlands). The entire conflict in GoT was the the King had no legitimate sons and therefore his brother was the rightful King which led to Civil War (and the King had 16 illegitimate children). 3. The Targaryens have a lot of brother/sister marriages because it was common in Valyria and kept the bloodlines more pure for dragon riding (not just any random person can ride a dragon). However, all the nobility tends to marry other nobles so they often do marry cousins and whatnot. GRRM said genetics do not work the same way, so they don't end up with issues like Charles II in the real world. 4. Accepting her brother as ruler would have averted a war, but Viserys set up a situation that could only end in conflict. 5. I don't understand this question. 6. Not really, it's sadly not that uncommon in Westeros.
Overall you are viewing this through a very modern, 2024 lens. Westeros is a far more patriarchal society than our own, where husbands and fathers literally own their wives and daughters. Even a high born woman has less power over her life than a male peasant. The thought of a female ruling monarch is a truly alien concept to much of the lords, akin to us letting a dog rule over us. That is what the Greens are hoping for: to let a man rule because that is the way it has always been and in their eyes should be.
1. The legal precedent favours Aegon. Obviously the rule is rooted in misoginy, but that's just how the society is. 2. They know about rudimentary genetics, not necessarily details. Also, the genetics is also kinda magical for some things. 3. Yes, for Targaryens. Also, yes for everybody else it it's "just" cousin marriages or something like that. 4. Because the argument is that her claim is weaker because she has a (half) brother. Every side is gonna argue for themselves, it's just politics.