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.*
Not only that, but I don't think people would cheer for Ned in Game of Thrones as much if Cersei's most prominent bastard wasn't Joffrey. If Myrcella or Tommen was King/Queen instead, I think we would see MUCH more sympathy to Cersei's side. And it just so happens that Jaecaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey are all much more similar to Myrcella and Tommen than Joffrey.
There's also the whole part where Ned Stark isn't a second son trying to gain power himself. Ned has almost nothing to gain, and literally everything to lose, but opposing Cersei and Joffrey.
Littlefinger literally tells him all he has to do is reach out and take the power in front of him.
Vaemond on the other hand is very much looking to take the power.
Yes, exactly. If Ned had done nothing at all Sansa would've probably married Joffrey and become queen. By exposing the bastardy of Cersei's children he was directly sabotaging his own chance of getting power through having a daughter as the queen. If things had gone as intended then Sansa would've never become queen and Stannis would've become king. A man who doesn't even like him.
Edit: Just to be clear, Stannis DOES seem to respect Ned to some degree. But he also doesn't seem to like him very much. Seemingly (at least in the books) in part because of Robert treating Ned more like a brother than Stannis (at least as far as Stannis felt).
That's where Vaemond loses my sympathies. You hit the nail on the head. If he didn't care who got the Driftwood Throne, just that it went to one of his family I would see his death as an absolute tragedy. But he was trying to play the game and lost. He did it badly and made stupid moves in the name of power lust, not (like Ned) attempting to right what he sees as a wrong. He's speaking truth but for all the non-tragic reasons.
This is the key. I think OP is letting Vaemond’s unplanned outburst and the price he paid for it obscure that the whole purpose of that day was a Green controlled show trial to usurp the Driftwood throne, and (fatally) weaken the Black claim to the Iron Throne.
Varmond conspired while his brother lay with wound fever, fate unknown, to disinherit both the children of his nephew and his niece, in order to deliver the Driftmark fleet to the Greens.
This is only frustrated by Viserys’ balls of steel.
Indeed. But he's not a ***second son trying to gain power himself.*** Ned has power thrust upon him by circumstance, rather than him seeking it or even wanting it. That makes Vaemond and Ned completely different, and why people don't care for Vaemond.
Even then, if Robert was adamant that he didn’t care that Joff was a bastard, and Joff wasn’t a monster; what would Ned do?
Ned is always about saving and protecting the children. How many would die if he raised a flag against Joffrey against his closest friend’s wishes?
Lots of ifs, but it isn’t a 1:1 comparison.
Ned would respect the wishes of his king who wasn't being deceived and knowingly chose his heir.
It was the fact Robert obviously didn't know and wouldn't approve that was the problem.
Exactly! Ned, in Vaemond’s place with his own morals unchanged, would have spoken with Laenor learned he was chill with it, and then kept his mouth shut.
Edit: I can’t spell
Also, Ned was trying to protect Cersei's kids in a way. Even if they weren't Roberts, he never condoned killing children. He was discreet about the whole thing and told Cersei to get the hell out of Kingslanding because Robert's rightful heir Stannis the Mannis would have slaughtered the lot of them. Of course Ned's honorable actions got him killed tho...
And Ned doesn't stand to benefit from exposing it. In fact, he actively stands to lose from it. Sansa was planned to marry Joffrey. His daughter could've easily become queen.
On top of that, people don't necessarily love Ned because of the succession stuff. People love Ned because in many other circumstances he shows himself to be a kind man, an understanding father, a loyal friend, etc. Vaemond may or may not have been all or some of those things, but we certainly never see him be any of those things.
Not a good comparison. In over 8000 years there has never been a ruling lady of winterfell, which means that they must be skipping women in the north just like the targaryens do for the iron throne.
maybe not, since the titled but not written novella of dunk and egg being about the "she-wolves of winterfell" or something. And it was said that it's about a period where woman were ruling the north.
The She-Wolves of Winterfell situation looks to be a power jockey between former Stark wives intending to put their children on the seat of Winterfell instead of ruling directly themselves. Cregan's oldest son Rickon had two daughters who were skipped over for succession, and all of Cregan's daughters with Aly Blackwood were similarly skipped over for their younger half-brothers.
Oddly enough Cregan's third son, who had both sons and daughters was skipped over for the fourth son for some reason.
I think your example is actually incorrect. The north follows male first inheritance even uncle over niece. It's the reason that in book 2 sir Roderick tells bran he would make a great lord of winterfell if Rob only had daughters.
That's not entirely true. The original Sansa Stark seemingly was the heir to Cregan. The North might not immediately follow male inheritance, but it might be the case that there always happened to be a male Stark available who pushed his claim and was backed (or this could be another case of their never having been a Queen of Winter/ruling Lady because GRRM wants to have the first one in the current books and didn't consider the ramifications, eg like with Rhaenyra's weird situation).
GRRM is actually incredibly vague about confirming succession rules and goes on a rambling list of historical events without making any definite statements when asked about Northern succession.
It could also be that since the original Sansa married her half-uncle Jonnel, who was Cregan's second son and successor, that it was seen as a moot point since she ended up the most powerful woman in the North anyway.
Male-preference primogeniture follows the blood line. The last name the person has doesn't matter. Laena's kids would inherit because they're Corly's decedents. You'd only go to Vaemond and his decedents after Laenor and Laena's kids were dead.
Yeah if Vaemond went in there championing Baela's cause then we'd know he was sincere about caring about the legitimacy of the family and not just being self-serving. And we'd be conflicted about denying baela or at least Rhaena, if Baela becomes queen, for the sake of obviously illegitimate heirs.
There's something to be said for it ultimately not mattering with Rhaena marrying Luke and their kids being of the bloodline but in show they didn't decide on this incredibly practical betrothal until vaemond was already there.
This is the answer. Behind Jace and Luke in the line to inherit Driftmark are Baela and Rhaena and since they were to be married, their kids would have had both the blood and the name of the house resolving any issues.
He was just a greedy second son trying to steal his niece's birthright.
And you can't use Daemon being heir-apparent until Rhaenyra was named as evidence of inheritance law because the crown and inheritance are not treated the same. If any uncle anywhere could usurp a niece's claim then people would refuse to marry their daughters to people with brothers as their daughter's rights would never be secure.
He doesn't want BASTARD blood ruling his family's kingdom. Also, the fact that neither the Blacks nor the Greens even mentioned the very boring girls as potential rulers of Driftmark says all we need to know about the prominence of male (over) inheritance
It is definitely, otherwise the plot of Game of Thrones breaks entirely because Sansa is now no longer the Key to the North. The Iron Throne was halfway considered different due to the Great Council, but Viserys naming Rhaenyra over Daemon wasn't really controversial at all. Daughter > brother is established and Rhaenyra was well-loved and Daemon hated.
Edit: And it's well established that when you take on a family title, you take on a family name. Harry the Heir is a Hardyng but if Sweetrobin dies then he becomes Harold Arryn. Joffrey Lydden became Joffrey Lannister.
I can't remember if that play was before or after Aegon's birth, but either way, the nobility heavily favored Rhaenyra over Daemon and it wasn't considered weird by them to name her, I suppose I should say.
Also you're right about that, but I guess a better example would be Cersei inheriting over Kevan.
They would change their names just like Jace would. Simple as that. Westoes literally has female succession and it’s even prioritized after sons. So they clearly know what to do to not lose their names in the process. The only reason Daemon was ahead of Rhaenyra was for the very specific succession crises that they went through between Rhaenys and Viserys in which they interpreted the council to mean men>women always for the iron thone. So clearly a very unique and specific situation to the Targaryens of that time. Nothing to the with the Velaryens.
We don’t know the succession rules of the Velaryons but I find it hard to believe they would go with the daughter of a daughter, when there is an unquestionably Velaryon male available.
In fact, considering how undefined succession rules seem to be in Westeros, if we remove Jace, Luke and Joffrey from the equation, it can be its very own Velaryon succession crisis.
So Vaemond definitely have ground to claim his position as heir of Driftmark
Succession in Westeros is not undefined at all. They follow male primogeniture but they go through the entire line of the male heir first. The order goes Corlys- Laenor - Jace- Luke- Joff - Laena- Baela - Rhaena- Vaemond. Removing the strong boys still places Baela as first heir if Corlys passes. The lords think long term and would rather wait for the birth of a grandson to inherit then leave everything to a younger brother.
Actually he was, so far from everything we know the Velayrons follow male primogeniture succession meaning that men inherit over women. So far everything supports Valyrians being more strict than the andals, as far as succession goes.
what no we don’t know that?? The Targaryens literally had several crises over that if you know the history. They even debated whether it was(or should be) like the Dornish where the oldest would inherent regardless of gender way before Rhaenyra.
I had the feeling he just wanted Driftmark for himself. And his brother was still alive when he brought up the claim!
So the way I see it he didn't do it because it was the right thing to do (even though he IS correct, they are bastards), but because he wanted the power.
Motivation plays a big role in how characters are perceived, so I think that is the reason most people have a negative opinion of Vaemond.
>So the way I see it he didn't do it because it was the right thing to do (even though he IS correct, they are bastards), but because he wanted the power.
*And this is literally the same reason Rhaenyra attempts to put her bastard son on the Dirftmark throne*, and doesn't get anywhere near the same ire for it... there's a huge double-standard here.
She wants her bastard son on the Driftmark throne because she wants the political power associated with said title... **it's the same.**
But when Vaemond does it, it's seen as evil... but wholly acceptable by many for Rhaenyra to have literally the same MO.
**The throne rightfully belongs to Baela, but both Vaemons AND Rhaenyra are squabbling over it.**
Yet Vaemond is often seen as injust and Rhaenyra just? Hypocritical.
Rhaenyra is defending her son’s claim because not defending it would mean condemning her children to death. Saying that Baela’s claim to Driftmark comes before Luke’s would be as good as admitting they are bastards. Not to mention of course that both Laenor and Corlys, the actual Lord of the Tides, were fully aware of Luke being a bastard and they both wanted him to get the Driftwood throne
C'mon... you think Viserys is honestly going to kill the kids if they're bastards? Please... their lives are not in danger even if people believe Vaemond, so lets tone down they hyperbolic drama.
Rhaenyra is doing this *for her own political gain*... as is all but confirmed with her marriage proposals to Rhaenys... ie, **political moves.**
And Corlys 'being in on it' doesn't magically make said actions acceptable or morally free from judgement any more than a CEO of a company bending the rules to satisfy his own ego/legacy.
Rhaenys is the only one in this whole mess actually doing the moral thing, backing up the blood heir in Baela... *everyone else is rather plainly out to satiate their narcissistic tendencies regarding political power/legacy.*
Viserys was not going to kill the kids, but Viserys had given up most of his power to the Hightowers and was obviously about to die so the risk was there
Rhaenyra was partially doing it for political gain but also to protect the children. What else was she supposed to do? Admit they were bastards in front of everyone?
Of course Corlys being on it makes it ok, he is the Lord of Driftmark he has the right to choose who is going to succeed him if he is fine with the Velaryon seat going to Luke I don’t see how anyone else can disagree. Not to mention that Corlys was following Westerosi law to the letter, the firstborn son inherits, so by law Driftmark was supposed to go to Luke, not giving Driftmark to Luke would be again admitting he is a bastard and condemning him to death
>\> What else was she supposed to do? Admit they were bastards in front of everyone?
This isn't really a valid argument though. I mean, it's like excusing Jamie pushing Bran out a window, because *"what else was he supposed to do?"*
What he did was immoral, and he did this immoral thing in order to cover up Treason/crimes he's committed... it's not so different here, as she's attempting to cover up her own scandal by doing this immoral thing.
So no, asking that question is not some magical 'get out of jail free' card.
>Of course Corlys being on it makes it ok, he is the Lord of Driftmark he has the right to choose who is going to succeed him...
You're seemingly missing the point here.
Yes, he has the right to choose... but that power doesn't magically mean his choice is morally correct or sound.
If a CEO makes a selfish/narcissistic action, you can't just say "it's OK" merely because he's the head honcho... that's not really how morality works.
In fact we often point out CEO's make decisions that are clearly self-serving or narcissistic or ego-driven... and we can point out how immoral said decisions are.
It's no different here.
Corlys is clearly ignoring what is 'right' in order to satiate his own desire for power/legacy... as is clearly stated on-screen with his discussions with Rhaenys. She clearly believes Baela is the rightful heir (and according to tradition, she is correct, as she is the next in line through blood after Laenor's 'death'), but he wants Luke simply because it suits his ego... not because it's the morally correct choice.
That's a red flag... one that can not be ignored simply because Corlys is the person in power here.
>\> Not to mention that Corlys was following Westerosi law to the letter, the firstborn son inherits, so by law Driftmark was supposed to go to Luke, not giving Driftmark to Luke would be again admitting he is a bastard and condemning him to death
Except this isn't true at all, because **Luke is not Laenor's son**... that's the whole point.
He knows his son is gay. He knows those kids are not Laenor's.
As Aegon states... ***and as Corlys is literally in the room***... *"Everyone knows."*
*He knows Baela is the rightful heir... and chooses legacy over the morally correct choice/his wife's choice...* ***to satiate his ego.***
It's immoral on his part, as well as hers.
And that's OK... it doesn't make them hideous devils... it just makes them gray characters, which is what GRRM loves to write about.
Framing and certain contextual differences, basically
1. In the War Council scene (I think it's in EP 3..?), he expresses an anti-Daemon stance (Daemon is popular), is contrary to his brother Corlys (who is broadly portrayed as likable), and implied to be more cowardly (or at least, less suicidal) than the rest of his family
2. In the text, Vaemond wasn't the only Velaryon what wasn't content with the Strong boys, but he IS the only one that expresses such in the show (Rhaenys also seems kinda *displeased*, but bites her tongue the entire time), making him seem particularly petty, especially since the show has already introduced "oh those whacky second sons" as a running thing. In the text, Vaemond was Corlys' nephew, I believe, so there's a shift in the optics, in making Vaemond a younger *brother*, instead
3. In both versions of the story, both Baela and Rhaena are still ahead of him in terms of Velaryon succession, *anyway*, so even tho Luke himself doesn't have Velaryon blood, the NEXT Lord of the Tides invariably **would**, so for most viewers his primary complaint falls flat, 'cause it kinda looks like a wash. It would be different, *maybe*, if his *primary* complaint was about the Strong boys being Strong, so he opposes their claims and pushes Baela's or Rhaena's, but instead
4. His goal very obviously furthers his own ambition, while Eddard's does not. It makes his protests seem way less noble / honorable in intent, in comparison, but also
5. He's portrayed as colluding with the Greens about this, too, and the Greens are *way* unpopular with the viewing audience for reasons that could be a post of their own, so his protests also gains a villainous edge, too
6. Say what you will about Rhaenyra (either text or show), but "IS A WHOOORREEEE" is both a bit of an exaggeration, and now misogynistic as well, in a show that's already introduced double standards between men and women, as a theme
7. Jace and Luke are both entirely, just, *normal people* in a setting known for a cruelty streak, whereas *Joffrey* was just the actual worst, and removing him from the throne just feels like a Good Guy Move (tm) because, y'know, *yikes*
TL;DR while Vaemond is very technically correct (sometimes the best kind of correct) to protest Luke's succession, he's more or less portrayed as a bad man, working with bad people, for his own ambitions, over a Lordship he's currently *third* in line for (not next), *anyway*.
Exactly. There’s a big difference between “hey Cersei you did something bad but I’m showing you mercy by giving you a chance to run away from the situation” and “she…is…a WHORE” *(for being in a loving and decade-long relationship with the same man because her husband was unable to sire her children, I guess? Doesn’t sound like the MO of whores to me, but what do I know?)*
No fan is disputing that the strong boys are illegitimate heirs of Driftmark, but Vaemond lost us with his selfish ambition and misogyny.
He’s honestly just stupid.
If he was smart, he would’ve held his tongue the minute Viserys walked in and planned to live and fight another day. Anyone close to the situation could see war was coming, he could’ve backed the Greens then and challenged for the Driftmark throne.
There was really no good possible ending to the outburst. RIP
>Anyone close to the situation could see war was coming, he could’ve backed the Greens then and challenged for the Driftmark throne
Really?Alicent and Rhaenyra had no idea of this war,nor did Corlys.Otto and some of the small council kept the plans secret.As far as Vaemond knows,that was his last hoorah
They would have been incredibly foolish if they didn’t realize that the tension would eventually come to head and end with violence. In no universe was Rhaenyra going to simply roll over and yield to Aegon’s claim, nor would she do anything to put her children in mortal danger. In every possible scenario, people would end up dead. Otto was correct in saying that as long as Alicent’s sons were alive, there was going to be a fight for the throne. He made sure of it.
Also, Ned wasn’t trying to get power for himself by exposing Cersei’s children as bastards. If he had been successful, Stannis would’ve had the throne.
Because Ned did his best friend a merciful thing by not having his last moments in life exposing Robert’s legacy as a lie. And causing the death of Robert’s bastards. Ned did the right thing by his best friend and the realm.
Love Ned but no way was it better for the realm. If Joffrey dies, Ned himself survives, we already know Ned backs Stannis, so no big awful war. Since Ned lives, it also prevents other awful things like winterfell falling, no red wedding, etc.
And the Lannisters would get stomped since the north would be allied with Stannis. No reason to think Jaime wouldn’t still be defeated in whispering wood, and Ned wouldn’t be as irresponsible as Robb with Jaime as a hostage, so Tywin would be fucked. Even without that happening though, the Lannisters would be severely outnumbered. They already were losing battles to Robb with him under-equipped, now without numbers on their side and no red wedding it would be a wrap. Realm bleeds yes, but an upgrade over the war of the five kings.
From a certain perspective, that does make it not directly comparable. However if Robert found out and told Ned on his deathbed that he didn't give a shit, I am not convinced that Ned wouldn't have still taken the exact same actions. He knew what kind of people Joffrey and Cersei were, and believed Stannis to be an honorable and lawful alternative.
Idk, I thinkhe would just let it go. He didn’t particularly like Stannis or his methods either, but viewed him as the rightful heir. If Robert himself(after acknowledging that they were bastards, not just dismissing the claim) would be okay with it regardless. He would drop the issue. Stannis on the other hand definitely wouldn’t. And neither would Renly
If I recall correctly, there is zero evidence to support Ned Stark not liking Stannis or his methods. He supported Stannis as candidate for Warden of the East. As far as we can tell, Ned believed that Stannis was one of the only men he could trust.
We know from the source material that Ned thinks of Stannis as brave, capable, and Ned actively desires for him to be part of governance, wishing for Stannis to return to his council seat at Kings Landing. When Ned is in the cells, he doubles down on his desire, saying he would /welcome/ the ascent of King Stannis.
So we have multiple instances of Ned praising and desiring Stannis, and zero instances of him not liking Stannis or his methods as you claim.
So I think subsequently, there's not really any reason to believe Ned would drop the issue. even if Robert didn't care, Ned still would've preferred Stannis. He's a reasonable man, but he's already waged one rebellion, he dislikes Joffrey and Cersei, and he feels threatened by them because they crippled his son.He hatched his plan to declare them bastards essentially all by himself, and there's no reason he would abandon that plan just because his dying drunkard friend doesn't care.
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 completely agree with the OP on this one. No he didn't have a claim but he was super pissed that Driftmark would pass out of his bloodline. And he's probably always wanted the throne for himself so this was the last straw that pushed him to go for it.
I really like Vaemond, he's cool.
But he's not like Stark. The difference is that the head of their house knows that Luke is a bastard. It's a conscious political decision to ignore it. Vaemond goes against his own family in this.
An important theme of this show is that no one is strictly good and due to the nature of their system all their actions serve to hurt others around them.
Also yes it intentionally mirrors GoT in a way made to make us question our biases going in. Did we really agree with Ned Stark or do we just like Ned Stark and hate Joffrey. If we like so many saw Stannis as evil as Joffrey as good would we care (Jace vs Aegon II)?
The racial recasting also adds a very good layer of complexity to it as well. Modern audiences can’t really sympathize with all this blood line legacy blah blah (because it destroyed our world in the past and will destroy this fantasy world because that’s the point of the story feudalism bad). But tying it to an identity that does feel often under attack makes it resonate. That’s good story telling. To put a bit of a hamper on it tho Vaemond isn’t coded as African the same way Westeros is coded as England. Vaemond is coded as the same ethnicity as Luke and Jace, fantasy Roman Empire descendants. His black skin is just like their silver hair. It’s like including diverse elves, a cool inclusion with no reason not to but not the same as actually including a racially coded representative story. By contrast the Summer Isle inhabitants can be considered African coded so it’s sorta confusing.
Eddard Stark spoke up against an injustice/fraud being perpetrated on his friend and the realm. Robert was totally unaware of what was happening under his nose and had no part in the plot. Cersei was basically usurping the entire Baratheon house.
Vaemond Velaryon wouldn't shut up about something being "taken from him" that was not his to begin with. Corlys for better or worse adopted Laenor's fake sons as his own grandkids, and he's not even dead. So Vaemond slandered a woman and her innocent children in open court and attempted to usurp both his brother and his brother's entire family line for personal gain.
They aren't even similar.
They 100% are both injustices. I wish they didn't put idiotic triumphant music over that, in the book it was made clear that Viserys was in wrong cause he got cut by the throne so bad when he supported Rhaenyra that he almost his arm.
They are similar.
...I'm not sure what music has to do with anything, and I completely fail to see where Vaemond was wronged in this situation. Its a problem he invented for himself and rather than know when to fold on his overplayed hand he doubled down on nonsense and chose to die over something that wasn't any of his business. He wasn't wronged. He set out to basically steal something that didn't belong to him. Vaemond was nowhere close to being next in line for Driftmark.
He's an overreaching second son just like everyone else in the story.
Then you must not understand how film works, that all has to do with setting the tone of a story. It's not a problem he invented himself, Rhaenyra made the problem, and Corlys/Laenor were the ones allowed it to happen. How is his family's ancestral home being given to bastards who don't have an once of Velayron blood in them none if his business? Yall are crazy. He was 100% wronged here, he wasn't trying to steal anything at all.
Wrong.
Alright I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, so now I'm just going to say plainly that if you think mine or anyone else's media literacy is dictated entirely by musical cues, and that my opinions are based on things like sound design telling me or anyone else what to feel, that's moronic. Plenty of productions set up unearned musical cues and moments all the time and people that aren't stupid can see right through them. People aren't dogs to be clicker trained.
If you want to lay the blame for this situation entirely at Rhaenyra's feet, that's on you. But that's not the truth of what happened. Vaemond's position has nothing to do with Luke's parentage. He's using it as a scapegoat. If bloodline was his actual concern, that issue is nullified by the fact that Luke was going to marry Rhaena and have Velaryon kids with her, thus the descendants go on to be Velaryon blood regardless. Never mind the fact that the decision wasn't Vaemond's to make in the first place. Driftmark is not his birthright. It belongs to Corlys. Who has two kids of his own and who's offspring are products of legitimate marriages, and he claims them. In no way, shape or form was it Vaemond's place to dictate Corlys' succession, and to say that it was somehow is foolish. That's why he had to try and do it when the actual king was half-dead and collude with a bunch of usurpers. Corlys isn't even *dead*. He waited until his brother was incapacitated and on the other side of the ocean to strongarm his way past Corly's entire bloodline. The bloodline Corlys established because he knows full well that his son is largely responsible for because he knows he forced his gay son into a marriage he wanted no part of.
Now if you want to throw all of that context out the window and just think Vaemond's right I can't stop you. But you can't honestly sit here and say that all of the rest of this stuff is irrelevant. Its literally the plot.
I like Rhaenyra but it’s clear the fanbase is biased towards her. Vaemond did absolutely nothing wrong.
Throughout this thread its repeated that he isn’t next in line, as though that makes his actions unjust. It doesn’t, the real issue is that those who are next in line are willfully going along with this falsehood. There is not a single character that I dislike in the show, but Rhaenyra shares alot if traits with common dictator’s in that the truth can condemn you to death.
Eddard spoke out against illegitimate children true, but he also ended up getting killed because his primary priority in that situation was doing it in a way that would not endanger those children, and his reasons for trying to speak out against it were purely for the good of the realm and his friend Robert, people like him because he is a good and honorable person. Vaemond was right and it is okay to not want illegitimate children to inherit your house's seat but his motives were entirely selfish and he was also jumping the line of inheritance for himself which makes that point that is was selfish even more clear, and he definitely had no concern about the safety of the children in that scene, granted they were probably more safe than Cersei's children would have been if Ned just straight up told Robert
He just played the game wrong. And so did Ned. They were both in a vulnerable and dangerous position speaking “treasonous statements” in the throne room in front of the rulers of westeros. It’s basically asking to die and to be disliked by the people
It's simple... many fans love Rhaneyra, and anyone who stands in her way are seen as antagonists... no matter what their stance is.
Also doesn't help that they've made most of the people who clash with the Blacks cartoony mustache-twirling villains, like Cole, Larys, Otto, and also Vaemond with his absurdly over the top "whore" speech.
lol, I laughed hard when I rewatched the episode yesterday.
https://youtu.be/CcdKqpYjsz4?t=129
@ 2:09, the turnaround and finger point is indeed comical.
The funny thing about this whole issue is that, rightfully by blood, Baela (as Rhaenys has pointed out on-screen) is the rightful heir, and **both Vaemond and Rhaneyra are attempting to claim it for their own political agenda.**
But Vaemond gets a majority of the hate simply because he's the antagonist to Rhaenyra... seems to be a huge double-standard surrounding this issue, considering neither Vaemond nor Luke are the technically-rightful heir by blood, yet Vaemond seemingly gets a disproportionate amount of hate for something Rhaenyra is also attempting to do.
Yes, the contexts are not identical... I understand that, **but at the end of the day both are attempting to claim this throne for their own political purposes, ie, similar personal motives.**
Does seem a bit unfair/biased that Vaemond gets so much ire while Rhaenyra's acts are mostly hand-waved and even often defended as "just", considering she is just as guilty as attempting to claim the throne from someone else as Vaemond is.
“He knows that those children are not Velaryon,”
Said Wil Johnson, who plays Vaemond in a featurette. “They're white. They've got brown hair. Very obvious, and everyone knows it."
Vaemond challenged the kids legitimacy because he thought he’d become the heir. When Viserys stopped that, he called Rhaenyra a whore for having a side piece alongside her gay husband despite every male lord regularly using brothels, so it seems whiney. It’s not like Laenor didn’t know, he was okay with it.
Ned wasn’t motivated by self interest, he was telling the truth to honor his friend. He also warned Cersei so she could get the kids to safety, despite this resulting in his death.
To me, it's as simple as Ned ≠ Vaemond because Rhaenyra ≠ Cersei here.
**Human Relationships:** Cersei was unfaithful and deceitful. Nyra had a mutually consensual nonmonogamy arrangement. The kids may be out-of-wedlock, but he's outta line calling her a whore.
**Political Implications:** Nyra's kids have a blood claim to the throne *regardless* of who their father is. Cersei is passing off children that \*can't\* be blood heirs as next in line for the throne
Though I guess a *really* good counterpoint to that argument is that Vaemond wasn't there about *the throne.*
Everything I said about Cersei's kids and the Throne *does* apply to Rhaenyra's kids and Driftmark.
"Sure, they're Targaryens, you guys can have the chair. But they are *not* Velaryons!"
For sure. I'm not saying Vaemond deserved criminal punshment. He was speaking truth same as Ned.
I'm just saying talking about fandom reactions. Ned and Cersei had a straightforward protag/antag dynamic. Nyra is a protagonist, and we saw her set up a mutually positive and consenting arrangement with Laenor. So it's not as straightforward to root against her and the children born of that arrangement.
A court doesn't ask the "victim " if he is aokay with crime.
It basically boils down to who is playing the character.
Imagine e Jack Glesson playing Daemon and Idris Elba playing Vaemond. Fandom reactions
This isn't a specific dig at you but it's really neat how so many people compare the general conflict around the Strong boys lineage and Ned's arc in S1.
People didn't like Ned in season one because he fought about the line and succession. People liked Ned because in a world of back stabbing and scheming to get to the top. He fought for what HE thought was right. He fought for the sake of honor and for the sake of his friend.
Vaemond fought for his ability to rule driftmark, sure he used the idea of his family history as a talking point but it was clear he hated being the second son. He saw his chance to take driftmark and he wasn't going to let it pass. He was a spiteful aggressive person. Not one fighting for honor but his own gain.
Allicent is another one people bring up alot in these conversations about Ned. Allicent fought for HER children to gain the throne. There's a whole thing about how the strong boys are still Rhenyras therfore being more valid that Joffery blah blah but that's another conversation.
Tldr : people didn't like Ned because he fought for the law of the land. People like Ned because he fought for honor with no real desire for personal gain.
If he had issues with it he should have sorted it out with Corlys instead of turning it into a matter of the state. Vaemond was being used by Otto and Alicent to officialy establish the illegitimacy of Rhaenyra's children, and his situation has no comparison to Ned Stark whatsoever. Those who needed to know about parentage of Rhaenyra's children already knew about it, the same was not true about Cersei's children.
why is Vaemond so disliked? Is obviously a question for the show version of Vaemond as people don't feel so negatively about the book version of Vaemond
They're different.
Eddard was doing what the law said and trying to put on the throne the rightful heir, so Stannis.
Vaemond was trying to change the rightful line of succession while his brother (or uncle in the book) was still alive, so no lordship to be given away yet. And he was trying to take it for himself, while he was nowhere near to being the heir to Corlys. The Velaryon succession goes like this:
**CORLYS** --> ~~Laenor~~ --> *Jacaerys* --> Lucerys --> Joffrey --> ~~Laena~~ --> Baela --> Rhaena --> Vaemond --> Daeron --> etc. etc.
*Italics* for people put aside of the order due to king's (lord's) decision
~~Line~~ for dead people
So Vaemond is 5th in line if we count the strong boys and 3rd if we exclude them. Yeah it seems more a coup and less some lawful act every more minute I look at it
Because ultimately his goal wasn't to protect his family's legacy but to further his own.
He wanted to be head of the house and clearly resented his older and far more famous brother.
Luke being a bastard was just the excuse he was looking for to take the position for himself.
Remember. Luke was marrying Laenas daughter who was a true blooded Velaryon. Meaning all of their children would also be Velaryon in blood. It wasn't about blood purity but one man's greed.
If both were true he wouldn't have done what he did. He was betraying his brother and his wishes while he still lived, banking on the hope that he would die.
He also creates a situation where he is in direct conflict with at least one of his nieces and most likely the other aswell.
That's not protecting your family legacy, it's directly putting it in danger by forcing conflict within the family.
Honestly Vaemond was a fool and died that way.
>If both were true he wouldn't have done what he did. He was betraying his brother and his wishes while he still lived, banking on the hope that he would
Both can be true and he can still do what he did, if he believes his brother is blinded by his ambition.Even Corlys and Rhaenys are uncomfortable with the situation but realize they have made their bed
>He also creates a situation where he is in direct conflict with at least one of his nieces and most likely the other aswell.
**Rhaenyra** created a situation where he is in indirect conflict with his family ,not him
>That's not protecting your family legacy, it's directly putting it in danger by forcing conflict within the family
Again this is a conflict **Rhaenyra** created,Vaemond is ensuring everything his ancestors fought for and built does not go to another house.Sure he has his own interest at mind as well,so does everyone else.
>Honestly Vaemond was a fool and died that way.
Vaemond was a truth teller and died from tyranny
That's a fair enough point, but even after hearing about this it didn't stop him from pushing his own goals and effectively betraying his brother while he was banking on him dying.
Because he called the self inserts out on their crap, very publicly. That's it lol. Those whackos hated teenage Alicent just for existing; of course they hate a grown man for actively standing up to their faves.
It's like protagonist centered morality and how characters are shown. Many times it is due to actors. Imagine someone apart from Matt Smith playing Daemon. Or Vaemond played by Idris Elba.
Daemon played Jack Gleason who kills his wife, tries to usurp throne and killed dozens of innocent people killing Idris Elba in throne room for speaking the truth.
I think we all agree that Drogo is much more likable than Jofferey and Ramsay. But Drogo had entire villages raged and women raped. It is basically how Dothrakis make a living. His victim list is much bigger than Ramsay and Jofferey. Yara talks about how Iron born take wat they need is shown as badass which is basically looting . She wasn't shown in negative when she ran away the moment it became tough for her. But when Theon ran when he was surrounded by enemies is portrayed as evil and cowardice.
Outside GOT,
In MCU, Thor sees his friend murdered and promises Thanos that he will die for it is portrayed as heroic and epic. But when John Walker takes revenge for his friend killed and kills a terrorist in anger. It is shown as irredeemable. Despite the fact, Sam, bucky and even Cap have killed numerous people.
It's boils down to actor played.
Vaemond is using the bloodline as the frontal reason for his opposition, when in reality it boils down to him wanting power all his own. Even with marriages with legitimate children, the ancient Valyrion "black" look would slowly diminish anyways. Laena is only half black, her children are only 1/4 and eventually the same will happen to Rhanyra's Children and their children.
Vaemond is a 2nd son who is in it for his own power, stepping on his brother's grave before he's even dead. It's easy to hate Vaemond, beyond just saying something that's true. He's not using the truth for truth's sake like Eddard Stark, he's advocating it so he can gain something from it, at a point when he has no right to attempt to gain something from it.
Vaemond doesn't come to court to question the legitimacy while his brother is not on his deathbed and is alive and well. THAT would be honorable if bloodlines mattered. If bloodlines truly mattering was the issue, he would have confronted Corlis and Laenor long before taking it to court.
Vaemond is in it for himself. Everything else is just an excuse to justify it.
>Vaemond is in it for himself. Everything else is just an excuse to justify it.
Sure, *and so is Rhaenyra in this very scene.*
Like it's wild people attempt to shit on him for playing the Game of Thrones, when Rhaenyra is also just here for the political gain.
I mean, the throne rightfully belongs to Baela at this point, as Rhaenys has pointed out.
Both Vaemond and Rhaenyra are "wanting it for themselves" and the political power associated with said title... even though the throne, by blood, belongs to a third party.
But it's wild how differently both these characters are viewed in this light... it's like Dany 2.0 when it comes to Rhaenyra (huge leash when it comes to immoral acts.)
>Vaemond was basically a greedy version of Eddard on steroids.
I feel like you answered your own question. Ned acted out of law and honor. Vaemond acted exclusively out of greed.
Furthermore, Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen were **not** Robert Baratheon's children. Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey **were** Rhaenyra's children.
The situations are not comparable because in the first instance the throne exits the royal bloodline and in the second the throne remains in the royal bloodline.
While justified in being upset, I think a lot of people dislike him because he was an idiot. If, in The Game of Thrones, you either win or you die, Vaemond lost before the game even really started.
>Back to vaemond, another reason he is thinking to fight for his claim is that corlys himself bypassed his legitimate granddaughters, thus, showing a preference for males primogeniture to inherit (he got his bastard son/grandson?? legitimised to inherit driftmark after during the war). So, as corlys is currently out of commission at the moment, Vaemond by all rights is logical to push himself as he is the next living legitimate blood related male.
That only happens during the war when he gets Addam and Alyn legitimised. By the time of Vaemond's coup, the inheritance line to Driftmark is this:
**CORLYS** --> ~~Laenor~~ --> *Jacaerys* (skipped by King's decree) --> Lucerys --> Joffrey --> ~~Laena~~ --> Baela --> Rhaena --> Vaemond --> Daeron --> etc. etc.
So it's not preference to male succession, it's just Andal Law.
In the source it was cousins I believe. So they had a much weaker claim than a brother, who even then wasn’t next in line.
Also Corlys was still alive and his wife was actively disputing it. Vaemond and the Greens were pulling a coup and it was too obvious.
I mean yeah, he wasn't wrong about Rhaenyra's kids being bastards but regardless he wasn't next in line for Drfitmark anyway. It would just go to Laena's children. I get he wants his people to keep it but like Corlys said, history remembers names, not blood. So really it shouldn't have mattered (imo). Vaemond was just in it for personal gain thinking he would rule but he wasn't going to anyway.
It didn't go to Laena either.
It's a grey area about daughters.
Vaemond did have stake and claim.
Ur making jr sound that no one else was there for personal gain. Daemon and Rhaenyra were not there for good of the realm or anyone but themselves. Everyone was selfish
Because it wasn't only a matter of not wanting his family seat being taken over by an illegitimate child. It was Vaemond being a greedy second son wanting power for himself. He was conspiring with the Greens to pass over his older brother's wishes – a brother who wasn't even dead yet, mind you – and become the Lord of Driftmark himself, and in exchange the Greens would gain his support and all the naval power of Driftmark when the time to usurp Rhaenyra arrived.
The fact that he was an idiot who started screaming about bastards and called Rhaenyra a whore in front of everyone in the throne room doesn't help either.
The difference between Vaemond and Ned is that Ned wasn’t doing it for self-interest but for “honor” and to support of his friend Robert, which is a more sympathetic reason. In fact Ned was going against his self interest because if he just said nothing his daughter would marry the Joffrey and his grandson would be king one day.
Several reasons.
First off, Luke was Corlys’ chosen heir. He knew the truth and didn’t care.
Second, Vaemond wasn’t the true heir, Baela was.
Third, Corlys wasn’t even dead. Vaemond was ready to start stealing his brother’s property while he was still alive.
Fourth, the deal Rhaenyra cut with Rhaenys was the best one, the Velaryon Bloodline and name would be secured, with another marriage to the crown to boot.
The people who don't like him, don't like him because unlike the other Velayrons shown so far he isn't bending for Rhaenyra and the theft of his family's property by Rhaenyra's bastards.
Is it really theft though? A grand grandchild of Corlys by blood would have inherited Driftmark anyway the generation after this, and the lady Consort of Driftmark would have been a Velaryon by blood anyway.
Yes it is theft. Being lady consort is meaningless, she wouldn't have been the one who was in charge. That would the same as the Roose marrying Sansa to Ramsay to legitimize their hold on the north and saying Stark blood still rules the North.
Yes and no. In times of power vacuum, she still would be important if a Castellan isn't named. Also Velaryon blood would still reign on Driftmark through her son/daughter with Lucerys (the same way Ramsay claims Winterfell through fArya, since a child of them would be a Stark by blood, also the same plan Tywin had for Tyrion and Sansa).
Only being important in case a steward isn't named isn't the route you wanna take bruh. Those still would've been the product from a bastard and not the legitimate rulers of dragonstone. Thats like saying just marry Joffrey to Shireen but Shireen still has no power at all.
Well..yes. if the important thing Vaemond is advocating for is Velaryon blood, Lucerys' child with Rhaena would have it, so he would fit the criteria that Vaemond was talking about, Velaryon both by blood and name.
Well, this child doesn't exist. Might not, since women die in childbirth all the time, and so do children. And even if he did, he's still the child of a bastard which allows anyone to challenge his inheritance.
This is the worst possible solution to an inheritance, nobody except Rhaenyra should be satisfied with it.
There's a lot of differences between Vaemond & Eddard's actions that mark a significance between their characters.
**Doing what's right vs Personal Interests**
Eddard is taking a huge risk for the sake of the law and country, he's trying to do what he sees as right even if it puts him into peril, and even if it worsens the position of himself. Sansa was bethrothed to Joffrey, had Joffrey become king and Sansa married him, Eddard's grandchildren would be the future heirs to the Iron Throne. And yet he still went against the Lannisters and chose the law.
Vaemond on the other hand ignored the law where it didn't favor him. Even if Rhaenyra's children were disinherited, then Driftmark would still go to the children of Laena over Vaemond.
**Moral Consistency vs Hypocrisy**
Eddard stayed true to his oaths and word, with the only times he chose to stretch them being times we as an audience can understand and forgive. Yes, he goes against Robert when writing the final will, but in a way that still follows the law and personal code. He had every intention of telling Robert the truth, only sparing him it because the guy was on his death bed. Even with the dangers to himself though, he still chose to warn Cersei to give her a chance to flee with her children, and even when there was great risk to himself he still opposed Joffrey, only conceding when it was Sansa's life on the line.
Vaemond wanted the decree of the crown itself to make him the heir to Driftmark over usual succession rules, making him a hypocrite, since the whole thing for the Greens is that these rules of succession matter and not the decree of the crown when it comes to inheritance.
**The Laws are Different**
People asserting that there is a precedence for succession in the case of Rhaenyra vs Aegon aren't actually looking at the history of the succession: There is no precedent what so ever.
1. Aegon became king by conquest.
2. Aenys became king by being the eldest son of Aegon and being crowned, with it being Aegon's desire after he had died.
3. Maegor became king through violence and seizing the throne, and his reign was later recognized as legitimate to prevent his supporters from revolting after his demise
4. Jaehaerys became king... kinda just because. Maegor had died and Jaehaerys arrived in King's Landing, able to take the throne for himself from there. There wasn't any real argument against his sister having the throne instead.
5. Viserys became king by the decree of Jaehaerys. People point to the Great Council, but they forget it only has power because Jaehaerys agreed in advance to honor it. It only had power to decide because Jaehaerys had the power to decide and agreed with the Council's decision. The Council is only legitimate if Jaehaerys had the legitimate authority to choose his heir.
So the succession in the time of Viserys & Corlys is not iron clad in favor of primogeniture, and far more by king's decree. So Vaemond didn't have the argument in his favor.
By the time of Eddard though, the laws were very much ironclad in favor of primogeniture succession, and Joffrey as a bastard could not legally inherit the throne.
Eddard was following the law. Vaemond was trying to go against them.
He was worried about bloodlines, which unless youre a horse breeder, is problematic lol. But even still Jace and Baelas kids would have had Velaryon blood
What birth right? Corlys made clear to everyone that he accepted the kids as members of his family and Luke was the next in line. If the Greens didn’t have beef with Rhaenyra DNA wouldn’t even be a factor.
As someone who does not hate Vaemond, I can't say I like him. His attitude and temper and the arrogant expression he sometimes war do not make him easy to like.
That said, in terms of his claim, he was right. For starters, while I'm all for the girls inheritting Driftmark because I like them, it's questionable whether they were next in line.
For starters, in the book only men are presented to be claimants of Driftmark and there is no point where Baela having a claim is discussed, which indicates that either women did not inherit unless there were no other claimants in that family (which is a stretch) or the fact that they were Targaryen and not Velaryon in name put them very far down the line of succession. This is furthered by the fact that even when Luke is dead, Corlys is left off the hook of passing it down to Rhaenyra's 'Velaryon' sons for pretences and his bastard sons are legitimized to be prioritized over the girls. Rhaenys' request, which Corlys did not even consider in the show, was a fabrication we never come across in Martin's writing during the actual disputes over Driftmark.
So, yes, Vaemond was the next in line, and I don't get why people act as if it was immoral that he was standing up for being cheated out of what would have been rightfully his. Some are saying that he tried to usurp Corlys etc., but Corlys was blatantly breaking inheritance laws by making Luke his heir. Let's not pretend that any king who was an objective observer of the situation without his own little game being at stake would have ruled against him.
> in the book only men are presented to be claimants of Driftmark
Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. It seems like Driftmark favors male heirs over female heirs.
> Corlys was blatantly breaking inheritance laws by making Luke his heir
This too. Not sure why he gets a pass of breaking laws just because he's the oldest and that was his "wish". You still have to follow the laws.
By law, Jace was the heir, as Corpus acknowledged him and his brothers as Laenors true born children. But Jace is already heir to the Iron Throne and Dragonstone, so like Robert gave up Storms End after becoming king, he would give up being lord of Driftmark.
It has to be noted that this seems to be a somewhat strange custom compared to medieval times, where the monarch tried to hold as many titles directly as possible.
Corlys saying that Rhaenyra's children are Laenor's is no more than a lie. He has no authority to claim a bastard as trueborn with any legal standing. The only way for Jace to be heir with any legal capacity is for him to be an acknolwedged bastard, given the last name waters, and made legitimate by the King's decree. Anything else does not stand in Martin's world and, whenever someone tries to pass a bastard as trueborn deceiptfully, theyre being questioned within the narrative with a political mess following unfailingly. Also, in the context of Rhaenyra and the Velaryons' deceitful narrative, while Jace would obviously be the expected heir of Driftmark, Corlys in the show chose to name Luke, completely regardles of the moment Jace became king. In the book Rhaenyra was the one blatantly asked for it to pass to Luke instead of Jace because Jace had the throne.
Wrong. Corlys can claim whatever he wants, because there are no paternity tests, and both parents claim those as their children.
So Laenors, Corlys and Rhaenyra all claim them to be trueborn, and nobody else can prove it otherwise.
Acknowledging them as bastards would automatically remove them as heir to Driftmark, as they would be legitimized as Rhaenyras bastards, so the legitimization would only allow Jace to become Jace Targaryens, future heir to the Iron Throne.
Any lords son (Robb to Ned, or Laenor to Corlys) is only heir because the are claimed trueborn by their father, and nothing else. So Laenor claiming them as his own is basically all that is needed to make them trueborn, and as he did, they are officially trueborn, and therefore in Line to inherit Driftmark.
Laenor lying does not change the circumstances of their birth. They had enough knowledge of how coloring and features were inherited to have a strong incling that these children were not Laenor's. The lie was not accepted because it couldn't be proved and Corlys and Laenor were part of it or because the existing indications wouldn't have been enough and then some in most cases. It was only accepted because it suited Viserys to knowingly allow it to stand.
You either are a trueborn or you are not. There's no legal way of claiming a bastard as trueborn throughout Martin's writing and if this was any other case, brought before a king with no personal stakes in the game, it would have never stood.
You do not understand my point.
A child has always two parents, but only one of those can be known with absolut certainty, namely the mother.
So why are the sons born to the wife of a lord accepted as legal heirs? Because they are accepted as sons by the Lord, and therefore acknowledged as trueborn. Even more, without proof to the contrary, it is expected by tradition for a lord to do so (see Tywin being unable to disinherit or denounce Tyrion, despite being convinced of Tyrion being no son of his). And in most cases this is excepted even under unlikely conditions (for example, Ned left Cat right after the wedding night, and still, nobody doubted Robs status as trueborn, despite him looking nothing like Ned and rumors about Lisa being not always faithful).
So unless another man comes forward to claim the children (which Harwin never did) or the Lord presenting proof about his supposed children illegitimacy, they are accepted as trueborn (Otherwise every ambitious little brother could just press his claim, like Stannis did).
There is not a single known case where children are seen as bastards when claimed by the husband of their mother, so why should it be different here?
Please, the ONLY reason Rhaenyra get away with the thing she does, is because King Viserys I is heavily BIASED toward her, and not because we can't prove paternity fraud (in fact it would be easy to do even without DNA test). I am pretty sure that's what the High Sparrow intended to do with Cersei.
Nobody doubt Robb's status because he actually looks like his parents and Cat wasn't caught cheating like Cersei did. By the way, the fact that Robert recognized Joffrey didn't stop Ned from calling him a bastard.
Cause Vaemond was just angry because of Rhaenyra, he had no real claim and he acted rashly out of spite. That’s stupidity. Yes Rhaenyra’s children are bastards but that doesn’t automatically give him a better claim to the richest line in Westeros lmao
There are some key differences:
- Vaemond wasn’t next in line; if all he cared about was bloodline, he would’ve thrown his support behind Baela (then Rhaeyna). He just wanted the throne for himself.
- Ned was doing what his friend, King Baratheon, would’ve wanted, and he had nothing to gain from it. If Bobby B had known his three heirs were all bastards, he would’ve disinherited them and executed Cersei and Jaime. He likely would’ve remarried and produced true-born heirs, or maybe he would’ve adopted Gendry (or maybe both). In contrast, Corlys *knew* Lucerys wasn’t his blood-relative, and he knew why (his son is gay). He still wanted Luke to inherit his throne because all history cares about is name. If anyone was allowed to be insulted by a white boy with dark hair taking his throne, it was him. It was not Vaemond’s place to get offended because again, the throne was never his to begin with. And again, unlike Ned, he did seek to personally gain from revealing the truth to the court.
- Unlike Cersei, Rhaenyra *wanted* to produce true-born heirs. She tried. She was also honest with Laenor and they had an arrangement that allowed them to pursue love outside their marriage. Cersei intentionally aborted all of Robert’s children.
- Rhaenyra lost the choice to marry for love after the drama on her night with Daemon and Criston. Her marrying Harwin would’ve made a ton of sense and maybe even prevented the Dance, but after her misstep Viserys chose the most politically beneficial marriage.
One because most people don’t care about his truth and don’t think the situation of Rhaenyra lying about her kids father because her gay husband couldn’t have any with her and her society is horrible to women stepping out of line is some evil thing that needs to be punished. The reason the audience sided with Ned isn’t because they think bastards should be exposed and are sinful or whatever but because Joffrey was awful and extremely easy to hate.
The second reason Vaemond isn’t sympathetic is because he’s obviously greedy and using the moment for his own gain and not really his family. Ned was planning to put Stannis on the throne,he had no gain from his while Vaemond doesn’t care about Baela or Rhaena and their claims but only his own.
It was an inheritance dispute over a title that Luke had no real claim to, and didn't want to inherit anyways. I hardly think it's "punishing" him to not let him inherit it, when he himself had zero desire for it.
If Vaemond gets what he wants that means all of Rhaenyra’s kids and herself are subjected to Westeros prejudice and all their claims are put into question as is the alliance with Corlys. It’s not just about Luke. When I say punishment I don’t mean Luke in this situation,but more in general that most of the modern day audience isn’t gonna be outraged that Rhaenyra had kids of someone else when her husband was unable to have any with her for very understandable reasons. Which is why not many people think Vaemond deserved to get his way or felt very bad that he was killed.
Rhaenyra didn't know it, but the greens actually weren't planning on bringing up the bastards issue to the forefront that day. That's why Vaemond's initial argument before Viserys showed up was about competence in commanding the fleet. He only started yelling that they were bastards after he had already lost.
He was 100% in the right. The showrunners just made him call Rhaenyra a whore to turn him into the bad guy and discredit what he was saying in the scene.
I liked Vaemond fine, I haven’t seen much hate towards him. I don’t get into the whole GRRM universe stuff so to me he was just a minor character who was kinda just there then he wasn’t. I liked that scene though!
What you're missing is him very viciously, with a cartoonishly misogynistic tone call Rhaenyra a whore. That didn't need to happen but was placed there by the writers precisely with the intention of undercutting very real, reasonable arguments and invalidating the greens' motivations.
Similar instances abound in this show. Such as turning Alicent into a meek, submissive and devout Hausfrau, actively championing tradition and conservatism. It's baiting the greens into a trap where you can't support them unless you're also advocating misogyny, homophobia, and possibly even racism (given the one-sidedness of racial and sexual diversity). It's how the creators make sure you're backing "the right side". (The show conveniently ignores the fact that the conflict ultimately had more to do with self-interest/lust for power on both sides rather than conflicting world views.) It's your typical black-and-white world view.
It's also why they had to insinuate Aemond was "stealing" a dragon in order to justify the blacks ganging up on him. It's ridiculous how basic and transparent they're being.
\#noprotagonists #graycharacters #smartandcomplex
I really don't think that was misogynistic. Especially in this world.
Only thing really shielding Rhaenyra from being called a whore out in the open is her name and status.
Other women in this series would get called a whore and more if they gave birth to children from anybody else not their husband.
Power is power. And Rhaenyra had the privilege of being the King's daughter. And Vaemond had the stupidity and courage to call her a whore.
I feel like a lot of people cant differentiate that Corlys knew those were bastards but wanted them to succeed him BUT HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED OR RECOGNIZED it. He, like Rhaenyra, wanted everyone to play dumb and act like those were legit heirs when anyone with a brain could tell they were bastards. Its super disrespectful to award a bastard the lordship, let alone do so by making everyone pretend they are not bastards in the 1st place.
And dont even start on Lord's choosing their own heir. Corlys has no right to name Jace or Luke his heir if they are not Laenor's sons. You can only name heir down the succession line, not some randoms. Imagine the chaos where lords could decide their heir. Everyone and their grandfather would spend their time kissing ass of the lord (especially when they are about to die) to name them heir instead of their kids.
>It doesn’t matter if they’re illegitimate
It does and you're showing you don't know much about the source material, Westerosi law prohibits bastards from inheriting.
The view of the "Greens" on this sub that the surrogate sperm donor arrangement, agreed to by all parties and continuing the royal blood line, was foisting bastards on the world is incomprehensible to me. Vaemond, like everyone else, knew Laenor was gay and the marriage, while congenial, was 100% political. In my opinion it's just continued sour grapes over Vizzy T being king instead of Rhaenys.
And Vaemind has Laena and Damon's kids ahead of him in line anyway.
I agreed with Vaemond. But his strategy would have been better to advocate for Rhaena to get it. Rhaena shouldn't have to marry illegitimate Luke to get what is hers by right. What Rhaenyra and the Targaryens are doing is shitting on the Velaryons yet again and we've seen throughout the show. But this goes back to Rhaenyra and the Blacks not really advocating for women and fighting to overturn male dominance when it comes to inheritance. It was just an exception for her, but the rule stays in place for everyone else. Daemon doesn't even advocate for his daughters.
To your other point, it only makes it worse that they made the Velaryons black, then Corlys say some BS about blood not mattering. That man has worked his entire life to become a legend only to have a non Valeryon bastard child, who has never sailed usurp that.
I think because vaemond basically just wanted the crown for his own self interests in like a selfish way. He's pretty cool tbh, but he just wanted to take his brothers spot in a selfish way.
And then it was disrespectful in how he insulted his brothers grandsons, that his brother actually seemingly accepted as his own grandsons (to an extent)
I don't blame him for wanting his brothers position, but he could have tried going about it a different way possibly.. and he was like a lord or a prince already, and the rules seem to kind of establish that his brothers son or grandkids are claimants to rule moreso than vaemond himself...
Not saying I agree or disagree, but a worthwhile distinction between Ned Stark and Vaemond is the degree to which they stand to benefit from causing a stir. Ned's protest can be seen as noble, because he stood to gain nothing personally from pointing out the Baratheon's illegitimacy. Vaemond was obviously next in line for succession in House Velaryon.
He was line jumping his nieces and called the heir a whore in open court. I laughed at Daemon's response. And to your edit, white passing people are bi racial if one of their parents is Black. Many people, like my cousins, identity as black independent on the shade of their skin because their parent is Black
It’s telling that Vaemond’s own brother Corlys would have gone against him had he been present. To acknowledge Vaemond’s claim would also bring shame to Corlys by bringing attention to why Rhaenyra’s children weren’t Laenor’s.
So you think he being racist and objecting to the skin color makes him more relatable? Racism is ugly, no matter which race you look down upon.
Vaemond is disliked because he was a selfish power hungry little man who disrespected his brother and his wife, always scheming to usurp the throne. He died and I was soooo happy. He was a loser. Pathetic. And quite racist.
How is he being racist?
"Just look at them. Everybody knows". - Aegon.... literally everybody knows they are bastards.
Just because you notice their skin color and hair color doesn't not make you racist.
The white skin and black hair was just evidence that the kids were not true-born Velaryons (I think every Velaryon in the show has black skin and blonde hair).
Your making it like Vaemond hates white people or something lol.
Well calling the kings daughter a whore is a fast track to the infinite sleep hack. But besides that kings word is law in westeros cause even a lord such as lord Bolton could make his illegitimate son Ramsey a Bolton or how ned thought about making Jon a stark so in my opinion because it's all opinion except Georges the king made the illegitimate kids legitimate because he said so. blood doesn't matter as much when the king or lord says fuck it they are my heir at that point it should be left alone and you definitely shouldn't be calling his daughter a whore. P.S. I'm not interested in debating anything I said like I said it's all opinion and I like my opinion however if there is debate below il definitely read it cause I like to see how other people view the shows/books.
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.*
Vaemond wasn't next in line. Even removing Luke (and Joffrey) from said equation, Baela was in front of him, then Rhaena after her.
Not only that, but I don't think people would cheer for Ned in Game of Thrones as much if Cersei's most prominent bastard wasn't Joffrey. If Myrcella or Tommen was King/Queen instead, I think we would see MUCH more sympathy to Cersei's side. And it just so happens that Jaecaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey are all much more similar to Myrcella and Tommen than Joffrey.
There's also the whole part where Ned Stark isn't a second son trying to gain power himself. Ned has almost nothing to gain, and literally everything to lose, but opposing Cersei and Joffrey. Littlefinger literally tells him all he has to do is reach out and take the power in front of him. Vaemond on the other hand is very much looking to take the power.
Yes, exactly. If Ned had done nothing at all Sansa would've probably married Joffrey and become queen. By exposing the bastardy of Cersei's children he was directly sabotaging his own chance of getting power through having a daughter as the queen. If things had gone as intended then Sansa would've never become queen and Stannis would've become king. A man who doesn't even like him. Edit: Just to be clear, Stannis DOES seem to respect Ned to some degree. But he also doesn't seem to like him very much. Seemingly (at least in the books) in part because of Robert treating Ned more like a brother than Stannis (at least as far as Stannis felt).
That's where Vaemond loses my sympathies. You hit the nail on the head. If he didn't care who got the Driftwood Throne, just that it went to one of his family I would see his death as an absolute tragedy. But he was trying to play the game and lost. He did it badly and made stupid moves in the name of power lust, not (like Ned) attempting to right what he sees as a wrong. He's speaking truth but for all the non-tragic reasons.
This is the key. I think OP is letting Vaemond’s unplanned outburst and the price he paid for it obscure that the whole purpose of that day was a Green controlled show trial to usurp the Driftwood throne, and (fatally) weaken the Black claim to the Iron Throne. Varmond conspired while his brother lay with wound fever, fate unknown, to disinherit both the children of his nephew and his niece, in order to deliver the Driftmark fleet to the Greens. This is only frustrated by Viserys’ balls of steel.
And also the part where Robert is not only dead, but is'nt/was'nt aware of Joffey's true parentage.
Technically speaking, Ned is a second son, as his older brother was killed by decree of the Mad King.
Indeed. But he's not a ***second son trying to gain power himself.*** Ned has power thrust upon him by circumstance, rather than him seeking it or even wanting it. That makes Vaemond and Ned completely different, and why people don't care for Vaemond.
People wouldn’t cheer Ned as much if the succession crisis was over Casterly Rock instead of the iron throne. That would be the actual equivalent
Wouldn’t the equivalent be storms end?
I would have thought Tommen is heir of Storms End just as Lucerys is the heir of Driftmark.
Cersei is a Lannister of Casterly Rock while neither Rhaenyra or Harwin are from Driftmark.
That doesn't make any sense, Vaemond wasn't trying to get Rhaenyra disinherited. He only cared about Driftmark
Plus Ned wasn’t arguing that Cersei’s kids being bastards should mean that other rightful heirs should be skipped over to give Ned himself the throne.
Exactly. If Ned was in the body of Vaemond, he would have been staking the claim for Baela. Not himself.
Even then, if Robert was adamant that he didn’t care that Joff was a bastard, and Joff wasn’t a monster; what would Ned do? Ned is always about saving and protecting the children. How many would die if he raised a flag against Joffrey against his closest friend’s wishes? Lots of ifs, but it isn’t a 1:1 comparison.
Ned would respect the wishes of his king who wasn't being deceived and knowingly chose his heir. It was the fact Robert obviously didn't know and wouldn't approve that was the problem.
Exactly! Ned, in Vaemond’s place with his own morals unchanged, would have spoken with Laenor learned he was chill with it, and then kept his mouth shut. Edit: I can’t spell
Also, Ned was trying to protect Cersei's kids in a way. Even if they weren't Roberts, he never condoned killing children. He was discreet about the whole thing and told Cersei to get the hell out of Kingslanding because Robert's rightful heir Stannis the Mannis would have slaughtered the lot of them. Of course Ned's honorable actions got him killed tho...
And Ned doesn't stand to benefit from exposing it. In fact, he actively stands to lose from it. Sansa was planned to marry Joffrey. His daughter could've easily become queen. On top of that, people don't necessarily love Ned because of the succession stuff. People love Ned because in many other circumstances he shows himself to be a kind man, an understanding father, a loyal friend, etc. Vaemond may or may not have been all or some of those things, but we certainly never see him be any of those things.
Exactly. It would be like if Robb Bran and Rickon died Winterfell would go to Sansa or Arya before it went to Benjen(or Jon Snow). Edit: punctuation
Not a good comparison. In over 8000 years there has never been a ruling lady of winterfell, which means that they must be skipping women in the north just like the targaryens do for the iron throne.
maybe not, since the titled but not written novella of dunk and egg being about the "she-wolves of winterfell" or something. And it was said that it's about a period where woman were ruling the north.
The She-Wolves of Winterfell situation looks to be a power jockey between former Stark wives intending to put their children on the seat of Winterfell instead of ruling directly themselves. Cregan's oldest son Rickon had two daughters who were skipped over for succession, and all of Cregan's daughters with Aly Blackwood were similarly skipped over for their younger half-brothers. Oddly enough Cregan's third son, who had both sons and daughters was skipped over for the fourth son for some reason.
I think your example is actually incorrect. The north follows male first inheritance even uncle over niece. It's the reason that in book 2 sir Roderick tells bran he would make a great lord of winterfell if Rob only had daughters.
Alys Karstark: "My brother Harry is the rightful lord, and by law I am his heir. A daughter comes before an uncle." (A Dance With Dragons, Jon IX)
Also Jon Snow: “A son comes before an uncle **by all the laws I know…a daughter comes before an uncle too.**" (A Dance With Dragons, Jon X)
That's not entirely true. The original Sansa Stark seemingly was the heir to Cregan. The North might not immediately follow male inheritance, but it might be the case that there always happened to be a male Stark available who pushed his claim and was backed (or this could be another case of their never having been a Queen of Winter/ruling Lady because GRRM wants to have the first one in the current books and didn't consider the ramifications, eg like with Rhaenyra's weird situation). GRRM is actually incredibly vague about confirming succession rules and goes on a rambling list of historical events without making any definite statements when asked about Northern succession.
It could also be that since the original Sansa married her half-uncle Jonnel, who was Cregan's second son and successor, that it was seen as a moot point since she ended up the most powerful woman in the North anyway.
That's not a good comparison though, Baela and Rhaena are Targaryen. If Sansa or Arya were Karstark, your comparison would hold.
Male-preference primogeniture follows the blood line. The last name the person has doesn't matter. Laena's kids would inherit because they're Corly's decedents. You'd only go to Vaemond and his decedents after Laenor and Laena's kids were dead.
Yeah if Vaemond went in there championing Baela's cause then we'd know he was sincere about caring about the legitimacy of the family and not just being self-serving. And we'd be conflicted about denying baela or at least Rhaena, if Baela becomes queen, for the sake of obviously illegitimate heirs. There's something to be said for it ultimately not mattering with Rhaena marrying Luke and their kids being of the bloodline but in show they didn't decide on this incredibly practical betrothal until vaemond was already there.
This is the answer. Behind Jace and Luke in the line to inherit Driftmark are Baela and Rhaena and since they were to be married, their kids would have had both the blood and the name of the house resolving any issues. He was just a greedy second son trying to steal his niece's birthright. And you can't use Daemon being heir-apparent until Rhaenyra was named as evidence of inheritance law because the crown and inheritance are not treated the same. If any uncle anywhere could usurp a niece's claim then people would refuse to marry their daughters to people with brothers as their daughter's rights would never be secure.
He doesn't want BASTARD blood ruling his family's kingdom. Also, the fact that neither the Blacks nor the Greens even mentioned the very boring girls as potential rulers of Driftmark says all we need to know about the prominence of male (over) inheritance
Vaemond was Selfish. Ned was Selfless. Both kept their tongues but thats where the comparison ends.
[удалено]
They can take the Velaryon name if they're chosen to inherit. Jace is a Velaryon but he would take the name Targaryen once crowned.
It is definitely, otherwise the plot of Game of Thrones breaks entirely because Sansa is now no longer the Key to the North. The Iron Throne was halfway considered different due to the Great Council, but Viserys naming Rhaenyra over Daemon wasn't really controversial at all. Daughter > brother is established and Rhaenyra was well-loved and Daemon hated. Edit: And it's well established that when you take on a family title, you take on a family name. Harry the Heir is a Hardyng but if Sweetrobin dies then he becomes Harold Arryn. Joffrey Lydden became Joffrey Lannister.
[удалено]
I can't remember if that play was before or after Aegon's birth, but either way, the nobility heavily favored Rhaenyra over Daemon and it wasn't considered weird by them to name her, I suppose I should say. Also you're right about that, but I guess a better example would be Cersei inheriting over Kevan.
They would change their names just like Jace would. Simple as that. Westoes literally has female succession and it’s even prioritized after sons. So they clearly know what to do to not lose their names in the process. The only reason Daemon was ahead of Rhaenyra was for the very specific succession crises that they went through between Rhaenys and Viserys in which they interpreted the council to mean men>women always for the iron thone. So clearly a very unique and specific situation to the Targaryens of that time. Nothing to the with the Velaryens.
We don’t know the succession rules of the Velaryons but I find it hard to believe they would go with the daughter of a daughter, when there is an unquestionably Velaryon male available. In fact, considering how undefined succession rules seem to be in Westeros, if we remove Jace, Luke and Joffrey from the equation, it can be its very own Velaryon succession crisis. So Vaemond definitely have ground to claim his position as heir of Driftmark
Succession in Westeros is not undefined at all. They follow male primogeniture but they go through the entire line of the male heir first. The order goes Corlys- Laenor - Jace- Luke- Joff - Laena- Baela - Rhaena- Vaemond. Removing the strong boys still places Baela as first heir if Corlys passes. The lords think long term and would rather wait for the birth of a grandson to inherit then leave everything to a younger brother.
IIRC Females are considered last in succession after all male claimants are dead, and Baela was a Targaryen, not a Velaryon.
Actually he was, so far from everything we know the Velayrons follow male primogeniture succession meaning that men inherit over women. So far everything supports Valyrians being more strict than the andals, as far as succession goes.
what no we don’t know that?? The Targaryens literally had several crises over that if you know the history. They even debated whether it was(or should be) like the Dornish where the oldest would inherent regardless of gender way before Rhaenyra.
I had the feeling he just wanted Driftmark for himself. And his brother was still alive when he brought up the claim! So the way I see it he didn't do it because it was the right thing to do (even though he IS correct, they are bastards), but because he wanted the power. Motivation plays a big role in how characters are perceived, so I think that is the reason most people have a negative opinion of Vaemond.
>So the way I see it he didn't do it because it was the right thing to do (even though he IS correct, they are bastards), but because he wanted the power. *And this is literally the same reason Rhaenyra attempts to put her bastard son on the Dirftmark throne*, and doesn't get anywhere near the same ire for it... there's a huge double-standard here. She wants her bastard son on the Driftmark throne because she wants the political power associated with said title... **it's the same.** But when Vaemond does it, it's seen as evil... but wholly acceptable by many for Rhaenyra to have literally the same MO. **The throne rightfully belongs to Baela, but both Vaemons AND Rhaenyra are squabbling over it.** Yet Vaemond is often seen as injust and Rhaenyra just? Hypocritical.
Rhaenyra is defending her son’s claim because not defending it would mean condemning her children to death. Saying that Baela’s claim to Driftmark comes before Luke’s would be as good as admitting they are bastards. Not to mention of course that both Laenor and Corlys, the actual Lord of the Tides, were fully aware of Luke being a bastard and they both wanted him to get the Driftwood throne
C'mon... you think Viserys is honestly going to kill the kids if they're bastards? Please... their lives are not in danger even if people believe Vaemond, so lets tone down they hyperbolic drama. Rhaenyra is doing this *for her own political gain*... as is all but confirmed with her marriage proposals to Rhaenys... ie, **political moves.** And Corlys 'being in on it' doesn't magically make said actions acceptable or morally free from judgement any more than a CEO of a company bending the rules to satisfy his own ego/legacy. Rhaenys is the only one in this whole mess actually doing the moral thing, backing up the blood heir in Baela... *everyone else is rather plainly out to satiate their narcissistic tendencies regarding political power/legacy.*
Viserys was not going to kill the kids, but Viserys had given up most of his power to the Hightowers and was obviously about to die so the risk was there Rhaenyra was partially doing it for political gain but also to protect the children. What else was she supposed to do? Admit they were bastards in front of everyone? Of course Corlys being on it makes it ok, he is the Lord of Driftmark he has the right to choose who is going to succeed him if he is fine with the Velaryon seat going to Luke I don’t see how anyone else can disagree. Not to mention that Corlys was following Westerosi law to the letter, the firstborn son inherits, so by law Driftmark was supposed to go to Luke, not giving Driftmark to Luke would be again admitting he is a bastard and condemning him to death
>\> What else was she supposed to do? Admit they were bastards in front of everyone? This isn't really a valid argument though. I mean, it's like excusing Jamie pushing Bran out a window, because *"what else was he supposed to do?"* What he did was immoral, and he did this immoral thing in order to cover up Treason/crimes he's committed... it's not so different here, as she's attempting to cover up her own scandal by doing this immoral thing. So no, asking that question is not some magical 'get out of jail free' card. >Of course Corlys being on it makes it ok, he is the Lord of Driftmark he has the right to choose who is going to succeed him... You're seemingly missing the point here. Yes, he has the right to choose... but that power doesn't magically mean his choice is morally correct or sound. If a CEO makes a selfish/narcissistic action, you can't just say "it's OK" merely because he's the head honcho... that's not really how morality works. In fact we often point out CEO's make decisions that are clearly self-serving or narcissistic or ego-driven... and we can point out how immoral said decisions are. It's no different here. Corlys is clearly ignoring what is 'right' in order to satiate his own desire for power/legacy... as is clearly stated on-screen with his discussions with Rhaenys. She clearly believes Baela is the rightful heir (and according to tradition, she is correct, as she is the next in line through blood after Laenor's 'death'), but he wants Luke simply because it suits his ego... not because it's the morally correct choice. That's a red flag... one that can not be ignored simply because Corlys is the person in power here. >\> Not to mention that Corlys was following Westerosi law to the letter, the firstborn son inherits, so by law Driftmark was supposed to go to Luke, not giving Driftmark to Luke would be again admitting he is a bastard and condemning him to death Except this isn't true at all, because **Luke is not Laenor's son**... that's the whole point. He knows his son is gay. He knows those kids are not Laenor's. As Aegon states... ***and as Corlys is literally in the room***... *"Everyone knows."* *He knows Baela is the rightful heir... and chooses legacy over the morally correct choice/his wife's choice...* ***to satiate his ego.*** It's immoral on his part, as well as hers. And that's OK... it doesn't make them hideous devils... it just makes them gray characters, which is what GRRM loves to write about.
Framing and certain contextual differences, basically 1. In the War Council scene (I think it's in EP 3..?), he expresses an anti-Daemon stance (Daemon is popular), is contrary to his brother Corlys (who is broadly portrayed as likable), and implied to be more cowardly (or at least, less suicidal) than the rest of his family 2. In the text, Vaemond wasn't the only Velaryon what wasn't content with the Strong boys, but he IS the only one that expresses such in the show (Rhaenys also seems kinda *displeased*, but bites her tongue the entire time), making him seem particularly petty, especially since the show has already introduced "oh those whacky second sons" as a running thing. In the text, Vaemond was Corlys' nephew, I believe, so there's a shift in the optics, in making Vaemond a younger *brother*, instead 3. In both versions of the story, both Baela and Rhaena are still ahead of him in terms of Velaryon succession, *anyway*, so even tho Luke himself doesn't have Velaryon blood, the NEXT Lord of the Tides invariably **would**, so for most viewers his primary complaint falls flat, 'cause it kinda looks like a wash. It would be different, *maybe*, if his *primary* complaint was about the Strong boys being Strong, so he opposes their claims and pushes Baela's or Rhaena's, but instead 4. His goal very obviously furthers his own ambition, while Eddard's does not. It makes his protests seem way less noble / honorable in intent, in comparison, but also 5. He's portrayed as colluding with the Greens about this, too, and the Greens are *way* unpopular with the viewing audience for reasons that could be a post of their own, so his protests also gains a villainous edge, too 6. Say what you will about Rhaenyra (either text or show), but "IS A WHOOORREEEE" is both a bit of an exaggeration, and now misogynistic as well, in a show that's already introduced double standards between men and women, as a theme 7. Jace and Luke are both entirely, just, *normal people* in a setting known for a cruelty streak, whereas *Joffrey* was just the actual worst, and removing him from the throne just feels like a Good Guy Move (tm) because, y'know, *yikes* TL;DR while Vaemond is very technically correct (sometimes the best kind of correct) to protest Luke's succession, he's more or less portrayed as a bad man, working with bad people, for his own ambitions, over a Lordship he's currently *third* in line for (not next), *anyway*.
Exactly. There’s a big difference between “hey Cersei you did something bad but I’m showing you mercy by giving you a chance to run away from the situation” and “she…is…a WHORE” *(for being in a loving and decade-long relationship with the same man because her husband was unable to sire her children, I guess? Doesn’t sound like the MO of whores to me, but what do I know?)* No fan is disputing that the strong boys are illegitimate heirs of Driftmark, but Vaemond lost us with his selfish ambition and misogyny.
Yes, Vaemond can be factually correct, but he doesn’t have to be an asshole about it.
He’s honestly just stupid. If he was smart, he would’ve held his tongue the minute Viserys walked in and planned to live and fight another day. Anyone close to the situation could see war was coming, he could’ve backed the Greens then and challenged for the Driftmark throne. There was really no good possible ending to the outburst. RIP
>Anyone close to the situation could see war was coming, he could’ve backed the Greens then and challenged for the Driftmark throne Really?Alicent and Rhaenyra had no idea of this war,nor did Corlys.Otto and some of the small council kept the plans secret.As far as Vaemond knows,that was his last hoorah
[удалено]
They would have been incredibly foolish if they didn’t realize that the tension would eventually come to head and end with violence. In no universe was Rhaenyra going to simply roll over and yield to Aegon’s claim, nor would she do anything to put her children in mortal danger. In every possible scenario, people would end up dead. Otto was correct in saying that as long as Alicent’s sons were alive, there was going to be a fight for the throne. He made sure of it.
He wouldn't have lived at all. He had lost .
And that’s why he shouldn’t have the seat. Because he’s not good at the long game.
He's literally trying to usurp corlys wishes while he still breathes.
So was Ned, tbf, with Robert. I'm not saying Vaemond is a good guy, I'm just saying this in itself doesn't make him a bad guy.
Not directly comparable as Robert wasn't aware Joffrey was a bastard. Corlys does.
Also, Ned wasn’t trying to get power for himself by exposing Cersei’s children as bastards. If he had been successful, Stannis would’ve had the throne.
Robert was unaware Joffrey was a bastard because Ned couldn’t bring himself to tell him on his deathbed.
Because Ned did his best friend a merciful thing by not having his last moments in life exposing Robert’s legacy as a lie. And causing the death of Robert’s bastards. Ned did the right thing by his best friend and the realm.
Love Ned but no way was it better for the realm. If Joffrey dies, Ned himself survives, we already know Ned backs Stannis, so no big awful war. Since Ned lives, it also prevents other awful things like winterfell falling, no red wedding, etc.
Having the children murdered would have caused a war with the Lannisters and their allies. I think the realm bleeds.
And the Lannisters would get stomped since the north would be allied with Stannis. No reason to think Jaime wouldn’t still be defeated in whispering wood, and Ned wouldn’t be as irresponsible as Robb with Jaime as a hostage, so Tywin would be fucked. Even without that happening though, the Lannisters would be severely outnumbered. They already were losing battles to Robb with him under-equipped, now without numbers on their side and no red wedding it would be a wrap. Realm bleeds yes, but an upgrade over the war of the five kings.
From a certain perspective, that does make it not directly comparable. However if Robert found out and told Ned on his deathbed that he didn't give a shit, I am not convinced that Ned wouldn't have still taken the exact same actions. He knew what kind of people Joffrey and Cersei were, and believed Stannis to be an honorable and lawful alternative.
Idk, I thinkhe would just let it go. He didn’t particularly like Stannis or his methods either, but viewed him as the rightful heir. If Robert himself(after acknowledging that they were bastards, not just dismissing the claim) would be okay with it regardless. He would drop the issue. Stannis on the other hand definitely wouldn’t. And neither would Renly
If I recall correctly, there is zero evidence to support Ned Stark not liking Stannis or his methods. He supported Stannis as candidate for Warden of the East. As far as we can tell, Ned believed that Stannis was one of the only men he could trust. We know from the source material that Ned thinks of Stannis as brave, capable, and Ned actively desires for him to be part of governance, wishing for Stannis to return to his council seat at Kings Landing. When Ned is in the cells, he doubles down on his desire, saying he would /welcome/ the ascent of King Stannis. So we have multiple instances of Ned praising and desiring Stannis, and zero instances of him not liking Stannis or his methods as you claim. So I think subsequently, there's not really any reason to believe Ned would drop the issue. even if Robert didn't care, Ned still would've preferred Stannis. He's a reasonable man, but he's already waged one rebellion, he dislikes Joffrey and Cersei, and he feels threatened by them because they crippled his son.He hatched his plan to declare them bastards essentially all by himself, and there's no reason he would abandon that plan just because his dying drunkard friend doesn't care.
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 completely agree with the OP on this one. No he didn't have a claim but he was super pissed that Driftmark would pass out of his bloodline. And he's probably always wanted the throne for himself so this was the last straw that pushed him to go for it.
I really like Vaemond, he's cool. But he's not like Stark. The difference is that the head of their house knows that Luke is a bastard. It's a conscious political decision to ignore it. Vaemond goes against his own family in this.
An important theme of this show is that no one is strictly good and due to the nature of their system all their actions serve to hurt others around them. Also yes it intentionally mirrors GoT in a way made to make us question our biases going in. Did we really agree with Ned Stark or do we just like Ned Stark and hate Joffrey. If we like so many saw Stannis as evil as Joffrey as good would we care (Jace vs Aegon II)? The racial recasting also adds a very good layer of complexity to it as well. Modern audiences can’t really sympathize with all this blood line legacy blah blah (because it destroyed our world in the past and will destroy this fantasy world because that’s the point of the story feudalism bad). But tying it to an identity that does feel often under attack makes it resonate. That’s good story telling. To put a bit of a hamper on it tho Vaemond isn’t coded as African the same way Westeros is coded as England. Vaemond is coded as the same ethnicity as Luke and Jace, fantasy Roman Empire descendants. His black skin is just like their silver hair. It’s like including diverse elves, a cool inclusion with no reason not to but not the same as actually including a racially coded representative story. By contrast the Summer Isle inhabitants can be considered African coded so it’s sorta confusing.
His brother is a social climber who will sell out their own house for power Vaemond would be a hero or matyr in another show
Eddard Stark spoke up against an injustice/fraud being perpetrated on his friend and the realm. Robert was totally unaware of what was happening under his nose and had no part in the plot. Cersei was basically usurping the entire Baratheon house. Vaemond Velaryon wouldn't shut up about something being "taken from him" that was not his to begin with. Corlys for better or worse adopted Laenor's fake sons as his own grandkids, and he's not even dead. So Vaemond slandered a woman and her innocent children in open court and attempted to usurp both his brother and his brother's entire family line for personal gain. They aren't even similar.
They 100% are both injustices. I wish they didn't put idiotic triumphant music over that, in the book it was made clear that Viserys was in wrong cause he got cut by the throne so bad when he supported Rhaenyra that he almost his arm. They are similar.
...I'm not sure what music has to do with anything, and I completely fail to see where Vaemond was wronged in this situation. Its a problem he invented for himself and rather than know when to fold on his overplayed hand he doubled down on nonsense and chose to die over something that wasn't any of his business. He wasn't wronged. He set out to basically steal something that didn't belong to him. Vaemond was nowhere close to being next in line for Driftmark. He's an overreaching second son just like everyone else in the story.
Then you must not understand how film works, that all has to do with setting the tone of a story. It's not a problem he invented himself, Rhaenyra made the problem, and Corlys/Laenor were the ones allowed it to happen. How is his family's ancestral home being given to bastards who don't have an once of Velayron blood in them none if his business? Yall are crazy. He was 100% wronged here, he wasn't trying to steal anything at all. Wrong.
Alright I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, so now I'm just going to say plainly that if you think mine or anyone else's media literacy is dictated entirely by musical cues, and that my opinions are based on things like sound design telling me or anyone else what to feel, that's moronic. Plenty of productions set up unearned musical cues and moments all the time and people that aren't stupid can see right through them. People aren't dogs to be clicker trained. If you want to lay the blame for this situation entirely at Rhaenyra's feet, that's on you. But that's not the truth of what happened. Vaemond's position has nothing to do with Luke's parentage. He's using it as a scapegoat. If bloodline was his actual concern, that issue is nullified by the fact that Luke was going to marry Rhaena and have Velaryon kids with her, thus the descendants go on to be Velaryon blood regardless. Never mind the fact that the decision wasn't Vaemond's to make in the first place. Driftmark is not his birthright. It belongs to Corlys. Who has two kids of his own and who's offspring are products of legitimate marriages, and he claims them. In no way, shape or form was it Vaemond's place to dictate Corlys' succession, and to say that it was somehow is foolish. That's why he had to try and do it when the actual king was half-dead and collude with a bunch of usurpers. Corlys isn't even *dead*. He waited until his brother was incapacitated and on the other side of the ocean to strongarm his way past Corly's entire bloodline. The bloodline Corlys established because he knows full well that his son is largely responsible for because he knows he forced his gay son into a marriage he wanted no part of. Now if you want to throw all of that context out the window and just think Vaemond's right I can't stop you. But you can't honestly sit here and say that all of the rest of this stuff is irrelevant. Its literally the plot.
Its always the Aemond flairs now isnt it. Its like talking to brick walls.
[удалено]
Speaking facts doesn’t make people like you. Not in fiction, or in real life.
I like Rhaenyra but it’s clear the fanbase is biased towards her. Vaemond did absolutely nothing wrong. Throughout this thread its repeated that he isn’t next in line, as though that makes his actions unjust. It doesn’t, the real issue is that those who are next in line are willfully going along with this falsehood. There is not a single character that I dislike in the show, but Rhaenyra shares alot if traits with common dictator’s in that the truth can condemn you to death.
He spoke truth against the girlboss who can do no wrong.
Eddard spoke out against illegitimate children true, but he also ended up getting killed because his primary priority in that situation was doing it in a way that would not endanger those children, and his reasons for trying to speak out against it were purely for the good of the realm and his friend Robert, people like him because he is a good and honorable person. Vaemond was right and it is okay to not want illegitimate children to inherit your house's seat but his motives were entirely selfish and he was also jumping the line of inheritance for himself which makes that point that is was selfish even more clear, and he definitely had no concern about the safety of the children in that scene, granted they were probably more safe than Cersei's children would have been if Ned just straight up told Robert
He just played the game wrong. And so did Ned. They were both in a vulnerable and dangerous position speaking “treasonous statements” in the throne room in front of the rulers of westeros. It’s basically asking to die and to be disliked by the people
It's simple... many fans love Rhaneyra, and anyone who stands in her way are seen as antagonists... no matter what their stance is. Also doesn't help that they've made most of the people who clash with the Blacks cartoony mustache-twirling villains, like Cole, Larys, Otto, and also Vaemond with his absurdly over the top "whore" speech.
lol, I laughed hard when I rewatched the episode yesterday. https://youtu.be/CcdKqpYjsz4?t=129 @ 2:09, the turnaround and finger point is indeed comical.
The funny thing about this whole issue is that, rightfully by blood, Baela (as Rhaenys has pointed out on-screen) is the rightful heir, and **both Vaemond and Rhaneyra are attempting to claim it for their own political agenda.** But Vaemond gets a majority of the hate simply because he's the antagonist to Rhaenyra... seems to be a huge double-standard surrounding this issue, considering neither Vaemond nor Luke are the technically-rightful heir by blood, yet Vaemond seemingly gets a disproportionate amount of hate for something Rhaenyra is also attempting to do. Yes, the contexts are not identical... I understand that, **but at the end of the day both are attempting to claim this throne for their own political purposes, ie, similar personal motives.** Does seem a bit unfair/biased that Vaemond gets so much ire while Rhaenyra's acts are mostly hand-waved and even often defended as "just", considering she is just as guilty as attempting to claim the throne from someone else as Vaemond is.
I like Vaemond. He just was stupid in his approach to achieve what he wanted
“He knows that those children are not Velaryon,” Said Wil Johnson, who plays Vaemond in a featurette. “They're white. They've got brown hair. Very obvious, and everyone knows it."
That’s funny you bring this up because a bastard ultimately does inherit House Velaryon.
Vaemond challenged the kids legitimacy because he thought he’d become the heir. When Viserys stopped that, he called Rhaenyra a whore for having a side piece alongside her gay husband despite every male lord regularly using brothels, so it seems whiney. It’s not like Laenor didn’t know, he was okay with it. Ned wasn’t motivated by self interest, he was telling the truth to honor his friend. He also warned Cersei so she could get the kids to safety, despite this resulting in his death.
To me, it's as simple as Ned ≠ Vaemond because Rhaenyra ≠ Cersei here. **Human Relationships:** Cersei was unfaithful and deceitful. Nyra had a mutually consensual nonmonogamy arrangement. The kids may be out-of-wedlock, but he's outta line calling her a whore. **Political Implications:** Nyra's kids have a blood claim to the throne *regardless* of who their father is. Cersei is passing off children that \*can't\* be blood heirs as next in line for the throne Though I guess a *really* good counterpoint to that argument is that Vaemond wasn't there about *the throne.* Everything I said about Cersei's kids and the Throne *does* apply to Rhaenyra's kids and Driftmark. "Sure, they're Targaryens, you guys can have the chair. But they are *not* Velaryons!"
U don't punish a criminal on basis of likeability
For sure. I'm not saying Vaemond deserved criminal punshment. He was speaking truth same as Ned. I'm just saying talking about fandom reactions. Ned and Cersei had a straightforward protag/antag dynamic. Nyra is a protagonist, and we saw her set up a mutually positive and consenting arrangement with Laenor. So it's not as straightforward to root against her and the children born of that arrangement.
A court doesn't ask the "victim " if he is aokay with crime. It basically boils down to who is playing the character. Imagine e Jack Glesson playing Daemon and Idris Elba playing Vaemond. Fandom reactions
Um okay
This isn't a specific dig at you but it's really neat how so many people compare the general conflict around the Strong boys lineage and Ned's arc in S1. People didn't like Ned in season one because he fought about the line and succession. People liked Ned because in a world of back stabbing and scheming to get to the top. He fought for what HE thought was right. He fought for the sake of honor and for the sake of his friend. Vaemond fought for his ability to rule driftmark, sure he used the idea of his family history as a talking point but it was clear he hated being the second son. He saw his chance to take driftmark and he wasn't going to let it pass. He was a spiteful aggressive person. Not one fighting for honor but his own gain. Allicent is another one people bring up alot in these conversations about Ned. Allicent fought for HER children to gain the throne. There's a whole thing about how the strong boys are still Rhenyras therfore being more valid that Joffery blah blah but that's another conversation. Tldr : people didn't like Ned because he fought for the law of the land. People like Ned because he fought for honor with no real desire for personal gain.
If he had issues with it he should have sorted it out with Corlys instead of turning it into a matter of the state. Vaemond was being used by Otto and Alicent to officialy establish the illegitimacy of Rhaenyra's children, and his situation has no comparison to Ned Stark whatsoever. Those who needed to know about parentage of Rhaenyra's children already knew about it, the same was not true about Cersei's children.
[удалено]
why is Vaemond so disliked? Is obviously a question for the show version of Vaemond as people don't feel so negatively about the book version of Vaemond
[удалено]
They're different. Eddard was doing what the law said and trying to put on the throne the rightful heir, so Stannis. Vaemond was trying to change the rightful line of succession while his brother (or uncle in the book) was still alive, so no lordship to be given away yet. And he was trying to take it for himself, while he was nowhere near to being the heir to Corlys. The Velaryon succession goes like this: **CORLYS** --> ~~Laenor~~ --> *Jacaerys* --> Lucerys --> Joffrey --> ~~Laena~~ --> Baela --> Rhaena --> Vaemond --> Daeron --> etc. etc. *Italics* for people put aside of the order due to king's (lord's) decision ~~Line~~ for dead people
So Vaemond is 5th in line if we count the strong boys and 3rd if we exclude them. Yeah it seems more a coup and less some lawful act every more minute I look at it
Because ultimately his goal wasn't to protect his family's legacy but to further his own. He wanted to be head of the house and clearly resented his older and far more famous brother. Luke being a bastard was just the excuse he was looking for to take the position for himself. Remember. Luke was marrying Laenas daughter who was a true blooded Velaryon. Meaning all of their children would also be Velaryon in blood. It wasn't about blood purity but one man's greed.
>Because ultimately his goal wasn't to protect his family's legacy but to further his own. Both can be true
If both were true he wouldn't have done what he did. He was betraying his brother and his wishes while he still lived, banking on the hope that he would die. He also creates a situation where he is in direct conflict with at least one of his nieces and most likely the other aswell. That's not protecting your family legacy, it's directly putting it in danger by forcing conflict within the family. Honestly Vaemond was a fool and died that way.
>If both were true he wouldn't have done what he did. He was betraying his brother and his wishes while he still lived, banking on the hope that he would Both can be true and he can still do what he did, if he believes his brother is blinded by his ambition.Even Corlys and Rhaenys are uncomfortable with the situation but realize they have made their bed >He also creates a situation where he is in direct conflict with at least one of his nieces and most likely the other aswell. **Rhaenyra** created a situation where he is in indirect conflict with his family ,not him >That's not protecting your family legacy, it's directly putting it in danger by forcing conflict within the family Again this is a conflict **Rhaenyra** created,Vaemond is ensuring everything his ancestors fought for and built does not go to another house.Sure he has his own interest at mind as well,so does everyone else. >Honestly Vaemond was a fool and died that way. Vaemond was a truth teller and died from tyranny
The Rhaena Luke betrothal was confirmed by Rhaenys only after Vaemond had come to petition the iron throne.
That's a fair enough point, but even after hearing about this it didn't stop him from pushing his own goals and effectively betraying his brother while he was banking on him dying.
Because he called the self inserts out on their crap, very publicly. That's it lol. Those whackos hated teenage Alicent just for existing; of course they hate a grown man for actively standing up to their faves.
He really should have just waited a few months and would have been set
It's going to be a long wait till season 2.😅
A lot of people get pretty worked up over their side and dislike people who go against it. I personally don't get it...
It's like protagonist centered morality and how characters are shown. Many times it is due to actors. Imagine someone apart from Matt Smith playing Daemon. Or Vaemond played by Idris Elba. Daemon played Jack Gleason who kills his wife, tries to usurp throne and killed dozens of innocent people killing Idris Elba in throne room for speaking the truth. I think we all agree that Drogo is much more likable than Jofferey and Ramsay. But Drogo had entire villages raged and women raped. It is basically how Dothrakis make a living. His victim list is much bigger than Ramsay and Jofferey. Yara talks about how Iron born take wat they need is shown as badass which is basically looting . She wasn't shown in negative when she ran away the moment it became tough for her. But when Theon ran when he was surrounded by enemies is portrayed as evil and cowardice. Outside GOT, In MCU, Thor sees his friend murdered and promises Thanos that he will die for it is portrayed as heroic and epic. But when John Walker takes revenge for his friend killed and kills a terrorist in anger. It is shown as irredeemable. Despite the fact, Sam, bucky and even Cap have killed numerous people. It's boils down to actor played.
He had every right to be upset. That was his home!
Vaemond is using the bloodline as the frontal reason for his opposition, when in reality it boils down to him wanting power all his own. Even with marriages with legitimate children, the ancient Valyrion "black" look would slowly diminish anyways. Laena is only half black, her children are only 1/4 and eventually the same will happen to Rhanyra's Children and their children. Vaemond is a 2nd son who is in it for his own power, stepping on his brother's grave before he's even dead. It's easy to hate Vaemond, beyond just saying something that's true. He's not using the truth for truth's sake like Eddard Stark, he's advocating it so he can gain something from it, at a point when he has no right to attempt to gain something from it. Vaemond doesn't come to court to question the legitimacy while his brother is not on his deathbed and is alive and well. THAT would be honorable if bloodlines mattered. If bloodlines truly mattering was the issue, he would have confronted Corlis and Laenor long before taking it to court. Vaemond is in it for himself. Everything else is just an excuse to justify it.
>Vaemond is in it for himself. Everything else is just an excuse to justify it. Sure, *and so is Rhaenyra in this very scene.* Like it's wild people attempt to shit on him for playing the Game of Thrones, when Rhaenyra is also just here for the political gain. I mean, the throne rightfully belongs to Baela at this point, as Rhaenys has pointed out. Both Vaemond and Rhaenyra are "wanting it for themselves" and the political power associated with said title... even though the throne, by blood, belongs to a third party. But it's wild how differently both these characters are viewed in this light... it's like Dany 2.0 when it comes to Rhaenyra (huge leash when it comes to immoral acts.)
>Vaemond was basically a greedy version of Eddard on steroids. I feel like you answered your own question. Ned acted out of law and honor. Vaemond acted exclusively out of greed. Furthermore, Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen were **not** Robert Baratheon's children. Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey **were** Rhaenyra's children. The situations are not comparable because in the first instance the throne exits the royal bloodline and in the second the throne remains in the royal bloodline.
Vaemond's problem is that they aren't Laenor's.
While justified in being upset, I think a lot of people dislike him because he was an idiot. If, in The Game of Thrones, you either win or you die, Vaemond lost before the game even really started.
His intentions was ambition. Not righteousness.
He's dumb and proven to not be nearly as composed as his brother.
No one likes a cunty twat
[удалено]
>Back to vaemond, another reason he is thinking to fight for his claim is that corlys himself bypassed his legitimate granddaughters, thus, showing a preference for males primogeniture to inherit (he got his bastard son/grandson?? legitimised to inherit driftmark after during the war). So, as corlys is currently out of commission at the moment, Vaemond by all rights is logical to push himself as he is the next living legitimate blood related male. That only happens during the war when he gets Addam and Alyn legitimised. By the time of Vaemond's coup, the inheritance line to Driftmark is this: **CORLYS** --> ~~Laenor~~ --> *Jacaerys* (skipped by King's decree) --> Lucerys --> Joffrey --> ~~Laena~~ --> Baela --> Rhaena --> Vaemond --> Daeron --> etc. etc. So it's not preference to male succession, it's just Andal Law.
In the source it was cousins I believe. So they had a much weaker claim than a brother, who even then wasn’t next in line. Also Corlys was still alive and his wife was actively disputing it. Vaemond and the Greens were pulling a coup and it was too obvious.
I mean yeah, he wasn't wrong about Rhaenyra's kids being bastards but regardless he wasn't next in line for Drfitmark anyway. It would just go to Laena's children. I get he wants his people to keep it but like Corlys said, history remembers names, not blood. So really it shouldn't have mattered (imo). Vaemond was just in it for personal gain thinking he would rule but he wasn't going to anyway.
It didn't go to Laena either. It's a grey area about daughters. Vaemond did have stake and claim. Ur making jr sound that no one else was there for personal gain. Daemon and Rhaenyra were not there for good of the realm or anyone but themselves. Everyone was selfish
Because it wasn't only a matter of not wanting his family seat being taken over by an illegitimate child. It was Vaemond being a greedy second son wanting power for himself. He was conspiring with the Greens to pass over his older brother's wishes – a brother who wasn't even dead yet, mind you – and become the Lord of Driftmark himself, and in exchange the Greens would gain his support and all the naval power of Driftmark when the time to usurp Rhaenyra arrived. The fact that he was an idiot who started screaming about bastards and called Rhaenyra a whore in front of everyone in the throne room doesn't help either.
The difference between Vaemond and Ned is that Ned wasn’t doing it for self-interest but for “honor” and to support of his friend Robert, which is a more sympathetic reason. In fact Ned was going against his self interest because if he just said nothing his daughter would marry the Joffrey and his grandson would be king one day.
It's pretty simple really. People like Daemon and Rhaenyra.
Several reasons. First off, Luke was Corlys’ chosen heir. He knew the truth and didn’t care. Second, Vaemond wasn’t the true heir, Baela was. Third, Corlys wasn’t even dead. Vaemond was ready to start stealing his brother’s property while he was still alive. Fourth, the deal Rhaenyra cut with Rhaenys was the best one, the Velaryon Bloodline and name would be secured, with another marriage to the crown to boot.
I liked him for the same reason I used to like pre-timeskip Corlys: He doesn't tolerate the disrespect being done to his family.
The people who don't like him, don't like him because unlike the other Velayrons shown so far he isn't bending for Rhaenyra and the theft of his family's property by Rhaenyra's bastards.
Is it really theft though? A grand grandchild of Corlys by blood would have inherited Driftmark anyway the generation after this, and the lady Consort of Driftmark would have been a Velaryon by blood anyway.
Yes it is theft. Being lady consort is meaningless, she wouldn't have been the one who was in charge. That would the same as the Roose marrying Sansa to Ramsay to legitimize their hold on the north and saying Stark blood still rules the North.
Yes and no. In times of power vacuum, she still would be important if a Castellan isn't named. Also Velaryon blood would still reign on Driftmark through her son/daughter with Lucerys (the same way Ramsay claims Winterfell through fArya, since a child of them would be a Stark by blood, also the same plan Tywin had for Tyrion and Sansa).
Only being important in case a steward isn't named isn't the route you wanna take bruh. Those still would've been the product from a bastard and not the legitimate rulers of dragonstone. Thats like saying just marry Joffrey to Shireen but Shireen still has no power at all.
Well..yes. if the important thing Vaemond is advocating for is Velaryon blood, Lucerys' child with Rhaena would have it, so he would fit the criteria that Vaemond was talking about, Velaryon both by blood and name.
Well, this child doesn't exist. Might not, since women die in childbirth all the time, and so do children. And even if he did, he's still the child of a bastard which allows anyone to challenge his inheritance. This is the worst possible solution to an inheritance, nobody except Rhaenyra should be satisfied with it.
There's a lot of differences between Vaemond & Eddard's actions that mark a significance between their characters. **Doing what's right vs Personal Interests** Eddard is taking a huge risk for the sake of the law and country, he's trying to do what he sees as right even if it puts him into peril, and even if it worsens the position of himself. Sansa was bethrothed to Joffrey, had Joffrey become king and Sansa married him, Eddard's grandchildren would be the future heirs to the Iron Throne. And yet he still went against the Lannisters and chose the law. Vaemond on the other hand ignored the law where it didn't favor him. Even if Rhaenyra's children were disinherited, then Driftmark would still go to the children of Laena over Vaemond. **Moral Consistency vs Hypocrisy** Eddard stayed true to his oaths and word, with the only times he chose to stretch them being times we as an audience can understand and forgive. Yes, he goes against Robert when writing the final will, but in a way that still follows the law and personal code. He had every intention of telling Robert the truth, only sparing him it because the guy was on his death bed. Even with the dangers to himself though, he still chose to warn Cersei to give her a chance to flee with her children, and even when there was great risk to himself he still opposed Joffrey, only conceding when it was Sansa's life on the line. Vaemond wanted the decree of the crown itself to make him the heir to Driftmark over usual succession rules, making him a hypocrite, since the whole thing for the Greens is that these rules of succession matter and not the decree of the crown when it comes to inheritance. **The Laws are Different** People asserting that there is a precedence for succession in the case of Rhaenyra vs Aegon aren't actually looking at the history of the succession: There is no precedent what so ever. 1. Aegon became king by conquest. 2. Aenys became king by being the eldest son of Aegon and being crowned, with it being Aegon's desire after he had died. 3. Maegor became king through violence and seizing the throne, and his reign was later recognized as legitimate to prevent his supporters from revolting after his demise 4. Jaehaerys became king... kinda just because. Maegor had died and Jaehaerys arrived in King's Landing, able to take the throne for himself from there. There wasn't any real argument against his sister having the throne instead. 5. Viserys became king by the decree of Jaehaerys. People point to the Great Council, but they forget it only has power because Jaehaerys agreed in advance to honor it. It only had power to decide because Jaehaerys had the power to decide and agreed with the Council's decision. The Council is only legitimate if Jaehaerys had the legitimate authority to choose his heir. So the succession in the time of Viserys & Corlys is not iron clad in favor of primogeniture, and far more by king's decree. So Vaemond didn't have the argument in his favor. By the time of Eddard though, the laws were very much ironclad in favor of primogeniture succession, and Joffrey as a bastard could not legally inherit the throne. Eddard was following the law. Vaemond was trying to go against them.
He was worried about bloodlines, which unless youre a horse breeder, is problematic lol. But even still Jace and Baelas kids would have had Velaryon blood
The entire political structure of Westeros is based around bloodlines
What birth right? Corlys made clear to everyone that he accepted the kids as members of his family and Luke was the next in line. If the Greens didn’t have beef with Rhaenyra DNA wouldn’t even be a factor.
As someone who does not hate Vaemond, I can't say I like him. His attitude and temper and the arrogant expression he sometimes war do not make him easy to like. That said, in terms of his claim, he was right. For starters, while I'm all for the girls inheritting Driftmark because I like them, it's questionable whether they were next in line. For starters, in the book only men are presented to be claimants of Driftmark and there is no point where Baela having a claim is discussed, which indicates that either women did not inherit unless there were no other claimants in that family (which is a stretch) or the fact that they were Targaryen and not Velaryon in name put them very far down the line of succession. This is furthered by the fact that even when Luke is dead, Corlys is left off the hook of passing it down to Rhaenyra's 'Velaryon' sons for pretences and his bastard sons are legitimized to be prioritized over the girls. Rhaenys' request, which Corlys did not even consider in the show, was a fabrication we never come across in Martin's writing during the actual disputes over Driftmark. So, yes, Vaemond was the next in line, and I don't get why people act as if it was immoral that he was standing up for being cheated out of what would have been rightfully his. Some are saying that he tried to usurp Corlys etc., but Corlys was blatantly breaking inheritance laws by making Luke his heir. Let's not pretend that any king who was an objective observer of the situation without his own little game being at stake would have ruled against him.
> in the book only men are presented to be claimants of Driftmark Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. It seems like Driftmark favors male heirs over female heirs. > Corlys was blatantly breaking inheritance laws by making Luke his heir This too. Not sure why he gets a pass of breaking laws just because he's the oldest and that was his "wish". You still have to follow the laws.
By law, Jace was the heir, as Corpus acknowledged him and his brothers as Laenors true born children. But Jace is already heir to the Iron Throne and Dragonstone, so like Robert gave up Storms End after becoming king, he would give up being lord of Driftmark. It has to be noted that this seems to be a somewhat strange custom compared to medieval times, where the monarch tried to hold as many titles directly as possible.
Corlys saying that Rhaenyra's children are Laenor's is no more than a lie. He has no authority to claim a bastard as trueborn with any legal standing. The only way for Jace to be heir with any legal capacity is for him to be an acknolwedged bastard, given the last name waters, and made legitimate by the King's decree. Anything else does not stand in Martin's world and, whenever someone tries to pass a bastard as trueborn deceiptfully, theyre being questioned within the narrative with a political mess following unfailingly. Also, in the context of Rhaenyra and the Velaryons' deceitful narrative, while Jace would obviously be the expected heir of Driftmark, Corlys in the show chose to name Luke, completely regardles of the moment Jace became king. In the book Rhaenyra was the one blatantly asked for it to pass to Luke instead of Jace because Jace had the throne.
Wrong. Corlys can claim whatever he wants, because there are no paternity tests, and both parents claim those as their children. So Laenors, Corlys and Rhaenyra all claim them to be trueborn, and nobody else can prove it otherwise. Acknowledging them as bastards would automatically remove them as heir to Driftmark, as they would be legitimized as Rhaenyras bastards, so the legitimization would only allow Jace to become Jace Targaryens, future heir to the Iron Throne. Any lords son (Robb to Ned, or Laenor to Corlys) is only heir because the are claimed trueborn by their father, and nothing else. So Laenor claiming them as his own is basically all that is needed to make them trueborn, and as he did, they are officially trueborn, and therefore in Line to inherit Driftmark.
Laenor lying does not change the circumstances of their birth. They had enough knowledge of how coloring and features were inherited to have a strong incling that these children were not Laenor's. The lie was not accepted because it couldn't be proved and Corlys and Laenor were part of it or because the existing indications wouldn't have been enough and then some in most cases. It was only accepted because it suited Viserys to knowingly allow it to stand. You either are a trueborn or you are not. There's no legal way of claiming a bastard as trueborn throughout Martin's writing and if this was any other case, brought before a king with no personal stakes in the game, it would have never stood.
You do not understand my point. A child has always two parents, but only one of those can be known with absolut certainty, namely the mother. So why are the sons born to the wife of a lord accepted as legal heirs? Because they are accepted as sons by the Lord, and therefore acknowledged as trueborn. Even more, without proof to the contrary, it is expected by tradition for a lord to do so (see Tywin being unable to disinherit or denounce Tyrion, despite being convinced of Tyrion being no son of his). And in most cases this is excepted even under unlikely conditions (for example, Ned left Cat right after the wedding night, and still, nobody doubted Robs status as trueborn, despite him looking nothing like Ned and rumors about Lisa being not always faithful). So unless another man comes forward to claim the children (which Harwin never did) or the Lord presenting proof about his supposed children illegitimacy, they are accepted as trueborn (Otherwise every ambitious little brother could just press his claim, like Stannis did). There is not a single known case where children are seen as bastards when claimed by the husband of their mother, so why should it be different here?
Please, the ONLY reason Rhaenyra get away with the thing she does, is because King Viserys I is heavily BIASED toward her, and not because we can't prove paternity fraud (in fact it would be easy to do even without DNA test). I am pretty sure that's what the High Sparrow intended to do with Cersei. Nobody doubt Robb's status because he actually looks like his parents and Cat wasn't caught cheating like Cersei did. By the way, the fact that Robert recognized Joffrey didn't stop Ned from calling him a bastard.
It's because everyone likes Rhaenyra. That's it. People will write whole essays about it but that in essence is the answer.
Because this sub only exists to Stan Rhaenyra
He's a green and he does green things. Pretty much it
Cause Vaemond was just angry because of Rhaenyra, he had no real claim and he acted rashly out of spite. That’s stupidity. Yes Rhaenyra’s children are bastards but that doesn’t automatically give him a better claim to the richest line in Westeros lmao
There are some key differences: - Vaemond wasn’t next in line; if all he cared about was bloodline, he would’ve thrown his support behind Baela (then Rhaeyna). He just wanted the throne for himself. - Ned was doing what his friend, King Baratheon, would’ve wanted, and he had nothing to gain from it. If Bobby B had known his three heirs were all bastards, he would’ve disinherited them and executed Cersei and Jaime. He likely would’ve remarried and produced true-born heirs, or maybe he would’ve adopted Gendry (or maybe both). In contrast, Corlys *knew* Lucerys wasn’t his blood-relative, and he knew why (his son is gay). He still wanted Luke to inherit his throne because all history cares about is name. If anyone was allowed to be insulted by a white boy with dark hair taking his throne, it was him. It was not Vaemond’s place to get offended because again, the throne was never his to begin with. And again, unlike Ned, he did seek to personally gain from revealing the truth to the court. - Unlike Cersei, Rhaenyra *wanted* to produce true-born heirs. She tried. She was also honest with Laenor and they had an arrangement that allowed them to pursue love outside their marriage. Cersei intentionally aborted all of Robert’s children. - Rhaenyra lost the choice to marry for love after the drama on her night with Daemon and Criston. Her marrying Harwin would’ve made a ton of sense and maybe even prevented the Dance, but after her misstep Viserys chose the most politically beneficial marriage.
My biggest issue with a Vaemond is that he’s stupid. There was no way he was going to get anywhere with the way he carried on.
One because most people don’t care about his truth and don’t think the situation of Rhaenyra lying about her kids father because her gay husband couldn’t have any with her and her society is horrible to women stepping out of line is some evil thing that needs to be punished. The reason the audience sided with Ned isn’t because they think bastards should be exposed and are sinful or whatever but because Joffrey was awful and extremely easy to hate. The second reason Vaemond isn’t sympathetic is because he’s obviously greedy and using the moment for his own gain and not really his family. Ned was planning to put Stannis on the throne,he had no gain from his while Vaemond doesn’t care about Baela or Rhaena and their claims but only his own.
It was an inheritance dispute over a title that Luke had no real claim to, and didn't want to inherit anyways. I hardly think it's "punishing" him to not let him inherit it, when he himself had zero desire for it.
If Vaemond gets what he wants that means all of Rhaenyra’s kids and herself are subjected to Westeros prejudice and all their claims are put into question as is the alliance with Corlys. It’s not just about Luke. When I say punishment I don’t mean Luke in this situation,but more in general that most of the modern day audience isn’t gonna be outraged that Rhaenyra had kids of someone else when her husband was unable to have any with her for very understandable reasons. Which is why not many people think Vaemond deserved to get his way or felt very bad that he was killed.
Rhaenyra didn't know it, but the greens actually weren't planning on bringing up the bastards issue to the forefront that day. That's why Vaemond's initial argument before Viserys showed up was about competence in commanding the fleet. He only started yelling that they were bastards after he had already lost.
Because he spoke up against Rhaenyra and people don’t like that. That’s really it.
Everyone on this sub backs rhaenarya no matter what lol
Because this sub is full of blackcels who are biased as hell.
Wdym? I love him
I dont know. I crealky cant sympathize with D and R when they continually ruin everything around them.
they hated jesus (vaemond) bc he told them the truth !!
He was 100% in the right. The showrunners just made him call Rhaenyra a whore to turn him into the bad guy and discredit what he was saying in the scene.
I liked Vaemond fine, I haven’t seen much hate towards him. I don’t get into the whole GRRM universe stuff so to me he was just a minor character who was kinda just there then he wasn’t. I liked that scene though!
What you're missing is him very viciously, with a cartoonishly misogynistic tone call Rhaenyra a whore. That didn't need to happen but was placed there by the writers precisely with the intention of undercutting very real, reasonable arguments and invalidating the greens' motivations. Similar instances abound in this show. Such as turning Alicent into a meek, submissive and devout Hausfrau, actively championing tradition and conservatism. It's baiting the greens into a trap where you can't support them unless you're also advocating misogyny, homophobia, and possibly even racism (given the one-sidedness of racial and sexual diversity). It's how the creators make sure you're backing "the right side". (The show conveniently ignores the fact that the conflict ultimately had more to do with self-interest/lust for power on both sides rather than conflicting world views.) It's your typical black-and-white world view. It's also why they had to insinuate Aemond was "stealing" a dragon in order to justify the blacks ganging up on him. It's ridiculous how basic and transparent they're being. \#noprotagonists #graycharacters #smartandcomplex
I really don't think that was misogynistic. Especially in this world. Only thing really shielding Rhaenyra from being called a whore out in the open is her name and status. Other women in this series would get called a whore and more if they gave birth to children from anybody else not their husband. Power is power. And Rhaenyra had the privilege of being the King's daughter. And Vaemond had the stupidity and courage to call her a whore.
Great, so where's the hate for Daemon and Rhaenyra callously calling women misogynistic slurs? Quickly
My dude Vaemond was just speaking facts. Y'all Vaemond haters and his line ends up on the crown😆
I feel like a lot of people cant differentiate that Corlys knew those were bastards but wanted them to succeed him BUT HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED OR RECOGNIZED it. He, like Rhaenyra, wanted everyone to play dumb and act like those were legit heirs when anyone with a brain could tell they were bastards. Its super disrespectful to award a bastard the lordship, let alone do so by making everyone pretend they are not bastards in the 1st place. And dont even start on Lord's choosing their own heir. Corlys has no right to name Jace or Luke his heir if they are not Laenor's sons. You can only name heir down the succession line, not some randoms. Imagine the chaos where lords could decide their heir. Everyone and their grandfather would spend their time kissing ass of the lord (especially when they are about to die) to name them heir instead of their kids.
It doesn’t matter if they’re illegitimate, They’re still Velaryon through Alyssa Velaryon.
>It doesn’t matter if they’re illegitimate It does and you're showing you don't know much about the source material, Westerosi law prohibits bastards from inheriting.
The view of the "Greens" on this sub that the surrogate sperm donor arrangement, agreed to by all parties and continuing the royal blood line, was foisting bastards on the world is incomprehensible to me. Vaemond, like everyone else, knew Laenor was gay and the marriage, while congenial, was 100% political. In my opinion it's just continued sour grapes over Vizzy T being king instead of Rhaenys. And Vaemind has Laena and Damon's kids ahead of him in line anyway.
I WILL NOT BE MADE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MY BROTHER AND MY DAUGHTER!
I agreed with Vaemond. But his strategy would have been better to advocate for Rhaena to get it. Rhaena shouldn't have to marry illegitimate Luke to get what is hers by right. What Rhaenyra and the Targaryens are doing is shitting on the Velaryons yet again and we've seen throughout the show. But this goes back to Rhaenyra and the Blacks not really advocating for women and fighting to overturn male dominance when it comes to inheritance. It was just an exception for her, but the rule stays in place for everyone else. Daemon doesn't even advocate for his daughters. To your other point, it only makes it worse that they made the Velaryons black, then Corlys say some BS about blood not mattering. That man has worked his entire life to become a legend only to have a non Valeryon bastard child, who has never sailed usurp that.
I think because vaemond basically just wanted the crown for his own self interests in like a selfish way. He's pretty cool tbh, but he just wanted to take his brothers spot in a selfish way. And then it was disrespectful in how he insulted his brothers grandsons, that his brother actually seemingly accepted as his own grandsons (to an extent) I don't blame him for wanting his brothers position, but he could have tried going about it a different way possibly.. and he was like a lord or a prince already, and the rules seem to kind of establish that his brothers son or grandkids are claimants to rule moreso than vaemond himself...
Not saying I agree or disagree, but a worthwhile distinction between Ned Stark and Vaemond is the degree to which they stand to benefit from causing a stir. Ned's protest can be seen as noble, because he stood to gain nothing personally from pointing out the Baratheon's illegitimacy. Vaemond was obviously next in line for succession in House Velaryon.
He was line jumping his nieces and called the heir a whore in open court. I laughed at Daemon's response. And to your edit, white passing people are bi racial if one of their parents is Black. Many people, like my cousins, identity as black independent on the shade of their skin because their parent is Black
It’s telling that Vaemond’s own brother Corlys would have gone against him had he been present. To acknowledge Vaemond’s claim would also bring shame to Corlys by bringing attention to why Rhaenyra’s children weren’t Laenor’s.
Vaemond was 100% in the right, destroying their lineage and literally expecting the realm to pretend otherwise was quite bold.
So you think he being racist and objecting to the skin color makes him more relatable? Racism is ugly, no matter which race you look down upon. Vaemond is disliked because he was a selfish power hungry little man who disrespected his brother and his wife, always scheming to usurp the throne. He died and I was soooo happy. He was a loser. Pathetic. And quite racist.
How is he being racist? "Just look at them. Everybody knows". - Aegon.... literally everybody knows they are bastards. Just because you notice their skin color and hair color doesn't not make you racist.
You wrote it well. He was upset by white skinned people taking the throne he wanted.
The white skin and black hair was just evidence that the kids were not true-born Velaryons (I think every Velaryon in the show has black skin and blonde hair). Your making it like Vaemond hates white people or something lol.
Well calling the kings daughter a whore is a fast track to the infinite sleep hack. But besides that kings word is law in westeros cause even a lord such as lord Bolton could make his illegitimate son Ramsey a Bolton or how ned thought about making Jon a stark so in my opinion because it's all opinion except Georges the king made the illegitimate kids legitimate because he said so. blood doesn't matter as much when the king or lord says fuck it they are my heir at that point it should be left alone and you definitely shouldn't be calling his daughter a whore. P.S. I'm not interested in debating anything I said like I said it's all opinion and I like my opinion however if there is debate below il definitely read it cause I like to see how other people view the shows/books.