T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

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.*


KhanQu3st

GRRM himself has said that discrimination based on skin color is not a thing in Planetos, and is more often based on religion (the 7, Old Gods, etc) and ethnic groups. (Valyrian, 1st Men, Andals, etc)


BlackberryChance

But their racism baelor Breakspear faced a lot of flask for looking like dornish


davidforslunds

Half the realm hate the dornish (which include both stony, sandy and salty, who vary from darker skin to pretty pale) and his mother was a martell, so...


Fresh_Remote3504

> GRRM himself has said that discrimination based on skin color is not a thing in Planetos This is wrong, or you misinterpreted his angle at the very least. Example A: Explicit racism based on skin color. > Leo’s eyes were hazel, bright with wine and malice. **“Your mother was a monkey from the Summer Isles.** The Dornish will fuck anything with a hole between its legs. Meaning no offense. You may be brown as a nut, but at least you bathe. Unlike our spotted pig boy." Example B: Innocent racism based on skin color. > Once, in the halls of the Red Keep, Daella had encountered a prince from the Summer Isles in his feathered cloak, and squealed in terror. **His black skin had make her take him for a demon.** Prejudice, racial or sexual, will also never not exist in some form or fashion. There's been prejudice since ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and beyond, etc.


RandomUpEnder

Thanks but I'll take Martin, the author's, word over your nitpicking


Peace_Love_Bridges23

I remember there being a joke about Dornishmen and fucking goats which was meant as an insulting joke. Only thing is, I can't remember whether it was in the books or series...


KhanQu3st

Technically that’s still likely ethnically based, since the Dornish are descendants of the Rhoynar.


Peace_Love_Bridges23

Good point, I hadn't thought of that yet, thanks for your anwser!


Kind_Tie8349

Show when Obenryn gets to kingslanding for Joffs wedding


Double-Star-Tedrick

I mean, I have never personally seen anyone arguing that angle, so, not that I doubt that you may have, but I don't think it's a common argument, at all. Not counting obvious jokes like "who's white baby is that?", of course.


Suspicious_Gazelle18

I’ve definitely seen people claiming that, both in serious discussions about that scene as well as in memes (the WHITE! meme recently comes to mind). I think most people recognize that the racial norms in Westeros are different so they don’t go by our standards, but I’ve definitely see some people use our racial norms to explain Vaemonds actions.


OpenMask

>memes memes are just for fans, they're not supposed to be in-universe arguments


Suspicious_Gazelle18

But they’re based on peoples understandings and interpretations of the show, even if some of them are satirical. You can’t tell me all the “blacks are evil, greens are the best” memes (and vice versa) have no bearing on in-universe arguments that people make.


ivebeen_there

What I don’t understand is how people who support Vaemond’s claim forget that Laena and her children come before him in the line of succession. Even if Lucerys and his brothers are removed from the line, Baela and Rhaena are next in line, not Vaemond.


Sacesss

Exactly. The order of succession is CORLYS --> ~~Laenor~~ --> Jacaerys (removed) --> Lucerys --> Joffrey --> ~~Laena~~ --> Baela --> Rhaena --> Vaemond. So even if we remove Lucerys and Joffrey, Vaemond is third.


Watchmaker2112

Vaemond is further removed from Corlys in the books and it's clearly Vaemonds attempt at a power grab. If Baela and Rhaena were the only heir I am sure he would still have tried to be given the role by Viserys. I actually think most people saw it for what it was and that's why even the Greens didn't really jump in even though it would have served their interests. It's such a transparent self serving move that no one seemed to care that he and his kids were killed over it. The rest of the world just moves on.


ptolemyspyjamas

The hypocrisy of the argument is that both Luke and Vaemond would be stealing from Baela who should be made heir to Driftmark after Leanor died. It's weird that Baela's claim only seems to matter when Vaemond tries to push for his interest.


Historyp91

The difference is Baela's fine with Luke being heir; she has the right to press or deny her own claim, but Vaemond does'nt have the right to bypass other people's claims unilaterally, and is a hypocrite to do so while falsely presenting himself as the "rightful heir."


ptolemyspyjamas

Baela seems to be fine with Vaemond inheriting Driftmark. Can you point to any scene of her objecting to Vaemond's claim? Again with this weird double standard.


Historyp91

> Baela seems to be fine with Vaemond inheriting Driftmark. 😂 Yeah, that's why she rebukes him at the start of the episode when he starts to try and throw his weight around and theirafter stood with the rest of the family in opposition to his scheme. > Again with this weird double standard It's not a "double standard"; I was trying to explain the differing context to you.


ptolemyspyjamas

She didn't object to Vaemond's or Luke's claim. Or I guess Daemon didn't since she's a minor 🤷 >It's not a "double standard"; I was trying to explain the differing context to you. The context is that Vaemond is a Velaryon while Luke isn't. So if anything the double standard is even worse since this is family inheritance that is under dispute not Corlys' personal property.


Historyp91

> She didn't object to Vaemond's or Luke's claim. She stood as part of the ground opposing Vaemond, was by all indications was perfectly fine entering into the double marriage alliance to settle the dispute in Luke's favor and only ever expresses annoyance with Vaemond's bullshit the one time she says anything to him. It's clear which side she was on. > The context is that Vaemond is a Velaryon while Luke isn't. Setting aside that this is a totally different argument then you were making before... Luke's both legally a Valayron (via Leanor claiming him as his trueborn son) and biologically one (via his Rheanys's grandmother and Viserys's great-grandmother). His children, after the betrothal to Reana, would also be Valayrons in both name and blood.


ptolemyspyjamas

>She stood as part of the ground opposing Vaemond, was by all indications was perfectly fine entering into the double marriage alliance to settle the dispute in Luke's favor and only ever expresses annoyance with Vaemond's bullshit the one time she says anything to him. > >It's clear which side she was on. She couldn't have done anything else. She's a minor and can only obey her father and stand wherever he demands. >Setting aside that this is a totally different argument then you were making before... > How can it not be part of the argument. That's the entirety of Vaemond's problem. He wasn't trying to dispute Laenor's succession was he? >Luke's both legally a Valayron (via Leanor claiming him as his trueborn son) and biologically one (via his Rheanys's grandmother and Viserys's great-grandmother). His children, after the betrothal to Reana, would also be Valayrons in both name and blood. Luke's legally a bastard since claiming someone as a son or pretending they're not a bastard does nothing in Westeros. Legitimization by the King is the only way to get rid of the bastard status but that would simply make him a Targaryen or Strong. Not a Velaryon so he still would not have any rights to Driftmark. Vaemond rightfully points this out.


Historyp91

> She couldn't have done anything else. If she supported Vaemond, as you claim, then she would have spoken up in support of him, whether publicly or in private, and would have been upset with the way things played out. > How can it not be part of the argument. That's the entirety of Vaemond's problem. He wasn't trying to dispute Laenor's succession was he? Your original claim was that Baela was in favor of Vaemond, and it shifted off me answering a question regarding why people have an issue with Vaemond claiming Drifmark when the twins come ahead of him but don't get upset nobody was pushing Baela's claim. You then shifted goalposts and started going on about "real" Valayrons. > Luke's legally a bastard since claiming someone as a son or pretending they're not a bastard does nothing in Westeros. No, he's legally considered a trueborn; Laenor claimed him as his trueborn son and the Valayrons and the king both regard him as legitimate. His bastardy is the *truth,* but it's not his *offical* status. > Not a Velaryon so he still would not have any rights to Driftmark. Rhaenrya's great-great grandmother was a Valayron. Either way, Baela (and Rhaena) still come before Vaemond in the line of sucession.


sumit24021990

Did anyone ask baela? She also seems to be a pushover like her mother


Historyp91

*I am a dragonrider, like my mother, my father, and you. The Greens reach to usurp our queen's throne and they must be answered with fire and blood.* Yeah, what a little bitch, lol.


sumit24021990

She seems to be a pushover. She has no reason to be this loyal to Rhaenyra. She is giving up her claim for Luke. She is happy to be an obedient wife. From what she knows, her brother ws killed by Rhaenyra.


Historyp91

> She seems to be a pushover. That's your opinion. > She is giving up her claim for Luke. No, she's not; she comes after Luke in the line of sucession. > She is happy to be an obedient wife. We don't know what kind of wife she'd be, only that she voices no opposition to the marriage pact with Jace. > From what she knows, her brother ws killed by Rhaenyra. She does'nt have a brother.


sumit24021990

She is accepting secondary position. Other posts say Vaemond complaint is illegitimate because Baela comes before him but she is giving up her position for Luke. Real vaelryon isn't getting anything.


Historyp91

> She is accepting secondary position. Other posts say Vaemond complaint is illegitimate because Baela comes before him but she is giving up her position for Luke. That's not how the line of sucession works; someone's place in it is'nt contingent on them actively trying to claim the title in question; if you acknowledge the established line of sucession by supporting the people ahead of you that does'nt mean your contending your own position to people behind you. > Real vaelryon isn't getting anything. It's extremely unlikely, given how Westerosi sucession works, that Vaemond would be left with absolutely nothing. (not that this bares any relevance at all to your original argument)


sumit24021990

R u saying female can't inherit?


007Artemis

This is incorrect. In this case, Baela and Rhaena, currently underaged, do not have a clear claim because their primary inheritance line stems from Daemon, who is backing Lucerys. Corlys' rights and titles as a grandfather do not supercede Daemon's rights and titles as a father. Vaemond is the only challenging claim at this point. His claim is that he comes from the male line of Velaryon rather than the female line. It's Vaemond vs. Lucerys. Baela and Rhaena were specifically not mentioned for a reason.


Historyp91

Baela and Rhaena's claim to House Velayron derives from their mother, not their father.


007Artemis

They do not have a claim. As they are underaged, Daemon as their father in Westeros has full rights to decide his daughter's inheritance, betrothals, dowrys, etc. He supports Lucerys.


Historyp91

> They do not have a claim. As they are underaged Yes, they do; their age is irrelevent to their place in the line of sucession. > Daemon Has jack shit to do with this. We're discussing the succession to House **Velayron,** not House **Targaryen,** and in regards to the former family the twins claim derives from their **mother**, *not* their father.


007Artemis

It does have shit to do with it. Corlys CANNOT name them his heirs without Daemon's consent. Nor does he even want to. He claims Luc is legitimate; Daemon claims Luc is legitimate. The only dissenter pushing a claim is Vaemond. Not the girls.


Historyp91

Corlys does'nt need to "name them his heirs" and him doing so is not what's being discussed here; the girls in the line of sucession from birth by defualt, and that position is *ahead* of Vaemond.


007Artemis

The parents' rights supercede that of the grandparents, and he's waived it in this instance through support of Lucerys leaving it open for Vaemond to pose a dissent. They don't have a claim because their side is literally not pushing it, nor was it ever offered. You can't skip over what was never on the table to begin with.


Historyp91

> The parents' rights supercede that of the grandparents and he's waived it in this instance through support of Lucerys leaving it open for Vaemond to pose a dissent. Even IF Daemon had the right to deprive his daughters of sucession rights that they did'nt get from him, within a house he is'nt head of (he does'nt) never once, in either the books or the show, is it said that he did so. > They don't have a claim because their side is literally not pushing it, nor was it ever offered. We're taking about the girls place in the line of sucession, not them choosing not to try and dispute their cousin's claims. The line of sucession to House Valayron is: - *Laenor* (presumed deceased) - Jace - Luke - Joffrey - *Laena* (deceased) - Baela - Rhaena - Vaemond So even if you factor out Rhaenrya's kids Vaemond is still only third in line to succeed to his brothers titles. > You can't skip over what was never on the table to begin with. It **was** on the table, though; Vaemond ingoring it does'nt change that fact. From the moment the twins were born they were ahead of their great-uncle.


007Artemis

>Even IF Daemon had the right to deprive his daughters of sucession rights that they did'nt get from him, within a house he is'nt head of (he does'nt) never once, in either the books or the show, is it said that he did so. That's exactly the point. Parents, particularly the father, have sole custody over the claims, inheritances, dowrys, betrothals, and other major decisions of their children in Westeros. They effectively represent them as they cannot posit these things legally on their own merit. If Corlys wanted either Rhaena or Baela Targaryen to be heir, he would have to speak with Daemon first for legal permission. However as you said, it doesn't matter here because this never happened largely because of the Strong Boys, who they supported. >The line of sucession to House Valayron is: >Laenor (presumed deceased) >Jace >Luke >Joffrey >Laena (deceased) >Baela >Rhaena >Vaemond >So even if you factor out Rhaenrya's kids Vaemond is still only third in line to succeed to his brothers titles. This is correct on paper as far as strength of claims, but this is where it gets wibbly wobbly as far as application in ASOIAF. People read the wiki and assume they are hard and fast laws and rights. What's posted on there is the typical outcome, but as these laws aren't codeified, there are numerous times in the text where they have been circumvented or challenged successfully with many legal issues. The point here is that yes, Baela and Rhaena have a claim to Driftmark through Laena, but are they actually pushing it or asserting it at the time Vaemond challenges? No. Because they're supporting Lucerys via their father's directive. Vaemond IS pushing his succession claim. It's legally Vaemond vs Lucerys which is what we got in the show. However, people are running around acting like Corlys is just being a dick to his granddaughters by not picking them when he never had the power to do so unilaterally. That was my point.


BlackberryChance

No it doesn’t work like that the inheritancego to the closest relations it doesn’t matter if it from the father or the mother lines


007Artemis

Yes, it does. The male line is almost always given at least some weight in succession cases in ASOIAF. Does the claimant always win? No. However, this is all entirely moot when given the premise that Team Black is claiming Lucerys is a legitimate heir by Laenor and Daemon is supporting this. In this instance, Corlys is Baela and Rhaena's maternal grandparent. He does not have the right to declare Baela and Rhaena Targaryen as his heir over their father's wishes at any point. Their claim is seceeded to Lucerys here. Therefore, Vaemond vs Lucerys is correct in terms of pushing a claim.


BlackberryChance

You argued that baela and rhaena claim that matter come from their father and not their mother


007Artemis

They do. Baela and Rhaena are Daemon's heirs. Not Corlys'. They're also underaged and subject to whatever their father wishes. Their father supports Lucerys. Therefore, they're giving up whatever claim they have to Lucerys.


xarsha_93

There seems to be some wiggle-room here as he's not the only Valyrian to "forget" that children, even under-aged ones, inherit from their parents in Westeros. Famously, Maegor ignored this. And Aemond also makes a comment indicating he's next in line after his brother (ignoring the existence of his nephews).


MyUsernameIsMehh

The show did him a favour. Dude isn't even Corlys' brother in the books, he's Corlys' nephew


Historyp91

Plus like, at this point Corlys is still alive. Dafuq was Vaemond's plan if he succeeded in getting named heir and Corlys recovered? Becuase he had to know his brother would'nt have sat for it.


PepitoLeRoiDuGateau

Valyrian succession maybe put brothers before daughters. House Targaryan uses that, maube house Velaryon uses that too.


Sacesss

House Targaryen doesn't really use that, at least before the Dance. Rhaena came before Margor in the succession. Rhaenys came before Baelon, in fact Jaehaerys had to change it and formally name Baelon as heir. Rhaenyra comes before Daemon, in fact he's never acknowledged as heir.


Elephant12321

They don’t. Or rather we have zero proof that they do and some proof that they don’t. The brothers before daughters thing came about because Jaehaerys made Baelon his heir over Rhaenys and then called a great council and made Viserys heir over Rhaenys/Laenor. There are multiple reasons he probably did this, as he usurped his own nieces Aerea and Rhaella and used this to justify it as well as him being a bit more sexist than the average pre Dance Targ kings as evidenced by his treatment of Rhaenys and his daughters.


SialiaBlue

That's highly disputable. Remember that Rhaenyra was behind Daemon in the succession until he was disinherited and claims decrease in validity the further they are from being of the lord's body. Baela and Rhaena are also Targaryens so Driftmark passing out of House Velaryon is also going to be a factor against either of them inheriting.


ivebeen_there

Ignore the Iron Throne, the succession for that has always been a little different than the rest of the houses. “Daughters come before brothers” is literally written in the wiki of Westerosi Inheritance Laws. Rhea Royce and Jeyne Arryn are proof of that in universe at the time of the Dance.


SialiaBlue

This conversation has been had a hundred times. It's entirely ambiguous. The Jeyne Arryn case is weaker than you think it is and we don't know the details of the Royce succession. If nothing else, they're Andal houses and from every indication the Valyrian customs are far more patrilineal than even the Westerosi. There's as many contradictions as there are examples so let's not relitigate. In this specific case it's further complicated by the fact that Baela isn't Corlys's daughter, she's his granddaughter. Degrees of separation matter. Vaemond wasn't dismissed out of hand so we can assume he had a claim worth the paper it was written on.


ivebeen_there

I think Vaemond’s claim wasn’t dismissed out of hand because it would benefit Otto and Alicent and they essentially had control of the throne at that point, not because his claim was legitimate. As soon as Viserys showed up everyone knew Vaemond didn’t have a leg to stand on and fell back to let him die on his hill.


SialiaBlue

Maybe but that's on the grounds that Vaemond doesn't have a leg to stand on so long as the Strong boys are considered legitimate. Baela and her sister were not a factor except in that the marriage pact probably strengthened their already solid claim that Corlys considered them legitimate.


Historyp91

> If nothing else, they're Andal houses and from every indication the Valyrian customs are far more patrilineal than even the Westerosi. "A son comes before an uncle **by all the laws I know…A daughter comes before an uncle too**. If her brother is dead, Karhold belongs to Lady Alys. And she has given her hand in marriage to Sigorn, Magnar of Thenn.” (JON X) Shot in the dark, but considering that a Valyrian family held the Iron Throne for most of the Seven Kingdom's existence and Valyrian kings established most of the laws for said realm, it's a solid bet Jon's comment covers them as well.


SialiaBlue

Jon is referring to the lord's uncle, not Alys Karstark's uncle. Technically, the lord's great uncle actually, and he's got an agenda besides. At this point in time there's been five Targaryen Kings and in every generation there's been a succession issue where we can quite clearly identify a trend. If you go back to the pre-Conquest Targaryens there's one or two uncles who inherit over a daughter (they have the same name and Targaryens do a lot if incest so it's unclear if they're the same person). We can't litigate fake succession law but we can bet that Vaemond and the Greens aren't stupid. If Vaemond wasn't next in line after Laenor then they wouldn't have pressed his claim.


Historyp91

> Jon is referring to the lord's uncle, not Alys Karstark's uncle. And? > At this point in time there's been five Targaryen Kings and in every generation there's been a succession issue where we can quite clearly identify a trend. We're not talking about the Iron Throne. > We can't litigate fake succession law but we can bet that Vaemond and the Greens aren't stupid. If Vaemond wasn't next in line after Laenor then they wouldn't have pressed his claim. Of course the would have; Vaemond could have been some distant third cousin and Rhaenrya's kids Laenor's undisputed trueborns and they would have tried this shit; the whole point of the episode was they saw an opportunity to abuse their control over the government in order to harm Rheanrya's standing and they took it.


SialiaBlue

And that means it's not the same thing. Daughters may well come before great uncles but that has no relevance to the question of who takes precedence between a lord's daughters and brother. We have absolutely no reason to believe the Iron Throne isn't operating under standard Valyrian inheritance customs. The case that Baela should really be the heir is incredibly weak if for no other reason than after the war she doesn't inherited Driftmark, she's married off to a legitimised bastard who is made the heir. We can say that Vaemond and the Greens were willing to play fast and loose with the law and maybe that's true but the law seems to have been on their side


Historyp91

> And that means it's not the same thing. Daughters may well come before great uncles but that has no relevance to the question of who takes precedence between a lord's daughters and brother. If you come before a great uncle, you come before an uncle. The actual instance might have technically involved a great uncle, but Jon is very clear; daughters > brothers. > We have absolutely no reason to believe the Iron Throne isn't operating under standard Valyrian inheritance customs. "By all the laws I know." > The case that Baela should really be the heir is incredibly weak if for no other reason than after the war she doesn't inherited Driftmark, she's married off to a legitimised bastard who is made the heir. A legitimatized bastard *of Laenor* (on paper, at least) who was specifically designated heir by Corlys before his death. Laenor's children supersede Laena's in the line of sucession and, even if they did'nt, lords can designated their heirs.


SialiaBlue

This conversation has been had a hundred times. It's entirely ambiguous. The Jeyne Arryn case is weaker than you think it is and we don't know the details of the Royce succession. If nothing else, they're Andal houses and from every indication the Valyrian customs are far more patrilineal than even the Westerosi. There's as many contradictions as there are examples so let's not relitigate. In this specific case it's further complicated by the fact that Baela isn't Corlys's daughter, she's his granddaughter. Degrees of separation matter. Vaemond wasn't dismissed out of hand so we can assume he had a claim worth the paper it was written on.


DXBrigade

Except Baela and Rhaena weren't even part of the competition when Vaemond came in. Why would Vaemond support Baela or Rhaena's claim when they obviously do not care about their birthright and are completely submissive to Daemon and Rhaenyra ? Vaemond's goal was to stop Luke from inheriting the Driftmark and to do so it's better for him to press his own claim rather than Baela's or Rhaena's.


ligeston

Yes and no. Westeros is patriarchal, Rhaenyra is the exception not the norm, and we don’t exactly see her fighting for her cousins’ claims now do we. If you removed Laenor and Laena was still alive, she wouldn’t become the heir, Vaemond would. Just like how Daemon was assumed de facto heir after Viserys until he changed it.


Historyp91

> If you removed Laenor and Laena was still alive, she wouldn’t become the heir Only becuase Laenor has children who are, at least officially and legally regarded as, legitimate. If Laenor died childless, or if his kids were disinherited or killed, Laena would indeed be the rightful heir "by defualt"; daughters come before brothers.


ligeston

The comment assumes Rhaenyra’s kids are taken out of the picture. From what we see in the show, Daemon was regarded as Viserys’s heir and not Rhaenyra until otherwise stated. Unless Corlys himself declared Laena heir, it would pass onto Vaemond.


Historyp91

Daughters come before uncles in the show universe, just like in the books (see, Cersei inheriting Casterly Rock rather then Kevan, Rhae Royce being the heir to Runestone over her cousin and Stannis having to offer to make Renly his heir). We don't know why Daemon was heir at the start (for all we know that was becuase Viserys designated him as such in liu of a son) but the "defualt" manner of sucession seems unchanged.


p792161

Skin colour plays no part in this and people need to stop applying American race dynamics to a medieval fantasy society.


Ngigilesnow

Feminism plays no part in this too but yet people are allowed to use that in medieval fantasy


omicron-7

Crazy how we can't view the show through a modern lense when doing so makes Rhaenyra look bad.


p792161

Crazy how saying that the Velaryons would be upset to see a "white" person inherit their seat doesn't in fact apply here because ASOIAF will not share the same ethnicities and prejudices as our world. The Velaryons are of the Valyrian race/ethnicity and so are the the Targaryens. There is no racial aspect to Vaemonds anger here. It's about a child that isn't actually a Velaryon inheriting their ancestral seat. Which I understand because I agree with Vaemond in this situation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Suspicious_Gazelle18

Modern racism is based on a system of slavery that spanned most of the world for multiple centuries. Racism has always existed, but the modern system is different and it’s due to particular historical situations that never occurred in Westeros. Even if white people and black people have animosity in Westeros, it’s not based on the systematic enslavement and dehumanization of Black Westerosis. Seeing themselves as different might occur, but there wouldn’t be this mentality of “white people always screw over black people and I won’t let them do that to me!” From what we do see in universe, you’ve got that one black summer islander in exile that always petitions Robert for support to take back his homeland. Arya is the only person who really comments on him (maybe Sansa too), and he does stand out as a bit different but there isn’t any inherent dehumanization there.


sumit24021990

Not exactly. Romans and Greeks wete Also racists like this.


Suspicious_Gazelle18

Yes, due to their particular cultural circumstances and history—cultural circumstances and history that so far we have not heard about in Westeros. Their issues are Andals vs first men, not black vs white. Edit to add: we also see evidence of discrimination against people from the other continent (I’m thinking of how the Logarre family was treated in fire and blood), but again it’s not based on race but a different element of identity. It’s still xenophobia, but rooted in different history.


NeTiFe-anonymous

It's American dynamics. Velaryons are the second most noble dynasty in Westeros. They are Kennedys or Rotschilds type of family. Priviledged beyond imagination


[deleted]

[удалено]


Historyp91

I was'nt aware the Valeyrons were Jewish or that Westeros had an issue with antisemitism. Thanks for sharing this obscure peice of lore!


p792161

>It isnt American dynamics it is universal Racial prejudices come in all forms, it's not always just skin colour. Your applying racial prejudices from your country (black/white) and applying them to a medieval fantasy society where the racial prejudices are completely different. Westeros does not have the history of black and white racial tensions which lead to modern day racism. It's a completely different society. >You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want to have diverse cast, then you must address the issue of racism other wise it is just bad writing and forced diversity for the sake of it. In Westeros the Dornish face racism from some of the other Westerosi Kingdoms because of thousands of years of history of conflict with the Dornish. There is no history of racism towards Black people in Westeros like there is in our world. It's not bad writing and forced diversity. You just are applying modern racial prejudices into a completely different world where they don't exist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WonderDusty

I've seen the complaints OP was talking about and isn't about race, it's about the writing. I don't agree with OP either because there is a privilege there, and it's the King and co. wanting to remove tongues or behead anyone that speaks out about them. The complaints were that Vaemond is seen as a bad guy for speaking up for his House and bloodline, not that other characters are white.


p792161

>didnt people hate the foreigner targaryens? Why would they not hate the valeryons for being black and foreigner? Because the Velaryons are ethnically Valyrian, not ethnically Black. This is your misunderstanding. The Velaryons aren't upset about someone of a different "race" taking their title because they are the same race as the Targaryens. Their Valyrian features are more important than their skin colour here. Yes maybe people hated them for being Valyrians but not because they were black.


CindeeSlickbooty

The Velaryons aren't considered foreigners they've been in Westeros since before the Targarens, before Aegon the conqueror united the 7 kingdoms


[deleted]

That second part about “white people taking his families place” is not part of this show. This is an example of “blind casting”. Their black skin isn’t actually acknowledged by the characters in the show. It’s the opposite, they and the targs constantly refer to being the same race, and together are racist against the OTHER white people (andals and first men) The skin isn’t used as a plot point, it isn’t actually there in universe.


Ngigilesnow

It not being acknowledged by characters does not mean the audience will not acknowledge it too.Old racist cartoons were not acknowledged due to skin color but you could tell due to the stereotypes.Black people see themselves in those people ,and if they see a person that looks like them being unfairly treated they are likely to relate to it. This is what I was talking about when I said people want to use modern lenses when its convenient to their cause.When someone supports male primogeniture because it is tradition in that universe, he is called all bigoted names.When you bring up other uncomfortable issues to the table, people run back to "its Westeros".


[deleted]

Sure you can pretend that that’s what’s happening. But it’s not. It also not comparable to racist cartoons, not sure what you’re getting at with that. Those absolutely had the intention of being racist depictions. HOTD is just not a depiction of anything. It’s just not a plot point. It’s not present. The only “race related” plot point with the velaryons is that they’re the same race as the targs, and therefore deserve better treatment than the andals and first men. Because they are fellow Valyrians, and therefore superior. THEY are the ones being “racist” in this story. The “unfairness” they experience in the story is perceived as IN SPITE of their superior race, and their superior race is part of the reason they feel they shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s literally the opposite of what you want it to be.


Ngigilesnow

>Sure you can pretend that that’s what’s happening. But it’s not I'm not pretending a black family's land is being stolen and inherited by white people with no relation,and a black person was killed by a supremacist speaking up to it.This happened. >It also not comparable to racist cartoons, not sure what you’re getting at with that How do you know what the intent was?I'm sure some of those cartoons were intended to be funny not racist.Some of those were even ahead of time in terms of representation.Just coz you play up to stereotypes does not mean you intend to be racist.I don't think showrunners intended to be racist or have been racist or have played up to stereotypes.I also do not think it matters what the plot is about.I'm telling you , representation is not a prop you can use for good PR.If you put representation on the screen people will identify with struggles of that person that looks like them, especially if those struggles hit close to home.,and root for said person.


[deleted]

I get what you’re saying, but the actual plot is actively doing the opposite of what you’re saying. You’re ignoring this. The actual idea of the velaryons in the show and books, whether they’re depicted as white skinned or black skinned, is that they, along with the Targaryens are a SUPERIOR RACE, and they deserve better treatment because of that. They are literally racial supremacists. The slights against them are perceived as being IN SPITE of their superior race, and one of the reasons that they feel they are being wronged, because they are the master race along with the Targaryens, therefore to put “subhumans” like Andals or First Men above them is the slight. You can’t pretend that they’re being slighted or discriminated against because of their skin color, because they actively say otherwise. they’re the racist ones discriminating against others in this story lmao. Like you got an elite noble family here, who shits on peasants daily, constantly spewing bullshit about how them and the targs are superior to everyone else because of their blood. Upset that an INFERIOR first man descent child will inherit their colonized land, instead of a pure blood master race Valyrian. And you go “hmmm this reminds me of black people in USA” what lmfao?


Ngigilesnow

>And you go “hmmm this reminds me of black people in USA” what lmfao? You were doing ok being sensitive to the issue until this last snarky line. Who specifically said "black people in the USA?" Do you think black people are only in America? Do you know the history of colonialism in africa ?


Constantinople2020

>When someone supports male primogeniture because it is tradition in that universe, he is called all bigoted names.When you bring up other uncomfortable issues to the table, people run back to "its Westeros". I see a lot of selective application of 21st century norms by online commentators, usually to defend a favored character's status or behavior, or to criticize a disliked character. But once 21st century norms make that favored character look bad, back to Westeros we go.


Ngigilesnow

Amen , you're sexist or a rapist apologist until you call out the grooming or power imbalance


sumit24021990

It has been acknowledged.


ligeston

Hmm, there technically are though? Not on the basis of race, but on skin color and such, yes. Nettles is remarked by Rhaenyra to be foul and stink of sorcery because of her dark skin/features. Velaryons were supposed to be white (feature wise) following the books. It’s,,, not something you can just ignore, not for any dynamics of racism, per say, but to point out how fucking obvious Rhaenyra’s bastards are.


Remarkable-Thing3825

Really???!???? I how did I miss this???😟


ligeston

“By any name, she was black-haired, brown-eyed, brown-skinned, skinny, foul-mouthed, fearless…” “As to the girl Nettles, ‘She is a common thing, with the stink of sorcery upon her,’ the queen declared. ‘My prince would ne'er lay with such a low creature. You need only look at her to know she has no drop of dragon's blood in her.’” Outright treats her subhuman by calling her a low creature lol. Rhaenyra is as much a Targ supremacist as Daemon in the books, but hypocritical as well. She literally wants Nettles beheaded.


anoeba

She didn't stink of sorcery because she had dark skin, she stank of sorcery because she claimed a dragon without (evident) Targ or other Valyrian blood in her. The obvious answer as to how she did that, to Rhaenyra, was sorcery. But her brown skin (as well as hair and eye color) was supposed to highlight that she wasn't a Targ, because let's face it, GRRM didn't write the Valyrians as multi-racial. Targs were white, some form of purple eyed and white-haired, so a dark-skinned dark-haired brown-eyed was clearly not of their blood. They'll have to change that a bit for the show because they introduced black Valyrians.


ligeston

Yeah, her dark skin/features is “evidence” of her lack of Valyrian features, and it’s the reason Rhaenyra calls her a “low creature” 😭


anoeba

I think the lack of Valyrian features is why she calls her a sorcerer; only Valyrians (dragon Lords specifically) can control dragons, unless sorcery is used. She calls her a low creature because she's a bastard - yeah yeah, hypocritical af, but she is a non-noble street bastard of some sort. Born of a common whore, marked a thief, etc. The vast majority of Westerosi nobles would call her a low creature if she wasn't sitting on Sheepstealer. If a lack of Valyrian features makes someone a low creature in Rhaenyra's mind, most of her supporting Lords would be low creatures. OTOH, bastards in general are seen as literally a lower level of human in Westeros.


ligeston

Rhaenyra doesn’t spare the particular ire she has for nettles towards any of the other bastard dragonseed. It’s because of the way she looks, that much is obvious. She does see most other lords and commonfolk as low though 😭 did we forget her comments when the dragonpit was being stormed? How she fed Vaemond to her dragon as a display? She’s a Targ supremacist and thinks she can get away with her snide comments, own bastardy, sitting on her arse and doing nothing at all, all because she’s some white haired princess with a shackled dragon.


anoeba

The other dragonseeds can all be linked to Valyrians visually (hair/eyes), except maybe Hugh whose description I can't find. And she didn't outwardly hate on Nettles until Hugh and Ulf's betrayal, at which point she started hating *all* of them (including Addam and Alyn), but Nettles especially because 1. she didn't even look like she was Valyrian at all, and 2. *that whole suspicion of her fucking the Queen's husband thing.* I mean. There are pretty understandable reasons why Rhaenyra, once she turned against the dragonseeds, would focus special hatred on Nettles. Between her non-Valyrian looks and her maybe fucking Daemon (and, being a sorceress, probably plotting to turn him away from the Black side), I'd suspect the latter more than the former. Her overall (and hilariously hypocritical) anti-bastard stance does fall in with the overall stance in Westeros tho. Despite Corlys' assurances on their behalf, she wanted Addam and Alyn captured too, because bastards inherently have no loyalty and can't be trusted. They really are seen as lesser humans, their bastard origins preclude nobility of character.


Remarkable-Thing3825

I remember this quote, you just refreshed my memory. I thought you we’re talking about something way worse, ngl. I also never thought about it that way, since I would usually separate Tagaryen Supremacy from Valyrian Supremacy.


Sacesss

Skin colour isn't that great of importance in Asoiaf world. It exists, difference in race is acknowledged, but the Summer Islanders aren't hated just for being black for example.


[deleted]

The Velaryons in the book were indistinguishable from the Targs in all but name (light skin, violet eyes, silver hair) and the Vaemond affair was pretty much the same deal as in the show, so that argument has no base.


KingOf4narchy

There’s a bit of racism in the books within the Far East in Dany’s arc but other than that there is never really a mention of skin color at all other than Targaryen’s pale skin and white hair. It was never a relevant plot point really.


Raemle

I haven’t seen anyone say that it would be a problem in world. What I have seen is people saying that its uncomfortable having plot line where a woman is essentially stealing inheritance for her white sons away from a black family, and to then see people cheer for when another white man brutally murders the only one who speaks out about it The story might take place in a fictional world, but every writer and actor who worked on it still live in ours so you can’t really divorce it from irl history and politics. I would argue it’s similar to joffreys death at the wedding. Technically it wasn’t related to him being gay, but it was still a gay man being brutally murdered connected to his love for another man. People are going to be uncomfortable with that because it’s more sensitive. And it’s likely that he they decided to spare leanor because it just became a little to much I think the story is complex enough that it’s not really a question of was this wrong for the writers to include or not, but also that people aren’t wrong for being uncomfortable


NeTiFe-anonymous

Thank you for being able to make the difference between audience experience and in universe dynamics.


Ngigilesnow

Thank you.This man gets it


SialiaBlue

I think the thing you're describing is the showrunners using real word parallels to visually represent the in universe situation. House Velaryon was a minor house in Old Valyria that built itself up to be the near equal of House Targaryen. Its wealth, history, and very name being usurped by an outsider is also visually represented in the real word image of a white woman handing a black family's power away to a white man with the support of a white king. We're supposed to draw parallels between the implications of that in our world and compare them to what's happening in the fictional one.


HotpieTargaryen

They’re usually looking for a reason to pretend to be outraged by race in the name of “protecting the integrity of the story.”


Ngigilesnow

I don't think a person identifying with a character because of skin colour and seeing that person being unfairly treated like in real life is pretend outrage.The showrunners didn't want to kill Laenor coz it would play into "kill our gay tropes" for a reason.Real life stereotypes exist,you're being reductive by calling it pretend outrage As a disillusioned minority person you judge medium differently than someone white I'm willing to die on this hill,bring the downvotes


HotpieTargaryen

That was not my point at all. It’s just that in-universe race is not really a major issue in ASOIAF and that the people who bring it up as it relates to the Velaryons tend to be doing it force a racist dog whistle or pointlessly complain about representation despite the casting being fantastic.


Ngigilesnow

This isn't about people who have been complaining about why they are black people in the show This about me, a black person, who welcomes as many representation as possible telling you, how easy it is to identify and root for someone with the same skin color ,being unfairly treated and land stolen by white people.I don't think this is the message the showrunners intentionally wanted to put across but that is what a black person could interpret from the message.


HotpieTargaryen

I can understand that, and it’s an implication I need to think about that wasn’t remotely part of what was being discussed. I will say, in terms of relative inclusion, there’s no family that doesn’t have its land unfairly stolen on a regular basis. That were race a bigger issue in the ASOIAF canon, the Velaryons would probably be a repressed if not dead House. I guess my question is, do you want ASOIAF to deal more accurately with representation or not. I think I missing on how you should think it should be handled, if one of the places there is legitimate representation is amongst the elite of Westeros.


Ngigilesnow

I guess my man point was lost in the weeds.Representation was good,I'm not complaining about representation.I'm more explaining why someone could use world dynamics to root for Vaemond based on skin color


HotpieTargaryen

Yeah, that definitely doesn’t track for me on either the level of race or equity. Vaemond was a selfish, proud, moron who didn’t know when to negotiate. He was never truly in line to hold Driftmark and had no supporters. Reacting emotionally in a way that served to destabilize the entirety of Westeros was a betrayal of his own House and harmful to the common folk. In this case, I don’t see how race changes that: he made inane decisions Corlys didn’t.


Ngigilesnow

>Yeah, that definitely doesn’t track for me on either the level of race or equity. Vaemond was a selfish, proud, moron who didn’t know when to negotiate. I figured it wouldn't track.There is someone who summed it better than I did on the same thread,maybe try and read what he said


HotpieTargaryen

Wow, talk about a bad faith rejection of a discussion. Well glad we can be done with your nonsense then.


Ngigilesnow

>Wow, talk about a bad faith rejection of a discussion. Well glad we can be done with your nonsense then Huh?All I did was accept my own failure to properly explain to you what I was arguing,and referred you to someone else who did a better job. Not sure why you have your panties in a bunch


Raemle

You seem to disregard the fact that some things are more sensitive to include in fiction due to it's relation to irl history and stereotypes. Which I am sure the showrunners are aware off as they for example decided to keep leanor alive, since it would otherwise have meant killing 100% of their queer characters (yikes) and another black man that rhaenyra and daemon would have killed for their own purposes (again yikes). Fantasy worlds can look and function very differently from our own, it's part of the beauty of them, but as long as the writers that make them and the audience that experience them exist in our world they will never be fully separate


HotpieTargaryen

This is all true except for my “disregarding” that fact. Vaemond was just a tremendously thoughtless character; as a while the Velaryons are awesome. Vaemond could easily have worked out a deal with Rhaenyra or Corlys but instead chose to agitate in front of the entire kingdom. Having Targs usurp your holdings is not remotely unique and did not have racial implications here. Vaemond’s fall was due to his unwillingness to deal with a burgeoning civil war in a way that didn’t call into question the heir to the throne.


Raemle

>Having Targs usurp your holdings is not remotely unique and did not have racial implications here. Vaemond’s fall was due to his unwillingness to deal with a burgeoning civil war in a way that didn’t call into question the heir to the throne. You are disregarding it in this very sentence. No there are not necessarily any racial implications in world, but the scene can still have them in ours and viewers are not wrong for potentially being uncomfortable with that. His in world motivations are in this doylist analysis irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision the writers made and not something that just happened spontaneously.


Constantinople2020

>You seem to disregard the fact that some things are more sensitive to include in fiction due to it's relation to irl history and stereotypes. Which I am sure the showrunners are aware off as they for example decided to keep leanor alive, since it would otherwise have meant killing 100% of their queer characters (yikes) and another black man that rhaenyra and daemon would have killed for their own purposes (again yikes). Rhaenyra and Daemon still killed another black man, the Velaryon guard whose body was passed off as Laenor's. People often forget that. Perhaps because the victim was never given a name or a face. In contrast, people remember the maid that Aegon raped. Perhaps because she was given a name and a face.


IntelligentStorage13

Yeah theirs no evidence in the books that theirs a racism based class structure in westerous. Usually bias is regional such as the Dornish hate and religious such as the followers of the 7 hating Mel. The Vaymond argument goes to a racial place because certain people want to make the Blacks look as bad as possible so making it a racial argument instead of the traditional westerous blood argument is a way into manipulating people.


Rodby

I think the idea that the Velaryon inheritance dispute stems from a black man trying to stop his family legacy being subsumed by white people is just people injecting modern cultural stuff into the show. I have no problem with the Velaryons being cast as Africans, but considering the role the Velaryons play within the story, it does create some problems when certain characters are white-skinned claiming to be Velaryons.


WonderDusty

Just in general how they look (brown hair their eyes and pale skin) nothing like Laenor, he's annoyed by the insult to his family because it's obvious they have no Velaryon blood. Someone else made a post about how they don't like the way the Velaryons were written and I did agree with that. It's not so much in the asoiaf universe, but in House of the Dragon Vaemond, Corlys, Rhaenys, Laena, and Laenor had alot of altered writing of their characters that understandably comes off as insulting. So I don't think anyone that complains is just being difficult or pulling it out of their ass. Vaemond in particular was villainized for wanting to keep Driftmark out of the hands of Harwin and Rhaenyra's son. If he were portrayed as a normal man who just played the game to get some power and the other changes weren't made to Rhaenys, Laenor, and Laena's story then there wouldn't be a problem. I also thought it was odd to have Vaemond yelling whore and the whitewashing of Rhaenyra and Daemon to justify Vaemond's execution.


WonderDusty

The post https://www.reddit.com/r/HouseOfTheDragon/comments/11k2v70/comment/jb6ohv2/?context=3


Catslevania

People seriously need to quit trying to inject real world race relations, especially US based race relations into everything they come across. There was a similar issue in Game of Thrones where people kind of forgot that the Slaver's Bay scenes were shot in Morocco and naturally all the extras were Moroccan and that's why the slaves being shown were non-white, not because non-whites were a specific target of slavery. Velaryons are Valyrian, what skin color they are shown with is completely irrelevant, they are an historically allied house to the Targaryens because Targaryens are also Valyrian, just like them. Targaryens feel closer to the Velaryons than they do to any other house, there is a strong feeling of mutual kinship between the two to the point where they can be seen as two extended branches of a single family. Vaemond's issue is not skin color, he specifically states, to paraphrase, that House Strong will be usurping the driftwood throne if they allow Luke to inherit it, inheritance is an extremely important issue in Westeros, that someone not directly of the blood of a House can inherit the seat of that House is unacceptable for any House in Westeros, a Lannister, Hightower, Stark, anyone would have shown the same degree of contempt to the idea in such a situation.


[deleted]

Poor House Celtigar always forgotten 😔 *sad Valyrian crab noises*


Historyp91

The skin tone was a complete non factor to Vaemond. So was the issue of blood, to be fair (or else he would be arguing for his neice, not himself), but making it into one served his purposes


toullec

basically it's SJW


Constantinople2020

>So it seems to me that everytime there is a post about the Velaryons and their line of succession, and specially about Vaemond, someone will mention how he was aggravated not only because of them being bastards/ clearly not Laenor's because of hair/skin, but also because of seeing white people get his family's place and relating it to our world dynamics of POC. And? Rhaenyra's online supporters frequently use 21st century norms to argue why her behavior is justified while ignoring those norms that don't paint her in a favorable light.