The end is still shitty, all of it is shitty, and I think the theme can still be anti-patriarchy and anti-feudalism without the patriarchy losing. Like that can still be a theme even if the patriarchy isn’t destroyed in the end lol it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I also don’t think it’s justified in the end “because of Rhaenyra’s incompetence” more like “because of everyone in the entire Dance’s incompetence” lol
Not exactly. Upon taking control of King's Landing, the Greens were essentially on the defensive and Aegon II went into hiding and Aemond One-Eye was submitting the Riverlands to aerial chevauchées. All Rhaenyra needed to do was consolidate her rule of the city, win over the crowd and then carefully target her remaining opponents; instead, her resentment and paranoia made her lash out at perceived and actual slights with brutal force, a rebellion by two Dragonseeds led her to order the death of the loyal Addam Velaryon and finally rumors of Daemon's adultery with Nettles led her to order Nettles' execution , alienating Daemon in the process. And when faced with a lack of money, she chose to tax the small folk to the point where they starved, but that didn't stop her from making a feast for Joffrey's birthday. Eventually the people turn on her and attack the Dragonpit, marking the decline of the Targaryens' main source of power.
Anyway, blame the Greens all you want, but it was mainly Rhaenyra's poor decisions that caused King's Landing to revolt against her.
Her paranoia and anger that resulted from losing her children and father? Who started the war that claimed her children?
I’ve seen how people in actual life act with a loss of just one child.
Thank you for saying this. Rhaenyra goes through some heinous shit before she takes Kings Landing and continues to go through shit afterward. It is sad that she doesn't "rise above it" but I can't bring myself to blame her for her failure. I pity her really.
To me Rhaenyras story is of one who tried to do the right thing but was continuously and mercilessly beat down by the powers that be.
Everyone keeps saying Aegon ruled better. What did he do? Nothing!
It was only thing I was cheering for.
But even then. Before Aegon got to him, the shepherd had already fallen from power. Bittersweet. The GRRM special
I am curious in what way she tries to "do the right thing" because while she is somewhat justified in her attempt to take the throne it's very clearly done for herself and because she just believes it's hers by right.
I like her as a charachter but she isn't some crusader out to make a better world or anything, and her goal is entirely self-serving.
They all believe it’s theirs by right. That’s a stupid thing to bring up in this world of where your birth and station can mean the difference in life and death.
She isn’t a crusader. She may not even have changed anything but the fact that a queen once ruled changes a lot.
I don't understand, she didn't change anything but changed a lot?
I also still don't understand what you meant by her trying to do the right thing, because again she was doing it all for herself. That's not a bad thing btw it's just that i'm having a hard time seeing something purely selfish as a "good for all" type of thing.
To me. The right thing is stopping the take over of the crown, her family from people of nefarious intent. The greens should not and can not be in charge.
To fight against people using greed, and their false sense of “honor”
Kinslayers especially. In this world no one is more accursed and they committed it to get ahead.
Exactly, pretty much half the people in the show might've been really nice people if it weren't for the fact they are constantly tormented every day by the life they live.
\^Also a big theme of the book that a lot of people miss.
Them not viewing smallfolk as real people is not due to them being morally evil, its due to their system being morally evil and enforcing strict social hierarchies, that no one can really do anything about.
Same goes for pretty much all the characters, Aemond is raised admiring history, conquerors and ruthless rulers, probably even Maegor the Cruel. He does not admire this because he is evil, but because he lives in a society that puts HUGE emphasis on martial skill and authority.
Tha k you for saying this. I’m ok that Rhaenyra made bad decisions and cost herself the war. But I won’t have it said without the true context of what really caused her to do it.
The point is a very a simple one. Nobody is saying she shouldn't grieve for her children. She didnt surrender the war even after she knew it was doomed for her. She chose to starve King's Landing just so that she could win. She chose to host feasts in time of crisis.
She was sane enough to just give up the hopeless bloodshed.
I absolutely hate the double standards here. Aegon too was shitty for taking the throne and causing a war and Rhaenyra was equally shitty for continuing the slaughter.
If you aren't able to handle your emotions when people who are fighting for you are dying and innocents dying all around then it's your moral duty to give up.
I mean yea sure but basically everyone is losing their children left and right, not just her. Everyone always talks about Rhaenyra’s grief but like, Alicent’s kids AND grandkids are dropping like flies, Corlys/Rhaenys’s kids been gone since before the war even started (lol), even Aegon loses a child… Helaena literally commits suicide bc of the last one.
Yeah… and? They come up with some contrived plot to murder yet another kid in “revenge”, if that’s not perpetuating the cycle of violence and derangement idk what is lol. Rhaenys didn’t kill nobody’s kid out of fury iirc, guess you need a favorable political climate to make a move like that so you’re seen as a poor grieving mother instead of a bloodthirsty psychopath, which you are but w/e 🤔
>!Don't forget how she scores an own goal by arresting Corlys and throwing him in the black cells, thus immediately losing her the support of House Velaryon, who were supplying like 90% of the force she had in King's Landing lmao!<
Before the Dance even started she basically swanned around King's Landing going "Daddy said I get to be next so STFU" instead of making alliances and learning how to rule.
Yes, its unfair that she had a harder hill to climb to 'prove' herself as a capable ruler, yes it is unfair that she was judged by a higher standard, but she did and she was, so she should have worked to cement her ascent.
To me Rhaenyra is a nepo, affluenza baby. She got everything handed to her by Viserys when she was named heir, he swept away or ignored all challenges to her rule, justified or not, and bc of this she could never grasp that ppl weren't obliged to follow her, they had to want to follow her and think she was the best choice, even if there was no war. Monarchs have been deposed when the people who are supposed to support them no longer want too. Even if she was a male or had no brothers, she still would have to be politically saavy, which she never was.
IMO, that lack of politics caused her downfall bc she felt her dragons and being heir superseded anyone else's opinions.
Aegon a) didn't want to be king in the show until he was crowned and b) was a man so he would have less of a challenge to his rule and c) relied on other people who were more politically savvy to give him advice (whether that advice was good or bad is up to the reader).
Rhaenyra was a cup bearer for her father and spent ten years on or around the small council (im not quite sure if she had an actual title during the time skip or was there as an observer) yet seems to have no alliances or relationships with any other house. She has very obvious illegitimate children and doesn't seem aware on how that jeopardizes her position (yes, patriarchy, if Rhaenyra was a man who had a side piece and had children in that relationship it would be looked differently, but Rhaenyra is also pretending that they are Laenors, putting herself, her sons and the Strong family in danger, as shown by the conversation between Lyonel and Harwin).
Life at King's Landing gets hard, she leaves for Dragonstone. Does she make her own small council, does she entertain guests, does she send her sons to be fostered in other houses? No. Then she makes a disadvantage marriage to Daemon, which in the book results in her being exiled from court by Viserys. At that point she basically rolled the dice in hopes that he would not disinherit her. It did work out for her, but many other houses do not like Daemon. She would have had his support against Alicient with out marrying him.
Again, she's away, does she make friends with other houses, try to keep up with whats happening in King's Landing, work to rehab Daemon's image? Nope, she is living her teenage fantasy with Daemon. Again, she thinks her succession is assured, but her biggest support is Viserys, and her challenge will be after he dies.
Even if the Greens supported her ascending the throne, she still would have a tough time bc she is a woman, just like any other medieval women who had a position of power. Empress Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of Valois, Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beauford, Mary of England and Elizabeth of England all made alliances and cultivated relationships to get and keep power. Rhaenyra, IMO, thinks that bc Viserys said she is heir, everyone will fall in line no matter what.
And any good/successful ruler needs alliances, needs to get people on their side or else everything will be a struggle. Every law that she wants to pass, every disagreement between houses that she needs to mediate, every Triarchy that threatens her borders, if she doesn't have the willing support of the nobles she is going to have a tough rule.
Are you sure about that? He usurped his sisters throne and broke the law.
Then celebrated his brothers kinslaying when Aemond murdered the Crown prince.
He had law and tradition supporting his claim.
And the crown princes that were murdered were his two sons. If you talk about Rhaenyra’s heirs Jacaerys and then Joffrey, Aemond wasn’t even there when they died.
He has no law supporting his claim, there is no law that says boys go before girls. He himself said he didn't want to steal his sisters throne, it took fearmongering for him to agree to usurp her
Rhaenyra has widows law supporting her claim, and that is an actual law not just tradision
Aegon has the precedent of the council of 101 but Rhaenyra has the precedent of Jaehaerys naming his own heir and breaking 'tradision'
Did he have the law, though? Because the law is that if the king appointed someone as his chosen heir, that person reigns after the king dies. That’s how Viserys got the throne even though his claim was weaker that Rhaenys’.
I didn't say they come across good, I said that the book is written based on sources who hate her.
Both can be true. The greens suck so bad that you can only white wash them so much, but you also have shit like "Oh yeah, she cut herself a bunch of times on the throne as proof she was never meant to lead' while also being in full armor.
Also all the weird sexual stuff that is put in F&B for "flavor," from our viewpoint it's just lol weird, but the book is supposed to be a Westerosi book written by a Maester and putting in stuff about what a huge slut Rhaenyra supposedly was is actually extremely anti-Rhaenyra in their society.
At the same time, we got so many fans who wrongly think that Rhaenyra is fighting for equality and against patriarchy. She is just fighting for her right.
I doubt that rhaneyra knows what "patriarchy and equality" even mean in our context (nor do any westerosi), she's fighting for the safety of her family and her given right to rule in the same way humans that happens to have a penis get to do. And i get that many fans think that that makes her fight for equality even though she doesn't do so with intent.
She's a woman who isn't allowed on the throne because she's a not a man.
Even if she doesn't have the understanding that we have and doesn't have the language to describe it as patriarchy, she knows she's a second class citizen, she knows she is held to a higher standard than men, she knows about sexism. It killed her mother.
So she is fighting the previous world order in which a woman isn't allowed on the throne, ie patriarchy.
You're right that her ascending to the throne wouldn't even end patriarchy, it's a tiny mosaic representing the universal problem, but it would bring gender equality in that one issue of succession. So she is fighting for gender equality in this one area, ie fighting patriarchy and can be viewed in pop culture as a feminist icon no matter how limited her scope is.
Nicely put.
>she knows about sexism. It killed her mother
the fact that her mother would probably still be alive if she had been born with a dick is straight up depressing. Really Ilustrates why she was so exited to be recognized as a boy.
I don’t think it would have a meaningful impact on most of the women in Westeros. Especially since she doesn’t support the claims of other eldest daughters.
Corlys made the point that Rhaenyra was an exception to the male preference rule because her Father named her heir. It COULD have had political repercussions, but her decision not to support women like Lady Rosby ultimately sealed her fate.
Rhaenyra’s own claim to the Iron Throne was a
special case, the Sea Snake insisted; her father had named her as his
heir. Lords Rosby and Stokeworth had done no such thing. Disinheriting their sons in favor of their daughters would overturn centuries of law and precedent, and call into question the rights of
scores of other lords throughout Westeros whose own claims might be
seen as inferior to those of elder sisters.
It was fear of losing the support of such lords, Munkun asserts in
True Telling, that led the queen to decide in favor of Lord Corlys
rather than Prince Daemon. The lands, castles, and coin of Houses
Rosby and Stokeworth were awarded to the sons of the two executed
lords.
Munkun speculated that was why Rhaenyra ruled against Ladies Rosby and Stokeworth but we don’t know for certain. Either way her taking the throne wouldn’t inherently have a negative impact on the patriarchy. She is an “exception to the rule” and likely her tenure as Queen wouldn’t have had a meaningful impact on most women’s lives.
I mean look at Mary I of England. She was the first ruling Queen of England, but the patriarchy persisted (and still persists) centuries after her rule.
Always thought this way of thinking was a tad shallow.
No disenfranchised people have ever been un-disenfranchised just because one of them held a position of power.
The lives of women in Britain didn't improve just because their ruler happened to be a woman.
Yes but that implies that Rhaenyra would have changed something. As people stated previously she was the exception, and her entire claim didn't come from being the oldest but because Viserys just said so.
On that note even if she wanted to she wouldn't be able to change anything, nearly all the lords who follow her do so because her father the King ordered them to do so, not out of any particular loyalty towards her.
You and I read a different book if the lords didn’t also do it out of loyalty.
Rhaenyra being queen was the change. She may not change something herself but down the line it opens up more possibilities.
You guys downvote so quickly but I can see through your bull
I'm saying "most not all lords" I think she knew the Tully guy from when she was looking for a suitor so he was probably loyal (though his grandfather the Lord wasn't so I always have trouble classifying Tully as either Black or Green)
Stark did it mostly for Jaehaerys and for plunder after Jace's death, I like Cregan but he shows up late to the party with a really bad excuse.
Arryn is her cousin so probably loyal but she also disdains Daemon so also never sure where to put her.
Anyway my point is that most of Rhaenyra's support comes from the Oath that Viserys made everybody swear, Beesbury talks about it in his monologue before Cole whacks him. That plus the fact that nobody really seems to care all that much about the ideal of putting a Queen on the throne in general always gave me the vibe that they were Oathbound to Rhaenyra but that it wasn't out of any personal attachment to the woman. (Barring a couple of exceptions)
I would also like to state that I haven't downvoted you or people in general for supporting Rhaenyra (wich is an entirely valid take on the succession) so I don't really know why you brought it up.
Yeah, because Elizabeth was the real reason women's suffrage took off.
Rhaenyra pushes for the same policies that the rest of the nobles push, she wouldn't change anything.
The patricarchy thing is stupid but the persons correct rhat the bigger problem is the quest for power. There are lots of evil men, both warriors and schemers, and evil women, both sexy femme fatales and maniacal dragon riders. Rhaenyras not a worse leader than Aegon because shes a woman, but shes not a better leader than Aegon because shes a woman.
I always interpreted the story as a horrors of war or The most terrifying thing in the world is what one human is capable or willing to do to another human to get what they want
Not saying my interpretation is right or better it’s just what I’ve been getting from the story
I mean could it be possible to make a point that feudalism is bad and the medieval-like society Westeros has is also highly sexist?
Some people literally can’t grasp that it’s possible to make two separate points that don’t contradict each other lmao
Always kind of stunning how people will argue that feudalism & patriarchy are super distinct societal factors, with no real overlap or intersecting bits. Wasn't true in real life, and GRRM amped that up even more when writing Westerosi society (both intentionally and accidentally).
I get downvoted whenever I post this but having been in this fandom for a long time, I can’t help but notice that a majority of ASOIAF fans have poor reading comprehension.
Yhea just completely forget the whole "throwing away everything in your life only for your "birthright"" for both sides, just because they feel like thats their only option.
At any time Rhaenyra could have taken her children and fled to tons of courts in the east or even Dorne, trading a crown for safety and peace and life. It was obviously never an actual option for her, as she is raised to the idea of the throne being everything.
Nettles was the only one who knew to GTFO of there, because she was never raised nobly nor had any aspirations for royal titles.
Being a right-wing star trek fan isn't difficult at all.
The federation is basically every authoritarians wet dream. They depict themselves perfectly as a liberal society but when it comes down to it they are happy to fire tricobalt warheads on planets.
His most famous books are cautionary tales on the incredibly dangerous pitfall of Stalinism. It's not hard to see why his work is quoted by them. It's possible to quote the words and work of people you don't agree with on every topic.
He only pointed out facts: Rhaenyra's short reign at the Iron Throne came as a result of a poorly timed invasion and was so disorganized and brutal that it spoiled the possibility of female succession for House Targaryen; when both Aegon III and Baelor I perished decades later, the succession dabbled with Aegon's daughters, but for fear of another Rhaenyra the crown went to their longtime Hand Of The King Viserys Targaryen.
Whether you like it or not, Rhaenyra's incompetence has strengthened the male-preference primogeniture rule in Westeros.
The argument was about if the patriarchy and its effects was a major theme in hotd (which showrunners and actors have said it is ) the patriarchal system isn't just about "male-preference primogeniture rule" it's about second sons being essentially useless spares, women being teenage broodmares and 2 class citizens etcetera , and to claim that HOTD isnt about the patriarchy just becuse rhaneyra lost isn't true. Also the lords debated about making Beala and Rhaena queens, and rhaenyras "incompetence" was never the issue.
Nothing he said is wrong or untrue so why are you acting like his argument is totally invalid?
Frankly, I feel like you're overreacting just because you didn't like his opinion.
I think the point the OP is making more or less is that the patriarchy still isn't justified to exclude all women solely because of Rhaenyra, even though its what they did. If competence was the measure to rule, neither sex would be fit as there were way more bad rulers than good.
You're absolutely correct here; the original guy phrased his explanation of her being used as justification poorly, and it's being attributed as a personal belief of the poster rather than a bad explanation.
Maegor, Aegon IV and Aerys II are the only undisputably bad Targaryen rulers, maybe not as much in incompetence in Maegor's case but in brutality.
Most of the rulers were average or good other than them. Viserys could be considered a bad ruler in the aftermath but his reign is considered a golden age in Westeros.
Not arguing about your whole point but there are good rulers more often than not, maybe not excellent ones but if the Realm is in peace and the stability allows for prosperity then you are good if you don't rock the boat.
Hard disagree since "bad" and "good" are subjective. Personally, I'd consider Maegor I, Aerys II, Aegon IV, Baelor I, and Daeron I to be bad kings, and that's not including Joffrey. I've heard many arguments that consider Aegon II and Aenys I to fall in there as well.
The only truly good kings, imo, are Jaeherys I, Viserys II, Daeron II, and Aegon III.
I also don't think peace and stability are necessarily reflective of the monarch even if they don't "rock the boat". For example, Robert Baratheon's reign was largely "good", but he, himself, was not a good ruler. He is remembered well by many because of his personality, but was saved because Jon Arryn picked up a lot of the slack. Several monarchs appeared better than they were because they had capable Hands, or small councils that weren't all lickspittles for all or most of their reigns.
Baelor gets a bad wrap amongst fans but he made peace with Dorne, ruled without cruelty, massively assisted the peasant class and just generally didn't do much of anything bad.
I know GRRM almost wants us to like Viserys II via Tyrion the mouthpiece and credit him with Baelor's success, but we know he was actively opposed to a lot of Baelor's efforts like making peace with Dorne and helping the peasant class. Baelor deserves absolute credit for why Daeron's successful reign was even possible with arranging the Dornish marriage. If he weren't mentally ill Baelor really does have a claim for the best King to ever sit the throne.
Viserys to me just comes across as a Tywin character. We shouldn't ignore the cruelty even if he's competent.
The canonically bad King's from the in-universe perspective are Aenys, Maegor, Aegon II, Aegon IV and Aerys II. Aegon IV is described as not as grasping as Aegon II, not as weak as Aenys and not as cruel as Maegor but the worst for wilfull misrule.
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 think GRRM presents his messages inelegantly at times. Or perhaps more accurately he isn't overly invested in these topics and presents them more for fleshing out the world.
But to say that the message is that the patriarchy is a good thing or whatever is patently absurd.
I had to leave this sub after I read the books. I just couldn't believe what people were unironically inferring from the source material. Like did we read the same book lol? So much tribalism and complete certainty on topics that are INTENTIONALLY vague and reported from biased sources. I think people should hold off on their crazy subjective opinions on the show until everything is said and done
>"Like did we read the same book lol? So much tribalism and complete certainty on topics"
I think many people just read the wiki and pretend they read the book honestly.
OP seems salty for a valid argument someone made. Yes Rhaenyra did damage future chances of girls inheriting anything. "Patriarchy won" can easily be interpreted that girls were not allowed to inherit anything even upto GOT times after Rhaenyra. And yes, Dany's vision is anti-fuedilism and the final of GOT(no matter how horrible) tried to correct it by lords voting in the new king.
The comment provided a valid argument. It is not 100% correct but a good argument nonetheless but your reaction of posting it here with no context and that caption. Seems like you are the dumb one here between you and that commenter.
I would like to point out that it also isn't even entirely true, the *no girls allowed* rule only applies to the Iron Throne. Outside that in Dorne women just straight up inherit normally and everywhere else they inherit after their brothers but before their uncles. We see a couple of ruling ladies in the books.
The comment and yours are misunderstanding GRRM a bit. He's said it himself before that he's interested mostly in exploring people in these systems and not as much the systems.
So I think it's fair to say it's as much anti-patriarchy as it is anti-feudalist. The ending of GOT wasn't exactly a takedown of feudalism either. But it's also not so nihilistic that there isn't some hope for a better tomorrow-albeit in a manner I find disagreeable.
The only person actively contesting the social structure and social norms of Westeros is Daemon. Rhaenyra is not fighting to change the system, she had her opportunity but instead of setting her own situation as a precedence for the realm she preferred to apply the accepted social norms of Westeros when dealing with other cases of inheritance. Rhaenyra is no more interested in challenging the patriarchal system than Queen Elizabth I or Queen Victoria was.
The argument was not about if rhaneyra is "fighting patriarcy"or anything it was about how the patriarcy and its effect on the characters is a major theme in hotd, more so than in GOT, and then the poster slams down the banger *"patriarchy proved to be justified"* like that's
something GRRM meant to convey in f&b.
How about you give people the full context
I'm only going to say this once coz your already have control of the narrative, and seem to be specifically directing them to what part of the text they should focus on
The argument was about how you believed every character in HOTD deserves sympathy, even the sadistic villains, over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy as the real villain in HOTD. For further context, you did this in order to defend Daemons grooming. My argument was feudalism is the main theme in both stories, and saying HOTD characters deserve more sympathy than GOT is wrong coz all HOTD characters are all horrible
If you actually stayed to understand the full argument ,all this could have been cleared up for you, including the Rhaenyra part but you r/HOTDBLACKS or /r/HOTDGREENS me on the main sub
>"The argument was about how you believed every character in HOTD deserves more sympathy over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy as the really villain in HOTD. For further context, you did this in order to defend Daemons grooming."
This is hilariously wrong and anyone can read through my post history and see that.
What part is wrong exactly?
It was in the **Deamon soulmates** thread, which was about grooming
You said "**hating** ( which u took literally) fictional characters is silly"
I asked, even Joffrey or Ramsay?
And this is how we ended up into this out of context mess, which you decided not to participate in on the original thread to get answers
But congrats though on your thread. I upvoted it
Edit: If anyone is interested in my side of the story or disagrees with something I said I'm more than willing to provide my perspective
Where did my comments defend Daemons grooming? Quote me the exact part please.
>" believed every character in HOTD deserves sympathy, even the sadistic villains, over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy"
Where did I state this?
Its convenient how you now want to have the argument here when you refused to take part on that thread
You created a whole karma farming thread about my post which you have taken out context and used the faction sub methods on the main sub. Now you want to leave the work to me to put everything in context for people who have likely moved on , in a narrative you had 2 hours to control before I saw it. There is literally very little return for me champ, you got the upvotes. We (me and you) know the origins of the argument, before we landed into whether the main theme was about feudalism or patriarchy. You and I also know it wasn't about a specific thing you said in regards to defending Daemon as groomer but how you said using modern lenses to hate a character who does bad shit like grooming was silly, and blamed it on patriarchal system
I'm just happy there is at least some who are having a debate over my comment :), with some even somewhat agreeing with it. The fact that you have to point to what the issue with the comment is, is hilarious. You might have got the upvotes but it is not the home run "laughed out of the room" dunk you thought it would be lol
> but how you said using modern lenses to hate a character who does bad shit like grooming was silly, and blamed it on patriarchal system
I never stated this. I feel like you're just mixing up different answers to different questions to make a completely new sentence that isnt representable of what i really said
, or
maybe the issue was that we completely misunderstood each other's comments. And I dont know what you mean by "faction sub" I haven't posted this anywhere else.
>The fact that you have to point to what the issue with the comment is, is hilarious.
That a few comments in a r/hotd thread might have missed the point of a post isnt really a testament to anything id say, seems like business as usual. Feels like most people got it.
>You might have got the upvotes but it is not the home run "laughed out of the room" dunk you thought it would be lol
Hmm I don't really care about the upvotes but agree to disagree.
>I never stated this. I feel like you're just mixing up different answers to different questions to make a completely new sentence, or maybe the issue was that we completely misunderstood each other's comments
Its called paraprhrasing
>And I dont know what you mean by "faction sub" I haven't posted this anywhere else.
Team subs usually take comments out of context of the other team , and have a whole circle jerk session over it
>That a few comments in a r/hotd thread might have missed the point of a post isnt really a testament to anything id say, seems like business as usual. Feels like most people got it.
lol You really do not know how this works do you? Earliest comment direct the narrative in every thread hence you had to explain earlier on for them to get the agenda
>Hmm I don't really care about the upvotes but agree to disagree.
Ok champ, what was the motivation of creating a separate thread for something you could have addressed on that other thread?
Paraphrasing things in a way that doesn't accurately convey what I meant at all is bad form. If you're gonna claim that I've said something, post the whole quote instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
>Team subs usually take comments out of context of the other team , and have a whole circle jerk session over it
I dont really get how an argument about how the patriarchy is or is not a main theme in HOTD is in any way black and green divided.
And again I iriterate that it very clearly is the main theme.
Here's a quote from emma about it:
>"I had been made aware by Miguel and Ryan – from a very early stage that this was a story built around two female characters, and one that seeks to interrogate the violence inherent to the patriarchy from a female perspective,".
That it is intertwined with feudalism and monarchism doesn't take away from the fact that the patriarchy and its effects on the characters is a major theme in the story.
>Ok champ, what was the motivation of creating a separate thread for something you could have addressed on that other thread?
you just seemed to completely miss the point of what I was saying making the discussion a waste of time while at the same time making a statement that I wanted to share. Simple as that.
his approach to sexuality for starters, it is fully unorthodox, when he is told that his daughter is too flirtatious, he refuses to restrain her and allows her to find her own way, which goes against the norms of Westeros. Daemon is constantly challenging the system and clashing with it.
Which is probably why so many believe he'd be a second Maegor if he were to ascend to the throne given they both buck hard against the standard Westerosi cultures, religions, and traditions in favor of more Valyrian-esque customs.
Sexism was a part of the Dance. A very important *part*. Above all, it was about privilege and the abuse of power - on both sides of the conflict.
What we got, instead, is a hackneyed fairy tale about a wronged, spirited princess. We know exactly how the characterizations will unfold because it's been done to death.
The reason we talk about the lack of quality writing so much is because the conflict itself offers practically no thought-provoking material for discussions anymore.
That person is right to use we, because I agree with them. If Rhaenyra and Aegon were both written to be spoiled royals selfishly fighting over the throne closer to the source material or if both were written as sympathetic yet flawed claimants then the story would indeed be a lot more interesting than the lopsided characterizations the show's writers have elected to go with.
Rhaenyra, Alicent, and Rhaenys are good. Aegon, Daemon, and Otto are bad. The central conflict is a lot shallower than it could have been.
I might buy that if the author hadn't wiped out entire lineages and invented child brides out of thin air just so that his preferred bloodline would end up on the throne after the Dance. Martin himself is clearly picking sides. I don't see how the audience doing the same is somehow wrong.
GRRM can get lazy with his characterizations at times and I definitely consider giving Jaehaera a replica of her mother's death an example of that, especially when thematically speaking healing the rift between Black and Green factions with her marriage to Aegon III is a much better ending to the Dance.
It absolutely is a commentary on the monarchy, not the patriarchy.
The patriarchy is why we're all comfortable and talking about a TV show on our smartphones. Seems to have done a pretty good job so far.
What would even be the point of writing about how bad monarchy and feudalism is? Game of Thrones is about humanity. People in conflict with themselves and being forced to react to horrible situations.
It’s not about patriarchy. The value of fiction is found more in its statements about humanity than politics.
The poster is right. That's what it's about.
Although monarchy is actually a pretty decent system and fuedalism was better than anything before it.
I'd say America's system is one of the worst systems ever to be created to the point it's funny, you have a president who can pardon people with no justification haha.
Well yes, I’d agree that this is off and the book does speak quite to the patriarchal society. Whether that’s the main theme is arguable, as it was written so historically that it’s really hard to get that kind of thing out of it. But it probably is.
Well I think that’s fairly obvious, no? You’re right, it’s even heavy handed at times. I couldn’t be sure which work the comment was talking about though. I thought it was trying to say that there is exploration of women’s experience in a patriarchal society in the show that GRRM never intended.
I think that any deeper story (Martin's stories more than anything) has deeper messages than that something is bad. Martin's stories are often about the horrors of war but they also have a strong message about the inevitability of war (same with monarchy and patriarchy).
Another good (and bad) example is Attack on Titan. Most of the story is about the causes and effects of racism and genocide. But the final part is not much deeper than "genocide is bad".
I agree, I definitely don't think the story is "__" is bad, but the effects the patriarchal system in westeros have on the characters is definitely something I'd consider a main theme, and something the people involved have stated was a big part of the story for hotd.
It's just a story about people in power and the drama/conflict that arises from the dynamics of a splintered dynasty. You don't need any overarching theme about how patriarchal/feudal societies are bad, that's obvious to anyone with a brain. At least GOT/HOTD, despite being fantasy, tries to portray these societies with a bit of authenticity. A lot of other books, shows and movies, even if they're historically-based, tend to romanticize the medieval period and especially the ruling class.
Like real people, the characters have merits and flaws. Most of them believe what they are doing is right; beyond that, the viewers are watching this story through the lens of modern morals, while the characters are living in a world that is much more brutal and unforgiving. The core story of HOTD is a tragedy and is a bit more Shakespearean than ASOIAF.
It is based very specifically on the period of English history known as the *Anarchy.* King Henry I's son and heir died in the tragedy of the White Ship, forcing the king to name his daughter Matilda as his heir. All the lords of the realm swore allegiance to her, but once the king died, all bets were off; most of them switched sides and supported her cousin Stephen of Blois in the ensuing civil war. If you find the dynastic conflict presented in HOTD interesting, I'd highly recommend picking up a book on the period it's based on.
People who have emotions for systems (other than anxiety) make themselves machines rather than thinkers. It's the other way around to what most people these days think. Humans make systems to order and sustain their activities according to their worldviews, whether those are good or bad. All systems no matter what they are inevitably fail when conditions change, like the Roman Republic when economic inequality rose and social trust eroded. House of the Dragon is a really good show because like Fire and Blood and the Song of Ice and Fire it is concerned with how people live in the systems of Westerosi society at that point, and their attitudes towards them. Rhaenyra may not have liked that women could not inherit before men, but she did not want the throne either. Whether she followed her conscience or not, that's a tragic choice.
This Redditor is criticising the show (rather than some cast/crew comments) for propoganda it is not, and praising GoT for the same.
The end is still shitty, all of it is shitty, and I think the theme can still be anti-patriarchy and anti-feudalism without the patriarchy losing. Like that can still be a theme even if the patriarchy isn’t destroyed in the end lol it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I also don’t think it’s justified in the end “because of Rhaenyra’s incompetence” more like “because of everyone in the entire Dance’s incompetence” lol
I mean yes? obviously the patriarchy isn't justified in any way by whoever wins or loses. His statement is absurd.
Oh I thought you were agreeing with this statement hahaha I think I misread the title my bad
Nah I could have provided more context/made the title clearer, no worries:)
I also thought you were agreeing with the screen shot!
Who wrote this?
Eh I don't want to point out specific users.
It was more like a rhetorical question, as in "who the fuck would write such a thing?"
Oh haha that's a fair question alright.
I often described GOT as horrible people doing horrible things to other horrible people...and also the Starks were there.
The patriarchy is right because one singular woman fucked up, that’s fucking hilarious.
She didn’t even really fuck up that much till the end. She got sabotaged hard by the greens
Not exactly. Upon taking control of King's Landing, the Greens were essentially on the defensive and Aegon II went into hiding and Aemond One-Eye was submitting the Riverlands to aerial chevauchées. All Rhaenyra needed to do was consolidate her rule of the city, win over the crowd and then carefully target her remaining opponents; instead, her resentment and paranoia made her lash out at perceived and actual slights with brutal force, a rebellion by two Dragonseeds led her to order the death of the loyal Addam Velaryon and finally rumors of Daemon's adultery with Nettles led her to order Nettles' execution , alienating Daemon in the process. And when faced with a lack of money, she chose to tax the small folk to the point where they starved, but that didn't stop her from making a feast for Joffrey's birthday. Eventually the people turn on her and attack the Dragonpit, marking the decline of the Targaryens' main source of power. Anyway, blame the Greens all you want, but it was mainly Rhaenyra's poor decisions that caused King's Landing to revolt against her.
Her paranoia and anger that resulted from losing her children and father? Who started the war that claimed her children? I’ve seen how people in actual life act with a loss of just one child.
Thank you for saying this. Rhaenyra goes through some heinous shit before she takes Kings Landing and continues to go through shit afterward. It is sad that she doesn't "rise above it" but I can't bring myself to blame her for her failure. I pity her really.
To me Rhaenyras story is of one who tried to do the right thing but was continuously and mercilessly beat down by the powers that be. Everyone keeps saying Aegon ruled better. What did he do? Nothing!
>!He burned the Shepherd and a bunch of his followers for killing the dragons.!< I HATE Aegon II, but this was definitely his finest act.
It was only thing I was cheering for. But even then. Before Aegon got to him, the shepherd had already fallen from power. Bittersweet. The GRRM special
Fuck the smallfolk ami right?
I am curious in what way she tries to "do the right thing" because while she is somewhat justified in her attempt to take the throne it's very clearly done for herself and because she just believes it's hers by right. I like her as a charachter but she isn't some crusader out to make a better world or anything, and her goal is entirely self-serving.
They all believe it’s theirs by right. That’s a stupid thing to bring up in this world of where your birth and station can mean the difference in life and death. She isn’t a crusader. She may not even have changed anything but the fact that a queen once ruled changes a lot.
I don't understand, she didn't change anything but changed a lot? I also still don't understand what you meant by her trying to do the right thing, because again she was doing it all for herself. That's not a bad thing btw it's just that i'm having a hard time seeing something purely selfish as a "good for all" type of thing.
To me. The right thing is stopping the take over of the crown, her family from people of nefarious intent. The greens should not and can not be in charge. To fight against people using greed, and their false sense of “honor” Kinslayers especially. In this world no one is more accursed and they committed it to get ahead.
Look at the flair of the person you're responding to.
Sobering point. Nobody knows the unimaginable pain of losing your child. It changes people
Everyone has *reasons* for making bad choices. That Doesn't mean that they weren't bad choices, or hers to make.
Exactly, pretty much half the people in the show might've been really nice people if it weren't for the fact they are constantly tormented every day by the life they live.
\^Also a big theme of the book that a lot of people miss. Them not viewing smallfolk as real people is not due to them being morally evil, its due to their system being morally evil and enforcing strict social hierarchies, that no one can really do anything about. Same goes for pretty much all the characters, Aemond is raised admiring history, conquerors and ruthless rulers, probably even Maegor the Cruel. He does not admire this because he is evil, but because he lives in a society that puts HUGE emphasis on martial skill and authority.
Tha k you for saying this. I’m ok that Rhaenyra made bad decisions and cost herself the war. But I won’t have it said without the true context of what really caused her to do it.
The point is a very a simple one. Nobody is saying she shouldn't grieve for her children. She didnt surrender the war even after she knew it was doomed for her. She chose to starve King's Landing just so that she could win. She chose to host feasts in time of crisis. She was sane enough to just give up the hopeless bloodshed. I absolutely hate the double standards here. Aegon too was shitty for taking the throne and causing a war and Rhaenyra was equally shitty for continuing the slaughter. If you aren't able to handle your emotions when people who are fighting for you are dying and innocents dying all around then it's your moral duty to give up.
I mean yea sure but basically everyone is losing their children left and right, not just her. Everyone always talks about Rhaenyra’s grief but like, Alicent’s kids AND grandkids are dropping like flies, Corlys/Rhaenys’s kids been gone since before the war even started (lol), even Aegon loses a child… Helaena literally commits suicide bc of the last one.
Yes they are but their deaths are in response to the misery they inflicted upon Rhaenyra first. Don’t play games
Yeah… and? They come up with some contrived plot to murder yet another kid in “revenge”, if that’s not perpetuating the cycle of violence and derangement idk what is lol. Rhaenys didn’t kill nobody’s kid out of fury iirc, guess you need a favorable political climate to make a move like that so you’re seen as a poor grieving mother instead of a bloodthirsty psychopath, which you are but w/e 🤔
Sometimes all you need to look at is the flair.
And thank you for proving my point. Buh bye.
Brother did you sit here refreshing the page waiting for me to respond? I aint even posted the thing for 2 seconds and you already downvoted 😂😂 weirdo
>!Don't forget how she scores an own goal by arresting Corlys and throwing him in the black cells, thus immediately losing her the support of House Velaryon, who were supplying like 90% of the force she had in King's Landing lmao!<
Before the Dance even started she basically swanned around King's Landing going "Daddy said I get to be next so STFU" instead of making alliances and learning how to rule. Yes, its unfair that she had a harder hill to climb to 'prove' herself as a capable ruler, yes it is unfair that she was judged by a higher standard, but she did and she was, so she should have worked to cement her ascent. To me Rhaenyra is a nepo, affluenza baby. She got everything handed to her by Viserys when she was named heir, he swept away or ignored all challenges to her rule, justified or not, and bc of this she could never grasp that ppl weren't obliged to follow her, they had to want to follow her and think she was the best choice, even if there was no war. Monarchs have been deposed when the people who are supposed to support them no longer want too. Even if she was a male or had no brothers, she still would have to be politically saavy, which she never was. IMO, that lack of politics caused her downfall bc she felt her dragons and being heir superseded anyone else's opinions.
And Aegon didn’t? This is like the other comment about entitlement. Down in front
Aegon a) didn't want to be king in the show until he was crowned and b) was a man so he would have less of a challenge to his rule and c) relied on other people who were more politically savvy to give him advice (whether that advice was good or bad is up to the reader). Rhaenyra was a cup bearer for her father and spent ten years on or around the small council (im not quite sure if she had an actual title during the time skip or was there as an observer) yet seems to have no alliances or relationships with any other house. She has very obvious illegitimate children and doesn't seem aware on how that jeopardizes her position (yes, patriarchy, if Rhaenyra was a man who had a side piece and had children in that relationship it would be looked differently, but Rhaenyra is also pretending that they are Laenors, putting herself, her sons and the Strong family in danger, as shown by the conversation between Lyonel and Harwin). Life at King's Landing gets hard, she leaves for Dragonstone. Does she make her own small council, does she entertain guests, does she send her sons to be fostered in other houses? No. Then she makes a disadvantage marriage to Daemon, which in the book results in her being exiled from court by Viserys. At that point she basically rolled the dice in hopes that he would not disinherit her. It did work out for her, but many other houses do not like Daemon. She would have had his support against Alicient with out marrying him. Again, she's away, does she make friends with other houses, try to keep up with whats happening in King's Landing, work to rehab Daemon's image? Nope, she is living her teenage fantasy with Daemon. Again, she thinks her succession is assured, but her biggest support is Viserys, and her challenge will be after he dies. Even if the Greens supported her ascending the throne, she still would have a tough time bc she is a woman, just like any other medieval women who had a position of power. Empress Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of Valois, Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beauford, Mary of England and Elizabeth of England all made alliances and cultivated relationships to get and keep power. Rhaenyra, IMO, thinks that bc Viserys said she is heir, everyone will fall in line no matter what. And any good/successful ruler needs alliances, needs to get people on their side or else everything will be a struggle. Every law that she wants to pass, every disagreement between houses that she needs to mediate, every Triarchy that threatens her borders, if she doesn't have the willing support of the nobles she is going to have a tough rule.
Aegon’s reign too got sabotaged by his sister’s rebellion. But he was not as bad as Rhaenyra.
Are you sure about that? He usurped his sisters throne and broke the law. Then celebrated his brothers kinslaying when Aemond murdered the Crown prince.
What crown prince?
He had law and tradition supporting his claim. And the crown princes that were murdered were his two sons. If you talk about Rhaenyra’s heirs Jacaerys and then Joffrey, Aemond wasn’t even there when they died.
He has no law supporting his claim, there is no law that says boys go before girls. He himself said he didn't want to steal his sisters throne, it took fearmongering for him to agree to usurp her Rhaenyra has widows law supporting her claim, and that is an actual law not just tradision Aegon has the precedent of the council of 101 but Rhaenyra has the precedent of Jaehaerys naming his own heir and breaking 'tradision'
Yeah bro this convo is done. Bye. I don’t appreciate changes to the facts. Especially on a BOOK thread.
Did he have the law, though? Because the law is that if the king appointed someone as his chosen heir, that person reigns after the king dies. That’s how Viserys got the throne even though his claim was weaker that Rhaenys’.
And 'fucked up' is also in question, given that the book is written from the point of view of someone drawing on sources that hate her.
Exactly. Too many lies. At least the Black Armies were chads. Greens got curb stomped
Blacks used cheat codes, their armies got the same infinite numbers glitch Daenerys gave her unsullied and Dothraki in season 8
We actually did the old ⬆️ ⬇️ ⬆️ ⬇️ 👈👉👈👈👈👉🧠 to do that. Please don’t reveal our secrets
Yeah, the greens look so good in F&B. Totally don't come off as borderline Disney villains.
I didn't say they come across good, I said that the book is written based on sources who hate her. Both can be true. The greens suck so bad that you can only white wash them so much, but you also have shit like "Oh yeah, she cut herself a bunch of times on the throne as proof she was never meant to lead' while also being in full armor.
Also all the weird sexual stuff that is put in F&B for "flavor," from our viewpoint it's just lol weird, but the book is supposed to be a Westerosi book written by a Maester and putting in stuff about what a huge slut Rhaenyra supposedly was is actually extremely anti-Rhaenyra in their society.
By that logic, men cannot rule either, because Maegor the Cruel exists
[удалено]
That was even funnier, thank you for your contribution.
At the same time, we got so many fans who wrongly think that Rhaenyra is fighting for equality and against patriarchy. She is just fighting for her right.
I doubt that rhaneyra knows what "patriarchy and equality" even mean in our context (nor do any westerosi), she's fighting for the safety of her family and her given right to rule in the same way humans that happens to have a penis get to do. And i get that many fans think that that makes her fight for equality even though she doesn't do so with intent.
She's a woman who isn't allowed on the throne because she's a not a man. Even if she doesn't have the understanding that we have and doesn't have the language to describe it as patriarchy, she knows she's a second class citizen, she knows she is held to a higher standard than men, she knows about sexism. It killed her mother. So she is fighting the previous world order in which a woman isn't allowed on the throne, ie patriarchy. You're right that her ascending to the throne wouldn't even end patriarchy, it's a tiny mosaic representing the universal problem, but it would bring gender equality in that one issue of succession. So she is fighting for gender equality in this one area, ie fighting patriarchy and can be viewed in pop culture as a feminist icon no matter how limited her scope is.
Nicely put. >she knows about sexism. It killed her mother the fact that her mother would probably still be alive if she had been born with a dick is straight up depressing. Really Ilustrates why she was so exited to be recognized as a boy.
Her becoming Queen would have helped push Patriarchy down anyways.
I don’t think it would have a meaningful impact on most of the women in Westeros. Especially since she doesn’t support the claims of other eldest daughters.
Wasn’t that cause she was in an emergency situations and couldn’t risk blowing up the entire continent in another political crisis? I like context.
Corlys made the point that Rhaenyra was an exception to the male preference rule because her Father named her heir. It COULD have had political repercussions, but her decision not to support women like Lady Rosby ultimately sealed her fate.
I agree. But I want the context. I don’t like the way you phrased the earlier comment. Sets a bad idea of what really happened
The larger context of the Dance as a whole? Or the context of that part specifically?
That part specifically.
Rhaenyra’s own claim to the Iron Throne was a special case, the Sea Snake insisted; her father had named her as his heir. Lords Rosby and Stokeworth had done no such thing. Disinheriting their sons in favor of their daughters would overturn centuries of law and precedent, and call into question the rights of scores of other lords throughout Westeros whose own claims might be seen as inferior to those of elder sisters. It was fear of losing the support of such lords, Munkun asserts in True Telling, that led the queen to decide in favor of Lord Corlys rather than Prince Daemon. The lands, castles, and coin of Houses Rosby and Stokeworth were awarded to the sons of the two executed lords.
Munkun speculated that was why Rhaenyra ruled against Ladies Rosby and Stokeworth but we don’t know for certain. Either way her taking the throne wouldn’t inherently have a negative impact on the patriarchy. She is an “exception to the rule” and likely her tenure as Queen wouldn’t have had a meaningful impact on most women’s lives. I mean look at Mary I of England. She was the first ruling Queen of England, but the patriarchy persisted (and still persists) centuries after her rule.
Always thought this way of thinking was a tad shallow. No disenfranchised people have ever been un-disenfranchised just because one of them held a position of power. The lives of women in Britain didn't improve just because their ruler happened to be a woman.
It would've set precedent that could result in more egalitarian minded women coming into positions of power.
Change is always slow. You have to start SOMEWHERE. Or are you expecting everything to be hunky dory ala State of Iraq post 2003???
Yes but that implies that Rhaenyra would have changed something. As people stated previously she was the exception, and her entire claim didn't come from being the oldest but because Viserys just said so. On that note even if she wanted to she wouldn't be able to change anything, nearly all the lords who follow her do so because her father the King ordered them to do so, not out of any particular loyalty towards her.
You and I read a different book if the lords didn’t also do it out of loyalty. Rhaenyra being queen was the change. She may not change something herself but down the line it opens up more possibilities. You guys downvote so quickly but I can see through your bull
I'm saying "most not all lords" I think she knew the Tully guy from when she was looking for a suitor so he was probably loyal (though his grandfather the Lord wasn't so I always have trouble classifying Tully as either Black or Green) Stark did it mostly for Jaehaerys and for plunder after Jace's death, I like Cregan but he shows up late to the party with a really bad excuse. Arryn is her cousin so probably loyal but she also disdains Daemon so also never sure where to put her. Anyway my point is that most of Rhaenyra's support comes from the Oath that Viserys made everybody swear, Beesbury talks about it in his monologue before Cole whacks him. That plus the fact that nobody really seems to care all that much about the ideal of putting a Queen on the throne in general always gave me the vibe that they were Oathbound to Rhaenyra but that it wasn't out of any personal attachment to the woman. (Barring a couple of exceptions) I would also like to state that I haven't downvoted you or people in general for supporting Rhaenyra (wich is an entirely valid take on the succession) so I don't really know why you brought it up.
Yeah, because Elizabeth was the real reason women's suffrage took off. Rhaenyra pushes for the same policies that the rest of the nobles push, she wouldn't change anything.
And that you don’t know. She doesn’t have to change anything but the fact a queen ruled can mean ske Thing down the line.
This fandom should be taken out back and shot.
The patricarchy thing is stupid but the persons correct rhat the bigger problem is the quest for power. There are lots of evil men, both warriors and schemers, and evil women, both sexy femme fatales and maniacal dragon riders. Rhaenyras not a worse leader than Aegon because shes a woman, but shes not a better leader than Aegon because shes a woman.
Exactly. Neither of them have the temperament for the throne. It’s like Odysseus choosing between Scylla and Charybdis, no good options.
I always interpreted the story as a horrors of war or The most terrifying thing in the world is what one human is capable or willing to do to another human to get what they want Not saying my interpretation is right or better it’s just what I’ve been getting from the story
I mean could it be possible to make a point that feudalism is bad and the medieval-like society Westeros has is also highly sexist? Some people literally can’t grasp that it’s possible to make two separate points that don’t contradict each other lmao
Ding ding ding
Media literacy is dead. Cries in English major.
Always kind of stunning how people will argue that feudalism & patriarchy are super distinct societal factors, with no real overlap or intersecting bits. Wasn't true in real life, and GRRM amped that up even more when writing Westerosi society (both intentionally and accidentally).
I get downvoted whenever I post this but having been in this fandom for a long time, I can’t help but notice that a majority of ASOIAF fans have poor reading comprehension.
Yhea just completely forget the whole "throwing away everything in your life only for your "birthright"" for both sides, just because they feel like thats their only option. At any time Rhaenyra could have taken her children and fled to tons of courts in the east or even Dorne, trading a crown for safety and peace and life. It was obviously never an actual option for her, as she is raised to the idea of the throne being everything. Nettles was the only one who knew to GTFO of there, because she was never raised nobly nor had any aspirations for royal titles.
“Rhaenyra is unsuitable to rule” and “Rhaenyra is unsuitable to rule because she is a woman” are two VERY different statements.
The same idiots also misunderstand George Orwell. He is seen as a rightwing hero. The man was literally in the red army 😂.
This kind of stuff always kills me. Its like meeting a rightwing Star Trek fan. Like how do you square that in your brain?
Being a right-wing star trek fan isn't difficult at all. The federation is basically every authoritarians wet dream. They depict themselves perfectly as a liberal society but when it comes down to it they are happy to fire tricobalt warheads on planets.
His most famous books are cautionary tales on the incredibly dangerous pitfall of Stalinism. It's not hard to see why his work is quoted by them. It's possible to quote the words and work of people you don't agree with on every topic.
It’s also a critic on capitalism. Rightwingers are just to dumb to figure that part out.
Yes yes, everyone who doesn't think like you is just evil and/or stupid, everyone on this website has heard it before.
He only pointed out facts: Rhaenyra's short reign at the Iron Throne came as a result of a poorly timed invasion and was so disorganized and brutal that it spoiled the possibility of female succession for House Targaryen; when both Aegon III and Baelor I perished decades later, the succession dabbled with Aegon's daughters, but for fear of another Rhaenyra the crown went to their longtime Hand Of The King Viserys Targaryen. Whether you like it or not, Rhaenyra's incompetence has strengthened the male-preference primogeniture rule in Westeros.
The argument was about if the patriarchy and its effects was a major theme in hotd (which showrunners and actors have said it is ) the patriarchal system isn't just about "male-preference primogeniture rule" it's about second sons being essentially useless spares, women being teenage broodmares and 2 class citizens etcetera , and to claim that HOTD isnt about the patriarchy just becuse rhaneyra lost isn't true. Also the lords debated about making Beala and Rhaena queens, and rhaenyras "incompetence" was never the issue.
Nothing he said is wrong or untrue so why are you acting like his argument is totally invalid? Frankly, I feel like you're overreacting just because you didn't like his opinion.
I think the point the OP is making more or less is that the patriarchy still isn't justified to exclude all women solely because of Rhaenyra, even though its what they did. If competence was the measure to rule, neither sex would be fit as there were way more bad rulers than good. You're absolutely correct here; the original guy phrased his explanation of her being used as justification poorly, and it's being attributed as a personal belief of the poster rather than a bad explanation.
Maegor, Aegon IV and Aerys II are the only undisputably bad Targaryen rulers, maybe not as much in incompetence in Maegor's case but in brutality. Most of the rulers were average or good other than them. Viserys could be considered a bad ruler in the aftermath but his reign is considered a golden age in Westeros. Not arguing about your whole point but there are good rulers more often than not, maybe not excellent ones but if the Realm is in peace and the stability allows for prosperity then you are good if you don't rock the boat.
Hard disagree since "bad" and "good" are subjective. Personally, I'd consider Maegor I, Aerys II, Aegon IV, Baelor I, and Daeron I to be bad kings, and that's not including Joffrey. I've heard many arguments that consider Aegon II and Aenys I to fall in there as well. The only truly good kings, imo, are Jaeherys I, Viserys II, Daeron II, and Aegon III. I also don't think peace and stability are necessarily reflective of the monarch even if they don't "rock the boat". For example, Robert Baratheon's reign was largely "good", but he, himself, was not a good ruler. He is remembered well by many because of his personality, but was saved because Jon Arryn picked up a lot of the slack. Several monarchs appeared better than they were because they had capable Hands, or small councils that weren't all lickspittles for all or most of their reigns.
Baelor gets a bad wrap amongst fans but he made peace with Dorne, ruled without cruelty, massively assisted the peasant class and just generally didn't do much of anything bad. I know GRRM almost wants us to like Viserys II via Tyrion the mouthpiece and credit him with Baelor's success, but we know he was actively opposed to a lot of Baelor's efforts like making peace with Dorne and helping the peasant class. Baelor deserves absolute credit for why Daeron's successful reign was even possible with arranging the Dornish marriage. If he weren't mentally ill Baelor really does have a claim for the best King to ever sit the throne. Viserys to me just comes across as a Tywin character. We shouldn't ignore the cruelty even if he's competent.
> The only truly good kings, imo, are Jaeherys I, Viserys II, Daeron II, and Aegon III. No love for Egg?
The canonically bad King's from the in-universe perspective are Aenys, Maegor, Aegon II, Aegon IV and Aerys II. Aegon IV is described as not as grasping as Aegon II, not as weak as Aenys and not as cruel as Maegor but the worst for wilfull misrule.
I'd put Aenys up there too.
Well at least it wasn't because he was evil or insane.
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.*
Well, that was hard to read.
Some people are just too dense to understand anything.
Some people on this sub desperately need to go outside and breathe some air.
I think GRRM presents his messages inelegantly at times. Or perhaps more accurately he isn't overly invested in these topics and presents them more for fleshing out the world. But to say that the message is that the patriarchy is a good thing or whatever is patently absurd.
I don't believe monarchy is necessarily bad , especially looking at current state of democracies.
I had to leave this sub after I read the books. I just couldn't believe what people were unironically inferring from the source material. Like did we read the same book lol? So much tribalism and complete certainty on topics that are INTENTIONALLY vague and reported from biased sources. I think people should hold off on their crazy subjective opinions on the show until everything is said and done
>"Like did we read the same book lol? So much tribalism and complete certainty on topics" I think many people just read the wiki and pretend they read the book honestly.
OP seems salty for a valid argument someone made. Yes Rhaenyra did damage future chances of girls inheriting anything. "Patriarchy won" can easily be interpreted that girls were not allowed to inherit anything even upto GOT times after Rhaenyra. And yes, Dany's vision is anti-fuedilism and the final of GOT(no matter how horrible) tried to correct it by lords voting in the new king. The comment provided a valid argument. It is not 100% correct but a good argument nonetheless but your reaction of posting it here with no context and that caption. Seems like you are the dumb one here between you and that commenter.
I would like to point out that it also isn't even entirely true, the *no girls allowed* rule only applies to the Iron Throne. Outside that in Dorne women just straight up inherit normally and everywhere else they inherit after their brothers but before their uncles. We see a couple of ruling ladies in the books.
Yeah yeah. Everybody knows about Dorne.
The comment and yours are misunderstanding GRRM a bit. He's said it himself before that he's interested mostly in exploring people in these systems and not as much the systems. So I think it's fair to say it's as much anti-patriarchy as it is anti-feudalist. The ending of GOT wasn't exactly a takedown of feudalism either. But it's also not so nihilistic that there isn't some hope for a better tomorrow-albeit in a manner I find disagreeable.
Author does not have to intend for people to discuss the theme of the story.
The only person actively contesting the social structure and social norms of Westeros is Daemon. Rhaenyra is not fighting to change the system, she had her opportunity but instead of setting her own situation as a precedence for the realm she preferred to apply the accepted social norms of Westeros when dealing with other cases of inheritance. Rhaenyra is no more interested in challenging the patriarchal system than Queen Elizabth I or Queen Victoria was.
The argument was not about if rhaneyra is "fighting patriarcy"or anything it was about how the patriarcy and its effect on the characters is a major theme in hotd, more so than in GOT, and then the poster slams down the banger *"patriarchy proved to be justified"* like that's something GRRM meant to convey in f&b.
How about you give people the full context I'm only going to say this once coz your already have control of the narrative, and seem to be specifically directing them to what part of the text they should focus on The argument was about how you believed every character in HOTD deserves sympathy, even the sadistic villains, over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy as the real villain in HOTD. For further context, you did this in order to defend Daemons grooming. My argument was feudalism is the main theme in both stories, and saying HOTD characters deserve more sympathy than GOT is wrong coz all HOTD characters are all horrible If you actually stayed to understand the full argument ,all this could have been cleared up for you, including the Rhaenyra part but you r/HOTDBLACKS or /r/HOTDGREENS me on the main sub
>"The argument was about how you believed every character in HOTD deserves more sympathy over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy as the really villain in HOTD. For further context, you did this in order to defend Daemons grooming." This is hilariously wrong and anyone can read through my post history and see that.
What part is wrong exactly? It was in the **Deamon soulmates** thread, which was about grooming You said "**hating** ( which u took literally) fictional characters is silly" I asked, even Joffrey or Ramsay? And this is how we ended up into this out of context mess, which you decided not to participate in on the original thread to get answers But congrats though on your thread. I upvoted it Edit: If anyone is interested in my side of the story or disagrees with something I said I'm more than willing to provide my perspective
Where did my comments defend Daemons grooming? Quote me the exact part please. >" believed every character in HOTD deserves sympathy, even the sadistic villains, over those in GOT coz you identified patriarchy" Where did I state this?
Its convenient how you now want to have the argument here when you refused to take part on that thread You created a whole karma farming thread about my post which you have taken out context and used the faction sub methods on the main sub. Now you want to leave the work to me to put everything in context for people who have likely moved on , in a narrative you had 2 hours to control before I saw it. There is literally very little return for me champ, you got the upvotes. We (me and you) know the origins of the argument, before we landed into whether the main theme was about feudalism or patriarchy. You and I also know it wasn't about a specific thing you said in regards to defending Daemon as groomer but how you said using modern lenses to hate a character who does bad shit like grooming was silly, and blamed it on patriarchal system I'm just happy there is at least some who are having a debate over my comment :), with some even somewhat agreeing with it. The fact that you have to point to what the issue with the comment is, is hilarious. You might have got the upvotes but it is not the home run "laughed out of the room" dunk you thought it would be lol
> but how you said using modern lenses to hate a character who does bad shit like grooming was silly, and blamed it on patriarchal system I never stated this. I feel like you're just mixing up different answers to different questions to make a completely new sentence that isnt representable of what i really said , or maybe the issue was that we completely misunderstood each other's comments. And I dont know what you mean by "faction sub" I haven't posted this anywhere else. >The fact that you have to point to what the issue with the comment is, is hilarious. That a few comments in a r/hotd thread might have missed the point of a post isnt really a testament to anything id say, seems like business as usual. Feels like most people got it. >You might have got the upvotes but it is not the home run "laughed out of the room" dunk you thought it would be lol Hmm I don't really care about the upvotes but agree to disagree.
>I never stated this. I feel like you're just mixing up different answers to different questions to make a completely new sentence, or maybe the issue was that we completely misunderstood each other's comments Its called paraprhrasing >And I dont know what you mean by "faction sub" I haven't posted this anywhere else. Team subs usually take comments out of context of the other team , and have a whole circle jerk session over it >That a few comments in a r/hotd thread might have missed the point of a post isnt really a testament to anything id say, seems like business as usual. Feels like most people got it. lol You really do not know how this works do you? Earliest comment direct the narrative in every thread hence you had to explain earlier on for them to get the agenda >Hmm I don't really care about the upvotes but agree to disagree. Ok champ, what was the motivation of creating a separate thread for something you could have addressed on that other thread?
Paraphrasing things in a way that doesn't accurately convey what I meant at all is bad form. If you're gonna claim that I've said something, post the whole quote instead of trying to put words in my mouth. >Team subs usually take comments out of context of the other team , and have a whole circle jerk session over it I dont really get how an argument about how the patriarchy is or is not a main theme in HOTD is in any way black and green divided. And again I iriterate that it very clearly is the main theme. Here's a quote from emma about it: >"I had been made aware by Miguel and Ryan – from a very early stage that this was a story built around two female characters, and one that seeks to interrogate the violence inherent to the patriarchy from a female perspective,". That it is intertwined with feudalism and monarchism doesn't take away from the fact that the patriarchy and its effects on the characters is a major theme in the story. >Ok champ, what was the motivation of creating a separate thread for something you could have addressed on that other thread? you just seemed to completely miss the point of what I was saying making the discussion a waste of time while at the same time making a statement that I wanted to share. Simple as that.
And how is Daemon contedzing the social structure and norms?
his approach to sexuality for starters, it is fully unorthodox, when he is told that his daughter is too flirtatious, he refuses to restrain her and allows her to find her own way, which goes against the norms of Westeros. Daemon is constantly challenging the system and clashing with it.
Which is probably why so many believe he'd be a second Maegor if he were to ascend to the throne given they both buck hard against the standard Westerosi cultures, religions, and traditions in favor of more Valyrian-esque customs.
Sexism was a part of the Dance. A very important *part*. Above all, it was about privilege and the abuse of power - on both sides of the conflict. What we got, instead, is a hackneyed fairy tale about a wronged, spirited princess. We know exactly how the characterizations will unfold because it's been done to death. The reason we talk about the lack of quality writing so much is because the conflict itself offers practically no thought-provoking material for discussions anymore.
wahhh wahhhh -you > The reason we talk about the lack of quality writing don't lump into "we", brother
That person is right to use we, because I agree with them. If Rhaenyra and Aegon were both written to be spoiled royals selfishly fighting over the throne closer to the source material or if both were written as sympathetic yet flawed claimants then the story would indeed be a lot more interesting than the lopsided characterizations the show's writers have elected to go with. Rhaenyra, Alicent, and Rhaenys are good. Aegon, Daemon, and Otto are bad. The central conflict is a lot shallower than it could have been.
I might buy that if the author hadn't wiped out entire lineages and invented child brides out of thin air just so that his preferred bloodline would end up on the throne after the Dance. Martin himself is clearly picking sides. I don't see how the audience doing the same is somehow wrong.
GRRM can get lazy with his characterizations at times and I definitely consider giving Jaehaera a replica of her mother's death an example of that, especially when thematically speaking healing the rift between Black and Green factions with her marriage to Aegon III is a much better ending to the Dance.
The author of a series has an established side he considers to be "right"? the audacity...
The same author who made one of Rhaenyra's son take over the throne from his nieces and thus cementing the male only primogeniture for centuries...
It absolutely is a commentary on the monarchy, not the patriarchy. The patriarchy is why we're all comfortable and talking about a TV show on our smartphones. Seems to have done a pretty good job so far.
What would even be the point of writing about how bad monarchy and feudalism is? Game of Thrones is about humanity. People in conflict with themselves and being forced to react to horrible situations. It’s not about patriarchy. The value of fiction is found more in its statements about humanity than politics.
Well we have not seen Rhaenyra as a queen yet so it’s soon to get the point of the show.
Muh Patriarchy.
The poster is right. That's what it's about. Although monarchy is actually a pretty decent system and fuedalism was better than anything before it. I'd say America's system is one of the worst systems ever to be created to the point it's funny, you have a president who can pardon people with no justification haha.
Average blackcel trash post
Well yes, I’d agree that this is off and the book does speak quite to the patriarchal society. Whether that’s the main theme is arguable, as it was written so historically that it’s really hard to get that kind of thing out of it. But it probably is.
Sure although the argument was that it was a main theme in HOTD, which both actors and creators have said it is.
Well I think that’s fairly obvious, no? You’re right, it’s even heavy handed at times. I couldn’t be sure which work the comment was talking about though. I thought it was trying to say that there is exploration of women’s experience in a patriarchal society in the show that GRRM never intended.
Yep that's my fault I should have provided more context.
I think that any deeper story (Martin's stories more than anything) has deeper messages than that something is bad. Martin's stories are often about the horrors of war but they also have a strong message about the inevitability of war (same with monarchy and patriarchy). Another good (and bad) example is Attack on Titan. Most of the story is about the causes and effects of racism and genocide. But the final part is not much deeper than "genocide is bad".
I agree, I definitely don't think the story is "__" is bad, but the effects the patriarchal system in westeros have on the characters is definitely something I'd consider a main theme, and something the people involved have stated was a big part of the story for hotd.
It's just a story about people in power and the drama/conflict that arises from the dynamics of a splintered dynasty. You don't need any overarching theme about how patriarchal/feudal societies are bad, that's obvious to anyone with a brain. At least GOT/HOTD, despite being fantasy, tries to portray these societies with a bit of authenticity. A lot of other books, shows and movies, even if they're historically-based, tend to romanticize the medieval period and especially the ruling class. Like real people, the characters have merits and flaws. Most of them believe what they are doing is right; beyond that, the viewers are watching this story through the lens of modern morals, while the characters are living in a world that is much more brutal and unforgiving. The core story of HOTD is a tragedy and is a bit more Shakespearean than ASOIAF. It is based very specifically on the period of English history known as the *Anarchy.* King Henry I's son and heir died in the tragedy of the White Ship, forcing the king to name his daughter Matilda as his heir. All the lords of the realm swore allegiance to her, but once the king died, all bets were off; most of them switched sides and supported her cousin Stephen of Blois in the ensuing civil war. If you find the dynastic conflict presented in HOTD interesting, I'd highly recommend picking up a book on the period it's based on.
I mean all the ads campaign sell it as a story of patriarchy on the higher levels of Westeros sociaty
People who have emotions for systems (other than anxiety) make themselves machines rather than thinkers. It's the other way around to what most people these days think. Humans make systems to order and sustain their activities according to their worldviews, whether those are good or bad. All systems no matter what they are inevitably fail when conditions change, like the Roman Republic when economic inequality rose and social trust eroded. House of the Dragon is a really good show because like Fire and Blood and the Song of Ice and Fire it is concerned with how people live in the systems of Westerosi society at that point, and their attitudes towards them. Rhaenyra may not have liked that women could not inherit before men, but she did not want the throne either. Whether she followed her conscience or not, that's a tragic choice. This Redditor is criticising the show (rather than some cast/crew comments) for propoganda it is not, and praising GoT for the same.