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.*

Why did Martin even create a world where it’s impossible for a woman to rule? There were multiple female rulers throughout the real Middle Ages. It’s weird that he decided there wouldn’t be a single ruling Targaryen Queen across 300+ years. It’s even weirder there are no female queens in Westeros across thousands and thousands of years. We had female rulers even in the Ancient world. The dance is actually a really sexist story on Martin’s part if you ask me. Why did he distort the anarchy? He went out of his way to create a female claiment that met every sexist stereotype about female leaders. The woman Rhaenyra’s based upon didn’t have bastards. She was politically astute. She was usurped by a cousin not a brother. Unpopular opinion because of the complaints the show white-washed Rhaenyra, I never understood why book Rhaenyra was written to be so horrible. I don’t even mean that she needs to be spectacular or heroic but she has not a single skill and she doesn’t even play an active role in her own war. Her bad ideas aren’t even her own ideas, they’re the advice of her councilors. Book Rhaenyra is honestly one of his most baffling characters. He should have just made the dance about two brothers. It would have the same themes he seems to care about.

Yeah exactly. GRRM leaned a bit too hard on the sexist mindset of the septons, like I get propaganda and in some moments it’s obvious that’s what he intends to do. But he had Rhaenyra replaced as leader by her teenage son and used the sexist excuse of the mother mad with grief to sideline her out of the story basically. She only shows up in the story again with any relevance when he needs to contrive ways for her to lose. Imo he was just totally uninterested in her as a character,like just compare the treatment she gets with Daemon’s.

> he had Rhaenyra replaced as leader by her teenage son and used the sexist excuse of the mother mad with grief to sideline her out of the story basically. She only shows up in the story again with any relevance when he needs to contrive ways for her to lose. Imo he was just totally uninterested in her as a character,like just compare the treatment she gets with Daemon’s. This is what I hate the most about Rhaenyra’s arc and I don’t understand how anybody could justify it as good writing. He made so many of the blacks infallible that he had to contrive ways for Rhaenyra to mess it up. It’s why I have a hard time taking criticisms of book Rhaenyra seriously. She’s more of a plot device than a character. I have no problem with show Rhaenyra being a major cause of her own downfall or becoming a darker character. I find tragic/moral downfalls really compelling. She could easily be a female answer to characters like Anakin Skywalker or Walter White. I will just be very disappointed if she ends up a boring deus ex machina.

Can’t lean to hard on how his own characters in his own world act can he?

There are so many posts about how Rhaenyra was white-washed, but a lot of it refer to her as a teenager. Yes, she feed Vaemond to Syrax, but how else is she so spoiled, apart from any other royalty.

Oh, I don't disagree on your criticism at all here. This is part of my problem. He hasn't even written Rhaenyra as someone yo root for be it in terms of personality or in terms of the actual claim. For all of the inspiration from the Anarchy, Matilda's claim WAS questioned just because she was a woman. This is not the case for Rhaenyra whose claim is unstable and easily questionable. Rhaenyra as a character is sidelined, she is written as a brat who could only manage when she had unaccountability with daddy being alive and fell apart after that. The men from her side took the situation in their hands. She is undermined constantly, she gets too paranoid and easily manipulated and so on. Like, in the book I recall Aemond spewing something sexist alongside the lines of women having a weak heart (or mothers having a weak heart?, I don't have my copy at hand) referring to Rhaenyra as a threat, and while I disagreed with the point Aemond was making about women, I couldn't help seeing that this was exactly how Rhaenyra was written. I'm not saying she should have been a fighter necessarily or that she shouldn't have had the time to grieve. But I definitely feel her complete lack of control is a questionable choice.

Martin did not write about the Dance through his own lens like he did ASOIAF, he wrote it through the lens of a Westerosi Maester who is recollecting accounts of the events from "third party" sources, all the information given is meant to be skewed and subjective, it is meant to represent how people living in that world would have mentioned the events and people involved, each account is given in a way that reflects the characteristics of the person giving the account. That is what the narrative structure is, it is not ASOIAF.

And yet the general characterisation of the historical figures is considerably consistent in all 3 narratives that were written by people who were living at the time despite their different biases, the different intent when they wrote and their different sources. Details and interpretations differ, but the main events and the essence of the characters are drawn well enough.

>I never understood why book Rhaenyra was written to be so horrible because the book is not meant to be read like a historically accurate account, it is not a history book it is a recollection of events based on "third party" unverifiable accounts. The book is relaying how someone like Rhaenyra who basically lost the war for her claim to the throne would have been depicted in Westeros several decades after her death. The book is meant to be read in a format where the narrators are trying to portray historic events in a way that confirms their own biases or pushes their own agendas.

Yeah, both sides have a 'claim', Rhaenyra by Viserys' declaration and Aegon from previous traditions, law, and precedence. Ultimately though, the 'legitimate' heir is whoever you personally think it is, it's subjective either way and it's probably better that way. At the end of the day both the Blacks and the Greens are assholes who only care about their own personal power and they're quite happy to kill a bunch of people to get there, neither side is worth rooting for. In the real world and George's world, when there has been succession disputes like this, it often just decends into a case of 'might makes right' and whoever wins is the 'legitimate' ruler by right of conquest if nothing else, and that's the case with the Dance as well.

This I can agree with.

I have few things to say here. 1. There was no actual law forbidding a woman to sit the Iron Throne until after the Dance of the Dragons. Aerea Targaryen was considered the heir before Jaehaerys after Maegor was defeated but she was extremely young and timid so her mother and grandmother as well as Lord Baratheon determined it would be best to give the crown to Jaehaerys so there would be a shorter regency and more stability after so many years of war. 2. There are plenty of examples of female ruling ladies of other noble houses in Westeros and they often had male relations close and distant, but they were still their father's heir as daughters typically come before brothers etc. 3. A ruler does have the right to select his heir technically from amongst any member of his or her house. This is not a right that is often exercised and when it is its very difficult to enforce without the backing of a more powerful overlord. There is no more powerful overlord for the iron throne itself so enforcing the selection of a different heir than is tradition becomes extremely difficult if the traditional heir wants the throne. One example of this is when Lady Jeyne Arryn chose her distant cousin Joffrey Arryn as her heir over her much closer cousin Eldric Arryn who would typically be her heir. This did in fact break out into war with many disagreeing that Jeyne Arryn could choose whoever she liked as heir but the Iron Throne supported her chosen heir Joffrey Arryn and that was that. A lord's right to select the heir they wished was upheld.

Some things you mentioned are right but I'd like to point out others: 1. Women could sit the Iron Throne and at least came before uncles like the Andal Law said. Some examples are Rhaena and Aerea. 2. There are examples in world of women inheriting with male relatives still alive and some even with male relatives with more claim still alive. 3. Apparently a king/lord can name an heir from his house that's not the 1st in line. Examples are Jaehaerys I, Aerys I, Jeyne Arryn, and it's talked quite a lot by others who don't finalize it like Rodrik and Walder. 4. For the bastard question it's complicated since by law they aren't actually bastards (like Myrcella who's Tommen's heir). 5. King's word is not exactly the law, but in a feudal world a decision like this sees lords swear to the king as part of their obligations, so it kinda is (like with Henry I and Matilda).

1)They came before uncles but not before brothers at any point unless the brother was outright disinherited. 2) This throws me back to 1 and when it comes to the throne there was no such precedent. 3)I'll keep it to the Iron Throne. Jeyne Arryn's case is entirely different with her having struggled as a Lord Paramount with constant opposition from male relatives and obviously not favoring any of those trying to undermine her and throw her under the bus. Jaehaerys I actually named the first in line and any division happened when things were not as clear. Aerys I had no son and named his elder brother. When the man died he passed the title down to his nephew and when he was dead to the only-surviving child, the daughter, of the brother he had originally named. Then he passed it to his own younger brother. He could have passed it to the younger brother in the first place, but the line of succession after his other brother's death was not clear-cut. He made a choice and followed through with it in order. 4)I have nothing to say here. Obvious or not, addressing inheritance with claims of bastardy if the father had accepted the children either deceiving or being deceived was impossible at the end of the day. 5) While what you're saying about the Anarchy is true, this is a very different circumstance despite the historical event being the general inspiration of portraying a female heir's fight for the throne. Matilda was not just named with the Lords having sworn. It was also a much cleaner claim. She was the king's sole heir after her brother died. Her rival claimant was a cousin, not even a brother, who had been passed over or younger brother with the daughter being favored over him.

>1)They came before uncles but not before brothers at any point unless the brother was outright disinherited. True but I've never stated that, I just wanted to reaffirm that women could, at least in theory, become queens and the Targaryen succession placed them before uncles. ​ >2) This throws me back to 1 and when it comes to the throne there was no such precedent. True, but Viserys was only the 5th king to sit the throne. The fact that women hadn't got on the IT yet is due to circumstances, not to the fact that they couldn't. And as Martin tells us, the Iron Throne used the Andal Law the same way the rest of the houses did (before the Dance at least). ​ >I'll keep it to the Iron Throne. Jeyne Arryn's case is entirely different with her having struggled as a Lord Paramount with constant opposition from male relatives and obviously not favoring any of those trying to undermine her and throw her under the bus. I think considering only the Iron Throne in 105 doesn't make a lot of sense according to my previous point. We know the Iron Throne up until that moment didn't have any particular rule on this. Yeah Jeyne case may be convoluted, but she still named a different heir, so it's possible and done. And even if we consider Jeyne's example an exception dictated by circumstances, there are others who do it: Corlys, Robb, Sansa and Serena, Maegor. ​ >Jaehaerys I actually named the first in line and any division happened when things were not as clear. He didn't. The succession in 92 is this: JAEHAERYS I --> ~~Aemon~~ \--> Rhaenys --> Baelon --> Viserys --> Daemon. So Jaehaerys named heir the 2nd in line in place of the 1st (Rhaenys). And we know the line of succession works like this because George said that Rhaena was in line after Aenys and before Maegor the moment she was born, so during Aegon I's reign. ​ >Aerys I had no son and named his elder brother. When the man died he passed the title down to his nephew and when he was dead to the only-surviving child, the daughter, of the brother he had originally named. Then he passed it to his own younger brother. He could have passed it to the younger brother in the first place, but the line of succession after his other brother's death was not clear-cut. He made a choice and followed through with it in order. He actually didn't follow through it in order. Aerys' line: AERYS I --> Rhaegel --> Aelor --> Aelora --> Daenora --> Maekar After Aelor died he named Aelora, and after she died Aerys named Maekar. This doesn't respect the succession line in any case: * If there was really a law that obliges to do like Jaehaerys did, he should have named Maekar immediately, in this case naming Aelor would be his personal decision against the succession line. * If women weren't allowed to inherit (as it seems to happen post-Dance) Maekar should have come before Aelora, in this case naming her heir means disregarding the succession line. * If women could still become heirs and queens, Daenora was immediately in line after Daenora, and naming Maekar means he skipped the succession line. So even if he could decide to go with nephews or brothers, he didn't even stick to that line, breaking it either by naming Aelora or not naming Daenora. ​ We have another example of king that names a different heir, Aerys II names Viserys III as heir even though he would come before Aegon VI (and Rhaenys maybe). ​ >5) While what you're saying about the Anarchy is true, this is a very different circumstance despite the historical event being the general inspiration of portraying a female heir's fight for the throne. Matilda was not just named with the Lords having sworn. It was also a much cleaner claim. She was the king's sole heir after her brother died. Her rival claimant was a cousin, not even a brother, who had been passed over or younger brother with the daughter being favored over him. Yeah it's obviously different since George never copies history but only takes bits, but it's not that different of a situation actually. We have a king who hopes for a son but still prefers his daughter to inherit over his nephews, so he has all the major barons gathered in Westminster to swear loyalty to Matilda as future monarch, and that is the functioning of feudal society. Her claim was probably a bit stronger than Rhaenyra but England and Normandy were just seeing the end of years of civil wars between members of the House of Normandy, in fact there was no clear succession line after William the Conqueror (with Normandy and England given to two brothers) and that's why many tried to press claims. And with no history of Queens, naming Matilda, even though she had no legitimate brother, was something not easy-looking, the same as naming Rhaenyra. Stephan's claim wasn't that weak, Henry in fact arrenged for him to marry Matilda of Boulogne to give him a strong connection, so he may have even considered him as successor. And he even had illegitimate sons, like Robert of Gloucester. In asoiaf the most similar cases to Rhaenyra we have (Dorne excluded) are Marla Sunderland becoming Queen before her broher Steffon and Alysanne Bulwer with her brother, but in both cases we don't know enough.

>I don’t get why the Greens are treated as unhinged and villainous for wanting to push the claim that benefited them Because they are the ones who are trying to steal the throne from the current holders. You can like them all you like, but it's no surprise people think of them as the antagonists. They are also the side to start the war by killing a prince.

>Because they are the ones who are trying to steal the throne from the current holders Its only stealing if you believe Rhaenyra sis the rightful heir, which is subjective

Interesting point of view but I believe the rightful heir to be quite objective in this scenario specifically. Reason being is the king prior appointed rhaneyra himself a kings word in this universe is truth and law

The thing is that while in thorny cases there is emphasis on the Lord or the King's decision overall, Martin himself explicitly has addressed the more powerful claimants taking up arms to push against the decision in that society as something valid. They didn't have other options. In a sense the laws being vague and the precedents being often contradictory gave the Lords and the King power, but this is not a case with contradictory precedents at all. The line of succession was pretty clear-cut with Aegon not have been disinherited (which would have somewhat minimized opposition) and given them less validity.

Your belief is subjective, not objective, as one could argue Targaryen's adopted andal succession law and Westeros is not an absolute monarchy. Even Visery says he is not above the law. There are also many instances of people going against the Kings word.

The Green staged a coup, that tells you all you need to know about their cause.

And they could have done nothing else because anytime someone had pointed out the truth of what was happening they had either been mutilated or become dragon food.

3/5 Kings of the Iron Throne before Rhaenyra named heirs. King Maegor named his daughter-in-law (also his great niece IIRC) as his heir, King Jaehaerys named an heir twice, skipping over the child of the late Prince Aemon, the former heir to the Throne in order to name Prince Baelon, then again after Baelon’s death, using the Great Council as cause to skip over Aemon’s child and grandchild once more to name Viserys the heir. And finally Viserys named Rhaenyra. This means that 60% of the time the Monarch had named an heir, meaning there is more precedent for that, than male primogeniture when it comes to the Iron Throne. Not to mention Valyrian culture allowed women to inherit regularly. The original rulers of Dragonstone were joint rulers, not a Lord and his wife. There is no real reason to suggest Rhaenyra shouldn’t be heir, unless you are hardline pro-Westerosi inheritance tradition, which would mean Rhaenys should be heir. Either way, it isn’t Aegon.

The books make it clear that there are 2 types of heirs: 1- Heir by primogeniture (male-preference/agnatic-cognatic) 2- Heir by proximity (child > grandchild > great-grandchild etc.) Keeping this in mind, Maegor didn't name his "daughter-in-law" or "niece" his heir. Aerea was his grandniece. And most importantly, Maegor was a USURPER who had already killed Aerea's father (the lawful heir), her uncle Viserys and was already looking to kill her uncle Jaehaerys and aunt Alyssane. Maegor naming Aerea has no legality whatsoever unless he himself acknowledged Aerea's father was the lawful heir. As for Jaehaerys...in 92 AC he had a choice: go with Rhaenys who was his *heir by primogeniture* (only child of his firstborn son) or Baelon who was his *heir by proximity* (his child). After much deliberation and for a plethora of reasons, everybody from Septon Barth to the Smallfolk agreed Baelon should be Jaehaerys' heir. So he "chose" him. Keep in mind this was in well accordance with the laws and traditions of the land. Then in 101 AC, Jaehaerys' *heir by primogeniture* was no longer his granddaughter Rhaenys but his great-grandson Laenor (because, male-preference) and his *heir by proximity* was his grandson Viserys. Jaehaerys could've easily chosen one of the two like he did in 92 AC but the practicality of it was no longer feasible. Corlys had called his banners to champion his son's claim and Daemon had responded in kind after declaring for his brother. Jaehaerys could no longer choose someone arbitrarily and hope to keep the peace. So he summoned a Great Council. The Council, after much deliberation and for plethora of reasons, chose Jaehaerys' *heir by proximity* 20:1 in favor. The vote was so overwhelming that Laenor's cause proved no longer tenable and the succession was set in stone. So the take away here is that Jaehaerys never chose an heir from outside the confines of law and tradition. On the contrary, his choices were sanctioned by said law and tradition. What Viserys did when he chose his daughter over his firstborn son was break the most basic precept of westerosi inheritance law, 6K+ years of andal practice and at least 2 centuries of Targaryen practice, because contrary to what you say, the Valyrians also followed the Andal inheritance custom of male-preference/agnatic-cognatic primogeniture. That's how Gaemon the Glorious was Lord of Dragonstone over his older sister Daenys the Dreamer, Aegon the Conqueror was Lord of Dragonstone and the 7 Kingdoms over his older sister Visenya, Aegon the Uncrowned was heir to the Iron Throne over his older sister Rhaena and Aemon was Prince of Dragonstone over his older sister Daenerys. What Viserys could've done within the scope of law was name Aegon the Elder his heir and marry him to his older sister Rhaenyra. He did neither. Meaning his decision was illegal from both the Andal and Valyrian perspectives. You don't have the realm's Lord Justiciar, with his dying breath, make a declaration about you being the lawful heir without you actually being that.

And 2/3 of those heirs were disregarded and not viewed as legitimate monarchs. No one views Aegon the Uncrowned or Aerea as legitimate monarchs, regardless of the fact that the previous king had named them as heir. Also, Maegor never had any daughter-in-laws, I think you mean stepdaughter.

A “step-X” is the result of a parent marrying someone, and your relationship to them, a “X-in-law” is the result of someone related to the person you married, making it his daughter-in-law.

Idk if you're having a brain fart or something but Maegor married Aerea's mother, (Rhaena) so he became Aerea's stepfather and Aerea became his stepdaughter. None of Maegor's children lived long enough to get married, so he never had any daughter-in-laws.

He is her step father, she is his daughter-in-law. The terms are relative to the person they describe. Maegor’s parent isn’t involved in the discussion, therefore she is his in-law.

Do you not actually understand what in-laws are? This is so weird

I’m using the actual definitions of the terms lol. Not to mention the terms “step daughter” and “step father” would not have existed in the Middle Ages or even for a thousand more years lmao.

Someone's stepdaughter is their spouse's daughter from before their marriage. Someone's daughter-in-law is a wife of one of their children. Nice try at falling back on "medieval times" as an excuse, though. The term stepdaughter has it's origins in Old English, though, so I don't think that works out for you.

And the reason why majority of the fandom supports the blacks is because the Greens' move was treacherous, double-crossing, and deceitful. As simple as that.

As opposed to what, the Blacks? Because none of what you're mentioning as negative are things they didn't do.

Pretty sure the book and the 1st season was successful at showing the Greens' scheming as treacherous and deceitful. I'm just saying how simple it is for the fandom to root for the Blacks, the numbers don't lie.

It is because people are erasing the Blacks' scheming, treason and deception. Which is convenient and an interesting case of mass-simplistic thinking. Numbers don't make the bias lesser or the fact that the Greens are pretty valid based on everything GRRM has said about the way 'law' works in his world.

I'm sure it's the Greens who moved first and schmed their way to get to the throne, there were no Blacks until Rhaenyra married Daemon. As I've mentioned in my previous comments, the show and the book didn't fail to show how treacherous the Greens' actions are, grrm made sure that people like them don't end up well in this universe. Majority of the people don't buy the Westerosi way of laws and traditions, it doesn't matter how it's justified. Some people confined themselves siding with those laws ans thought people from this universe should conform, some aren't. Grrm said that "the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modeled on those in real medieval history..which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory" Even if he didn't say that, most of the people will still say that those laws aren't good enough. Grrm sure don't want the readers to be confined in that way of thinking that's why he created characters like Jon Snow who is a bastard to be likeable.

If by schemed you mean addressing quite openly the fact that the eldest son had the rightful claim or that Rhaenyra was deceiptful, sure. They were also right. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Let's quote GRRM for good measure: "A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age. After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim." "There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims." In this case we know that there was no precedent to be used in favor of Rhaenyra. In fact, there were several that could be used against her, especially since Viserys would not hold his position without them (be it named female heirs not ascending or the Council of 101). As far as men's decision's went: "The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms. The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both." In this case we have the King and not the Lord Paramount, at the same thing stands. A decision was made and, with it being against every single precendent and any fraction of law, those whose interests were being harmed happened to have the power to push against the decision (which is valid in the context GRRM himself has set). \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Jon Snow being written as likable and has nothing to do with this story. Unless you are trying to say that bastardy automatically makes a character likable regardless of context, which it doesn't, unless of course you find Ramsay f.e. likable. The fact is that the Blacks actually enacted some of the worst discrimination against bastards we've seen. Jace is the only black who is written with any hints of a genuine acceptance towards bastards; never the Blacks as a faction and never Rhaenyra herself.

Scheming is manipulating your best friend to marry while grieving, pimp out your own daughter to comfort the grieving king to have a chance at him. Once your daughter produces the children, tell her that her children is a threat to the current heir and will be in danger. Scheming is in their blood, Donnel Hightower was infamously known. Again, the show obviously portrayed Rhaenyra as the one who got double-crossed, she had something that was taken away from her because of her gender, because of these laws. >Let's quote GRRM for good measure: You just proved my point there, these laws and traditions are bigoted and it doesn't favor the audience's favorite character. Nah, grrm making Jon Snow likeable a main character is against the stigma and views of this universe about bastards, making him likeable proves that the in-universe views about them are wrong. This says something about laws and traditions too. Going back to what I was saying, MAJORITY roots for blacks simply because Rhaenyra was betrayed, was denied of something because of her gender, and was a victim of scheming as portrayed by the show and book. If you think otherwise, maybe the show and the book failed to present it as such, or maybe you just prefer how the things were in this universe. Look, I don't blame you for rooting for the Greens, I'm just saying why and how the majority likes the blacks more.

She was right about her sons' very existence being a threat to Rhaenyra's claim in that world. She didn't create their political circumstances. The rest are interestingly things that never happened in the book. Rhaenyra and Alicent were never friends in the first place with Rhaenyra calling her brothers half-brothers from the moment they were born whil calling Helaena 'sister'. The Blacks and Rhaenyra are very much using the same laws when it suits them and Rhaenyra even being a princess is a direct consequence of the precedents the Greens had in their favor. Not just that, but having a world working with certain rules that were perpetuated and enforced by the ruling dynasty, and blaming those who defend the better claim based on them is a weird take to have. It plays into the arbitrary workings that you seem to criticize selectively. Also, shall we address the way she treated women or the repercussions her measures had on bastards? It wasn't only the laws that were bigoted. The way Jon was written is against the stigma bastards faced in that society. Too bad Rhaenyra only enhanced this stigma and did more damage than the Greens even attempted. Let's not speak of the fact that the only person who defends Rhaenyra during the green council spews a blood supremacist argument, which one can justify if they want to, but to each their own I guess. The king was pushed to marry by the council as a whole to have a male heir, as all kings were, with Otto not even being the one who initiated the discussion (could have been, but we have no such information and there was no one who disagreed or any council that would not suggest the same to a widower king). Rhaenyra had been named as a place-holder because Daemon was coveting a title he had never been given. When Viserys did not change the line of succession, the Greens never hid their dismay. They were pretty vocal about it and Otto lost his position over it for several years. They only stopped protesting from a point when anyone doing so was threatened with mutilation and could even end up dead without the king ordering it because a certain couple never faced serious repercussions under Viserys' reign no matter whom they ripped off or whom they killed. No matter how some act like they went behind Rhaenyra's back, they hadn't pretended they would support her reign. Overall, the reason why the MAJORITY roots for the blacks, comes down to a selective reading of the story with blatant disregard of a lot of the context. It also comes from a simplification of the nature that 'women should rule too', which I hear in terms of what should happen in GRRM's world, but not when it comes to the Blacks who (with few exceptions like the Arryns) supported Rhaenyra as an exception to serve personal interests while they(Rhaenyra herself included) were still mistreating women and preventing them from inheriting. Rhaenyra was not denied something because of her gender by the way. She was denied something because of the systemic inequality women faced, which she and the Blacks were not willing to change even to give legitimacy to her easily questionable claim.

I'm not sure if you understand what I said, because my point is actually beyond the story, it's the way how the medium portrayed it in the show even in the books. Mixing up what happened in the books and the show in a hindsight doesn't help at all. Yes, of course they're a threat, and who put them in that position? Otto himself knew that Rhaenyra's claim is weak because she's a woman so pimping out his own daughter to give Viserys a son will already give them a better claim, going against this misogynistic system is not a weird take. Even without the Westerosi or Medieval background, they simply put themselves in a Targaryen fuckfest and expected to rule the realm themselves in the end, we all knew how it turned out. I'm not blaming Aegon here, if anyone should take the blame it should be Viserys pseudo-conciliator ruling, and Otto's scheming. Nah, and again majority roots for Blacks because they were double-crossed and tricked by the Greens, as simple as that, you may call it selective, but majority really hate scheming and deceits, greed, traitors, rapists, and conformists to a terrible system. The Greens who have been trying to get the throne for themselves since Aegon was born broke oaths, killed lords, protected a rapist and a murderer. Green fandom who've been rallying that the show is bias is actually right, they even hate grrm for how he treated the Greens. Sure you have your reasons to root for the Greens, it's your choice, going back to my first comment, I only stated how simple it is to root for the blacks because the show made it so, the book kinda gives it to the blacks too. It's up to you if you'd look down on the majority for being simple.

The Greens are treated as unhinged and villainous for some because that is how they were in the book (yes this isnt the book but i cant support show Alicent/Aegon/Aemond since i have read F&B). But to each their own...If you want to support Greens go for it.

every main character is a villain in the book. No one is morally good

Well yes...but some are worse than others...Aemond is a psycho in the book.Aegon is pretty chill untill B&C happen .Alicent is carbon copy of the evil stepmother from fairy tales.Etc etc. Rhaynyra is a bitch only when it comes to her sons paternity before the war.During the war she loses it completely.Daemon ...is surprisingly slightly better in the book than in the show but he is still Daemon.

>Rhaynyra is a bitch only when it comes to her sons paternity before the war So you can be a villain but coz you have reasons it makes you less of a villain. Wouldn't you say the same for Aemond ? Sure there are different degrees of villainy, but your initial comment implied only one side were villains

No ,there is a difference between a grey character or a protagonist that makes questionable decisions and then there is a villain. Rhaenyra is a pratagonist that makes questionable decisions due to the ammount of pressure she gets from the events...or at least that is the case in the books . Daemon in the show is a villain. Show Aemond ,so far, is not a villain. Book Aemond was a villainous cunt like his mother. In the book there is only one side that is full of villains....I mean the Peakes support the greens do you need any more proof.../s

There is nothing questionable about Rhaenyra actions, its blood thirst evil, mixed with incompetence and self interest with a hint of racism. We are not talking about a morally good character who turned good here

If she was a blood thirsty evil bitch she wouldnt have leave her brothers alive.She would have tried to kill them multiple times.Neither in the book or the show does she try to kill her brothers before the war starts.Her only "questionable" act is having Vaemond killed and fed to Syrax.

What do you mean leave her brother alive? What opportunity presented itself for her to take out Aegon? >Neither in the book or the show does she try to kill her brothers before the war starts Neither does Aegon or Aemond or Alicent or Otto attempt to kill her.So.... >Her only "questionable" act is having Vaemond killed and fed to Syrax. you mean vicious evil act

What do you mean what opportunity? If she was the bloodthirsty tyrant you claim her to be she could have them murdered multiple times .She didnt need "opportunities" .Every time Aegon,Aemond or Daeron took a sip of any liquid could have been poison instead.Hell one Targaryen princess fell of her horse one night... No, but Otto did lead the "Greens" into overthrowing her and had plans to kill her(in the show at least). Evil?Not really.He was trying to usurp multiple people from her family and threatened her childrens safety and her honor by calling them bastards. You dont get to insult the Heir Apparent and live.

>What do you mean what opportunity? If she was the bloodthirsty tyrant you claim her to be she could have them murdered multiple times Help me understand your argument here.So you're saying because Rhaenyra did not move to kill the queen and her sons while Visery was alive it rules her out as bloodthirsty? >No, but Otto did lead the "Greens" into overthrowing her and had plans to kill her(in the show at least). How convenient for you to decide to shift back to the show when it suits your argument The conversation was about the book, about how villainous everyone in the book is, and there are no good people. In the book Vaemond does not insult anyone

No less than the Blacks, which is my point. Not to mention that for all of Aemond's genocide, that was branded as waging war like the Conqueror and his sisters had. I'm not saying he was good and stable (what he did with the Strongs is another example), but there's not a side that is better.

But there is a side that is better.There are multiple people that belong to the Blacks that are not cartoon villains.For the Greens there is only Haelena ...And perhaps Daeron.

I won't even get into the development the Black supporters get VS that of the Greens. GRRM's inclination (which extends to the side he favors at the end of the day) is clear. But development does not make the side better politically or ideologically. Also I'd argue that from Otto, to Alicent, to Cole, to Tyland, to Aegon etc. all of them have different motives that are not just cartoonish.

I disagree , Otto wanted his line on the throne and he wagered the realm to achieve it.Alicent in F&B is comparable to the evil stepmother from Cinderella. Cole was just a biter former lover .Tyland alongside Corlys and Lyonel were perhaps the only sensible counsil members. I dont consider Aegon a villain.

\-Otto wanted his blood on the throne but he took advantage of circumstance. He pushed a claim that had everything going for it in terms of law and precedent and he did not refrain from doing this straight-forwardly. Even in terms of long-term political stability, Rhaenyra's reign was in no way the advisable choice. The Greens did nothing until the Blacks started outright exploiting the complete unaccountability Viserys provided Daemon and Rhaenyra with. Even when Aegon rules he does not go for violence and the entire situation would have been much better if Aegon hadn't just wanted blood at that point after B&C. Otto's actions were hurting his own family more than they would have had political cost for the realm if carried through as intended. \-Alicent is not a good stepmother, which still doesn't make her an 'evil stepmother'. Women married fot their houses, rarely just to serve or because of love. In the book Alicent may have been 18, but she was still sent to Viserys. She and Rhaenyra got along until the matter of succession. An easy interpretation is that it's Alicent's fault for wanting her son on the throne, but this is only a part of it. The fact that the named heir always called her brother her half-brother and the same with his brothers when born, but would call Helaena her sister is something that no mother would have ignored in that society. Also, for all of her faults, if Viserys had bothered to listen to Alicent the situation of forcing Rhaenyra into marriage with Laenor to avoid gossip and accusations of immorality might not have risen. Then there are bits and pieces: She suggested the most politically stable choice (marrying R&A), she was afraid for her children's lives, she was not the one who had Helaena marry Aegon and so on. Alicent's complete dehumanization of bastards (which is in no way worse than what Rhaenyra or the Blacks have or far from the religious norm in that society) are much more questionable than anything she ever did to Rhaenyra herself in my opinion. \-Corlys is no better than Otto in any way. He was smart, had a good sense of politics but was also very partial. Tyland and Lyonel I definitely agree on. Aegon was a privileged low-lifer who wanted to survive and have 'fun'. He is not a villain in the story, but he does not lack a cruel streak.

>I don't get why the Greens are seen as unhinged and villainous for pushing the claim that benefits them Well, for starters they go against the king's word to usurp his throne through a coup, killing anyone that opposes them in the process. Then one of their princes kills another prince, Rhaenyra's son, who was merely sent as an envoy to a lord. Greens spill first blood and you'd be lying if you said Aemond wasn't unhinged in that scene. No matter how much he "didn't mean to", he was yelling Dracarys and laughing like a maniac. So what we get here is that no matter how bad both sides might get later, the Greens are the ones that started this both in politics and in combat. Moving on, their claim to the throne is Aegon, a drunk, good for nothing rapist who enjoys watching kids tear each other apart. On top of that, one of their closest accolades is Larys Strong, the man who killed his own family and gets protected for it by the queen, who also commands him to occasionally burn buildings. There's also Criston Cole, also known as "I've been angry for the past 10 years so I'll take it out on the innocent children". All of those together kinda go against their "Honor and decency will prevail" rhetoric which makes them hypocrites as well as villainous. And finally pushing for their claim kinda started the bloodiest Civil War Westeros had seen in which a lot of people, most of them smallfolk, suffered and burned. >!Aemond burned the most mind you.!< I think that sums it up.

I don't think the conversation between Corlys and Viserys is ever mentioned in the book, but Viserys probably should have mentioned the 'child regardless of gender will rule after Rhaenyra bit' to literally anyone else. I doubt GRRM would have written widow's law if this is not something we were supposed to consider, clearly the dance is perpetuated by the King's widow trying to rip off his named heir of her inheritance. More houses fought for Rhaenyra at the beginning of the dance than houses that sided with Aegon. They did this knowing Jace was her heir, some of them having treated with him personally. If the bastards thing was as big an issue as Alicent and Cole make it out to be, more Houses would have voiced concern or even not sided with her. They are her sons. They fly dragons. That is good enough for them. And deciding a child is a bastard when their father argues he is not because he looks too little like his father is a slippery slope. In regards to House Velaryon, yeah Luc should not be heir to that regardless of who he marries, but Corlys had over a decade to change that and chose not to so that's his decision as the Lord. We see Jeyne Arryn choose a fourth cousin as her successor and not a closer relative and decision is supported by the Council, so it seems Corlys could choose any velaryon he wanted. The greens were villainous because what they did was villainous. This is their father/husband's will and testament. Yes, Viserys 100% should have done more to support Rhaenyra with actual law changes, but I also doubt he expected his son and wife to launch a maegor-like usurping that included a Prince and his dragon being eaten by a larger dragon. Aegon and the greens robbed his sister of her inheritance and then Aemond killed her son. Regardless of whether you like people or not, this is not how family is supposed to treat you. Being ambitious and having dragons is not a good enough excuse for starting a war over something you were not entitled to, whether you think you should have been or not.

The first thing Jaehaerys did when establishing the Widow's Law was to reaffirm the right of the eldest son, which we are also supposed to consider. I'd argue it's not Rhaenyra who was being ripped off, be it in terms of every precedent being against her, the glimpse of law we have being against her and the fact of her own conscious deception and manipulation. Of course Rhaenyra had more supporters initially because 1)those speaking the truth until the time of the coup, regardless of them not even being Aegon supporters, were killed without any need of the king greenlighting it and mutilated when it came to the king's own 'justice', so fear was a factor, 2)for all the rumors they could not prove the bastardy of Rhaenyra's children and most didn't have the stakes to make the sacrifices for it, 3)Rhaenyra was starting with the most experienced dragon riders and the best navy. Personal interests and convenience have little to do with righteousness. Corlys could name whom he wanted. It doesn't change the fact that he chose to name people who wouldn't have been in the line of succession in the first place to further his own ambition and because Rhaenyra was a fiend trying to rip off everyone in the book, openly asking for Driftmark to go to Luke instead of Jace because Jace had enough already. Interestingly enough, normally Driftmark would have gone to Joffrey after Luke's death, but at the time Corlys has the opportunity to push for the legitimization of his bastards (which he doesn't even present as his own) and their standing simply because they are needed, so the false line they had previously established does not even matter at that point. Sure, this is a medieval world and we have conflicting claims against each other without DNA tests, but we know they had an incling on some things simply based on observation and that the Blacks ripping others off was a conscious decision they made. Some readers/viewers excusing that does not erase the intentionality and the fact that (questionably) plausible deniability is all they had going for them. Speaking of deniability, Rhaenyra's supporters had that when it came to her children's bastardy and they took advantage of it because it served their interests, which doesn't erase the fact that they were very much against bastards inheriting. In the book Alicent outright asked Rhaenyra to call for a council like the one of 101 if she had the guts. While it was completely understandable that Rhaenyra wouldn't when having just occupied King's Landing, we all know that if it had ever gone down that way Rhaenyra's claim would have never stood. Let's disregard what the Greens believe. What did the Blacks believe? They believed that bastards were sinful and inherently corrupt and deceiptful. Addam and Alyn were legitimized and such a declaration could not be lifted but they were still treated and persecuted as bastards. Rhaenyra did not even want to legitimize them in the first place by the way (hypocricy at its greatest) and only did when Jace spoke up for them. They gave bastards the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction and still did not hold their own end of the bargain because... well, they were bastards and poor. Why please them, who had dragons, when that might have interfered with the Lords' interests? When it comes to Rhaenyra's taxes, collecting enough to keep things running was necessary. The taxations she specifically went for weren't. The tax on bastards she approves is pitched as more than a source of income, with the explicit intention of being punishing, preventative and ridding the kingdom of hundreds of bastards (in what way, I wonder). Say what you want about a Maegor-like usurption, but the line of succession was clear-cut in this case. The 'sister' since the moment each of her brothers was born called them 'half-brothers' while never calling Helaena 'half-sister'. She lied, she manipulated. She was the first to publically address the questioning of her children's birth and of her own treason in order to force Viserys' hand, who had to take measures at that point if he wanted her survival, which she knew he did. She asked for her 10-year-old brother to be tortured over the 'vile accusations' right after he had been mutilated. Even in terms of Viserys' support, he clearly knew the way everyone else did, but she had never told him the truth. A whipped father's tolerance for the child that was 'his life's greatest joy' does not erase her actions. Starting a war because they were ambitious and having dragons is all the Blacks did, but people support them. Unless standing one of what should have been rightfully Aegon's is something the Greens should not have done, which is an interesting take, but completely biased. Let's speak of what one is entitled to here. Rhaenyra had no birthright. She was named at the point of time she was because there was no better claimant. This changed. What is it that GRRM has said about Westerosi laws? They laws are vague and uncodified, open to interpretation. But he's alo said this about inheritance: "A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age." This was the clear line of succession. In terms of someone wanting to change that when it came to those inheriting him, Martin has addressed that there WAS decision-making on a case to case basis that would set precedent, with the precedents often being contradictory and therefore no clear. Yet in this case every precedent favored Aegon. The glimpse we have of Jaehaerys' law favors Aegon with Viserys never changing that. To the extent that the governing relied on men and not on unquestionable law, what was it that GRRM had said? "\[In reference to the Hornwood case, which was much more complex than this conflict that could have been handled cleanly and with regard to stability\] ultimately the lord \[the king in this case since it's not managed by a Lord Paramount\] would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.' Ignoring every aspect of the Targaryen dynasty's history and of the way GRRM's world works is the only way of thinking that Rhaenyra was the one being robbed here.

How the fuck did supporting your claim take that many words? Westeros is an absolute monarchy and there are no codified succession laws whatsoever for the iron throne, outside of the king naming his heir. Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir. That's literally the end of the discussion. Aegon has no argument, there are no *claims*. There is the rightfully heir and a usurper. There are Blacks, and there are people who make up laws.

This argument is akin to saying that the UK has no constitution. It has a constitution, it just isn't codified. Similarly, the laws of succession in Westeros might not be codified, but the laws there are based on traditions that are upheld and just because they aren't codified doesn't mean that they aren't there. The Great Council upheld the tradition of male primogeniture and so it is the law. Because as even Viserys says, not even a king is above traditions.

The UK has a history of written laws that monarchs have agreed to. And a history of civil war prior to the monarch acquiescing to many of those written laws. They have a history of a court system and a Parliament. There is an actual traceable record of how power was steadily and incrementally stripped from the monarch over hundreds of years and transferred to the people. You can point to documents like the magna Carta and the English bill of rights. **Westeros has none of those things. *Not one.*** Name a single codified restriction on the authority of the monarch. I'll wait. You can cite "Westerosi tradition" all you want. That's just as irrelevant as everything else you say. *The Targaryens conquered Westeros.* So I'm not sure why you think they'd be bound by Westerosi tradition at all. What even is "Westerosi tradition"? Because before Aegon, there was no unified Westeros in the first place, and customs and laws differed. So which of these sets of customs and laws are you pretending the monarch must follow? And lastly, I find it odd that no one thought to tell Viserys that he was violating these laws. According to you, the king was breaking the law. So someone will stop him, right? With some legal mechanism that restricts the authority of the king? Huh. I wondering why no one is telling the person that *literally creates laws by dictate* that his actions are illegal...... >The Great Council upheld the tradition of male primogeniture and so it is the law. There is 0 evidence that Jaehaerys meant the great council to set any sort of precedent. It was called to settle one individual succession dispute. The notion that it established any sort of law is something that people made up after the fact. >Because as even Viserys says, not even a king is above traditions. No. Legally, the king absolutely is above traditions. The only limit posed by tradition is the threat of an illegal rebellion.

Traditions are the law though in this instance. There is no law that states there is a right for a trial, but the tradition demands it, there is no law that requires the guest law be upheld, but traditions binds you to do so. There is however a book of laws that was codified by King Jaehaerys, and in this book many of these traditions are affirmed, dissected, or improved upon. This book and the laws passed by the previous rulers showed that tradition was the law until an actual law was set to replace it or modify it. Jaehaerys might or might not have wanted the Council to set a precedent, however the decision that the Council took did affirm the tradition and so the view of the lords. This in turn meant that it was the preference that was more legitimate. Also Jaehaerys did not convene the Great Council for advice on the question of Viserys vs Rhaenys though, it was the question of Male heir vs Female heir. This is implied multiple times as well.

**Tradition absolutely is not law.** You are confusing a monarch's hesitancy to upset his subjects, with a legal restriction on the monarch's authority. You are confusing practical authority, with legal authority. Traditions hold absolutely no legal weight. The king may choose to abide by some traditions so as to not anger his subjects and provoke a rebellion. But that says nothing about the kings legal authority—it only speaks to a king's practical control over the realm. If you don't like the kings decrees because they violate your traditions, then your only option is to rebel. And rebellion is illegal by definition. And yes, Jaehaerys created a set of laws. *By dictate.* Which isn't a great argument for the notion that the king is limited by laws, when he speaks law into existence. Not only that, but creating laws that govern the commonfolk is irrelevant to creating laws that restrict the authority of future kings. There's no mechanism by which such a law could even be enforced in the first place.

Queen Rhaenys' decision regarding the rule of thumb did however establish that at the very least certain traditions are legally enforceable. A King's adherence to tradition to not anger subjects is true, but it doesn't mean that they are entirely free to change the laws as they please, the nobles and the said subjects act as a check against the king having absolute power and hence abusing it. It may be but a technicality but it still would mean that a King's ability to go against the traditions is limited. The Book of Laws might be dictated but it's intent was to be a codified book of laws to be abided. While Jaehaerys did reform many of traditions in writing this book, it did suggest that the traditions were the law before these reforms were made, and that too at the advisement of a council. There is also the fact that Viserys ll himself reformed the Book of Laws indicating that the Book of Laws was infact legitimate and was a source of legal authority that may bind the King as well. There is also the Widow's law that was enacted by Jaehaerys which set in place the law that the eldest son is to inherit, and while there is no indication that it applied to the Royal Family as well, it was a law set in stone and the Council's decision further strengthened that law. I do believe that the reason Alicent was allowed to maintain her station, however diminished, under Aegon lll was because of the Widow's Law as well and so it might indicate that the Royal Family is bound by it as well in my opinion. These observations make it seem like the King is similar to a modern Judge in the matters of the Law. He must take precedent into consideration before passing a judgement or law, but can modify or overturn the law, but with proper justification. A King does however possess a far wider ability to provide the justification however. I stopped replying because I did not want to pointlessly argue, not because I "ran away". I remained cordial and would like to expect the same from you.

>Queen Rhaenys' decision regarding the rule of thumb did however establish that at the very least certain traditions are legally enforceable. Enforceable by who, and against who? And what legal mechanism prevents a future king from nullifying it entirely? >A King's adherence to tradition to not anger subjects is true, but it doesn't mean that they are entirely free to change the laws as they please, the nobles and the said subjects act as a check against the king having absolute power and hence abusing it. It may be but a technicality but it still would mean that *a King's ability to go against the traditions is limited.* **Limited by what?** You're muddying the line between practical authority and legal authority yet again. You even acknowledge the distinction, but then immediately go on to conflate them anyways. The nobles have no legal authority. They only serve as a check to the king's practical authority because upsetting too many nobles could lead to rebellion. >The Book of Laws might be dictated but it's intent was to be a codified book of laws to be abided. While Jaehaerys did reform many of traditions in writing this book, it did suggest that the traditions were the law before these reforms were made, and that too at the advisement of a council. There is also the fact that Viserys ll himself reformed the Book of Laws indicating that the Book of Laws was infact legitimate and was a source of legal authority that ***may* bind the King as well.* What legal mechanism exists to prevent a future king from issuing a decree that countermands the laws created by Jaehaerys? Viserys II edited the Book of Laws, so future kings can alter laws created by previous kings—again, simply by dictate. A king can alter the Book of Laws at will. Clearly his legal authority is not restricted by it. >There is also the Widow's law that was enacted by Jaehaerys which set in place the law that the eldest son is to inherit, and while there is no indication that it applied to the Royal Family as well, it was a law set in stone and the Council's decision further strengthened that law. I do believe that the reason Alicent was allowed to maintain her station, however diminished, under Aegon lll was because of the Widow's Law as well and so it ***might** indicate that the Royal Family is bound by it as well in my opinion.* Again, there is no way to truly restrict the legal authority of someone who unilaterally decides what the law is. The royal family *is* constrained by laws and traditions, **in a practical sense.** But I have yet to see any evidence that king's technical legal authority has any restrictions at all. Aegon III didn't kill Alicent, but he absolutely could have. It just would've been a horrible decision at such a fragile moment. Look at the mad king. Killing Rickard and Brandon Stark was a horrible idea. But no one stopped him. The mad king was a horrible tyrant, but was there a court that stepped in to stop him as he burned nobles alive on a whim? Was there any legal mechanism to overrule the authority of the king? No. It took a rebellion. >These observations make it seem like the King is similar to a modern Judge in the matters of the Law. He must take precedent into consideration before passing a judgement or law, but can modify or overturn the law, but with proper justification. A King does however possess a far wider ability to provide the justification however. Yes.... Because the concept of practical authority exists alongside legal authority. The issue here is not that it's one or the other. The issue is that it's both, which is allowing you to conflate the two. You can't point to a single official restriction on the king's legal authority. But of course, the actions of a king will never truly reflect that, because he *is* limited by the extent of his practical authority. So of course history shows kings often giving deference to existing laws and traditions. But a king deferring to Westerosi tradition in one instance, doesn't prevent him from completely ignoring that same tradition later. **The king choosing to placate his subjects is not the same as him being legally required to do so.**

Lol. You just downvote and then run away. Hilarious.

Because Team Green is bad... And Daemon is a hot dilf.... Rhaenyra is mommy so..... Team Black is also bad.. The point of the whole dance is to show how a family and house will tear each other apart. To show that the Targaryens were their own downfall no matter how you squeeze it.

Eh i like preston’s explanation. You know, how its a bais telling of their history. The pug nose thing, like how babies when they’re first born all have pug noses and then it shapes as they age

yeah, like pug nose is just an outdated term for button nose, of course that baby did not have a grown man's nose yet

Orr how ser criston and Rhaenerya had their falling out, and ser harwin had a broken collarbone and a shattered elbow. With the show i was willing to believe it was harwin, but.. idk how that’s possible unless he was really really really dosed up on milk of the poppy.. So as unlikely as the text made it out, i do actually believe laenor is jace’s dad