Most of the way through A Clash of Kings, I think I've figured out another reason GRRM's history-in-a-blender approach bothers me. It's not just that yanking the episodes he reworks out of context matters, and that sixth-century England and sixteenth-century England are different in profound ways that this approach elides.¹ It's also that using historical examples to construct Westeros (past and present) gives it a veneer of plausibility especially for readers who don't know history. But this creates a bizarre version of a fantasy past. Moreover, it flattens the reality of change over time.²

¹ Imagine my surprise to find the sixth-century conversion of Kent happening (sort of) during A Clash of Kings, and the trial of Anne Boleyn happening in the past.

² Yeah, I know this is fantasy. But as a professional medievalist, I get asked frequently about the "accuracy" of ASOIAF. Worse, I get told that it's accurate. And, uh. No. In some details, it's close-ish. But in the big cultural picture... it's a wildly different world, and I think it's also much further from its premodern European inspirations than GRRM thinks it is.

[Would it have made a difference if Rhaenyra and Aegon were full siblings, only a year apart? If they were full siblings, regardless of age, the son have inherited rather than the daughter. I had to make it more complicated than that. Two children by different mothers, different wives? First wife and second wife? I always look to history for inspiration, and if you look at Henry VIII and his six wives, he had a daughter by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and that was Mary Tudor, Queen Mary I. And then he had a daughter by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, and that was Queen Elizabeth. Then by the third wife, Jane Seymour, he finally had a son, Edward VI. He was third in line, but he was the first to become king. History is full of these kinds of conflicts.]

I needed to read this twice.

Edward wasn't third in line!!!!!!!!! He was the youngest of Henry's three surviving children, but since England followed male preference primogeniture until very recently, he was FIRST in line after his father died and if he had sired a child before his death, that child would have been his successor. The potential problem with the succession was that if Henry's marriage to Catherine was valid, then Elizabeth was illegitimate, but if their marriage was invalid then Mary was illegitimate.

As @duxbelisarius pointed out if Martin really wanted a Matilda/Stephen analogy Rhaenys and Viserys are right there. But that would require painting his beloved Daemon in a negative light.

And to add more on my previous post, all of the main female characters (with the exception of Arianne Martell) in the main series of ASOIAF are representations of white femininity.

Every single one.

And that is because they are literally white. It doesn’t make them bad characters or anything.

I’ve talked about it before hand, but anytime George is writing a character of color, especially a black woman, he uses racist stereotypes and imagery. Every time.

There’s a reason why Dorne and the Summer Isles are sexually liberated, and why the Dothraki are portrayed as vicious ‘savages’ with hardly any redeeming values to their culture.

There’s a reason why Arianne’s exposure to sex and intimacy at ten years old is not framed the same way as say, Sansa’s.

There’s a reason why Chataya and her daughter are brutalized and reminiscent of the Jezebel trope.

the way Daenerys treats Irri in the books is incredibly disturbing and I hate how it's overlooked by both the narrative and the majority of the fandom.

Daenerys uses Irri for sex at least twice over the course of the story, once in Storm and once in Dance. I really, truly cannot overstate how horrific the power imbalance between them is: Daenerys is her khaleesi, her queen and her employer; Irri was formerly a slave in her service and is now her maid with absolutely nowhere else to go. She has evidently been conditioned to believe that displaying absolute obedience to her higher-ups, including sexual services, is her "duty", which Daenerys recognizes and still actively exploits for her own pleasure. This is also why consent between them is utterly impossible – contrary to some asoiaf blogs who claim that consent was not a major issue in this situation (lol) or that Irri freely consented, Irri’s conditioning means that she will never be able to freely consent to someone like Daenerys, who is her employer and holds absolute power over her. Daenerys herself acknowledges this and feels guilty (damning in itself), but ends up using her in such a manner anyway, despite explicitly recognizing that Irri's kisses "tasted of duty" and nothing more.

What makes this even worse is that despite using her in this way in Storm, Daenerys has no issue saying that Irri and Jhiqui (who are her age and have had the same, if not worse, experiences than she has) are "only girls" in comparison to her. She also dismisses their (pretty sensible, imo?) concern about her touching sick and dead people by calling them "utter fools" and saying the Dothraki were only wise when it came to horses. She says all this AFTER sleeping with Irri, which makes it twice as bad - Daenerys considers her a little girl and a fool when it comes to advising her, but still finds it perfectly fine to use her for sex? This condescension extends to their sexual relationship as well, where Daenerys refers to Irri as "the maid", "her handmaid" and "the Dothraki girl" as she has sex with her. It's patronizing, disrespectful and exploitative at best, outright dehumanizing at worst.

While I highly doubt this was Grrm's intention, Daenerys's dynamic with Irri is clearly reminiscent of the horrific way Cersei uses Taena Merryweather. Dany is obviously not as vicious with Irri as Cersei was with Taena but that really doesn't change the fact that she was still a queen exploiting her employee's obedience and conditioned sense of "duty" for her own pleasure, made even worse by the fact that Irri, as a servant and former slave with no family, no connections and nowhere else to go, was 10x more vulnerable than Taena was and certainly more dependent on Dany. It's bizarre how Cersei's treatment of Taena is recognized as fucked up by most of the fandom but Daenerys's treatment of Irri is not, even though the power imbalance between them is infinitely worse. (also: Grrm writing about TWO white queens using their brown maids/ladies-in-waiting for sex is flat-out racist. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with how both wlw interactions are dubiously consensual at best and arguably revolve around Cersei/Dany's relationships with men to some extent: Cersei uses Taena to reenact her trauma by Robert, and Dany not only "pretended it was Drogo holding her...only somehow his face kept turning into Daario's" when she was having sex with Irri, but also explicitly states that "it was Daario she wanted, or perhaps Drogo, not Irri").

Certainly, Daenerys and Irri's dynamic is part and parcel of Grrm's fucked notion of consent and piss-poor writing of wlw relationships (both of which he should be called out for far more than he is, btw), but it doesn't change the fact that in-universe, these are Daenerys's textual actions. Grrm seems to believe that Drogo didn't rape Daenerys (a 13 year old who was forced into marriage) on their wedding night because she said "yes", just like he seems to believe that Jaime didn't coerce Cersei to have sex with him over their own son's dead body because she eventually responded to Jaime's advances, but I clearly recognize them as rape and coercion. The same logic and same standards apply to Daenerys and the way she uses and exploits Irri and she should be judged accordingly.

No matter what George does. No matter if he twisted it into "Elia was ok and never felt humiliated nor used, and the Martells didn't mind what Rhaegar did" or if George decided never to talk about Elia. R x L will always be disgusting and not a tragic love story.

Any sane human being can see that.

Even in a creepy scenario where she was ok with it OR one where she didn't love Rhaegar, he will always be to blame, and he still used her.

That's why the R x L stans always try to either ignore her existence or reduce it into nothing and her into some kind of supernatural alien human that is ok with everything dirty done to her.

Because they know their oh so tragic, self insert true love story will always seem disgusting because of Elia's existence in the story.

No amount of excuses or fanarts will ever change this truth. No matter which characters George will make accepting and supporting of them (Ned, Arthur, Oberyn, Doran, Ashara, Lewyn and even Elia herself....ect). Why? Because it's unrealistic.

Even if R and L's were running away from Aerys, then suddenly *accidentally* saw a prophecy or fell in love.

OR Even if George made it that Rhaegar wouldn't have left her if she had been able to give him another child. It doesn't change that he abandoned her and their children in the worst way possible with no protection against Aerys and his loyal kingsguard. And even then, it's hard to believe she'd accept just because he told her : Hey, I see in my dreams that I have to have 3 children or we all die. Like, what is this? She almost died for that, no thanks to you and your one after another impregnation.

It's disgusting and not well-written at all.

That's just the plain truth.

That's why a huge part of the fandom dislikes it. Not because they "didn't read the books" or "they lack critical thinking".

It's actually because they know how to think instead of inserting themselves as not like other girls girl and shipping themselves with terrible husband and father, charismatic depressed prince charming.

Poor Rhaegar had a sense of doom following him and knew he'd die soon so Elia let him be? That's very idiotic.

No. Elia being fine with annulment or polygamy isn't normal unless she is forced to. And you know it.

Killing Jaehaera off was completely unnecessary and it would've been better if she was the mother of Aegon III's kids.

I personally would have loved it he had married Jaehaera and Daenaera because I think there's room in the narrative for both girls.

I think the reason George changed it (besides getting invested in the Velaryons as he wrote out the backstory) was because he wanted some sort of commentary on the lasting legacy of the Dance - Aegon usurps his sister and kicks off a whole violent war for the throne, only for his line to end with a mad little girl, and then die off completely. Rhaenyra lets revenge color her actions during the war and adds to the death, misery, and escalation of violence all so her line can descend from her only for the history books to record that they descend from Daemon, and there’s nothing Aegon III can do to change it. In a way, despite everything, the lines of both Rhaenyra and Aegon end with them. This war that claimed the lives of their children, their lovers, their families, was completely fruitless and useless; all that's left at the end is orphans, and history books that will call Aegon and Rhaenyra both usurpers. It's very sad commentary, for sure, but I get why it was so important to George to kill Jaehaera off (to a certain extent). It's just he did it in the most George way possible lmao and it doesn't hit the way I think he intended it to.

But it could have! Which is so frustrating! He could have 100% had them both in the narrative easily - just have Daenaera be a lady of the court and a friend of Jaehaera's! Jaehaera can take in Daenaera as a lady to help smooth things over with that branch of the Velaryons (who are probably still pissed off because Alyn is a bastard and everyone in Westeros hates Baela for doing #HotGirlShit). Jaehaera is mother to Daeron, Baelor, and Daena, and kills herself/is murdered right after Daena is born. I think having a daughter of her own is an interesting trigger for her trauma - like, your husband having the same cursed name as your father who died miserable and alone, with only you for family, and then watching your husband hold your first daughter? More than enough to trigger an episode, and leave it vague as whether she threw herself onto the spikes or someone simply took advantage of her being scared and alone & pushed her.

Maiden’s Day happens and there's a lot of nerves because the last time the King got remarried, the Dance happened. Different circumstances because Aegon has two sons, to be sure, but I'm positive half the realm is thinking "what if he chooses wrong and we get another Otto Hightower." Baela and Rhaena present Aegon’s new bride, then point to the beautiful but quiet, also grieving Daenaera Velaryon, and Aegon just accepts it because he knows Daenaera won’t oppose Jaehaera’s children (they were friends, also Daenaera is now scarred by the violence of Jaehaera’s death). Daenaera is as uninterested in him as he is in her; the twins present a way for him to remarry without forcing him out of his comfort zone (which neither Aegon nor Jaehaera ever liked to be) while backing Daenaera into an offer she can’t refuse. Continuing on the use of traumatized women as pawns, the twins clawing for their own power and relevancy as the Regents, Small Council, and now even Aegon’s sons steal it away from them, a move that is as “girlboss” esque for them as it horrifying for Daenaera. This way, you still get the Blackfyres descending from Jaehaera (and the Greens), you get the Velaryons in there more, you get Maiden's Day and Daenaera.

I think this scenario - where Jaehaera is mother to Daena and the Blackfyres, and Daenaera to the two youngest girls - doesn't make a huge difference in the grand plan, BUT it does make some things more interesting. It adds a really interesting echo from Viserys I and Rhaenyra’s children to Aegon’s - how easily these bonds between half siblings can be turned sour if only their lives are just a bit different. Daena, daughter of Jaehaera, falling to the generational Targaryen curses of dying young, of accidentally kicking off a succession crisis simply because she desired sexual agency. Elaena, daughter of Daenaera, escaping these curses through her politicking, her skill, siding against the nephew she adores and helped raise to try to escape Daena and Jaehaera’s fates. Not to mention having Aegon II’s line end with his daughter, then morph into the usurping Blackfyres is a great narrative choice!

It’s all right there!! The themes!!! It all goes back and back, this family enacting continent destroying violence against each other all for the privilege of sitting on that ugly, spiky chair. But no we get Daenaera the hot six year old instead. SmFh.

A very common argument Dany antis love to use is that Dany is a hypocrite and a villain because she "raped Irri". This just a blatantly false assertion, Dany never raped anyone, let alone Irri. @rainhadaenerys has a fantastic post dissecting the sex scenes here. Instead of doing that in this post, I'm going to talk about what this perception seems to stem from.

First, the obvious, hatred of Daenerys in general. I saw an anti say at the end of their long list of contrived and false reasons for hating her was that they found her annoying. I think this is probably the most honest answer a non-stansa/jonsa could give. While stansas/jonsas hate Dany because of the perceived threat she poses to their fav, anyone not in that boat has a different reason: they found her character annoying for some reason (most likely sexism).

And being faced with the fact that she not only is one of the favorites of the fandom but also of George himself, these antis decided to come up with these completely braindead takes to support their unfounded dislike of her. It's ok to simply dislike a character because they annoy you, that happens a lot with writing, but it's a completely different matter when you start coming up with ideas and interpretations to try to make your personal preference (and/or internalized misogyny) seem less outlandish.

Now, the reason why people can take sections like the Dany/Irri section out of context is simply because of George's writing decisions. I think it's common knowledge in the fandom that George gave ridiculously little thought to the Dothraki characters. Irri and Jhiqui are never given povs or even much personality. This is a serious flaw in George's writing and world building. Unfortunately, this flaw allows people (ie antis) to just imprint whatever they want onto these characters.

However, the antis do also tend to ignore any passive character development given to Irri (little that it is). Irri has been by Dany's side since they were both slaves (Irri a bed slave and Dany a bridal) in Drogo's Khalasar. She was present throughout all of Dany's anti-slavery campaign, if anyone knows and understands that they have their freedom, it'd be Irri. Even before the events in Astapor, Dany makes it clear she has her freedom. Irri knows she isn't slave anymore, let alone Dany's, the antis refuse to acknowledge this or Irri's personal agency even less than George does.

Basically, the idea of Dany as a "rapist" is driven purely by spite and a refusal to try to understand a character, underdeveloped as she is. George has majorly contributed to the misconceptions surrounding the Dothraki characters by not fleshing them out the way he did with other side characters.

Do you think there's a reason why only the brown people in ASOFAI (or is it ice and fire i can't remember) are considered "savage". I'm coming off of the TV show but even now reading the book (I'm not done yet) it only shows the brown people having slaves and being less "civilized"

Short answer: racism.

Even the most benign explanations I can think of (GRRM intentionally using presumed racist prejudice in the reader against the characters around her to camouflage Dany's own savagery OR reflecting Dany's own lack of interest in "her" people because to her they are lesser) can't remotely compensate for the absolute lack of depth he gives Essosi peoples in her arc. He does a lot more with a lot less with Westerosi "white" characters in every comparable scenario, especially villains.

The impenetrable flatness and intentional "foreign" strangeness of Dany's Essosi adversaries (or allies!) are never dismantled the way they are for Westerosi "outsiders" or villIains, because they are a feature not a bug. They are all props in Dany's arc, shapeless accessories that obfuscate or highlight aspects of her character like you'd use makeup to emphasize facial features. And they never get to grow beyond it. This may have a narrative purpose (a slower reveal of her villain arc) but it still means this is the only role he is willing to afford the vast majority of characters of color in the book series. He himself is also not interested in giving them further dimensions, even though he has the skill to do it if he cared to, which is the truly damning thing.

Whatever his own intentions may have been, the result is marred by his own biased execution.

The Dance of the Dragons: A Military Analysis (Pt. 1)

I’ve been meaning to do this since I watched House of the Dragon and read Fire & Blood; after reading and re-reading F&B, I’ve concluded that the way that the Dance of the Dragons was fought by both factions is plain nonsensical. I will demonstrate this by analyzing the military as well as political aspects of George’s narrative, referring to F&B and other works in George’s ASOIAF legendarium and analysis I’ve seen from reddit and Tumblr. Part 1 covers Chapters 1 and 2 of The Dying of the Dragons, being The Blacks and the Greens and A Son for A Son, as well as The Red Dragon and the Gold where it concerns the alignment of the houses. 

Starting with Gyldan’s claim that the realm was ‘divided in two’ by the Dance, this is provably false even if one takes it as just a shorthand phrase and not a serious attempt at summarizing the Dance for his audience. Rhaenyra received the nigh uncontested support of four of the Seven Kingdoms during the war, the North, the Riverlands, the Iron Islands and the Vale, whereas Aegon II’s claim went uncontested only in the Westerlands and Stormlands. The Crownlands and Reach were divided from the outset, with the Tyrells remaining neutral until the end (arguably, but we’ll save that for later). Taking into account the Royal Fleet and Rhaenyra’s numerical advantage in Dragons, even though Rhaenyra’s allies were not all able to provide immediate support, the sheer number of her supporters presents a problem with George’s set-up.

What is that problem? By George’s premises that he established in his work, Rhaenyra’s support should not exist or at least not without the lack of qualification he provides. The chapter Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession states that the Council of 101 AC chose Viserys over Rhaenys’ son Laenor by a wide margin, possibly as much as 20-to-1. Though she was passed over as Jaehaerys’ heir in 92 AC for her uncle Baelon, Rhaenys’ claim for her son was superior to that of Viserys, as she was the eldest child of the first son of the King while Viserys was the second son’s eldest. Yet George would have us believe that after passing over Rhaenys’ superior claim under Andal Law, the lords of the realm would support Rhaenyra in droves despite her objectively inferior claim? The oaths sworn to Rhaenyra as Viserys’ heir were made when Daemon was removed from the line of succession, and because Viserys had no children save for Rhaenyra. By Viserys’ death he has three sons and his eldest, Aegon, was in a similar situation to Rhaenys and Laenor. Under Andal Law, a sister cannot inherit before a brother; but just like in 101 AC, the wishes of the King that the legal heir not inherit were given preference over the law. There should be plenty of lords and ladies from either side of the 101 AC debates that would support Aegon on the basis of his sex or his legal status, but save for House Baratheon it seems that none of the houses that supported Rhaenys received offers of alliance from Otto and the Green Council until after Blood and Cheese, if at all.

George does not help his case by giving us so few good reasons as to why certain houses supported Rhaenyra or Aegon; @lemonhemlock has an entire tag devoted to this issue, and I recommend starting with this thread. Despite Aegon II’s ties to the Reach via the Hightowers and the potential for this to increase the Reach’s influence over the realm, the number of houses listed as joining the Blacks far outnumbers the Greens. House Beesbury, Merryweather and Caswell may be explained by Aegon executing members of those families for supporting Rhaenyra, but we get no reasoning for the Tarlys, Mullendores, Grimms, Rowans, Oakhearts, Footlys or Costaynes. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the Westerlands and Stormlands, which supported Aegon II without any mention of internal opposition by Gyldan. This is especially bizarre for the Stormlands given that Otto Hightower expected House Tarth to support Rhaenyra, while Lady Fell and Lord Buckler were among those executed by Aegon II early in the war. This trend of inexplicable unanimity continues with the Riverlands, whose lords are called a ‘notoriously quarrelsome lot’ but support Rhaenyra completely with the exception of the Brackens and the Vances of Atranta. The only real basis for this support that we get from the narrative rests upon the oaths made to Rhaenyra in 106 AC and a single visit she made to Riverrun in 112 AC, decades before the war began.

The unanimity of Northern support for Rhaenyra is even more questionable based on information which George provides within Fire & Blood and elsewhere. Despite Rickon Stark’s death in 121 AC, his son Cregan Stark only became Lord of Winterfell in 126 AC after imprisoning his uncle Bennard Stark and his sons for being slow to relinquish their authority as regents. Despite the approach of winter and the conflict with his uncle, we hear nothing of any misgivings or opposition to Cregan’s pact with Jacaerys. The pact itself is remarkably generous to Rhaenyra, guaranteeing the North’s support in exchange for the marriage of Cregan’s son to a future daughter of the still unwed Jacaerys Velaryon (contrast this with Hoster Tully’s demanding that Ned Stark wed & bed Catelyn during Robert’s Rebellion). In the case of Jeyne Arryn’s support for Rhaenyra, her supporters in House Royce have every reason to oppose this given that Rhaenyra’s consort is Daemon Targaryen, the man who allegedly had Rhea Royce murdered and tried to claim Runestone. Yet they seem not to oppose Lady Arryn’s decision, and Ser Willam Royce is among Rhaenyra’s supporters during the King’s Landing riots. When the war is over and Jeyne Arryn dies, House Royce promptly makes an about-face to support Arnold Arryn over Jeyne’s named heir Joffrey. Finally there’s the “Silent Five,” Corlys Velaryon’s nephews who lost their tongues for accusing Lucerys and his brothers of being bastards. We are told in Under the Regents - The Hooded Hand that the Five supported Aegon and that three died during the war, yet we do not hear of Velaryon forces of any kind supporting the Greens in the Dance’s narrative until after Rhaenyra imprisons Corlys. 

The Dance’s narrative makes even less sense when it comes to the Tyrells and Tullys, both of whom are neutral for most of the conflict. The Tyrells initially declare for Aegon but opt for neutrality when confronted with the large number of Black supporters in the Reach. The Tyrells remain neutral even after these Black houses are brought to heel by Ormund Hightower and Daeron Targaryen, but according to Maester Munkun they prevented the Hightowers from aiding Aegon II at the end by threatening the life of Garmund Hightower (fostering at Highgarden as a ward). The Tyrells were apparently unmoved by Aegon II’s rising fortunes, but were prepared to violate guest right and murder a child for the prospect of Aegon III becoming king. 

Meanwhile Elmo Tully keeps his house out of the war despite the protestations of his grandfather Grover, who is bed-ridden but wishes to support Aegon II. Elmo wished to avoid his house being assailed by either faction’s dragons, but he breaks neutrality and declares for Rhaenyra after being visited by Addam Velaryon with Seasmoke. While Elmo is claimed to have said “a dragon in one’s courtyard does wonders to resolve one’s doubts,” this quote makes House Tully’s prior neutrality even more mystifying. Daemon and Aemond were both present in the Riverlands and rode dragons far fiercer than Seasmoke, but we’re to believe that neither of them considered a show of force as a means of winning over House Tully? Elmo’s decision also makes little sense in light of the fact that Rhaenyra’s cause is in shambles at this point in the Dance, with Borros Baratheon and Ormund Hightower closing in from the south, the people of King’s Landing rioting against her, her Velaryon supporters abandoning her en masse due to the imprisonment of Lord Corlys, and rumors circulating that she had Queen Helaena and Dowager Queen Alicent gang-raped in a Flea Bottom whore-house. That George chose this moment for the Tullys to intervene on Rhaenyra’s behalf is bizarre, especially given the devastation wrought upon the Riverlands by the Dance.

I’ve doubtless left out other examples of inconsistencies and contradictions within the political alliances of George’s narrative, but in the interest of keeping things brief I’ve focused on what I found were the most obvious. If you’ve made it this far without drowning in walls of text, I commend you and thank you for your time (I definitely intend to add more images to spice things up). 

If you’ve got feedback for me, the replies and my inbox are open!

I am continuously perplexed at how a show as objectively bad and problematic as hotd keeps inspiring outstanding fanfics like yours and @gwenllian-in-the-abbey’s. Truly it’s a mystery to me, especially considering that the books covering the dance are supposed to be quite mediocre as well from what I’ve perceived. Just so you know,with that trailer out now I’m gonna completely blend out the events of the show and consider our fathers clad in red canon

@gwenllian-in-the-abbey AAAAAAAAAAAAAA, I think George's gonna order a hit on us:D

I'm glad you like our slightly destructive approach to teh canon. I'm mostly fueled by spite and my dislike for George's and HBO's complete disregard for the historical context of the stuff they draw their inspiration from (you can't do the Matilda vs Stephen showdown and expect the same sense of injustice, when your main conflict is about Viserys' imbecilic approach to rules, Rhaenyra's weak-ass claim and papa/dragons being her go-to solution to all her problems, Daemon being a chaos gremlin, Corlys' malignant ambition and the Hightowers being the only ones who actually care about the rule of law.)

A lesbian romance doesn't automatically turn a story into a feminist manifesto, nor does a girlboss who's treated by the narrative as the second coming of Christ. Context matters and it's a mistake to view the Dance through the lens of modern ideals about egalitarianism.

GRRM's hubris when it comes to "Aragorn's tax policies" is just another thing that enrages me and Gwenllian, because the man completely misunderstands the medieval legal codes. Just because they were complex that doesn't mean they were fucking contradictory on their own; no one wanted civil wars breaking out each time a monarch died.

Problems happened when two countries with generational beefs worked on two different principles of succession, ie. England (male-preference primogeniture) vs France (male-only primogeniture), or if there was some dynastic fuckery that completely messed up the clear-cut succession lines with usurpations and cousin marriages (Yorks vs Lancasters).

Had Richard II (the son of the Black Prince) died peacefully without issue, the succession would have followed through the line of the Duke of Clarence, with Edmund the Earl of March eventually becoming the king (and he was Richard's heir, btw).

But that's not what happened. The son of John of Gaunt usurped the throne and it was then passed down through his line, because he was the crowned king. Now, you can argue whether or not he had any right to do the usurpation in the first place and whether or not he was the legitimate king and you bet people back then argued about that too. This ambiguity is how you create a proper narrative about actually conflicting claims. The only thing propping up Rhaenyra against her brother is the fact that Viserys is a moron.

How the fuck can I take F&B seriously and without the Dead Sea's worth of salt, when it pretty much blows Jaehaerys' posthumous dick about his wisdom when he "let" the council of 101 decide the succession (while politely ignoring the fact that Jaehaerys' own claim is legit only in the cases of either full salic or semi-salic succession, ie male-only), while never once it calls out Viserys out on his extremely dangerous decision. He gets to die venerated as the peaceful grandpa and all the blame for his incompetence is piled on Aegon II and Alicent.

Let's go through the possible succession systems, shall we?

If we follow male-preference primogeniture, the legitimate line of kings ends with Aerea because she was the eldest child of Aegon the Uncrowned, Maegor's eldest nephew. Only after she and her sister die without issue, Jaehaerys can become the king. Jaehaerys' canon ascension works only because Rhaena gave up her daughters' claims. The next in line would be Aemon and after him Rhaenys. But that's not what happened.

If we follow the salic law (male only), the legitimate line of the kings goes Aegon I -> Aenys I -> Aegon Uncrowned -> Jaehaerys I -> Viserys I -> Aegon II. This is probably what Jaehaerys wanted to ensure, since he challenged Maegor's kingship in the first place.

If a crowned king can choose his heir, then Jaehaerys was never a legitimate king and Aerea was the true queen, because Maegor, who had won his crown in the trial by combat, chose her as his heir.

What about the principle of seniority? Cognatic seniority where men and women have equal claims is out of the question since Aegon I was the crowned king, not Visenya. Male-only seniority would go Aegon I -> Aenys I -> Maegor I (uncontested!) -> Aegon Crowned This Time -> Viserys the Not Tortured to Death -> Jaehaerys I -> Aemon (only if his uncle Viserys has no issue) -> Baelon -> Vaegon -> Viserys I -> Daemon (EW).

Notice the distinct lack of Rhaenyra.

Team Black keeps mentioning the widow's law, but that's a bulk of nonsense. I suppose the misunderstanding originates from a (willful) misinterpretation of this passage. The book says:

Now, I highly doubt Jaehaerys intended for the law to mean that a daughter from the first marriage should come before the sons from the second. The wording is a bit unlucky, but I suppose the intention was to establish the legal position of the second wife and her children as united with the position of her step-children - she has the same duties towards them as if they were own, and the same goes the other way. Which would make sense. Because otherwise, no one would be desperate enough to marry a widower with daughters. Since we know that title and land ownerships have remained in the same families without changing hands once or twice since the implementation of the law, I really doubt the team black's literal interpretation of the passage was the one intended. Ffs, Viserys was pushed to marry again because he had only one daughter, meaning, this law wasn't viewed the way the Team Black wishes for. And I'm not even delving into the fact that this would be a female inheritance hack penned by Jaehaerys, if that was the case. Talk about ooc.

So, yeah, we're taking Gyldayne's interpretation of the past with so much salt our hearts are gonna fail.

Is there anything good (positive achievement) about the Valyrian/ghiscarian empires? I feel GRRM didn't bother giving them nuanced and interesting history beside mass slavery, rape and genocide, esp the ghiscarians they are mash up of the all the racist oriental tropes you can think of

Hi anon, this is a really good question. I think you can look at it two ways.

On the one hand, if we're analyzing the books from a literary perspective, GRRM's portrayal of the entire continent of Essos is pretty Orientalist and doesn't hold up that well. And we can blame this to some extent on GRRM being a white boomer who clearly did not think all that deeply about the stereotypes he was playing into when he created his "exotic" eastern continent. 90s fantasy was rife with this stuff (even my beloved Robin Hobb is not completely immune-- I'm looking at you, Chalcedeans), and at the time Orientalism was, much like critical race theory or decolonization, a grad school level concept, unless you ran in activist circles. You didn't have Tumblr and Twitter and TikTok and Youtube generating Discourse, you had to actively seek out different perspectives. And ex-hippie liberal white boomers often assumed that they already had the right perspectives, that they knew what traps to avoid, and so you'd get 90s SFF authors thinking they were very cleverly subverting these tropes by going, "I know, I'll have an intensely misogynistic culture of desert dwelling nomads who have harems and slaves but I'll make them white." It was pretty bleak. Luckily for all of us, fantasy has come a long way since then.

And yeah, once you see the Orientalism in ASOIAF, you can't unsee it. Lys is basically the fantasy version of the "pleasure planet" trope, the Dothraki are a stereotype of the Mongol armies without any of the many positive contributions the Molgols made, Qarth is like the Coleridge poem come to life with people riding camels with jeweled saddles and wearing tiger skins, with its women baring one breast and it's sophisticated assassin's guild, and Mereen has its pyramids. The entire continent is brimming with spices and jewels and pleasure houses and people saying "Your Magnificence." It is also a place of blood magic and dragons and Red Gods and shadowlands. It is everything exciting and "exotic," juxtaposed against what appears to most readers to be very mundane--septas and pseudocatholicism and maesters in the citadel. So yeah, it's an Orientalist's fantasy world, and the point of all this is not necessarily to cast it as evil per se, but to cast it as "Other" (and to be clear, Orientalism is harmful and GRRM deserves the criticism he gets for leaning into stereotypes). Valyria and the Valyrians are certainly included in that-- they are explicitly Other as foreign born ruling family in Westeros, and they are treated that way both in-world and by the narrative.

The question then becomes, although GRRM's depictions of Essos lean heavily and inelegantly into Orientalist tropes, why did he create these worlds the way he did? Why is Valyria an "Other" and what significance does it have to the story? And I think that some of this is GRRM's shorthand for something magical that is lost and forgotten and fading away, just like Valyria itself is in the memories of the Targaryen family. It is the Xanadu of Coleridge's Kubla Khan, not just the East viewed from the West, but the past viewed from the present, a nostalgic yearning for a place that only ever existed in the imagination. When the narrative does visit these places in person, rather than telling us about them secondhand, they become ugly and brutal, the jeweled facade hiding a rot underneath. In ASOIAF we have Dany ripping that facade off of Meereen and Yunkai, but she idealizes her own Targaryen heritage, and that is not insignificant, and as readers, we are invited to idealize it right along with her, in spite of plenty of hints that perhaps we should not (like the aforementioned slavery). We even hear Astapori and Yunkish slavers speaking to Dany echo sentiments about the even older Ghiscari empire, also lost, "Ours is the blood of ancient Ghis, whose empire was old when Valyria was yet a squalling child." Old Ghis and the Valyrians who conquered them are both long gone at this point, and yet their descendants are clinging to the legacies of cultures that would be wholly foreign to both of them. Because if Valyria is Xanadu, the Old Valyrians and Old Ghiscari are also Ozymandias, the mighty who have fallen, their once grand civilizations nothing but forgotten ruins. The Targaryens don't yet realize that they are that "half-sunk shattered visage," that they are yearning for something that is gone and never returning, something they never really knew in the first place.

Westeros is not immune to this either. I think it's a consistent theme that GRRM plays with is the ways which the past is glorified and distorted and romanticized. Even in a meta-sense, his entire medieval world is, in many ways, a half-remembered medieval fantasy, the medieval world as imagined by people who read Ivanhoe, rather than a medieval world as actually was. And GRRM simultaneously presents this romanticized world alongside the brutality of the past (and to drive that point home, George's medieval world is much more brutal than the real medieval world was), and so he asks us, just like Dany must ask herself at some point, is the past really all that romantic? Or are we simply yearning for something unnamable and Other? And if we yearn for that, why?

On the other hand, from an in-world perspective, if you are Westerosi, are there any redeeming qualities to Valyrian culture? And I think we can answer that question by asking ourselves, is there anything salvageable from the past, even if the past was terrible? Even if what we perceive of Old Valyria wavers between a horrific empire based on conquest and slavery, and an idealized homeland full of magical dragonriders, depending on who is doing the telling, if we accept it as a fully fleshed out world, then I think we can remember no cultures are monoliths. Old Valyria had art, architecture, fashion, music, literature, and I like to imagine that there were good freeholders, perhaps even Valyrian versions of the Roman Stoics and the Cynics, who raised moral objections to slavery. Certainly the Valyrian "freeholder" government itself, a kind of proto-democracy, similar to that of Athens, was innovative for its particular time and place, even if it was not as democratic as our modern democracies are, and that model of government is replicated throughout Essos, where strict hereditary monarchy seems to be relatively uncommon. Valyria also had a great deal of religious freedom, which persists throughout Essos as well. And as with any empire, it's important to keep in mind that the ruling class made up only a small percentage of actual Valyria, and we know there were Valyrians who were not dragonlords but just normal people, going about their lives who had nothing to do with the atrocities committed, and those people were telling stories, creating art, writing songs, and producing culture too. So I think, tying back into how GRRM uses Valyria and Essos in his narrative, we do not have to discard the past entirely, nor do in-world Targaryens, but it's the romanticization that's the problem, and I think that's something that both in-world characters and readers are cautioned against.

I'm listening to A Clash of Kings as my multi-day road trip audiobook, and halfway through, one of my main takeaways is that this is more racist/Orientalist than the fantasy novels of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, both of whom were born in the British Empire at the end of the nineteenth century.

it seems like people miss the detail that Blood & Cheese tied and gagged Alicent and then strangled her bedmaid, killed Helaena's guards then that happened.. Young Jaehaerys was the main target, but Daemon took more lives that day too. He is a monster, I want to vomit every time they call him a hero and that he died for Rhaenyra's cause, when in fact, he abandoned her alone with her children and went to die a badass death. Aemond wasn't even the biggest threat to "Rhaenyra's cause" that was Daeron, especially after the first battle of Tumbleton that she lost two dragons for the greens, and the hightower army is far from small

I mean that’s the same people that idolizes Rhaenys for killing hundreds of people to have eye contact for a few minutes with Alicent. You can’t expect them to have empathy for the common people, they’re convinced they are descendants of Targaryens of some shit.

The idolization of Daemon is something even George falls for nonnie 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫 he’s framed as a hero bc GRRM thinks he is. He’s not, and imo, both Aemond and him are the weakest links of their respective teams, both preferring to run away with a woman they loved and abandon their families in the most dire moment. The battle of the god’s eye is not meant to be a badass moment, it’s two selfish men dying to get written down in history.

And if I hear once more about how Daemon ‘died for Rhaenyra!’ and didn’t meant to abandon her in a city that rightfully hated her for a girl she envied and feared, I’ll riot. He preferred to face death instead of leaving Nettles and going back to his boring wife who desperately needed him. He knew he wouldn’t be able to handle Daeron so he settled for the next best thing: die a badass death instead of living to see his failure.

I’m just so mad at how GRRM wrote the Dothraki like theres NO positive to this culture ? NOTHING ? Blood and gore and rape and pillaging and burning and public sex and deaths at weddings, they’re all dark-skinned and don’t have a word for “thank you”.

And the Dothraki ALL adhere to this. Not one member of this group has any nuanced view on the culture, or in fact, has any opinion on it at all other than “this is what we do and its fucking awesome.” No one is torn or conflicted or loves certain parts of the culture that they’d like to preserve but would like to spearhead change in other matters. They needed a white girl to come in and attempt to teach them that rape is bad, in fact, there is literally no difference between any of the Dothraki.

It is perfectly understandable to be angry, anon! What you suggest here:

No one is torn or conflicted or loves certain parts of the culture that they’d like to preserve but would like to spearhead change in other matters.

Would have been a great way to individualize the Dothraki. In fact, it is very common to have a character like that in movies, someone who is viewed as "soft" for objecting to certain acts of violence. I've seen it in war movies a number of times. I would have to reread Dany's chapters much more closely to see if there were any subtle hints of this, but I can't remember anything of the kind.

You might be interested in some of @eonweheraldodemanwe 's comments on this post which explain how Martin has this habit of extracting an idea from history and then making it far, far worse which is a big factor here, as well as his desire to hide Dany becoming a villain.

However, I would still argue that Martin should have looked at what he had written with a critical eye and decided if it was acceptable to write the Dothraki that way, regardless of artistic intent. And I agree with you no matter what his thought process was, he could have, should have, written a Dothraki character with some compunctions.

Do you guys ever wonder what kinda drugs had George smoked when said in the interwiew "Daemon is part darkness and part light"?

Beacuse it sounds like ones of those sentences that only work when you say them in your head

If Elia and lyanna's positions were reversed

If Rhaegar left his willful, tomboyish, and not like other girl wife for assumingly more feminine, Elia, would the reaction be the same?

Would R x L shippers say it's not their fault and we shouldn't blame R or E because R's marriage was forced to Lyanna?

That we just hate Elia being a girl who chooses who she wants to be with?

Or was it going to be a man who can't bear a woman being independent and strong and feeling challenged because Lyanna has a strong personality?

Would they say that Lyanna wouldn't mind as long as her child is heir and she gets to be queen and get rid of her jerk husband? or would it be humiliating for her?

Or maybe they would say Lyanna wouldn't mind because she is Brandon's sister as Elia is Oberyn's sister, and she is too independent her rough northern self doesn't care if her husband left her ? since she absolutely doesn't love him and because complicated relationships mean zero attraction/love and zero attempts to love each other

Would they say that it is alright because Rhaegar and Elia can be together? or are they going to blame Elia's Dornish nature for thinking she can be with a married man because she sees nothing is wrong with having bastards nor being with a married man? Are they not going to slut shame Elia?

Would they blame Lyanna's impulsive and more tough self for Rhaegar leaving her? like how it's justified that since Elia isn't as fiery or healthy as Lyanna for Rhaegar to leave her? or would they blame Elia for seducing Rhaegar with her more feminine and more allegedly submissive AND her seductive Dornish nature?

Would they write fanfiction about how Rhaegar prefers more feminine delicate desert flower than willful impulsive winter rose like how they do with Elia? Or maybe in their fanfictions, Elia's thrones would represent the stings she caused for Lyanna?

Would they accept the North not being angry and hateful with the Targaryens like how the Dornish shouldn't because the Dornish understand true love and don't mind mistresses or second wives at all in all scenarios?

Would people think Elia was kidnapped and raped? or are they going to be sure that it was consensual since Elia was adult and the sterotypical seductive Dornish, who doesn't mind mistresses and taking married man as lover?

Would they be it's fine because True Love! ? Or would they be furious for Lyanna because she helped and gave Rhaegar everything only to end up overshadowed by Elia?

Would they accept it if George's made it thay Lyanna was fine with Rhaegar having Elia because Lyanna was forced to marry Rhaegar and she and him have a very understanding paltonic love to the point Lyanna care not for her dignity nor all that she gave because she only cares for her child to be king and herself to be queen? Maybe Arthur Dayne, the knight who took his vows seriously, would break them to be Lyanna's lover in this scenario, so everything is ok?

Would they doubt that Rhaella ever cared deeply for Lyanna and Ashara was actully never close to her and just one of many handmaidens, as they do with Elia? Would they say it is because Lyanna is so minor and just a plot device for the North to hate the Lannisters, like how they did this with Elia and Dorne?

Or perhaps Lyanna would be fine because she wants Elia too?

Would the fandom be as apologic with Elia as they are with Lyanna in case she eloped willingly and say that she was totally faultless? and shouldn't be held accountable because of "girl's girl" and "don't put woman against woman," so no accountability? Or that Elia was manipulated by Rhaegar?

And Rhaegar, would the fandom see him as blameless/not that guilty as they see him when he left Elia? Would they also sympathize with the melancholic prince and say: let the poor man have a break and be with his true love! ?

is it a work of art and star-crossed lovers between Rhaegar and Elia in their eyes now? And as someone said, a progressiveness?

Or Would they criticize George for doing this to the cool willful not like other girls Lyanna?

Anyone associated with polygamous culture knows how unrealistic it is for Elia to accept a second wife without being upset about it and has no other choice. And we all know that most will not just be unbothered by it. Women in polygamous/polymorous culture do/would not simply accept it, and when they do, they aren't happy and ok with it. We are humans, and the Dornish are humans, too.

That's just in George's head.