Sorry if that's already been asked but what do you think about the "King's word is the law" in hotd/dance discourse? I'm not sure where that even came from and for me there is 0 evidence that suggests it's true

Hi anon, excellent question! Sorry it took me so long to reply, this got a bit long! This is actually something that comes up a lot when I teach feudalism to my high school students. I've found that most people in general do not know the difference between feudalism and absolutism, and conceive of all kingship as a form of tyranny. And compared to most modern systems of government, of course feudalism and absolutism are both oppressive and restrictive, so the difference can feel a bit like splitting hairs. Neither system gives the the common people any real voice, but the difference is that feudalism is a system with a relatively weak monarchy that has to, both directly and indirectly, answer to both the church and to his vassals. But Westeros, even under the Targaryens, even with the dragons, is not, strictly peaking, an absolute monarchy but rather a feudal monarchy.

Broadly speaking, in a feudal system "the king's word is law" is only true insofar as the king can enforce that law, and to enforce his laws he needs the support of his vassals, the landholders who supply him with his armies and revenues. The feudal relationship between the king and his vassals looks roughly like this (this is the actual diagram we use in my world history curriculum):

Notice how the relationships are all reciprocal? The king might technically own all the land in the realm, but he has no standing army of his own. Knights pledge their service to the lords, rather than the king (he will have some knights in his personal service too, but not nearly enough to make war). It is in the king's best interest to keep his vassals happy. He needs them! They help him keep other unruly vassals in check, help defend against foreign invasion, and help him wage his own wars of expansion. They also provide the crown with revenue in the form of taxes, and their farmlands are what provide food for the people of the realm. In Westeros in particular, the royal family does not hold much land of its own (the land held by the royal family is called the royal demesne and the Targaryen royal demesne is very small compared to that of irl kings), so it's particularly dependent on the support of the vassalage. This makes it a relatively weak feudal monarchy, all things considered.

(also, notice the bishop up there with the lords? Usually, he would usually be appointed by the king with the approval of the pope, but the question of whether or not church officials were subjects of the king and subject to the king's laws was a huge point of contention hat caused many power struggles in medieval monarchies, and there was a whole separate court system, the ecclesiastical court, to deal with the crimes of court officials)

Anyway, a feudal king who just does whatever he wants without regard for his vassals will quickly find himself being named a tyrant, and the accusation of tyranny is a serious one in a feudal system, because vassals will rebel rather than serve a tyrant. Rebellions were not usually done with the goal of overthrowing the king completely, they were done in order to pressure the king into listening to their demands. We saw this happen with King John, whose barons were unhappy for a number of reasons including what they saw as avaricious economic policies, costly wars with France, increased royal interference in local administration of justice, and conflicts between the king and the church. Eventually, John's barons pressured him into signing the Magna Carta, a document that specifically limited the power of the king and stated outright that the king was not above the law and that the king could not impose new laws without the consent of the lords. John later repudiated this document, which led to further rebellions, and his son and heir Henry III had to reaffirm it after his death (and a series of rebellions still plagued Henry III). Eventually, this leads to a formalization of the idea that the king must not act without the consent of his lords and the creation of parliament.

Now, we never see a Westerosi Magna Carta or the creation of a set parliament, there is the small council and the occasional great council, and lords can and do object to the king's laws, force concessions, and remove kings. Notably, Robert's rebellion in the main series is an example of vassals losing faith in their king and eventually removing him. Aegon V cannot push his reforms through because he lacks the support of the lords, and in his desperation tries to bring back the dragons. But if we look back, even dragonriding Targaryens could not simply impose their will without the cooperation of the realm's lords. Aenys was considered weak and his rule was beset by rebellions, eventually coming to a head when he arranged an incestuous marriage for his heir, this after the Faith was already displeased with his brother's polygamous marriage. This led to Aenys being known as known as King Abomination and the Faith Militant uprising forced him to flee to Dragonstone. Maegor, who followed him, is ousted (and killed) as a tyrant for going further than that, suppressing the faith and committing kinslaying against his nephew. What makes Jaehaerys' rule notable and successful is that he's very good at appeasing the lords and when he is going to do something controversial, like the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or changing the succession, he campaigns and politicks for their support (I maintain that he knew Viserys being picked at the council was a forgone conclusion, but he did not want to unilaterally go against Andal custom without consulting his lords, it's a CYA move). This is something Viserys completely fails to do, not only failing to drum up support for his unconventional choice of heir, but actively alienating potential supporters.

It's worth keeping in mind that "law" means something different in this context than what many of us are used to today. Medieval law, and Westerosi law, was a hodgepodge of custom, statute, and precedent. Westeros, like England, operates on "common law." Successions are disputed all the time because competing claims exist. If Viserys named Mushroom heir, is his word law? What if he names Helaena? Jace? And in a normal situation, if it wasn't the succession of the throne in question the rival claimants would present their petitions, citing evidence and precedent, and the master of law, magistrate, or the king would make a ruling. The will of the lords is especially required to enforce an unconventional royal succession because succession takes place after the king is dead, and so if the succession is disputed, the claimants and the lords of the realm have to settle the dispute, nonviolently if possible, or else civil war will follow.

And you can get the lords behind an unconventional succession, but you have to have a good reason. "She's my favorite child from my favorite wife" is not actually good enough. For instance, when Robb chooses to legitimize Jon and disinherit Sansa in order to keep Winterfell out of Lannister hands, this is widely accepted among his vassals and allies because the reasoning is sound. Jon may be a bastard, but it would be worse for everyone to have Winterfell pass to a Lannister, even if it's shitty for Sansa. By the same logic, initially, Rhaenyra is accepted as heir because the lords do not want Daemon on the throne (the man she is now married to!). But after Aegon is born most assumed he would naturally become his father's heir. And remember, there's no reason for Alicent to marry Viserys if he cannot even ensure he inheritance of his own firstborn son. And Viserys never builds a case for Rhaenyra while he is alive, never tries to present Aegon as unworthy, he never has the lords come reaffirm their oaths, never writes a decree to formalize Westerosi succession. He doesn't take action because he knows he would not achieve anything near consensus (despite certain houses choosing Rhaenyra when it comes to war, it's doubtful they would have made the same choice if it had been a great council), so instead of dealing with the problem, he passes it on to his children.

I think it's fair to view the challenge to Rhaenyra's succession as an objection to what some see as tyranny on the part of the king. Viserys and Rhaenyra set themselves above the law in multiple ways-- not just jumping ahead of a son in the line of succession, but the way she has destabilized her own rule by placing bastards in her line of succession. What they are doing defies all precedent, and in a world where law is built in large part from precedent, this is not something the lords of the realm are obligated to accept.

If someone defends Rhaenyra’s usurpation because of tRaDiTiOn, they better be waving a Maegor banner proudly.

I’m being serious.

So many people in this fandom care about the tradition of Westerosi inheritance and act like yelling about it justifies team green’s actions. They never seem to take into consideration what it means.

This post is inspired by my allergy to inconsistency and hypocrisy. Here we go.

The only consistent tradition of Targaryen succession is the ruler choosing their own heir. Sometimes that aligned with Westerosi tradition, often it did not. And it started with the very first heir. So either you admit Maegor was the rightful heir over Aenys, or you admit he wasn’t because Aegon the Conqueror said so.

Let me explain.

Visenya was Aegon’s first wife. In Westerosi tradition, Rhaenys would be considered at best a mistress and her children out of the succession or, at the least, behind Visenya’s children. The lords accepted the validity of Aegon’s plural marriage because they didn’t have the power to oppose the Conquerors, simple as. Tradition didn’t matter in the face of dragons. It is not a genuine argument and hasn’t been since the creation of the Crown itself. House Targaryen’s exceptionalism went beyond incest and dragons from the start, and accepting Aenys as king shows the nobles accepted this when it was convenient.

So I’d like team green to be consistent. Is the king’s word law, a la Aegon choosing Aenys as his heir? Or is this a break from tradition that was only corrected when Maegor killed his nephew and took the throne?

It gets messy from here. Maegor, as we know, didn’t have a child, so he chose his great-niece, Aerea as his heir. Jaehaerys was still alive, he could’ve chosen him. Heck, that might’ve eased like a drop of the tension between him, Jaehaerys and Alyssa Velaryon. So if you’re a tradition truther, Maegor was the proper king but then chose an untraditional heir. Hmm.

Then we get to Jaehaerys, and a tradition truther might think YES, THAT’S OUR GUY. But he’s really not.

Yes, he stopped considering his eldest living child, Daenerys, as his heir after Aemon was born. But then Aemon died.

Aemon did, however, die with an heir. Her name was Rhaenys. In Westerosi tradition, she’d inherit after him, because a daughter inherits before a brother. Now, I know the lords do all sorts of things to circumvent this (see Alys Karstark), but that *is* Westerosi tradition.

Did Jaehaerys follow tradition? Nope. He picked his second oldest son, Baelon.

Some might say there are logical reasons for this. Baelon was a warrior, older, and had grown sons. Rhaenys was like 18, married to an ambitious lord not named Targaryen, and at risk of dying in childbirth (Baelon was named heir in 92, Rhaenys had her first child in 92). HOWEVER, we see with Jeyne Arryn becoming Lady of the Vale while still a *toddler* that Westerosi tradition doesn’t set aside claims merely because such concerns exist. In fact, in ASOIAF, some Lannister married an f-ing BABY to lay claim to her lands because *she* is the acknowledged inheritor.

You could argue that it matters more when it’s the Crown, and I’ll concede that while pointing out you’ve made my argument for me: isn’t that a good reason for the Crown to do what it wants instead of following traditions that hamstring it?

If you’re a tradition truther, however, you should be in a rage and insisting Rhaenys inherit, and you should be outraged by what was done to her at the Council of 101 after Baelon dies. Her claim wasn’t even considered, Laenor’s was—ya know, her toddler son who got his claim *through* her.

So then Viserys takes the throne and continues the Targaryen custom of choosing his heir. And the tradition truthers of the fandom rise up and boo, and they cry “duty and sacrifice! What about tradition!?”

Just admit that the lords of Westeros, Alicent, her merry band of greens, and the fans that make excuses for them didn’t and don’t care about tradition unless it suits them, and they only become vocal about it when a woman stands a good chance of inheriting over a man.

Viserys never wavered in his choice, the realm knew it and so did the greens. This is precisely why Rhaenyra had far more support than her brother, and why the argument that the realm wouldn’t accept her is bs. The realm DID accept her. Because they understood something many in this fandom struggle to

There was only one consistent tradition of royal succession between the Conquest and the Dance: the ruler chooses their heir.

I love it when the Doctor is full of hubris I love it when they play god I love it when they mess with time I love it when they interfere

Jaehaerys: *chooses Baelon over Rhaenys despite the law saying that a niece inherits before an uncle*

Fandom: She was usurped! Rhaenys should have been queen!

Viserys: *chooses Rhaenyra over Aegon despite the law saying that a son inherits before a daughter*

Fandom: He has no right to the throne! Usurper!

IT’S CUFFING SZN

AND ALL THE GIRLS THEY NEED IT

I NEED A BIG BOY

I NEED A BIG BOY

I NEED A BIG BOY

An Hoid Observation

I think that TLM really drove this home for me, but the different role/s Hoid fulfills in Stormlight vs. Mistborn is really interesting and corresponds to the magic systems of Roshar and Scadriel. *Spoilers and semi-lengthy so below the cut*

Stormlight, we’ve seen that heritage plays little to no role in who’s Invested or not. Conversely, the ability to use Investiture in Mistborn is entirely hereditary—sans lerasium. The form the Investiture takes is similar. Stormlight is insubstantial, spren are native to the Cognitive Realm, although they can manifest as solid—more or less, as Shardblade or not—due to the Nahal bond. Meanwhile, on Scadriel, they’re ingesting metal generally native to the Physical Realm. Suppose that’s Allomancer specific, but Feruchemists and Hemalurgists(?) also both depend upon metal, just in as spikes or Metalminds.

There’s probably something you could say about the fact that Stormlight will naturally be lost—ephemeral—while metals won’t be, but I haven’t given that enough thought.

As per the title, Hoid’s role changes like ^ in the different stories. Stormlight, I think we’ve all lost our minds for at least one of his stories, but he’s almost never Physically Doing anything. He offers emotional or mental tools/respite/aid, but he doesn’t typically Do anything. Even when he’s the King’s Wit in WoK, his work is verbal. Exceptions include when he was the carriage driver in WoR, and his and Jasnah’s scheme in RoW. Welcome to other exceptions that I’ve missed. I’m not counting giving the flute to Kaladin because there’s still something to come there, I’m almost positive. And The Dog and the Dragon was mental not physical, so I consider that supporting nor dissenting. Hoid’s role in Stormlight is characterized by immaterial service, considering the mental/emotional states of our Radiants, makes sense.

Compare with his antics on Scadriel. He gives the coin to Wax, and frequently plays carriage and automobile driver, as well as dinghy/rowboat operator. Interestingly, Mistborn Era 1 does buck this a bit since he’s an informant. It’s been a while since Mistborn Era 1, forgive my imperfect memory. Anyway, Mistborn Era 2, the cast tends to need physical aid more than mental/emotional; not to say they don’t need any, but not Hoid’s type it seems.

TLDR: Hoid’s help is mental/emotional/immaterial on Roshar where the Investiture is immaterial, connected to mind/emotions more than Scadriel. Hoid’s help is physical on Scadriel where Investiture is material.

Pardon any mistakes or faulty technical language, feel free to correct or add. Just something that occurred to me, sorry if anyone’s said this before.

LITERALLY once viserys named rhaenyra his heir he started the Beginning of the End. and after being convinced he needed to remarry that only cemented it. it didnt matter who he married or from what house. even if their mother didnt feel like her children were being robbed (BIG IF) their grandfather certainly would. who could pass up the opportunity of THEIR house being the new royal family?

viserys just created too perfect of a powder keg opportunity

nitpick

only thing id disagree with in the tags on prev post is that "luffy hammered the idea that love is not a transaction into law's head" not because its pure speculation but because for me luffy Doesnt really do those types of things

hes not in the business of solving others outlook on life

he will help you punch your problems and will proclaim HIS simplistic (not said as a bad thing, its brilliant) outlook but he doesnt care to fix anybody

law makes his own observations and luffy is no authority on his emotional state lol. im not trying to argue with anyone but i wanted to say this cuz its precious to me

that even law's family has that passive approach like "we are gonna let him do his thing at his own pace" and its a great and beautiful thing, its in no way a flaw but a feature - law is not a person who needs "grab his shoulders and shake him" type of approach. it just won't work. hes way too secure and grounded and rational

tl;dr luffy is not interested in convincing law about how love is not about give and take and luffy is not an authority to law in that way

but good post overall very happy to see cuz i do love it so dearly how hearts balance law out and its good to see it talked abt 💛💛💛💛

Why you should read Alcatraz vs. the Evil Librarians: an essay by me

I love Brandon Sanderson’s books. Each book is a genuine delight, start to finish. His magic systems are so mind-blowingly rich and complex. Rule-based and creative, his magics use focuses, math, and limitations to stand out. Each time I cracked open another of his works I knew I was in for magics and characters I wouldn’t stop wondering and imagining about for years. I tore through the cosmere, the Reckoners, and the Skyward series, reading and re-reading.

However, the first of his books I read was a series you may not have heard of, Alcatraz vs. the Evil Librarians. I wasn’t that excited, (I didn’t know what I was getting into) but I quickly changed my tune. The book is written as an autobiography by a fictional character (think Percy Jackson), and it is masterfully done. It is full of relatable characters, rich plots, and hilarious side tangents and commentary by the author, Alcatraz, for whom Brandon Sanderson is just a pen name. It’s supposedly a middle grade series, but Brandon Sanderson could write a lawn mower instruction manual and his fanbase would still fanatically read and meme about it. So why does this masterpiece have practically no following?

Please someone read this relatable comedy gold. The fandom is like 6 people, some spare change, and a piece of string. We need you cosmere/skyward/reckoners fans! This is a Sanderson book, which means that the characters will be real and relatable, the plot will be captivating, the twists will be revelatory, and the magic system will be realistic and rule-based while being so cool and full of possibility. I’m promising you a story and characters that will emotionally captivate you, and (what every Sanderson reader knows is bound to happen) angst, political intrigue, and general world-saving. Is that everything? I think that’s everything. I leave you with this: after reading these books, you will never be the same.

May your books be good, and your spheres be bright to light your way.

BLINDSIDED !!

send BLINDSIDED for a scene from my muse's past in which they were betrayed or shocked by what someone did

There are two men pinning him down by his ankles and by his wrists.

The sky is clear and the air is cold, and the grass he's been forced down into is certainly preferable to the abrasive rock that forms their land. A little ways off, there are people he knows - a farmhand and his girlfriend, both skirting eighteen. They keep their heads carefully turned away from him, despite Leifur's hissing and screaming. One of the men snarls him to shut up, and Leifur spits at him.

It is the fucking Norwegians, this is their doing. Leifur liked Tór, despite - he understood now - their initial meeting being an invasion. Tór gave him food. Deep down — despite failing to understand the intricacies of their existence, nor the political plays that these mortals weaponise — Leifur does not wish to believe that this is Tór's fault. It is the people, the Norwegian people, who came here to conquer and to pillage. Under Tór's instruction, yes, and yet...

Could Tór stop this, if he so wished? Could the Góðar?

It is King Olaf who sent Stefnir, King Olaf who sent Thangbrand to the Góðar, King Olaf who - now - has taken several of his people hostage in Norway. It is King Olaf threatening to take their life, should Iceland not convert.

He is aware, too, that the Góðar speak endlessly about Norway. That's all they ever seem to talk about: Norway, Norway, Norway. Friends, that's what they are, and they have to stay that way. It is because of Olaf. No decisions are ever made without the King's presence looming. He doesn't understand why, but he doesn't understand a lot of things. He thinks King Olaf is evil, and he cannot understand why his countrymen simply bow their heads to him. After all — is he not mortal, too?

"Fuck you," he hisses at the men, jerking his wrists against the restraints — ineffectually. Few men would be so heinous as to treat a child this way, but Leifur is no mortal child. He is an immortal boy, physically only five or six — but right now he is a rabid animal, the explosive embodiment of all the great fires of their land. He unleashes a barrage of curses a boy of his age should certainly not know, and he attempts to bite at one man's wrist. "Fuck you! You don't care about Sturla. You never cared about Sturla!"

"You don't even fucking know Sturla, boy."

Leifur spits at him again, then throws his head back against the ground and screams.

His countrymen all know him as a strange boy, coming and going as wildly as the winds of their homelands — and behaving just as erratically. His presence tends to inspire a variety of reactions: some find him endearing, while some find him offputting. They all find him familiar, though, even those he has never met before. He is, after all, the land they walk on and the water they drink. Regardless of how they may find him, he will be exist as they born and as they die.

"Stefnir destroyed everything!"

"And Stefnir is never coming back here."

"And now they've taken Sturla, your 'friend'. Coward!"

The man's chest heaves with rage, and for a moment he looks ready to strike the boy. "You question my fortitude as a man?"

Leifur stops thrashing momentarily to hold the man's gaze, violet eyes all but coring the man from the inside. "I don't question it. You are a coward."

Finally, the man grabs his hair and slams the boy's head back into the earth. Leifur doesn't seem to care or even really react, continuing, "And everyone who Thangbrand got are cowards!"

So, this boy is nothing more than a heathen, is he? It is unusual for one so young - and so isolated - to feel so strongly against the Christians. It was easier to understand it from the farmhands or the sons of the Góðar, but this boy who simply roams, who exists outside the bounds of their society? He doesn't even engage with the Góðar as he should. He may be their land, but he is disrespectful — a lucky little boy who does not know to appreciate what he has. It is infuriating, listening to him whine about the King and the political affairs he takes no interest in. Many of the Góðar are displeased, of course — but law is law, and blood is blood.

"You speak ill of the King and he will have your head, child."

"At least my head won't be bowed. I'm not a coward."

Bold all the things your muse has done or will do.

TOBIAS:

murder / manslaughter / assault / robbery / breaking & entering / theft / embezzlement / kidnapping / torture / blackmail / arson / trespassing / treason / libel or slander / obstruction of justice / lying to law enforcement / creation of a weapon / espionage / riot / escape from lawful custody / contempt of court / public intoxication / conspiracy / accessory to a crime / harboring a fugitive / bribery / perjury under oath / resisting arrest / identity theft / corporate fraud / tax fraud / document forgery / destruction of evidence / assassination / counterfeiting / sale of a controlled substance / purchase of a controlled substance / failure to pay child support / hacking crimes / threat / pick-pocketing / shoplifting

ELIJAH:

murder / manslaughter / assault / robbery / breaking & entering / theft / embezzlement / kidnapping / torture / blackmail / arson / trespassing / treason / libel or slander / obstruction of justice / lying to law enforcement / creation of a weapon / espionage / riot / escape from lawful custody / contempt of court / public intoxication / conspiracy / accessory to a crime / harboring a fugitive / bribery / perjury under oath / resisting arrest / identity theft / corporate fraud / tax fraud / document forgery / destruction of evidence / assassination / counterfeiting / sale of a controlled substance / purchase of a controlled substance / failure to pay child support / hacking crimes / threat / pick-pocketing / shoplifting

Open My Eyes

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. — Psalm 119:18 | Authorized King James Version (AKJV) The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version; Cambridge University Press, the Crown’s patentee in the UK. All rights reserved. Cross References: Psalm 119:17; Psalm 119:19; Psalm 119:129; Isaiah 29:18

I don’t know if tg stans know how absolute monarchies work💀

Villager is moving out so i invited vannah to my island to bully him with me. His fate was decided, for the crime of speaking of leaving the isle and for having a fucking ugly house he is to work himself to the death in the mines