a son for a son

So, first thing: they're obviously speedrunning Helaena's decline in this episode. There is, in fact, an huge issue with how they've written Helaena (well, multiple issues really), and it's not so much Maelor's absence but the complete lack of the long-term effect Blood & Cheese had on Helaena because the show is uninterested in consequences from these major deaths. (See: Jacaerys. See: Jaehaerys. See: Rhaenys. See: Lucerys). So, now, you have a Helaena whose grief was parcelled and packed away two episodes after it happened and who has for the most part been very well adjusted. Yes, Alicent's actions two episodes ago have had some consequences but materially not much has changed for Helaena, so now the show has to pretend that room arrest is bad enough that Helaena's condition is deteriorating at a rapid pace, black eye bags and all. On that note, I don't much care for this season's assertion that "dragons change you", which is oddly backwards, inconsistently applied and unoriginal.

I realised back in season 2 that this show was always more interested in using Helaena as motivation for Alicent or for Dreamer foreshadowing than it was in fully fleshing her out as a character and this has been my biggest issue with her as a character to date.

Onto Aemond's Oedipal dreams at Harrenhal... I'm not against the idea of the show either exploring enmeshment or the blurring of boundaries in a family with incestuous practises, I just don't think the show has a) the time, and b) the capability to write it with nuance or the subtlety it deserves. The entire Aemond-Harrenhal arc feels like they realised can't do a 1:1 repeat of Daemon, or have the time to do it, so half of it just happens offscreen and is alluded to. There was opportunity there to really flesh out Aemond - you could have had Helaena appear to him, or Aegon, or his mother (in a...different manner than this), or a younger version of himself, or a childhood memory. Btw, I do think there is at this point a pattern to how the show utilises Alicent sexually while other characters/relationships remain de-sexualised.

I found myself confused about Baela - she's an adultified teenage girl modelled after Rhaenys who is used by the writers, like Rhaenys was, solely to comment on the inner workings of other characters. Her own motivations remain largely unexplored, as do her relationships to other characters beyond Alyn and Addam this season who the show shoehorns into a random love triangle. If the show is trying to sell me on Baela feeling ostracised or chafing at her duty, it might consider actually giving Baela a scene with Rhaenyra or Daemon at any point in time. Or have her mention Rhaena. Also confused by the 180 of Baela two episodes ago insisting she continue patrolling even when Rhaenyra says she needs rest, to her now saying all Rhaenyra does is use her. Do anyone's motivations in this show remain consistent or are all these characters just convenient puppets for whatever agenda the episode has that season?

On Alicent, I did expect some sort of scene pre-arrival at Harrenhal or perhaps on the road there, or something to indicate perhaps that she would struggle with the act of poisoning her own son but uh...I guess not? I did like Aemond being unable to take her comfort since it uncomfortably paralleled his vision, and I did like the scene of him confessing to Alicent what he did to Aegon. I did find the dinnertable conversation to be incredibly funny - Alicent's "I still don't know who this woman is" did crack me up, although I do find it weird how unexplored Alys' bastardry is given that Aemond was staunchly anti-bastards, a Valyrian supremacist, and is now claiming theirs will be a line of "unsullied kings".

Seems like Corlys being prisoner to Ormund at least gave him some of his personality back. I'm not sure why Ormund, a supposed scholar, would question why one of the last houses from Valyria, the Velaryons, would ally themselves with House Targaryen which I feel is obvious, even without taking into account the might of House Targaryen and that they have in fact been the reigning House for over 100 years. Seems like an odd choice, although I did enjoy the very obvious misstep he took in badmouthing Rhaenys. Good way to bring that relationship back up.

The biggest part of the episode is also the most disappointing. I was 100% on board at least emotionally for the betrayal of Rhaenyra finding out about Rhaena, and it feels like the show completely squandered it. I don't really have much to say apart from that the set-up was all there, and I expected it to have devasting consequences and for the lie to be dragged out to fuel Rhaenyra's paranoia or at least, double down on the betrayal. The entire scene feels like they just wanted to get it over and done with because they themselves understand the merger of Nettles and Rhaena doesn't work. The show is unwilling to make Rhaenyra the type of character to act on feeling betrayed, which means Daemon and Rhaena keeping it hidden ends up feeling largely nonsensical. There's almost no weight given to the moment Rhaenyra finds out - compare this to how the scene plays out when Rhaenys for example gives Rhaenyra the news of her father's death and the usurpation in season 1. The aftermath of it is at least done more justice with Rhaena in her rooms, and Daemon defending himself to Rhaenyra while Rhaenyra purposefully emotionally withdraws from him which sets the scene for Mysaria to get her claws in. But on the whole, it felt like the show did the Nettles-Rhaena thing for the "betrayal" arc, only to then wrap it up prematurely - it didn't actually feel like Rhaenyra was that betrayed by it at all, she even defends Daemon to Mysaria.

I think the Mysaria/Rhaenyra scene was very well done in terms of being transparently a scene of manipulation - her conversation with Silvi reminds her of the first tools of her trade and then Mysaria falls back on them. I'm not sure how I feel about Rhaenyra seemingly calling out Mysaria's transparent attempts at manipulation, only to then fall into her arms anyways? It seems odd and there's not really enough time on screen to explore why Rhaenyra turns to her here - maybe there needed to be some time between these two scenes for Mysaria to ingratiate herself again. I did like the subtle use of them reusing what sounds like Rhaenyra and Daemon's love theme from 1x07, but a more discordant version of it I believe to indicate the underlying wrongness.

The Ulf-Ormund reveal was something that's a nice twist, but I did wish there was some hint of it beforehand. The conversation indicates they've been meeting for some time - it would have been nice if there was some subtle nod towards it, for example Hugh coming to Tumbleton for his watch and Ulf being late and Hugh asking where he was. And the "no, they will burn" did seem weirdly, uh, fanatical from Ulf.

One other side note is the Torrhen Manderly stuff: I may have missed it but is there an in-universe explanation given for why Rhaenrya isn't enforcing a tax? (I do, by the way, question the overall pattern of making show!Rhaenyra the person who wrongs everyone, as opposed to being the one wronged.) If show!Rhaenyra (unlike her book version) wants the support of the smallfolk who have been made vulnerable without the protection of the Goldcloaks, the majority of who resigned due to lack of pay, it would seem like a tax should be something to be considered. And at the very least, they could have had someone advise Rhaenyra against it to provide a reason as to why no one! is installing! a tax! Instead Rhaenyra shrugs her shoulders and quips, "I don't know what you want me to do about it", which is pretty much on par actually with how interested this show is in actually doing politics. If the show wants to explore the struggles of statesmanship, you'd think it would take more interest in it than this. Remember when in Game of Thrones the Iron Throne being in debt was a major issue?