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 subtlety 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?

There's maybe like... a glimpse of book!Rhaenyra in her conversation with Daemon where she tells him to take Tumbleton and seize every Hightower, which is about the closest we'll ever get to that version of her character or anything resembling the briefly haughty woman she was at times in S1. That said, the rest of the episode is transparently character assassination moment after character assassination from a show that ultimately does not sympathise with Rhaenyra, doesn't care about adapting book!Rhaenyra, and actively wants to malign Rhaenyra. Are we ready to admit that this show has been absolutely uninterested in Rhaenyra's character in general beyond making her a religious zealot obsessed with her right to rule, something which the show came up with in the first place and now seems just as obsessed with?

I mean, you finally wake Joffrey Velaryon from his three-episode slumber and Rhaenyra delivers to him the Song of Ice and Fire (in a seemingly bored manner) and you still don't spare a single line of dialogue for him. One line? Really? I mean, I can see what Condal means by his assertion that the younger characters are just "props" because you may as well replace Joffrey with a mannequin at this point. This is a character who has had absolutely zero fleshing out, or his relationship with Rhaenyra means particularly in the aftermath of losing two (three technically) children. This is Rhaenyra's heir and youngest child currently in Westeros (since the other two are presumably safe, not that the show has bothered mentioning it at all) and who Rhaenyar is fiercely protective of in the book. A character who will, by, the way, die in presumably two/three episodes next season. Was it so hard to have a line of him interrupting his mother to simply say, "I miss home" or "I miss my brothers", just to engender some sort of emotional response to the character? Something so that you feel something about this relationship - Rhaenyra had scenes with Lucerys and a whole season of her relationship with Jace before they both kicked the bucket!

On that note, the cognitive dissonance between having Rhaenyra curse Viserys and the prophecy only to have her pass it on regardless, and then proclaim it to the entirety of King's Landing is just a massive crack in the writing. If the show really wanted to force this prophecy into the book's account of events, Rhaenyra should simply abandon the prophecy altogether and realise attempting to rule in wartime by it has cost her everything - and the prophecy is discarded. But then, of course, if you do that it's pretty hard for the show to so obviously denigrate Rhaenyra. Does book Rhaenyra even exist in this show? Show Rhaenyra is a mish-mash of several other ASOIAF characters more than she is an adapation of her book character - she's a quasi Rhaegar Targaryen meets S8!Daenerys meets Baelor the Blessed. (They've even given her stuff from other characters in the Dance - half of her deeds last season were Jacaerys' originally, some stuff is lifted from Corlys and even Trystane Truefyre this season. And then the rest is the show invention while Rhaenyra's actual book canon traits remain unused (as do Alicent's).

HoTD is doing the same thing GoT S8 did which is transparently use their characters as props to speak aloud their own agenda, all which remain (even when the other characters are spouting plainly absurd accusations her way) uncontested by the writers so it can be presented as an objective truth to the audience. The conversations with Baela, with Helaena? I mean, by what metric exactly is Rhaena, for example, "broken" by Rhaenyra? Rhaenyra who explicitly sent her away for her safety during wartime and entrusted her with her children (and dragon eggs!)? But is Rhaenyra allowed to mention this? Nope. The amount of times people have thrown Viserys in Rhaenyra's face so the show can use it as some sort of metric of Rhaenyra's failing is insanity, given her father was equally a) her strongest proponent and b) the reason why she's in this mess to begin with and not something to aspire to.

I have much to say about Helaena as a character and how she is utilised, how her neurodivergence is written, but I feel I would have been more moved by her death if it didn't feel like half of her decline happened offscreen. To me, Helaena feels hugely unexplored as a character. I feel like the show could have done her more justice. But I thought her death was just okay, I liked the cut to Alicent miles away feeling some sort of effect of her leaving this world via the butterflies. I actually felt we could have had more Alicent either this episode or last, dealing with however killing Aemond made her feel but evidently the answer to that is: nothing.

Speaking of, now that the season is over, the other character who feels vastly unexplored is Aemond. The Alys reveal was actually one of my favourite parts of the episode - it puts all those mentions of Harren by Alys into perspective. Aemond, on the other hand? I mean, did we do anything with this character at Harrenhal? Just oddly unutilised, it's like they realised they used up all their fun stuff at Harrenhal last season. Vhagar is conveniently off-screen so he doesn't have to do any of his burning in the Riverlands, he and Cole never meet back up since he's hidden away so you never get the schism between them and Cole marching off to his death alone. I was semi looking forward to the Aemond/Aegon reunion but then the approach to it felt so unsupported that it felt like the writers only put it there to justify whatever future stuff they've cooked up with them - given that in the book, these two never go anywhere together, let alone Tumbleton. I'm finding it hard to believe that Aemond suddenly feels a huge amount of guilt for burning Aegon and seizing the throne, given that the guy was sadistically threatening him last season and that Aegon basically fled the Keep not because of Rhaenyra, but Aemond. And I'm finding it hard to believe that Aegon is that willing to simply let go of Aemond's murder attempt.

There must be some sort of curse in general on King's Landing, I would say, but it's actually the show's complete lack of interest in Rhaenyra and her relationships to others (beyond obviously criticising her) that it took for Corlys being captured in Tumbleton for him to apparently regrow a personality. And finally they're actually adapting his book stuff. Is there a reason none of this was taking place in the politically-centred episode 3? I'm just glad Corlys is back, if only they had written him to be the hugely influential and politically sound figure he was the entire season then you would really get a sense of how major a loss he is when the Greens captured him here, but I'll take it. Speaking of that curse on King's Landing, it's weird how this show did not feel there needed to be some sort of connecting scene between Mysaria and Rhaenyra literally sleeping with each other last episode to her dismissal this one. Why do it all? It's such an objectively big change mentally that it does feel like there needs to be some sort of link there - only if it's Daemon telling her to dismiss her. Or her realising Mysaria would caution her poorly here.

Ormund is such an enjoyable villain, it will sadly be a shame to see him go. Seeing him run around screaming for Ulf was fun. Speaking of Ulf, I'm glad they went full mask-off with him. Gwayne and Daeron continue to be a highlight, although I did really expect Daeron to get on Tessarion. I enjoy both their characters. I liked in particular the moment of Daeron feeling responsible since he's been made figurehead - I do wish we had seen something before to get a sense that people have sworn themselves to him though, and not that it's something Ormund has simply told him.

Last thoughts are: I don't know at this point how those who know the book and watch the show can deny that this show pointedly is more interested in the Greens or that it feels the same way about Rhaenyra as D&D did about Daenerys. Here is a list of things Rhaenyra never did in the book but does in the show: abandons her small council, refuses Corlys and Addam/Alyn, mistreats Ulf, installs Torrhen Manderly as a scapegoat, sends Alicent to kill her own son, forcefeeds Helaena, kills the High Septon, and proclaims herself a Messiah who is ordained to rule. The show absolutely strips away her motivations and love for her sons - in particular that Jace is a motivating factor to take King's Landing, or that Rhaenyra is fiercely protective of Joffrey. She is also not in any way of the belief that she is religiously ordained to rule, but rather that as Viserys' first child she has a legal claim to the throne which was stolen from her.

But if you make it explicitly about that, you have a fairly hard time of presenting the other party in this conflict as justified or sympathetic for plunging the entire realm into war because of the gender of the claimant - they understand that a modern audience is predisposed to being inherently sympathetic to Rhaenyra if she is fighting for her legal right as a woman, so they've shifted her objective claim into a subjective one: the prophecy. That may in fact, be a much more misogynistic take on the story given that unlike GoT, the Dance is a story explicitly about gender - and women being repeatedly removed from the succession altogether. It is inextricable from the story. So yes, I do think it's worth now to point out the obvious: that the show has taken the story of a woman who fights for her own legal claim and made her into a fanatic with a god complex, who is deluded by a prophecy which we as the audience know does not pertain to her and who the show is framing as more and more out of touch, not because of betrayal or loss, but because women in proximity to some sort of power become despots who believe in exceptionalism.

Underlying all of this is a dichotomy which presents female characters as one of two ways: passive victims who exist within the confines of the patriarchy which the show sympathises with and proactive agents which the show frames as power-hungry or self-interested, prideful or reckless, the conclusion being that these women have brought the consequences on themselves. The position that the show itself is taking is that it would have been better for all involved if the female characters in the show had simply assented to their own subjugation or disfranchisement, while the female characters like Alicent ("We do not rule but we may guide the men who do"), Helaena (who remains morally uncompromised and has no interest in ruling) and Rhaenys ("I know the way of things, I'm not sure you do") are the ones the show presents as having the right of it: they have learnt their place in the world, they get to be arbiters of wisdom and truth, and the show's moral compasses.