Gyallis

apart:

adj. separate

a part:

Tired

Wary:

“When Esu Crossed the Atlantic to Support His People”

A portrait of Afro-Brazilian religious practitioner, Inagê Kaluanã, representing the arrival of the Orixá Exu in Brazil caused by the forced migration of enslaved Yoruba people. Exu is considered the messenger who connects the material world (Aiyê) and the spiritual realm (Òrun), holding profound significance for enslaved communities. It was believed that he could carry their prayers to the divine, offering solace and alleviating their suffering in the face of oppression. Salvador, Brazil.

© Gui Christ, Brazil

There has never in the history of anything been a large group of armed people without a nearby group of people exchanging sex for payment. If you bring up supposedly celibate orders I will laugh you out of the room.

Worldbuilding/history chatter: the Nights Watch from ASoIaF/GoT/HotD don't actually make a lot of sense. The basic problem here isn't fantasy at all: how to keep a permanent security presence on a distant and potentially inhospitable border is an old problem. 1/

And because it is an old problem that recurs a lot, there are historical patterns for how it is solved. The main problem is not how to generate the force, so much as how to keep it on the frontier (rather than either dissolving into the peasantry or marching on the capital). 2/

In practice, you see three recurring solutions to the problem. The Night's Watch is clearly patterned off of the least common of these: a "military order", which is to say a knightly religious order, like the Teutonic Knights or the Knights Hospitaller. 3/

Here the solution to "what holds them to the frontier" is "religious devotion", which is a very powerful force. And you can see this pattern for the Night's Watch: they're called brothers, they take vows, and they serve for life. 4/

The problem is that the organization lacks a singular religion (being split between Westeros two major religions, the Faith of the Seven and the Old Gods), which is a real problem if "religious devotion" is the main source of cohesion and purpose for an organization. 5/

To be frank, this fits with a broader problem in GRRM's worldbuilding, which struggles with the implication of people believing in their own religions. Martin is a secular agnostic and so imagines secular societies, but secular societies don't produce religious orders. 6/

Actual religious knightly orders derive their cohesion in no small part from the monastic elements of the life-style – these guys get up every morning and pray together and believe their service is recompense for their sins moving them towards the heaven they all believe in. 7/

Absent that religious motivation, all you have is a highly cohesive body of armed men, with no real ties of loyalty to the crown or the church, but with control of land and peasants (the "Gifts"). They're going to set up a state. And then march on Winterfell. 8/

Ok, you might say, what about a system where a society just dumps its undesirables up on the frozen frontier. That exists too and is a subset of the far more common solution to this problem than religious orders: long-service professionals. 9/

And at various points (Han China, Early Modern Europe) you do see the prisons emptied to fill the ranks of professional armies (not, generally speaking, the Romans, though). But even if you do that, there's a problem: you have to pay these guys and let them retire. 10/

Why? Because you are creating a large, highly cohesive (out of conditions of shared suffering and service) group of armed men with common interests and valuable skills (in violence). If you do not pay them – and no one pays the Night's Watch – they'll march on Winterfell. 11/

The problem with this is of course Westeros is explicitly the kind of low-state-capacity society incapable of producing or paying long-service professional armies. If it was that kind of society, you'd have very different politics (appointed governors, not vassal lords). 12/

This gets a bit more directly at the most fundamental worldbuilding problem: Westeros is too big for the kind of vassalage-based polity we're told it has. GRRM has taken War-of-the-Roses Britain, blown it up to the size of a continent, but not dealt with the scale problem. 13/

But the upshot is, in both the shows and the books, this kind of long-service professional army is explicitly beyond the capabilities of the Iron Throne (or Winterfell). 14/

Option 3, for the curious, is "military settlers" – these guys would be permanently relocated, but w/ land they farmed. You'd very much want them to marry, with land and service being hereditary. Professionals retiring would, likewise, produce a permanent population. 15/

How would one "fix" this bit of worldbuilding? I think the answer is that the Night's Watch needs to be structured like an actual religious order. It needs one religion, which the brothers believe in a lot and which binds them together. 16/

If that's the Old Gods, then the NW would be a creature of Winterfell. If it's the Seven, they'd be creatures of the Iron Throne. In either case, a highly cohesive body of armed men is not going to be politically neutral the way they often are in the books. 17/

Instead, like actual religious orders, they have a lot of land (and presumably peasants on it; the "Gifts" make no sense unless there are farmers up there), which means they have a lot of wealth and power to throw around, along with, you know, armed men. 18/

This would thus almost certainly be a high status, rather than low status organization, since it would be a wealth, landholding order of sacred warrior-brothers, which – people in the past believed their own religion – is going to garner a lot of respect. 19/

That may well be insufficient: the military orders of the East that emerged in and after the Crusades were never able to retain enough manpower to make the Crusader States viable in the long-term. But they did wield a lot of influrnce and wealth. 20/

But as it stands, you have a highly cohesive order of trained, armed, secular warriors (many of whom are former criminals with grudges!) sat up in the frozen north and asked to stay there for no pay. These guys try to sack Winterfell 11 times out of 10. 21/

Exactly, anon, this is all very true. Many Team Black stans lean heavily into Valyrian blood purity arguments and can show clear double standards toward female characters, especially non-Valyrian women. Society - -and fandoms too - -have this way of holding women to impossible standards, especially in politics or power struggles, that men rarely face. People scrutinize how a woman acts, speak, or “defend herself,” but if a man does the same thing, he’s called strong… People’s sexism and woman-hate inevitably shows up in how they critique Alicent. Because no one’s calling them out in real time, they feel free to call her as “evil” or “manipulative” with misogynistic slurs for doing the same things men like Maekar do without criticism. They get comfortable indulging their biases, feeling justified in tearing her down, and projecting their worst impulses onto her character.

Maekar is a Valyrian MAN and Alicent is a non-Valyrian WOMAN. That’s the part TB fandom never wants to interrogate. Both Maekar and Alicent are sharp tongued. They say ugly & harsh things. That’s true. But The problem is who is allowed to express anger. A man being harsh = “hot headed & complex.” A woman being harsh = “bitter, cruel, evil,” People try to brand her as “evil” or “scheming” without nuance, and somehow just calling her that way gets conflated with being a “fully realized character” or “worthy of analysis.” The substance of her actions, her cleverness in court politics, her protection of her children none of that matters. It’s about displaying moral superiority over others in the fandom and proving they “see through” her, as if pointing out sexism in a character automatically makes them insightful. It’s performative gatekeeping, a way to show they’ve “won” the moral game, rather than engaging with her as a complex person acting under constraints.

Fandom sexism treats her as if her “worth” is measured solely by her ability to marry well & produce heirs / baby machine like that’s all a woman can do. Any assertion of power, ambition, or defense of her children beyond mere obedience is treated as “evil” or “overreaching,” as if she’s failing some moral test. Alicent’s children, unlike Maekar’s, were facing discrimination because of blood and racial politics - - their mother wasn’t a Targaryen, and Team Black fans used this as a way to push their whole “Valyrian blood purity” agenda. Meanwhile they conveniently forget that Maekar wasn’t married to a Targaryen woman either, so his kids weren’t magically “pure” either but somehow that never gets held against him or his line. It’s wild how selective the fandom can be about what counts as “legitimate” or worthy of sympathy.

Viserys & Beesbury and their blood purity toward Alicent’s children.

It’s very clear that GRRM deliberately has Viserys and Beesbury use blood-centric terminology when they speak the way they do. Words like “Alicent’s blood” and “more Targaryen blood”

If we start ranking claims based on “stronger blood,” then you open the door to the logic that Maegor, as the son of Aegon the Conqueror and Visenya (a full Targaryen sister-wife), had “stronger” or “purer” Targaryen blood than Aegon the Uncrowned, whose mother was Alyssa velaryon /half Andal. Yet Aegon the Uncrowned was the lawful heir by primogeniture. Beesbury was a complete blood purist and a hypocrite here.

Why should the rhetoric Viserys uses calling them “Alicent’s blood” be brushed aside as nothing more than favoritism? Why isn’t that language recognized as its own political act, with its own origins and consequences? Words like that are built to linguistically separate children from the king and fold them into their mother’s line is to mark them. It redraws belonging. That obsession with blood purity is baked into the Targaryen monarchy itself. Whether consciously / unconsciously, the dynasty leans on it as a tool to assert authority and justify succession decisions. Viserys, Beesbury, Daemon, Rhaenyra and others aren’t inventing a new ideology they’re exploiting a pre-existing paradigm that has always tied Targaryen power to the “purity of the blood of the dragon.”

From HERE:

Viserys referred to her children as “her blood” rather than his own, showing his fixation on Valyrian purity even when it came to his OWN children. The Hightowers were one of the wealthiest, most influential, and loyal families in the realm, yet Viserys treated Alicent with contempt. By dismissing her and her children, he insulted not just her personally but also the precedent of non-Valyrian consorts queens, signaling that only Targaryen or pure Valyrian blood truly mattered. If the king can simply ignore the children of a non-Targaryen queen, then why would any great house risk giving its daughter to a Targaryen king? It makes the political alliance worthless. If a queen’s sons can be skipped over just because she isn’t Valyrian, then her role becomes powerless. Bc the queen’s security comes from her children. If that security is stripped away, queens have no reason to trust the throne and every reason to fight for their children. It makes civil war more likely. And When the king refuses to protect his own sons, noble houses will protect them instead even through rebellion. This is exactly what happens with Alicent’s family.

This kind of message would make every noble house feel undervalued and unsafe at court. When a king shows that only “pure” Valyrian blood matters, he weakens the trust that keeps the realm together. Even families that have always been loyal would start to question their place and their future. Viserys calling Alicent’s children “her blood” instead of his own makes it obvious that he cared more about blood purity than about his family or the stability of the kingdom. Because Alicent wasn’t related to him the way Aemma was, he treated her children as if they were less legitimate even though they were his trueborn sons. For any great lord, marrying a daughter to a Targaryen king is supposed to be one of the highest honors. It should secure the family’s status for generations. The expectation is simple: the queen and her children will be respected and recognized. Viserys’ actions set a dangerous precedent for future non-Targaryen consorts. If a king could ignore or disinherit the children of a non-Valyrian queen without consequence, it would teach every future consort that she had no authority over her own sons. In effect, queens who were not Targaryen would have almost no real power, their political influence entirely dependent on whether the king chose to recognize her children. This precedent could destabilize the realm and lead to rebellion or civil war, as powerful families sought to secure their heirs by any means necessary.

And the Rhea Royce stuff is even worse. Daemon’s contempt for her is explicitly tied to her being Andal, to her not being “worthy” of him. He refuses to consummate the marriage because he doesn’t want “lesser” children. That is canon character blood purity / racism and classism and instead of interrogating it, parts of the fandom excuse it or reframe it as romantic incompatibility or “Daemon being Daemon.” If a non-Targaryen character said the same things, fandom would (rightly) drag them to hell. What really exposes the hypocrisy is Nettles. Nettles blows up the entire Valyrian exceptionalism myth. She bonds with a dragon without looking Valyrian, without a recorded Targaryen lineage, without fitting the beauty standard and instead of engaging with what that means, a lot of stans dehumanize her, or sexualize her in ways that strip her of agency. Or they rewrite canon so Daemon couldn’t possibly love her unless she’s secretly Valyrian. Because if she isn’t, the blood myth collapses.

If Alicent were a Targaryen man same personality, same words, same motives she’d be one of the most glazed characters in the entire fandom. A Valyrian prince, married off for politics, trapped in a system he didn’t design. Bitter, ambitious, sharp-tongued, resentful of being sidelined. Fiercely protective of his children because he knows the system will chew them up. Constantly warning people that things are going to end badly. Says ugly, uncomfortable truths instead of smiling through them. Ppl would be calling him “complex,” “tragic,” “politically astute,” “morally grey kingmaker.” “The father who protects his children” Instead, because Alicent is a woman, non-Valyrian, sexually regulated by the story, denied direct power, she gets reduced into “evil stepmother.” And Alicent is called a mother of rapists so why isn’t Maekar called a father of pedos since Aerion SA’d his own brother? If Alicent were a Targaryen man, she wouldn’t need defending. She’d already be canonized.

Alicent doesn’t need to be a Visenya or a Maekar, swinging swords on the battlefield, to fight for her kids. She defended her family and her children with everything she had, even behind the scenes. Unlike Maekar, her children were active, and directly in danger - - put in a position no one before had faced - - so yes, she had every reason to fear for them and grieve when she actually lost them. She’s is the perfect scapegoat for fandom bias she’s non-Valyrian, she’s cautious and practical, she’s fully aware of political realities and all of that clashes with the story of the “glorious, silver-haired, morally superior Targaryens.” Ppl who romanticize Rhaenyra or Daemon project onto them they’re heroic, progressive, or “feminist” simply because they have silver hair and Valyrian blood. Any opposition to them especially from a non-Valyrian woman who’s actually acting strategically to protect her children is supposed to be evil & manipulative.

Alicent’s “crime” isn’t ambition or ruthlessness (visenya, Daemon, and Maegor do far worse without moral condemnation). It’s that she doesn’t fit the fandom’s white Valyrian fantasy. She’s clever, politically savvy, and protective of her kids but that makes her a threat to the beloved protagonist story. She’s hated because she challenges the myth of Targaryen supremacy, showing that blood and dragons don’t automatically make someone strong and for standing up as a non-Valyrian woman and forcing people to take her seriously.

It’s pure race- and gender-based gatekeeping, she’s not Targaryen, so somehow she has no say in succession or politics. Meanwhile, the actual Targaryens, including the worst ones, get excused because of their bloodline. It’s less about Alicent herself and more about how fandom enforces the “Valyrian = good, non-Valyrian = bad” blood purity hierarchy. That’s why people cheer silver-haired murderers ( Hello Aerion??) but vilify a woman who just wants to survive & protect her family.

Even though I’ve seen people say that Maekar would never turn his children against their own blood the same way Alicent did.

BUT…

Alicent never turned her children against her own blood. She was not okay with Aemond killing Luke, she was not okay with Aegon celebrating it, and she explicitly tried to restrain the violence at every turn. She even calmed Aegon down when he wanted to kill his half sister and pushed him to propose peace terms instead. Blaming Alicent for her sons’ crimes is no different from saying Maekar “made” Aerion assault people or that he orchestrated his sons’ worst acts. Parents can love, defend, and protect their children without controlling their actions. Alicent did not order Luke’s death. She reacted with horror. Holding her responsible for her sons’ choices is DEEPLY misogynistic.

She even proposes she marry Aegon, and one of the reasons she gives is that they don’t get along. “All the more reason to bind them together in marriage,” she OPENLY acknowledging that Rhaenyra IS hating her now six-year-old younger brother. If Alicent hoped for Rhaenyra and Aegon to marry, why would she be putting her children against their own blood?… But Viserys shoots the idea down, saying, “the boy is Alicent’s own blood she wants him on the throne.” I mean…? yes, of course she does, it’s her RIGHT! AND SHE WANTS HER SON TO STAY ALIVE. Viserys treat Alicent like a glorified mistress he uses her for heirs but won’t fully back her politically, won’t protect her sons in the succession, and refuses to make clear choices. Alicent end up being stuck between the role she should rightfully hold and the way her husband diminishes her. Why is that Book Alicent’s “worst crime” is wanting her husband to do what virtually every lord and king in the Seven Kingdoms does: name his firstborn son as heir or having her blood on the throne.

Even though we see in the book that Alicent does try to stop the war, especially when her children are at stake. She literally crawls to the Iron Throne on her knees to beg for peace, offering compromises, councils, and even splitting the realm if it would keep her children alive. That’s not the move of someone who craves power for herself it’s the move of a mother trying to protect her family. After the Blacks take King’s Landing, she still approaches Rhaenyra and proposes summoning another Great Council to settle the succession but Rhaenyra refuses. Alicent’s actions throughout the book show that her FIRST priority is her children’s safety.

Alicent is deeply aware that politics and succession are unforgiving, and deadly. She has to protect her children in a world where no one will forgive weakness, where a simple whisper can spark a war. Seeing Rhaenyra “pretend everything is fine” is both irritating and threatening because it’s an example of a parenting strategy that could and already does endanger her own children indirectly, and her enemies’ children directly. Alicent, after all, was a woman & royal consort, not a queen regnant. Like other consorts, she never held the same authority or autonomy as her husband or even her male children. Her influence was largely confined to the court, exercised through soft power means and arranged marriages always requiring her husband’s approval. She couldn’t draft policies, enforce laws, burning cities, or wage war on her own. Everything was done either with the king’s consent or under his ignorance.

What if Maekar were put in Alicent’s position and saw Rhaenyra birthing three bastards alongside two legitimate children, all of whom posed a direct threat to his own children? What if he saw one of her bastards maim his son? What if he saw Rhaenyra killing Vaemond her own kin and leaving his family maimed? What if he saw Viserys threatening anyone who questioned their bastardy with death / mutilation? What if he saw Viserys putting bastards on the line of succession and ignoring his trueborn children and calling them “Alicent’s blood”? Hello, Blackfyre Rebellion redux. He would remember what Aegon the Unworthy did to his father. Maekar himself fought against bastards and knew the Targaryen history of bastard crises legitimacy disputes and succession favoritism firsthand the Blackfyre Rebellion was literally sparked by Aegon IV legitimizing his bastards over the trueborn heir, Daeron II. Aegon IV constantly questioned Daeron’s legitimacy while showering his bastards with perks. Daeron II, the trueborn heir, was treated as a bastard, while Daemon Blackfyre received the legendary Blackfyre sword at twelve and was legitimized, put alongside or even ahead of the rightful heir. That left Naerys in a politically weak position, exposed to court gossip and undermining.

Viserys I who also favored bastards over his trueborn children was… kind of doing the same. Even though Aegon was the son he’d been waiting for, he keeps him completely useless on purpose so they can’t challenge anyone and Aegon ends up bored, frustrated, and trapped in a system where even his own kids would technically be under Rhaenyra’s rule. no role, no responsibilities, no autonomy, a forced marriage he doesn’t want. Even bastards were treated better than him. And yes, Alicent saw all this happening her sons disrespected, maimed like Aemond and Viserys did nothing in fact, he defended Rhaenyra & her bastards. Eventually, he had to step in, saying: “No one mocks my grandsons as ‘Strongs’ again or their tongues get pulled out.” Basically, when kings disrespect queens and their trueborn kids, it blows up in everyone’s face and leads to straight up wars.

And Maekar was not gentle about threats. He was rigid & proud. If he believed his sons were being structurally displaced by heirs whose legitimacy was publicly doubted, he would not shrug and say “let the law handle it.” He would interpret it as danger. People talk about Rhaenyra’s sons as if the only question is whether they technically have Targaryen blood through her. But perception matters as much as law. The Blackfyres prove that even fully acknowledged bastards with partial royal blood can destabilize the realm for generations. So three bastards whose legitimacy is contested while sitting directly in the line of succession??...

Placed in Alicent’s position, Maekar would not see a neutral legal landscape. He would see a monarch overriding long-standing patriarchal precedent in a society structured around male primogeniture, while dismissing dissent as treason. He would see rival claimants whose existence acknowledged & protected by the crown materially endangered his own children. And given his family’s history, he would understand how quickly legitimized or chosen rivals can cause a whole war.

For so long, the defining trait of Valyrian supremacy has been the ability to ‘control’ dragons. It was partly ‘dulled’ when Alicent’s half Andal children bonded and/or hatched with dragons. Even Rhaenyra herself being part Andal per her maternal Arryn grandfather. The argument was already losing out.

But for those three boys, who so clearly do NOT look like the Velaryons nor the Baratheons, it doesn’t matter how much the king says otherwise, they don’t look Targaryen. They really look like that sworn shield over there.

And their last shred of Valyrian-ness has been taken away by their own mother.

It doesn’t matter if Rhaenyra and Laenor agreed. The fact is, by doing this act means vows have been broken in the eyes of everyone else. She has endangered herself, her claim and her children.

Men in Westeros can father bastards and come away with little scorn- it’s patriarchal after all - but most of them don’t parade their bastards around. Not even Ned did and Catelyn hated that Jon looked so Stark-like over Robb. Bringing Jon as a Snow was bad enough in her eyes for legitimate reasons. A Lord may recognise their bastards. That gives them no legitimacy.

Noble ladies have had them too. See Delena Florent who had Edric Storm in the books. She was married off; not the nicest thing I’d wager but again, their world their rules.

But Rhaenyra is doing something Lords don’t even do. Claim her clearly bastard sons as true born over those who truly are.

This, amongst other reasons, is why she isn’t fit to rule. If she can break these vows, what else will she do?

You can have: formal titles and the king swearing on the Iron Throne…but if everyone at court can see that your kid looks like the sworn shield standing three steps behind you, none of that actually matters.

Rhaenyra’s biggest issue isn’t war trauma. It’s temperament + entitlement + governance style, all of which show up before the Dance. In peacetime, shed be a blood-soaked tyrant bc she’d struggle even without war. [EDIT: bc she must eliminate the Greens and their children to rule peacefully]

How GRRM describes Rhaenyra:

You will probably want to paint Rhaenyra as she was at her father's death, when she laid claim to the Iron Throne. Pampered from an early age, she was a pudgy girl and a stout woman, with a thick waist and a very large bosom. She was very proud and stubborn, and there was a certain petulance to her small mouth. Rhaenyra did have the silver-gold hair of the Targaryens, which she wore long and braided in the manner of Aegon the First's warrior wife Visenya. Rhaenyra was no warrior herself. She always dressed richly, favoring purple and maroon velvets and golden Myrish lace in intricate patterns. Her bodice often glittered with pearls and diamonds, and there were always rings on her fingers. Whenever she was anxious, she would turn them compulsively, round and round. Though Rhaenyra could be charming, she was quick to anger and never forgot a slight. During the Dance of the Dragons, she wore her father's crown.

Rhaenyra didn’t just make “mistakes.” She committed multiple actions that, taken together, point to a tyrant mindset long before the Dance ever began.

She knowingly had three obvious bastards while insisting the realm accept them as unquestionable heirs, placing everyone else at risk to preserve her own comfort and image. She likely had Laenor removed whether murdered or forced into exileto clear the path for Daemon, and there’s strong implication that Harwin Strong, her secret lover, conveniently died in his own home once he became politically inconvenient. She abandoned King’s Landing for Dragonstone at sixteen, retreating from responsibility while still demanding absolute deference to her claim. When Alicent’s child was permanently maimed by one of Rhaenyra’s sons, Rhaenyra didn’t show restraint or concern she demanded that the injured boy be tortured to extract the source of an insult. She had Vaemond Velaryon murdered and fed to her dragon for speaking an inconvenient truth, then caused his entire family mutilated by having their tongues ripped out. That alone is tyrant behavior, and it happens before the war. She married the most volatile and dangerous man in the realm. None of this is forced on her. These are choices. Repeatedly. Consistently.

Anyone in Alicent’s position would be terrified.

Contrast that with Alicent. Alicent’s primary actions are defensive. She protects her children’s claim in a system where succession law, precedent, and survival all tell her that if her sons lose, they die. She reacts to real threats, real deaths, and real signs that speaking too openly can get people burned alive in their beds. Every move she makes is one any Westerosi parent man or woman would make under the same circumstances.

All of this happened before most of her children died.

So the argument that her reign “can’t be judged” because she lost children just doesn’t hold. By that logic, no ruler who experiences personal tragedy can ever be held accountable. Should Cersei’s regency go uncriticized because she watched her son die? Should Catelyn’s political decisions be dismissed because she believed her children were murdered? Tragedy explains behavior but it doesn’t exempt it from judgment.

No one forced Rhaenyra to: Impose crushing taxes on starving smallfolk to fund a celebration for her last bastard son. Trump up charges against Addam Velaryon and Nettles. Order a manhunt for two children whose only crime was their bloodline. Attempt to kill Daeron a teenage boy instead of taking him hostage. Refuse a political marriage between Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera. Prolong the war after Corlys Velaryon explicitly advised reconciliation.

She openly referred to starving smallfolk as vermin and drunks. She knowingly empowered Dalton Greyjoy an infamous raider and butcher fully aware of what he would do. Telling him to “only attack her enemies” while knowing exactly how he operates doesn’t absolve her; it makes her complicit.

And the Nettles situation alone is catastrophic. Her paranoia after Tumbleton leads directly to: The attempted arrest of Addam Velaryon. His death at Second Tumbleton. Daemon abandoning her cause and seeking death against Aemond. That’s not bad luck. That’s leadership failure. No one forced her.

She’d govern like Viserys, but harsher. Peacetime Rhaenyra likely resembles Viserys’s avoidance of hard compromises combined with Daemon’s intolerance for challenge. That’s a bad mix. Viserys procrastinated; Rhaenyra retaliates. You’d see favoritism toward allies, punishments that feel personal, justice applied unevenly, and increasing reliance on fear to keep order.

Legitimacy would still be a slow bleed. Even without open conflict, rumors about her sons don’t disappear, the Driftmark succession still festers, the Great Council precedent still exists, and half the realm still quietly doubts her right to rule. Instead of war, you’d get constant factionalism at court, passive resistance from lords, and compliance without loyalty. That kind of reign looks calm until it suddenly isn’t.

Compare her to women who would thrive in peace. Rhaenys, Alysanne, even book- Alyssa Velaryon excel because they separate ego from policy, understand legitimacy as performance, and build coalitions instead of daring people to defy them. Rhaenyra never internalizes that rulership is management, not vindication.

Peacetime wouldn’t make Rhaenyra a good queen. It would make her a weak one a ruler whose reign looks stable until the first real stress test. War didn’t create her failures. It just made them impossible to ignore.

And this is where the comparison to Cersei actually does work. Rhaenyra, like Cersei, is shaped by institutionalized sexism but shows ZERO sympathy for other women/people trapped in the same system. Her goal is not to dismantle misogyny; it’s to bypass it for herself. She doesn’t want equality she wants the same unchecked power men have, exercised in the same way. In that sense, they’re both not that different from Aegon II or Robert Baratheon. But only one woman is hated by the fandom and the other isn’t.

As for Rhaenys…

Rhaenys had the skills, the intellect, and the temperament to be a strong queen, but Fire & Blood barely gives her a chance to exist as more than a footnote. There’s almost no indication that Aemon, Rhaenys herself, or anyone seriously considered her or her sons as potential heirs after the Prince of Dragonstone, so it’s impossible to know how she would have ruled.

Corlys as prince consort (or even king consort, hypothetically) is another stabilizing factor. Unlike Daemon, Corlys genuinely cared about the people he defended Alicent and Jaehaera, defended the Greens from Rhaenyra’s wrath, and defended the smallfolk. He wasn’t just ambitious for himself; he worked to elevate House Velaryon while keeping a moral compass, which makes him a very different partner from Daemon in terms of how Rhaenys might have been able to rule effectively alongside him. Together, they could have been a competent, perhaps even popular, royal team something that’s hinted at but never explored in the text.

"She likely had Laenor removed" that's your own biased opinion, actually. You can think what you will, but presenting this things that are unproven as proof of her tyranny is just stupid and unfair but not surprising coming from you. The same with Harwin.

She left for Dragonstone because Dragonstone was the seat of the heir and she was the heir. She ruled Dragonstone as she should have, as many heirs did in her stead settling themselves in the island to prepare to rule the Realm.

Rhaenyra demanded Aemond to be tortured after Alicent demanded an eye from one of Rhaenyra's children, as if Aemond hadn't already BEATEN a three year old boy.

She had Vaemond murdered for putting her children in danger. Alicent put the Realm to the torch for her awful children and you cheer her for it. Hypocrisy.

The most volatile man in the Realm, Daemon? He is actually the fourth on the list considering Aemond, Aegon, Dalton Greyjoy, and then Daemon.

The later things happened when she was broken by grief and paranoia (caused by the Greens, to no one's surprise)

Rhaenyra is based on Matilda, they both were usurped and they both were qualified for the position, Rhaenyra was even considered to be Hand of the King but Viserys was stupid and chose Otto again.

Rhaenyra was usurped because she was a woman not because Alicent was afraid. In some versions she didn't have children, in another all her children were legitimate, yet she was always usurped because she was a woman.

"She likely had Laenor removed" that's your own biased opinion, actually. You can think what you will, but presenting this things that are unproven as proof of her tyranny is just stupid and unfair but not surprising coming from you. The same with Harwin.”

Not it’s not “biased opinion” if you’re looking at timing, opportunity, and motivation it’s grounded inference. You don’t have to CALL it absolute fact to analyze it as part of her ambition & political ruthlessness. Daemon could have killed Laenor it isn’t surprising.

Lady Laena’s death was the first tragedy of 120 AC, but it would not be the last. For this was to be a year when many of the long-simmering tensions and jealousies that had plagued the Seven Kingdoms finally came to a boil, a year when many and more would have reason to wail and grieve and rend their garments...though none more than the Sea Snake, Lord Corlys Velaryon, and his noble wife, Princess Rhaenys, she who might have been a queen.

The Lord of the Tides and his lady were still in mourning for their beloved daughter when the Stranger came again, to carry off their son. Ser Laenor Velaryon, husband to the Princess Rhaenyra and the putative father of her children, was slain whilst attending a fair in Spicetown, stabbed to death by his friend and companion Ser Qarl Correy. The two men had been quarreling loudly before blades were drawn, merchants at the fair told Lord Velaryon when he came to collect his son’s body. Correy had fled by then, wounding several men who tried to hinder him. Some claimed a ship had been waiting for him offshore. He was never seen again.

The circumstances of the murder remain a mystery to this day. Grand Maester Mellos writes only that Ser Laenor was killed by one of his own household knights after a quarrel. Septon Eustace provides us with the killer’s name and declares jealousy the motive for the slaying; Laenor Velaryon had grown weary of Ser Qarl’s companionship and had grown enamored of a new favorite, a handsome young squire of

six-and-ten. Mushroom, as always, favors the most sinister theory, suggesting that Prince Daemon paid Qarl Correy to dispose of Princess Rhaenyra’s husband, arranged for a ship to carry him away, then cut his throat and fed him to the sea.

Mushroom is the one who speculates Daemon’s fault, I’ve seen many people on both the Blacks’ and Greens’ sides say that we can’t trust Mushroom’s account. Yet the show uses a lot of Mushroom’s perspective as opposed to Septon Eustace and Runicter’s accounts for how things went down. People in-universe believe Daemon had Laenor killed so he could marry Rhaenyra, and that’s enough for me they dragged their children the next day to their deranged wedding ceremony on the beach, right after Laena’s funeral and after Laenor’s death. A parallel to Cersei, who also killed her husband, since she’s heavily inspired by her.

“Daemon’s wife nor Rhaenyra’s husband had been dead even half a year; to wed again so soon was an insult to their memories, His Grace declared angrily. The marriage had been performed on Dragonstone, suddenly and secretly. Septon Eustace claims that Rhaenyra knew her father would never approve of the match, so she wed in haste to make certain he could not prevent the marriage. Mushroom puts forward a different reason: the princess was once again with child and did not wish to birth a bastard.”

At the start of AC 120, Lady Laena Velaryon dies. Her death sets off a chain of mysterious events that seem too perfectly timed to be coincidence. In the same year, her brother Laenor is killed under suspicious circumstances, and Harwin Strong dies in a fire along with his father, Lyonel Strong. These deaths, when considered together, suggest a deliberate pattern rather than mere chance. Harwin last went to Dragonstone with Rhaenyra, where their third child was born. Shortly after, the tension surrounding the Strong children escalated, especially during the quarrels between Rhaenyra and Alicent over their claims and loyalties. King Viserys, enraged by the disputes, forbade anyone from speaking further and ordered Rhaenyra to stay in her castle while he returned to the capital with his wife and children.

Soon after, Harwin returns to Harrenhal, replaced in his post by Ser Erryk, a twin Kingsguard. Mushroom notes that Daemon is one of the few seemingly satisfied parties with this reshuffling, suggesting he had a vested interest in how things were unfolding. Later that same year, Harwin and Lyonel die at Harrenhal, adding to the sequence of deaths that cleared obstacles around Daemon and Rhaenyra. If you look at the timing, the sequence becomes even more suspicious: first Laena dies, then Laenor, and then Harwin (with Lyonel) in rapid succession. Mushroom’s account implies Daemon may have had a hand in these deaths: Qarl kills Laenor under circumstances no one can fully trace, and he likely could not have carried out the murder alone. Daemon, already moving freely on Dragonstone, could easily orchestrate Laenor’s death, potentially using Qarl’s debts and reckless behavior as cover.

Meanwhile, Harwin’s death by fire is also suspiciously convenient. He returns to Harrenhal, and shortly after, he dies, leaving Daemon with one less rival and Rhaenyra with fewer political constraints. Lyonel Strong dies simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time but it also conveniently removes another strong influence loyal to Rhaenyra but outside Daemon’s control. Taken together, these deaths have a clear pattern: Laena’s death leaves Rhaenyra a widow, creating an opening for Daemon. Laenor’s death removes Rhaenyra’s husband, who might have posed political or personal obstacles. Harwin’s death removes a strong supporter who could complicate Daemon’s influence.

Daemon positions himself to be the male partner for Rhaenyra almost immediately: after Laena dies, he is free to maneuver, and once Laenor and Harwin are gone, there are no major obstacles left. Their deaths conveniently allow him to marry Rhaenyra that same year, ensuring their union produces children who secure the Targaryen line while consolidating his own power. The timeline of births and deaths is important. We know Laena dies in the first days of the year. If Laenor and Harwin’s deaths did not happen within the first three months, it is highly likely Rhaenyra was already pregnant when she married Daemon, meaning the groundwork for Daemon’s political advantage was already in place.

This sequence Laena’s death, Laenor’s suspicious death, Harwin’s fire, and Lyonel’s accidental death lines up almost too neatly to be coincidence. It strongly suggests that Daemon used the chaos to eliminate rivals, consolidate power, and ensure his path to Rhaenyra’s hand and the throne. Every death clears a step toward him controlling both Rhaenyra and the succession.

For example, you don’t need full confirmation (this is a pseudo-history book) to figure out who killed Jaehaera. It was obviously Unwin Peake. His motives are very obvious: he immediately offers his daughter to marry King Aegon III right after her death. The same shit applies to other shady deaths. GRRM doesn’t need to spell it out in bold letters because the structure of the story is doing the talking. Timing + opportunity + motive = you’re meant to connect the dots. If people die at the most politically useful moment, the beneficiaries are obvious, and the same names keep popping up around power grabs… Then yeah. We know who did it. The book pretending to be “uncertain” is part of the historical writing, not an invitation to be obtuse. When multiple inconvenient people drop dead and suddenly there’s a rushed, unhinged beach wedding immediately after funerals like it’s a speedrun of grief? This is why it’s so funny when you people demand absolute textual confirmation for everything. That’s not how history works, and it’s not how GRRM writes. He writes plausible deniability on paper and obvious intent between the lines.

“She left for Dragonstone because Dragonstone was the seat of the heir and she was the heir. She ruled Dragonstone as she should have, as many heirs did in her stead settling themselves in the island to prepare to rule the Realm.”

An an heir can absolutely rule Dragonstone and participate in politics at King’s Landing. Being Prince or Princess of Dragonstone isn’t about being cut off from the realm, it’s mostly a title and seat traditionally given to the heir to the Iron Throne, similar to how the Prince of Wales functions in the real world. That title comes with a traditional seat (Wales) and some ceremonial duties, but the heir can live in London, attend Parliament, meet advisors etc… Dragonstone is the heir’s seat, not a prison. Dragonstone is the ancestral seat of the Targaryen heir, where heirs were often raised and sometimes held title, but that doesn’t mean they’re forbidden from going to King’s Landing or engaging in politics. Historically, some heirs were raised in the capital and only later associated with Dragonstone and even then they could travel, take counsel, and participate in the Small Council or court life as needed.

A heir could rule or manage Dragonstone as a power base while still taking part in court politics in King’s Landing. It’s not mutually exclusive; it’s just tradition and symbolism tied to the heir’s role. Rhaenyra didn’t have to run to Dragonstone, but she chose to once the rumors starting to nip at her heels and. Dragonstone isn’t exile by law. Cersei sits in the Red Keep, in the middle of enemy territory, understands that absence is surrender. Power is proximity. If you leave the center, someone else will fill the space. Rhaenyra vacating King’s Landing gives her enemies oxygen, time, and narrative control. Cersei would never. Even at her most unstable, she clings to the Red Keep like a lifeline because she knows the moment she’s gone, she’s finished.

“The later things happened when she was broken by grief and paranoia (caused by the Greens, to no one's surprise)”

“oh you can’t judge her ‘cause she lost kids.” Are you serious? Are we really gonna let someone commit heinous decisions just because grief exists? That’s literally the weakest, laziest excuse ever. Like, does this mean nobody in ASOIAF can be critiqued if they’ve experienced trauma? Again Cersei in AFFC watched her eldest son get brutally murdered right in front of her. Did she snap? Yeah. Did she make questionable, disastrous decisions while ruling? Obviously. But does that mean we suddenly go “oh, she’s off-limits, can’t analyze her reign”? No. She’s a human being making human mistakes under pressure. Rhaenyra defenders using grief as a shield are basically saying: “Oh yeah, the fact that she literally destroyed lives, ordered executions, and made moves that destabilized an entire kingdom? Totally fine, you can’t critique it because she lost a few kids.” Rhaenyra was both broken and catastrophically reckless. Using her personal loss as a defense is like saying a kid who flunks every test in school can’t be called out because they had a rough morning. No. Fuck that. Trauma is context, not a free pass. Everyone else in the series is judged for their decisions, grief or not why should Rhaenyra be treated differently? It’s literally fan bias wrapped in pity and patriarchy. Let’s call it what it is some people just want to excuse bad leadership and terrible decision-making because crying babies happened.

“She had Vaemond murdered for putting her children in danger. Alicent put the Realm to the torch for her awful children and you cheer her for it. Hypocrisy.”

Vaemond’s threat only exists because of the preexisting mess Rhaenyra having bastards while still heir created a succession problem. Alicent didn’t manufacture the danger she responded to it. Saying she “put the Realm to the torch” flips cause and effect: the war didn’t start because she defended her children, it started because the succession was already unstable, and the king refused to resolve it. Viserys named Rhaenyra heir while simultaneously producing sons, then refused to clarify the succession. That created rival claimants.

Rhaenyra set the stage for a civil war by having bastards and putting them in line for succession. She destabilized the realm not because of circumstance, but because of her personal choices, her indulgence in feelings and desires, and her blatant disregard for the political reality around her. Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that Rhaenyra ascended the Iron Throne without opposition and ruled with a modicum of stability. Even in this ideal scenario, the seeds of civil war were already sown. Upon her death, Jace, her eldest son, would inherit the throne. Yet rumors of bastardy something unavoidable in a court where legitimacy is constantly scrutinized would inevitably be leveraged by ambitious lords. Jaehaerys, Aegon, or even Aegon the Younger could be drawn into a renewed conflict over succession, simply because Westerosi politics thrive on suspicion and perception. Rhaenyra’s actions made such instability inevitable.

It’s like saying: “Yes, your husband blew up the house by playing with dynamite, and your brother’s already lighting matches but you’re the one who set the fire.” The hypocrisy is staggering. Alicent and Vaemond were responding to the chaos Viserys and Rhaenyra created. They were trying to protect their children & secure their inheritance in a system was stacked against them by two tyrants.

“Rhaenyra was usurped because she was a woman not because Alicent was afraid. In some versions she didn't have children, in another all her children were legitimate, yet she was always usurped because she was a woman. Rhaenyra is based on Matilda, they both were usurped and they both were qualified for the position, Rhaenyra was even considered to be Hand of the King but Viserys was stupid and chose Otto again.”

"Queen Alicent echoed him. “Nor will they spare my children,” she declared. “Aegon and his brothers are the king’s trueborn sons, with a better claim to the throne than her brood of bastards. Daemon will find some pretext to put them all to death. Even Helaena and her little ones.”

GRRM didn’t write those versions for publication, so they’re basically alternate drafts or thought experiments. What actually matters is the version he published, where the Greens have real, concrete motivations. He didn’t leave it at “Rhaenyra is a woman therefore usurped” he gave them fear, ambition and a reasoned worldview, because that’s the story he chose to tell. Those drafts? Trivia. They don’t prove jack shit about what GRRM committed to. If I was talking about Jon snow relationship with women and someone came at me with, “But but in the original outline Jon/Tyrion/Arya were supposed to be in a love triangle,” like who the hell cares? That’s not canon. That’s not the story. Stop acting like random outlines or discarded drafts somehow invalidate the published story.

The whole point is that the succession crisis is a sister vs. younger brother situation on purpose. GRRM wasn’t interested in a clean “good vs evil” story. He wanted a conflict where both sides have arguments that actually make sense within the world. If it had been Rhaenys vs Viserys legitimate heir, unquestioned blood, trueborn kids vs some distant cousin the conflict would be way too clean. Too easy. Just like the conflict between Matilda and Stephan. Instead, he made it messy: siblings from different mothers, bad decisions, fear, legitimacy issues, ego, inheritance law, gender, power. the story becomes something deeper than just “men bad, woman good.”

That’s why it’s kinda wild when you Rhaenyra stans reduce the entire Dance to only misogyny (which is obviously part of it, no one’s denying), because that’s basically just Rhaenyra’s POV. The Greens had actual, tangible fears. They genuinely believed that if Rhaenyra took the throne, they and their kids were dead. And honestly? In Westeros, thats a valid concern. People also keep side-stepping why GRRM wrote Rhaenyra the way he did. He gave her flaws on purpose. The obvious bastardy issue, her impulsive choices, the political mess she keeps escalating those aren’t accidents, and they’re not irrelevant. A lot of that mirrors Cersei, whether people like it or not. But her fans tend to treat those traits like they’re either fake, exaggerated, or somehow not meant to matter.

The Greens don’t fear Rhaenyra because they’re cartoon misogynists twirling their mustaches. They fear her because, in Westeros logic, their situation is objectively dangerous. From the Greens’ POV, once she’s crowned, they are a liability just by existing. Alicent’s sons aren’t just rivals, they’re walking claims. In a medieval power system, that gets you quietly removed. Historically, and in ASOIAF. They don’t have to think Rhaenyra is evil to think she might kill them she just has to be politically rational.

First Matilda and Rhaenyra were not in the same political position. Matilda was formally designated heir after her brother died, not to replace her daddy uncle that she married later, she had no legitimacy crisis around her children, and her claim wasn’t constantly undermined by “everyone knows but nobody can say it” paternity drama. Rhaenyra absolutely does. That alone changes everything. Matilda did not have a surviving legitimate brother when her claim was pressed. Her brother William was dead, and Stephen was a cousin, not a son of Henry I. That matters immensely in medieval succession logic. The Anarchy wasn’t “daughter vs son,” it was “designated heir vs male cousin” Matilda didn’t represent an existential threat to Stephen’s entire bloodline in the same way. Rhaenyra absolutely did to the Greens, especially once she had multiple sons whose legitimacy was already being whispered about.

The Matilda comparison works as inspiration, not as proof that the Dance is just “history repeating itself but sexism.” GRRM very intentionally made it messier, darker, and way more personal. HE CONFIRMED THIS:

It's a dark story. Mind you, and you've read the books, you know it's a dark story. And the characters are grey, they're complex, they're very human, they're driven by things that I think real human beings are driven by, which is ambition and power and revenge for slights that they feel that were done to them and lust and you know, all of these things that I think we all have in something. And that's the kind of characters I like to write about, to explore them. They have a good side, they have a bad side, you know. We don't have any Orcs who are just pure creatures of evil, going around doing evil. But despite that, we don't have any Orcs, but we don't have any glowing, heroic characters either, so it's almost the kind of Shakespearean in some ways, and I love Shakespeare, so that's good.-GRRM

Rhaenyra is not just Matilda with dragons. She’s a more compromised character because GRRM wanted a civil war where everyone has a valid case. Again If he wanted “woman heir good, man usurper bad,” he could’ve written Rhaenys vs Viserys or Rhaenyra vs Daemon and called it a day. He didn’t. There are no Orcs here no faction that exists purely to be evil but there are also no shining heroes meant to be morally untouchable. Everyone has a good side and a bad side.

The Dance is way closer to the Tudor succession mess than to Matilda vs Stephen. GRRM compared the Dance to the Tudor succession before even bringing up The Anarchy.

“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.”-GRRM

GRRM says this himself. Before The Anarchy even enters the chat, he’s talking about Henry VIII and how sons override daughters regardless of age. The whole point of giving Aegon and Rhaenyra different mothers is to make it ugly and contested on purpose. If they were full siblings, the story collapses into “son wins, end of discussion.” No Dance. See? If Viserys had a son by Aemma, the Dance straight-up does not happen. Full stop. No ambiguity, no “chosen heir,” no civil war. The realm would’ve accepted that son automatically because male primogeniture is the default law and social reality of Westeros. Rhaenyra would never have been named heir in the first place. So who’s at fault? Viserys. Unequivocally. This isn’t “the Greens are evil” or “misogyny alone caused the Dance.” Misogyny is the terrain, not the trigger. The trigger is Viserys creating a contradictory succession and then dying without resolving it.

The Tudor parallel one king, multiple wives, kids by different mothers, daughters first, then a long-awaited son, legitimacy, optics, and anxiety about who “counts” and everyone lawyering blood, marriage order, and gender to death.

The Anarchy, by contrast, is: a daughter vs a cousin, Norman England had no stable succession tradition/law, no competing sons of the king, no blended family politics and no legitimacy crisis inside the royal bedchamber.

And that’s why GRRM set it up this way. If Viserys had a son by Aemma there would have been no Dance. If he had no sons at all, Rhaenyra’s claim would be much stronger still contested, but cleaner. If he had clearly disinherited Aegon, it would be a different story. If he had actually codified a succession law, again, a different story. But he didn’t. He wanted his daughter as heir and his sons alive put in danger.

Elizabeth I’s situation is a prime example. Her half-brother Edward VI disinherited her, viewing her as illegitimate and potentially unsuitable, while her half-sister Mary I imprisoned her during Wyatt’s Rebellion, seeing her as a Protestant threat and a rival claimant. Later, Elizabeth faced Mary, Queen of Scots, a cousin with a legitimate claim to the English throne, whose presence fueled Catholic plots against her. Like Rhaenyra and Aegon II, Elizabeth had to deal with a court where family ties offered no protection, and even her closest relatives could become mortal threats. In each case, a woman had a legitimate claim to the throne. In each case, imprisonment followed. And in most cases, imprisonment wasn’t enough, because the very existence of a rival was a threat. Two of these rivalries ended in executions. Only one woman, Elizabeth, survived imprisonment, likely because her death risked handing England to the Scots.

Mary I didn’t initially want to execute Lady Jane Grey, but after a rebellion attempted to restore Jane to the throne, she realized keeping her alive was too dangerous. Elizabeth herself hesitated to execute Mary, Queen of Scots, but pressure from her advisors and the threat Mary posed left her little choice. Reluctance did not erase the reality: rivals to the throne rarely survived. Now place that historical story into Fire & Blood. Both Rhaenyra and Aegon have claims to the Iron Throne, and two claims to the same crown cannot coexist; the existence of one claimant inherently threatens the other. This is exactly what Alicent understands. Her son Aegon’s survival and claim are inseparable, and she knows that if Rhaenyra’s claim is enforced without checks, her children are in mortal danger. Expecting her to ignore that reality would be unrealistic.

Elizabeth I was one of England’s most beloved and successful queens, and yet she still executed Mary, Queen of Scots, her cousin and a rival claimant. If even someone as politically skilled and admired as Elizabeth could take such drastic measures to secure her throne, expecting Rhaenyra and her faction to simply let the Greens live is wildly unrealistic. So when you say Alicent didn’t fear rhaenyra or ask why Alicent couldn’t simply put faith in Rhaenyra’s promise not to harm her children, the answer is clear: history shows such promises rarely held, politics made their survival improbable, and personal betrayal destroyed any remaining trust. Rhaenyra and Aegon both have claims, but two claims to the same throne cannot coexist. For Alicent, her children’s lives were always at risk because rival heirs and claims had always faced the same deadly fate.

I don’t understand why you keep putting words in my mouth that I didn’t even say…

I never said Rhaenyra wasn’t a victim of misogyny. I said that both Cersei and Rhaenyra are victims of sexism, but they are also misogynistic women who made decisions that contributed to their own downfalls. You cannot reduce their entire story to just misogyny. Even Empress Matilda was a REAL person and a REAL victim of misogyny, but there were multiple dynamics at play in her conflict with Stephen you can’t just reduce it to gender. You can acknowledge misogyny exists everywhere in Westeros Cersei, Alicent, Rhaenyra, but that doesn’t mean their entire story or the story of the realm boils down to it. Reducing everything to misogyny is like looking at a wildfire and claiming the flames exist without the fuel, wind, or terrain. I might as well reduce Alicent’s entire story to straight-up misogyny too. But that’s the problem with you Rhaenyra stans you pick and choose which women get complexity and which get boiled down to a single issue (misogyny).

If you walked into a history exam and the question was why the anarchy happened and you wrote a whole essay like “The Anarchy happened because misogyny” you wouldn’t get points for being “correct,” you’d get points docked for being illiterate and dumb. A real answer would have to cover: The lack of a fixed succession law: Norman England had no stable succession tradition. Every Norman king before Matilda including her father took the throne by force. Henry I himself was a fourth son who seized power opportunistically. Primogeniture was not firmly established yet, and many nobles felt it was illegitimate for Matilda to simply inherit without proving herself, especially when all her predecessors had had to fight for the crown.

“William Rufus in 1087 and Henry himself in 1100 had won the throne by acting swiftly to seize the crown, and then fighting to retain it. The legitimacy of their rule was born of their hold on power, not the other way round. In theory, Matilda’s claim to be her father’s heir was unanswerable, but in practice she was hampered by multiple disadvantages: she was female; her husband, whose status in relation to her claim to the crown remained deeply ambiguous, was a distrusted outsider among the powerful men she now sought to rule; and she was not there in person to counter escalating doubts and uncertainties.” —She-Wolves Helen Castor

And:

“when William—now a corpulent but still powerfully imposing man of sixty—lay on his deathbed, he was grudgingly prepared to concede that Robert should rule in Normandy, as he had promised more than twenty years earlier. But in England, he intended that the crown should pass to his second and favourite son, William Rufus, who was dispatched from his father’s bedside at Rouen across the Channel to Westminster. There Rufus was crowned king little more than two weeks after his father’s death.

The result was war. Robert could not accept that his younger brother should supplant him in England, while Rufus set his sights on adding his elder brother’s duchy to his new kingdom. Sporadic fighting and tension-filled truces left Rufus—who was a better soldier and a shrewder leader than his unimpressive brother—with the upper hand, until in 1096 Robert abandoned the struggle, pawning Normandy to Rufus for a cash payment of 10,000 silver marks to fund his departure on crusade.

Robert was still away, spending some time in southern Italy on a leisurely journey back from the Holy Land, when on August 2, 1100, William Rufus was killed, speared in the heart by a stray arrow during a hunting expedition in the New Forest of robert had « hoped to succeed him as King of England—and he surely did, given that William had no children, and that each of the brothers had named the other his heir in a short-lived treaty of 1091—he was to be bitterly disappointed. Their clever, ambitious youngest brother, Henry, was with Rufus when he died in the dappled sunlight of the forest. Henry took only an instant to weigh up the opportunity with which the rogue arrow had unexpectedly presented him. Ruthlessly composed amid the panic and confusion, he spurred his horse twenty miles north to Winchester, the ancient capital of Wessex, where he seized control of the royal treasury and persuaded the barons who had reached the town in time for Rufus’s hastily arranged burial the next morning to nominate him as their new king. He then rode full pelt for London, another sixty miles northeast, where he was crowned in Westminster Abbey on August 5, less than seventy-two hours after his brother’s untimely death.

It was a brilliantly successful coup d’état. When Robert arrived home in Normandy a month later, he was unable to shake Henry’s hold on England. Six years after that, when military tension[…]” — She-Wolves Helen Castor

Matilda’s absence from England and her foreign marriage, baronial self-interest and opportunism, Stephen’s political positioning and speed, feudal loyalty being personal, not institutional, civil war norms where force = legitimacy. Misogyny? Yes, absolutely, it’s in there. But it’s one variable, not the thesis. Reducing a succession crisis to misogyny is like saying: “World War I happened because nationalism.” True, but if that’s all you write, you fail. Because you ignored militarism, economics, imperial decline, individual decisions, and contingency etc...