The racism against Nettles
From this post. [but I’m going to add more details]
Race exists because power exists. Throughout history, societies created and reinforced ideas about race to justify systems of power, conquest, slavery, colonization, and unequal treatment. The specific categories change, but the process of creating an “us” and a “them” to maintain power is something that shows up across different societies including fantasy worlds. Yes. Fantasy racism almost never works exactly like real-world racism. The Children of the Forest, giants, wildlings, Dornishmen, Valyrians, Summer Islanders, and Brindled Men are all treated through different systems of prejudice.
The Summer Islanders are depicted as having dark skin and are exoticized and fetishized in Westerosi society. They’re being reduced to racialized and sexualized stereotypes they are not simply “foreign,” but described through a lens of fetishization rooted in their skin color and presumed sexual openness. The entire culture of Summer Islanders is written through a lens of sexuality, unlike other Westerosi or Essosi cultures.
In Slaver’s Bay, the most prized sex slaves are often described in racialized terms, especially Naathi girls, who are coded as women of color. They’re valued for being “docile” and “gentle,” tropes that hypersexualize and dehumanize dark-skinned women, reducing them to obedient, exotic objects of pleasure. Missandei herself, though treated kindly by Daenerys, is still a trafficked child whose race and trauma are sidelined in both the books and the show.
This is absolutely draws on real-world ideas and stereotypes that have historically been applied to African and Caribbean peoples. Fantasy doesn’t have to copy history exactly to reflect it. George takes inspiration from all over the place and mixes it together. The Wall isn’t literally Hadrian’s Wall, the Dothraki aren’t literally Mongols, and the Summer Islanders aren’t literally Africans. But you can still see where some of the influences and parallels come from:
The text goes out of its way to describe Nettles as “brown-skinned” with black hair and brown eyes. That’s already making her visually distinct from the overwhelmingly pale Valyrian people around her. She’s not described with silver-gold hair, purple eyes, or any of the features that Westeros considered as dragonlord nobility.
The Dornish, for example, are described with olive skin tone complexions and are generally closer to Mediterranean inspirations. Nettles’ description is different enough that we see her as occupying a more visibly “othered” position within the story’s social hierarchy. Could she have Summer Islander ancestry? Absolutely. The Summer Islanders are one of the most prominent dark-skinned peoples in the known world.
A lot of defenses of Rhaenyra’s treatment of Nettles feel like they completely sidestep the historical context of racist stereotypes aimed at Black women. You can’t have a serious conversation about misogynoir or the Black Jezebel trope if every discussion gets reduced to “she was just paranoid” and the racialized implications are ignored. Social progress requires people to acknowledge and confront prejudice, not brush it aside when it involves a character they like. Explaining a character’s grief, fear, or insecurity can add context, but it doesn’t automatically erase racist, sexist, or blood-purist ideas that may be present in their actions.
Many people may simply be focusing on different parts of the text or may not recognize the historical parallels I’m pointing to. Others, however, are just racist or may become dismissive of discussions about racism, misogynoir, or colorism because they don’t want to criticize a favorite character. That’s a different issue, and it’s worth calling out when it happens.
The stronger argument is that conversations about Nettles shouldn’t ignore how race, blood purity, and gender intersect in her storyline, especially given how differently she’s treated compared to other dragonseeds. Whether someone agrees with that interpretation or not, those themes deserve to be engaged with rather than dismissed out of hand.
People will acknowledge that Rhaenyra became paranoid, distrustful, and increasingly cruel near the end of the Dance, but then suddenly draw the line when it comes to the blood-purity rhetoric she used against Nettles. If paranoia can influence her actions, why can’t blood-purity beliefs influence them too?
Being a victim of misogyny doesn’t automatically stop someone from participating in other forms of violence. Two things can be true at once: Rhaenyra was denied power and legitimacy because she was a woman, AND she could still weaponize prejudice against someone with less status and power than herself.
Nettles was a poor, vulnerable young dragonrider whose ancestry was constantly questioned. Instead of seeing her as evidence that dragons weren’t limited to a specific bloodline, Rhaenyra ultimately treated her as a threat and leaned into blood-purist reasoning to justify targeting her.
The irony is that blood purity was never Rhaenyra’s friend. The same ideology used to elevate Targaryens above everyone else also helped fuel the conflicts and expectations that contributed to her downfall. Yet when her position became unstable, she still reached for that rhetoric because it was a source of authority and power she could wield.
Grief doesn’t magically make someone racist or make them start saying racist shit out of nowhere. If someone’s grief brings out racism, blood-supremacist rhetoric, or prejudice, that stuff was already there to begin with. Grief can lower your filter, make you lash out, or expose parts of you that were easier to hide before, but it doesn’t create those beliefs from nothing. It just reveals what was already simmering under the surface. Plenty of people experience devastating loss without suddenly becoming racist or obsessed with blood purity.
Nettles being accused of being a witch is similar to how Black/African people have historically been accused of witchcraft with extra layer of foreignness and exoticism that further dehumanizes Black women.
Black/African witches, magic practitioners, and even Afro-diasporic religions have been portrayed in Western history and sometimes still are today as being “closer” to demons, superstition, or dark magic. This isn’t because of anything inherent in those religions or practices. It comes from how power and knowledge were ranked through colonial and racial thinking. In a lot of European Christian frameworks, “magic” was judged based on one question: is it approved by God and the Church or not? Anything outside that system could be called evil or unnatural.
But when colonialism and racial ideology entered the picture, that religious boundary got mixed with racial hierarchy. Non-European spiritual practices were not just called “different,” but considered as more primitive, more dangerous, or more connected to evil forces. That’s where the idea of “closer to demons” comes from it’s a way of dehumanizing and placing certain groups outside “civilized” religion.
A white European woman accused of witchcraft in medieval/early modern Europe was usually still seen as part of the same religious and social world. The accusation was: “you belong here, but you’ve turned away from God / broken the rules.” It’s internal conflict inside the community’s belief system.
But a Black woman accused of witchcraft (esp in later colonial and racialized contexts) was not considered in the same “you belong here but broke the rules” way. Instead, she is already being positioned as “outside” in the imagination of the dominant culture seen as foreign, inferior, or fundamentally different from the start.
When Nettles is being accused of witchcraft, it’s not just a random insult or simple paranoia in a war.
It’s denying her power as a dragonrider. Instead of accepting that a lowborn brown girl might have bonded with a dragon through patience and courage, the story being pushed is: she must have cheated somehow. That’s where “spells” and “witchcraft” language comes in. It’s a way of refusing to accept her success as real.
It ties into class and blood purity too. Calling her “common” and saying she has “no dragon’s blood” is already setting up the idea that she doesn’t belong in the same category as Targaryens.
And the witchcraft turns her into something “dangerous” and “unnatural.” That’s important because historically, “witch” accusations are used to explain away women who step outside expected roles or gain influence in ways people don’t want to recognize as worthy.
The Jezebel trope is a racist stereotype that portrays women especially Black women as naturally seductive, sexually manipulative, and responsible for men’s desires or actions. Historically, it was used to justify discrimination and to portray Black women as temptresses rather than fully realized human beings.
This doesn’t come out of nowhere. It connects to older Western and Christian ideas about gender and sexuality. For example, in some interpretations of the Eve story, women are considered temptation or being responsible for the fall of man. Over time, those ideas influenced broader cultural assumptions about women’s sexuality and morality.
These gendered ideas became layered with race during slavery and colonialism. Black women were frequently excluded from ideals of “purity” or “respectability” that were applied to white women, and instead were reduced through stereotypes that reduced them to sexuality, availability, or moral suspicion.
Race and religion became tightly linked to ideas of gender, sexuality, and social value. “European” or “Christian” womanhood was increasingly defined not only through religion, but also through contrast with colonized and racialized populations. At the same time, whiteness itself began to function as a central marker of respectability and femininity. Over time, this meant that distinctions were no longer only about Christian versus non-Christian identity, but also about racialized categories that shaped who was seen as pure, civilized, or worthy of protection.
One of the biggest problems people point out is that it can lead to dehumanization. That means Black women’s feelings, safety, and personal experiences can get ignored or taken less seriously than they should be. Instead of being seen first as people who can be hurt, they can be unfairly viewed through stereotypes about sexuality or “attitude” or assumed intent.
And that matters a lot when something bad happens. Because if someone already carries stereotypes about them, it can change how others interpret what happened. It can affect whether they’re believed quickly, how seriously their case is taken, and how much attention it gets from media or institutions.
And this is about real-life disparities like cases of missing Black girls or violence against Black women not always getting the same urgency, coverage, or immediate response as others. Researchers and activists link this to broader patterns in society, not just individual bad decisions, but systems shaped by bias over time.
The point of talking about stereotypes like Jezebel isn’t just theoretical. It’s about how ideas in culture can affect real outcomes like who gets protected faster, who gets believed immediately, and whose suffering gets treated as urgent. Its about who is automatically seen as “worth saving,” and who has to fight harder just to be seen clearly as a victim in the first place.
Rhaenyra using Jezebel-narrative-coded imagery around Nettles, particularly through the implication or rumor that Nettles she seduced and is pregnant with Daemon’s child. “My prince would ne’er lay with such a low creature.” + “so long as he was in the girl’s thrall” she’s makes her as a sexual threat who ensnares men. sexualize and blame the woman for a man’s actions. Instead of Daemon being seen as someone making his own choices the language moves toward the idea that he’s being influenced or controlled by Nettles.
There’s a sense of contradiction in how she talks about Nettles. On one hand, she’s trying to justify why Nettles is supposedly dangerous. On the other, the intensity of her reaction feels bigger than the evidence actually presented. Nettles challenges the idea that power belongs exclusively to a certain bloodline. She’s a poor girl of uncertain ancestry who claims a dragon without fitting the traditional image of a Targaryen dragonrider. Her very existence raises uncomfortable questions about blood purity and who gets access to power.
Add Daemon’s protection on top of that, and Nettles becomes even more threatening to the worldview Rhaenyra has relied on. If someone viewed dragons as the exclusive inheritance of Valyrian blood, then Nettles succeeding where she “shouldn’t” be able to succeed undermines that belief.
The conflict isn’t solely about whether Nettles betrayed Rhaenyra. It’s also about what Nettles represents: the possibility that dragonriding and power may not be as exclusive as Targaryen ideology claims. In that reading, Rhaenyra’s reaction is driven not only by paranoia and fear but also by a desire to defend boundaries of blood and belonging that Nettles’ existence threatens to blur.
3) Rhaenyra treatment of white skin characters vs brown skin Nettles.
One thing that always stands out to me about Nettles’ story is how much she gives to Rhaenyra’s cause and how little she gets back.
Like genuinely, compare her situation to the other dragonseeds.
Addam gets legitimized. He gets knighted. He gets recognition. Even when Rhaenyra later turns against him, she still refers to him as “Ser Addam.” He is at least acknowledged as someone with status and honor.
Hugh Hammer and Ulf White get knighted too. They’re promised rewards, lands, castles, and positions. The whole point of recruiting dragonseeds was that service would be exchanged for advancement.
Now look at Nettles. What exactly did rhaenyra gave her? What does nettles gets? Nothing. No family, no backing, no title, no reward just danger. She’s already breaking the rules by being a girl, and despite everything she does, she gets nothing in return except being hunted and sentenced to death.
From the beginning, rhaenyra gave the white male dragonseeds more recognition in ways Nettles never received. Because when you look at Nettles, Rhaenyra absolutely had the power to improve her life and never really does.
Nettles wasn’t just some random bystander. She was one of the most valuable people fighting for the Black cause. She claimed a dragon, risked her life in war, and helped strengthen Rhaenyra’s military position at a time when dragons could literally determine the fate of kingdoms.
If anyone had earned rewards, protection, and advancement, it was Nettles. Rhaenyra could have granted her lands. given her an income. She could have arranged a noble marriage if Nettles wanted one. could have created a household for her. She could have made sure she had powerful allies and political protection. She was the queen. She had already shown a willingness to hand out titles, offices, and rewards to other male supporters.
But none of that happens for Nettles. Instead, Nettles remains vulnerable the entire time. She is useful when her dragon is needed, but she never receives the kind of institutional support that might have secured her future.
Her treatment of mysaria vs Nettles.
Now we can also see that Rhaenyra actually gives Mysaria protection and a place within her circle. Mysaria isn’t just left to survive on her own anymore she gets brought into a position where she has some level of safety, access, and usefulness within the Black faction.
And why It’s not okay for Rhaenyra a Black/brown teenage girl to sleep with Daemon so she needs to lose her head? But why rhaenyra doesn’t have a problem with Mysaria’s white pale skin sleeping with Daemon? Didn’t see her asking for Mysaria’s head even though she was sleeping with her husband everyday.
“Daemon Targaryen was not a prince consort loyal to the Queen, we know that. Even our usually reticent Septon Eustace talks about his nocturnal visits to Lady Mysaria, whose bed he frequently shared, when he was at court…with the queen’s blessing.”-f&B
“Prince Daemon remained in her thrall, and called upon [myseria] every evening...with Queen Rhaenvra's apparent blessing. "-fire&blood
Daemon’s connection to Mysaria was known for years. Mysaria is a sex worker and Daemon’s longtime lover, yet Rhaenyra never put a bounty on her head or demanded her execution because she was supposedly “seducing” her husband. Oh wait yeah because Nettles is a brown girl. Mysaria is described with imagery associated with beauty, luxury, and whiteness: “skin as pale as milk” and dressed in “black velvet lined with blood-red silk.” With Rhaenyra, another visibly white Valyrian beauty riding a dragon. Nettles is the opposite. Her ancestry is uncertain, her power is constantly questioned, and she’s repeatedly associated with poverty and her brown skin. Even after claiming a dragon, people still treat her as someone who doesn’t truly belong.
Mysaria's whiteness "skin as pale as milk" that contrasts against Nettles' “brownness” dark skin.
Noblemen having extramarital relationships is practically normalized. Corlys loved Rhaenys, yet he allegedly had a long-term relationship with Marilda of Hull and fathered children with her. That didn’t automatically mean he stopped loving his wife. Westerosi society treated those things as separate issues. The same goes for Daemon. Rhaenyra knew about his history and appears willing to tolerate behavior from him that would be unacceptable in a modern relationship. Mysaria had been connected to Daemon for years, and Rhaenyra never launched a campaign to have her executed over it.
If the problem were simply “Daemon may have been unfaithful,” then why does the response become so extreme when the rumored woman is Nettles? From this perspective, the intensity of Rhaenyra’s anger seems disproportionate compared to how she reacted to other women in Daemon’s life. Nettles isn’t just another rumored mistress she’s a young dragonrider of uncertain ancestry whose power is constantly questioned.
That’s why critics of Rhaenyra’s actions argue that the situation can’t be reduced to jealousy alone. They see race, blood purity, class, and power playing a role in why Nettles is treated as uniquely threatening. The question becomes why is this woman the one who provokes such a severe response when Daemon’s relationships with other women never triggered the same reaction? the contrast between Mysaria and Nettles is one reason that there is more going on than simple fear of infidelity.
Rhaenyra is the villain and antagonist here but one thing that frustrates me about this discourse is how Rhaenyra is automatically positioned as the victim, even in situations where Nettles is the one facing the threat of execution. The focus shifts to Rhaenyra’s pain, Rhaenyra’s losses, and Rhaenyra’s grief, while Nettles’ vulnerability gets pushed to the background. A lot of people would rather redirect the blame entirely onto Daemon than engage with Rhaenyra’s own choices. But Rhaenyra isn’t powerless in this situation she’s the queen ordering the death of a young girl who, according to the text, was never proven guilty of anything.
What also gets overlooked is the language and reasoning used to justify targeting Nettles. Classism, blood-purity rhetoric, and hostility toward a poor girl of uncertain ancestry don’t suddenly disappear because Rhaenyra is grieving. Grief can explain someone’s mindset it doesn’t automatically excuse the prejudice they weaponize. And that’s the issue acknowledging that Rhaenyra suffered misogyny does not mean she couldn’t also direct prejudice toward someone with less power than herself. Being oppressed in one context doesn’t prevent a person from upholding other oppressive hierarchies.
Too often, criticism of Rhaenyra’s treatment of Nettles gets brushed aside because fans are reluctant to see a white beloved female character as an antagonist in that specific conflict. But recognizing misogyny against Rhaenyra and recognizing the classism, blood-purity thinking, and misogynoir-adjacent elements in her treatment of Nettles are not mutually exclusive. Both discussions can exist at the same time.
The Rhaena/Nettles situation is similar to the Sansa/Jeyne Poole situation because both involve taking a storyline away from one lowborn girl and giving it to a more important/privilege or popular character.
In the books, Jeyne Poole is the victim of Ramsay Bolton. Sansa never goes to Winterfell and instead begins learning actual political survival and diplomacy in the Vale. The show erased Jeyne, gave her suffering to Sansa, and in the process cut off a major part of Sansa’s political development.
Nettles is a unique character in Fire & Blood. She’s a poor brown dragonseed of uncertain ancestry who challenges Targaryen blood-purity assumptions simply by existing. Her story is about much more than riding a dragon she’s living proof that dragonriding may not be restricted to the Valyrian blood.
When that story gets folded into Rhaena, a noble-born Targaryen princess, the meaning changes. The entire point of Nettles as an outsider is weakened because Rhaena already belongs to the house. She doesn’t challenge the system in the same way Nettles does.
The criticism isn’t just “the books changed.” It’s that a poor, marginalized girl with one of the most subversive storylines in the Dance gets removed, while her narrative function is handed to someone who already has status and a place within the ruling family. Yeah… you don’t have to believe the writers personally hate Black women to argue that removing Nettles was a bad and racist decision.
turnnoffyourmind
ellievsbear
jacobvanloon
romaincrisis
discoholicmusic
jbbartram-illu
2087
kaledo-art
