"Alicent could have been a beloved stepmother figure like Jane Seymour or Catherine Parr they were noble women of their time navigating a succession crisis" actual take on twitter.
like i understand not everyone is going to be familiar with tudor history but since you know these womens' names how on earth is their situations comparable to alicents.
first off, edward was the undisputed heir apparent. jane had she lived, didn't have to worry about that. any other sons she gave henry would take precedence over mary & elizabeth.
ALSO ALSO the funniest bit is that jane seymour was famously wed to henry the day/days after anne boleyns head chopped off! tb lose their minds over viserys remarrying alicent after 6 months because his wife died a natural death in childbirth & loathe alicent for rumours of viserys seeing her even before aemma death
Ironically since many tb stans love Anne Boleyn if she had a surviving son, they would switch up instantly and say he should inherit over Mary I even though that contradicts the logic they use in their other debates. Because historically, Anne’s marriage wasn’t recognized by much of Catholic Europe. Under that view, her children are illegitimate no matter their gender, and Mary, as Catherine of Aragon’s daughter, remains the rightful heir. These succession debates aren’t about one clear, objective truth they’re about which rules people choose to apply. And those rules tend to shift depending on which claimant they already support.
Jane comes in after Anne is dead her biggest threat is already removed. While Elizabeth was a toddler raised in her own separate household. Catherine Parr marries Henry when he’s old and dying, and the succession is mostly settled.
Neither of them is raising direct rival claimants to the throne at the same time as another active heir living in the same court.
Alicent couldn’t just be a “beloved stepmother.” That kind of dynamic requires stability and Alicent is living in the opposite of that. People saying that are basically applying a peaceful, post-crisis model to an active succession conflict. It’s not the same game at all. Once Edward was born, he was the clear, undisputed heir. Jane didn’t have to navigate two active, competing claims inside the same court the way Alicent did. If Jane had lived and had more sons, their position would’ve been secure too. They’d come before Mary and Elizabeth in succession, so there’s no immediate rivalry she has to manage on a daily basis. That removes a huge layer of tension. Alicent’s situation is completely different:
Her sons are immediate threats to Rhaenyra’s claim just by existing!
The only reason why Henry VIII remarried multiple times was to produce a male heir. And Henry I too (supposed to be used as a parallel to Viserys). That is the main reason a king would remarry. Many monarchs remarried for that exact purpose. It is extremely rare for a king who already has an heir especially a daughter to remarry, have sons, and still keep the daughter as heir. That would be seen as disrespectful/unstable and could risk rebellion or even civil war, as competing claims would immediately form around different children. That’s why Viserys’ situation is so unusual... From a typical medieval political perspective, his choices doesn’t make any sense, because succession disputes are exactly what monarchs usually try to avoid but people reduce everything to blaming Alicent, while ignoring the pressure and political context, it becomes a very selective feminism reading of the situation.
If Alicent had been married to someone like Henry VIII or Henry I and given them three sons, none of this would’ve happened no succession crisis, no war. The line is clear, the nobles know who comes next, and there’s no need to argue over claims or stretch the rules. That’s the whole point of royal marriages back then. The crisis only exists because Viserys breaks that “contract” he has sons but still insists on keeping his daughter as heir. That’s what creates the tension, not Alicent herself. If you put Alicent in a more historically typical setup where her sons are automatically prioritized, the entire conflict basically disappears.
Are we forgetting that Katherine Parr was complicit in the relationship between Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth? The dress incident? The grooming? And her turning a blind eye?
Her behavior toward Elizabeth during that whole situation is still really hard to understand. Thomas Seymour’s actions toward the young Elizabeth were clearly inappropriate, and even by the standards of the time. It raises the question of why she allowed the grooming to continue for so long. She must have been aware of what was happening, or at least suspicious of his intentions, yet nothing was done to properly stop it early on. And when things finally came to light, it was Elizabeth who was sent away while Thomas remained, which only made the situation look worse and deepened the scandal surrounding the Seymour household. Instead of protecting Elizabeth, the handling of it ended up damaging her reputation and leaving a lasting stain on everyone involved.
Alicent, unlike Katherine Parr, actually spoke up and called out the behavior of men toward rhaenyra.
“Ser Criston protects the princess from her enemies… but who protects the princess from Ser Criston?” She repeats “protect” on purpose. She’s stressing safety by pointing out that a 13yo, unmarried princess is in a risky position surrounded by older, ambitious men. And in the book, Criston is much older. So any romantic/sexual angle isn’t just messy it’s deeply inappropriate. He’s Kingsguard, sworn to protect her, not blur those lines. No matter how ppl spin it, Rhaenyra is surrounded by men w/ agendas, and Alicent is one of the only ppl actually clocking the danger early on which is ironic considering where Criston ends up later. “Many lords and knights sought her favor” Alicent knew what that meant. If her goal was to ruin Rhaenyra, she could’ve stayed encouraged criston Cole or just turned blind eye like Viserys. But she didn’t. She spoke up bc she genuinely saw a problem.
Even if ppl ask “why didn’t Alicent do more if she thought Rhaenyra was in danger?” that’s applying modern expectations to a medieval, patriarchal world (again look at Katherine Parr despite all the evidence) She did act in the only way she safely could: she raised concerns and called out how risky it was for a young, unmarried girl to be surrounded by ambitious men. That alone is already a big move in that kind of system. Expecting her to go further ignores how limited women’s power and voices were. She couldn’t just overrule men or take direct action without consequences and unlike Katherine Parr, she didn’t stay silent. She saw the danger, said it loud, and pushed for protection in the only way available to her.
“The first-born child of King Viserys I, Rhaenyra Targaryen was almost ten years older than her half-brother Aegon. She was the king's only living child (two siblings having died in infancy) by his first wife, an Arryn of the Vale, and grew up expecting to become the first ruling queen of Westeros. When the second of her brothers died soon after being born, Viserys himself began to treat Rhaenyra as his heir, keeping her by his side in court and at council meetings. Many of the nobles of the realm took nte, so the young princess was surrounded by flatterers and favor-seekers all through her childhood…Pampered from an early age.”
The problem is that Viserys had already surrounded Rhaenyra with men lords, knights, and favor-seekers long before Alicent was even in a position to have any influence. How was Alicent supposed to just step in and fix that? Rhaenyra was raised at court constantly around powerful men trying to gain her favor. That environment was set up by Viserys himself. By the time Alicent comes in, that dynamic is already normalized and deeply rooted. Expecting Alicent to suddenly control or change that ignores the reality of her position. She wasn’t the one who created that situation, and she didn’t have the authority to fully dismantle it either. The most she could do was point out the risks and she did.
Here is where our sources diverge. Grand Maester Runciter says only that the brothers quarreled again, and Prince Daemon departed King’s Landing to return to the Stepstones and his wars. Of the cause of the quarrel, he does not speak. Others assert that it was at Queen Alicent’s urging that Viserys sent Daemon away.
If Alicent did argue for Daemon’s removal after he groomed rhaenyra in some versions which is possible depending on the source that still shows something important about her role in court. And again unlike Katherine Parr, she isn’t silent. She does involve herself in court politics and tries to influence decisions when she sees risk or scandal around Rhaenyra. That doesn’t mean she’s the one controlling the outcome, but it does show she’s willing to speak up in a system where women usually have limited direct power. At the same time, the difference is still authority: Viserys is the one who ultimately decides Daemon’s fate and handles the fallout. Alicent may advise or push after he groomed rhaenyra. She could’ve easily turned a blind eye like others do or even encouraged Criston or Daemon’s attention toward Rhaenyra to use it against her. But instead, she raises concern about the situation and points out the imbalance of power and risk around Rhaenyra, or even argues for Daemon to be sent away.
Why would Katherine Parr be considered “better” than Alicent if she allowed that kind of behavior to happen around Elizabeth in the first place? Alicent’s and Parr’s relationships with Rhaenyra and Elizabeth don’t *COMPLETELY* start breaking down until Daemon and Thomas the groomers enter the room. Before that, there’s barely any solid info about the early years of Viserys’ marriage. The idea that Alicent was “beefing” with a 9yo Rhaenyra is mostly TB propaganda, not something clearly supported by the text.
It’s interesting how Thomas and Daemon parallel each other. Thomas Seymour was extremely jealous of his brother, Edward Duke just like Daemon with Viserys. Thomas was seen as the rogue (charming, handsome and dangerous). Daemon has that same energy as the “Rogue Prince,” (the risky, exciting one.) But behind that, both are tied to grooming dynamics and ambition. They groomed young girls close to power, trying to influence or control the heir for their own gain. And in the process, they end up damaging those girls’ reputation and relationships with their stepmothers, creating tension and division within the household.
This is the same argument TB smart stans use when they say Rhaenyra is a “better stepmother” to Baela and Rhaena just because Alicent was supposedly worse to her. But it’s ironic, because Baela and Rhaena don’t actually threaten Rhaenyra’s sons. They’re not placed above them in the succession, so they’re basically reduced to consorts rather than rival claimants. Of course there’s no tension there there’s no direct competition. If Rhaenyra had been the one reduced to a consort and Aegon were positioned as heir then Alicent would still treat her like daughter w/ basic courtesy, because again, there would be no direct threat. But can we talk about how bad Rhaenyra’s relationship with Addam and Alyn (“Laenor’s bastards,”)? Especially after Addam was named heir instead of Joffrey under pressure from Corlys? When they’re placed above him in the succession?
I know that Team Black stans don’t really engage with history properly or how women actually lived in medieval systems with medieval priorities. They tend to focus more on modern ideas of womanhood. They don’t consider how dangerous succession claims were or how women usually had to work within those systems to protect their children’s position. For them, Alicent becomes either a “religious fanatic” or an “evil stepmother,” a “selfish woman who supposedly doesn’t care about her children and sacrificed them.” That’s the only lens they use. Meanwhile, they idealize Rhaenyra as the “silver-haired Targaryen victim flawless queen” in every single conversation.
The same issue came up when the last time I discussed about the Tudor succession comparison with a TB stan. They claimed that rhaenyra would be like Mary I, sparing her siblings the way Mary I spared Elizabeth. Which is ironic because Mary I and Elizabeth I had a far more complex relationship shaped by politics/religion, and imprisonment. Elizabeth wasn’t simply “spared out of love.” She was at times under suspicion, politically dangerous, and kept under control.
