#queenship

Besides their duty to secure the succession, queen consorts had other jobs. I don't think Queens in Westeros have dower lands (or any highborn lady, despite the collosal side of Westeros) to administer. We know queens were mediators, were patrons, managed their own household (probably even the Red Keep with the Royal Steward), they hosted feasts, dinners, balls, they wrote to lords and foreign rulers, gave alms, oversaw education of not just their children (but other nobles), and probably more things that I am forgetting.

I make this point, because from a qeenship point of view, it is interesting to explore both women, and I think it shows Alicent actually had more power than Aemma.

Aemma Arryn: We don't know a thing about her education and personality. Show Aemma seems kind and traditional and doesn't seem to get involved in politics. But show Aemma age/timeline is a mess. Book Aemma queenship is probably an interesting study because it will mirror Naerys and Rhaella. Aemma was a child bride and an orphan (Rodrik Arryn died between 82-97). We have nothing that indicated she was raised by her grandmother, Queen Alysanne (which would make sense), or in the Eyrie. Then we have Aemma's childbirth history. Viserys first slept with Aemma in 95 AC and she died in 105 AC. Rhaenyra was born in 97 AC but "Aemma became pregnant several times, but suffered multiple miscarriages and gave birth to a son who died in the cradle" this unknown son, it not Baelon. Show Aemma tells us one child who died in the cradle, two stillbirths, and two miscarriages + Rhaenyra and Baelon. This 7 pregnancies in 10 years!

So, it is safe to say this poor woman spent in 10 years mostly pregnant and in bedrest. (Fuck you Viserys!). Which probably meant a lot of the soft power she could will as queen consort is effected by it. Pregant Aemma is not touring the country, giving alms in the city, hosting celebrations as often possible. And book Aemma was queen for 2 years (one she spent pregnant), but we can consider that with Alysanne death by 100 AC, Aemma was the highest lady in the realm after the council of 101 and de facto queen.

Now Alicent: HotD timeline is all over the place, but book Alicent was Queen Consort for 23 years. This place Alicent in the few Queens who actually passed the 20 year mark. I did the math (unlike George), and if we consider that the queens whose death dates we don't know (*), died after their husbands we have this years as queen consorts: Visenya (37 years); Alysanne (52 years); Daenaera (*24 years); Myriah* (25 years); Betha (*26 years); Rhaella (21 years). We then have Rhaenys (10 years); Aelinor (*12 years). The others had less than 7 years (Maegor's first three queens having 6 years; and Naerys being queen for around 7 years)

Alicent starts her queenship with her father as Hand. This already places her in a more powerful position than Aemma. Viserys might ignore her, but Otto won't. Alicent is "precocious at fifteen and clever and lovely at the age of eighteen". She is well-read, and contrary to what HotD wants us to believe, book Alicent is a political powerhouse. Her first 5 years as Queen she gave birth 3 times. And 3 years later have birth to Daeron. From 114 Ac to 129 AC she had no more pregnancies and from 126 AC (in the books) Viserys never sat the iron throne again.

Considering all this, their queenships have to be different, but how do you think Alicent's Queenship could differ from other long-term queens?

You’re not being annoying at all this is actually a very interesting take.

This is going to be a bit long and repetitive!

Most long-term queens gain stability with their husbands shared rule, consistent presence, a clear court system. Alicent’s situation is different. She starts with access to power through Otto, yes, but over time her queenship shifts into something much more independent and tense because Viserys increasingly withdraws, both physically and politically. So instead of a queen working alongside an active king, you get a queen functioning in the gaps of a declining reign. That alone changes everything.

Her queenship becomes less about ceremonial influence and more about sustaining governance and court coherence when the king won’t. She’s not just hosting or patronizing she’s embedded in the actual mechanics of rule, especially once Viserys stops consistently appearing or asserting authority. That’s not typical, even for long-reigning queens.

At the same time, Alicent’s position is uniquely unstable because her entire queenship is tied to a live succession contradiction. Most queens work to secure a clear heir. Alicent exists in a court where:

an heir already exists

her own sons are also legitimate claimants

And the king refuses to resolve the tension

She is the queen of a system that is simultaneously accepting and bypassing her line. instead of reinforcing a settled future, her queenship works in a state of permanent uncertainty.

her role as “mother of the next king” is undermined.

And then there’s the maternal dimension. Alicent isn’t just raising royal children she’s raising potential rivals to the named heir. That turns motherhood into a political act at every stage. marriages, alliances, even proximity to power all of it becomes strategic because her children’s survival and status are not guaranteed. Compared to other long-term queens, this creates a queenship that is less stable, more factional, and far more scrutinized.

What makes her queenship distinct isn’t just duration, it’s that she rules during a period where the king is weakening, the succession is unresolved, and the court is splitting. That pushes her beyond the typical boundaries of a queen consort and into something closer to a power broker working inside an unstable regime, which is a very different model from most long-term queens in the series.

That’s why Alicent’s queenship looks different AND “unstable”

Her queenship evolves into something reactive and “crisis”-driven. Her role is less “queen as stabilizing presence” and more “queen as active political player inside an emerging civil war.” That is rare. Most queens either successfully anchor the house (Alysanne-type model), OR are politically sidelined early or by death instead she ends up maintaining queenship while competing with another queen-designate’s legitimacy.

Also her queenship is shaped by factional politics INSIDE the royal family itself so unlike queens who mainly mediate between crown and external nobles, Alicent is embedded in an internal succession conflict her influence is tied to defending ONE BRANCH of the family against another.

And yeah, when you look at it through that lens, Alicent’s queenship is different from Aemma’s not in capacity. Aemma Arryn’s queenship is limited. She was married young who went through constant pregnancies for roughly a decadence and was physically weakened much of the time. Even if she had political ambition, she likely didn’t have the health or stability to fully exercise soft power in any sustained way.

Queenship at court depends heavily on informal influence patronage, networks with noble houses, shaping court culture, and advising behind the scenes but Aemma’s condition means her role is closer to survival within her duties than active governance. Her queenship becomes largely reproductive.

Alicent, by contrast, represents almost the opposite case (much like how Cersei stands as a foil to Rhaella Targaryen) as you said she has longevity, spending over two decades as queen, along with education, strong court awareness, proximity to power through Otto as Hand, and long gaps without pregnancy that allow her more sustained presence in political life. All of this becomes even more significant as King Viserys declines, because a weakening monarch creates a vacuum.

Jaehaerys also shapes Alicent’s queenship, just as Tywin shapes Cersei’s except tywin is a tyrant. He raises Cersei with a clear message that power belongs to tyrants and Cersei’s queenship becomes a reaction to him she tries to be “him” reclaim the authority she was refused by mimicking his ruthlessness. Alicent lived in KL and was raised at court under Jaehaerys shadow, she grows up believing in the order and “exceptionalism” of the realm he built. She was his caretaker and he leaves a lasting influence on her worldview and sense of duty. We see later on that her grandchildren are named in his honour (Jaehaera and Jaehaerys) which was probably Alicent’s decision. At the same time, she’s shaped by her father’s ambitions and the quiet way she’s positioned and expected to serve a role rather than define it. She clings to Jaehaerys’ ideals of duty while also having to work in a system that limits her. She genuinely believes in her rights because she sees them as aligned with what king Jaehaerys would have wanted. She idealizes him, almost mythologizing his reign as a “perfect” model of stability and prosperity. During the dance, she suggested assembling a great council, following the example set by Jaehaerys ”Let us together summon a great council, as the Old King did in days of old,” she said. So everything she does gets filtered through that lens if it fits the “Jaehaerys model,” it feels legitimate and necessary, even when the reality around her is far messier.

What makes her queenship distinct is how she builds and works within factional politics. She aligns with Otto, shapes alliances, influences appointments, and positions her children as political assets. In that sense, she moves *closer* maybe like Visenya Targaryen (not ruthlessly or military) than to the more traditionally supportive consort model. So her queenship is partly defined by trying to recreate a version of that stability in a world that has already moved past it, even when that effort puts her in direct conflict with others who see power differently.

Her motherhood also becomes politically instrumental in a way that goes beyond standard expectation. Her children are not only heirs but sources of rallying points. And when crisis arrives Alicent is not simply a ceremonial stabilizer. She is forced into reactive, high-stakes decision-making, which pushes her closer to executive political behavior than traditional consort roles allow. She left Viserys’ body to rot is darkly funny in a very “she is DONE with this situation”. She was sending envoys to secure support for her sons “Ravens flew, but not to Dragonstone. They went instead to Oldtown, to Casterly Rock, to Riverrun, to Highgarden, and to many other lords and knights whom Queen Alicent had cause to think might be sympathetic to her son.” Her strength shows most in crisis management, like during the Fall of KL, when she quickly organized her son & her grandchildren escape from the city she also ordered the gates of the city to be closed ensuring the security of the capital and preventing enemy soldiers from flooding the city. While the measure primarily protected her own family and Aegon’s claim, It ALSO kept the smallfolk safer, bc letting chaos spill into the streets would’ve been 10x worse. Also unlike Aemma she’s loved by the smallfolk (Probably due to charity in peaceful times)

So compared to other long-term queens, Alicent is not simply a supportive wife in the mold of Naerys or a harmonious co-ruler like Alysanne. She is to a faction leader, and in some ways a proto-regent without the formal title. Ultimately, the biggest difference between Aemma and Alicent is not only personality but circumstance. Aemma is trapped by her body and her role, while Alicent is trapped within the system but still given enough space to act inside it. That difference in health, and political opening is what makes Alicent appear far more powerful not because queenship itself changed, but because she was able to use it in ways Aemma never realistically could.

And honestly, that’s part of why she’s so hated by the fandom. If Alicent isn’t the “perfect” queen consort -- aka if she doesn’t bend herself into some cookie-cutter ideal of femininity or the Victorian-Goddess-Mother fantasy then guess what? She can never be “right.” anything she does for herself, for her kids, or even to survive in a court built to chew her alive, she becomes “wrong.” It’s the classic Angel in the House trap: she’s supposed to be flawless, endlessly selfless, patient… basically a living statue of respectability. You know, the Victorian-distilled Mother Goddess energy never angry, never ambitious, never human. Any ambition she shows? Wrong. Any desire to protect her children or assert her power? Evil.

So her “problem” isn’t just what she does it’s that she refuses to stay within an idealized version of what a queen consort is supposed to be she break from simply obeying the king the part of what defines her queenship. Instead of remaining a passive consort, she steps outside that role and acts on her own political judgment especially when she believes the king’s decisions threaten her children.

I don't think Queens in Westeros have dower lands (or any highborn lady, despite the collosal side of Westeros) to administer.

You’re right that we don’t see a consistent system of queens or noblewomen holding formal “dower lands” in the way medieval Europe did, which makes them very vulnerable after their husband’s death.

BUT

Queen Alysanne introduces the “Widow’s Law” to protect them. Instead of granting dowers, the law requires the husband’s heir to maintain the widow at the same standard of living she had before his death and prevents her from being cast out of the household. Now alicent after her husband’s death, she becomes a widow, and since her sons don’t inherit anything at that point, she’s left in a vulnerable position. Without a secure inheritance backing her, her safety and status depend entirely on who holds power at court. Even with protections like Alysanne’s Widow’s Law in theory, in practice it wouldn’t mean much if the ruling faction is against her.

What the books call “dower/dowry” is kind of all over the place and doesn’t cleanly match the historical system. in actual medieval practice, dowry (from the bride’s family) and dower (from the husband to the wife for her widowhood) are distinct and structured, often tied to land, income rights, and long-term security. it’s not just a sack of silver it’s about ensuring the woman has ongoing status and material protection.

in asoiaf though, what we mostly see is:

lump sums of wealth (silver, gold, goods)

prestige-based marriage incentives

and very little evidence of systematic land-based settlements for women

like the walder frey example or the corbray one those feel more like transactional sweeteners than formal legal protections. they’re about: “here’s money to make this match attractive” NOT “here’s a structured economic base for the bride’s future” because a lot of these “dowries” show up when there’s something uneven about the match: lower-status bride → higher-status groom OR a politically awkward alliance that needs compensation so the money functions more as balancing leverage than as a standard institution.

Also in a setting this obsessed with land and inheritance you’d expect women’s marriage portions to be tied into that system more directly but GRRM mostly avoids it, probably because it would complicate inheritance politics A LOT like you’d have widows with legal claims to land income, children inheriting through maternal lines more visibly and way more fragmentation of estates which would make succession disputes even messier than they already are.

So instead, the system kind of “simplifies” it. which is why something like Alysanne’s Widow’s Law stands out so much it’s one of the few moments where the text actually acknowledges how vulnerable widows are without those protections.

It’s very likely She-Wolves story will almost certainly highlight how widows compete to secure their children’s inheritance during succession crises, especially in a house like the Starks. If Beron Stark is dying, it makes sense that different Stark women would be active behind the scenes, each trying to protect their own children’s position in the line of succession. Women like Serena & Sansa being left out of clear inheritance paths would logically contribute to those underlying disputes, since their children’s status would depend on how that succession gets decided.

So Cersei learns at an early age that she has no agency, her only value is producing heirs and is barred from traditional routes of power so she has to use underhanded methods such as influencing men with sex or using underhanded magical means. I would love an explanation on why this doesn't reflect medieval queen consorts and noble women irl.

Sure! The basic summary is: GRRM "knows" the things that everyone "knows" about the middle ages, which are broad stereotypes often reflective of a) primary sources that deserve a critical reading rather than being taken at face value and b) the judgements of later periods making themselves look better at the medieval period's expense.

As Shiloh Carroll argues, building on the work of Helen Young, “readers are caught in a ‘feedback loop’ in which Martin’s work helps to create a neomedieval idea of the Middle Ages, which then becomes their idea of what the Middle Ages ‘really’ looked like, which is then used to defend Martin’s work as ‘realistic’ because it matches their idea of the real Middle Ages.”

Since you're mainly interested in Cersei here, I'd strongly recommend a book: Queenship and the Women of Westeros: Female Agency and Advice in Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz. It's an excellent read and speaks to exactly what you're asking about. The tone of the book is very positive and non-judgemental when it comes to GRRM and his depictions of women on the whole, but I think some of this is rhetorical positioning to not seem like "mean angry academics jumping on fiction for not being accurate," as the actual content turns the reader to thinking about how much agency and power medieval queens had in different European societies and how little of that worked its way into GRRM's worldbuilding.

It's true that women typically didn't inherit titles and thrones in their own right, and that they were usually given in marriage for political/dynastic reasons. However, they weren't seen as brood mares whose only duty was to pop out sons: both queens and noblewomen had roles to play as household managers, counselors, and lieutenants, actively participating in the ruling of their domains and in local and international diplomacy (women in political alliances were not just pawns sent to a powerful man's bed, but were to act as ambassadors for their families and to pass information back and forth), and they had to be raised with an understanding of this so that they could learn to do it. Motherhood was very important, don't get me wrong, but it's a mistake to assume as pop culture does that a wife's foremost duty being to provide heirs for her family meant that she was ONLY seen as a mother/potential mother.

Catelyn is a great example of what was expected of women in these positions. But in the books, Catelyn is basically the only woman who inhabits this role, and the impression given is that she's exceptional, that she's just in charge of the household because she's so great at it that Ned allows her to be his partner, and that he listens to her advice because she happens to be a wise person in his orbit - and also that Ned is exceptional for giving so much power to a woman, because in the world of ASOIAF, it takes an especially good man to do this. In GRRM's view of the medieval world, realpolitik and the accumulation of power are the most important things, so men in Westeros are extremely unlikely to give up any authority to their wives, even though this is historically inaccurate.

Cersei, on the other hand, is supposed to be a more realistic depiction of what would happen to an ambitious medieval woman. There's a chapter titled "Queen of Sad Mischance: Medievalism, “Realism,” and the Case of Cersei Lannister" in the book I've rec'd, and it deals with why this is problematic extremely well. (This is the source of the quote at the top of this post.) In it, Kavita Mudan Finn argues that Cersei embodies pretty much every medieval trope for the illegitimate wielding of power by a woman. She underhandedly gets people killed for opposing her, she seduces men into doing her bidding, she advances her family's interests and her own at the expense of the realm. She's made sympathetic through fannish interpretation and Lena Headey's performance, but in the text she's an evil woman doing evil things. Even when she gets to be regent for her son - a completely legitimate historical position that allowed women to handle the levers of power almost exactly like a king - she continues to do shitty things and not be taken seriously because she's just not good at ruling.

But even before then, from a medieval perspective she had access to completely legitimate power that she didn't use: she'd have had estates giving her a large personal income, religious establishments to patronize (giving her a good reputation as a pious woman and people she'd put in high positions being personally loyal to her), artists and writers to patronize as well, power over her household, men around her listening to her counsel. That she doesn't have that is a reflection of GRRM either deciding these things don't really exist in Westeros in order to make it a worse world than medieval Europe and justify Cersei feeling she had to use underhanded means of power, or not knowing that they were ordinary and unexceptional because he has a good working knowledge of the politics of the Wars of the Roses but little to no knowledge of social history beyond pop culture osmosis, and, imo, little to no interest in actual power dynamics.

•

When we read the accounts of how Catherine attended parliamentary sessions in 1423 and 1425 carrying the infant Henry VI in her arms. she is playing a symbolic or ornamental role in proceedings. We have no evidence she either directly or indirectly influenced matters at these sessions or was actively involved. But then, this doesn't necessarily mean anything about the political power queens wielded.

I don’t think Penelope becomes a queen all at once.

I think she learns it in fragments — in moments where being a girl stops being enough.

I’m interested in those moments.

The first time caution feels necessary. The first time silence feels useful.

Although they’re often presented as a sort of living, breathing set decoration, the women at aristocratic courts in the Middle Ages served many different functions, from the practical to the ceremonial. Educated and influential, these women served as ambassadors not only of their gender, but often of their families, and places of origin, as well. So, what was it like to be a daily companion to the elites of the medieval world? This week on The Medieval Podcast, Danièle speaks with Caroline Dunn about the lives of ladies in waiting.

Also, I am SUFFERING from cramps so I apologise if I ramble.

First off, Marriage Laws.

So, as previously discussed there were two ways a woman could marry: she could either be given by her family, or she could elope. Now, a woman who eloped would still be entitled to the same monetary payments as a woman who was given in marriage by her kin,

So, the Dues Payable are as follows: Amobyr, Cowyll, Agweddi, Gwaddol, Argyrfreu, and Wynebwerth.

I'm gonna cover Amobyr and Cowyll today, as well as do a lil write-up about Queenship so yeah.

It's a maiden fee! Now, this and the Cowyll are BOTH maiden fees, however, they differ as Cowyll - and we'll get onto it later - is a fee maybe to the lady herself. Sort of a wedding morning gift, I guess. 'Sorry I slept with u, or not, have some money.' Which, is extremely crass.

The Amobyr was fixed to a lady's status and it goes from King, Chief Bard or Storyteller, Chief Officers (so a Distain, which is what we Welsh would call a Seneschal), Minor Officer's daughters, Uchelwyr (so knights or lords), and then your middling noblemen, to peasants, foreigners, and slaves.

It's essentially equal to the revenue the father would get for his land, but EVERY SINGLE WOMAN would get it, regardless of status. High-born or low. The amount's payable regardless of whether you have one penny or seven thousand.

Now, amobyr could be recovered by suit as it was payable to the King and was essentially like protection money. If you made off with somebody's amobyr you were in BIG TROUBLE. HOWEVER, and I really love this fact, the King's daughter's amobyr would be payable not to him BUT TO THE QUEEN, as well as other daughters of high rank like your Pencerddau, chief groom, etc.

Amobyr was payable once a couple had cohabited for the first time, and even had to be payable if a man boasted that he'd shagged a woman and gotten her pregnant, but actually hadn't. Presumably because a) these laws are BIG on honour bonds and things and because you'd lied you'd tarnished that woman's honour and your own, and b) you'd kinda claimed that Lady as yours because you've made her unchaste.

Because it's a maiden fee it - like the Cowyll ' could only be paid ONCE. No more, no less. If you were a widow or wanted remarry, you can't get the amobyr again. Also, if you'd eloped with a dude and your family had caught you before you'd consummated your relationship they didn't have to pay cuz you're still a virgin. Also, if you were raped then the rapist had to pay amobyr to your family in recognition of that.

Finally, a lady who'd had a fling which had resulted in a bastard child* but she hadn't declared who the father was, then she was responsible for the amobyr. However, if she HAD declared who the father was then he had to pay the amobyr instead.

The Cowyll, as I've already said, is a personal payment to the lady that's made on the first morning after marriage.

Now, in North Wales it's always given as money even if you're a King's daughter, BUT if you're in the South then you get la lovely chunk of land. So if you married a prince of Gwynedd, bad luck, just money for u. If you married a Prince of Deheubarth then you are QUIDS IN! (THAT'S YOURS FOR LIFE BABYYYYY)

(Ignore the Agweddi for today. Or don't. Think of it as a tantalising glimpse into the next law I'm gonna cover.)

Cowyll is both paid to just married women AND those who were violated against their will. The wife / lady who had been violated had the right to specify what they wished for their cowyll to be in service of. If she didn't then it just went on stuff for the couple, so I'd imagine whatever the medieval equivalent of IKEA flat pack furniture would've been, that would've been what they'd have chosen.

Also, it's kept entirely separate from the husband's property so he Could Not pinch from it, or use it in service of himself. You couldn't even be deprived of it if you'd had an affair or did any naughty business. That's YOUR MONEY AND BY GOD YOU CAN KEEP IT. Even if you divorced your husband or he you, you would be allowed take your cowyll with you.

Now, finally, QUEENSHIP.

(Particularly handy if you are, like me, doing an Arthurian-inspired, Welsh-set novel and you GOTTA KNOW WHAT GUINEVERE DOES.)

There is not a lot on it because it isn't something that's studied that much (idk why. Wales has tonnes of cool Queens even if they didn't become regent) but we make do with what we can!

You, as King, could marry ANYBODY (Within reason, nobody is marrying a peasant girl) within what would be termed your Cenedl (that's your family.) or out of it.

Kings, we know, often married their first cousins, or second cousins to keep the balance of power within Wales (you gotta remember Wales wasn't united back then! Gwynedd, Powys, and Deheubarth fuckin squabbled like dogs over bones, and Do Not get me started on the littler kingdoms like Arwystli or Senghenydd.)

Seriously, Gwenllian ap Gruffudd ap Cynan (Gwynedd) eloped with Gruffydd ap Rhys (Deheubarth) and they were like distantly related. Or, Gwenllian's brother and v famous boi, Owain Gwynedd married his first cousin, Cristina (and, in doing so, ensured that after his death Gwynedd would have a power vacuum because of squabbling that wouldn't be sorted until Llywelyn Fawr took the throne and overthrew his uncles. It's always fuckin Gwynedd. Even Gwenllian's son, The Lord Rhys, married one of his first cousins, who was also named Gwenllian.)

*Gets slapped with a wet fish* Sorry, I was rambling.

Now, kings did also marry for political alliances. Gruffudd ap Cynan himself married Angharad ferch Owain (can u sense a theme with the names?) because she was from a well-off, noble family who had ties to the Anglo-Saxons when Gwynedd was in a bad spot with the Norman's. Llywelyn Fawr married Joan, the illegitimate daughter of King John of England, when relations became... tense, shall we say.

So, lemme go over some stuff regarding laws real quick before I tell u why I've highlighted these three ladies. (Cuz they're fun and I'm in love with them- uh, you what?)

So all the Codes (North, South, Mid) attach the following to the Queen: a steward, priest, chief groom, door-keeper, and a handmaiden. In Gwynedd she was also given a page, a separate cook (presumably because of poisoning attempts), and a candle-bearer (would LOVE to be that. No joke.) Whereas in Deheubarth she was given a groom of the rein, a sewer, and a footholder. (For all u lovers of the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogi out there this is a win for u.)

The line of Cunedda which (and, fuck me, I can't believe I'm saying this) IS BASICALLY ALL OF THE KINGDOMS OF WALES allowed for transition of royal dignity through a the female as well as the male. That means u could contest ur throne using your mam's blood and status as well as your dad's. Owain Glyndŵr, as I have previously mentioned, did this when he started his rebellion against Henry IV, as his mother descended from both the houses of Gwynedd and Deheubarth and his father descended from Powys. Truly, the people's Prince.

Now, a queen had her own privy purse (Go her), and one-third of the income the king received went to the Queen for her personal use. She also received land grants that went directly to her.

Now, finally, why tf did I highlight those three Queens that I spoke about earlier? Okay, so, Queens couldn't be regents, BUT they absolutely could and did use their power in any way they could.

Angharad ferch Owain was the mother of Owain Gwynedd, Gwenllian, and Cadwaladr. Owain Gwynedd ruled Gwynedd after his dad died in 1137 and led Gwynedd to become Wales' most successful kingdom at that time. He is also the reason why the Prince of Wales is called the Prince of Wales. ANYWAY. He and Cadwaladr had a falling out in 1143 and Angharad, not liking the way Cadwaladr was being treated, took his side. (Dunno why, he killed her step-grandson, Anarawd. Like, Angharad pls. Priorities, del.)

So, Owain ordered his son, Hywel, (yes him of bardic fame) to BURN DOWN Cadwaladr's castle in Aberystwyth. Cadwaladr, enraged, hot-footed it to Ireland where he and the Vikings invaded Gwynedd in an attempt to make Owain give him his lands back.

Angharad supported Cadwaladr by allowing him to beach his forces in her lands of Abermenai in Ynys Môn (Anglesey.) and also tried to intercede on her son's behalf with his brother. Anyways, the brothers were reconciled (for a brief period. Cadwaladr was aligned with the Normans so he remained a thorn in his big bro's side.) and Angharad lived until 1162. Her death led Owain Gwynedd into a melancholic spell.

Gwenllian ferch Gruffudd ap Cynan waged war against the Normans during the Great Revolt. Fighting against the Normans was very much a family affair for, you see, her brothers Owain (previously mentioned cousin-marrier) and Cadwaladr also waged war against the Normans at this time, and their dad, Gruffudd ap Cynan also fought against them SO HE COULD BECOME KING OF GWYNEDD. After her husband left Deheubarth to go and plead with her father for troops and aid men flocked to her and they waged a guerrilla war against the Normans until 1136.

This pains me to say but a Welsh lord betrayed Gwenllian after the Normans - seeking to win back the territory that Gwenllian and Gruffydd ap Rhys had recovered - waged war against them. She and her two eldest sons, Morgan, and Maelgwn died. Morgan in battle, and Maelgwn and Gwenllian were beheaded at Castell Cydweli.

After her death, South Wales rose in rebellion against the Normans. Her brothers, once word reached Gwynedd, invaded Norman-controlled Ceredigion (which was Deheubarth's territory.) and won back Aberystwyth, Llanfihangel, and Llanbadarn. The Welsh battle cry for many years was 'Dial Achos Gwenllian!' Revenge for Gwenllian.

Finally, Joan, Lady of Wales. She's referred to as Siwan in Welsh. She was the daughter of King John (as previously said.) She often mediated between her father and her husband, Llywelyn Fawr. The Brut y Tywysogion writes: 'Llywelyn, being unable to suffer the king's rage, sent his wife, the king's daughter, to him, by the counsel of his leading men, to seek to make peace with the king on whatever terms he could.' I'll probably do a full post about her at some point but yeah, she's cool!

Anyways, hope u enjoyed this!

Where on the scale of good to bad do you think Cersei is at being queen? Obviously she did the most important thing with giving an heir, a spare, and a daughter to marry off for dynastic alliances.

I mean I do think sometimes people focus too much on “good queen” when i think a lot of the story is asking if that’s even possible for you to be. Can you be a queen, and also be a good leader? Can you be a king, and also be a good leader? Or are those things directly at odds? Same as can you be a true knight while actually being a knight? Are these oaths people swear to protect the innocent and uphold the power their own family has inherently at odds? Is there a middle ground between being a good person and having a title like "queen" or "ser"?

But like IS Cersei a good queen? Well, I think the fact that everyone is so eager to turn on her points to no. She lacks the paternalistic saviorism towards the smallfolk that some of the "better" rulers have - she just straight up hates the smallfolk lol, and because she has no popular support, and is terrible at making alliances, she is easily removed from power. I know she can't stop Robert from being so open handed, but court life is supposed to be something she takes an interest in - yet she has no ladies, no companions for her children, and the only balls, parties, and tourneys we see thrown are thrown by other people, not Cersei. I think her seduction of Lancel is also a huge ginormous miscalculation because in absolutely destroying Lancel's sense of self, she completely cuts off her closest ally and that's Kevan, and she has no chance to gain him back - even if he lived, he would simply never forgive her for sexually abusing Lancel. I think you're right in that she's a good queen because she does in fact make sure to keep the line going and she comes very close to getting away with passing off her bastards as Robert's (which is also important). Sometimes she has the right idea, like wanting to get the faith on her side, but then she does the absolutely wrong thing in arming them.