I talked a LOT about Nettles HERE.
“Rhaenyra used Nettles’ class to turn others against her.”
She absolutely invokes Nettles’ low birth but she doesn’t stop there. She also says, “look at her… she has no drop of dragon’s blood,” calls her a “common thing,” and claims she rides her dragon through “spells.” That’s language about blood purity, and outsider status, not just class.
“She turned against Addam too.”
Addam is still referred to as “Ser Addam.” He is initially ordered arrested, not immediately executed, and his power through House Velaryon is acknowledged. Rhaenyra doesn’t accuse him of controlling his dragon through witchcraft or insist he obviously lacks dragon blood just by looking at him. The language is different.
“It wasn’t racism, it was paranoia after Hugh and Ulf.”
If betrayal were the only issue, why emphasize her appearance, blood, and supposed sorcery instead of simply calling her a traitor?
“Mysaria and the men around her put those thoughts in her head.”
Rhaenyra still chooses the language she uses in the text. Characters can be influenced by others while still revealing their own assumptions and prejudices.
Hugh Hammer and Ulf White are knighted and granted modest lands on Driftmark. Their later betrayal stems in part from wanting more than what they had already been given. Addam is legitimized, knighted, and publicly recognized. Nettles, meanwhile, receives none of that.
She risks her life for the Blacks, successfully claims a dragon, and fights in the war, yet there is never any discussion of rewarding her with land, legitimization, a noble marriage, or another form of social advancement comparable to the (white) male dragonseeds. That’s again what makes her case stand out.
If the issue were simply that she was a lowborn, why are the male dragonseeds offered avenues of advancement while Nettles is never meaningfully incorporated into the noble order? And when suspicion finally falls on her, the rhetoric isn’t limited to treason. Whether you read that through class, blood ideology, gender, or racialization, Nettles is treated differently. The text invites us to ask:
Paranoia doesn’t magically create prejudice out of nowhere. People don’t suddenly become racist because they lost someone, became paranoid, or were under stress. Paranoia can expose, or intensify beliefs and biases that are already there but it doesn’t invent an entirely new worldview overnight. It might explain why Rhaenyra became more suspicious. It doesn’t explain why Nettles is singled out with language about blood and “spells” instead of simply being treated as another suspected traitor.
From this post. The Jezebel trope applies to Nettles.
The Jezebel stereotype was a racist trope developed during slavery that portrayed Black women as naturally promiscuous, sexually manipulative, and inferior. It served multiple purposes: it justified the sexual exploitation of enslaved Black women, blamed them for abuse committed against them, and reinforced white supremacist ideas about race and gender.
GRRM is an American author, and the "Black Jezebel" characterization that he uses particularly in Nettles situation mirrors a distinctly American racial dynamic between white women and Black women. The "Jezebel" stereotype isn't merely about sexuality it's rooted in racial dehumanization. This trope emerged during the transatlantic slave trade and the U.S. slave system, where Black women were hypersexualized to justify their abuse and lack of autonomy.
People have also written about how white femininity was historically constructed in opposition to Black femininity. In certain historical contexts, accusations against Black women could function to protect or reinforce the social status of white women within a racial hierarchy. Because many white women had limited legal and economic power under patriarchy, proximity to white male power could become an important source of status and security. That does not mean individual white women consciously acted this way, but it helps explain why these dynamics could emerge within systems of racial and gender inequality.
Rhaenyra treat her once she is suspected of a sexual relationship with the white man Daemon Targaryen. Her perceived closeness to him is transformed into evidence of sexual misconduct, and these accusations ultimately contribute to the order for her death. This is a clear example of racialized hypersexualization combined with accusations of witchcraft (again other dragonseeds are also lowborn, but they are not treated with blood purity language and witchcraft), both of which have deep roots in real-world misogynoir the specific targeting of Black women through intersecting racism and sexism.
Notice how the text emphasizes Mysaria’s “skin as pale as milk” and her “hooded robe of black velvet lined with blood-red silk.” Her appearance is deliberately striking and luxurious, standing in sharp contrast to Nettles, whose brown skin and humble background are repeatedly emphasized. Nettles is introduced as a ragged, impoverished girl who survived alone on the streets before claiming a dragon.
The juxtaposition is interesting. Mysaria represents a more visibly Valyrian-coded beauty white pale, elegant, and associated with courtly refinement while Rhaenyra is herself a conventionally Valyrian-looking dragonrider. Nettles, by contrast, is of uncertain ancestry, does not fit the expected Valyrian appearance, and becomes the target of blood-purist suspicion despite successfully taming Sheepstealer. Within the political context of the Dance, her skin and ambiguous origins make her dragonriding seem suspicious to characters who believe dragons should belong only to those with recognizable white Valyrian blood.
White pale skin is often described in both Asoiaf and many historical Western beauty ideals as a marker of feminine beauty, nobility, and refinement. Fair, unblemished skin is frequently associated with high birth, elegance, youth, and delicacy, while a darker or sun-weathered complexion is often linked to outdoor labor or lower social status. George draws on these medieval and early modern European beauty standards when describing many noblewomen, making pale skin one of several recurring traits associated with conventional feminine beauty in Westeros.
Rhaenyra’s suspicion of Nettles takes on a different character and a much greater intensity than her suspicion of Addam and Alyn Velaryon after the Betrayers. Grief alone does not explain that difference. Grief does not erase the blood-purity rhetoric she uses, and that rhetoric shapes how she interprets Nettles’ existence and actions.
Blood-purity thinking can amplify grief, fear, and the desire for control, pushing them toward their most destructive expression. If Rhaenyra had simply viewed Nettles as another potential traitor, the situation would be different. But she explicitly frames her accusations through language about blood. That goes beyond ordinary wartime paranoia.
If Rhaenyra had not invoked blood-purist and colorist ideas in justifying her pursuit of Nettles, then your assessment would be much stronger. But the text presents more than grief alone it presents grief filtered through assumptions about blood, belonging, and who is considered a legitimate dragonrider.
So yes, she is racist, and we need to stop defending racism or dismissing the experiences of the people who are targeted by it. You can still enjoy flawed or evil characters I certainly do. I like Cersei, even though she is also racist, and I will defend her against the sexism and misogyny she faces in both the story and the fandom. But enjoying a character is not the same as excusing or denying the cruel things they do, defending their racism or prejudice against lowborn people, or believing they should be celebrated or supported as "rulers."
We also know the decision in the show to make the Velaryons Black with the removal of Nettles was to avoid making rhaenyra racist.
blakekathryn
gummygunk
kaledo-art
origamiaround
prguitarman
