What I've observed is that many people take the statement "I defend Rhaenyra" to mean "I think Rhaenyra has never done anything wrong." Now it's true that there are fans who won't criticize their favorite character—but such people can be found in every corner of every fandom, and they are by no means unique to the supporters of Rhaenyra. Most of the people I know who defend her so strongly are fully able to see her mistakes, myself included. The thing they aren't willing to accept is the idea of evaluating those failures using standards that are both inconsistent and not intellectually honest. Since the discussions about Rhaenyra have always been fundamentally unbalanced, her mistakes are never allowed to stay mistakes; instead they are seen as revealing her true nature and are taken as proof that she had always been selfish, incompetent, cruel, or undeserving. On the other hand, male rulers can carry out atrocities and yet still be described as complex, tragic, constrained by political circumstances, or psychologically interesting. In this case, their violence is regarded as proof of the depth of the narrative. Their failures are attributed to war, grief, trauma, poor advice, or the impossible weight of power. Rhaenyra's failures, however, are continually separated from all the circumstances that led to them and are presented as if they had taken place in a vacuum.
Perhaps the most exasperating thing is that a great many of the people who are the first to say that Rhaenyra’s supporters are excusing everything she does are themselves devoted to characters who are in fact clearly intended to be antagonists in the story. It is entirely OK to love an antagonist and there is nothing wrong with finding a cruel, morally flawed, or even irredeemable character fascinating. However, it is very unserious to give these characters an extensive amount of psychological depth while at the same time claiming that any attempt to provide a context for Rhaenyra amounts to blind devotion. If you can understand why your favorite character was shaped by humiliation, neglect, grief, ambition, or war and still do not believe that such circumstances excuse them, then you already grasp the distinction that Rhaenyra’s defenders are making; you merely seem to be unwilling to show Rhaenyra the same interpretive generosity.
That is the reason why a great deal of the criticism aimed at her seems not to be an honest evaluation of the text but rather a personal bias that is looking for evidence to back itself up. Each of her decisions is viewed through the most unkind possible interpretation; each success is downplayed, qualified, or attributed to someone else, while each failure is entirely her own. Whenever she hesitates, she is considered weak; when she takes action, she is seen as reckless; when she looks for peace, she is regarded as indecisive; and when she embraces war, she is regarded as bloodthirsty. The conclusion that she is unsuitable has already been reached, and the evidence is then arranged to fit that conclusion. No character could endure a system in which every possible choice is taken as proof against them.
That doesn't mean that Rhaenyra is free from criticism. I can admit that clutching Helaena went beyond the limits. I can admit that fear and paranoia have started to impair her judgment, and that grief, isolation, betrayal, and the strain of war are altering her in ways which are meant to make us uneasy. I can see that merely understanding how she reached a decision doesn't make that decision correct. Yet all of those admissions do not remove the reasons why I support her. I support her since she had been named heir and has repeatedly been confirmed in that position. The lords of the realm have sworn their allegiance to her claim. Her succession was opposed not on the grounds that her opponent had shown greater wisdom, experience, or fitness to rule, but merely because he was a man. She has spent years observing people looking for reasons to nullify a position which men automatically inherit without ever having to prove that they are worthy of it. The political system required perfection from her yet accepted mediocrity in men as adequate qualification. Moreover, the story asks us over and over again to see what takes place when a woman is compelled to defend something that had been lawfully promised to her against people who will never regard her as worthy, no matter what she does.
The fact that one supports Rhaenyra's claim does not mean that one is giving moral approval to all of the decisions she makes. Political legitimacy does not mean the same as personal virtue. If it were necessary for rulers to be morally perfect in order for their claims to remain legitimate, then hardly anyone in this story—or in history—would have held a crown for longer than an afternoon. One also has to cease pretending that understanding a character's motivations is equivalent to supporting their actions. Saying 'I understand why she reached this point' does not mean that what she did was right. Offering an explanation does not serve as forgiveness. Simply providing context does not lead to pardon, and criticism is not automatically perceptive just because it is negative.
Rhaenyra is far more interesting when she is not portrayed as a perfect queen or as a simple tyrant. For tragedy to exist it is necessary that the character be sympathetic enough for us to realise what has been taken from her, flawed enough that we worry about what she might turn into, and human enough for both of these truths to be true at the same time. Recognizing her decline does not mean that the people who support her are acting hypocritically; on the contrary, it shows that we have been paying attention. The point is that we do not insist on treating her worst moments as proof that all the injustices done to her must be dismissed . . . or that the people against her suddenly become right simply because she has started to fail.
