VW

The political themes of each book are easiest for me to pick out.

A Game of Thrones: There are no winners in the game of thrones.

A Clash of Kings: The people and the land are more important than the ruler. The ruler’s job is to protect the people and the land.

A Storm of Swords: Success and failure are both fragile and can be changed completely in a matter of minutes.

A Feast for Crows/A Dance With Dragons: What happens when leaders fail.

A Feast For Crows: what are the actual costs of bad faith operation (ft: discussions of Tywin Lannister’s legacy)

A Dance with Dragons: why doing the right thing is hard (ft: discussions of Ned Stark’s legacy)

Is it ust me, or are the Hightowers troublemakers?

There’s an important point I want to make here, and I want to start by quoting from this post by @moonlitgleek:

… I’m somewhat bothered by how she gets discussed in fandom because more often than not, it’s Alicent’s desire to see her son succeed to the throne despite Viserys’ expressed wishes to the contrary that gets singled out as something to condemn. I get that it’s the root of a lot of Alicent’s actions thereafter, but of all the crappy things she did or said, wanting her son to be king is a weird thing to hold against her imo considering that any lady in her position would have had the same expectation. Alicent was not an outlier in either expecting or advocating for a son to come before a daughter of the same generation. It really did not matter who Viserys married; his wife was always going to expect her trueborn son to inherit ahead of his sister, though of course the way she went about it might have differed. Viserys I set up a a rather knotty succession debate then did nothing to resolve or mitigate it so a conflict over the throne on his death was always going to happen irrespective of the identity of his wife.

The Hightowers weren’t acting differently from how any other ambitious family (which is to say, any given aristocratic family in Westeros) would have acted in the same scenario - and that includes, I think, the Velaryons in an alternate timeline where Viserys married the 12-year-old (gross, GRRM, again) Laena. Neither Alicent nor Otto Hightower was illogical for thinking there was at least a colorable argument for a son of Alicent and Viserys succeeding to the throne after Viserys died. Between the legal precedent that a king could name an heir (which was the reason Viserys’ father had been named heir ahead of Rhaenys) and the legal precedent that a son should come before a daughter (which was not only old Andal-First Men tradition followed by the Targaryens, but the basis for Viserys being acclaimed heir at the Great Council of 101 AC and the “iron precedent” set there), which should win when the king’s named heir was a daughter and the king had a son? 

This is just my opinion, but I am so disappointed how HotD doesn't acknowledge how absolutely stinking RICH the Targaryens were during Viserys's reign, even by royal standards.

You can trace all their problems to the fact that Jaehaerys I and Alysanne did all the work to stabilize and make the Realm prosperous, so much so that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are all some level of spoiled, sheltered, and/or entitled.

These kids never had to work to consolidate their rule or war against the lords to secure their authority over their lands. Hell, they don't even make any royal progresses like their ancestors did.

Kings from Aegon I to Jaehaerys I would do a tour of the Realm, both to learn of their subjects' culture and needs and also to intimidate them with their dragons. I assume Viserys didn't do these because 1) his dragon Balerion died (in which case, he should have sent Rhaenyra or Daemon to do it instead), and 2) he got complacent, believing his hold on the Realm was secure enough without the progresses.

So instead of royal progresses on dragonback, what did Viserys do to ingratiate himself with his subjects? FEASTS! TOURNEYS! GIFTS! He had so much money, he just gave away stuff and threw so many parties so people would like him. This is why he's seen as a weak and pliable king. He didn't do anything to earn his subjects' favor—he bought it. While Jaehaerys convened a council to designate his heir, Viserys consulted no one and just announced it during a feast.

This is why Rhaenyra's detractors in the books characterized her as an entitled brat whose go-to argument was "Because my daddy said so!" And this is why Alicent's detractors made her out to be this opportunistic, social-climbing black widow who took advantage of her husband by leeching off his wealth and prestige.

So there have been countless thinkpieces already on how GOT simplified the feudalist politics of Westeros (by giving a lowborn sellsword lordship over The Reach, by having no consequences for destroying the Sept of Baelor, etc.), but I haven't seen a lot of people talking about that for House of the Dragon.

The worst being that the show presupposes that Rhaenyra is the lawful heir when the books showed there are plenty of lawful arguments why she wouldn't be.

Mind you that I've been enjoying the show a lot so far. This is just to vent out my frustration with the writers' failure to fully engage with the values and protocols of the Middle Age-inspired setting. The show seems uninterested in laws of the Realm in a story ostensibly about politics, save for when they're using it as an excuse to amplify depictions of sex and violence.

Blacks vs Greens wasn't a matter of misunderstanding of who each side thought Viserys wanted on the throne. It was the Targaryens' belief of their absolute authority clashing with the Realm's established traditions. Everyone always knew who Viserys chose as heir. In Fire and Blood, Grand Maester Orwyle said as much when he was parleying with Rhaenyra on behalf of the Greens.

Rhaenyra heard his terms in stony silence, then asked Orwyle if he remembered her father, King Viserys. "Of course, Your Grace," the maester answered. "Perhaps you can tell us who he named as his heir and successor," the queen said, her crown upon her head. "You, Your Grace," Orwyle replied. And Rhaenyra nodded and said, "With your own tongue you admit I am your lawful queen. Why do you serve my half-brother, the pretender?" Munkun tells us that Orwyle gave a long and erudite reply, citing the Andal law and the Great Council of 101. Mushroom claims he stammered and voided his bladder. Whichever is true, his answer did not satisfy Princess Rhaenyra.

(For non-F&B readers: Munkun is the Grand Maester who served Aegon III, the king who came after this civil war. Munkun's book, The Dance of the Dragons, A True Telling, is one of Fire and Blood's source texts. Mushroom is the King Landing court jester from Viserys I to Aegon III's reign. One is a source written with academic rigor but is secondhand at best. The other is a firsthand eyewitness account but is from a literal fool who will take every chance to make things more scandalous and sexual to please the crowd.)

In House of the Dragon, they replaced Orwyle with Otto and Orwyle's discussion of legal precedent with Otto handing Rhaenyra a book page from Alicent. It's quite evident here that the writers, much like Mushroom, thought a discussion on the actual laws of the Realm were negligible in this story about a succession war.

Even Alicent made no pretense that Viserys chose Rhaenyra over her children and I have no idea why the HBO writers decided to make her mistakenly think otherwise. Maybe they thought a queen regent pushing her son to take the throne over another woman made her appear unsympathetic as a character, but if anything, this only makes show!Alicent less politically savvy and more delusional than her book counterpart, fully believing an addled king's vague muttering on his deathbed was sufficient grounds to change heirs last minute.

Book!Alicent following Andal laws instead of her husband's wishes makes sense given her Andal upbringing, her devotion to the Faith of the Seven which enforces said laws, and her desire to protect her children from Rhaenyra given that Rhaenyra has shown she's not above murdering family (see: Laenor).

In the books, there was a long discussion between the former king's council on who should succeed Viserys.

Here are the arguments for Rhaenyra:

Rhaenyra was older than her brothers and had more Targaryen blood

the late king had chosen her as his successor, that he had repeatedly refused to alter the succession despite the pleadings of Queen Alicent and her greens

hundreds of lords and landed knights had done obeisance to the princess in 105 AC, and sworn solemn oaths to defend her rights.

Here are the arguments for Aegon II:

many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead [...]

Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92

the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter

Ser Otto reminded them that Rhaenyra’s husband was none other than Prince Daemon, and “we all know that one’s nature. Make no mistake, should Rhaenyra ever sit the Iron Throne, it will be Lord Flea Bottom who rules us, a king consort as cruel and unforgiving as Maegor ever was [...]”

Should the princess reign [...] Jacaerys Velaryon would rule after her. “Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne.”

Once again, the show chose to cut out this long political discussion. Instead, the council had already made up their mind and decided to stage a coup (when in their perspectives from the books, it would definitely not be a coup).

For all their marketing how two sides are equally grey, HotD is actively delegitimizing Aegon II. The strongest argument for him is how his claim follows the laws of the Realm, but the show doesn't care about the laws of the Realm. They didn't even cast a master of laws.

Instead, the show focuses on Viserys's relationship with his daughter and the mysticism of the Targaryen bloodline. In doing so, they emphasize Rhaenyra's strongest arguments for succession — that she's more of a Targaryen than her half-brother and that her father prefered her.

And what for? Because in our modern-day, we don't have male-prefered inheritance and people can only imagine misogyny as the only injustice here? What about the injustice of a monarch exercising absolute control, thinking that his "superior" heritage makes him above the established laws of the native people?

This is not to say Aegon II is unquestionably the heir. Precedence isn't the end-all-be-all of succession.

1. People don't get what customary law and common law are and how they work, especially in medieval settings (and I don't think GRRM gets it either) and are constantly parroting "traditions aren't laws" as some sort of gotcha

2. People are parroting "King's word is law" with no critical thinking or understanding how feudal kingship works. They also seem to believe Westeros is an absolute monarchy of 17th century France.

3. People don't understand the difference between "legal" and "moral" which is just sad. Everytime you try to talk about TG legal arguments you get "the killed people!1!1!!!" as if that's the point

It's about keeping dragons in one family. So that dragons aren't in every corner of the kingdom. You don't want more people being able to claim dragons and coveting the throne.

That's the whole problem about Rhaenys. She is a dragon rider, and she's a Velaryon. That makes the Velaryon's threats when before they were just sea lords. And any marriage with the Vale or the Baratheons were calculated risks with people who weren't dragon riders. Aemma wasn't a dragon rider. And even then, they were immediately married back into the mainline.

I mean, this is a whole thing in normal nonfantasy history. Either you keep your sisters close and unmarried, or you marry them yourself.

It upsets me that they don't address this, and instead put so much stock into this idea of Targaryen supremacy and blood magic. The show doesn't address how much the maesters and the faith are confused and disgusted by it. And even a lot of Targaryens weren't into it and saw through it, while there were many, like Daemon, who wholeheartedly bought into their own exceptionalism.

It's a fantasy story so it's not unlikely that Targaryens do have magic genes. But the chaos of the Dance showed that the Targaryens aren't exceptional. Non-Valyrians, bastards, and lowborn people can control dragons just as well, if not better, than royal Targaryens. If this bastard dragonseed also has a dragon, why not crown him instead if he's offering us more rights and protection?

Rhaenys herself, with her Velaryon last name and non-Valyrian features (in the book), was a threat to the concept of Targaryen exceptionalism. Jaehaerys had worked so hard to sell the Doctrine of Exceptionalism to the Faith, of couse he would prefer Baelon over her regardless of gender.

Because the Targaryens aren't held up on a pedestal because of masculinity or patriarchal values — it's always been about "the blood of Old Valyria." The books do well to problematize and explore this through Danaerys's journey and the many, many people calling out their eugenicist practices.

Aegon V himself, having spent time with the smallfolk in Dunk and Egg, thought the Doctrine of Exceptionalism was bull. Exceptionalism spread these myths that Targaryens couldn't get sick, that they themselves were as powerful and special as dragons — and he knew that wasn't true. He knew that without the raw power of actual dragons, a Targaryen was a human being like anyone else.

But HotD, on the other hand, is just accepting Exceptionalism wholesale. Of course a Targaryen should rule because of a magic prophecy. Of course Rhaenyra is the true queen because of the divine/magical mandate she inherited through her purer blood. Of course the king's word must be taken as absolute regardless of how it goes against other institutions because.....that's just how feudalist monarchies work, right?

(Spoiler: They don't. Most medieval European rulers' legitimacy and right to rule comes from the endorsement of the Church, the power of their armies, or the support of their vassals (who can give them armies and endorse them). A royal lineage by itself doesn't mean crud without any of these things. They could just replace you with another noble family that the Church can give their divine mandate to.)

Of course, we'll always have viewers and readers who uncritically accept the Targ's inherent exceptionalism because the fantasy genre is filled with super-special, unquestionably noble "true" kings chosen by magic/god/ladies in lakes. People have been conditioned by centuries of nationalist epics, religion, and pop culture to love that sort of thing. The narrative that some are entitled to rule over others due to some inherited superiority is ingrained into human history through colonialism, imperialism, and all the other -isms, and there's just no escaping it.

But what I love about A Song of Ice and Fire is how it pushes back against this trope. It shows the reality of a what a magical royal bloodline would look like: resorting to incest to keep their power to themselves, their empire and family cannabilizing itself, and desperately using the glory of a long-gone, imagined past to justify their rule.

... But in my opinion, almost nothing is as grating as Helaena's characterization.

Rhaenyra and Alicent, for all their handling is abysmal, do have a sort of guideline, at least on paper. Rhaenyra wants the throne: crying every two minute, yes, acting as she's a Geneva convention expert in an ultra feudalistic world, all right, but at least she has a goal she's moving towards. Alicent is an idiot and an hypocrite on an almost pathological level, but she wants to "be at least myself (...) die free and unnoticed" (how she wants to do that in practice is a discussion for another day), which is... underwhelming, but still something.

What the fuck does Helaena want?

She's not a Cassandra figure; she never tries to act on her visions or even warn those around her. She's too little tormented for the reference to stick. She's not a grieving mother, because it's one thing to express grief in an unconventional way, it's another to shrug your child's brutal death because "children die". She doesn't want to burn innocents but doesn't ever advocate herself for peace. She's not a dragonrider despite having a dragon. Aemond is treated as a monster for the crime of asking her a perfectly reasonable thing - help him fight against the side responsible for her boy's murder. She wants to keep chicken, because apparently anything with more layers than that is too far beyond the scope of her Neuro divergent mind.

Camera focused on Helaena as she stares in horror off screen. We hear a muffled cry of Jaehaerys and then the sound of him getting decapitated. Camera slowly zooms in on Helaena, we see in the background blood and cheese running but they’re out of focus. Helaena’s breathing getting more intense, tears streaming down her face, music raising.

Cut to black.

Then her piercing scream.

That would have been so much better and emotionally impactful over the monotone ‘they killed the boy’ line. (What even was that? Bullshit was what it was.) and for added points, it keeps it ambiguous whether or not Jaehaerys or Jaehaera died. Honestly it should be ambiguous whether Helaena pointed out which twin was which. We shouldn’t know if she chose Jaehaerys over Jaehaera or Jaehaera over Jaehaerys!

That would keep some of the elements of the book blood and cheese story where Helaena feels immense guilt for having to pick which child dies without the very stupid ‘oh I’m looking in her eyes and she’s telling the truth!’ Bullshit from the show.

There is no version of reality where Viserys remarries and Rhaenyra keeps her throne. It never mattered who the bride was, only that she had sons. As long as a son exists, Rhaenyra would never ascend unencumbered. This is how you know Viserys though with his d*ck and not his brain, because the man went on to have not one son, but three.

The only way to avoid the Dance was for:

Viserys to remain widowed. Rhaenyra remains heir, and either marry her off to Daemon to secure both claims (unlikely) or have her marry Laenor/Harwin/etc, and have their children marry Daemon’s.

Viserys’ other children were born girls. They would all fall behind Rhaenyra in the line of succession automatically. Maybe arrange for Daemon to marry one of them to keep him in line. Marry another to Rhaenyra’s heir.

Stop having more children after Aegon and Helaena. Literally, the spare and the bride. At this point, Viserys already knew he was never going to make Aegon heir. Marrying him to Helaena ensured that no alliances could be made through marriage. Having Aemond and Daeron was about lust, not necessity. Hell, he could’ve easily gotten rid of Aegon to the Citadel or the Faith, had he wanted to.

It never mattered who Viserys married. As long as a son is born from that union, the die was cast. And Laena—a humiliated Velaryon Queen would have courted war in ways Otto could not. Otto was only a second son; Laena was Corlys’ only daughter. Rider of the largest dragon in the world. Had Viserys married Laena, and a son born but shunned from his birthright, the Velaryons would have waged a war Viserys couldn’t risk. They had three grown dragons vs the Targaryen’s two, two of which were larger than both Caraxes and Syrax. Not to mention the greatest naval power in Westeros at the time.

Jace. Did everyone conveniently forget that Jace is technically a usurper, against Aegon (older and younger) as Rhaenyra’s heir?

Rhaenyra has no legitimate heir. HOTD made sure all her sons were bastards.

In the events that no legitimate heir lives or exists, the position is automatically assumed by the next eldest living brother. Or sister, if no sons exist.

We can argue all day about who was Viserys’ actual legitimate heir. But let’s not forget that by placing Jace as heir and Prince of Dragonstone, despite knowing his bastardy, Rhaenyra has effectively usurped Aegon as her heir. Both of them.

It’s almost funny. Even if Rhaenyra became queen undisputed, legally speaking, Aegon is her heir. She has no legitimate sons, and three brothers. Automatically, they are her heirs, and have been since their births. And even if we follow F&B, it is Aegon the Younger who should be heir, not Jace.

So once again, Rhaenyra has maneuvered her sons to usurp positions that do not belong to them: Jace against Aegon; Luke against Baela. So much for a feminist queen.

Even if they still wanted to frame the show with Rhaenyra as our star and character to root for, framing Aegon as a full blown antagonist just doesn't have the same dynamic storytelling that GRRM creates. Aegon being an inept king is absolutely not the same thing as him being disliked. Inept political leaders become populists and demagogues all the time. Framing Aegon as someone without real leadership or intelligence BUT with magnanimity and charisma makes him a much more real threat. Rhaenyra would be the better monarch, but as a woman and as less charming, she fails to get the support of the people. It's topical.

If they followed through on the scene of Aegon holding court, clearly reveling in the fact that the people love him, it creates a more interesting character motivation. Aegon didn't even want to be King, so the war to keep him on the throne feels wildly futile, but Aegon fighting to keep the love he's always been desperate for, that's compelling.

Plus, Helaena as a beloved queen would have furthered the themes around gender that season one created. She's meek and pleasant and pretty, so people love her. Rhaenyra as fiery and lusty and powerful, so people hate her. It's topical, it's dynamic, and it actually says something about the perception of gender as a performance in which you are punished for not participating.

The dragons were top notch tho.

Agreed. I've written about this before, but s1 is on par with GOT s5-s7 in terms of quality. It was majorly rushed, inconsistent, with poorly developed characters, and a wonky plot.

The reason people received it so well is because

1. We were desperate after GOT; s8 was absolute dogshit, so anything slightly better looked like peak writing in comparison. Plus, the fandom was eager to have the show redeem the franchise, so we were all too ready to forgive any flaws it might have had, as long as the pros outweighed the cons (and s1 had a few good scenes that did just that)

Instead we get rich kid who doesn’t have a dragon is sad about not having a dragon and gets a dragon. That’s just Aemond’s story. Will Rhaena turn into a villain too now?

In contrast, Baela’s arc is about embracing power through her Targaryen side but once she loses her dragon, she loses her power. She marries her uncle (remind you of anyone?) to escape an arranged marriage but ends up in an unhappy marriage where her husband cheats on her often.

scratch that, I will actually go ballistic right now. this is the “Aegon doesn’t deserve such a shitty treatment” club and I’m the self-proclaimed CEO. we are about to do some analyzing and reading so BUCKLE UP.

gonna make one thing clear first — Aemond was bullied when he was a child. no one denies that, no excuses can be made for that. I’d only like to note that there wasn’t only one bully. here’s a quick reminder:

now that we successfully counted to three, let’s look over Aegon’s other horrible crimes relationship with Aemond throughout the years.

📍 the night Aemond lost his eye (S1EP7), Rhaenyra suggests he should be “sharply questioned” (she means tortured) so they can learn who told him that her sons were bastards. Viserys, in his perpetual denial, angrily asks Aemond “who spoke these lies” to which he replies that it was Aegon. it is clear that Aemond does that to deflect suspicion from their mother but his words come as a surprise to Aegon.

Yes, Viserys was an idiot to remarry. No, it didn’t matter if he had married Laena—Corlys’ greed made Otto look like a saint. Unlike the book, Rhaenyra was old enough to be married off and have children of her own; remarrying with enough children to populate a new house was Viserys’ own greed and pride. Blame Viserys for Rhaenyra’s inevitable downfall

Yes, naming Aegon heir would’ve solved a lot of issues. Namely, the fact that literally no one would have contested that claim. Not even Rhaenyra, who spent her entire life up Aemma’s death as conveniently not-the-heir.

No, naming Rhaenyra queen and abdicating while he was alive would not have stopped the Dance, merely pushed it down a generation. Y’all seem to keep forgetting that Jace and Co are very obvious bastards; if not Aegon v Rhaenyra, it would be Aegon v Jace or Jace v Aegon the Younger v Jaehaerys

No, Jace’s reign was not secured or safe. Again —> very obviously a bastard, surrounded by what’s going to be dozens of white-haired sons and daughters. Ntm, I doubt the many lords would let him rest easy for it. A very harmful precedent there

No, Jace and Helaena would not have been enough. The claim to contest are Aegon and his brothers’, which still exist even if Helaena married Jace. Aegon and Baela would’ve been the better option, but that would only work if Baela were to inherit Driftmark—and we all know Rhaenyra would never allow it.

No, it really doesn’t matter that Aegon was a mediocre-to-bad king. Viserys was a shit king, Rhaenyra was a shit queen, Daemon would’ve been terrible—they all sucked. The Council matters way more than the king does, and the Black Council as it stands are all fucking morons. Jace has the most sense there and he’s 16; that’s how bad it is

Rhaenyra’s not exactly the pinnacle of genius. Girlie’s also stupid as fuck, because for someone who does want to rule and knows that her rule is constantly contested on, she decides to run away and do nothing for close to seven years. Might as well hangup the claim and the crown, for all the effort she placed into securing it. Which was basically none. Maybe start by not having such obvious bastards, or marrying the man you were named heir to keep away from the crown and producing even more bastards.

At least with Alicent, they did made a shoddy effort to pull the mask and now she needs to face the reality that she was ambitious and did want the power and the throne all along for whatever selfish reasons or otherwise. But I highly doubt that they will take that direction with Rhaenyra.

if she's so incensed by what he's done and wants justice for alicent and her family, why not call for her guards to arrest daemon for his actions? if she wants peace, why not come to alicent with daemon's head in a sack? the whole scene is supposed to show us that rhaenyra is not the monster the greens paint her as, yet in actuality it shows us that rhaenyra merely tacitly accepts the support of monsters. it doesn't matter if she personally didn't do it. by refusing to punish daemon, she condoned his actions.

and this isn't necessarily a bad thing, character-wise! rhaenyra being someone who recoils from brutal violence on paper, but tacitly condones it when done in her name, would be very interesting! but the issue is that no one calls her out on it! alicent just takes it as a given that rhaenyra wasn't responsible, and then doesn't seem to take any interest in which of her allies was responsible, and the show carefully elides the very fact that rhaenyra has made a decision by letting daemon go. the show takes pains to present it as if daemon is a force of nature, as if rhaenyra can no more stop him than she can stop the rain, because to do otherwise might make her a more complex figure.

and this really goes to the root of the problem with rhaenyra. in the books, rhaenyra is a character who makes a lot of decisions that reveal uncomfortable or unsavory aspects to her character. but the show wants rhaenyra to be a Good Guy. yet they can't replace her bad decisions with good decisions, because then they'd be completely changing the plot. so instead, they replace her bad (or even just mean) decisions with indecision. she doesn't decide to kill Vaemond - Daemon decides for her. she doesn't decide to do Blood and Cheese - Daemon decides for her. she doesn't decide to condone Blood and Cheese - Daemon (somehow) decides for her. she doesn't decide to go to war - Alicent decides for her.