#westerosi feudalism

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

#history #medieval history #feudalism #history of gender #westerosi feudalism #westerosi gender roles #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #race for the iron throne #historical analysis

[horizon-verizon]

Maybe this Will Put Things into Perspective about Rhaenyra & Cersei's Kids Being Bastards or Not...

Feudalism is an early period or a economic phase of a millennia-managed con against anyone who isn't a noble man, and most men are the active conmen.

Neither set of kids were ever declared bastards. Nor were they ever or "acknowledged" as bastards, because noblemen "acknowledge" a child they father onto another woman. noblewomen, in theory, can, but if their having had sex premaritally/extramaritally isn't already known outside of the household they do not. Because to do without it already being known (like with Alys Turnberry) would publicly ruin her prospects for marriage in the future, ruin her reputation, and likely muddy the family's as well.

Robert probably would have removed those kids from the line of succession had he known (and he didn't) if not outight remove them from the mortal coil. But instead, he got gutted. Therefore, Cersei's kids are not officially or "legally" bastards. That prior declaration is what is required to have them "legally" known as bastards.

Bastardry has always been more of a legal question in its nature than a biological fact of nature. Of course, we the audience and most of ther know that Rhaenyra's kids aren't Laenor's biologically; Ned correctly deduced that Cersei's weren't Robert's biologically. However, he was never able to get his information to matter "legally", or to get it to Robert to make a decision on. Whereas Laenor, Corlys, Viserys all knew and decided to maintain the boys as their heirs. And they made this decision based on the lack of knowledge the public has/what they can control. Which is often what any noble does; once again, GRRM has explicitly stated that the lords of Westeros often take advantage to twist "laws" (customs) according to the circumstances around them & their own desires, and it's is not exclusive to bastards already "acknowledged".

The purpose of marriage as an institution is entirely for the lord/nobleman's benefit. It is an institution that was created and developed entirely for a man's political interests (a father's, a brother's, a husband's, a son's, etc.). And it was made to consolidate/monopolize the noble woman's (or really any woman) body and reproductive labor so as to produce living products to pass on the resources/titles mainly the lord and his ancestors have aggregated. To try to make sure those resources are passed to the people the lord wants passed own to, the sexual purity culture imposed on women and girls works to construct shame & suppress female extramarital and premarital sexual activity, which is an aspect of her overall agency. Her agency is re-confined/socially reduced to her sexual activity because she has no other primary function nor legal privileges aside form being a wife, mother, daughter, virgin, etc. Or sometimes the protectoress of her husband's/son's assets: the castle at times of war/siege when the lord is not present; director of his household's activities and servants by being its head overseer of accounts. Therefore, the lord is literally claiming his wife as his effective property through her womb & this is often why when we see women like Daena sleeping with a man not her husband, it is an act of reinforcing her authority or political agency in spite of how she was raised to see her own body.

Think about it: why do we not have a world or society (fictional or not) where even though the wife births a child not her husband's the husband's do not willfully or are "legally" compelled to adopt that child as their own, effectively de-fathering the biological father? Because men want to feel as if they have as close to total ownership over female companionship and labor so they consolidate power to themselves and not to women. Having all these designations of gender and "bastardry" that everyone are compelled to follow makes that easier without expending energy or sharing power. Medieval customs put the social-legal identification of "bastard" from the institution of marriage, its compulsions on women, and their reproductive labor/bodies/uteruses being claimed by the men who are "licensed" to own them. Which is why when we say that neither Cersei's nor Rhaenyra's kids are "bastards" it is true, because the purpose of bastardry is to attempt to reclaim the product of reproductive labor and Viserys/Corlys/Laenor/Robert have already done that. To protest about how Robert didn't know about his kids not being his kids is really to protest how he didn't not get the products of Cersei's reproductive labor in the usual male-prioritized business of objectifying female labor that is intrinsic in this feudal society. Whereas Viserys/Laenor/Corlys accepted the products of Rhaenyra's reproductive labor.

All this is also why I really don't care for the impassioned argument of these women were being "unfair" to the system (Rhaenyra) or to their husbands, fathers etc. (Cersei) or them being "liars" or "destructive". Feudalism is itself an objectifying, unfair, unequal system. It is designed to benefit men and mainly men inherently, and directly at the expense of women who risk death itself while a man fathering any sort of kid never risks death. Men lie and destroy the women who birth their children, manage their household, protect their castle, rear their children....and it is all "licensed" and justified under the constructed institutions of marriage, oath-making, knighthood and principles of chastity, virginity, the different sub-meanings of "honor" for men vs women, etc. Men are themselves already objectifying or making an exclusive economic use of their female counterparts as well as going back on their vows (a deal that is still in feudal marriages, even for men) through their socially-allowed extramarital and premarital affairs producing bastards.

#westerosi bastards #cersei lannister #rhaenyra targaryen #the velaryon boys #the lannisters #the targaryens #westerosi feudalism #fedualism #asoiaf characterization #jacaerys velaryon #joffrey velaryon #lucerys velaryon #joffrey baratheon #tommen baratheon #myrcella baratheon #westerosi society

[hellgram]

also with all the damage the show did to jon's reputation as a good northern lad and wildling i hope germ comes out with like. yeah he's rhaegar and lyanna's son and the name she gave him while bleeding out on the birthing bed alone but for her big brother holding her hand in a tower with no way to know that baby aegon had been murdered leaving the title of Egg 6 up for grabs was like. howland.

#another big issue of fandom missing the narrative forest for the tinfoil theory trees for me is the duality at the core of jon's story #and centering targ vs stark when he's spent all the books fighting his identity as a stark vs a watchman #and Finally coming to a point where he can deny stannis and say i have a name. being satisfied with being a snow bc it does not matter #at the wall nor beyond it. and his fatal flaws in adwd are 1. he can't lead the way westerosi feudalism demands 2. he loves his family #two things that point very far away from him being a secret targaryen as something actually consequential beyond its role on history #and in places where his parentage matters is about wondering who his mother is. and his mother is lyanna and she loved him. #and ned promised her. who gives a shit abt rhaegar he is literally ned stark's son! and arya and sansa and bran and rickon's big brother! #at this stage what he is to the Greater North (wall & beyond) and the Westerosi North (thru his siblings) is more important than anything #and if he's destined for anything in THAT duality it's king beyond the north though i recognize that that is my tinfoil hill to die on #anyway. if the show confirmed anything abt targ jon as far as i'm concerned its how vital young griff/egg6 is gonna be going forward #mawdop #asoiaf

[lemonhemlock]

so, i'm going through your anti team black tag and living my best life, but one post in particular that you made got me thinking.

“george made damn sure rhaenyra’s bloodline sat on the throne at the end bc, if the hightowers won, house targaryen would have been reformed, and he couldn’t kill them all off at the end of the main series”

i'm pretty sure this might've just been a joke, but it makes me curious. do you think something like a targaryen reformation would be possible, hypothetically speaking? i certainly wouldn't mind it in a "greens win" AU scenario, but that's just me. i wanna know if anyone else sees potential in this. 💚💚💚

Hello, yes, this was mostly a joke, as it happens. 😅 (anon is referring to this post) To introduce another lengthy parenthesis, I remember at the time that some of the reactions to that post were in the range for "why doesn't anyone understand that the Hightowers are also feudal lords vying for their own interests and not some great reformists out to save Westeros", which... Listen. 😄 To put equitably, this fandom has a considerable issue with knowing when to level criticism and when to just treat banter as lighthearted horsing around and not take it too seriously. Something which even I'm not exempt from, I don't think. 🤷‍♀️

So, in the interest of making a meme, that post was kind of half-true in that it simplified a more nuanced concept (that was never an avenue that the author decided to explore anyway) for the sake of humour. I have, in the past, detailed my thoughts on House Hightower and what I think is their role in the wider narrative. This is based on the information we have on them presently. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Who knows, maybe Lord Leyton and Melara plan on blowing Oldtown up for shits and giggles. We don't have to guess everything correctly - another aspect this community struggles with in their fandom wars and obsession with having the most correct, morally pure take.

Regardless, yes, the Hightowers obviously are a privileged family at the top of the social food chain, benefitting from the exploitation awarded by feudalism - a political-economic system based on vast inequality. Therefore, any type of reform they might be willing to undertake will be limited and not really something that significantly changes the status-quo. Just like the beloved, fan-favourite, and mostly confirmed "winners" - the Starks. A third element that our fandom has trouble accepting is the concept of incremental change. I feel like it would basically be a truism to point out that incremental change has been the most reliable vector of socio-economic evolution throughout human history. So, bad news for them, I suppose, but any superficial study of history will reveal that feudalism hardly collapsed overnight. Which leads us back to the idea that any small change, no matter how limited, does matter in the long run, because, as time passes, it will be compounded with another small change and so on.

Anyway, coming back to the question. Would Targaryen reformation be possible? Certainly! GRRM could have made up any story he wanted. Anything is possible if you plan for it and it makes sense within your worldbuilding. As it stands, the Targaryens are foreigners with a questionable culture, hailing from a land that used to engage in practices that even the feudal Westerosi found backwards, distasteful, barbaric or immoral: slavery, human sacrifice, incest, great feats of violence such as pillaging and conquering neighbouring lands for the sake of feeding their population to their volcano gods etc. The Targaryens also have fire-breathing monsters that, while not exactly enough all the time to prevent any rebellions from happening, are weapons that no one else has access to and that can cause a great deal of damage that no one else can replicate.

So, in order to "reform" and integrate, they would need to renounce all that. They would need to do it the traditional way. They do some of the work, but never go all the way. They accept the main religion of the land, but they don't let go of inter-marrying, because they don't want to lose their access to dragons. There are attempts to integrate, but, by the time of the events of the main series, they have returned to incest. Funnily enough, Aegon V plays a role in both - he marries outside of the family and has no dragons left, but his succeeding son and daughter marry each other and, eventually, Aegon decides that bringing back dragons is not such a bad idea after all. I do think that the symbolic weight of Daenerys having both her parents and her grandparents as brother-sister sets is laying the "dragon blood" metaphor thick - and that it holds more magical weight than any mathematical calculation of her actual watered-down Targaryen DNA.

In any such scenario where GRRM decided to go down a Targaryen reformation path, IMO it would have been thematically-relevant to ease into it via a marriage alliance with one of the oldest families in Westeros - a well-respected, rich house that also has close links to both the only centre of higher education and the main religious organization in the land. Hence the meme. :) But it doesn't last and the Targaryens go back to their dastardly ways eventually, that's the point of them in the story, because the author chose it to be the point.

#call me crazy but grrm wasn't obligated to place BOTH the starry sept and the citadel in oldtown #and then have oldtown be controlled by 1 family #there is symbolic importance there and the hightowers /will/ play some part in the last two books #house hightower #anti team black #anti house targaryen #<- for filtering purposes #anyway #some fans really like to throw this 'feudalism is bad' interpretation like some sort of 'gotcha' #which? yes? but this is also the story. like. 🤦‍♀️ #positive change will occur at the end of the series but it will also be limited in scope. that was always going to be the case? #something something there is a line between not romanticising a historical period that was rife with inequality #vs having realistic expectations of our heroes; the story; and what the author can actually accomplish in the given setting #there is a line and it can be treaded and sometimes it's NOT that serious #you don't have to act as if liking the hightowers or *insert other westerosi noble family here* equals shilling for feudalism #at the end of the day it IS fiction and it IS meant to have a fun quality to it. you know. entertainment. just be normal about it

[cassatine]

some takes around giving a lot of shit to Rhaenyra about how obvious it is that the kids aren’t Laenor’s, but cmon, what was she gonna do? not have kids because her dad had saddled her with the gayest of husbands? that’d still have been a problem, like I think the show did do its job with establishing that not having heirs is a problem in Westerosi feudal society. and it’s not like there were a bunch of guys with Velaryon features running around for her to pick as baby daddies, or like switching lovers after each kid in the hope that one would come out looking Valyrian enough wouldn’t have been risky, reputation-wise. “she’s flaunting it” literally what the fuck. what was she supposed to do, keep her kids in a closet??

(which doesn’t mean Alicent being angry about it isn’t justified from where she’s standing, btw. but also can we stop pretending her main reason to make it an issue isn't to bolster her own kid's claim to the IT, like yeah ofc there's a personal aspect to her being so angry about Rhaenyra's kids, but the reason she's trying to make it a public issue instead of just stewing over it in private is political.)

#noooo im doing the thing i'm posting about fake feudal politics #gdi #house of the dragon #westerosi politics #rhaenyra targaryen #alicent hightower #meta

[swimmingferret]

urgh dany antis are so tiring, like why they pull out the ‘UMMM SHES FROM THE IMPERIAL FASCIST HOUSE’ as if asoiaf isnt based on fuckin feudal rules and literally everyone believes in the divine rights of kings and no dany isnt evil for believing shes the heir to westeros for being daughter of the king, its just how shit functions in a medieval society

#also the targs arent even fascist??? they literally assimilated to westerosi culture so wtf is w that accusation #i see it everywhere #like yes feudalism sucks but that is the world its set in #also love how they never wanna admit that also means the starks suck ass lol only dragons bad #like yeah the valyrians were the imperial fascists but like...dany does not act like them lol #shes literally waging war against slavery bro she isnt a fascist

[saansaas]

sometimes u follow people bc they make great analyses and points abt asoiaf. and then sometimes the DT brain rot has gotten so deep in their head that they contradict themselves in their own otherwise completely coherent and prudent post.

#ur right that something isn’t inherently feminist if a woman ends up on the iron throne in the end #but what abt DT’s story makes u think she’s going to give up the throne if she wins it? #like regardless of if u think she’ll survive or not. if she gets the throne will she give it up for the sake of bettering her fellow women? #no. what abt her story has u convinced otherwise? her treatment of her female subordinantes? her determination to ‘abolish’ slavery? #and saying she’d be upset with westerosi feudalism and patriarchy when she spends the majority of her internal monologue idolizing #the patriarchal and feudalistic system her family is directly responsible for making in westeros that she’s determined to rule one day? #she enjoys so many things that are directly linked to feudalism. living in a castle. having servants. ruling over small folk and making #decisions/laws to ‘better’ their lives. like her entire thing (from her viewpoint) is that she’s a queen and has a duty to make people’s #lives better bc she’s their liege. like what abt that doesn’t scream feudalism? #the series isn’t going to end with the abolishment of feudalism in westeros bc the societal and political development just hasn’t reached #that far yet. and expecting any of the characters to want to abandon it is just willfully ignoring how civilization has developed #esp grrm glacial asoiaf world #and so to make a post saying that RT works to show how a woman in power isn’t inherently feminist but DT is sooo different #is just willful misunderstanding. esp from someone who does strong readings of the text that i’ve really enjoyed #anyways. sad and disappointed #mine.txt

[queenvhagar]

"Actually Jace and Luc aren't bastards and are in fact legitimate heirs because Rhaenyra/Laenor/Viserys/Corlys etc are playing along that they're legitimate and still consider them in line for succession, therefore anyone calling them bastards or trying to stop them from inheriting are just bastardphobic and problematic"

Okay, once and for all... let's look at the reality of Westerosi society and its laws, traditions, and customs. It's true that bastards in fact can be legitimized by the king and/or lords of houses. That's indisputable.

But crucially, they first have to be acknowledged as bastards and officially be made legitimate by a legal decree.

A famous example of this occurring is the case of King Aegon IV Targaryen. He had several bastards that he then claimed as legitimate on his deathbed. However, Aegon IV never tried to hide that they were of illegitimate birth and acknowledged them as bastards first. Then he officially decreed that his bastards were now legitimate and had claims to the Iron Throne after his death. Crucially, he didn't just pretend they were legitimate all along and try to convince anyone otherwise - Aegon IV made a decree to legitimize them because he and everyone knew they were bastards, and only an official act could change an illegitimate heir into a legitimate heir. Because he did this, all of his illegitimate children became legitimate in the eyes of Westerosi law.

In an example of how failing to do this could create problems, Cersei Lannister had bastards that she tried to pass off as legitimate Baratheons. Ned Stark deciphered the truth based on hair color and obviously took issue with the fact that Cersei's children were not Robert's children and were not legitimate heirs to Robert's throne. Because Ned knew that Joffrey was illegitimate and Cersei was trying to usurp lawful, rightful succession with her bastard, he tried to prevent Joffrey from taking Robert Baratheon's seat of power after his death. Of course, Cersei never could have feasibly acknowledged their illegitimate birth and then had them be made legitimate by decree - doing so would have exposed her incest with her twin brother, and the king would never support her or the children in legitimization. Cersei did not have the support of the king. So, because people knew that Joffrey was not Robert's child, they did not consider him to be the rightful inheritor of Robert's throne. This is basic feudalism. Whether it's just or unjust, according to our modern perspective, that is just how feudalism works, and it works like this based on centuries of precedent and law that was created to maintain societal order. It is based on these laws that the entire feudalist society operates. Had the king officially legitimized Joffrey, though, there would be less ability to dispute his succession. He would be seen in the eyes of the law as Robert's lawful heir.

In a very similar yet uniquely different situation, Rhaenyra Targaryen had bastards that she tried to pass off as legitimate Velaryons. Everyone (literally, at least in the show - even Daemon and Laena knew from an entire continent away) deciphered the truth based on hair color (and skin color, in the show) and many took issue with the fact that Rhaenyra's children were not Laenor's children and were not legitimate heirs to seats of power, especially Laenor's (or his father's) seat of power. Because people, like Vaemond Velaryon, knew that Lucerys was illegitimate and that Rhaenyra was trying to usurp lawful, rightful succession with her bastard, they tried to prevent Lucerys from taking Corlys Velaryon's seat of power after his death (and based on illegitimacy, they would likely challenge Jacaerys' inheritance of the Iron Throne after his mother). Having illegitimate children created a huge problem for Rhaenyra.

However, unlike Cersei, Rhaenyra was a woman who had a considerable amount of political power given the context. Rhaenyra was the heir to the Iron Throne, and she also had the full support of her father the king. At any point, it was extremely possible that the king and Corlys could and would officially legitimize the Strong boys and let them take their place in the line of succession. They could even justify it as "Targaryen exceptionalism" if they want, as many Targaryen rulers had done with the law in the past (see: incestual marriage and Jahaerys I Targaryen). This would especially make sense in the case of Jacaerys, who many argue naturally gains his legitimacy to sit the Iron Throne from being Rhaenyra's son. Others at the same time argue that Laenor and Corlys' adoption and acceptance of Lucerys as a "true Velaryon" gives him legitimacy to sit the Velaryon seat of power, and Corlys and the king could have officially decreed this by legitimizing Lucerys as a legitimate heir to the Velaryon seat of power. The act of legitimizing Rhaenyra's sons was possible and always an option.

Of course, this would mean that Rhaenyra would have to declare them first illegitimate and admit to an extramarital affair with the heir to Harrenhal. However, the king could protect her from the fallout, much like he protected her from other consequences she created by her actions. He could claim "Targaryen exceptionalism" and provide justification for her actions (like that argument that she had to, as Laenor was infertile or otherwise unable to produce heirs, for example) and then not only would you have the king's word as law but you would also have the king's decree as law. There would be no room to argue that. Her claim to the throne would be cemented again by the king and her sons would be officially and legally made legitimate heirs. Everyone already knew they were bastards. Officially legitimizing them would have been the solution to any problems that created.

There is no doubt that having her sons officially legitimized would strengthen her claim more than trying to continue to (unsuccessfully) gaslight everyone that they were always legitimate, instead demonstrating that she believes herself to be above the law or somehow smarter than everyone else. However, that's truly the crux of this issue here. Rhaenyra sees no need to legitimize her sons officially, because she believes that the wants of those she is destined to rule are "of no concern" to her. She views herself as above others due to her blood and birthright, so she would never take the politically aware and advantageous step of actually trying to solve the problem she created when she birthed not one but three obviously illegitimate children. She would instead prefer to continue to rely on her father to defend her, even in his dying days. The problem comes, then, when her father is gone. With the king dead, who else could she rely on to solve her problems for her?

In summary, Jace and Luc could have been officially legitimized at any point. This was uniquely a situation where they could have been officially legitimized and this would have solved a lot of problems. But they weren't.

#feudalism existed....read a history book or something idk #properly tagged. if you don't like it make your own post thx #pro team green #anti team black #anti rhaenyra targaryen

[goodqueenaly]

If Robb hadn’t sent Theon as his envoy do you think he would have executed him after Balon invaded the north?

Unfortunately, probably. Robb would have been in something of the same situation he was IOTL in with respect to Rickard Karstark. Just as Robb couldn’t allow Rickard Karstark to freely murder his, Robb’s, prisoners (much less highborn, underage prisoner-hostages), Robb couldn’t allow Theon to remain alive while his father and the Greyjoy bannermen invaded and pillaged his, Robb’s, own lands. The entire point of hostages in Westerosi politico-military analysis is to have the ability execute the hostage if and when the hostage’s family violates the agreement under which the hostage was taken. If he refused to execute Theon, Robb would be sending the message to his vassals that he valued the life of his enemy’s son over the welfare of his people - a terrible image for any feudal king, much less one so new in his kingship.

To be clear, I don’t want to suggest that this execution wouldn’t have weighed very heavily on Robb - as indeed we see with him after the Rickard Karstark execution, and as I think a similar situation would have on Ned. However, just as Robb found himself able to execute Lord Rickard despite his fury at “hav[ing] to to kill my dead friends' father” and his own loyal bannerman for the sake of his enemies, I think Robb would have executed Theon despite the disgust he likely would have felt at such a scenario.

Now of course, practically speaking executing or not executing Theon would never have mattered for stopping Balon’s hand. As we see very clearly early in ACOK, Balon Greyjoy was already planning his attack on the North well before Theon took the first step back onto the shores of the Iron Islands, and had already written Theon off for dead.

#asoiaf meta #robb stark #theon greyjoy

[daenystheedreamer]

we need a list of every canonical gay ally in westeros

ok off the top of my head canonically

JON SNOW ALLY OF THE MILLENNIUM literally died for gay rights. he said fuck the catholic church satin is our BROTHER and he WILL be my squire. suck my DICK. paraphrased. and he got stabbed for it!!! westerosi saint sebastion. and reversed. and he's jesus. AND he could handle they/them pussy.

tyrion :) in the twow sample chapter he sees bokkoko making out with his boyfriend which he observes without judgement. and he's nice to sweets just kinda 🤨 about them and yezzan.

arianne<3 she's somehow confused as to why renly didnt want to fuck her i KNOW modern au arianne wants/has gay best friends. is cool with bisexual legend daemon sand who fucked her uncle and she's like idc he's still #husbandmaterial

olenna tyrell ACTUAL ally of the millennium. of course there's loras but she also settled for mace tyrell cos she knew daeron wanted to run around westeros with his little boyfriend.

on the fence, could go either way:

corlys+rhaenys were cool with gay ivf when they let luke be heir 👍 they still made him marry his cousin though cos feudal bloodlines matter more than the sanctity of gay fatherhood :/

hoster tully. let your gay brother stay unmarried ffs

confirmed homophobes:

FUCKING CERSEI.... remember when she was like UGH i bet that conniving skank margaery has her brothers... proclivities.... perhaps i can get one of her girls to say she beds them... 5 chapters later she's having gay sex. love her whole deal.

balon greyjoy cos he was mean to theon about the necklaces

the evil farman brothers who i shan't even name...

randyll tarly.

#asoiaf #ask #anonymous #just off the top of my head..... comment more if you can think of any<3

[asongofstarkandtargaryen]

Jon and Ygritte: a clash of ideologies (Jon V, Asos)

Jon V, Asos is an interesting chapter. It offers us two completely different world views between two lovers (Jon & Ygritte). And begs the question: is love enough when two people have opposing life philosophies? In our young lovers case, it's not.

I want to say here that just because a romance between Jon and Ygritte was doomed to eventually fail due to their different perspectives that doesn't mean that every relationship between free folk and westerosi people is equally doomed. A case in point is Sam and Gilly. Because, not every single free folk person shares the same beliefs with Ygritte, to group all of them under the same opinion would be racist. Similarly, not every westerosi person has the same views and feelings towards Free folk that Jon has, people who share Bower Marsh harsher views also exist.

Back to Jon and Ygritte, the chapter opens with them wandering in the Gift. They see an abandoned tower and Ygritte suggests that maybe once the raid has ended they could settle down there.

Jon once also dreamed that he could settle on a tower like that, but unlike Ygritte, he wasn't interested in settling outside the feudal society; he wanted to be part of it.

If winter had come and gone more quickly and spring had followed in its turn, I might have been chosen to hold one of these towers in my father's name.

Jon and Ygritte have a disagreement over the people who abandoned their homes in the gift. Ygritte considers them cowards because they didn't stay to fight for their land. Jon is more sympathetic towards them, believing that people should be allowed to exist without having to worry over their safety. According to him, living in an organised society offers such protection.

But according to Ygritte, you have to pay with your own freedom if you want to live in a society. And that's not a sacrifice she's willing to make. On his end, Jon isn't willing to sacrifice the society he grew up with, in order to live in the lawless world the free folk envision. And that's what makes them incompatible.

I know one thing. I know that you are a wilding to the bone. It was easy to forget sometimes, when they were laughing or kissing. But then one of them would say something, or do something, and he would suddenly be reminded of the wall between their worlds.

#jon snow #ygritte #free folk #valyrianscrolls #a posy of ice and fire #jon snow meta #a storm of swords #asos jon snow #asos jon snow v

[racefortheironthrone]

For a noble bastard to receive a surname (i.e. Hill) does the identity of the noble parent/s have to be known? Or can a lord say “trust me, I know the father/mother” and leave it at that

It requires that the noble parent (usually the father) acknowledges the child as theirs.

So for example, Edric Storm is Edric Storm because Robert Baratheon acknowledged him as his son, and Mya Stone is Mya Stone because Jon Arryn insisted that Robert do the right thing, but Bella isn't Bella Rivers, and Gendry isn't Gendry Waters, and so on.

#asoiaf #asoiaf meta #bastardy #westerosi customs #westerosi culture #westerosi feudalism

[horizon-verizon]

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable. In return, the least the Targaryens could do is allow her son to ascend the throne to allow House Hightower to have more power in exchange for them helping to create four healthy Targaryens. It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated. If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.

Disclaimer:

The parts about explaining feudalism is supposed to recontextualize how the hierarchy is not itself based on a good ethics system or fair/good morals, not to justify said hierarchy.

The system (unjustly) does not enforces nor expects the King to be equally sociopolitically or emotionally accountable to his Queen Consort.

................................................

A)

You make the mistake of thinking that in a feudal society/Westerosi/Andal culture, the King and his house are obligated to do anything for the Queen Consort except to:

not publicly humiliate her (and "humiliate" can look different according to the thing done) -- with Aegon IV, it was an exceptional situation since he targeted Naerys and Aemon simultaneously out of jealousy. As long as the King doesn't disinherit her children (if they are OLDER than his mistress' kids AND those mistress' kids ARE NOT legitimized) he is, by custom, not seen to be doing anything wrong

not deny her access to the appropriate clothing, shelter befitting her station, and food

take care of any child she brings forth

In feudal societies, the Queen Consort’s “job” is to provide heirs and like everyone else in the kingdom, she has to obey her husband’s orders. She is subject to him, she has no privileges or rights over him. 

The King/Monarch is always the legal/official/customary authority over literally everyone else. This is not a democracy nor an oligarchy. 

Therefore, it is actually Alicent who customarily should obey Viserys’ commands and declarations. That is her place in this hierarchy.

You may think this is unfair, but:

Alicent was definitely a victim of her father & Viserys, but she blames the wrong person for it (Rhaenyra) bc the answer is to totally buy into the sexist and authoritarian ideals against female sexuale and other sorts of autonomy--as Alicent fails into & chooses to perpetuate.

That is feudalism (the economic-socio-political system) AND absolute monarchy (the form of government). Again, she's fallen, then chooses, to sincerely buy into this system partially bc she has no choice but she also is much too inflexible to reflect on how she's essentially hurting herself and those around her or performing a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. That was the entire point! Alicen tis not unique, too, in how the patriarchal feudal system uses her up! Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, etc, too!

@rhaenyragendereuphoria states it quite simply HERE:

Feudalism is a system of servitude based on giving up your freedom in exchange of protection by a higher lord. It binds serfs to their lords, and lords to other lords all the way to the king. Yes, the whole “Protector of the Realm” is propaganda, but it’s what they believe the job of the king to be. They will give it to the strongest who can protect them from foreign invasions: and it’s hard to think of stronger than “family that literally owns dragons”. This fandom has feudal mentality completely upside down, thinking they loathe their subjugation because subjugation is an affront to freedom. Feudalism IS subjugation. What they loathe is to submit to a weakling. They despise (and hunt, and murder) the Free Folk, calling them “wildlings”, because they’d rather be free than be bound by feudal oaths of subjugation. Feudalism is the rule of “might makes right”. At its roots, it’s a military hierarchy of warlords who bind each others with feeble and fickle treaties until one of them decides to break them and attempt to conquer the others, and either wins or fails.

And in this POST:

However, no one is given rights in these societies, not even men - not the way we would define rights. Their idea of “right” is just as arbitrary as their idea of “freedom”. They are societies based on privileges, and privileges are always revocable, unlike rights.

Alicent has no independent “rights” apart from what I already listed above. At all. Especially since she isn't blood-related to Viserys. Rhaenyra has a birthright, but only once Viserys bestows it upon her. 

Alysanne was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Visenya & Rhaenys had more law-changing power than Alysanne did while being Consorts and not Regnant Queens, but Aegon’s word was final and he was the Monarch.

And all these women were the sisters of the then-Kings as well as their wives. You’d think that they would have more say, but no. They were obey their husband-kings' final words by Andal/feudal/monarchial custom and law.

There is no contract where it says that Viserys owes Alicent or the Hightowers -- all of them his subjects -- anything except military protection. This is feudalist absolute monarchy as GRRM sets it up and models after the common set up of real life feudal monarchies.

B)

You:

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable.

Already addressed what a Consort’s repeated purpose is. 

a.

And when was this dynasty “most vulnerable”? By all accounts, Viserys’ court and reign was prosperous and peaceful (expect with the Stepstones and towards the end of his reign with Rhaenyra, Alicent, and their kids of course -- but the Stepstones war didn’t affect the actual subjects [peasant or nobles] of Westeros too much to make huge differences in and the stuff with his personal family happened insularly):

Many consider the reign of King Viserys I to represent the apex of Targaryen power in Westeros. Beyond a doubt, there were more lords and princes claiming the blood of the dragon than at any period before or since. Though the Targaryens had continued their traditional practice of marrying brother to sister, uncle to niece, and cousin to cousin wherever possible, there had also been important matches outside the royal family, the fruit of which would play important roles in the war to come. There were more dragons than ever before as well, and several of the she-dragons were regularly producing clutches of eggs.

[...]

The reign of the Young King, as the commons called him upon his ascent, was peaceful and prosperous. His Grace’s open-handedness was legendary, and the Red Keep became a place of song and splendor. King Viserys and Queen Aemma hosted many a feast and tourney, and lavished gold, offices, and honors on their favorites.

(“A Question of Succession”)

b.

If you mean Viserys having a girl as his only scion, I must remind you that:

the Targs had dragons (more dragons than ever and Aegon I/Visenya/Rhaenys, conquered Westeros with only 3)

there were no mentioned, burgeoning signs of rebellion against Rhaenyra until Alicent and Otto started to make waves (post by @theblackqveen)

While this is in the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.

After Viserys makes it clear that he won’t change his mind, it gets more settled, and again, we hear absolutely no mention of any real attempt to prepare against Rhaenyra except from the greens.

I wrote a 2 posts on HotD Alicent and Book!Alicent’s foolishness and narcissism.

c.

THIS is what GRRM says about laws of succession:

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases… but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars.

[...]

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

Still, if Alicent really is all about just following the rules and being “good”, the she would follow her husband’s order and not antagonize or contradict Rhaenyra. Because part of her Westerosi/Andal customs is that the King/Monarch is paramount and their word is law.

She hypocritically doesn’t follow the law to such a particualr "degree" or whatever that she ends up going against the authoritarian regime's ideals of King's rule and all that for her own stake...mostly unconciously.

So really, she’s about power and misogyny, since she chooses to still make her rapist son King and reap the rewards from his ascendance (who’d follow along for her and her house’s interests more than Rhaenyra would). In the show, she goes after Rhaenyra for presumably sleeping with a man not her husband....while she gives up her feet to fulfill Larys' sexual titillation in exchange for information. So Rhaenyra's sleeping with another man in a consensual setting is wrong, but somehow Alicent allowing herself to be used (she is Queen Consort, she can definitely order Larys around) and silencing one of her son's victims is okay? Both of these things that support sexual abuse? In the book, she turns against Rhaenyra when Rhaenyra is 10, and we can see the implication that they began to actually fight ever since then, so Alicent antagonizes a 10 year old. At the tourney where Daemon comes back in the book, there were Essosi people who witnessed the tension between the two.

And why does she do all that? Because she wants to empower herself, her son, and disempower Rhaenyra. At the same time, Alicent fosters an environment where this is justified.

This is why she is hated. Book!her tries to use Rhaenyra having extramarital sex as pretext for deposing her, yet she is the one going against the King’s word when it is obvious he doesn’t give three shits.

@theroguewyrm answers this ASK where the asker breaks down more of Alicent’s hypocrisy:

[...] Alicent as she has constantly held Rhaenyra accountable for having illegitimate relations with men but when it comes to her she can do it as she cloaks it under the hood of duty. The hypocrisy was also shown when Alicent tolerates every single sexual crime committed by her son in the premises of the Red Keep and outside. If it is benefitting her then she’ll permit them, she’ll stay quiet, but will simultaneously use Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin to vilify her.

C)

You: 

It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

That’s because he distrusts Otto and knows Otto wants his grandkids/these green boys to inherit the throne. Otto went so far as to continue to demand/suggest Viserys change the order of succession several times until Viserys dismissed him:

The amity between Her Grace and her stepdaughter had proved short- lived, for both Rhaenyra and Alicent aspired to be the first lady of the realm...and though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights.

[...]

The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit. Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Viserys was being a bad dad here, I agree. Otto was also stupid as fuck for this. Both him and Alicent. And when it comes to feudalism, the personal and the political are one and the same often. Viserys never learned, I think, to separate himself from kingship because the position and society doesn’t allow for this metaphysical existence, or for it to be practiced seriously and without consequences.

And these are the details of Rhaenyra’s naming-as-heir:

Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Now from a more pragmatic standpoint, these lords already gave their oaths to Rhaenyra. To go back on it, while maybe welcome to some lords, would also diminish Viserys’ monarchial word’s value because of how huge the chnages are, and how he seems (publicly) to value oaths in general. 

While Tyland Lannister says that he never took oaths, oaths are still very seriously taken and regarded generally in this society (or like to think of themselves as doing so).

Viserys was a bad dad. Doesn't make what Alicent did excusable.

D)

a.

You:

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated.

We’re talking about the greens, here, not the Hightowers. Two, though related, separate entities for now.

The greens (Alicent, Otto, Aegon, Aemond, Daeron [Helaena is not a real player]) are hated because they are misogynists turned up 11, with an over-inflated sense of their own male privilege. It causes them to maim, rape, cause genocide, attempt assassination against Rhaenyra, even disregard and turn against each other. And at last, make a 10 year old watch as his mother is eaten alive by a dragon. 

Even with universal misogyny, I doubt that most other noblemen/individuals would be as murderous, stupid and audacious as these specific people.

BTW, you slipped. Aegon, Ameond, Helaena, and Daeron and the kids from Aegon/Helaena are all Targs. Not Hightowers.

b.

You:

If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.  

Here’s the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon, who had just turned twelve.

(“A Question of Succession”)

We understand through this and through real life feudal politics that a king/Monarch was expected to have as many kids as possible so that in the event one or some die, the others could take their place.

The moment that Otto allowed Alicent to marry Viserys after Rhaenyra had been heir for 2 years, all of Alicent’s kids would have been “spares”. This would be true if Rhaenyra was male. 

Alicent and Otto both signed up for this.

However, Rhaenyra is female, so Otto got greedy. It is only the thought that Viserys would automatically change heirs that Otto even contemplated it would be an easy thing to have Alicent’s kids as Viserys’ heirs because he thought Viserys would pass her over.

Take a look at the sociopolitical patterns. This is always the deal for second wives/Queen Consorts. If the monarch had kids from a first marriage , those kids are always before the ones in the second because they came first/are older.

Viserys makes Rhaenyra continue to be his heir and treats her like he would his male heir in that her siblings remain the “spares” they would be if she were male. thereby putting into practice equal primogentiure.

Otto has been with Viserys as his hand for years.....why did he not anticipate something like this?

#asoiaf asks to me #westerosi politics #westerosi nobility #westeros succession #succession in westeros #viserys i #viserys i targaryen #viserys i's characterization #alicent's characterization #alicent hightower #fire and blood comment #otto hightower #the targtowers #otto hightower's characterization #viserys and otto #westerosi marriage #queen consorts #westerosi queen consorts #westerosi feudalism #feudalism #asoiaf #Fire and Blood

[thewitchqueenofharrenhal]

Rhaelyas will never stop being funny. Oh ya'll just think Lyanna should have suffered and just went and marry Robert.

Well, if Lyanna Stark did get a do over, she definitely isn't going down the road that ends with most of her family and countrymen dead, a war raging, and her locked up pregnant in a tower.

Literally who ships Robert & Lyanna 💀 lmao.

I think Lyanna would have been happy with a northmen of her choosing, I’m partial to Howland Reed personally, I think they’d be extremely cute together.

I agree I sincerely doubt Lyanna Stark had the ability to fathom just how deadly her choice was to run off with Rhaegar. (Not much of a choice really considering she was a child, and he for all intents and purposes preyed on her) but yeah if Lyanna Stark is as smart as we hope she was she’d never make that mistake again.

Lyanna Stark isn’t unique in the slightest she’s a symptom of Westerosi feudal society and the only way to ensure there are no more victims like her is to dismantle it into a better society.

#anon #lyanna stark #anti rhaelya #anti rhaegar targaryen

[lemonhemlock]

i get what you’re saying but i get what dany stans are saying too, what is the difference between dany taking back kl and sansa taking back winterfell? at the end of the day, monarchy sucks and none of these characters are truly "worthy"

I approached this topic more in-depth here and here.

The difference between Dany taking back King's Landing and Sansa taking back Winterfell lies in the construction of legitimacy. When engaging with medieval fantasy, rejecting its political framework and ignoring its limitations in absorbing more egalitarian ideology (and the socio-technological constraints that inform those political/philosophical limitations) is going to prove a fruitless pursuit. Westeros is roughly based on feudal Europe and has a recognizable European political thought inheritance and recognizable medieval technology and means, so I think it would be reasonable to employ political philosophy that could be plausibly applied during the period from which it takes inspiration.

~unnecessarily long essay no one asked for below~

In this regard, what makes for a "worthy" ruler in medieval times might differ with the passage of centuries, as socio-political practices transform. Which is why I feel like the validity of monarchy as a form of government was never truly under question in this setting, even though it has certainly been criticised and points have been made about social injustices arising from wealth disparities and the segregation of social spheres (I hesitate to call them social classes as I don't think the Westerosi have developed class consciousness yet).

I think that this is ultimately an element of disappointment for some readers, who are trying to project onto the text something that is not there, instead of switching to progressive fiction that addresses their concerns and presents alternative political systems. What I mean to say is that dismissing all types of monarchy as illegitimate is not useful within the text, as it renders all differences between the characters null & ignores the entire historical evolution of the concept of legitimacy. So you end up with takes like "it doesn't really matter who sits the throne". It matters very much to Martin, because that is the type of story he is trying to tell, that's... the entire point of the series. He is a boomer writing about dragons and knights in the 90s, not a transformative political thinker who is going to smack us with a new social order at the end of the series. That doesn't mean he can't critique the system or the characters' approaches to ruling. That's why he keeps killing the unfit kings & punishing those who rely on wanton brutality.

Coming back to the question, Dany's family was deposed, meaning that, legally-speaking, she doesn't have any "birthright" to the throne of Westeros anymore, no matter what she tells herself. Is deposition legal? John Locke certainly thought so in his Second Treatise of Government, chapters "Of Tyranny" and "Of The Dissolution of Government". Below we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Discourse on Inequality":

OK, these are Enlightenment thinkers, but the concept was not new. The Magna Carta of 1215 certainly has a provision for this. That's medieval enough, I feel.

(Ralph V. Turner, "Magna Carta Through the Ages", Harlow, Pearson Longman, 2003 - the original article was too long lol but anyone can look it up for themselves).

Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica", 1274:

etc.

You will find these ideas under the term "right of revolution".

Many medieval kings IRL have been deposed or lost their crown. Richard II, anyone? There's an entire play about it. So, yes, Robert Baratheon is the legal king of Westeros at the start of AGOT and Viserys / Daenerys simply are not. There is no birthright to speak of, that is just Dany's entitlement that goes unchecked and unquestioned.

Of course, crowns can be won back by the right of conquest, which is what Dany is trying to do. GRRM's plan for her seems to either be rejected by the people of King's Landing for whatever reason (a la Rhaenyra maybe) or for her to commit such an atrocity on the city in her attempt to seize it that it disqualifies her as a potential ruler because she breaks the normal rules of engagement to a horrifying degree (i.e. dragonflame). Dany's entire plan is questionable from the start, since she intends to mount an invasion on a people brutalised by several years of war already, on the onset of winter - essentially extra suffering. The conditions are there so that the Westerosi might not interpret her actions as liberation, but merely as another pretender to the throne, who is only after her personal betterment - basically no different from what they've seen before, so no reason to join her cause or believe in her propaganda. She will bring fire-breathing monsters, Dothraki and Unsullied warriors to their lands, whom they fear and for whom they have no kinship. They have no particular attachment to the old Targaryen kings either. In short, Dany's father was deposed and she will end up deposed herself because of her own actions (or never recognised in the first place). I'm not saying this because I have beef with Daenerys, she is not a real person who did me wrong, she is a fictional character the author is using to illustrate a political idea.

Whereas the people of the North maintain a very favourable view of the Starks and of Ned Stark in particular. They are seen as the legitimate rulers of the North and their replacements (the Boltons) are almost universally hated. The text is littered with "the North remembers" and "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" and general Stark-fawning. The people of the North were very eager to name Ned Stark's son as their king. The people of the Night's Watch voted for Ned Stark's 15-year-old bastard as their leader. Ramsay Bolton pretends to marry Arya Stark to consolidate his legitimacy as the ruler of Winterfell and the North. Many other characters covet Sansa for the same reason. The Starks have not been deposed, unlike the Targaryens, they're just missing / presumed dead and Winterfell is up for grabs. None of our Northern characters think how lovely it would be if we had a Targaryen restauration. These things may seem like candy floss to the modern reader and they may not resonate, but they mattered a lot in the past. So when Sansa takes back Winterfell, it will be with the backing of the majority of the Northern population and with the help of the Knights of the Vale, who are seen as honourable and are of Andal descent, so will not be perceived as foreign invaders. No one in the North will be contemplating their right-to-revolution against the Starks, because they will be revolting alongside Sansa to free themselves from the abusive Bolton rule.

Sansa rebuilds Winterfell out of snow and thinks of it warmly as her home, feels kinship and connection with the place she grew up in, whereas Daenerys feels possessive over a land she's never seen and wants to take it with "fire and blood". True, these are not actions, not crimes for Dany and neither acts of benevolence for Sansa. They haven't done anything yet. But they are images. Framing. Hints. That's how literature works.

Could Dany be given a narrative of Westerosi restauration? Could GRRM write her as gaining popular support and as not breaking the social contract while installing herself back on the throne? Had only Book 1 been published, these questions would have had more validity. But after Book 5? Not when Martin frames her like that and literally kicks her out of the city she conquered.

#not me writing a whole ass paper on this LOL #🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️ #ask #anon #asoiaf #grrm #asoiaf endgame #anti daenerys targaryen #sansa stark

[shunnedmorlock]

Hi! Im so interested in your alicent = richard nixon, rhaenyra = john f. kennedy parallels thing .Do you mind explaining?

Have a good day/night!

yeah so a lot of this is inspired by Nixonland by Rick Perlstein which is one of the best books you'll find on the 1960s and early 70s and Nixon in particular. really if you're interested at all in American conservatism check all his books out, they're amazing. also want to preface this with the fact that this isn't based on their political ideologies because neither Rhaenyra nor Alicent really have one beyond "Targaryen absolutism" and "Faith-backed feudalism" respectively. there is no left and no right because there is no French revolution

but basically, Perlstein's thesis is that a lot of how Nixon viewed politics and how he gained power went back to his time at Whittier College. now Whittier had a couple of prominent social clubs, most notably, the Franklins, which were old-money, sophisticated elites. Nixon was not born into wealth - he was born to a family that did own a bit of land/business, but constantly struggled to make ends meet and were always precarious. for lack of a better term, he was white trash - the "used car salesman" thing is actually a jab at this since it's a middle-class but low-prestige occupation. naturally, he did not gel well with the Franklins at Whittier, and so he was one of the founding members of a new social club for the ladder-climbing social strivers who also felt looked-down upon by sophisticated elites: the Orthogonians. John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, was probably the living embodiment of the "Franklin" - even his liberalism came from the type of noblesse oblige that infuriated the petit-bourgeoisie Nixon. so losing to Nixon kind of drove him crazy.

you can do even more psychoanalysis on Nixon and his class resentments of liberal elites (READ NIXONLAND) but i'll stop it there. Rhaenyra is a Franklin: she has never once been in doubt that she will live an extraordinarily privileged life. For her, being an elite comes so naturally that she often doesn't even register that she is an elite. encounters with the lower classes engender a mix of disgust and patrician obligation. Though this self-assuredness can make her arrogant and reckless at times, it also gives her a sort of magnetism that draws people to follow her (Alicent, Criston, in the books all those random petty lords and hedge knights and smallfolk in the Riverlands who remember the Realm's Delight). She has vaguely liberal/cosmopolitan sensibilities (caring too much about homosexuality or adultery is just so gauche, darling), but isn't a revolutionary.

Alicent, on the other hand, is an Orthogonian. she doesn't come from nothing - far from it! but the privileges she does possess don't come from dynastic wealth, but her father having a good job that he got through (relatively) meritocratic means. Alicent and Otto are painfully aware that whatever privileges they possess come from Otto being useful to the Targaryens, and should either make a misstep, they would have to go to their brother/uncle on bended knee to beg for a handout. This makes both Otto and Alicent both deeply neurotic and even paranoid, but also extremely hard-working and driven.

important to keep in mind that neither of these are strictly speaking "good" things to be and the vast majority of Westerosi people (peasants, laborers, pretty much all commoners except maybe wealthy merchants or artisans) do not fall into either of these categories

#asoiaf #hotd #alicent hightower #rhaenyra targaryen #richard nixon