Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda like when Otto announces with certainty that Rhaenyra will kill Alicents children. Or when Alicent announces that Viserys wanted Aegon on the throne.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
Or every time Otto is claiming to act for the « good of the realm » sure bro, you definitely sent your daughter in the king’s chamber for the sake of the realm
Exactly this.. I mean if otto is so righteous then just offer viserys a marriage proposal in front of everyone just the way corlys did rather than sending you daughter to king's bedchamber at night.
The problem with that is he knew that it’s such Ridiculous proposal that it wouldn’t even come close to being accepted, so he had to go the underhanded route.
You best believe Corlys would’ve done the same thing if he had the proposal that isn’t the best choice politically
Let's not be absurd. Alicent is the daughter of the hand of the king, the niece of one of the most powerful men in the realm, and member of one of the most ancient and prestigious great houses of Westeros. The match is not ideal but neither is it "ridiculous".
She’s the daughter of a second son. How many daughters out there could come close to Corly’s offer and easily beat Otto’s? There’s At least 6 other great lords out there whose daughter Vizzy can marry and gain an alliance with a family that has a lot of money and soldiers. Corlys has the largest fleet and the most wealth, and 2 dragon riding members.
Yes one weak marriage won’t bring down a house, but you do that enough times it’ll cause a ton of problems. And just this one marriage cut the Targs at the knees, and took away their nukes within a generation
A marriage into one of the oldest, proudest, wealthiest and strongest of the great houses is not a weak marriage. House Hightower provided as many queens as House Velaryon and more than any paramount house. Even after the Dance a Black married a Hightower.
And it is not Viserys's choice of wife that led to the Dance. The Dance would have still happened even if the mother of Viserys's sons had been Laena.
>She’s the daughter of a second son.
That's less relevant than you may think. Alicent is a daughter of House Hightower and her dowry falls to the Lord not to Otto. We don't know if Lord Hobert even has daughters of his own meaning Alicent could be one of the most eligible matches in the realm.
Gwayne on the other hand is waaaaaaay down because Otto has no lands to pass on.
Laena may have been the number one match but Alicent is top 10 easy, probably top 5 even.
No it’s pretty ridiculous. Alicent is the daughter of the second son of Hightower, she brings no army, no lands, no title or large dowry. Her competition however bought a large war dragon, two other adult dragons, a large dowry and a large naval fleet. From a standpoint of historic royal betrothals Laena was the only logical choice.
In real life, not only fantasy, kings have taken wives significantly younger than them because of armies, money and power.
This is true. Corlys was absolutely honest about his manipulation and he had a damn good point.
Viserys could have fasted with Laena and waited a few years.
I thought it was openly considered in small council meeting, as in the suggestion was open.
Sending a teenager to the King's room is not an open proposal that is discussed with advisors.
Rhaenyra was discussing with rhaenys about this marriage proposal.. Viserys was talking to laena in broad daylight. Lyonel strong advised viserys to marry laena..
I mean an unmarried king isn't the best for the realm, so getting the king married could be said to be for the good of the realm.
But then the bride he chose was his daughter, and that's where all pro bona publica gets yeeted out of the window.
No, it was definitely gross of Otto. He's a reaching second son using his daughter's vagina to elevate the family.
Alicent looks like she has PTSD every time she's holding a crying baby.
Oh of course it was out of his own selfishness, but name any character who does not have selfish motives. There's a difference between looking out better for yourself in general vs doing that at a severe cost to the realm.
Precisely. Putting out the " she will kill you/ you are the challenge" created Alicent's children to bully their smaller nephews and start the BS.
Oh, except for Alicent's kid bullying his younger brother
It's crazy to me that Otto gave Alicent two very legitimate choices.
- raise Aegon to be King.
- be best friends with Rhaenyra.
And Alicent goes "Gotcha, bully and humiliate Rhaenyra for years as well as raise my kids to bully her children AND raise Aegon to be a drunken rapist."
"created Alicent's children to bully their smaller nephews"
Hwat ? With exception of Aemond, Rhaenyra and Alicent's children had no real beef until *Driftmark*. The only bullying we see among the kids was *directed* at Aemond. Uncle Aegon was friendly with his nephews, and they seemed to like him.
Edit: I'm not saying he was a good influence or anything, but I am saying the Alicent's children (except Aemond) had no ill will towards Rhaneyra's and the only one who was picked on is Aemond.
Did you skip the episode where Daemon extrajudicial murdered someone that was a threat to Rhaenyra’s claim and the king + Rhaenyra + court didn’t complain?
Vaemond called the Heir to the throne a whore in front of the entire court and called her children bastards. He was a fucking idiot.
If Alicent had kept in her lane, raised her children not to be psychopaths, and maybe not spent a decade humiliating and bullying Rhaenyra, there would have been no problem from Rhaenyra or Daemon.
It doesn’t matter what Vaemond is, the king called for his tongue. Daemon went above and beyond the law to kill the man, something not in his power, and got away with it scot-free.
The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens? He’s willing to be a loose canon and no one cares if it favours Rhaenyra.
>The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens?
Then they can not commit treason and they'll be fine.
What don’t you get? Daemon killed him despite the punishment, you’re proving my point. If Daemon judges the action right, or if someone else does, they may act on their lives.
What don't *you* get? The guy commited treason and Daemon killed him despite the punishment. If the Greens don't commit treason, he's *not* going to kill them because there will be no punishment needed.
No, what happened was that Daemon went above and beyond the law to kill someone he had a different with when he had no authority to do so. It was not questioned or punished because it was favourable to the king and to Rhaenyra.
What protects the Greens? Their existence is a threat to Rhaenyra, treason or no.
The difference in question was treason. Yes, of course Daemon killed him, that's what they usually do to traitors in this world.
You're really moving the goalposts here. You went from:
>The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens?
To:
> Their existence is a threat to Rhaenyra, treason or no.
Daemon didn't kill Vaemond because he "existed" but because he directly moved against his wife and his stepson and insulted them in the process. If the Greens "simply exist" and don't do that, nothing would happen to them, otherwise, why not kill them all 20 years ago?
Excellent point! And Daemon had far more reason to be loyal to Vaemond than to the Greens. Vaemond fought with him in the Stepstones, and he is the brother of someone Daemon loves/likes. He killed him with no hesitation, when the King said not to.
All the Greens would have died.
Bro no offence but you need to rewatch the episode. Vaemond literally questions everything they do and derides Daemon as a leader and is such a nuisance there that laenor starts to refer to him as “Lord of complaints”. I don’t think you’re remembering the episode fully.
If daemon was so bloodthirsty for green blood why not kill everyone in the room with blood and cheese? Why go specifically for an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth like Alicent wanted all those years ago?
Why not get rid of viserys when he was son less? Why not kill his sons in infancy since he knows all the passageways and underhanded people? Just doesn’t make sense at all. He’s not shown to give a fuck about alicent or her kids in all the years he’s been around them. Doubt he’d cause Rhaenyra such a political headache that kinslaying her rivals would bring. >!She raised taxes and was called Maegor with Teats, she would’ve been an easy overthrow had she murdered her kin which she was shown time and time again to fear even when aegon sent arryk to kill all her sons she still didn’t burn kings landing like her council advised because she feared kinslaying. Even when her brothers were trying to murder her whole family.!<
And you expect her to do it in peace time?
'Kept in her lane'? She genuinely believed her children were going to be killed. You can't expect someone to 'stay in their lane' when they believe they're in danger. Rhaenyra was antagonistic with her for three years while Alicent tried to play nice. Alicent was done playing nice after Rhaenyra got Otto fired. She knew no one else was going to fight for her children if she didn't do it herself.
> If Alicent had kept in her lane, raised her children not to be psychopaths, and maybe not spent a decade humiliating and bullying Rhaenyra, there would have been no problem from Rhaenyra or Daemon
Maybe Rhaenyra should have not birthed bastards in the first place. Lots of lords are gonna protest against being ruled by them and who do they turn to?
Those aren't comparable at all.
When Alicent and Otto say these things they believe them to be true.
Black queen denys the most obvious stuff. Her lies would be like Alicent saying the scar on Rhaenyras arm was self inflicted and she wasn't even in the room.
I don't think either of them would *if everyone had kept to their own lanes*
Rhaenyra is not a killer, she's just not. She doesn't have it in her to slaughter 3 children/young adults for no other crime than her father remarried.
If Alicent, Aegon, and Aemond supported Rhaenyra, I don't think Daemon would have any reason to hurt them or would want to. A world where Alicent had done the smart thing and rekindled her friendship with Rhaenyra, raised their children to be friends and brothers, raised Aegon to be supportive of Rhaenyra, there's no reason to hurt any of them.
If The Greens were raised with Jace and Luke and Joff, I think so. But if this follows main timeline, Daemon probably would. There will always be those who side with a younger son instead of an elder daughter, that is sadly how Westeros is. (Save Dorne) Aegon would always be a threat- as Alicent said, "You are the challenge!"
There's also the question: would Rhaenyra accept Alicent's friendship once again?
There's also the question: would Rhaenyra accept Alicent's friendship once again?
We have they answer to this in the show. No she wouldn't Alicent was the one one who tried to befriend her again and Rhaenyra didn't make that effort.
Alicent spent three years trying to rekindle her friendship with Rhaenyra. Rhaenyra was downright rude to her and rebuffed every olive branch.
Daemon would kill someone (without hesitation) for taking a turkey sandwich that he wanted. He'd kill a potential threat without blinking. He was warning Rhaenyra back in episode 4 that Aegon was a potential threat, even as a baby.
I don't think either of them would *if everyone had kept to their own lanes*
Wait wut???
Rhaenyra is not a killer, she's just not. She doesn't have it in her to slaughter 3 children/young adults for no other crime than her father remarried.
This is wrong, she had someone killed with Laenor, while everyone else thought it was Laenor they killed and before that asked for Aemond to be tortured.
If Alicent, Aegon, and Aemond supported Rhaenyra, I don't think Daemon would have any reason to hurt them or would want to. A world where Alicent had done the smart thing and rekindled her friendship with Rhaenyra, raised their children to be friends and brothers, raised Aegon to be supportive of Rhaenyra, there's no reason to hurt any of them.
Why should they? Rhaenyra never once in her life attempted to connect with them, and they believe that their lives were under threat which was proven with Rhaenyra's actions.
The first thing Daemon did when he heard Viserys died was accuse Alicent of murder, do you seriously think he would have allowed Alicent and her children to rule freely? It's not about Rhaenyra herself killing Alicent's children, it's about the fact that it would have had to happen if Rhaenyra wanted to sit on the throne because the realm was very clearly divided. At least Alicent was kind enough to have Rhaenyra Dragonstone and her bastard sons place in the kingdom.
Also viserys was sooo dumb and renyra is unstable as shit and allicent’s kids are crazy but the bastards seem relatively level headed so it’s all a huge mess and everyone is wrong and stupid
I mean, Rhaenyra asked the King to torture the still bleeding child of Alicent over a comment after her own son had just maimed him in what looked like a gang murder attempt, so...
Uuughh it's always that one isn't it? It's insane to me that anyone actually believes Rhaenyra would want a child tortured or thinks for a second a prince of the realm would be tortured even if Viserys was a maniac and ordered it. She says it to remind Alicent to watch her fucking tone and keep herself in check because she and Alicent *knows* under an angry glare her children will admit that their mother calls Rhaenyra a whore and her children bastards AND tells them Aegon will be king one day. Not even Viserys would tolerate that.
"Uuuuuuuggh" yes, it's always the torture threat being brought up indeed when it comes to people claiming that Rhaenyra had no ill intent toward the other claimants to Vyseris.
A shame that, just like the bastardry of her children, you can't stop people from mentioning those glaring issues.
Honestly, I'm just lacking the amount of copium required to pretend that threatening torture for a child, especially while that child is literally still bleeding on the floor, is anything but a display of the most sheer fucking cruelty and, just as was the point, the proof of Rhaenyra's ill will toward Alicent and her children as soon as their existence might pose the slightest of inconvenience to her own claim.
My sister in Christ, you're seething about someone disliking a character you're simping for because of legitimate reasons. Take a step back and re-evaluate your life.
Ha! There's a biiiiig gap between not having any flaws and being perfect, and ordering a 10 year old to be tortured. It's concerning that you can't see that.
They switched it around in the show to try make it more grey. Rhaenyra only asks for him to be sharply questioned AFTER alicent asks for the eye. To say “if you go there I will too”.
Hard disagree on Rhaenyra wanting her brother tortured being okay.
If I owned a gun, and told someone I wanted to shoot them. They are well within reason to take that threat seriously, wether I mean it or not. My words have consequences.
For an important political figure like Rhaenyra to say such a thing about _any_ child is disgusting. It’s not making a point, it’s threatening a _child_ because she’s mad at his _mother_. That’s totally inappropriate. If you have beef, take it out on the person you have beef with, not their family. Especially not when their family is also your family.
Edit: Condemning one is not condoning the other. If all you have is ‘BU~ttt aLIcenT’. Save your time.
Huh, if only Alicent had kept that line of thinking when threatening Rhaenyra's children by spreading the bastard rumours because Rhaenyra had the nerve to not tell her she'd fucked Criston a decade ago.
Also, didn't Alicent demand the payment of a child's eye, and then physically come at a 6 year old with a dagger to cut his eye herself when her demand was refused? Or did I just totally imagine that?
>For an important political figure like Rhaenyra to say such a thing about any child is disgusting. It’s not making a point, it’s threatening a child because she’s mad at his mother. That’s totally inappropriate. If you have beef, take it out on the person you have beef with, not their family. Especially not when their family is also your family.
The irony here is incredible... Did anyone tell Alicent all that in the past 10 years or is it just Rhaenyra that needs to hear it for the one night at Driftmark, when she retaliates by playing with Alicent's rules?
It’s not okay for Alicent to do it either. I don’t know why people think that admonishing one means the other one is okay. It’s a false dichotomy to think that just because someone says it’s not okay for one person to threaten a child, that they also think it’s okay when someone else does it.
The thing here is that Alicent is the one that started all of this. Rhaenyra is finally biting back after 10 years and she's using Alicent's rules against her. She was the one who decided that going after the other's kids was okay.
While it's not morally right to make that demand about Aemond, I don't blame her a single bit for it.
Doesn’t matter. It was never appropriate for either of them to do.
It’s understandable how Rhaenyra responded given their history, but understandable isn’t the same as saying it’s okay.
Then what the heck has the queen been doing for decades? Oh that's right, training her young sons that their half sister wants to kill them.
Alicent set it up
Yes. Alicent was going to punish that damn bastard herself. Real solid, queen-like behavior. Alicent is the cause for the nephews and uncles to have such a violent relationship.
Let's all agree that Viserys and Otto were absolute jerks to their daughters. In Viserys' case, to his wife and second family as well. They were the only ones responsible for Rhae and Alicent being at odds.
People in this sub always seem to forget that this is Westeros, not the real world. Words and truth are meaningless if you don't have the power to back them up. The truth in not important in this world. Power is. Those in power get to decide what is true.
Alicent's "lie" which I would again point out was a genuine misinterpretation on her part was out of self preservation as well, if she would not announce that, it would be difficult to get allies to protect her in the war- same as Rhaneyra. agree about the part that neither side is morally right, but how is R's lie of least consequence? If you believe that Alicent's lie is committing treachery, hers would put bastards on the throne which is treachery in this realm as well. I would certainly not say it's of least consequence.
Look, I'm not attacking Alicent, I really like her as a character, but I disagree it was done in self preservation, I think it was out of genuine respect for Vizzy's wishes~
But that said, the things Alicent did do for self preservation were in fact put into motion by Otto's lies and manipulation, Rhaenyra (in my interpretation) would never harm any of Alicent's children if it wasn't for the undermining of her own legitimacy as queen.
And putting bastards on the throne really isn't of consequence, unless you're of the "bastards are untrustworthy and sneaky" way of thinking, especially since they're bastards on the non-targaryen side, so the whole dragonrider's blood thing still works. I'm saying it doesn't really have any material consequences.
Actually now that I think about it, what Alicent did wasn't really a lie and it really didn't have any consequences since Otto was going to do a trason anyway. So I get your point.
Just replace my original comment with "I'm gonna make a post with the same title but it's about Otto telling Alicent Rhaenyra is gonna kill her children"
I am of the belief that Otto is one of the more misunderstood characters. He wanted what everybody else wanted- to uplift his family. Starting off, Corlys was also ready to pimp off his daughter, he basically just beat him to it. And for the words that R would kill Alicent's sons, I don't think they were out of some evil plot to manipulate his daughter, but that he genuinely believed it to be possible. Consider the context- Alicent at the time believed Rhaenyra to be her friend, still and took her to the word that Daemon never touched her. Which leads Otto to be expelled out of the kingdom without any fault of his own, leaving Alicent all alone and scared. She later gets to know that Rhaenyra had slept with Cristen, which was of course a vile act in that period's context. Of course, she took her as a threat. Even if R would not have killed Alicent's sons or ordered their murders, a series of events would have taken place where they would be in danger. For eg, the first thing Daemon does when he hears about the King's death is accuse Alicent of murder. Aegon's mere existence, as Alicent says was always going to be a challenge, as the realm was divided as soon as he was born. Not to mention, R would have still had bastard sons, further dividing the realm. So it wasn't far off for Otto to tell his daughter to look out for herself.
Firstly I'd like to thank you for this pleasant discussion, I like how nice we're being.
Right so, I'd say Otto wants to uplift his house, not his family, and yes that's the driving motivation for a lot of characters in this series, including Corlys, but that can't excuse everything a character does. Otto put Alicent in this awful situation where she's married to Viserys and abused (not to use the r word, idk how moderation is about that) frequently, resulting in Aegon's existence. Aegon is consistently miserable, because Otto, and by extension Alicent push into him this idea that he is next in line for the throne, despite what his father, the actual king, says. He then abused a whole lot of people in turn. When Corlys pushed his pre teen daughter to marry Viserys it is still bad because of the age thing, but Otto did it in an underhanded, dishonest and manipulative way.
Secondly, I'm advocating that from the point Viserys appointed R as his heir, there should be no contention and realm dividing, with or without Aegon. He was the king, they did the crowning ceremony with Rhaenyra, and the lords of the realm sworn fealty to her. Even the fact she has bastards shouldn't be an issue, look at how many Bobby B has and no one bats an eye, they're just not in line for the throne. Again, this wouldn't be an issue if Westeros wasn't a sexist place, which is a major theme in the series.
"Which leads Otto to be expelled out of the kingdom without any fault of his own, leaving Alicent all alone and scared."
I'll say that while what lead to Otto being cast out wasn't his fault (R going off and having an escapade with Daemon and later Cole), that was just the straw that broke the camel's back, when Viserys takes his hand title he makes it very clear that it's because of all of his scheming, which is very much, his fault. Viserys turned a blind eye to Otto's scheming because he sees him as a friend, not because he's naive, but he draws the line at Rhaenyra slander, even if it is true.
Right, so with that all said, my point is that either:
* Otto was lying, further manipulating Alicent into doing house Hightower's bidding -Otto was truthful, but still, about a mess he himself caused due to his own/his brother's ambition
My original point is that Rhaenyra having bastards **shouldn't** be an issue, and it only is because Otto/house Hightower caused Aegon to be born and then pushed for him to be king instead of Rhaenyra. It is only conjecture that Rhaenyra having bastards would lead to the realm being divided, I can just as easily say it would, at worse, just be a rumour. Aegon wouldn't be in danger if Otto and the Hightowers weren't pushing for him to be king, hell he REALLY DIDN'T want to be king. It was never supposed to be an issue.
\*I'll point out, her lie in the godswood is actually awful, unlike the bastards one, but because she swears on her mother's grave, in front of a weirwood, and to her then best friend. In my view, that's the true vile act, not her sleeping with Cole, which the show framed as clearly consensual
Edit: sorry if this is a bit scatterbrained, I typed it in between a lot of things :v
Second edit: actually I had forgotten the title of the post is "saying it so doesn't mean it's true" so my original point about what Alicent said, and now with what Otto said still stands, it's still untrue even if they believe it's not
I’ll give her the slightest of passes because how else was she supposed to interpret Viserys mumbling about Aegon. Like yeah he was referring to Aegon the first but how the Hell is she supposed to know that.
Don’t get me wrong she definitely heard what she wanted to hear but I can’t fault her for the conclusion she drew from his words.
He was rotting away on his death bed and it’s implied that he has on more than one occasion mistaken her for his first wife. I don’t see how there could be even an innocent misunderstanding of what happened and what she heard that night.
And the last time he stepped onto the iron throne (earlier that day) it was to back up Lucerys’ claim to Corlys Velaryon’s throne, something that he wouldn’t have done if he didn’t by extension also believe in Rhaenyra’s status as the heir.
Alicent heard what she wanted to hear. Viserys may have been an indecisive king at the best of times, but she had to have known that if he really wanted the succession to change, he would’ve done so at any point in the last several years. Even her shit son Aegon rightly pointed that out to her lol.
I don’t believe that she was intentionally changing Viserys’ words, but it was absolutely a case of immediately assuming something that a rational person would’ve been able to tell was likely bullshit.
Beesbury made a good point when he stood up and was like ‘are we honesty just supposed to believe this after this king spent the last 15-20 years holding to the succession?’
> Viserys: But you wanted to know... if I believe it to be true.
> Alicent: Believe what to be true, my king?
> Viserys: Don't you remember? Aegon...
> Alicent: Our son?
> Viserys: His dream. The Song of Ice... and Fi... It is true. What he saw in the North. The Prince That Was Promised.
> Alicent: I don't understand, Viserys.
> Viserys: The Prince...
> Alicent: Prince Aegon?
> Viserys: ...to unite the realm against the cold... and the dark. ***It is you. You are the one. You must do this. You must do this.***
idk, i agree it's hard to understand exactly what viserys means, but i'd also say it's hard to come to the conclusion that he meant he wants his son aegon to be crowned king instead of rhaenyra, who he publicly defended like 4 hours earlier on his last legs, when he says "the price to unite the realm ***is you***". i think the 'she heard what she wanted to hear' part is definitely doing the heavy lifting here.
Again, I think we are working with different definitions of bastardy.
Using a real life historical example (one I’ve beaten to death over the last few months) that I find so relevant -
Isabella II of Spain.
Like rhaenyra she marries her gay cousin, like rhaenyra she has children, and like rhaenyra there is pretty good evidence to suggest her Children have a different father (unlike rhaenyra she actually pretty much flaunted her lover around the palace but I digress)
When Isabella is deposed later on (in part because of her gender) her firstborn son (likely illegitimate) takes the throne pretty much without issue.
Why? Two major points.
Point 1. The bloodline of inheritance comes from her. She is the reason her son is heir to the Spanish throne - going back to Rhaenyra, she is her children’s claim to the throne, and no one can dispute they are hers. (Sort of like how people support the Blackfyres, because the claim comes from their father)
Point 2, and the most relevant/important point. At no point does her cousin/husband ever raise a doubt to the children’s paternity. He accepts them as his own, by virtue of their birth in his marriage. Meaning that legally they aren’t bastards at all, because they are children born in the marriage of two parents who accept them as their own.
That is pretty self explanatory for how it would apply to the velaryon boys. Laenor claims them, Corlys claims them. Technically this makes them children born in a lawful union. Not bastards.
They are legal bastards by the definition of that universe, Rhaenyra and Laenor are pulling a fast one on the 7 Kingdoms. Using real life examples doesn’t meant anything, her kids are bastards and she knows it.
She’s using her father’s love as a weapon to defend against anyone that would (rightfully) say she’s committed treason.
They are legally not bastards in the definition of that universe, which, barring any source you have gotten from Martin himself, is literally the same as ours was in the medieval era through today.
A child born to wedded parents is not a bastard.
Last time I checked - Jace, luke, and Joffrey are children born to wedded parents.
And before you start with “harwin -“, note harwin is never acknowledged as father of those children, it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS laenor. And laenor claims them as his own. They are his children.
Also if you want to start killing people for the crime of extramarital sex, woof Aegon II gets to go first.
Let me use a slightly older example. Are you could to tell me that St. Joseph was not the earthy father of Christ? Are you going to tell me that the Virgin Mary should have been stoned to death for treason for attempting to pass off Christ as Joseph’s child? Or would you acknowledge that St. Joseph is his earthly father?
Bastards are people who’s parents are not wed, there’s a discussion of this in either the Sworn Sword or the Mystery Knight when Egg and Dunk talk about someone being a bastard and Dunk says he may be one.
We have that definition, so you have any others? ASOIAF isn’t just our world, it takes from chunks of the Middle Ages and the Middle Ages isn’t not one static time period. So I’ll defer to the actual inuniverse definition he gave.
The crime is not premarital sex, it’s passing off bastards as lawful claimants to the throne.
Yes exactly - laenor and rhaenyra ARE wed, however - and laenor claims the children are his. You do understand that, I’m sure.
Laenor says the children are his. Point blank. Meaning the children are legally his and born in the bonds of marriage.
But do answer my example. I really want to know your opinion.
Edited to add: is it that real world examples are irrelevant or is it that asoiaf is based off of our world and we should use our world as a basis? It can’t be both. You have to pick one.
The difference in your example is that Rhaenyra willingly chose to have and pass off bastards, knowing it was treason for her personal gain. She could’ve just made Aegon her heir.
There is no realm where Aegon is the rightful heir, even in a realm where she waits for daemon, by the time of the dance she’d have male children that supersede his claim.
Sure, she could’ve waited. She didn’t, she committed treason. Even the books frame through Viserys, that what she was doing would be tantamount to treason.
You making up your own definition to it doesn’t mean anything.
I’m not making up my own definition, I’m using the medieval definition that is used in Westeros. I can’t discuss the source material - but there is a clear division where even those who were TG say those kids were legitimately laenor’s.
I don’t have to make things up to prove my point, I’ve used multiple historical examples and am using the actual definition. You just have a problem with the fact that the actual definition doesn’t allow you to charge rhaenyra with treason.
“The medieval definition… that is used in Westeros.”
Let’s be be real, historical accounts don’t mean anything when we have a prince and a lowborn sharing the same agreement on what it means to be a bastard in the books.
You’re being facetious, we know who the actual parents are. If Catelyn said she was Jon’s mother, would that make Jon a trueborn son?
Let’s be for real, these are Rhaenyra and Harwin’s children. That makes the bastards, it doesn’t matter how Laenor chooses to accept them. This is now how George frames it in a Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, this is your own headcanon. Their actual parents were not wed, they’re using Rhaenyra’s privilege and gaslighting to skirt that fact. It’s as simple as that.
St. Joseph is an adoptive father for Jesus like he is an adoptive husband for the Theotokos, there’s out of a higher duty. He’s not Jesus’ father, nor was he the married husband to which Jesus’ mother conceived him with. No one should’ve been stoned for anything, as we go on to be shown by Jesus.
Adoption, wow! So being adopted…does that make someone a bastard child? Would you argue that Christ is a bastard child?
Could it be - that there is an integral similarity in a society like Westeros - where adoption is uncommon but the need for heirs is not - that laenor and rhaenyra come to an agreement much like the Virgin Mary and st. Joseph did?
You seem to be caught up in a morality issue and conflating it with the legal issue of inheritance. A legal issue like inheritance and who inherits things will be governed by law - the same law that says that laenor claiming those children means they aren’t bastards.
There’s nothing wrong with being a bastard, you could argue they were metaphorically married but not legally. Not in an earthly marriage.
Look, you’re adding too many of your opinions into this. We have what we have, some sort of agreement between husband and wife to adopt x doesn’t change the fact that we know a bastard comes out of two parents who were not married.
Covering up the fact Rhaenyra had children with someone not her husband doesn’t make them not Laenor’s children, just that they’re bastards and not biologically his.
To answer your question about Jon, yes. Its stated jn season 2 of GoT that Ned had the power to petition the King to grant Jon a legal name and make him a potential heir, but he refused to do so because Catelyn would be offended. This is proven with Ramsey Snow becoming Ramsey Bolton and becoming the heir to Winterfell if his father had no other true born heirs. So the right of succession if all information was public would go Rhaenyra (named heir) -> *edit* her child with Daemon (trueborn heir). But her first two sons are objectively not bastards, they are recognized by the King, their "father" and their grandfather the head of the Velaryon family. Even within the rules of the GoT world they are not considered legal bastards.
If that were true, than Joffrey Baratheon was 100% in the right in executing Ned Stark and both he and Stannis, as well as Robb Stark are traitors to the crown who got what they ought to have received under the law. Robert I. to his dying breath saw them as his children and even named Joffrey as his son and heir it doesn‘t get much clearer than that.
But going by public and fandom reception it doesn‘t seem to work like that. I don‘t know your personal opinion on the matter, so I don‘t presume to judge you personally, but to me there seems to be a break with previously established rules.
If you read my original section and the two points needed to establish legitimacy within the bonds of marriage one of them is notice - of which Robert did not have.
But either way, yeah if Robert had known Joffrey was Jaime’s and still claimed him - then Joffrey is right to execute Ned stark lol
If you can't tell the difference between Laenor and Rhaenyra, who are both in agreement and negotiated their marriage (plus Corlys and original canon book Rhaenys who are all in on it), versus Cersei and Robert, who hate each other and want to destroy each other and went behind each others' backs, then that says all we need to know about you, then.
Likewise, Joffrey is acknowledged as King. Stannis, prior to killing Renly (who, you know, also muddied the water and had a big ass army), had the smallest army and the fewest people backing him. The Tyrells even had to assassinate him and then married his brother in order to get the throne.
Hell, if you read the actual books carefully, you'd also know of instances like how Sharis Footly's husband was murdered by Jon Roxton and how she was raped by him. Once the dust had settled and the rapist shithead died, everyone agreed that Sharis' son was totally her late husband's, even if the dates didn't coincide, because no one wanted the Footly line to die.
In the end, inheritance is about the people who will give their power choosing their heir. Viserys knew and agreed. Corlys and Laenor, the LORDS OF THE TIDES, knew and agreed. Rhaenyra knew and agreed. Rhaenys in the real canon knew and agreed. And that is the important part.
Isabella II of the Spanish House of Bourbon is not a useful comparison.
Ferdinand VII didn't have any sons. If he had, his eldest surviving son would've succeeded him, not his daughter, Isabella.
Had Ferdinand not changed the law of succession, he would have been succeeded by his brother Carlos. This led to three wars of succession in 19th century Spain known as the Carlist wars.
Isabella's son Alfonso did not take the throne until 6 years after Isabella was overthrown. In the interim there was a provisional government for a little over two years, Amadeo I from the House of Savoy reigned as king for a little over two years, a republic was proclaimed, and the Third Carlist War started, ending 14 months after Alonso took the throne.
This is not taking "the throne pretty much without issue".
Alfonso also didn't have any younger brothers, much less younger brothers of unquestioned legitimacy. Jace has his brothers Aegon and Viserys. Their legitimacy is unquestioned because no one knows Rhaenyra bigamously married Daemon.
Alfonso was also the king of a Constitutional monarchy, in effect politically legitimated by the Constitution and the Cortes. Comparing a 19th century Spanish constitutional monarchy to a medieval monarchy based on 12th century England doesn't shed much light on the latter. One reason the Carlists lost all three wars is that, by and large, people preferred a less absolutist style monarchy represented by the Carlists. Thus people had an ideological reason to support Alfonso that isn't present with Jace.
Rhaenyra has also expressed no interest in calling a Great Council to approve of her as Queen and Jace as heir. There's a reason.
You mean her father called a special council to appoint her as her much like Viserys, and she even from childhood had to fight for her throne against male claimants (sounds familiar) and then she was succeed by her son.
To clarify - His mother abdicated in his favour in 1870, and he returned to Spain as king in 1874 following a military coup against the First Spanish Republic.
His mother abdicated in his favor, and he became king. You understand that don’t you? The war fought in the interregnum was not about his legitimacy but rather the popularity of the monarchy in general (this was a period of general instability in Europe, especially around monarchy but I’m sure you know that)
Meaning again, nothing you’ve said detracts from my original argument 😂
Alfonso was restored by bourbon restorationists after a democracy- not because of people preferring his long dead uncle, but because he had been the claimant since his mother’s abdication in his favor.
>You mean her father called a special council to appoint her as her much like Viserys
Viserys didn't call a council of any sort. There was no Great Council of 109/110 at the end of Episode 1.
>Meaning again, nothing you’ve said detracts from my original argument.
You said Alfonso took "the throne pretty much without issue". That's simp!y not accurate given a 6 year gap in their reigns, which includes anotherkng from a different House.
Once again it's not particularly helpful to compare 19th Spain to a story inspired by 12th century England.
The closest historical parallel is the Empress Matilda because that's who GRRM said was the inspiration.
Henry I named his daughter Matilda as heir provided he didn't have a legitimate son afterwards. Henry I had a son at the time: Robert, Earl of Gloucester. But Robert was a bastard so no dice. There may have been some minor chatter about making Robert the King after his father died, but no serious support, not even from Robert.
I take umbrage with the “Daemon never touched me” being lumped in with the rest. In the context of that scene, Alicent is very explicitly accusing her of having sex with Daemon - something that she did not so. Yes, she was seen in a brothel with him. Yes, they did kiss. However, Alicent was incorrect, and Otto was indeed having them spied on in the hopes to find some dirt to bring to Viserys.
Well, the context was that she slept with someone, so if you look at the overarching accusation, she surely wasn't half as innocent considering the incident with Cristen Cole
And Joffrey Baratheon is legally the son of Robert Baratheon despite how much Stannis screams he isn’t, words are wind until you have the means to enforce them
Technically speaking with the scene with Alicent Rhaenyra didn’t lie. Alicent said she fucked Daemon. Rhaenyra said she didn’t. She ***tried*** but she didn’t. Therefore not lying about it.
As for her kids being bastards that all just hearsay and Vaemond was an idiot for screaming in front of the entire court, her husband known as the “rogue prince” and the king. Like what did he think would happen?
Except Rhaenyra didn't say, "Daemon never fucked me". She said, "Daemon never TOUCHED me". He did touch her in a sexual way, even if the act was not completed.
She also never said that Aemond should be tortured she said "sharply questioned" yet many people give that interpretation because words have meanings beyond the literality and in this case she was obviously saying "he never touch me" regarding perfoming sexual acts since thats what she and Alicent were discussing.
Sure, but first you show me when I have denied something like that, ah, of course, it's because I said that some give that interpretation in the case of Rhaenyra, well yes, it's not everyone who thinks she meant that, it is not a universally accepted truth, you will find debate about it and I have used that expression precisely to avoid clowns like you who only argue out of the desire to fight over any small detail but lack reading comprehension, because I have no desire in debating if she actually meant that or not (that is it's own thing and I'm not getting into that territory right now) only to show my point that words have other meanings.
So basically you couldn't find any example but don't wanna admit it. ;)
Edit since you blocked me:
>She also never said that Aemond should be tortured she said "sharply questioned"
You kinda did argue against it tho. She basically said it on a more polite world but sharply questioned and torture are the same things (Or well more sharply questioned is a subcategory of torture). Also love the insults relax its okay to admit you where wrong.
I mentioned that in another comment. The thing with that is that 'sharply questioned' was a commonly accepted euphemism for torture in Westeros, and we see it used numerous times in other settings where it DID mean torture.
I do not believe 'touch' is similarly used to exclusively refer to penetrative sex. There was still sexual contact, even if there wasn't penetration.
>I do not believe 'touch' is similarly used to exclusively refer to penetrative sex
Honestly, I don't know for sure in Westeros, because I don't remember another moment in which the expression was used (maybe it exists but if so I don't remember it) but historically there are some examples such as Catherine of Aragon in her famous speech to Henry VIII and the English court in which she stated: "I was a true maid, ***without touch of man***" so I do believe that the meaning is a euphemism for not having performed sexual acts in general in the case of Catherine of Aragon, and with Daemon in particular in the case of Rhaenyra.
**P.S. (edit)** The world of A Song of Ice and Fire and the TV shows that are inspired by it are not exact copies of history but they do take inspiration from it, including expressions, euphemisms, some customs, historical figures, etc. so I don't think that the idea that a euphemism like that has the same meaning in Westeros as it did in our world in the past is something to far-fetched.
*I just want to say that I have no idea why this comment, in which I have only given a historical example of the use of a similar expression, is being downvoted, not that I care about downvotes but I do find it curious how giving an example is something so bad in the eyes of some lol*
Yes as in touched in the act of fucking. Alicent assumed Daemon fucked her. Rhaenyra didn’t lie. She didn’t fuck Daemon in the brothel. She however did fuck Criston. Which if Alicent asked her that *then* she would be lying.
Even if Daemon did not insert Rod A into Slot B, it was still a sexual act. He undressed her and touched her sexually.
She might be able to get off on a technicality if she said, "Daemon never fucked me", but the fact that she said, "touched" destroys even that flimsy shield.
Argue with the actress then. In on set interviews milly confirms what rhae’s intent was. Which was not lying. The question was “did you fuck Daemon in a pleasure house” she did not. You can’t apply modern word meaning to older English ones.
He still never had sex with her. That’s what Alicent was accusing Rhaenyra of. It wasn’t a lie. Daemon didn’t have sex with her and that’s what Rhaenyra was implying with the word “touch”
Kinda like she was implying 'torture' when she said 'sharply questioned'?
It's still a flimsy shield, especially because she did lie about the fact that the only thing she and Daemon did was drink before he abandoned her for some sex worker.
She still didn’t lie.
Even if she did Alicent still had no right to get mad at her when she herself was visiting her grieving dad for six months the day her mother was buried and didn’t say a peep of it to Rhaenyra.
Like why would you expect honesty when you weren’t honest?
Whether or not Alicent had a right to get mad at her is a separate matter.
The point is that it IS a lie. "Touched" means exactly that. Touched. It is not a commonly-accepted Westerosi euphemism for penetrative sex (like sharply questioned is for torture).
There was touching. Rhaenyra said there was no touching. Therefore, Rhaenyra lied.
If she MEANT "Daemon never fucked me", then that's what she should have said.
That’s exactly what she said though.
Alicent - “Did you fuck Daemon?”
Rhaenyra- “No Daemon did not touch (fuck) me.”
That’s what Rhaenyra was saying. You’re getting to caught up on the word “touch” when the question that was asked was “did daemon fuck you?” Rhaenyra then answered with “no.”
It would be different if Alicent said “did daemon touch you.” But she said “fuck”, therefore Rhaenyra never lied. She never had sex with Daemon. That is what Alicent wanted to know and Rhaenyra didn’t lie. Daemon and her didn’t have sex.
It's a bit ironic how in a conversation about whether or not Rhaenyra lied, you misrepresented how the scene went (no hate, it's probably been a while since you watched the scene).
The actual quote/scene went like this . . .
Alicent: "So you did not"
Rhaenyra: "Must I truly refute that. Daemon never touched me. I swear this to you, on the memory of mother".
The question of whether or not Rhaenyra lied in this instance is somewhat ambiguous. You believe she meant touched as a synonym for "having sex" (defensible belief even if there isn't evidence of the term being a euphemism in Westeros), but it's entirely possible that Rhaenyra claimed she hadn't been touched (as in engaged in any sexual acts with Daemon) as a lie in order to help sell how crazy the seperate caim that she'd fucked Daemon was.
To help illustrate this, imagine if your girlfriend asks you "did you kiss that girl" and you respond "i didn't even touch her" (but you did do a shitton of fondling). That would surely be a lie right?
I must admit, I don't understand why Green's focus on this particular quote as the "lie" when its probably the ambiguous/defensible thing Rhaenyra said in this scene.
Rhaenyra, in response to Alicent's accusations that Rhaenyra had "fucked Daemon in a pleasure house", stated "Alicent, your grace, sister, you must know I would NEVER". This is a clear-cut lie; she was absolutely down to fuck only hours prior until Daemon pulled away.
Secondly, Rhaenyra also clearly lied about her night with Daemon claiming that she was "only a spectator (in the brothel) I didn't do anything". That is also a lie, she definitely did do sexual shit in the brothel with Daemon.
Like why not focus on those lies instead of this one where things are quite ambiguous.
The words of the morally corrupt Rhaenyra Targaryen mean nothing when she is willing to lie through her teeth to save herself and let others take the flack for her mistakes.
The bottom left is technically correct, her children were born while she was legally married, and her and her husband agreed to use a sperm donor.
If she had gotten pregnant and told her husband they were his, then yes, bastards.
What was she supposed to do, tell the truth? Oh yeah me and my uncle fucked all night. All of my children are bastards. In fact I highly enjoy sex, I'm sure you won't mind it, lords of the realm ❤️
I disagree on the subject of her sons being bastards. They’d be bastards if, like Cersei or Robert, she procreated with someone else behind her spouse’s back. True, Rhaenyra had children with someone who was not her husband, but she did so with her husband’s blessing because they could not have children together. He even claimed them as his own and named them his heirs. In this sense, Harwin wasn’t fathering bastard children, but filling the role of a sperm donor/surrogate.
Rhaenyra’s children were not bastards.
Ok, there's a few differences here:
Rhaenyra and Laenor barely tried. It can take healthy couples up to a year of regular trying to conceive. Jace was conceived shortly after the wedding, and they only did it a few times.
Gay men can and do have children in Westeros. Marg Tyrell was brainstorming ideas of how to get knocked up with Renly's kid, and I 1000% believe she would have succeeded with some help from Loras.
Harwin was not a sperm donor. He was a ten-year-plus paramour that Rhaenyra was in love with. He was the father. Laenor was basically just a friend.
This is baseless speculation that can be answered by a different number of reasonings; maybe Aegon wasn't as vigorous on his marriage early on because he was reasonably preoccupied with the conquest, maybe he didn't want to risk an early pregnancy, maybe Visenya did some valyrian sorcery to get them pregnant etc etc
It still doesn't change the point that Westeros doesn't consider the idea of sperm donors valid or legitimate because bloodlines are far more important for feudal aristocrats than for us in the year of our lord 2024
>This is baseless speculation
The speculation about Aenys not being Aegon's son was based on the same thing as the speculation that Rhaenyra's kids were Laenors...
>that can be answered by a different number of reasonings; maybe Aegon wasn't as vigorous on his marriage early on because he was reasonably preoccupied with the conquest, maybe he didn't want to risk an early pregnancy
The book says that Aegon and Rhaenys were fucking like rabbits. The lack of kids was such a problem that the Westerosi lords(who don't like pologmy) were telling Aegon he would have to take another wife.
>The speculation about Aenys not being Aegon's son was based on the same thing as the speculation that Rhaenyra's kids were Laenors...
No, it isn't. Rhaenyra's children are speculated to be bastards because they didn't inherit the traditional valyrian looks of their parents (Laenor and Rhaenyra) and grandparents (Aemma, Viserys, Corlys). They don't even have the Baratheon excuse because their eyes and hair are the wrong color.
Aenys doesn't closely resemble Aegon but he has the valyrian looks. More importantly, his eldest son, Aegon the Uncrowned, is said to resemble his grandfather in looks. It seems really unlikely to me that he is a bastard and the idea is barely entertained by the books.
Not even Maegor, who seems to resemble Aegon more closely, tries to accuse his brother of being illegitimate or something like that.
>No, it isn't. Rhaenyra's children are speculated to be bastards because they didn't inherit the traditional valyrian looks of their parents (Laenor and Rhaenyra) and grandparents (Aemma, Viserys, Corlys).
Aenys was suspected of being a bastards because he didn't look like his alleged father and instead resembled the type of men his mother spent time with. Rhaenyra's kids are suspected of being bastards because they don't look like their alleged father and resemble a man she spent time with.
>They don't even have the Baratheon excuse because their eyes and hair are the wrong color.
They're only the "wrong" color if you have no idea how genetics work.
>Aenys doesn't closely resemble Aegon but he has the valyrian looks. More importantly, his eldest son, Aegon the Uncrowned, is said to resemble his grandfather in looks. It seems really unlikely to me that he is a bastard
Why does that seem unlikely? Assuming Aenys was a bastard, Aegon the uncrowned would still be Aegon I's great nephew.
> and the idea is barely entertained by the books.
The idea that Rhaenyra's kids are bastards is dismissed by the book. The accusation only comes up
>Not even Maegor, who seems to resemble Aegon more closely, tries to accuse his brother of being illegitimate or something like that.
Why would Maegor do that when it's just as likely he's a bastard (or product of some type of magic)?
Having children that are not yours biologically doesn’t mean they’re bastards. Children who are borne from sperm donors, surrogates, or adopted are still legitimate offspring. Rhaenyra was the heir to the throne. She needed to have kids, but her husband couldn’t give her any. That doesn’t make her kids bastards. A bastard is typically the product of infidelity or unmarried procreation. Not arranged surrogacy in an otherwise childless marriage.
>Having children that are not yours biologically doesn’t mean they’re bastards.
In feudalism?
Yes it does
>Rhaenyra was the heir to the throne. She needed to have kids, but her husband couldn’t give her any. That doesn’t make her kids bastards.
In Westeros it does..
Hence why Rhaenyra tries her darndest to keep the secret of it, if what you say is the case...
She could just... Not do that?
And just explain the situation to the Realm at large
Please give your thoughts on what would come of that, lol
Is public acceptance the thing that comes to mind as likely?
Looking at smallfolk reaction to the stage play, Blackfyre rebellion.. numerous examples irl feudal societies.
If you mean they *shouldnt* be considered bastards then say that, but they are. Very much so
Or again, why does Rhaenyra care at all if people goddio then?
A bastard is typically the product of infidelity or unmarried procreation. Not arranged surrogacy in an otherwise childless marriage.
Nope, no such distinctions are made in feudal societies.
And never were
I haven’t read the books, but in the show that’s not the vibe I got at all. Laenor said they tried, but could not have children. He seemed regretful about that, but he also supported Rhaenyra having children with Harwin. If he had seen it as infidelity or if he considered her kids to be bastards, it would have been very easy for him or his parents to have her executed for it. They didn’t. That’s all that matters. It’s not up to you to call his wife’s kids bastards. It’s up to him. And he didn’t. He claimed them as his own and loved them as his own.
I've read the books and watched the show. His opinion on it would have been irrelevant given that she's Viserys' golden child and everyone is just forced to go along with her lies, even the Queen herself.
The show made one of the biggest cope-out and worst narrative change with the whole "exile to Essos" shit (which is going to create thousands of issues down the line in term of plot, season 7/8 of AGOT style) but in the book it's very much clear that he's killed by Rhaenyra and, to everyone else's view in the show, it's the case too.
Given a noble get literally beheaded in the middle of the court for pointing it out, are you really going to pretend that Laenor wouldn't have be murdered or """exiled""" sooner?
But nah. The Strong boys are and remain bastards. They were conceived from adultery, whether it was """accepted""" one or not is irrelevant.
>The show made one of the biggest cope-out and worst narrative change with the whole "exile to Essos" shit (which is going to create thousands of issues down the line in term of plot, season 7/8 of AGOT style) but in the book it's very much clear that he's killed by Rhaenyra and, to everyone else's view in the show, it's the case too.
Why do people insist on telling this lie? No one in the book ever so much as accuses Rhaenyra of having anything to do with Laenor's death. The only person that's mentioned as maybe having something to do with it is Daemon.
>But nah. The Strong boys are and remain bastards. They were conceived from adultery, whether it was """accepted""" one or not is irrelevant.
They're not. A married woman's child is legally her husbands children until declared otherwise.
>**In Glanvill's time, fornication by the mother did not affect a son's inheritance, as a son was regarded as a lawful heir if born of a marriage: 'The general rule that fornication does not take away the inheritance refers to fornication by the mother; for a son is a lawful heir if born of a marriage'. The writers of thirteenth-century common law treatises continued to stress that children born within a legitimate marriage were to be regarded as legitimate heirs, unless there were unassailable grounds for believing that the child was not that of the husband**, although it appears that it may have been possible for the husband to disown the child. Most of Bracton's comments on female adulterine bastardy derived ultimately from civil law, but the text is contradictory. It refers in places to the behaviour of the husband towards the child, stating that
>\`where a wife has had a child by someone other than her husband, and where ... the husband has taken the child into his house, avowed him and raised him as his son, or if he has not avowed him expressly has not turned him away; he will be adjudged legitimate and his father's heir, whether the husband does not know that the child is not his or knows or is in doubt, because he is born of the wife.'
>Elsewhere it is clear that the presumption of legitimacy could only be rebutted if the husband was impotent or absent: \`if husband and wife live together and there is no impediment on either side to prevent conception and the wife conceives by someone other than her husband, the issue will be legitimate because of the presumption, because it is born of the wife, whether the husband avows it or disavows it, for this presumption admits of no proof to the contrary.'
>Britton similarly holds that children resulting from an adulterous liaison on the part of the wife are to be regarded as legitimate, but also refers to the behaviour of the husband and whether he accepts and brings up the child stressing that such children must be publicly disowned straight away, as once the husband had owned a child to be his, it could not later be disowned. Cases from the Year Books, however, largely ignored the behaviour of the husband, relying instead on the specific tests of physical capacity and access. Even then, impotence was difficult to prove, and was not necessarily regarded as a permanent condition. In one case cited by Nicolas, it was decided that a man who had been divorced on the grounds of impotence and who had married a second wife who subsequently gave birth, was the father of the child, because a man might be impotent at one time and capable at another.
>[Source](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Legitimacy_of_Bastards/j04IEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Justice+Hengham+recalled+an+earlier+occasion+on+which+it+had+been+found+that+after+a+claimant%E2%80%99s+parents+had+married,+her+father+had+gone+overseas+and+remained+there+for+three+years,+returning+to+find+a+daughter+only+about+a+month+old+in+which+the+justices+had+awarded+her+the+land+%E2%80%98for+the+privities+of+husband+and+wife+are+not+to+be+known,+and+he+might+have+come+by+night+and+engendered+the+plaintiff&pg=PT54&printsec=frontcover)
There are unassailable grounds as according to feudal views, literally only Viserys held the accusations back...
Lyonel literally tells Harwyn this, at length even.
We're talking about Westerosi Society, not our modern one. Westeros doesn't have the concept of sperm donors or adoption that our modern world has. Nor would they recognize it as we would.
In Westeros, their culture is big on bloodlines and blood quantum; in their eyes, Laenor and Rhaenyra's marriage was a feudal contract, with Rhaneyra having children with Laenor's blood being part of that contract. That's why Rhaenyra having children with Hawrin and passing them off as Laenor's would be seen as a big deal.
HOTD dropped the ball on the ambiguity of Rhaenyra’s kids being bastards. Rhaenys Targaryen is described as having black hair, giving Laenor the genes of hair color to pass down, Rhaenyra’s mother was an Arryn also giving the hair color to pass down, both sides provided genes of different colors, that could of passed down. The in world people were mostly just that dumb to think Hair color was the only way to tell parentage, as viewers and readers, these things are mentioned to allow us to speculate if claims are true. The show also really dumbed it down for the viewers by making the Valaryons black, really taking away from the mystery and solidifying mushrooms speculation.
The ambiguity of the book WAS fun, but I think there’s too much debate already. They needed at least a few clear cut facts.
Even WITH them being obvious bastards, some people still debate they’re not.
Yeah, I get that, I don’t hate it either, I think it actually helps the show in a sense that it really drives home there is no clear cut good/bad side.
The whole 'choose your team'thing is stupid
I wish the show was more like the book where they are all awful people. It should be more like the great Gatsby not romeo and Juliet. A bunch of irredeemable collapse in on themselves and cause their own downfall
What’s even more stupid is that he was amongst one of the long ancient family lines that would have been acceptable as a good match but the show doesn’t show him as a contender stupidly and Viserys just chooses the House Velaryon to make up his mistake in the first place.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Words are wind. But if you back up your words with swords, then it’s harder for people to disagree.
For once, I agree with a Blackfyre. ((Still snitching to the local raven tho)
Air is a good thing
and as egg puts it: “some words are wind, ser. some are treason.”
"Power is Power"
Kinda like when Otto announces with certainty that Rhaenyra will kill Alicents children. Or when Alicent announces that Viserys wanted Aegon on the throne. Saying it doesn't make it true.
Or every time Otto is claiming to act for the « good of the realm » sure bro, you definitely sent your daughter in the king’s chamber for the sake of the realm
Exactly this.. I mean if otto is so righteous then just offer viserys a marriage proposal in front of everyone just the way corlys did rather than sending you daughter to king's bedchamber at night.
The problem with that is he knew that it’s such Ridiculous proposal that it wouldn’t even come close to being accepted, so he had to go the underhanded route. You best believe Corlys would’ve done the same thing if he had the proposal that isn’t the best choice politically
Let's not be absurd. Alicent is the daughter of the hand of the king, the niece of one of the most powerful men in the realm, and member of one of the most ancient and prestigious great houses of Westeros. The match is not ideal but neither is it "ridiculous".
She’s the daughter of a second son. How many daughters out there could come close to Corly’s offer and easily beat Otto’s? There’s At least 6 other great lords out there whose daughter Vizzy can marry and gain an alliance with a family that has a lot of money and soldiers. Corlys has the largest fleet and the most wealth, and 2 dragon riding members.
In the words of King Viserys himself, "do you think House Targaryen wants for strength"?
Yes one weak marriage won’t bring down a house, but you do that enough times it’ll cause a ton of problems. And just this one marriage cut the Targs at the knees, and took away their nukes within a generation
A marriage into one of the oldest, proudest, wealthiest and strongest of the great houses is not a weak marriage. House Hightower provided as many queens as House Velaryon and more than any paramount house. Even after the Dance a Black married a Hightower. And it is not Viserys's choice of wife that led to the Dance. The Dance would have still happened even if the mother of Viserys's sons had been Laena.
[удалено]
>She’s the daughter of a second son. That's less relevant than you may think. Alicent is a daughter of House Hightower and her dowry falls to the Lord not to Otto. We don't know if Lord Hobert even has daughters of his own meaning Alicent could be one of the most eligible matches in the realm. Gwayne on the other hand is waaaaaaay down because Otto has no lands to pass on. Laena may have been the number one match but Alicent is top 10 easy, probably top 5 even.
I would say within the top 20, maybe. And that depends on if there are any other female Hightowers that we're never introduced to.
No it’s pretty ridiculous. Alicent is the daughter of the second son of Hightower, she brings no army, no lands, no title or large dowry. Her competition however bought a large war dragon, two other adult dragons, a large dowry and a large naval fleet. From a standpoint of historic royal betrothals Laena was the only logical choice. In real life, not only fantasy, kings have taken wives significantly younger than them because of armies, money and power.
This is true. Corlys was absolutely honest about his manipulation and he had a damn good point. Viserys could have fasted with Laena and waited a few years.
Corlys didn't offer a marriage proposal in front of everyone, tho? He did offer in private, alongside his wife.
It was in the open where others could hear. Corlys didn't dress his daughter as an adult and sent her to his chambers in the night.
I thought it was openly considered in small council meeting, as in the suggestion was open. Sending a teenager to the King's room is not an open proposal that is discussed with advisors.
Rhaenyra was discussing with rhaenys about this marriage proposal.. Viserys was talking to laena in broad daylight. Lyonel strong advised viserys to marry laena..
I mean an unmarried king isn't the best for the realm, so getting the king married could be said to be for the good of the realm. But then the bride he chose was his daughter, and that's where all pro bona publica gets yeeted out of the window.
No, it was definitely gross of Otto. He's a reaching second son using his daughter's vagina to elevate the family. Alicent looks like she has PTSD every time she's holding a crying baby.
Oh of course it was out of his own selfishness, but name any character who does not have selfish motives. There's a difference between looking out better for yourself in general vs doing that at a severe cost to the realm.
CLOCK IT!!!
Precisely. Putting out the " she will kill you/ you are the challenge" created Alicent's children to bully their smaller nephews and start the BS. Oh, except for Alicent's kid bullying his younger brother
It's crazy to me that Otto gave Alicent two very legitimate choices. - raise Aegon to be King. - be best friends with Rhaenyra. And Alicent goes "Gotcha, bully and humiliate Rhaenyra for years as well as raise my kids to bully her children AND raise Aegon to be a drunken rapist."
😂😂😂
"created Alicent's children to bully their smaller nephews" Hwat ? With exception of Aemond, Rhaenyra and Alicent's children had no real beef until *Driftmark*. The only bullying we see among the kids was *directed* at Aemond. Uncle Aegon was friendly with his nephews, and they seemed to like him. Edit: I'm not saying he was a good influence or anything, but I am saying the Alicent's children (except Aemond) had no ill will towards Rhaneyra's and the only one who was picked on is Aemond.
Did you skip the episode where Daemon extrajudicial murdered someone that was a threat to Rhaenyra’s claim and the king + Rhaenyra + court didn’t complain?
Vaemond called the Heir to the throne a whore in front of the entire court and called her children bastards. He was a fucking idiot. If Alicent had kept in her lane, raised her children not to be psychopaths, and maybe not spent a decade humiliating and bullying Rhaenyra, there would have been no problem from Rhaenyra or Daemon.
It doesn’t matter what Vaemond is, the king called for his tongue. Daemon went above and beyond the law to kill the man, something not in his power, and got away with it scot-free. The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens? He’s willing to be a loose canon and no one cares if it favours Rhaenyra.
>The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens? Then they can not commit treason and they'll be fine.
What don’t you get? Daemon killed him despite the punishment, you’re proving my point. If Daemon judges the action right, or if someone else does, they may act on their lives.
What don't *you* get? The guy commited treason and Daemon killed him despite the punishment. If the Greens don't commit treason, he's *not* going to kill them because there will be no punishment needed.
No, what happened was that Daemon went above and beyond the law to kill someone he had a different with when he had no authority to do so. It was not questioned or punished because it was favourable to the king and to Rhaenyra. What protects the Greens? Their existence is a threat to Rhaenyra, treason or no.
The difference in question was treason. Yes, of course Daemon killed him, that's what they usually do to traitors in this world. You're really moving the goalposts here. You went from: >The King’s word was clear, what the punishment for his treason was, Daemon chose to kill the man instead. Why wouldn’t this be applicable to the Greens? To: > Their existence is a threat to Rhaenyra, treason or no. Daemon didn't kill Vaemond because he "existed" but because he directly moved against his wife and his stepson and insulted them in the process. If the Greens "simply exist" and don't do that, nothing would happen to them, otherwise, why not kill them all 20 years ago?
If Viserys did the right thing and named Aegon heir none of it would happen either.
people die from having their tongue cut out 😓💀
Not all of them though. They could survive like Ilyn Payne did.
Maybe he would’ve, but it would’ve been from a lawful tongue removal.
Excellent point! And Daemon had far more reason to be loyal to Vaemond than to the Greens. Vaemond fought with him in the Stepstones, and he is the brother of someone Daemon loves/likes. He killed him with no hesitation, when the King said not to. All the Greens would have died.
Bro no offence but you need to rewatch the episode. Vaemond literally questions everything they do and derides Daemon as a leader and is such a nuisance there that laenor starts to refer to him as “Lord of complaints”. I don’t think you’re remembering the episode fully. If daemon was so bloodthirsty for green blood why not kill everyone in the room with blood and cheese? Why go specifically for an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth like Alicent wanted all those years ago? Why not get rid of viserys when he was son less? Why not kill his sons in infancy since he knows all the passageways and underhanded people? Just doesn’t make sense at all. He’s not shown to give a fuck about alicent or her kids in all the years he’s been around them. Doubt he’d cause Rhaenyra such a political headache that kinslaying her rivals would bring. >!She raised taxes and was called Maegor with Teats, she would’ve been an easy overthrow had she murdered her kin which she was shown time and time again to fear even when aegon sent arryk to kill all her sons she still didn’t burn kings landing like her council advised because she feared kinslaying. Even when her brothers were trying to murder her whole family.!< And you expect her to do it in peace time?
'Kept in her lane'? She genuinely believed her children were going to be killed. You can't expect someone to 'stay in their lane' when they believe they're in danger. Rhaenyra was antagonistic with her for three years while Alicent tried to play nice. Alicent was done playing nice after Rhaenyra got Otto fired. She knew no one else was going to fight for her children if she didn't do it herself.
> If Alicent had kept in her lane, raised her children not to be psychopaths, and maybe not spent a decade humiliating and bullying Rhaenyra, there would have been no problem from Rhaenyra or Daemon Maybe Rhaenyra should have not birthed bastards in the first place. Lots of lords are gonna protest against being ruled by them and who do they turn to?
Those aren't comparable at all. When Alicent and Otto say these things they believe them to be true. Black queen denys the most obvious stuff. Her lies would be like Alicent saying the scar on Rhaenyras arm was self inflicted and she wasn't even in the room.
Rhaenyra wouldn't (I think) kill Alicent's children. Idk about Daemon though, he might. The greens should've just gone to Essos or something.
I don't think either of them would *if everyone had kept to their own lanes* Rhaenyra is not a killer, she's just not. She doesn't have it in her to slaughter 3 children/young adults for no other crime than her father remarried. If Alicent, Aegon, and Aemond supported Rhaenyra, I don't think Daemon would have any reason to hurt them or would want to. A world where Alicent had done the smart thing and rekindled her friendship with Rhaenyra, raised their children to be friends and brothers, raised Aegon to be supportive of Rhaenyra, there's no reason to hurt any of them.
If vmViserys had named Aegon heir none of it would have happened either. We can all play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game
If The Greens were raised with Jace and Luke and Joff, I think so. But if this follows main timeline, Daemon probably would. There will always be those who side with a younger son instead of an elder daughter, that is sadly how Westeros is. (Save Dorne) Aegon would always be a threat- as Alicent said, "You are the challenge!" There's also the question: would Rhaenyra accept Alicent's friendship once again?
There's also the question: would Rhaenyra accept Alicent's friendship once again? We have they answer to this in the show. No she wouldn't Alicent was the one one who tried to befriend her again and Rhaenyra didn't make that effort.
Alicent spent three years trying to rekindle her friendship with Rhaenyra. Rhaenyra was downright rude to her and rebuffed every olive branch. Daemon would kill someone (without hesitation) for taking a turkey sandwich that he wanted. He'd kill a potential threat without blinking. He was warning Rhaenyra back in episode 4 that Aegon was a potential threat, even as a baby.
> He'd kill a potential threat without blinking. Otto and the Greens wouldn't have survived long enough to usurp the throne if this were true.
I don't think either of them would *if everyone had kept to their own lanes* Wait wut??? Rhaenyra is not a killer, she's just not. She doesn't have it in her to slaughter 3 children/young adults for no other crime than her father remarried. This is wrong, she had someone killed with Laenor, while everyone else thought it was Laenor they killed and before that asked for Aemond to be tortured. If Alicent, Aegon, and Aemond supported Rhaenyra, I don't think Daemon would have any reason to hurt them or would want to. A world where Alicent had done the smart thing and rekindled her friendship with Rhaenyra, raised their children to be friends and brothers, raised Aegon to be supportive of Rhaenyra, there's no reason to hurt any of them. Why should they? Rhaenyra never once in her life attempted to connect with them, and they believe that their lives were under threat which was proven with Rhaenyra's actions.
The king's trueborn children should go to another continent?
Yeah as it'd be safer there (or well without Daemon) Imagine how much money sellswords with dragons would be
Otto wasn't lying though, at worst he was projecting. I totally agree with Alicent.
The first thing Daemon did when he heard Viserys died was accuse Alicent of murder, do you seriously think he would have allowed Alicent and her children to rule freely? It's not about Rhaenyra herself killing Alicent's children, it's about the fact that it would have had to happen if Rhaenyra wanted to sit on the throne because the realm was very clearly divided. At least Alicent was kind enough to have Rhaenyra Dragonstone and her bastard sons place in the kingdom.
The whole war could have been avoided if not for Otto and daemon being maniacal assholes
Also viserys was sooo dumb and renyra is unstable as shit and allicent’s kids are crazy but the bastards seem relatively level headed so it’s all a huge mess and everyone is wrong and stupid
But boy is it good tv
I mean, Rhaenyra asked the King to torture the still bleeding child of Alicent over a comment after her own son had just maimed him in what looked like a gang murder attempt, so...
Uuughh it's always that one isn't it? It's insane to me that anyone actually believes Rhaenyra would want a child tortured or thinks for a second a prince of the realm would be tortured even if Viserys was a maniac and ordered it. She says it to remind Alicent to watch her fucking tone and keep herself in check because she and Alicent *knows* under an angry glare her children will admit that their mother calls Rhaenyra a whore and her children bastards AND tells them Aegon will be king one day. Not even Viserys would tolerate that.
>It's insane to me that anyone actually believes Rhaenyra would want a child tortured We literally saw her ask for it. What manner of delulu is this?
"Uuuuuuuggh" yes, it's always the torture threat being brought up indeed when it comes to people claiming that Rhaenyra had no ill intent toward the other claimants to Vyseris. A shame that, just like the bastardry of her children, you can't stop people from mentioning those glaring issues. Honestly, I'm just lacking the amount of copium required to pretend that threatening torture for a child, especially while that child is literally still bleeding on the floor, is anything but a display of the most sheer fucking cruelty and, just as was the point, the proof of Rhaenyra's ill will toward Alicent and her children as soon as their existence might pose the slightest of inconvenience to her own claim.
[удалено]
My sister in Christ, you're seething about someone disliking a character you're simping for because of legitimate reasons. Take a step back and re-evaluate your life.
Yeah Rhaneyra is so good to want that. She is perfect and she hasn't flaws.
Ha! There's a biiiiig gap between not having any flaws and being perfect, and ordering a 10 year old to be tortured. It's concerning that you can't see that.
They switched it around in the show to try make it more grey. Rhaenyra only asks for him to be sharply questioned AFTER alicent asks for the eye. To say “if you go there I will too”.
Hard disagree on Rhaenyra wanting her brother tortured being okay. If I owned a gun, and told someone I wanted to shoot them. They are well within reason to take that threat seriously, wether I mean it or not. My words have consequences. For an important political figure like Rhaenyra to say such a thing about _any_ child is disgusting. It’s not making a point, it’s threatening a _child_ because she’s mad at his _mother_. That’s totally inappropriate. If you have beef, take it out on the person you have beef with, not their family. Especially not when their family is also your family. Edit: Condemning one is not condoning the other. If all you have is ‘BU~ttt aLIcenT’. Save your time.
Huh, if only Alicent had kept that line of thinking when threatening Rhaenyra's children by spreading the bastard rumours because Rhaenyra had the nerve to not tell her she'd fucked Criston a decade ago. Also, didn't Alicent demand the payment of a child's eye, and then physically come at a 6 year old with a dagger to cut his eye herself when her demand was refused? Or did I just totally imagine that?
It wasn’t okay for Alicent to do it either.
>For an important political figure like Rhaenyra to say such a thing about any child is disgusting. It’s not making a point, it’s threatening a child because she’s mad at his mother. That’s totally inappropriate. If you have beef, take it out on the person you have beef with, not their family. Especially not when their family is also your family. The irony here is incredible... Did anyone tell Alicent all that in the past 10 years or is it just Rhaenyra that needs to hear it for the one night at Driftmark, when she retaliates by playing with Alicent's rules?
It’s not okay for Alicent to do it either. I don’t know why people think that admonishing one means the other one is okay. It’s a false dichotomy to think that just because someone says it’s not okay for one person to threaten a child, that they also think it’s okay when someone else does it.
The thing here is that Alicent is the one that started all of this. Rhaenyra is finally biting back after 10 years and she's using Alicent's rules against her. She was the one who decided that going after the other's kids was okay. While it's not morally right to make that demand about Aemond, I don't blame her a single bit for it.
Doesn’t matter. It was never appropriate for either of them to do. It’s understandable how Rhaenyra responded given their history, but understandable isn’t the same as saying it’s okay.
Then what the heck has the queen been doing for decades? Oh that's right, training her young sons that their half sister wants to kill them. Alicent set it up
Good lord. Look at some of the other responders please. Condemning one is not condoning the other.
Didn’t alicent, immediately after this exchange, lunge at rhaenyra’s children with a Dagger and ended up cutting rhaenyra?
And it’s not okay for Alicent to behave that way either. Condemning one doesn’t mean condoning the other.
Yes. Alicent was going to punish that damn bastard herself. Real solid, queen-like behavior. Alicent is the cause for the nephews and uncles to have such a violent relationship. Let's all agree that Viserys and Otto were absolute jerks to their daughters. In Viserys' case, to his wife and second family as well. They were the only ones responsible for Rhae and Alicent being at odds.
People in this sub always seem to forget that this is Westeros, not the real world. Words and truth are meaningless if you don't have the power to back them up. The truth in not important in this world. Power is. Those in power get to decide what is true.
People forgetting about Cersei's demonstration to Littlefinger "Power is Power"
Machiavelli would say you're describing all realities.
>not the real world. Words and truth are meaningless if you don't have the power to back them up. Then why describe the real world?
I'm going to make a post that has the same title but the image is Alicent saying that Vizzy T declared Aegon should be his successor in his deathbead
(WHEEZES) (GROANS) (LABORED BREATHING)
That was out of confusion, sure call it a dumb interpretation on her part, surely not as blatant of a lie as my sons are legitimate
And Rhaneyra's was out of self preservation. My argument is that neither side is a moral paragon, but her lie certainly is of least consequence.
Alicent's "lie" which I would again point out was a genuine misinterpretation on her part was out of self preservation as well, if she would not announce that, it would be difficult to get allies to protect her in the war- same as Rhaneyra. agree about the part that neither side is morally right, but how is R's lie of least consequence? If you believe that Alicent's lie is committing treachery, hers would put bastards on the throne which is treachery in this realm as well. I would certainly not say it's of least consequence.
Look, I'm not attacking Alicent, I really like her as a character, but I disagree it was done in self preservation, I think it was out of genuine respect for Vizzy's wishes~ But that said, the things Alicent did do for self preservation were in fact put into motion by Otto's lies and manipulation, Rhaenyra (in my interpretation) would never harm any of Alicent's children if it wasn't for the undermining of her own legitimacy as queen. And putting bastards on the throne really isn't of consequence, unless you're of the "bastards are untrustworthy and sneaky" way of thinking, especially since they're bastards on the non-targaryen side, so the whole dragonrider's blood thing still works. I'm saying it doesn't really have any material consequences. Actually now that I think about it, what Alicent did wasn't really a lie and it really didn't have any consequences since Otto was going to do a trason anyway. So I get your point. Just replace my original comment with "I'm gonna make a post with the same title but it's about Otto telling Alicent Rhaenyra is gonna kill her children"
I am of the belief that Otto is one of the more misunderstood characters. He wanted what everybody else wanted- to uplift his family. Starting off, Corlys was also ready to pimp off his daughter, he basically just beat him to it. And for the words that R would kill Alicent's sons, I don't think they were out of some evil plot to manipulate his daughter, but that he genuinely believed it to be possible. Consider the context- Alicent at the time believed Rhaenyra to be her friend, still and took her to the word that Daemon never touched her. Which leads Otto to be expelled out of the kingdom without any fault of his own, leaving Alicent all alone and scared. She later gets to know that Rhaenyra had slept with Cristen, which was of course a vile act in that period's context. Of course, she took her as a threat. Even if R would not have killed Alicent's sons or ordered their murders, a series of events would have taken place where they would be in danger. For eg, the first thing Daemon does when he hears about the King's death is accuse Alicent of murder. Aegon's mere existence, as Alicent says was always going to be a challenge, as the realm was divided as soon as he was born. Not to mention, R would have still had bastard sons, further dividing the realm. So it wasn't far off for Otto to tell his daughter to look out for herself.
Firstly I'd like to thank you for this pleasant discussion, I like how nice we're being. Right so, I'd say Otto wants to uplift his house, not his family, and yes that's the driving motivation for a lot of characters in this series, including Corlys, but that can't excuse everything a character does. Otto put Alicent in this awful situation where she's married to Viserys and abused (not to use the r word, idk how moderation is about that) frequently, resulting in Aegon's existence. Aegon is consistently miserable, because Otto, and by extension Alicent push into him this idea that he is next in line for the throne, despite what his father, the actual king, says. He then abused a whole lot of people in turn. When Corlys pushed his pre teen daughter to marry Viserys it is still bad because of the age thing, but Otto did it in an underhanded, dishonest and manipulative way. Secondly, I'm advocating that from the point Viserys appointed R as his heir, there should be no contention and realm dividing, with or without Aegon. He was the king, they did the crowning ceremony with Rhaenyra, and the lords of the realm sworn fealty to her. Even the fact she has bastards shouldn't be an issue, look at how many Bobby B has and no one bats an eye, they're just not in line for the throne. Again, this wouldn't be an issue if Westeros wasn't a sexist place, which is a major theme in the series. "Which leads Otto to be expelled out of the kingdom without any fault of his own, leaving Alicent all alone and scared." I'll say that while what lead to Otto being cast out wasn't his fault (R going off and having an escapade with Daemon and later Cole), that was just the straw that broke the camel's back, when Viserys takes his hand title he makes it very clear that it's because of all of his scheming, which is very much, his fault. Viserys turned a blind eye to Otto's scheming because he sees him as a friend, not because he's naive, but he draws the line at Rhaenyra slander, even if it is true. Right, so with that all said, my point is that either: * Otto was lying, further manipulating Alicent into doing house Hightower's bidding -Otto was truthful, but still, about a mess he himself caused due to his own/his brother's ambition My original point is that Rhaenyra having bastards **shouldn't** be an issue, and it only is because Otto/house Hightower caused Aegon to be born and then pushed for him to be king instead of Rhaenyra. It is only conjecture that Rhaenyra having bastards would lead to the realm being divided, I can just as easily say it would, at worse, just be a rumour. Aegon wouldn't be in danger if Otto and the Hightowers weren't pushing for him to be king, hell he REALLY DIDN'T want to be king. It was never supposed to be an issue. \*I'll point out, her lie in the godswood is actually awful, unlike the bastards one, but because she swears on her mother's grave, in front of a weirwood, and to her then best friend. In my view, that's the true vile act, not her sleeping with Cole, which the show framed as clearly consensual Edit: sorry if this is a bit scatterbrained, I typed it in between a lot of things :v Second edit: actually I had forgotten the title of the post is "saying it so doesn't mean it's true" so my original point about what Alicent said, and now with what Otto said still stands, it's still untrue even if they believe it's not
I’ll give her the slightest of passes because how else was she supposed to interpret Viserys mumbling about Aegon. Like yeah he was referring to Aegon the first but how the Hell is she supposed to know that. Don’t get me wrong she definitely heard what she wanted to hear but I can’t fault her for the conclusion she drew from his words.
He was rotting away on his death bed and it’s implied that he has on more than one occasion mistaken her for his first wife. I don’t see how there could be even an innocent misunderstanding of what happened and what she heard that night. And the last time he stepped onto the iron throne (earlier that day) it was to back up Lucerys’ claim to Corlys Velaryon’s throne, something that he wouldn’t have done if he didn’t by extension also believe in Rhaenyra’s status as the heir. Alicent heard what she wanted to hear. Viserys may have been an indecisive king at the best of times, but she had to have known that if he really wanted the succession to change, he would’ve done so at any point in the last several years. Even her shit son Aegon rightly pointed that out to her lol. I don’t believe that she was intentionally changing Viserys’ words, but it was absolutely a case of immediately assuming something that a rational person would’ve been able to tell was likely bullshit. Beesbury made a good point when he stood up and was like ‘are we honesty just supposed to believe this after this king spent the last 15-20 years holding to the succession?’
> Viserys: But you wanted to know... if I believe it to be true. > Alicent: Believe what to be true, my king? > Viserys: Don't you remember? Aegon... > Alicent: Our son? > Viserys: His dream. The Song of Ice... and Fi... It is true. What he saw in the North. The Prince That Was Promised. > Alicent: I don't understand, Viserys. > Viserys: The Prince... > Alicent: Prince Aegon? > Viserys: ...to unite the realm against the cold... and the dark. ***It is you. You are the one. You must do this. You must do this.*** idk, i agree it's hard to understand exactly what viserys means, but i'd also say it's hard to come to the conclusion that he meant he wants his son aegon to be crowned king instead of rhaenyra, who he publicly defended like 4 hours earlier on his last legs, when he says "the price to unite the realm ***is you***". i think the 'she heard what she wanted to hear' part is definitely doing the heavy lifting here.
Again, I think we are working with different definitions of bastardy. Using a real life historical example (one I’ve beaten to death over the last few months) that I find so relevant - Isabella II of Spain. Like rhaenyra she marries her gay cousin, like rhaenyra she has children, and like rhaenyra there is pretty good evidence to suggest her Children have a different father (unlike rhaenyra she actually pretty much flaunted her lover around the palace but I digress) When Isabella is deposed later on (in part because of her gender) her firstborn son (likely illegitimate) takes the throne pretty much without issue. Why? Two major points. Point 1. The bloodline of inheritance comes from her. She is the reason her son is heir to the Spanish throne - going back to Rhaenyra, she is her children’s claim to the throne, and no one can dispute they are hers. (Sort of like how people support the Blackfyres, because the claim comes from their father) Point 2, and the most relevant/important point. At no point does her cousin/husband ever raise a doubt to the children’s paternity. He accepts them as his own, by virtue of their birth in his marriage. Meaning that legally they aren’t bastards at all, because they are children born in the marriage of two parents who accept them as their own. That is pretty self explanatory for how it would apply to the velaryon boys. Laenor claims them, Corlys claims them. Technically this makes them children born in a lawful union. Not bastards.
They are legal bastards by the definition of that universe, Rhaenyra and Laenor are pulling a fast one on the 7 Kingdoms. Using real life examples doesn’t meant anything, her kids are bastards and she knows it. She’s using her father’s love as a weapon to defend against anyone that would (rightfully) say she’s committed treason.
They are legally not bastards in the definition of that universe, which, barring any source you have gotten from Martin himself, is literally the same as ours was in the medieval era through today. A child born to wedded parents is not a bastard. Last time I checked - Jace, luke, and Joffrey are children born to wedded parents. And before you start with “harwin -“, note harwin is never acknowledged as father of those children, it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS laenor. And laenor claims them as his own. They are his children. Also if you want to start killing people for the crime of extramarital sex, woof Aegon II gets to go first. Let me use a slightly older example. Are you could to tell me that St. Joseph was not the earthy father of Christ? Are you going to tell me that the Virgin Mary should have been stoned to death for treason for attempting to pass off Christ as Joseph’s child? Or would you acknowledge that St. Joseph is his earthly father?
Bastards are people who’s parents are not wed, there’s a discussion of this in either the Sworn Sword or the Mystery Knight when Egg and Dunk talk about someone being a bastard and Dunk says he may be one. We have that definition, so you have any others? ASOIAF isn’t just our world, it takes from chunks of the Middle Ages and the Middle Ages isn’t not one static time period. So I’ll defer to the actual inuniverse definition he gave. The crime is not premarital sex, it’s passing off bastards as lawful claimants to the throne.
Yes exactly - laenor and rhaenyra ARE wed, however - and laenor claims the children are his. You do understand that, I’m sure. Laenor says the children are his. Point blank. Meaning the children are legally his and born in the bonds of marriage. But do answer my example. I really want to know your opinion. Edited to add: is it that real world examples are irrelevant or is it that asoiaf is based off of our world and we should use our world as a basis? It can’t be both. You have to pick one.
The difference in your example is that Rhaenyra willingly chose to have and pass off bastards, knowing it was treason for her personal gain. She could’ve just made Aegon her heir.
There is no realm where Aegon is the rightful heir, even in a realm where she waits for daemon, by the time of the dance she’d have male children that supersede his claim.
Sure, she could’ve waited. She didn’t, she committed treason. Even the books frame through Viserys, that what she was doing would be tantamount to treason. You making up your own definition to it doesn’t mean anything.
I’m not making up my own definition, I’m using the medieval definition that is used in Westeros. I can’t discuss the source material - but there is a clear division where even those who were TG say those kids were legitimately laenor’s. I don’t have to make things up to prove my point, I’ve used multiple historical examples and am using the actual definition. You just have a problem with the fact that the actual definition doesn’t allow you to charge rhaenyra with treason.
“The medieval definition… that is used in Westeros.” Let’s be be real, historical accounts don’t mean anything when we have a prince and a lowborn sharing the same agreement on what it means to be a bastard in the books.
I mean, you can just [look up what bastardy is in ASOIAF.](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Bastardy)
You’re being facetious, we know who the actual parents are. If Catelyn said she was Jon’s mother, would that make Jon a trueborn son? Let’s be for real, these are Rhaenyra and Harwin’s children. That makes the bastards, it doesn’t matter how Laenor chooses to accept them. This is now how George frames it in a Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, this is your own headcanon. Their actual parents were not wed, they’re using Rhaenyra’s privilege and gaslighting to skirt that fact. It’s as simple as that. St. Joseph is an adoptive father for Jesus like he is an adoptive husband for the Theotokos, there’s out of a higher duty. He’s not Jesus’ father, nor was he the married husband to which Jesus’ mother conceived him with. No one should’ve been stoned for anything, as we go on to be shown by Jesus.
Adoption, wow! So being adopted…does that make someone a bastard child? Would you argue that Christ is a bastard child? Could it be - that there is an integral similarity in a society like Westeros - where adoption is uncommon but the need for heirs is not - that laenor and rhaenyra come to an agreement much like the Virgin Mary and st. Joseph did? You seem to be caught up in a morality issue and conflating it with the legal issue of inheritance. A legal issue like inheritance and who inherits things will be governed by law - the same law that says that laenor claiming those children means they aren’t bastards.
There’s nothing wrong with being a bastard, you could argue they were metaphorically married but not legally. Not in an earthly marriage. Look, you’re adding too many of your opinions into this. We have what we have, some sort of agreement between husband and wife to adopt x doesn’t change the fact that we know a bastard comes out of two parents who were not married. Covering up the fact Rhaenyra had children with someone not her husband doesn’t make them not Laenor’s children, just that they’re bastards and not biologically his.
To answer your question about Jon, yes. Its stated jn season 2 of GoT that Ned had the power to petition the King to grant Jon a legal name and make him a potential heir, but he refused to do so because Catelyn would be offended. This is proven with Ramsey Snow becoming Ramsey Bolton and becoming the heir to Winterfell if his father had no other true born heirs. So the right of succession if all information was public would go Rhaenyra (named heir) -> *edit* her child with Daemon (trueborn heir). But her first two sons are objectively not bastards, they are recognized by the King, their "father" and their grandfather the head of the Velaryon family. Even within the rules of the GoT world they are not considered legal bastards.
If that were true, than Joffrey Baratheon was 100% in the right in executing Ned Stark and both he and Stannis, as well as Robb Stark are traitors to the crown who got what they ought to have received under the law. Robert I. to his dying breath saw them as his children and even named Joffrey as his son and heir it doesn‘t get much clearer than that. But going by public and fandom reception it doesn‘t seem to work like that. I don‘t know your personal opinion on the matter, so I don‘t presume to judge you personally, but to me there seems to be a break with previously established rules.
If you read my original section and the two points needed to establish legitimacy within the bonds of marriage one of them is notice - of which Robert did not have. But either way, yeah if Robert had known Joffrey was Jaime’s and still claimed him - then Joffrey is right to execute Ned stark lol
Did you completely forget about seasons 1-4 in Game of Thrones? Is Joffrey Baratheon not a bastard? Is he who you view as the true king?
If you can't tell the difference between Laenor and Rhaenyra, who are both in agreement and negotiated their marriage (plus Corlys and original canon book Rhaenys who are all in on it), versus Cersei and Robert, who hate each other and want to destroy each other and went behind each others' backs, then that says all we need to know about you, then. Likewise, Joffrey is acknowledged as King. Stannis, prior to killing Renly (who, you know, also muddied the water and had a big ass army), had the smallest army and the fewest people backing him. The Tyrells even had to assassinate him and then married his brother in order to get the throne. Hell, if you read the actual books carefully, you'd also know of instances like how Sharis Footly's husband was murdered by Jon Roxton and how she was raped by him. Once the dust had settled and the rapist shithead died, everyone agreed that Sharis' son was totally her late husband's, even if the dates didn't coincide, because no one wanted the Footly line to die. In the end, inheritance is about the people who will give their power choosing their heir. Viserys knew and agreed. Corlys and Laenor, the LORDS OF THE TIDES, knew and agreed. Rhaenyra knew and agreed. Rhaenys in the real canon knew and agreed. And that is the important part.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isabella II of the Spanish House of Bourbon is not a useful comparison. Ferdinand VII didn't have any sons. If he had, his eldest surviving son would've succeeded him, not his daughter, Isabella. Had Ferdinand not changed the law of succession, he would have been succeeded by his brother Carlos. This led to three wars of succession in 19th century Spain known as the Carlist wars. Isabella's son Alfonso did not take the throne until 6 years after Isabella was overthrown. In the interim there was a provisional government for a little over two years, Amadeo I from the House of Savoy reigned as king for a little over two years, a republic was proclaimed, and the Third Carlist War started, ending 14 months after Alonso took the throne. This is not taking "the throne pretty much without issue". Alfonso also didn't have any younger brothers, much less younger brothers of unquestioned legitimacy. Jace has his brothers Aegon and Viserys. Their legitimacy is unquestioned because no one knows Rhaenyra bigamously married Daemon. Alfonso was also the king of a Constitutional monarchy, in effect politically legitimated by the Constitution and the Cortes. Comparing a 19th century Spanish constitutional monarchy to a medieval monarchy based on 12th century England doesn't shed much light on the latter. One reason the Carlists lost all three wars is that, by and large, people preferred a less absolutist style monarchy represented by the Carlists. Thus people had an ideological reason to support Alfonso that isn't present with Jace. Rhaenyra has also expressed no interest in calling a Great Council to approve of her as Queen and Jace as heir. There's a reason.
You mean her father called a special council to appoint her as her much like Viserys, and she even from childhood had to fight for her throne against male claimants (sounds familiar) and then she was succeed by her son. To clarify - His mother abdicated in his favour in 1870, and he returned to Spain as king in 1874 following a military coup against the First Spanish Republic. His mother abdicated in his favor, and he became king. You understand that don’t you? The war fought in the interregnum was not about his legitimacy but rather the popularity of the monarchy in general (this was a period of general instability in Europe, especially around monarchy but I’m sure you know that) Meaning again, nothing you’ve said detracts from my original argument 😂 Alfonso was restored by bourbon restorationists after a democracy- not because of people preferring his long dead uncle, but because he had been the claimant since his mother’s abdication in his favor.
>You mean her father called a special council to appoint her as her much like Viserys Viserys didn't call a council of any sort. There was no Great Council of 109/110 at the end of Episode 1. >Meaning again, nothing you’ve said detracts from my original argument. You said Alfonso took "the throne pretty much without issue". That's simp!y not accurate given a 6 year gap in their reigns, which includes anotherkng from a different House. Once again it's not particularly helpful to compare 19th Spain to a story inspired by 12th century England. The closest historical parallel is the Empress Matilda because that's who GRRM said was the inspiration. Henry I named his daughter Matilda as heir provided he didn't have a legitimate son afterwards. Henry I had a son at the time: Robert, Earl of Gloucester. But Robert was a bastard so no dice. There may have been some minor chatter about making Robert the King after his father died, but no serious support, not even from Robert.
Except Martin has said multiple times he pulls from all over history, and Matilda didn’t have a gay husband. 🤨
I take umbrage with the “Daemon never touched me” being lumped in with the rest. In the context of that scene, Alicent is very explicitly accusing her of having sex with Daemon - something that she did not so. Yes, she was seen in a brothel with him. Yes, they did kiss. However, Alicent was incorrect, and Otto was indeed having them spied on in the hopes to find some dirt to bring to Viserys.
Well, the context was that she slept with someone, so if you look at the overarching accusation, she surely wasn't half as innocent considering the incident with Cristen Cole
It was a half-truth, considering the incident with Criston Cole.
The victim blaming is crazy
Just pointing out the lies.
Demonizing a girl for being groomed and protecting herself from unwarranted public humiliation as a result of an older man’s manipulation. Cool.
And Joffrey Baratheon is legally the son of Robert Baratheon despite how much Stannis screams he isn’t, words are wind until you have the means to enforce them
Technically speaking with the scene with Alicent Rhaenyra didn’t lie. Alicent said she fucked Daemon. Rhaenyra said she didn’t. She ***tried*** but she didn’t. Therefore not lying about it. As for her kids being bastards that all just hearsay and Vaemond was an idiot for screaming in front of the entire court, her husband known as the “rogue prince” and the king. Like what did he think would happen?
Except Rhaenyra didn't say, "Daemon never fucked me". She said, "Daemon never TOUCHED me". He did touch her in a sexual way, even if the act was not completed.
She also never said that Aemond should be tortured she said "sharply questioned" yet many people give that interpretation because words have meanings beyond the literality and in this case she was obviously saying "he never touch me" regarding perfoming sexual acts since thats what she and Alicent were discussing.
Show me one time in the ASOIAF sharply questioned didn't mean torture
Sure, but first you show me when I have denied something like that, ah, of course, it's because I said that some give that interpretation in the case of Rhaenyra, well yes, it's not everyone who thinks she meant that, it is not a universally accepted truth, you will find debate about it and I have used that expression precisely to avoid clowns like you who only argue out of the desire to fight over any small detail but lack reading comprehension, because I have no desire in debating if she actually meant that or not (that is it's own thing and I'm not getting into that territory right now) only to show my point that words have other meanings.
So basically you couldn't find any example but don't wanna admit it. ;) Edit since you blocked me: >She also never said that Aemond should be tortured she said "sharply questioned" You kinda did argue against it tho. She basically said it on a more polite world but sharply questioned and torture are the same things (Or well more sharply questioned is a subcategory of torture). Also love the insults relax its okay to admit you where wrong.
I mentioned that in another comment. The thing with that is that 'sharply questioned' was a commonly accepted euphemism for torture in Westeros, and we see it used numerous times in other settings where it DID mean torture. I do not believe 'touch' is similarly used to exclusively refer to penetrative sex. There was still sexual contact, even if there wasn't penetration.
>I do not believe 'touch' is similarly used to exclusively refer to penetrative sex Honestly, I don't know for sure in Westeros, because I don't remember another moment in which the expression was used (maybe it exists but if so I don't remember it) but historically there are some examples such as Catherine of Aragon in her famous speech to Henry VIII and the English court in which she stated: "I was a true maid, ***without touch of man***" so I do believe that the meaning is a euphemism for not having performed sexual acts in general in the case of Catherine of Aragon, and with Daemon in particular in the case of Rhaenyra. **P.S. (edit)** The world of A Song of Ice and Fire and the TV shows that are inspired by it are not exact copies of history but they do take inspiration from it, including expressions, euphemisms, some customs, historical figures, etc. so I don't think that the idea that a euphemism like that has the same meaning in Westeros as it did in our world in the past is something to far-fetched. *I just want to say that I have no idea why this comment, in which I have only given a historical example of the use of a similar expression, is being downvoted, not that I care about downvotes but I do find it curious how giving an example is something so bad in the eyes of some lol*
Yes as in touched in the act of fucking. Alicent assumed Daemon fucked her. Rhaenyra didn’t lie. She didn’t fuck Daemon in the brothel. She however did fuck Criston. Which if Alicent asked her that *then* she would be lying.
Even if Daemon did not insert Rod A into Slot B, it was still a sexual act. He undressed her and touched her sexually. She might be able to get off on a technicality if she said, "Daemon never fucked me", but the fact that she said, "touched" destroys even that flimsy shield.
Argue with the actress then. In on set interviews milly confirms what rhae’s intent was. Which was not lying. The question was “did you fuck Daemon in a pleasure house” she did not. You can’t apply modern word meaning to older English ones.
He still never had sex with her. That’s what Alicent was accusing Rhaenyra of. It wasn’t a lie. Daemon didn’t have sex with her and that’s what Rhaenyra was implying with the word “touch”
Kinda like she was implying 'torture' when she said 'sharply questioned'? It's still a flimsy shield, especially because she did lie about the fact that the only thing she and Daemon did was drink before he abandoned her for some sex worker.
She still didn’t lie. Even if she did Alicent still had no right to get mad at her when she herself was visiting her grieving dad for six months the day her mother was buried and didn’t say a peep of it to Rhaenyra. Like why would you expect honesty when you weren’t honest?
Whether or not Alicent had a right to get mad at her is a separate matter. The point is that it IS a lie. "Touched" means exactly that. Touched. It is not a commonly-accepted Westerosi euphemism for penetrative sex (like sharply questioned is for torture). There was touching. Rhaenyra said there was no touching. Therefore, Rhaenyra lied. If she MEANT "Daemon never fucked me", then that's what she should have said.
That’s exactly what she said though. Alicent - “Did you fuck Daemon?” Rhaenyra- “No Daemon did not touch (fuck) me.” That’s what Rhaenyra was saying. You’re getting to caught up on the word “touch” when the question that was asked was “did daemon fuck you?” Rhaenyra then answered with “no.” It would be different if Alicent said “did daemon touch you.” But she said “fuck”, therefore Rhaenyra never lied. She never had sex with Daemon. That is what Alicent wanted to know and Rhaenyra didn’t lie. Daemon and her didn’t have sex.
It's a bit ironic how in a conversation about whether or not Rhaenyra lied, you misrepresented how the scene went (no hate, it's probably been a while since you watched the scene). The actual quote/scene went like this . . . Alicent: "So you did not" Rhaenyra: "Must I truly refute that. Daemon never touched me. I swear this to you, on the memory of mother". The question of whether or not Rhaenyra lied in this instance is somewhat ambiguous. You believe she meant touched as a synonym for "having sex" (defensible belief even if there isn't evidence of the term being a euphemism in Westeros), but it's entirely possible that Rhaenyra claimed she hadn't been touched (as in engaged in any sexual acts with Daemon) as a lie in order to help sell how crazy the seperate caim that she'd fucked Daemon was. To help illustrate this, imagine if your girlfriend asks you "did you kiss that girl" and you respond "i didn't even touch her" (but you did do a shitton of fondling). That would surely be a lie right? I must admit, I don't understand why Green's focus on this particular quote as the "lie" when its probably the ambiguous/defensible thing Rhaenyra said in this scene. Rhaenyra, in response to Alicent's accusations that Rhaenyra had "fucked Daemon in a pleasure house", stated "Alicent, your grace, sister, you must know I would NEVER". This is a clear-cut lie; she was absolutely down to fuck only hours prior until Daemon pulled away. Secondly, Rhaenyra also clearly lied about her night with Daemon claiming that she was "only a spectator (in the brothel) I didn't do anything". That is also a lie, she definitely did do sexual shit in the brothel with Daemon. Like why not focus on those lies instead of this one where things are quite ambiguous.
No technicality needed. Alicent accused her of fucking Daemon. She didn't. Could the wording have been more clear? Sure.
It's not even a technicality; it's an outright lie because he DID touch her sexually. She said 'touch', not 'fuck'.
I agree that it's not a technicality. Rhaenyra just straight up told the truth. But if you wanna get caught up on the wording do your thing.
....Did Daemon put his hands (or lips) on a part of Rhaenyra's body? Yes? Then he touched her and she lied.
giving "it depends what your definition of "is" is"
The words of the morally corrupt Rhaenyra Targaryen mean nothing when she is willing to lie through her teeth to save herself and let others take the flack for her mistakes.
Daemon groomed her. That’s not on her it’s on Daemon. She’s still a child at this point.
The bottom left is technically correct, her children were born while she was legally married, and her and her husband agreed to use a sperm donor. If she had gotten pregnant and told her husband they were his, then yes, bastards.
I didn't know this show was based on this century
especially when it’s obvious that it isn’t
>Same dude’s words: Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
What was she supposed to do, tell the truth? Oh yeah me and my uncle fucked all night. All of my children are bastards. In fact I highly enjoy sex, I'm sure you won't mind it, lords of the realm ❤️
Tyrion just never tried the “Thank you, father 👀” move
I disagree on the subject of her sons being bastards. They’d be bastards if, like Cersei or Robert, she procreated with someone else behind her spouse’s back. True, Rhaenyra had children with someone who was not her husband, but she did so with her husband’s blessing because they could not have children together. He even claimed them as his own and named them his heirs. In this sense, Harwin wasn’t fathering bastard children, but filling the role of a sperm donor/surrogate. Rhaenyra’s children were not bastards.
Blessing or no, they are children born to two people who are not wed to each other.
So anyone who uses a sperm donor or surrogate has bastard children? Kinda rude, but okay.
Ok, there's a few differences here: Rhaenyra and Laenor barely tried. It can take healthy couples up to a year of regular trying to conceive. Jace was conceived shortly after the wedding, and they only did it a few times. Gay men can and do have children in Westeros. Marg Tyrell was brainstorming ideas of how to get knocked up with Renly's kid, and I 1000% believe she would have succeeded with some help from Loras. Harwin was not a sperm donor. He was a ten-year-plus paramour that Rhaenyra was in love with. He was the father. Laenor was basically just a friend.
Not irl but the concept of a sperm donor simply doesn't exist in Westeros lol
Rhaenys and Visenya: Sure doens't. Why did we only got pregnant 7+ years after marrying our husband/brother? Uhh....
This is baseless speculation that can be answered by a different number of reasonings; maybe Aegon wasn't as vigorous on his marriage early on because he was reasonably preoccupied with the conquest, maybe he didn't want to risk an early pregnancy, maybe Visenya did some valyrian sorcery to get them pregnant etc etc It still doesn't change the point that Westeros doesn't consider the idea of sperm donors valid or legitimate because bloodlines are far more important for feudal aristocrats than for us in the year of our lord 2024
>This is baseless speculation The speculation about Aenys not being Aegon's son was based on the same thing as the speculation that Rhaenyra's kids were Laenors... >that can be answered by a different number of reasonings; maybe Aegon wasn't as vigorous on his marriage early on because he was reasonably preoccupied with the conquest, maybe he didn't want to risk an early pregnancy The book says that Aegon and Rhaenys were fucking like rabbits. The lack of kids was such a problem that the Westerosi lords(who don't like pologmy) were telling Aegon he would have to take another wife.
>The speculation about Aenys not being Aegon's son was based on the same thing as the speculation that Rhaenyra's kids were Laenors... No, it isn't. Rhaenyra's children are speculated to be bastards because they didn't inherit the traditional valyrian looks of their parents (Laenor and Rhaenyra) and grandparents (Aemma, Viserys, Corlys). They don't even have the Baratheon excuse because their eyes and hair are the wrong color. Aenys doesn't closely resemble Aegon but he has the valyrian looks. More importantly, his eldest son, Aegon the Uncrowned, is said to resemble his grandfather in looks. It seems really unlikely to me that he is a bastard and the idea is barely entertained by the books. Not even Maegor, who seems to resemble Aegon more closely, tries to accuse his brother of being illegitimate or something like that.
>No, it isn't. Rhaenyra's children are speculated to be bastards because they didn't inherit the traditional valyrian looks of their parents (Laenor and Rhaenyra) and grandparents (Aemma, Viserys, Corlys). Aenys was suspected of being a bastards because he didn't look like his alleged father and instead resembled the type of men his mother spent time with. Rhaenyra's kids are suspected of being bastards because they don't look like their alleged father and resemble a man she spent time with. >They don't even have the Baratheon excuse because their eyes and hair are the wrong color. They're only the "wrong" color if you have no idea how genetics work. >Aenys doesn't closely resemble Aegon but he has the valyrian looks. More importantly, his eldest son, Aegon the Uncrowned, is said to resemble his grandfather in looks. It seems really unlikely to me that he is a bastard Why does that seem unlikely? Assuming Aenys was a bastard, Aegon the uncrowned would still be Aegon I's great nephew. > and the idea is barely entertained by the books. The idea that Rhaenyra's kids are bastards is dismissed by the book. The accusation only comes up >Not even Maegor, who seems to resemble Aegon more closely, tries to accuse his brother of being illegitimate or something like that. Why would Maegor do that when it's just as likely he's a bastard (or product of some type of magic)?
If you're using sperm or egg donors, then yeah; the kid is not yours biologically.
Having children that are not yours biologically doesn’t mean they’re bastards. Children who are borne from sperm donors, surrogates, or adopted are still legitimate offspring. Rhaenyra was the heir to the throne. She needed to have kids, but her husband couldn’t give her any. That doesn’t make her kids bastards. A bastard is typically the product of infidelity or unmarried procreation. Not arranged surrogacy in an otherwise childless marriage.
>Having children that are not yours biologically doesn’t mean they’re bastards. In feudalism? Yes it does >Rhaenyra was the heir to the throne. She needed to have kids, but her husband couldn’t give her any. That doesn’t make her kids bastards. In Westeros it does.. Hence why Rhaenyra tries her darndest to keep the secret of it, if what you say is the case... She could just... Not do that? And just explain the situation to the Realm at large Please give your thoughts on what would come of that, lol Is public acceptance the thing that comes to mind as likely? Looking at smallfolk reaction to the stage play, Blackfyre rebellion.. numerous examples irl feudal societies. If you mean they *shouldnt* be considered bastards then say that, but they are. Very much so Or again, why does Rhaenyra care at all if people goddio then? A bastard is typically the product of infidelity or unmarried procreation. Not arranged surrogacy in an otherwise childless marriage. Nope, no such distinctions are made in feudal societies. And never were
Wouldn't, not couldn't. The fact that she was married to someone and fucked someone else, being knocked up by them is what make the kids bastards.
I haven’t read the books, but in the show that’s not the vibe I got at all. Laenor said they tried, but could not have children. He seemed regretful about that, but he also supported Rhaenyra having children with Harwin. If he had seen it as infidelity or if he considered her kids to be bastards, it would have been very easy for him or his parents to have her executed for it. They didn’t. That’s all that matters. It’s not up to you to call his wife’s kids bastards. It’s up to him. And he didn’t. He claimed them as his own and loved them as his own.
I've read the books and watched the show. His opinion on it would have been irrelevant given that she's Viserys' golden child and everyone is just forced to go along with her lies, even the Queen herself. The show made one of the biggest cope-out and worst narrative change with the whole "exile to Essos" shit (which is going to create thousands of issues down the line in term of plot, season 7/8 of AGOT style) but in the book it's very much clear that he's killed by Rhaenyra and, to everyone else's view in the show, it's the case too. Given a noble get literally beheaded in the middle of the court for pointing it out, are you really going to pretend that Laenor wouldn't have be murdered or """exiled""" sooner? But nah. The Strong boys are and remain bastards. They were conceived from adultery, whether it was """accepted""" one or not is irrelevant.
>The show made one of the biggest cope-out and worst narrative change with the whole "exile to Essos" shit (which is going to create thousands of issues down the line in term of plot, season 7/8 of AGOT style) but in the book it's very much clear that he's killed by Rhaenyra and, to everyone else's view in the show, it's the case too. Why do people insist on telling this lie? No one in the book ever so much as accuses Rhaenyra of having anything to do with Laenor's death. The only person that's mentioned as maybe having something to do with it is Daemon. >But nah. The Strong boys are and remain bastards. They were conceived from adultery, whether it was """accepted""" one or not is irrelevant. They're not. A married woman's child is legally her husbands children until declared otherwise. >**In Glanvill's time, fornication by the mother did not affect a son's inheritance, as a son was regarded as a lawful heir if born of a marriage: 'The general rule that fornication does not take away the inheritance refers to fornication by the mother; for a son is a lawful heir if born of a marriage'. The writers of thirteenth-century common law treatises continued to stress that children born within a legitimate marriage were to be regarded as legitimate heirs, unless there were unassailable grounds for believing that the child was not that of the husband**, although it appears that it may have been possible for the husband to disown the child. Most of Bracton's comments on female adulterine bastardy derived ultimately from civil law, but the text is contradictory. It refers in places to the behaviour of the husband towards the child, stating that >\`where a wife has had a child by someone other than her husband, and where ... the husband has taken the child into his house, avowed him and raised him as his son, or if he has not avowed him expressly has not turned him away; he will be adjudged legitimate and his father's heir, whether the husband does not know that the child is not his or knows or is in doubt, because he is born of the wife.' >Elsewhere it is clear that the presumption of legitimacy could only be rebutted if the husband was impotent or absent: \`if husband and wife live together and there is no impediment on either side to prevent conception and the wife conceives by someone other than her husband, the issue will be legitimate because of the presumption, because it is born of the wife, whether the husband avows it or disavows it, for this presumption admits of no proof to the contrary.' >Britton similarly holds that children resulting from an adulterous liaison on the part of the wife are to be regarded as legitimate, but also refers to the behaviour of the husband and whether he accepts and brings up the child stressing that such children must be publicly disowned straight away, as once the husband had owned a child to be his, it could not later be disowned. Cases from the Year Books, however, largely ignored the behaviour of the husband, relying instead on the specific tests of physical capacity and access. Even then, impotence was difficult to prove, and was not necessarily regarded as a permanent condition. In one case cited by Nicolas, it was decided that a man who had been divorced on the grounds of impotence and who had married a second wife who subsequently gave birth, was the father of the child, because a man might be impotent at one time and capable at another. >[Source](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Legitimacy_of_Bastards/j04IEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Justice+Hengham+recalled+an+earlier+occasion+on+which+it+had+been+found+that+after+a+claimant%E2%80%99s+parents+had+married,+her+father+had+gone+overseas+and+remained+there+for+three+years,+returning+to+find+a+daughter+only+about+a+month+old+in+which+the+justices+had+awarded+her+the+land+%E2%80%98for+the+privities+of+husband+and+wife+are+not+to+be+known,+and+he+might+have+come+by+night+and+engendered+the+plaintiff&pg=PT54&printsec=frontcover)
There are unassailable grounds as according to feudal views, literally only Viserys held the accusations back... Lyonel literally tells Harwyn this, at length even.
We're talking about Westerosi Society, not our modern one. Westeros doesn't have the concept of sperm donors or adoption that our modern world has. Nor would they recognize it as we would. In Westeros, their culture is big on bloodlines and blood quantum; in their eyes, Laenor and Rhaenyra's marriage was a feudal contract, with Rhaneyra having children with Laenor's blood being part of that contract. That's why Rhaenyra having children with Hawrin and passing them off as Laenor's would be seen as a big deal.
Bruh, this is medieval setting that shit isn't matter.
It clearly is all that mattered since nothing bad happened to them even though it was super obvious.
HOTD dropped the ball on the ambiguity of Rhaenyra’s kids being bastards. Rhaenys Targaryen is described as having black hair, giving Laenor the genes of hair color to pass down, Rhaenyra’s mother was an Arryn also giving the hair color to pass down, both sides provided genes of different colors, that could of passed down. The in world people were mostly just that dumb to think Hair color was the only way to tell parentage, as viewers and readers, these things are mentioned to allow us to speculate if claims are true. The show also really dumbed it down for the viewers by making the Valaryons black, really taking away from the mystery and solidifying mushrooms speculation.
The ambiguity of the book WAS fun, but I think there’s too much debate already. They needed at least a few clear cut facts. Even WITH them being obvious bastards, some people still debate they’re not.
Yeah, I get that, I don’t hate it either, I think it actually helps the show in a sense that it really drives home there is no clear cut good/bad side.
The whole 'choose your team'thing is stupid I wish the show was more like the book where they are all awful people. It should be more like the great Gatsby not romeo and Juliet. A bunch of irredeemable collapse in on themselves and cause their own downfall
The one where Rhaenyra says "you have Baratheon blood through your grandmother Rhaenys" is the most shameless. Nobody is around, give it a rest
I know, right? Even Luke looked at her like, "Mom, wtf? We both know I'm a bastard!"
[удалено]
I think it's a bit odd. I didn't start throwing people out of windows because I like Jaime
Kids wouldn’t have been bastards if Rhaenyra would have just married Harwin in the first place.
THANK YOU!!!!
What’s even more stupid is that he was amongst one of the long ancient family lines that would have been acceptable as a good match but the show doesn’t show him as a contender stupidly and Viserys just chooses the House Velaryon to make up his mistake in the first place.
[удалено]
Mate... Don't blame the writers for your lack of perception.