-

bambi | 24

[lyannaelia]

LOOKING FOR STAFF: A FRACTURED KINGDOM

Hi! My name is Bambi and I am looking to make an OC-Centric server inspired by A Song Of Ice and Fire, and I would love to have staff to help. I’m checking to see if anyone would be interested in becoming staff in this server. We are looking for people interested in the source material and able to craft lore around more than their own world and create sever-wide plots. People with experience in template and server building experience. Please DM if you’re interested. It’s an 18+ server(No ERP). Even if you don’t want to be staff if you find the idea cool please let me know it would help a bunch. Please DM if interested! My discord user is bambii#3781

The gentle dragon who tried to rule through love instead of fear. Wise and Idealistic though nowhere near as weak as King Aenys was most think he’s going to break from all the bending he’s doing. Westeros has been unified(except Dorne) for less than a century and been embroiled in civil war already. There are many who say these Targaryens have brought them nothing but chaos and heathenism. There are some who see this unified realm as a way to power or riches. As a way to climb their way up the our. And less even that remember their ancestors oaths to Aegon the Conquer that remembered the way they bent the knew that decided loyalty to their oaths were the way. But as the realm bickers and worries about who wins and loses something other awakens.

Aegon’s dream is coming quicker than he realized. And it’s not meeting a realm pacified and used to bending the knee to a King. It’s meeting a realm separated by religion, hatred, and power plays. It’s meeting a realm weakened and it’s meeting a realm ripe for attack. Will this Kingdom survive the long night or buckle under the weight of the apocalypse?

[ozymalek-deactivated20240224]

Whenever ppl mention that Cately had a right to be wary of Jon because he was "a threat to her children" (now repeapted w Alicent) - I dont get it. Like, say i get the reasoning, but doesnt this potential threat exist with every younger sibling/female sibling? Baseborn, younger, female siblings are all legally not allowed to inherit over the oldest male child but could grow up to take it violenty and illegally- therefore isnt having more kids a "threat" to your oldest child in general?

i think catelyn believed that even if jon won't cause troubles, his children may start having aspirations for usurping robb's children, she said something like this after robb named jon his heir

[lyannaelia]

nobody has to like catelyn, and this isn't her defense, but i think catelyn has explicitly brought up the blackfyre rebellions in which a bastard who shared his house features and was raised among his family caused trouble for generations. ned is considered an extraordinarily present father in the standards of the world

obviously, this is no excuse to mistreat jon, just wanted to explain the logic.

[ozymalek-deactivated20240224]

people are calling out the weird misogyny of the son part and rightfully so, but holy shit, if this isn’t the perfect encapsulation of the contradiction these people operate on on daily basis. all of the things mentioned here are due to alicent’s proximity to the targaryens: dragons, dragon scales, dragon dreams, even the hair part is because targs are associated with fire (even though my own hair is redder than olivias on a good day LMAO)

and why are you happy about this, though? i though you hate the targaryens? i thought they’re colonizers, imperialists, blood purists, fascists, eugenicists, nazis, so why do you like it when alicent gets to be considered as one of them? besides, i thought dragons are nukes? why are you happy that her children are in possession of nuclear weapons? besides, i though magic is evil, why are you happy that helaena displays it through having prophetic visions? besides, i thought that the conquest is colonialism and imperialism, why are you happy that aemond specifically got a dragon that nuked dorne several times over and is by far the biggest symbol of that conquest, especially if you thinks that the dornishmen are people of color and the valyrians are white?

house of the dragon was the best thing that happened to the ‘magic is evil targaryens are colonizers’ types because they secretly know that the targs are by far the most interesting and developed house in the entire story contrary to starks or anyone else of whom we know close to nothing and now they can safely like the targaryens without their mutuals writing callout posts on them. because somehow the greens are free of all the associations and their hightower blood cancels out via the power of catholicism or something? like this is so funny on so many levels AND THEY DONT EVEN REALIZE THIS

[lyannaelia]

Blatant misogyny aside...it's weird that her only accomplishments are about her appearance and her children? Like ignore Dany and Rhaenyra I could make a better list about an equally maternal character like Catelyn and I don't even fw her

[lyannaelia]

this is so funny because like. while you can say 'oh aegon ii being a rapist was just a rumor' the book and show canonly says aegon dgaf about helaena. like. just write fanfiction

[lyannaelia]

the rhaenys scene was awful but i think people who are just like "haha she doesn't care about civilians this why dragons bad" should remember that crowning aegon ii was literally an act of war. the greens put civilians lives in danger by crowning aegon ii.

[dragon-queensguard]

So you got a key Green supporter when he’s recruited for the Green’s cause:

“He had nothing against women, Lord Borros went on to say; he loved his girls, a daughter is a precious thing… but a son, ahhh… should the gods ever grant him a son of his own blood, Storm’s End would pass to him, not to his sisters. ‘Why should the Iron Throne be any different?’”

Vs. Jeyne Arryn when she’s pledges her support to the Blacks:

“‘Thrice have mine own kin sought to replace me,’ Lady Jeyne told Prince Jacaerys. ‘My cousin Ser Arnold is wont to say women are too soft to rule. I have him in one of my sky cells, if you would like to ask him. Your Prince Daemon used his first wife most cruelly, it is true… but notwithstanding your mother’s poor taste in consorts, she remains our rightful queen, and mine own blood besides, an Arryn on her mother’s side. In this world of men, we women must band together.’”

GRRM was not subtle in what this war was about lmao

[lyannaelia]

its funny. i don't think grrm intends to make rhaenyra look like incredible or anything. like i grrm probably leans towards the 'don't pick a side, this civil war is stupid and not worth it'

however he didn't even try to make team greens supporters sympathetic. like with the blacks we have:

rhaenys. literally the queen who never was

corlys, considered one of the most powerful and wise men in westeros

baela and rhaena who charmed kl

alysanne, jeyne, and sabitha, all badass queer women

like the one good frey

cregan stark, whose from the main series main house

kermit tully

benjicot who was literally a child hero

[pontmercii]

The 💖💖"where is duty where is sacrifice"💖💖 line being tossed around as the ultimate motto/inspiration of green stans is genuinely the most pathetic thing that happened to this fandom and an undeniable proof of most people's Americans's functional illiteracy.

You are literally preaching for institutionalising internalised misogyny, and sounding like that disgusting woman from the Handmaid's tale I don't even remember her name cause I don't watch the show that held the female protagonist so that her own husband can rape her.

Of course you're gonna tell me oh you're a hypocrite shipping incestous couples and promoting feudal ideology, everything is permitted in the context of the story, right. Everything is permitted. The difference is that it's according to the context of the story that Alicent and her clan are the antagonists, something that many people have forgotten and I don't entirely blame you for that because the shitshow is very confusing. Still, according to the context of the story Alicent is a spiteful, vengeful and treasonous conservative freak, who slut-shames, slanders and undermines the heir which directly led to her horrible death, and all of this because she's a woman. So yeah, according to the context of the story, using her ridiculous line as words to live by is really problematic and that's code for fucking disgusting.

I even saw a person saying that they don't blame Alicent for wanting to usurp Rhaenyra because Rhaenyra made it so easy for them. And why is that ? Because she had sex and kids with another man, because of that she made it easy for them so she deserves being eaten by a dragon on the orders of her brother. Because she had sex. This is the level of clownery we're at.

Green stans literally don't realise that the Hightowers' aim was power all along, that their main quality is greed and they used whatever they could to slander and undermine the rightful heir weaponising her gender against her. It was never about her supposed immoral lifestyle, it was always about her fucking vagina and Hightowers' greed and misogyny and that's literally supposed to be the reason why they are the bad guys but people are literally using the very reason they are the bad guys as a means to defend them? Like??????

Honestly I can't block fast enough.

[alethiaii]

Pls I just saw a reddit thread that's titled Alicent is the saddest character on the show and made my eyes roll so hard.

[pontmercii]

"Alicent is the saddest character on the show"

[alethiaii]

Here, here...proof the thread exists

[alethiaii]

☝️☝️☝️ Pretty much all I've already said. Exactly why should I feel sorry for her?

[iwouldservehim]

I will be called awful for this, but what reason has anyone to LOVE show!Alicent given the way she was written.

It reminds me a bit of a very good "nice guy talk" rebuttal going something like - people don't fall for you for just "being nice", that's just the opposite of being a dick. It's not a personality. People fall for what makes you unique. Vibrant. In a way "like no other" to a certain person so that they would want you, specifically, again and again. It's also in line with the Green stans that they cling to this Christian idea that if you are super flagelating and never step on people's toes, and always live to others detriment it will eventually show to others how you are the best bestest and you'll be repaid in buckets for your quietly being the most proper and asking for nothing ever person of them all.

Meanwhile they're whole play is that Alicent is supposed to be a "nice girl"...and to be pitied for having a bad time, nothing else to her - and that's also debatable in the grand lines of some of her despicable actions.

What personality has Alicent except for "being the nice girl"? What does she have to say except for "proper Lady remarks" and lines from the Westerosi bible, or mumbling Otto's words for over a decade obsessively? Does she have a more interesting vocation beyond religious fanatism? She's the Queen. Could've started social groups amongst women. Could've devoted herself to such diverse charities. What positive relationship was she shown to be able to develop past her marriage? She's surrounded by so many Ladies at Court. She'd be able to find a better kind, instead of cuddling with an incel because he feeds her vanity of being some superior pure Madona (funny with their whole idea that women are the best and men are the worst and they must stand together against the world but somehow there's no other women in on it in the whole castle??)

What ideals people would hang on to does she have about the world? Not even the "charitable Christianity" kind again, as a Queen who appears to hold a lot of executive power in later years. Not even "Christian" talk of building some orphanage or helping widows.(You always hear "what did Rhaenyra ever do as Queenly actions" while Alicent also just exists there, griting her teeth about the Scripture, slamming her kids from Wall to wall, and commiting coup).

What is supposed to wake the kind of admiration is she capable of waking in someone to lead to love? Other than inspiring pity, she's a blank tar of pit of a person. People don't love out of pity, sorry.

[batmanisagatewaydrug-deactivate]

just once I want to see a good post critiquing makeup culture that doesn’t turn out to be made by some janky radfem blog

oh hey!! I’m not a janky radfem I can do it myself!

makeup culture is wack and normalizes a ludicrously high bar as the bare minimum women can do. I saw a “lazy"makeup tutorial the other day that listed 22 separate goddamn products. you’re supposed to buy and know how to use 22 different things on your face just for the privilege of being considered lazy and that’s uuuuuuh what’s the word? bullshit.

Really, five products could work, even 3. Just frame the face, eyes, lips, and you’re done.

0 products also works great

because I’m gonna be real here, the idea that 22 products is a minimum sucks but it’s really upsetting that any amount of makeup is the bare minimum at all

I would really just suggest some powder foundation, concealer, mascara and lipgloss/lipstick, or tbh just mascara works too, but that’s up to you

I’m sorry if I didn’t express this clearly enough in the original post but I’m not really looking for more concise makeup regiments. my intention was to point out how it’s Bad that makeup is considered a bare minimum at all, regardless of individual feelings on the matter

no face should be “required” to have “a minimum” of makeup. makeup has no health benefits and does nothing but fill the pockets of companies that prey on women and our insecurities.

makeup should not be seen as hygiene because it isnt. get that shit out of your head.

this post: makeup culture is ridiculous and 22 products should not be considered a minimum requirement for someones face. no one should have to do that

the notes: so like……. what youre saying is……. we need to make the minimum about 5 or 6 instead… i gotcha

Really the only makeup you need is eyeliner but that’s just my personal opinion

okay

where did we lose you

why are people like this

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

#nobody survived this post

[bl00mingm00nchild]

she was so... so... daddy. big sigh.

[double-dach]

Work in progress ;)

[lyannaelia]

i'm incosolable.

[ozymalek-deactivated20240224]

now that i think of it, many things that in asoiaf spaces are basically treated as pillars of faith do not make sense in the slightest. like for example people claiming that it’s solely rhaegar’s fault that elia, rhaenys and aegon were murdered.

firstly, by the time the sack of king’s landing happens, rhaegar has been long dead. was he supposed to resurrect himself and save them? secondly, the only reason why elia and her children were in king’s landing was because aerys kept them as hostages against suspected dornish betrayal. it was also aerys who made the mistake of opening the gates of king’s landing to lannister forces (who up to that point were neutral), believing that tywin will choose his side. instead tywin started the sack of the city and ordered elia and her children to be killed. rhaegar had every reason to believe that elia and her children were safe in king’s landing by the time he was leaving to fight in the trident.

the people actually responsible for elia’s death were aerys (indirectly, by not letting them flee to dorne and being stupid enough to think tywin will back him), tywin (directly, he gave the order in order to prove his loyalty to robert), gregor and amory lorch (directly, actual perpetrators). moreover, robert bobert bobby b, a rapist wife beater so beloved by every corner of the fandom, actually smiled when he saw the children’s corpses and was delighted that it happened.

rhaegar had close to nothing to do with these events. he could not foresee the future and know that house lannister will choose the side of robert one last second, attack king’s landing AND have his wife and children killed.

[lyannaelia]

I think part of this comes from the fact that because they don’t like how Rhaegar treated Elia, he’s to blame for everything.

[iwouldservehim]

I have a 99% belief that the whole Lyanna thing was only executed in spite of risks because whatever the OG plan was, it seemed fulproof at the time, and also 99% belief that this was LF’s first act of understanding that creating chaos is creating yourself a ladder. There’s no way in hell that his history with Brandon was created for nothing. Giving a young man who would soon use the new order to uplift himself, and end up starting the 5K too with that reason in mind a grudge with Brandon, who just happens to immediately go on a perilous fool’s errand and die awfully by it.

There is no reason for Brandon to believe Lyanna was taken by Rhaegar to KL specifically unless that’s what someone else told him. One might think, “hey, yes, he lived on Dragonstone and didn’t spend time in KL now, but would very take Lyanna where his kids lived, maybe it’s just Brandon rationalising it so” and I can only raise “would he take Lyanna where his mother, sibling, and unstable father lived, why?”

Any rationalisation would conclude with a 3rd location, whatever that was. And that Brandon could only be directed to KL, knowing only Aerys could be realistically found there, by someone who saw him at Harenhal alongside the rest of the realm, after many years of not being in public, and going “Holy shit”, and wanting Brandon specifically to be faced with that THING, for some “mysterious” reasons.

(Also there’s always this rationalisation about “how he treated Elia” when it comes to hate towards Rhaegar but??? The only viable “bad treatment” is what happened to her because of the Rebellion, the one thing that was out of his hands. Otherwise it’s just him fancying someone else while their relationship is described as “not a love match” but friendly arranged marriage with both of them doing their duty of having children for the sake of him having heirs and her cementing her position by being the heirs mother and…. stopping when it wasn’t viable anymore because of her health. All the theories about how his relationship with Lyanna would “hurt her” are also only insane untrue ones, too. No, he couldn’t annul his marriage so he clearly didn’t. No, he probably couldn’t even officially marry Lyanna. No, any children with her would not threatened Elia’s “because Blackfyres”. What the Blackfyre Rebellion did is not open the doors for bastards to take their siblings’ positions, but what the Dance did for women - closed that door forever and more sharply than before. No, he didn’t mean to throw away his first children for Jon or whatever other progeny. He is stated to think Aegon had a mighty destiny by Maester Aemon. Also yeah, there was probably nothing bigger to his thing with Lyanna than fancying her - because the author says so, he calls him lovestruck - and both undestanding they could only be a thing in an “unacceptable” way by society’s standards. And Elia herself was probably not giddily looking through a catalogue to find him “mistresses” herself, but she was just a woman in a political marriage only herself, whose interests were her position and that of her children and the “threat” of Lyanna is silly for reasons above, and they are described to do care about eachother even if they were not in love TM. So maybe after “duty” was done they meant for BOTH to look for some personal happiness too. I swear, by the way some eye-rolling fanon made ups about this two are made, it’s like they’re projecting a caricature of Aegon IV and Naerys onto them with Rhaegar cackling “hehe, don’t care if your constitution is frail and we already have a heir and I’m not even attacyed to you, just want you to suffer!!” when a guy who knew them personally, Barristan, basically says “it was not that deep”).

[lyannaelia]

Something interesting to recall is that while obviously anyone should know that taking a highborn lady married to a highborn lord was going to cause conflict, it's not fair to say that Rhaegar should have known it would cause a war.

During the reign of Aegon V, Prince Duncan married Jenny of Oldstones, breaking a betrothal with a Baratheon daughter. The Baratheons did rise up in revolt but it was incredibly short-lived solved by a betrothal and a trial of combat.

Aegon IV, is one of the worst people in ASOIAF, who brutalized his mistresses and worse (in Westerosi culture) killed a member of his Kingsguard just for sleeping with his mistress. The brothers of said kingsguard sent assassins but as far as we know, the house never raised up in revolt.

He's not a Targaryen, but Oberyn Martell killed a member of the second most powerful Dornish House after sleeping with his paramour. It caused conflict but it was solved through Doran exiling Oberyn and sending Quentyn to live with them.

Furthermore Aerys was mad, but until then he hadn't just randomly killed high lords, even his response to house Darklyn which was cruel, at least had an obvious source. His hands were no Tywins, but you could have expected that at worse anyone who had anything would be kept prisoner, leading to a short-lived rebellion.

This is not me saying that Rhaegar taking Lyanna was wise, especially knowing who his father was. However, he should have expected:

Lyanna or him being sent to exile.

Perhaps betrothing Rhaenys, Aegon, or Viserys to a Stark or Baratheon

A short lived rebellion.

A damaged reputation.

However, a massive war that would destroy his house? I don't think so.

[ozymalek-deactivated20240224]

now that i think of it, many things that in asoiaf spaces are basically treated as pillars of faith do not make sense in the slightest. like for example people claiming that it’s solely rhaegar’s fault that elia, rhaenys and aegon were murdered.

firstly, by the time the sack of king’s landing happens, rhaegar has been long dead. was he supposed to resurrect himself and save them? secondly, the only reason why elia and her children were in king’s landing was because aerys kept them as hostages against suspected dornish betrayal. it was also aerys who made the mistake of opening the gates of king’s landing to lannister forces (who up to that point were neutral), believing that tywin will choose his side. instead tywin started the sack of the city and ordered elia and her children to be killed. rhaegar had every reason to believe that elia and her children were safe in king’s landing by the time he was leaving to fight in the trident.

the people actually responsible for elia’s death were aerys (indirectly, by not letting them flee to dorne and being stupid enough to think tywin will back him), tywin (directly, he gave the order in order to prove his loyalty to robert), gregor and amory lorch (directly, actual perpetrators). moreover, robert bobert bobby b, a rapist wife beater so beloved by every corner of the fandom, actually smiled when he saw the children’s corpses and was delighted that it happened.

rhaegar had close to nothing to do with these events. he could not foresee the future and know that house lannister will choose the side of robert one last second, attack king’s landing AND have his wife and children killed.

[lyannaelia]

I think part of this comes from the fact that because they don't like how Rhaegar treated Elia, he's to blame for everything.

[bitchthefuck1]

Logan telling Shiv "You're marrying a man fathoms beneath you because you don't want to risk being betrayed" except Tom does betray her precisely because he know she thinks he's beneath her, ending the season with a hand on her shoulder and his face out of frame exactly like the picture of Shiv and Logan in the opening credits. I'm throwing myself into the sun.

[lyannaelia]

as someone who actually likes stannis, he's my baseline for determining if someone's a misogynist or not. if someone not only likes stannis but thinks he's a good man and a good king but hypercriticizes dany their opinion can be thrown out

[lyannaelia]

we know two things about elia at maximum so i suppose the benefit is you can interpret anything in any way. however, why are people so against the idea that she knew about lyanna and that she wasn't violently offended.

their marriage was described as fond but not romantic and while not all dornish people are the same, her brother was oberyn. she grew u around paramours

[viktoriakosci666]

It's so funny to me when I see people comparing Daenerys and Rhaenyra, because the ONLY reason the two are alike is their appearances and their 'mad tyrant queen' arcs.

Daenerys, unlike Rhaenyra, has NO right to the iron throne - Rhaegar, her brother, lost the war fair and square.

Rhaenyra, on the other hand, is named the Heir and is trying to get rid of Aegon ii, her brother, who, JUST like Daenerys, he has no legal right to the throne since he's not the Heir.

If ANYONE is similar to Daenerys, it's Aegon ii, who, just like her, is claiming to be the right Heir to the throne (reluctantly, but nonetheless).

Rightfull Heir - Rhaenyra, Stannis

The King - Viserys i, Robert

Claims to be Heir - Aegon ii, Viserys iii, Daenerys ii Stormborn, Joffrey Baratheon

[brideoffires-deactivated2023042]

Dany antis are so funny in their logic. Stanning Rhaenyra while hating Daenerys is genuinely amusing. 

First of all, Dany derives her claim to the Iron Throne from Viserys III, her brother. Aerys II made Viserys his heir, which means that upon Viserys’ death, Dany is his heir: 

He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne. (TWOIAF – The Fall of the Dragons: The End)

So going by this logic, the direct parallel between Rhaenyra and Daenerys here is that they are the direct heirs of “Viserys”, Viserys I for Rhaenyra and Viserys III for Daenerys. 

Second of all, it’s funny that you equate Rhaenyra to Stannis, considering that this is what Stannis thinks of Rhaenyra: 

"It has always been so. I am not . . . I am not a cruel man, Ser Davos. You know me. Have known me long. This is not my decree. It has always been so, since Aegon's day and before. Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth . . . traitors have always paid with their lives . . . even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown. It is law. Law, Davos. Not cruelty." (Davos IV, ASOS) 

Stannis doesn’t see Rhaenyra as Viserys’ rightful heir. He sees Aegon II as the rightful king and Rhaenyra as a Usurper. This is because the Maesters, who are misogynistic, present a biased viewpoint of history, and as a privileged man, Stannis will naturally buy into the misogynistic version of things. It’s funny that you’re then using that same misogyny to defend Rhaenyra and malign Daenerys. 

Third of all, if you’re going by legal claims, then Robert has no right to the Throne. He won his way to it by conquest, not succession. That means Stannis is only his “rightful” successor (which is itself questionable within the society of their world, because the Baratheon bannermen and Stormlands’ lords chose Renly and only allied with Stannis after he killed Renly and Cortnay Penrose). Even if Dany’s claim to the Throne wasn’t already legal due to her being Viserys III’s heir, she’s seeking to reclaim her family’s throne by that very right of conquest that Robert used to claim his. 

Joffrey is also “legally” Robert’s heir because the Maesters have not revoked his Baratheon heritage or struck it from history. As far as the Realm goes, he’s legally Robert’s son and Robert’s heir, and his Throne legally passes to Tommen I Baratheon. So you see the problem with buying into the “legal” argument, right? It’s intentionally meant to be fallacious, though of course, for Dany antis like you, you’ll pivot between upholding “legal” primogeniture versus right by conquest whenever it suits you. 

The question is, if Dany has no legal, or rightful, claim to the Iron Throne because she is attempting to conquer Westeros to restore the Targaryen dynasty, then why aren’t you applying the same argument to Robert? Why do you accept right by conquest for the man but not for the woman? 

It’s 2022. If you’re going to try and sound intelligent, at least read the books instead of basing your information on the TV shows and bad meta. 

[lyannaelia]

I'm going to be honest...I don't give a shit whether or not Daenerys is the "rightful" queen. For once, the 'it's all feudalism' argument is in my favor.

I did in the show, because it was annoying that the only implication of Jon's parentage reveal was to make Dany go mad, and I care about Rhaenyra's claim because it's pure usurpation. It's not even like Robert's Rebellion where say what you will about the rebellion, at least the inciting actions of killing Brandon and Rickard and demanding the heads of two lords was a 'valid' reason for war. It wasn't just 'hey that'd be cool.'

The book series is called A Song of Ice and Fire, not Game of Thrones. I doubt who sits on the iron throne is going to be incredibly important by the time the book ends, and while I adore Daenerys I doubt she (or Jon) is going to end up sitting on the throne if there is.

Faegon is fake, and Jon and Daenerys are almost certainly going to work together.

At the end of the day Daenerys is the queen who cares about her people. Daenerys is the queen who ended slavery. Daenerys is the prophesized hero, Daenerys is the best ruler in this book series and arguably the most important character in the story, and all these dudebro fans will have is 'w-well w-well technically Stannis!'