#daemon's children

[horizon-verizon]

Why exactly does HotD feel the need to ignore that Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, Laena, Baela, and Rhaena already had characterizations that are not only tied to their actions, but also manage to distinguish them from each other while also linking them to one another?

The "boring" and "dry" source material managed to give us five related women who expressed a "Targaryen woman's strength" and agency in five unique (but still related) ways. And HotD thinks it's somehow an improvement to insist that actually, no, they're all just (by circumstance) variations of a "generic targ girl" template.

The same people who removed Jace's accomplishments, which in turn were a statement about Rhaenyra, and filled in the characterization void they left by portraying him as a mini-Daemon moreso than Baela, because Baela can't be her mini-Daemon book!self because that suggests a good relationship and Daemon needs to have as many of his good qualities removed as possible and as many new crimes invented as possible, including one that necessitates stripping Laena of her characterization, in order to service an invented "redemption arc" that will be used to justify removing Rhaena's characterization for a nonsensical dragon conflict that consumes her whole identity to the point that she ends up merged with another character she has nothing in common with.

You can't change core traits of characters from a book like Fire & Blood. The fact that the characters feel so "utilitarian" might make it feel like you can. But the fact that they're utilitarian means that all those (interconnected) traits are there for a reason because all their (interconnected) actions are driven by those traits.

And yet something tells me these writers are going to try to make a statement about "hubris."

The fact that the characters feel so "utilitarian" might make it feel like you can

@rhaenin-time

If Condal or Hess said this, flame them. If you can't design a person from the role given in the original work, you shouldn't be a creative writer. I really hate that you might be right about the hubris. Like, why the blacks? So do the Starks have hubris for having pride in their house or loving their family? No, so why the Targs and esp the blacks? Though they revealed themselves to be as close to Targ antis as they can get from all their marketing-focused internet search for how the general fandom regards the Targs and their narrative roles.

Part of the reason why they might think of these characters having no real distinct personalities is that they've never really adjusted to reading the book and picking up on characters from the mix of setting, actions, and words. The lack of PoVs triggers a certain wrong kind of detachment.

[horizon-verizon]

“It is unfair that Rhaenyra lost her children while Daemon's all survived and inherited their place in the line from him” I think it was unfair for all the children. Rhaenyra’s sons represent not just her personal loss but the loss of tremendous potential; they were future leaders, trained and prepared to inherit power and responsibility. To become the next generation of leaders. Jace, in particular, was a brave and capable heir who could have become a strong king. The Velaryon boys paid for a war they did not start; their deaths weren’t just tragic; they were a heartbreaking waste of what could have been. Baela and Rhaena suffered their own kind of loss. Baela was meant to be queen alongside Jace, and Rhaena was destined to be Lady of Driftmark. They grew up knowing their futures, secure in the lives they were supposed to have. They were betrothed to boys they knew and cared for, not shipped off to strangers. When the Velaryon boys died, those futures crumbled. Baela and Rhaena weren’t just mourning loved ones; they were mourning the lives they had been promised. Viserys and Aegon weren’t spared from this tragedy either. Viserys was taken far from his family, growing up isolated and disconnected from everything he knew. Aegon was forced to bear the weight of the crown while mourning his parents and brothers, burdened with responsibilities he never asked for, surrounded by schemes and mistrust. Both boys had to shoulder the consequences of a war they had no part in. While Rhaenyra and Daemon’s children may have survived and carried on their parent's legacy, it came at a devastating price. The surviving children were left to inherit not just titles but grief, trauma, and shattered futures. All of this because of the ambition of others who couldn’t bear to see a woman sit on the Iron Throne. What should have been a legacy of strength and unity became a bitter reminder of loss, sacrifice, and the cruel waste of an entire generation’s promise.

Anon is talking about this post.

And yes, anon, absolutely.

[horizon-verizon]

As much as I appreciate the writers trying to show how Rhaenyra uplifts other women and girls, I DON'T like how the leaks floating around seem to suggest that they decided that the best way to put Baela at her side is to give them this "women have the only braincell and that braincell wants PEACE" dynamic coming up. That makes TWO warrior women they've decided to rewrite as conflict-averse. If they really wanted one of Daemon's daughters as her advocate, it would have made far more sense to put off Rhaena's trip to the Vale (it's not like she won't get plenty of time there regardless) and have Baela and Rhaena divided over their approaches to war with Rhaena siding with Rhaenyra and Baela siding with Daemon.

Problem is, it really feels like the show goes to weird, nonsensical lengths to distance Daemon from his daughters. Non-sensical not just because of their book counterparts. Show!Daemon is still shown to be obsessed with his family, the writers outright say that he's been "umbilically connected" to Rhaenyra, and show!Rhaenyra is also shown to be a notably involved mother. Which is why even if they did want to spin Daemon as a distant father, it doesn't make sense for Rhaenyra to not only let him get away with it, but also weirdly seem to have more of a rapport with his daughters than he does when, again, the writers themselves have called them "umbilically connected."

We're talking about the Rhaenyra who made sure her young, mourning son took the time to comfort and connect with Baela and Rhaena. So I can't buy that Daemon ignoring his daughters wouldn't be a HUGE point of contention, one we should have been shown, between him and Rhaenyra — notable daughter also ignored by her father and seemingly intent on breaking that cycle.

But I suppose the writers have also made it clear that Baela, Rhaena, and Laena are their narrative sacrificial lambs to service whatever changes they want to make without thinking the implications through. Like... narrative padding that absorbs inconsistencies.

I wonder why 🤔

@rhaenin-time

So I can't buy that Daemon ignoring his daughters wouldn't be a HUGE point of contention, one we should have been shown, between him and Rhaenyra — notable daughter also ignored by her father and seemingly intent on breaking that cycle.

---

Show!Daemon is still shown to be obsessed with his family, the writers outright say that he's been "umbilically connected" to Rhaenyra, and show!Rhaenyra is also shown to be a notably involved mother. Which is why even if they did want to spin Daemon as a distant father, it doesn't make sense for Rhaenyra to not only let him get away with it, but also weirdly seem to have more of a rapport with his daughters than he does when, again, the writers themselves have called them "umbilically connected."

*sigh*, I fear you ate too hard. Why must you continuously raise the bar and do it flawlessly?

Oh, being serious, yeah this is a great critique of the Dragonstone family dynamics show wise. I suppose the lack of faith in Rhaenyra as an influence/authority of her own domain is buoying the popular lack of catching this tidbit.

[horizon-verizon]

It is unfair that Rhaenyra lost her children while Daemon's all survived and inherited their place in the line from him.

...Do you mean that is unfair as if there's some sort of competition b/t Daemon and Rhaenyra for who's kids survive in the thematic, ideological, or metaphysical sense? That in the "game" of thrones, he "won" or he fared better and she didn't because all his kids survived, while Rhaenyra lost her first sons that weren't his?

If so, I think I get that you are trying to say that Rhaenyra's gender is used as a way for her to lose her kids since her society is a sexist, classist, hypocritical one.

Still, I think there's a problem with making Rhaenyra's kids w/Daemon and his kids with Laena versus her kids with Harwin into distinct, ideological or metaphysical camps pitted against each other. Because there's still too much emphasis on their parentage overriding or determining their values, when there has been no evidence or suggestion that these kids didn't feel the other were true "family" if not the popular or "familiar" image of "family". That Baela and Aegon III saw Lucerys, for example, as "other" and "not family". And that they'd ever hurt the other, fight them for resources they think the deserve over the other, or think less of them. And I do not think Daemon saw Rhaenyra's sons by Harwin as not his own emotionally, or that he did not care for them or that he didn't not accept the fact that they would be the ones to inherit after Rhaenyra dies.

Aegon III and Viserys II are both Rhaenyra and Daemon's sons. Alicent's line is wiped out (Alys's son is never seen again). The Targaryen dynasty descends, therefore, from both Rhaenyra and Daemon. So no, we cannot think that only Daemon's line are a part of the succession.

That Rhaenyra loses her first 3 sons is the material and ideological fault of the sexist and classist society in which they lived, so in that sense alone, yes it's unfair but it's unfair that they, the kids themselves, were victimized instead of a competition between Rhaenyra and Daemon's "blood".

At the same time, neither parent will ever have the assurance that their kids live and live well and Rhaenyra would rage/grieve and Daemon would rage/grieve over how her eldest with Daemon lived, was put into danger multiple times, and was taken advantage of. We also remember that it is after her death that the Targ dragons begin to disappear.

EDIT (from @dragonsfromthemoon below in the reblogs):

Daemon lost his kids by Laena, by Mysaria, and one by Rhaenyra: his son by Laena, the miscarried son, and Visenya. So he lost children, as well.

And before we say "fetuses are not really people" and accuse me of being pro life here, all parties wanted these fetuses/children, anticipated their arrival, and thought of them as their kids already, placing emotional attachment onto these fetuses/infants. Let us not diminish that and argue as if Rhaenyra, Mysaria, and Laena were not actively happy and wanted to have those kids at one point, also wanting Daemon's.

[horizon-verizon]

I find it ironic how Aegon III, a quiet, sombre man, not interested in fighting or hunting or any fun was born to daemyra. I bet Daemon often looked at him in his childhood and wondered if he was from his blood.

...anon, Aegon III was not just "quiet and sombre" because that was his personality.

As you just said, Aegon was in his “childhood” -- he wasn't a man when his parents were alive and raising him. Both his parents died before he turns 11. He never develops the desire to fight and hunt or really is passionate for anything because of trauma.

Yet you imply that he becomes a certain type of man despite his parents efforts?

A)

Aegon III never grew up into an adult fully raised by Rhaenyra and Daemon. He was a severely Depressed and traumatized man in despair who scorned socialization and human connection because he was put into constant danger since he was 10 and lost everything except his brother, whom he still thought lost for 5 years and thought it was all his own fault.

He was 10 when he witnessed Rhaenyra, his mother, get eaten alive by his uncle's dragon Sunfyre and for months afterwards he was held hostage by the same murderous uncle (Aegon II) who would have begun mutilating him to protect himself from Rhaenyra’s supporters.

I’m taking a wild, wild guess here and saying that you never read my post HERE. I also suggest looking through its reblogs -- others have bring in more evidence of Aegon’s despair.

Here is another description of Aegon III as a man:

Although some joy returned to Aegon following the return of his brother Viserys, he would always remain a melancholy man who found pleasure in almost nothing, who disliked being touched, and who would retreat to his chambers for days on end, brooding alone.

B)

We don’t know what sort of personality he had before he lost his family in so gruesome ways but even if he was more reserved, why would you assume that Daemon would be frustrated with, disapprove, or believe Aegon the Younger to not be his son or be inferior because he doesn’t act “manly”? Are you trying to diminish the pride Daemon would have had for him and his brother? 

Then I think you don’t really know Daemon. Daemon, who supported his brother Viserys even though he felt that Viserys was way too people pleasing. You must really think of Daemon and people in general in absolutes.

Trauma doesn’t equal personality.

EDIT: 

C) This edit comes in light of @ladylarisa ‘s reblog of this post.

Despite his trauma, Aegon III seems to have had his father tell him and train him to have a particular inner strength and pride that enables him to face foes set to control him and his brother. His reserved-ness did not equal weakness. 

They say:

"Though only nine at the time, Aegon came from a long line of warriors and heroes and had been raised on stories of their bold deeds and daring exploits"

(Who else would have raised him with these stories, if not his mother and father, Rhaenyra and Daemon Targaryen?)

“Lord Manderly,” King Aegon said, in the sudden stillness, “pray tell me how old I am, if you would be so good.”

“You are ten-and-six today, Your Grace,” Lord Manderly replied.

“A man grown. It is time for you to take the governance of the Seven Kingdoms into your own hands.”

“I shall,” King Aegon said. “You are sitting in my chair.” The coldness in his tone took every man in the room aback.

And let's not forget:

The king’s face grew hard. “Ser Marston,” he said, “this man is my Hand and innocent of treason. The traitors here are those who tortured him to bring forth this false confession. Seize the Lord Confessor, if you love your king…else I will know that you are as false as he is.”

His words rang across the inner ward, and in that moment, the broken boy Aegon III seemed every inch a king.

Aegon III was Daemyra to the core. That's literally his mother and father's personalities combined. That's Rhaenyra and Daemon's son.

A quote ladylarisa refers to is HERE. In it, one Kingsguard named Marston Waters, who was illicitly named Aegon’s new Hand (without his leave) and tried to arrest Lady Larra Rogare (Viserys’ wife) after her family and its short-lived bank in Westeros fell. 

She was to be arrested and possibly killed for her brothers’ “treachery”, but Viserys II confronted the arresters and warned against them entering Maegor’s Holdfast, after which Sandoq the Shadow (Larra’s follower) killed Ser Amaury Peake (QUOTE of aftermath). 

THIS is further description of Sandoq the Shadow.

This is the QUOTE of how Aegon III gained back power after he turned 16.

And THIS is the quote about Aegon having been nine and having learned of his lines warriors and “their bold deeds and daring exploits”.

[horizon-verizon]

Why do you think Rhaenyra had Visenya only after 9 years of her marriage? I mean she have birth to Viserys in 122 and paused. And then tried again in 128. She wanted a daughter but waited.

Disclaimer: I have never been pregnant.

Watsonian Answer(s): 

In between the years 122 A.C. and 129 A.C. there was: the Driftmark claim and Vaemond incidents; Viserys getting his hand cut to lose two of his fingers to save his life and the subsequent faster decline; Rhaenyra’s conflict with Alicent over the new grandmaester to be chosen; the faux-amicable dinner where the greens and blacks wore each other colors and the women faux-kissed and all the sniping, malignant looks and tension in the air/awakened rivalry against Alicent and the rest of the greens . This is a lot, and she could have been worrying over her father while feuding with the greens in all their moments of contact. Mid-to-high stress. Then we would know that Rhaenyra was also busy on Dragonstone, ruling it. While she can do it pregnant, not being pregnant does lift a literal weight and pressure off of you while doing it. It’s very possible she just wanted to focus on that, as much as she obviously liked and wanted children. Also focus on enjoying her and Daemon’s children, as sgain she enjoyed having kids and loved her children.

I don't think there's anything wrong or strange with her taking a break between babies and giving birth. Labor and childbirth are more dangerous for persons living before the times when better healthcare was available, and no one knew about microbes. And she is in her late 20s,-early 30s, which is fine and fertile enough ages to have children. She had time enough to have kids and safely. She didn't need to be pregnant again and again like Alysanne. No women needs to. Aside from that, she seems to just choose this herself, probably because of the reasons I listed above. I mean, I think it's reasonable to want your body to yourself for a while before getting back into it, you know?

Doylist Answer(s):

Timing and timeline-wise:

For the dramatic effect/writing of her loss of Visenya and the stillbirth. 

To highlight the cruelty of the greens and repeat their tendency to hurt children (my headcanon).

Foreshadows more innocent blood spilled, esp. the young’s and children’s. Yes, including the greens’ own children.

Visenya, as a girl, is not allowed to live as her mother is not allowed to come into power. (My headcanon)

“Dramatic” not as in “excessive”. I mean as in “like a play” and as a plot point to further emotionally motivate Rhaenyra and Daemon to take back the throne:

On Dragonstone, no cheers were heard. Instead, screams echoed through the halls and stairwells of Sea Dragon Tower, down from the queen’s apartments where Rhaenyra Targaryen strained and shuddered in her third day of labor. The child had not been due for another turn of the moon, but the tidings from King’s Landing had driven the princess into a black fury, and her rage seemed to bring on the birth, as if the babe inside her were angry too, and fighting to get out. The princess shrieked curses all through her labor, calling down the wrath of the gods upon her half-brothers and their mother, the queen, and detailing the torments she would inflict upon them before she would let them die. She cursed the child inside her too, Mushroom tells us, clawing at her swollen belly as Maester Gerardys and her midwife tried to restrain her and shouting, “Monster, monster, get out, get out, GET OUT!”

When the babe at last came forth, she proved indeed a monster: a stillborn girl, twisted and malformed, with a hole in her chest where her heart should have been, and a stubby, scaled tail. Or so Mushroom describes her. The dwarf tells us that it was he who carried the little thing to the yard for burning. The dead girl had been named Visenya, Princess Rhaenyra announced the next day, when milk of the poppy had blunted the edge of her pain. “She was my only daughter, and they killed her. They stole my crown and murdered my daughter, and they shall answer for it.”

(“The Blacks and the Greens”)