#historiclover

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

George has a fundamental problem in the way he writes and retcons religion.

First, we are told in AGOT that weirwood trees only exist in the North because the Andals cut them down in the south. This should have major social implications. But all of a sudden, all major houses in the south seem to have them. Including, per HOTD HBO universe, the godswood of the Red Keep. I guess Baelor cut it out? Which is stupid, because then Baelor should be fully hated in the North, yet Sansa always speaks positively of him. Catelyn would be far too politically savvy not to know what's a no-no.

There is also the question of tolerance. Despite the Starks having married at least one woman from the south who isn't a Blackwood—Lorra Royce (and of course we have the Manderly women)—Ned (a vale raised lord of Winterfell) built a sept for Catelyn. And there were no political implications? When canon has a king who planned to force everyone to convert to the Seven (which TWOIAF even lists as a possible reason for Viserys II to have poisoned him, since it would lead to war with the North), and when the Greatjon's speech says "Even their gods are wrong," showing clear dislike for the Seven in the North especially in the most "northern" houses like the Umbers. The books even gives a subplot of Manderly and Umbers having problems but never actually points to a obvious reason for it: religion.

And yet all of Ned and Catelyn's children are raised with both religions. They all pray to the Seven as they do to the Old Gods, to various degrees. So why is there not one offhand comment about that? Why isn't the fact that the second most powerful house in the North—the Manderlys—are followers of the Seven also not a problem?

Of course, Robb is also King of the Trident, where only the Blackwoods pray to the "right" gods.

And George's writing supports this problem. The Old Gods and R'hllor are associated with magic and "true god-like power," but the Seven aren't.

This reminds me of the parody post about "how you know you're in a high fantasy novel," where the two religions are fantasy Catholicism and paganism and the protagonist is always a pagan. If GRRM is going to pick a trope, he needs to stick to it.

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

https://www.tumblr.com/godihatethisfreakingcat/819447968085245952/the-first-act-of-aegons-reign-was-the-arrest-of?source=share

On this, I would even say it would make more sense to let the Blackfyres put forward their claim.

If, as the text implies, by the Great Council the Blackfyre claim had no strength, it would make much more sense to let Aenys present his claim and be denied the throne, thus making the Targaryen claim that line has been completely denied by the council (like in a way Rhaenys' line and probably Daenora and little Maegor were too).

By instead Bloodraven makes a martyr of the the Blackfyre Heir, which could cause a much more pro Blackfyre sentiment. Specially considering many might still be alive or have parents they were part of the Redgrass Field and could probably still have a pro Daemon or even a hero worship of him.

I think in a way Bloodraven is like Tywin as in the fandom makes him out to be a Machiavellian (because they never actually read, like the people who creates the theory, the damn book), even if many people in the fandom have show how Tywin isn't actually the political actor the fandom (and the Westerosi) mad him to be.

The only difference is that Tywin's legacy of fear crumbles after his death (which contrasted with the everlasting love/compassionate legally of Ned) while Bloodraven doesn't.

You're absolutely right. Too bad BR didn't see it that way. His goal was extermination of as many Blackfyres as he could; he even admitted to luring Aenys over. (Then fandom goes and calls Aenys's mere presence in Westeros "a naked sword" and therefore cause for BR to kill him on sight. I'm not even joking. The extrajudicial killing of a rational, peaceable man in his 40s who made no move to seize the throne is justified according to this fandom because he took Bloodraven's bait.)

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

Am I the only person who doesn't like the Hour of the Wolf as a Cregan is the Best Ever ?!

Like, I actually think it is the opposite? The Starks don't actually come as the good guys to me. The country has been ravaged by war and by then everyone is ready to built peace and try to move forward (with the West concern with the ironborn raids) and return slowly to normal.

And here comes Cregan, who lets face it, conveniently sat down during the war with most of his men only sending old men south. And then wants more war and executions?

I swear that if I was the Lads, and Baela and Rhaena I would not be so nice to his man.

Worse, it is Alysanne Blackwood of all people who gets him to go the peace route. A woman who commit Westerosi war crimes! There is absolutely no reason as to why Alysanne Blackwood is the lady of peace. She continue to fight after she lost her brother (Burning Mill) and unlike Bloody Ben (a child!) who cried after seeing the devastation of the battle of Lakeshore, miss Alysanne had no such comment on war. Worse, she was likely there and doesn't seem to offer any comfort to her nephew, who I feel the need to recall IS 13!

What I hate even more is seeing people say Ned should have acted like Cregan. Like everyone would accept the new Lord Hand executing everyone he personally didn't like. And again, Ned doesn't want war and children dying for power. Unlike fan favorite Cregan. I sometimes wonder if I read the same series where George goes to painful ways to show the everlasting legacy of Ned vs the everyone turns on Tywin's legacy the moment he dies.

I'm not super fond, either. This was a good thing to bring up. GRRM has indeed been clear in the main series that executing everyone brings about someone's downfall (BR seems to be an exception).

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

As I start to look with more attention to the map of Westeros and compare to real life geography it completely destroys the idea of second sons having no land or even titles (famously a TB argument against Otto and Alicent being some type of gold digger who didn't deserve a King) or bastards sons, like Daemon, should be thankfull to get even a small keep.

I understand George wanted a very simple worldbuilding, as one house = one Castle (but for the Peakes), but it actually makes no damn sense.

The Crownlands are the size of Finland. So "good" Daeron "on their wedding day, he granted Daemon a tract of land near the Blackwater, with the right to raise a castle"... Is literally nothing. It is "your father/brother owns the entirely of Finland and gave you a nice house across the street".

Daeron could very well gave given his entire family a very nice "track of land", enough for them to raise a large family.

Even his sisters. But besides making no sense, it also shows how nobles vs smallfolk are treated in Westeros.

Falena Stokeworth is married off to a knight and master of arms who is made one of the most powerful lords of the realm.

Meg is given to her husband, beaten to death by him, possible has no justice delivered and her daughters, the youngest being not 1 and the eldest being not yet 4 are sent to be Faith by Viserys (While Naerys is denied it, and she very likely saw the being a Septa as a escape from marriage as much as sign of devotion). Because they don't matter to the royal family since their mother was a commoner.

Shiera on the other hand had many lords and knights ask to marry her. We know nothing of Melissa other children, because they are one: girls, two: not sexually involved with Targaryens, so they don't matter to George.

Again, as many like you and @aegor-bamfsteel out, this is not how medieval world worked.

Illegitimate children of Kings were more often made dukes and earls than lords (and they were made lords), they were bishops or cardinals. And the women? Henry I illegitimate daughters were duchess, countess and one was even Queen of Scotland. And even for illegimate child that were legitimized one only needs to look at the children of Katherine Swynford (whose granddaughter was also Queen of Scotland).

So, saying people like Jon, Daemon or even second sons like Bran, Garlan, and Otto had nothing and should be happy with the little they were given makes no sense in a country the size of Westeros.

I know Westeros is about the size of South America, but I had no idea the Crownlands were that large! Finland, really? And that's after the Crownlands were carved out of the Riverlands and Stormlands. It would be like "My father, who was the king of South America and had the entirety of Paraguay under his personal control, legally deeded me a few square kilometers there. Then my half-brother became the king of South America and let the legal ruling stand, as was required."

It's funny that for all GRRM's inability to stop creating barely relevant characters, he seems allergic to the idea of cadet houses. How are they too difficult to remember when half the Freys have distinct personalities? The Stuart/Stewart ruling family in Scotland briefly split into two branches, which were reunited when James I/VI's parents married. Realistically, Walder Frey would have been The Most Honorable Walder Frey, Marquess of the Twins to his ruling lord's His Grace Hoster Tully, Duke of Riverrun, and several of his children would be created The Right Honorable (First Name) Frey, Earl of (Fief Name). They wouldn't all be living in the same castle and they wouldn't be fighting over one inheritance because the name, wealth, and lands would be split. Even his youngest children might have had the title of Baronet without a land inheritance.

Sending daughters to be nuns was unfortunately not unknown when a family had dowry issues or were otherwise unable to support daughters, as well as an easy method of currying favor with the Church. Despite the famous "Get thee to a nunnery" line, however, it wasn't a punishment for being born with royal blood. It was also presented as a virtuous choice and a way to honor God. Not even the children of aristocrats and common-born partners were automatically sent to serve the Church. William the Conqueror was illegitimate and his mother wasn't noble, for example. Owen Tudor, who came from a powerful family but wasn't a peer himself (and may have been a servant), had an illegitimate child outside of his marriage to the Queen Dowager, and that child was a landed knight.

I don't think GRRM fully understands how sacred royal blood was considered to be. In England, Megette's daughters would have been a prince's children and the current king's grandnieces. Viserys would have had an ethical if not legal obligation to support their mother, whether that was giving her funds to live independently or awarding her husband some kind of high-ranking servant position in the Riverlands. She might have still been beaten to death, but he would not have sent her back out of spite. He wouldn't have even considered it.

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

What I really hate about MUSH killing of Daena (besides the sexism, the "punishment" narrative, the pious -only slept with her husband -Naerys being proved innocent a day before her death) is that for a story supposedly focus court and interpersonal connections the death of Daena causes a problem: WHO RAISED DAEMON.

A child would need a guardian and because Westeros gives no inheritance to women unless they are the heirs to their house, there is not really a big reason to want to take the bastard child of a princess as a ward who had no clear royal favor. Unless, Aegon gives a pension to Daemon, warding Daemon has political little interest.

So, who raises Daemon. MUSH has now Rhaena joining the Faith. And I hate that I knew that Rhaena would become a Septa the moment Daena was announced to be pregnant again. When it actually makes more sense for her to become a Septa when Baelor died. That leaves who? Either Elaena - which puts her supporting Daeron into a questionable line if she was a step mother to Daemon. Or Daena's ladies, which are a Manderly and a Lannister. Both families have no connection to the Blackfyre line.

Would it be an interesting narrative if he was made a ward of Lord Peake thus making House Peake loyalty be almost family oriented? Yes. Would they do it, of course now because that would mean give nuance to the most hated family by the narrative.

You have such good takes on why a lot of this stuff makes zero sense, I tell you. Yes, it really sucks!

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

F&B really shows that George does have a problem with writing women and that he doesn't believe an actually policial and historial book is interesting. And nothing shows it more than Jaehaerys reign which is basically 70% of the new material we got.

Jaehaerys reign reads more like keeping up with the Targaryens then the Silmarillion.

And nothing shows how problematic it is the the fact that people in the fandom where able to actually write a very believable theory that Jaehaerys SA his own daughters! Because, as someone pointed out, sure Saera is a cartoonishly awful but she is not living in a vacuum. All the sisters (maybe not Alyssa, which is noticable the one who doesn't look Valyrian).

Worse, I honestly believe George agrees with Alysanne in the Viserra storyline. Which is baffling to me. Because unless George meant as a way to show how bad promoting incest in a family is that it wrapped young Viserra's mindset about sibling love... I have no idea what he planed that to be. Because again, the book gives us nothing.

It is a reason I fear for Daena. I just found out about MUSH last year and catched up to it, and I honestly believe that will be the end of Daena's story. Worse, because of the way F&B2 will be writting it will be a "it is a punishment from the gods for having sex outside of marriage" type of thing.

Daena could have been so damn interesting. The Matriarch in the Blackfyre camp. A Margaret Beaufort or Blanche of Castile but not sucessful. The one who led people to exile and build a court there. But no, she will die in childbed. Barba and Bethany will be awful "sluts" and not victims, unlike poor Melissa Blackwood. Serenei won't probably have any new info. And there will be no maester comment about Casella being a war prisoner forced into a Prince's bed. With the way things will, she will probably be hated by her family or Dorne as a whole, for "betraying them".

Daenaera and Myriah will have as much as charactezation as they already do and will get the Jocelyn Baratheon treatment... But I'm sure will know the physical description of every woman.

And worse, will be the story of Daenora. The woman who was usurped; lost her siblings young, whose mother was an Arryn (who will probably have 0 importance or die in childbirth) and was forced into marrying Brightflame to help his claim. Who will probably get as much as importance to the story as idk, any Baratheon wife besides Elena Caron (the worst written widow of the Dance).

And what saddens me, is that this is the man who wrote Catelyn, Brienne, Arya, Sansa, Dany and Cersei. Complex women, with good, bad, ambitions, desires, etc.

Agreed with all of this. Also, LOL, "Keeping Up with the Targaryens.".

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

“In contemporary canon, we only see a few Dornish women who act out sexually. The Sand Snakes have multiple partners, but they're also the illegitimate children of an unconventional father and have pretty much zero oversight. Arianne acts out sexually to get her father's attention or to seduce someone into her plans (not gonna lie, the way she spent months breaking down Ser Arys's boundaries makes me uncomfortable).”

Holly hell… I had to read it three times because of how right you are and how the fandom changed what I thought of Dorne!

I never understood how Dornish “free sexuality” isn’t a big point considering they follow the Faith and, you know, live in a society that prizes virginity. How can we have an entire plot about Margaery's supposed lack of virginity, to the point Cersei gets her arrested for not having a hymen, and somehow there is an entire principality where women have casual sex…. And married to the Crown Prince?

I just never understood how no one in Westeros talks about Myriah and Elia and their lack of “maidenhead,” considering they are in a land where women having sex outside of marriage is punishable and a reason not to marry a noble. How Hoster (I forced an abortion on my daughter that almost killed her) Tully was considering Arianne as a bride for Edmure? How could he not see her as “tainted” for his only heir???

But you’re right, that isn’t confirmed? Women in Dorne being sexually liberated is actually fanon. We – the readers – know Arianne isn’t a virgin because she thinks about it. Cersei had sex before her marriage, and no one suspected her!

Sylva Santagar's punishment for the plotting is to marry an old man (probably also being disinhibited? I am not entirely sure. She is said to be the heir of Spootswood, but she married a Stormlander lord. Cletus Yronwood was his father’s heir despite having an older sister, but said sister is married to the heir of Godsgrace, so is that a way to disinherit heiresses? I’ve seen some in the fandom bring this up, and it does make sense.)

And Cersei, when she gets the news, thinks it's because Sylvia had sex outside of marriage and is pregnant. But she doesn’t make a comment about Dornish women being like that, or even Arianne, for whom Sylvia was a companion, doing it as well... Cersei!

And of course, characters like Ellaria and the Sand Snakes being sexually active would be “expected” due to views on bastardy.

And Aliandra Martell's affair with Alyn seems to add to her “loose morals", but unlike with Essosi women, the book never makes it seem that Dornish women are like that. Sure, MUSH had ladies of Dorne having paramours, but it isn’t canon, and aren’t they all lady regnant?

I don’t know, it just never made cultural sense to me, and now your words turned my head around.

First of all, I'm flattered. Second: yep. You got it. You never saw any stereotypes in Westeros about Dornish women being nymphomaniacs because those stereotypes DO NOT EXIST. If even - as you said - Cersei, who is a bona fide racist and does what she does to Taena, has no real thoughts about what Dornish women do in bed, we can assume that Westeros generally doesn't obsess about it, either. "The Dornishman's Wife" is implied to be about a Reacher woman, and @aegor-bamfsteel pointed out years ago that it's based on a song from GRRM's era about a man who wants to have sex with a Spanish woman. The Dornishman in question also demands fidelity of his wife and kills the narrator for sleeping with her, so if anything, the implication there should be that Dornish people are extremely monogamous. XD

As for Dornish paramour culture, we hear about it in TWOIAF, but again, see few examples and all of them are monogamous (for a given value thereof if the noble is married), not some harem thing. Edgar Yronwood even dueled Oberyn when he found him in bed with his paramour. It's referred to as a "queer custom of the South" by Yandel rather than a huge sin against the Seven. Like the rest of the continent, Dorne also *does not let children born of those relationships inherit their parents' seats.* Ellaria is respected in Dorne, but her partner is also fourth in line to rule the whole country. It's not like every lord has a paramour, either, just a few. GRRM's 2002 ConJose interview implies paramour culture is also a thing for the entirety of Westeros; this is treated as canon in the official wiki, including same-sex paramours, and we know Westeros is still homophobic.

Even with paramour culture, even with some limited sexual freedom within the bounds of Westerosi custom, Dornish women aren't accused of cheating on their husbands or thought of as lustful temptresses, even by the most bigoted POV characters imaginable. As you said, Arianne is considered a potential bride for the sons of Great Houses and we know she *has* had sex with multiple people. The general impression seems to be "those guys are kind of weird" and that's all.