I have a question about queenship and how Aemma and Alicent's might differ; and I hope I am not being too annoying because it is a long one, I'm sure.
Besides their duty to secure the succession, queen consorts had other jobs. I don't think Queens in Westeros have dower lands (or any highborn lady, despite the collosal side of Westeros) to administer. We know queens were mediators, were patrons, managed their own household (probably even the Red Keep with the Royal Steward), they hosted feasts, dinners, balls, they wrote to lords and foreign rulers, gave alms, oversaw education of not just their children (but other nobles), and probably more things that I am forgetting.
I make this point, because from a qeenship point of view, it is interesting to explore both women, and I think it shows Alicent actually had more power than Aemma.
Aemma Arryn: We don't know a thing about her education and personality. Show Aemma seems kind and traditional and doesn't seem to get involved in politics. But show Aemma age/timeline is a mess. Book Aemma queenship is probably an interesting study because it will mirror Naerys and Rhaella. Aemma was a child bride and an orphan (Rodrik Arryn died between 82-97). We have nothing that indicated she was raised by her grandmother, Queen Alysanne (which would make sense), or in the Eyrie. Then we have Aemma's childbirth history. Viserys first slept with Aemma in 95 AC and she died in 105 AC. Rhaenyra was born in 97 AC but "Aemma became pregnant several times, but suffered multiple miscarriages and gave birth to a son who died in the cradle" this unknown son, it not Baelon. Show Aemma tells us one child who died in the cradle, two stillbirths, and two miscarriages + Rhaenyra and Baelon. This 7 pregnancies in 10 years!
So, it is safe to say this poor woman spent in 10 years mostly pregnant and in bedrest. (Fuck you Viserys!). Which probably meant a lot of the soft power she could will as queen consort is effected by it. Pregant Aemma is not touring the country, giving alms in the city, hosting celebrations as often possible. And book Aemma was queen for 2 years (one she spent pregnant), but we can consider that with Alysanne death by 100 AC, Aemma was the highest lady in the realm after the council of 101 and de facto queen.
Now Alicent: HotD timeline is all over the place, but book Alicent was Queen Consort for 23 years. This place Alicent in the few Queens who actually passed the 20 year mark. I did the math (unlike George), and if we consider that the queens whose death dates we don't know (*), died after their husbands we have this years as queen consorts: Visenya (37 years); Alysanne (52 years); Daenaera (*24 years); Myriah* (25 years); Betha (*26 years); Rhaella (21 years). We then have Rhaenys (10 years); Aelinor (*12 years). The others had less than 7 years (Maegor's first three queens having 6 years; and Naerys being queen for around 7 years)
Alicent starts her queenship with her father as Hand. This already places her in a more powerful position than Aemma. Viserys might ignore her, but Otto won't. Alicent is "precocious at fifteen and clever and lovely at the age of eighteen". She is well-read, and contrary to what HotD wants us to believe, book Alicent is a political powerhouse. Her first 5 years as Queen she gave birth 3 times. And 3 years later have birth to Daeron. From 114 Ac to 129 AC she had no more pregnancies and from 126 AC (in the books) Viserys never sat the iron throne again.
Considering all this, their queenships have to be different, but how do you think Alicent's Queenship could differ from other long-term queens?
You’re not being annoying at all this is actually a very interesting take.
This is going to be a bit long and repetitive!
Most long-term queens gain stability with their husbands shared rule, consistent presence, a clear court system. Alicent’s situation is different. She starts with access to power through Otto, yes, but over time her queenship shifts into something much more independent and tense because Viserys increasingly withdraws, both physically and politically. So instead of a queen working alongside an active king, you get a queen functioning in the gaps of a declining reign. That alone changes everything.
Her queenship becomes less about ceremonial influence and more about sustaining governance and court coherence when the king won’t. She’s not just hosting or patronizing she’s embedded in the actual mechanics of rule, especially once Viserys stops consistently appearing or asserting authority. That’s not typical, even for long-reigning queens.
At the same time, Alicent’s position is uniquely unstable because her entire queenship is tied to a live succession contradiction. Most queens work to secure a clear heir. Alicent exists in a court where:
an heir already exists
her own sons are also legitimate claimants
And the king refuses to resolve the tension
She is the queen of a system that is simultaneously accepting and bypassing her line. instead of reinforcing a settled future, her queenship works in a state of permanent uncertainty.
her role as “mother of the next king” is undermined.
And then there’s the maternal dimension. Alicent isn’t just raising royal children she’s raising potential rivals to the named heir. That turns motherhood into a political act at every stage. marriages, alliances, even proximity to power all of it becomes strategic because her children’s survival and status are not guaranteed. Compared to other long-term queens, this creates a queenship that is less stable, more factional, and far more scrutinized.
What makes her queenship distinct isn’t just duration, it’s that she rules during a period where the king is weakening, the succession is unresolved, and the court is splitting. That pushes her beyond the typical boundaries of a queen consort and into something closer to a power broker working inside an unstable regime, which is a very different model from most long-term queens in the series.
That’s why Alicent’s queenship looks different AND “unstable”
Her queenship evolves into something reactive and “crisis”-driven. Her role is less “queen as stabilizing presence” and more “queen as active political player inside an emerging civil war.” That is rare. Most queens either successfully anchor the house (Alysanne-type model), OR are politically sidelined early or by death instead she ends up maintaining queenship while competing with another queen-designate’s legitimacy.
Also her queenship is shaped by factional politics INSIDE the royal family itself so unlike queens who mainly mediate between crown and external nobles, Alicent is embedded in an internal succession conflict her influence is tied to defending ONE BRANCH of the family against another.
And yeah, when you look at it through that lens, Alicent’s queenship is different from Aemma’s not in capacity. Aemma Arryn’s queenship is limited. She was married young who went through constant pregnancies for roughly a decadence and was physically weakened much of the time. Even if she had political ambition, she likely didn’t have the health or stability to fully exercise soft power in any sustained way.
Queenship at court depends heavily on informal influence patronage, networks with noble houses, shaping court culture, and advising behind the scenes but Aemma’s condition means her role is closer to survival within her duties than active governance. Her queenship becomes largely reproductive.
Alicent, by contrast, represents almost the opposite case (much like how Cersei stands as a foil to Rhaella Targaryen) as you said she has longevity, spending over two decades as queen, along with education, strong court awareness, proximity to power through Otto as Hand, and long gaps without pregnancy that allow her more sustained presence in political life. All of this becomes even more significant as King Viserys declines, because a weakening monarch creates a vacuum.
Jaehaerys also shapes Alicent’s queenship, just as Tywin shapes Cersei’s except tywin is a tyrant. He raises Cersei with a clear message that power belongs to tyrants and Cersei’s queenship becomes a reaction to him she tries to be “him” reclaim the authority she was refused by mimicking his ruthlessness. Alicent lived in KL and was raised at court under Jaehaerys shadow, she grows up believing in the order and “exceptionalism” of the realm he built. She was his caretaker and he leaves a lasting influence on her worldview and sense of duty. We see later on that her grandchildren are named in his honour (Jaehaera and Jaehaerys) which was probably Alicent’s decision. At the same time, she’s shaped by her father’s ambitions and the quiet way she’s positioned and expected to serve a role rather than define it. She clings to Jaehaerys’ ideals of duty while also having to work in a system that limits her. She genuinely believes in her rights because she sees them as aligned with what king Jaehaerys would have wanted. She idealizes him, almost mythologizing his reign as a “perfect” model of stability and prosperity. During the dance, she suggested assembling a great council, following the example set by Jaehaerys ”Let us together summon a great council, as the Old King did in days of old,” she said. So everything she does gets filtered through that lens if it fits the “Jaehaerys model,” it feels legitimate and necessary, even when the reality around her is far messier.
What makes her queenship distinct is how she builds and works within factional politics. She aligns with Otto, shapes alliances, influences appointments, and positions her children as political assets. In that sense, she moves *closer* maybe like Visenya Targaryen (not ruthlessly or military) than to the more traditionally supportive consort model. So her queenship is partly defined by trying to recreate a version of that stability in a world that has already moved past it, even when that effort puts her in direct conflict with others who see power differently.
Her motherhood also becomes politically instrumental in a way that goes beyond standard expectation. Her children are not only heirs but sources of rallying points. And when crisis arrives Alicent is not simply a ceremonial stabilizer. She is forced into reactive, high-stakes decision-making, which pushes her closer to executive political behavior than traditional consort roles allow. She left Viserys’ body to rot is darkly funny in a very “she is DONE with this situation”. She was sending envoys to secure support for her sons “Ravens flew, but not to Dragonstone. They went instead to Oldtown, to Casterly Rock, to Riverrun, to Highgarden, and to many other lords and knights whom Queen Alicent had cause to think might be sympathetic to her son.” Her strength shows most in crisis management, like during the Fall of KL, when she quickly organized her son & her grandchildren escape from the city she also ordered the gates of the city to be closed ensuring the security of the capital and preventing enemy soldiers from flooding the city. While the measure primarily protected her own family and Aegon’s claim, It ALSO kept the smallfolk safer, bc letting chaos spill into the streets would’ve been 10x worse. Also unlike Aemma she’s loved by the smallfolk (Probably due to charity in peaceful times)
So compared to other long-term queens, Alicent is not simply a supportive wife in the mold of Naerys or a harmonious co-ruler like Alysanne. She is to a faction leader, and in some ways a proto-regent without the formal title. Ultimately, the biggest difference between Aemma and Alicent is not only personality but circumstance. Aemma is trapped by her body and her role, while Alicent is trapped within the system but still given enough space to act inside it. That difference in health, and political opening is what makes Alicent appear far more powerful not because queenship itself changed, but because she was able to use it in ways Aemma never realistically could.
And honestly, that’s part of why she’s so hated by the fandom. If Alicent isn’t the “perfect” queen consort -- aka if she doesn’t bend herself into some cookie-cutter ideal of femininity or the Victorian-Goddess-Mother fantasy then guess what? She can never be “right.” anything she does for herself, for her kids, or even to survive in a court built to chew her alive, she becomes “wrong.” It’s the classic Angel in the House trap: she’s supposed to be flawless, endlessly selfless, patient… basically a living statue of respectability. You know, the Victorian-distilled Mother Goddess energy never angry, never ambitious, never human. Any ambition she shows? Wrong. Any desire to protect her children or assert her power? Evil.
So her “problem” isn’t just what she does it’s that she refuses to stay within an idealized version of what a queen consort is supposed to be she break from simply obeying the king the part of what defines her queenship. Instead of remaining a passive consort, she steps outside that role and acts on her own political judgment especially when she believes the king’s decisions threaten her children.
I don't think Queens in Westeros have dower lands (or any highborn lady, despite the collosal side of Westeros) to administer.
You’re right that we don’t see a consistent system of queens or noblewomen holding formal “dower lands” in the way medieval Europe did, which makes them very vulnerable after their husband’s death.
BUT
Queen Alysanne introduces the “Widow’s Law” to protect them. Instead of granting dowers, the law requires the husband’s heir to maintain the widow at the same standard of living she had before his death and prevents her from being cast out of the household. Now alicent after her husband’s death, she becomes a widow, and since her sons don’t inherit anything at that point, she’s left in a vulnerable position. Without a secure inheritance backing her, her safety and status depend entirely on who holds power at court. Even with protections like Alysanne’s Widow’s Law in theory, in practice it wouldn’t mean much if the ruling faction is against her.
What the books call “dower/dowry” is kind of all over the place and doesn’t cleanly match the historical system. in actual medieval practice, dowry (from the bride’s family) and dower (from the husband to the wife for her widowhood) are distinct and structured, often tied to land, income rights, and long-term security. it’s not just a sack of silver it’s about ensuring the woman has ongoing status and material protection.
in asoiaf though, what we mostly see is:
lump sums of wealth (silver, gold, goods)
prestige-based marriage incentives
and very little evidence of systematic land-based settlements for women
like the walder frey example or the corbray one those feel more like transactional sweeteners than formal legal protections. they’re about: “here’s money to make this match attractive” NOT “here’s a structured economic base for the bride’s future” because a lot of these “dowries” show up when there’s something uneven about the match: lower-status bride → higher-status groom OR a politically awkward alliance that needs compensation so the money functions more as balancing leverage than as a standard institution.
Also in a setting this obsessed with land and inheritance you’d expect women’s marriage portions to be tied into that system more directly but GRRM mostly avoids it, probably because it would complicate inheritance politics A LOT like you’d have widows with legal claims to land income, children inheriting through maternal lines more visibly and way more fragmentation of estates which would make succession disputes even messier than they already are.
So instead, the system kind of “simplifies” it. which is why something like Alysanne’s Widow’s Law stands out so much it’s one of the few moments where the text actually acknowledges how vulnerable widows are without those protections.
It’s very likely She-Wolves story will almost certainly highlight how widows compete to secure their children’s inheritance during succession crises, especially in a house like the Starks. If Beron Stark is dying, it makes sense that different Stark women would be active behind the scenes, each trying to protect their own children’s position in the line of succession. Women like Serena & Sansa being left out of clear inheritance paths would logically contribute to those underlying disputes, since their children’s status would depend on how that succession gets decided.
People need to understand that widows in Asoiaf aren’t just grieving, they’re working inside succession systems where their children’s security, their household’s survival, and their political leverage can all die at once. That creates pressure that goes beyond the typical “medieval widow” framing. The problem is that fandom stops at the surface-level reading without engaging with the political mechanics underneath it. So instead of analyzing how inheritance crises force widows into quiet but real power struggles, it gets simplified into “women being dramatic! They sacrificed their children for power ! ,” depending on who the character is.
