Nope. Brandon and Catelyn’s betrothal cements the Winterfell-Riverrun alliance and it’s not good politics to waste Lyanna or Edmure’s hands on an already established alliance when they can be used to ally with other houses. Why marry Lyanna to Edmure if you can marry her to, say, Elbert Arryn? Both Rickard Stark and Hoster Tully are too savvy and ambitious to squander a valuable marriage pawn each on an already guaranteed alliance.
Tag: ask box
Hi! I’m new & looking for an A/reasoned opinion to a ASOIAF Q (& ur asks are v good) Rickon: what is his book ending? Officially, he’s in Skagos (in the show he’s dead but I feel killing him was such a waste) When searching, the answers usually are “google what a shaggy dog story is”, or “he’s dies like the show”. Would GRRM reverse a shaggy dog story, or keep him alive at least so he can do SOMETHING? Will he be part of a Great Northern Conspiracy?Reunited w his family? Or Killed off? Thanks x
Welcome to the fandom dear and thanks! I’m not sure how helpful my answer is gonna be but I’ll do my best.
Rickon’s endgame is uncertain and isn’t something that’s discussed in fandom all that much. The fact that we have very little information on him makes the trajectory of his story less clear than his siblings so most of what I’ve seen is offhand mentions of preferred endgames for him. The shaggy dog thing is a definite possibility (and perhaps the most solid for how it has roots in popular tropes and in Shaggydog’s name) but there is nothing to tell us if GRRM is gonna play this trope straight or if it’s gonna be subverted. He’s been known to do both so it’s hard say with any degree of certainty. Personally, I hope Rickon survives but I’m not sure if he will.
However, I’ll put it out there that I don’t think that the shaggy dog reference necessarily means Rickon needs to die. As I understand it, a shaggy dog story is one that has a lot of built up but whose ending is anticlimactic and makes the story inconsequential. I… wouldn’t describe Rickon’s death as an anticlimactic ending. That’s not to say that he wouldn’t die but his death doesn’t serve the shaggy dog aspect too well imo. But I started thinking of how the way Rickon’s arc was constructed
makes his function in the story less about him and more about his role as a Stark claimant. As Ned’s son and Robb’s heir. So perhaps the anticlimactic ending doesn’t lie in Rickon’s death but in his role as an immediately available Stark heir for the Northmen to band around against the Boltons losing its urgency as both Jon and Sansa come down as valid claimants to Winterfell in their own right. Or in how Davos’ purpose of winning White Harbor’s allegiance to Stannis by retrieving Rickon would be more or less rendered moot when Stannis liberates Winterfell and earns the allegiance of the Northmen. Specifically, I keep returning to this:
“Roose Bolton has Lord Eddard’s daughter. To thwart him White Harbor
must have Ned’s son … and the direwolf. The wolf will prove the boy is
who we say he is, should the Dreadfort attempt to deny him.”
At that point of the story, Rickon is immeasurably valuable to the Northmen as the one Stark whose general location they could pinpoint and who has an indisputable proof of his Starkness in his direwolf. The Boltons are claiming to have Arya so Wyman Manderly needs a Stark whose claim trumps Arya and thus set Rickon’s return as a condition for his acclamation of Stannis. But not only does any Stark claim trump what the Boltons have because their Arya is actually Jeyne Poole and has no claim to Winterfell, but Rickon is about to lose his position as the only available Stark heir. Needing a male Stark to counter the Bolton’s claim via “Arya” is gonna be a moot point when Stannis and the Northmen overthrow the Boltons anyway, and both Robb’s will and Stannis’ presence make the Stark line of succession a very complicated matter. Every aspect driving Davos’ journey to Skagos is gonna be turned on its head, some of it long before Davos even makes it back with or without Rickon. So Rickon’s retrieval would not be the lifeline for the anti-Bolton Stark loyalists as it once was, he’d no longer be that attainable hope and relatively easy solution for the matter.
That’s where I’m at with this plot. I personally think it’s far more necessary to the plot for Rickon to return with Davos to add to the knot of the succession of Winterfell than for him to die. I’d certainly like for him to survive the War for the Dawn as well and be a part of the Stark restorative efforts post-war alongside his siblings but who knows what GRRM has planned. We’ll have to wait for TWOW to find out.
What happens to baby Jon if Lyanna doesn’t make Ned promise to protect him? On the one hand, it seems strange to me that without the promise Ned lets Robert Baratheon kill his nephew or what not, but on the other hand the fact that he promised to protect him seems to haunt him later in life, suggesting that he wished he didn’t have to keep it, and that on his own he’d have bad other choices. But I can’t figure out what those choices might have been, short of, again, basically baby Jon dying.
See, I don’t agree with your reading of the function of Ned’s promise to Lyanna at all. I don’t think it’s there as a restraint on Ned’s actions that would have influenced the plot greatly had it not been made, but rather as a symbolic condensation of a lot of trauma and pain that Ned carried with him from the rebellion (and a sign of R+L= J). Ned agonizing over that promise had nothing to do with regretting that he made it; that’s him agonizing over the toll that promise took on his loved ones and his relationship with them. That promise meant Jon’s life. What part of Ned’s narrative could ever be read as him regretting that he saved Jon or being open to any option that endangered him? This is the guy who was willing to let Cersei go to save Joffrey, the one who was furious over the murder of Princess Elia and her children and the threat to Daenerys. There is no way he’d have chosen anything but to protect his nephew. Allowing the murder of children or willingly putting them in danger is anathema to Ned Stark and something we’ve seen him not only fighting against but putting himself on the line to prevent. Compassion is such a hallmark of Ned’s character that even thinking about him possibly not doing everything in his power to protect Jon, with or without the promise, is unfathomable to me. The links above encompasses a lot of my thoughts about this subject so I won’t repeat myself but I will say that I don’t think that Ned would have acted differently if Lyanna had not made him promise her. There is no other “bad choices”. Ned was always going to protect Jon because that’s the kind of man he is.
#so for a moment there my heart dropped to my feet when I saw this — duuuude, same
I can always be counted on to pass on my panic to my followers. Follow at your own peril!
Hello! Your blog is great, first of all. I’m curious: do you think there’s any chance of a happy ending for both the Starks and the Targaryens? I’m optimistic that the Starks will get a happy ish ending (PLEASE let them be happy, Martin!), but I feel like there’s no way both Jon and Dany can end the show happily. Thoughts on Stark restoration vs Targaryen?
That’s kind of you to say. But I think my answer took a swerve into gloomy land. Sorry!
Here’s what GRRM said about the end.
I think you need to have some hope…we all yearn for happy endings in a
sense. Myself, I’m attracted to the bittersweet ending. People ask me
how Game of Thrones is gonna end, and I’m not gonna tell them …
but I always say to expect something bittersweet in the end. You can’t just fulfill a quest and then pretend life is perfect.
That last sentence is the driving force of the ending, I believe. Throughout his writing, Martin took care to get to the core wounds and the real trauma behind “glorious quests”. The Starks wage war against the Lannisters and Dany liberates the slaves and we root for them. We root for them with everything we are. But throughout it all Martin pulls back the curtain and makes us look at the ugly side of war to understand the cost whether to our heroes or to others affected by their actions. He doesn’t leave it at the idealized concept of a righteous war but pulls us into the suffering involved and forces us to face it. To understand its effects. Wars leave scars and demons and fears behind, wars cause suffering. You don’t end a war then go on with life like all that loss didn’t wrench a part of you with it. Like Frodo in LoTR which Martin cited as one of his favorite endings. They won but Frodo was never whole again. Those scars will always be there, just like the scars of Robert’s Rebellion haunts everyone involved, sometimes to their graves. That’s been Martin’s writing ethos from the very start.
This isn’t a story where the hero goes on a righteous and glorious quest, slay the monster and then live happily ever after. That’s not a knock on those story, btw, it’s just that this story is not one of them. Martin will send his heroes on righteous and glorious quests, then he is going to make them excruciatingly aware of what it really means to be on such a quest. There is no room for romanticization here. The hero’s journey, as poor Quentyn Martell discovered, is awful in reality. It is bloody and scary and traumatizing. It chips away at you. It does not end in happily ever afters. Martin doesn’t do happily ever afters or traditional happy endings. His endings are almost always bittersweet. There is hope at the end, yes, but one tinged by loss and pain because that’s what it cost to win and the story will acknowledge it, will acknowledge the sacrifices made for the war to be won and for humanity to prevail.
My money is currently on Jon and Dany being among those sacrifices.
This fight with the Others is gonna take everything our heroes have to
push them back. That’s no simple fight; all those scary horror
manifestations that have been eluded to in legends are coming for
Westeros and humanity is going to pushed to the limit in fighting for life and survival.
There is a popular LoTR quote that many writers have used while discussing the stoyr’s endgame that’s extremely relevant, but I’m more struck by the back-end of it.
I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved,
but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger:
some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
Jon and Dany are messianic figures with themes of death and resurrection
swirling through their arcs and both fit the “living on borrowed time”
trope. Both have steadfastly shown willingness to sacrifice themselves throughout their arcs and now they (and Tyrion) are the spearheads of a fight for life itself. That really sends the chances of them giving theirs to save
the world and all that they love sky high.
How does that bode for a Targaryen restoration? It does not. Martin has repeatedly said that he writes the human heart in conflict with itself and the books put so much stock in our choices. And what’s Dany’s heart’s desire? She wants to return home to Westeros and reclaim her ancestral seat. But Dany is not a ruler, she is a savior. Not that those are mutually exclusive but Dany’s role transcends being a queen (at least in the traditional sense of the word) to being a champion of humanity.
She is the Breaker of Chains, a liberator whose mission is to strike down the chains of servitude the Others use to enslave their victims. The conflict in Dany’s story is gonna involve turning her back on the idea of a Targaryen restoration and her ancestors’ legacy because fighting over who sits a bloody chair is worthless where there are eldritch slavers coming for them all. The real enemy is the cold and that’s where Dany comes in with her fire and her willingness to sacrifice herself that we’ve seen multiple times through her arc. Dany’s real queenship does not lie in sitting an empty throne, it lies in protecting the realm.
Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?
Dany might never sit the Iron Throne. I don’t even think there is going to be an Iron Throne at the end of the story. The closest thing we’re gonna get to a Targaryen restoration is through Young Aegon who is not even a Targaryen in all probability. Dany will come in to reclaim her place from him with fire and blood and it’s going to be devastating and terrible. But it’ll also destroy the symbol of the futile political fight over an ugly chair that’s been leeching resources and attention away from the real fight. Dany’s queenship won’t be born of a Targaryen restoration but of breaking the chains the Others want to shackle humanity with and it is highly possible that she’ll sacrifice herself to do it, sacrifice her desire to rule Westeros in favor of ensuring that there is a Westeros to rule, even if she doesn’t get to do it.
As for the Starks, I think I’ve mostly said my piece about their chances at restoration ( 1, 2.) I do think they are surviving the War for the Dawn except for Jon (wellll, Rickon is one big question mark for me.) But I’m quite confident that Bran, Sansa and Arya are going to survive and be part of the rebuilding of Westeros after the devastation of the War for the Dawn. They are the hope at the end of the story, the embodiment of the dream of spring and the ones preserving and honoring
the memory
of those who fell for humanity. I’m afraid I don’t have specific predictions for them post-war beyond that.
Do you think that because of how much the Ryswells and Dustins hate the Starks, Ned should have trusted William and Mark? House Ryswell and House Dustin are the first to declare for the Boltons. It seems odd how William and Mark go from being among the most loyal and trusted of Ned to their houses being the most hateful and hellbent on destroying Ned/the Starks. If there really is a Stark restoration (not that I think that’s happening), their houses will survive or even should survive to rule?
It is far from accurate to claim that Houses Ryswell and Dustin hate the Starks or are hellbent on destroying them. It is Barbey Dustin that has a personal grudge against Ned (and his father Rickard) but we have no reason to believe that her feelings were shared widely across the two houses or are indicative of some historical animosity that should have been taken into account by Ned. Ned named both Willam Dustin and Mark Ryswell friends and I’d be hard pressed to argue that he was mistaken or that he should not have trusted them when both died in defense of their lord and his sister, and when both probably shared personal relationships with Brandon Stark (Willam was his foster brother and Mark belonged to a house that routinely hosted the heir to Winterfell). Willam Dustin insisted on joining Robert’s Rebellion himself despite Barbrey begging him not to, something that she ascribes solely to his pride but I attribute also to his loyalty and connection to the Starks. I see now reason to devalue the sacrifice of good men when we have no evidence to doubt their sincerity or loyalty.
Regardless, I don’t think that the Ryswells or the Dustins harbor a special animosity towards the Starks. Barbrey isn’t even a Dustin by blood so I find it hard to speak of her as a source of information about how the Dustins feel when we are yet to meet a single Dustin. It is true that the house declared for the Boltons but
I don’t think it’s the enthusiastic agreement of its members that the broad
declaration of “the Dustins hate the Starks” imply. House Dustin
declared for the Boltons because its current ruling lady did, and it
seems like its main ruling branch was extinguished by Willam’s death
allowing Barbrey to rule instead. As for the Ryswells, Rodrik Ryswell was sure very welcoming to Brandon at one point and while that was tinged by self-interest, feudal politics unavoidably color personal relationships with a degree of self-interest in most cases. Even the most loyal of the Stark bannermen are still playing the political game and looking for favors so that’s not a knock on the Ryswells in and of itself. Furthermore, I didn’t get any strong feelings from either of Barbrey’s brother wrt the Starks and it sure sounded like their siding with the Boltons was simply a matter of their interests currently lying with them rather than any strong negative feelings towards the Starks. So perhaps they might not be particularly loyal but I don’t think they are particularly hateful either. They certainly have no forgotten the Freys’ involvement in the Red Wedding and that they lost people there. They are just going with where the current wind blows and that happens to be with the Boltons right now (which I predict will change because I also don’t think the Ryswells are all that loyal to Roose either and definitely not to Ramsay. The upcoming showdown with Stannis should see a lot of shifting loyalties as the pro-Stark northmen defect and turn on the Boltons and Freys. I suspect the Ryswells and Barbrey will follow suit).
That said, I really don’t think it’s a coincidence that there is a force of northmen that Roose left behind in the Riverlands whose whereabouts are currently unknown, a force that just happens to include spearmen from the Rills and men from House Stout which is sworn to House Dustin, under the command of Ronnel Stout who shares an undetermined relation to Harwood Stout who hosted Roose Bolton in Barbrey’s name. Those men should have a role at one point.
Lastly…
If there really is a Stark restoration (not that I think that’s
happening), their houses will survive or even should survive to rule?
Oh, a Stark restoration is happening. Even if we put aside all the foreshadowing in the Starklings’ arcs that points straight to Winterfell, we still have the North remembers and the fact that Jojen dreamed that “the wolves will come again”. The very history of the North and of the Starks’ role in the fight against the Others demands that a Stark hold Winterfell during the War for the Dawn. Winterfell was built as an engine to fight the Others and we continually hear that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, all while the Starks historically take on the mantle of being both protectors and providers for their people. Gosh, even Tyrion knows that the Lord of Winterfell would always be a Stark. Also, consider what he says of Winterfell’s godswood.
He remembered their godswood; the tall sentinels armored in their
grey-green needles, the great oaks, the hawthorn and ash and soldier
pines, and at the center the heart tree standing like some
pale giant frozen in time. He could almost smell the place, earthy and
brooding, the smell of centuries, and he remembered how dark the wood
had been even by day. That wood was Winterfell. It was the north. I
never felt so out of place as I did when I walked there, so much an
unwelcome intruder. He wondered if the Greyjoys would feel it too. The
castle might well be theirs, but never that godswood. Not in a year, or
ten, or fifty.
Now Bran.
The stone is strong, Bran told himself, the roots of the trees go deep,
and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. So long as
those remained, Winterfell remained
A castle built by a Stark for the specific purpose of fighting the Others with a name that denotes their downfall and whose survival Bran directly ties to the Kings of Winter. A godswood that has been pretty much described as the heart of the entire North and that offers access to the weirwood network of greenseers, the last of whom is a Stark (whose face and voice were carried through the heart tree in both dreams and reality). A house whose entire existence is intrinsically tied to the magical war and to the survival of the North, to safety and order in the North according to the Liddle that meets Bran and co. That’s too much history and symbolism that necessitate a Stark restoration. It is happening. The story demands it.
Don’t you think you’re making elia too submissive by having her be solely a victim of rhaegar? If you like her than you should want her to have some culpability in rhaegar’s plans as it’d give her agency. She was a viper she must’ve played the game too. If she hadn’t then why would she be staying in King’s landing. I think she saw the importance of his actions and agreed to handle aerys In his absence. If it turns out that she encouraged him to take another consort it’d give her a spine, no?
I do not see the correlation between being a victim and being
submissive, neither do I think that only submissive people can get
victimized. Not only does this fundamentally misunderstands how trauma, abuse and power dynamics work, but it implicitly puts blame on the
victim in a roundabout way. It ascribes negatively-coded attributes to victims and
derails the conversation to be about some idealized standard for how a
victim should behave so that they wouldn’t be victims. It puts the
responsibility of the prevention of the abuser’s actions on the abused which heavily overlaps with the dichotomy of good victim/bad victim. I really, really hate that argument in all its shapes and forms, regardless of how it’s being used and who it’s being used with.
As far as agency goes, I
understand fandom’s need for Elia to have some kind of agency in her story and I share the frustration that so far she has been mostly used as a plot device in a male character’s story. I just don’t think that arguing that Elia was “culpable” (wth?!) in Rhaegar’s actions accomplishes that. The very act used to supposedly give Elia agency actually diminishes her character
on both personal and political fronts. It is built on a bizarre belief that Elia
must have believed in the prophecy and in Rhaegar’s quest. But no one seems to give me any logical explanation to why she’d do that all while ignoring that this baseless assumption inadvertently implies that people think that Elia believed in the prophecy simply because Rhaegar did. The idea that Elia supported Rhaegar’s action is based on a frankly perplexing dismissal of history (this is about Lyanna but 1 and 2 apply to Elia as well) and
politics which in turns implies that Elia was either weirdly apolitical
or weirdly ignorant. Why would Elia endanger herself and her children like?
Because reasons.
I don’t see how having Elia’s character solely revolve around the primacy of Rhaegar’s opinions
and wants gives her agency.
I don’t see how turning Elia into a person who
mindlessly parroted Rhaegar’s beliefs and careless singleminded pursuit
of the prophecy right into a civil war gives her agency. I guess I find it more productive for arguments of
Elia’s agency for us to treat her as a person with her own mind and her
own set of beliefs that’s not reliant on what her husband believed. I
like to think she had the agency to have thoughts and opinions that are not blindly reflective of Rhaegar’s.
Or Oberyn’s for that matter since his example is often what drives theories that Elia was fine with Rhaegar absconding with Lyanna. Because Elia was a viper and she played the game. Except 1) she wasn’t. Oberyn is the Red Viper. Elia is a separate person from him.
The conflation of the two and of their personalities and opinions are a facet of the stereotyping of Dornish culture that treats Elia as beholden to Oberyn’s actions and
outlook as if Oberyn is the Representative of Dornish Culture. But Elia is her own person. I don’t know why this is a
radical statement in fandom.
2) the game that you are adamant that Elia was playing is actually what makes me reject the idea that Elia supported Rhaegar’s affair with Lyanna. History, politics, danger to her children and everything I’ve honestly talked ad nauseam about to the point where I’ve grown tired of it.
Too, I question how it came to be that having a spine became tied to Elia “encouraging” Rhaegar to have an affair, not only for the reasons listed above that fly in the face of that but also…. are we now acting like acceptance of adultery is a baseline for “having a spine”? Why is it that Elia, contrary to all the women in Westeros, needs to not simply accept but welcome being cheated on to prove vigorousness or proactivity? How does it give Elia a spine to passively accept public humiliation, become a willing participant in a situation that has historically proven perilous
to half-Dornish monarchs, and support and “encourage” her own political authority being compromised for no reason whatsoever? Do you honestly think that’s logical? That’s playing the game to you? For Elia to go against her own interests and that of her children’s by supporting
Rhaegar taking a highborn mistress with the
explicit purpose of having a child on her. As if the Blackfyre rebellions weren’t a thing. As if that’s proof that she had a spine.
Frankly anon, I’m scratching my head over the contradiction in your
message. You act like saying that Elia was a victim of Rhaegar makes her
submissive, but seem to argue that her passively accepting an insult
after another to enthusiastically make way to Rhaegar absconding with
another woman is the epitome of agency and proactive behavior. She is a capable political actor and a partner in Rhaegar’s plans that she goes to King’s Landing to stave off Aerys, but also an ignorant woman who saw nothing wrong with being put in danger alongside her children for the sake of the prophecy. She is a viper, except when she is being happily cheated on. She is playing the game, except when she is
enthusiastically
inviting a huge political risk to her doorstep. She is culpable in Rhaegar’s actions because she has a spine, except when she doesn’t care about being needlessly humiliated in public. Pick a person, please. This is giving me whiplash.
Hi! Love the blog, I saw a post recently where you were describing how Rhegar would react to Jon. You mentioned that Rhaenys was also born admits salt and smoke, I don’t remember those (or really any) circumstances surrounding her birth. Thanks!
Rhaegar and Elia took residence on Dragonstone after their marriage and we have no reason to think that Rhaenys was not born there as well. Dragonstone is a volcanic island located in Blackwater Bay that houses the Dragonmont, an active volcano that emits smoke that covers the island from its hot vents. Salt from Blackwater Bay and smoke from the Dragonmont are the same circumstances that Aegon and Dany were born under as well.
I highly doubt Rhaegar actually thought this far ahead, but what do you think his plan was/would’ve been for raising his child with Lyanna? (Let alone Lyanna herself post-baby…) Do you think his previous abhorrent behavior towards Elia suggests he might’ve raise the illegitimate child alongside Aegon and Rhaenys? (Sorry if you’ve answered something similar and feel free to ignore! I tend to agree with your interpretation of Rhaegar so I was curious what you thought).
I’ve sat on this question and similar ones for the longest of time because I simply don’t have a proper answer as to what Rhaegar’s plan was. Mostly I’m ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Like you, I don’t think he had a plan. His impulsive and careless approach to his affair with Lyanna combined with the currently mysterious haste he was in leads me to think he did not think that far. The priority was to complete the three heads of the dragon now and then think of the consequences later.
But you raise an interesting question about the possibility of Rhaegar intending to raise his child with Lyanna at court which is something I’ve pondered before. It’s certainly possible. I’ve flirted before with the idea that Rhaegar might have entertained the thought that he was needed on the throne as an organizing principle for the War for the Dawn and as a prophetic guide for the three heads of the dragon. If so, I can see Rhaegar hoping to raise his children together so as to build a strong relationship between them and to give them the proper education for the prophetic saviors they were. For such a prophecy-oriented individual, training and educating the three heads on their magical destiny and responsibility would be an important priority and I definitely do not think Rhaegar entertained the thought of sending Lyanna on her merry way with his child, not when said child was immeasurably important to him to the point of causing a scandal at Harrenhal followed by a political crisis. As for where that leaves Elia, well, Elia fell to the very bottom on the list of Rhaegar’s priorities in his single-minded pursuit of the prophecy and I don’t expect that would change.
But it’s worth noting that we don’t know what Rhaegars reaction to Jon would be. If the theory that Rhaegar was trying to recreate the three conquerors with his children is correct, Jon’s gender would throw a wrench in his plans and I really can’t say how he’d react to it. It could be anything from reconsidering his conclusions wrt the prophecy and his children’s place in it to shrugging off Jon’s existence with the thought that, Idk, Orys Baratheon existed or something, and trying for another ice-based child – a girl this time – with Lyanna. I don’t think he’d change his mind about Aegon being the prince who was promised regardless because the symbolism of the comet during his conception is fairly strong, and I question if Rhaegar might be led to apply the heralds of the prince that was promised to the other two heads as well – after all, Rhaenys was also born amidst salt and smoke so perhaps, to Rhaegar’s mind, Jon being the wrong gender can be attributed to the circumstances and location of his birth in Dorne lacking that – and react by shipping Lyanna to Dragonstone so that the next child would share the circumstances of her eldest brother and sister’s birth. I am, of course, ignoring every other facet of the plot right now and pretty much shooting darts in the dark using nothing but conjecture. But I guess it’s something to chew on in lieu of just ¯_(ツ)_/¯ .
It annoys me that Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was gets dismissed so steadily. She was third in line for the throne until her father’s death. Than whoops Succession Crisis What About Rhalla and Aerea!?! That problem would have still been there if Aemon lived and taken the throne. So why is Jaehaerys betraying his granddaughter so applauded? The Great Councils did nothing but kick the problem down the generations.
First thing I want to point out here is that I don’t think that Jaehaerys passing over Rhaenys in succession is applauded, at least not from what I’ve seen? What I’ve seen is explanations that offer a more nuanced reasoning beyond Jaehaerys simply being a misogynistic jerk who thought women shouldn’t rule. It might be that Jaehaerys’ decision did derive from a degree of misogyny – Queen Alysanne certainly seemed to think if the Second Quarrel is anything to judge by, but I personally like to think there is a deeper reason because this move shows uncustomary behavior from Jaehaerys. Certainly the guy who made policy changes on the recommendation of his queen and who actively demonstrated political trust in her to where it was said that she ruled the realm as much as he did doesn’t seem likely to pass over his granddaughter simply due to her gender. It also stands to reason that the political partnership of Jaehaerys and Alysanne was likely informed by the crucial political role their mother Alyssa Velaryon and their eldest sister Rhaena played in saving the Targrayen dynasty after Aenys’ weak rule and Maegor’s brutality threatened to do it in, and in winning Jaehaerys his throne in the first place. It is only by the action, bravery and (personal and political) sacrifice of two women that Jaehaerys was coronated in the first place, and Queen Alyssa then held the realm together in the aftermath of war and huge instability for two years till Jaehaerys reached his majority. That the three most prominent women in Jaehaerys’ life were all such active and astute political actors who not only shaped his life but also his reign makes me think there has to be more to his decision to pass over Rhaenys than just prejudice. I also think there could be thematic resonance to Jaehaerys’ decision to bypass his grandaughter’s rights to stave off instability paralleling his sister’s Rhaena’s own decision to bypass her daughters’ rights for a similar reason, and how that juxtaposes against the rampant selfishness of the two sides of the Dance of the Dragons.
Another point of discussion is why concerns about Rhalla and Aerea’s lines only emerged after Aemon’s death and why hadn’t Jaehaerys acted before. That part is a bit hard to discern because we don’t know what Prince Aemon and Jocelyn Baratheon’s fertility history was like. Rhaenys was their only daughter but it is possible that they had either conceived again or at least were trying to since producing a male heir was widely seen as securing the line of succession in a way that a female heir wasn’t. If Aemon and Jocelyn conceived again after Rhaenys or even had children who died in infancy, the issue of the claim of Rhalla and Aerea’s line might not have seemed as dire since there was still hope that Aemon, who was only in his thirties when he died, would have a son, something that was soundly lost with his death. So it might not be necessarily true that concern about his nieces’ lines only came to Jaehaerys’ mind after Aemon’s death as much as that Aemon’s death made Rhaenys’ succession a matter of course which in turn made the possibility of conflicting rival claims to the throne more real prompting Jaehaerys to take action to settle the matter.
As for the Great Council, certainly it is one of the dark ironies of the series that Jaehaerys’ speculated attempt to get ahead of a possible succession debate and war ends up being used to inspire the biggest civil war in Targaryen history. But that’s to blame on Viserys I’s laziness and refusal to deal with the complicated legalities of the succession during his reign rather than on the efficiency of a Great Council. The purpose of a Great Council was to put succession debates to a majority vote rather than the arbitrary choice of the king which is a pretty sound political and legal move all things considered. That’s a solid solution since it decides succession by the will of the vassals over whom the king claimed the right to rule while establishing a body of authority to decide matters of succession allowing for such debates to be settled peacefully and curtailing possible wars. That Viserys I chose to overcomplicate succession by not only ignoring the legal argument that put him in power in the first place when naming his daughter heiress but also by refusing to settle a painfully obvious succession debate in which the two legal precedents clashed is to be blamed on him rather than the Great Council or Jaehaerys I. Viserys set the stage for the Dance by unnecessarily making an already complicated legal matter worse, ignoring the blatant bad blood between the blacks and the greens then stupidly setting the greens up with all the authority they needed to force the issue. Viserys is the one who kicked the problem down a generation while offering no alternate solution and taking no decisive action to settle the matter peacefully. Putting the blame of that on either Jaehaerys or the Great Council exonerates Viserys from much of his ineptitude and willful inaction.
Sam speaks 