Do you think Rhaenyra would have killed her siblings or it was mere paranoia on Alicent's side? The book doesn't provide a solid answer for this, and in the show it's clear that Rhaenyra would never harm her siblings.

Hi anon, I kind of went into it in this post, and although that ask was about Jace vs. Aegon III, I think the principle remains the same. In short, no, I don't think it was paranoia, but to understand why, we have to understand why Rhaenyra's brothers pose a particular threat to the stability of Rhaenyra (of Jace's) rule. Keep in mind, this isn't a moral failing specific to Rhaenyra, but simply a byproduct of the conditions of her inheritance.

I don't think Rhaenyra would have wanted to kill her siblings (or their kids), or even have planned to kill her siblings, but I also think that ultimately what she wanted wouldn't matter very much. All it would take would be someone wishing to rise in her esteem claiming that Aegon was fermenting rebellion, perhaps producing a forged letter as evidence, or an eyewitness who would swear that he had been secretly meeting with former greens. Could she risk it? Her brothers are weapons that can always be used against her. And at some point, it would be out of her control. Rhaenyra won't live forever, nor will Daemon, and when Jace attempts to take the throne, with no less than 7 legitimate male claimants alive who would have a claim ahead of him, there are bound to be challengers. The Blackfyre rebellion began with much flimsier pretexts.

We have real life examples of this. Henry VII intended to keep the remaining Plantagenets alive when he took the throne, as long as they stayed loyal. After all, they were his wife's family members, and killing them off would not be a good look. But the remaining Plantagenets would always be a threat to the Tudors. Ten year old Edward Plantagenet, the son of George of Clarence, was imprisoned in the Tower of London for 14 years before he was executed in 1499 for a supposed connection to Perkin Warbeck's scheme. Henry VII finally took action at least in part because he was negotiating a betrothal between his heir and the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The Spanish monarchs did not want their daughter marrying a man whose succession could be challenged, and so Edward, the strongest claimant at that point, had to go. Henry VII's son, Henry VIII, increasingly worried about the stability of his own succession, became vulnerable to the whisperings of opportunists looking to rise in the king's esteem and eliminate their own political enemies. At this point, the remaining Plantagenet claimants became a source of paranoia, justified or not. The arrest and execution of Margaret Pole, the niece of Edward IV and Richard III, was based upon a tunic found in her home that supposedly represented her support for her son's claim to the throne and the restoration of the Catholic church in England. The tunic was almost certainly planted by Henry VIII's chief minister, the protestant Thomas Cromwell, the same man who orchestrated Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon (yes, the same princess whose hand Edward Plantagenet had died to secure). And Henry VIII liked Margaret, she'd been the governess to his daughter, and though they had their ups and downs, he certainly didn't hate her. Still, when her son was put forward as a rival claimant and she was accused of supporting him, she had to go too. And of course, going backwards a bit, there are famously the princes in the tower, Edward and Richard, sons of King Edward IV, who despite having been officially declared bastards (a law, you see, was not enough), were still enough of a threat to the throne that they were (most likely) murdered, whether by Richard III or one of his associates. Mere rumors that those boys still lived sparked rebellions during the reign of Henry VII.

And you can say well, there's a difference, surely, in that Rhaenyra is the rightful queen, and these other people were not? But "rightful" is not some inherent state of being, it's dependent upon who is in power. Every person who sits the throne believes themself to be the rightful king or queen. But Rhaenyra in particular gained her position because her father exercised his power and declared her heir in defiance of the expected order of inheritance, contradicting the very decision that made him king in the first place. After Viserys dies though, for all intents and purposes his wishes cease to matter. He is no longer king, and lacks any mechanism by which to enforce his wishes from beyond the grave. At that point, people will choose to support one claimant or another, based upon their own concerns (dragon math, precedent, oaths, promises made by one or the other, existing family bond) and to consider Rhaenyra or Aegon (or any other claimant down the road) the rightful king/queen. Rhaenyra's security upon the throne, like the position of Henry VII or Richard III, is inherently weaker because she comes to the throne through unconventional means. All it takes is a plague year, a famine, or a foreign invasion for any random group of lords to decide that the true king Aegon/Aemond/Jaehaerys/Maelor should be on the throne and that they should start a rebellion in his name. If Rhaenyra feels insecure in her rule, or in Jace's ability to peacefully inherit after her, it only makes sense to eliminate any potential rivals, and her brothers and their children will always be a threat, no matter her original intentions. Even if Rhaenyra keeps her word and does not harm her family, her brothers and their line pose a threat to Jace and his line as long as both lines exist.

So Alicent is not being paranoid at all, she's being realistic. If Viserys were to disinherit Rhaenyra, or were Rhaenyra to accept the peace terms and give up her claim, she would become simply another sister, but Aegon can never be just another brother to Queen Rhaenyra because in the eyes of some, he will always be a potential rallying point for dissenters, and if not him then his brothers, or his children, whether they want to be or not. That's the point Alicent is making. It's not a reflection on Rhaenyra's character, it's just that if it came down to a choice between securing her reign/Jace's succession, and the lives of her potential political rivals, it's not difficult to guess what Rhaenyra would choose.

I'm trying to figure out why people think it's literally impossible for the Nettles & Daemon relationship to be paternal. Literally, the author poses this possibility himself, through the only maester who actually saw them interacting together, which is not nothing. More than a majority of the things around them are actually easily interpretable platonically, more than romantically. People, when it comes to this relationship, seem to fall into the trap of being unreliable narrators, or conveniently forgetting that they are. Mushroom is the first source to have referred to them as lovers. Literally the least acceptable source. The others who support this version have in fact never seen Nettles & Daemon interact and are content with this testimony and the rumors in view of their prejudices on the character of Daemon. Not to mention that mostly pro-Greens, they are biased against Rhaenyra and Daemon. The writing tries to manipulate us in such a way that we lean towards the lovers' story by quoting Mysaria, or the past adventures of Daemon. However, Daemon was 23 years old at the time of these stories of brothels, whereas for the story with Nettles, he was close to 50. There is such a huge margin between the two that, no, the argument does not is not admissible. As for the supposed renewal of her relationship with Mysaria, to prove Daemon's easy infidelity, well it was actually done with Rhaenyra's consent, so no infidelity here. And yet, people completely fall into it. On the pretext that more sources say they are lovers, well they are. Never mind that they never actually saw Nettles & Daemon with their own eyes, or that they're writing this when the protagonists of the dance are dead. It doesn't matter that the only one to bring a different version is the only one to have seen them interact, because he is the only one among others to support this position. This is proof that it is wrong.

In addition, another source uses Maester Norren's testimony to corroborate the lovers' story on the pretext that Daemon spent time with Nettles and gave him gifts. This source either did not see the said interactions and interprets as it sees fit Norren's words to support the romance version. And people fall into it! No questions asked!

Once I literally ran into someone who told me Mestre Norren was a contradiction because another source says his testimony actually reinforces the romance aspect rather than contradicting it, except again it's just from a guy who took Norren's words as he pleased and who wasn't there. Norren is very clear, he called the relationship paternalistic. He never contradicted himself on this.

The whole Nettles and Daemon lovers aspect is based on the fact that more people are reporting them as lovers, although they have never actually witnessed it. Only one source says otherwise, so she's dismissed, regardless that this one actually saw Nettles and Daemon together. It's literally the highest number that wins, and that's stupid. How much history do we have of the greatest number who believe a lie VS a small number or even 2 or a person with the real truth? There are loads of them! The lack of reflection on this relationship saddens me.

Before, I appreciated the Nettles and Daemon relationship in the paternalistic context proposed by the author, and I often imagined a relationship like Ciri and Geralt, or even Joel and Ellie. Now, I admit to being a little disgusted by this relationship after everything I've seen people say about it.

Also, apparently we're being racist for not wanting Nettles to have a romance with Daemon? Apparently the fact that Nettles doesn't have a romance with Daemon robs her of her arc and without that she wouldn't make sense anymore? But do people are stupid ?!

I’m beginning to feel that one reason why some people feel that Daemon had sex with Nettles is because Daemon’s sometimes seen as “amplifier” for Rhaenyra’s character. As in he makes her better not by necessarily inspiring her with feelings of safety and confidence, but his skills and traits just make her look better for having him around or inspire awe in the reader at this picture of “perfection”.

I can’t explain it very well, but it’s similar to how some Sansa fans will ship Jon with her because of his power, his magic, etc. in order to augment or apotheosize (only slightly exaggerating) their imagined versions of Sansa’s capabilities. So with this phenomenon of shippers placing the baddass man next tot their fav girl, we get ships like these. And they aren’t always morally void/corrupt if sometimes superficial. But in the case of Daemon and Nettles....as this ask tells la-pheacienne this ship has many reasons of being not good.

BUT then there is another camp that simply wishes to see the brown/black girl (as Nettles is described as "brown”-skinned) get romantically/sexually paired with the badass male lead in general because black girls or darker skinned girls aren’t considered as desirable as lighter skinned/other raced women and girls. And then there are those who see Rhaenyra say these words:

and a myriad of motivations lead people to sincerely build new circumstances for the Daemon and Nettles ship to sail, as an act of racial revenge and to reset the narrative towards Nettle’s uniqueness and desirability. 

In the cultural imagination of Western worlds like Enlgand and the U.S. several pseudo-sciences began developing and gained momentum. One example is phrenology, the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities. The Harvard Library’s section called “Scientific Racism” says:

And the Public Medievalist’s Race, Racism, & The Middles Ages series’ article  “ Race: the Original Sin of the Fantasy Genre” says:

Tolkien basically made species have different inborn abilities and made culture a part if that inbornness, and fantasy has never truly solved this issue...unless written by black/brown/PoC persons.

Rhaenyra calling Nettles “common”, saying “look at her...no drop of dragon’s blood”, and “spells” to connote Nettles being a witch all contribute to a misgynoir (misogyny against black women) because there is blood purity in the language and the accusation of witchcraft against black women both borrows from and takes on a different significance of Otherness. A white/European woman who is a witch or accused at one point was a part of the Christian/Faith-of-Seven community and chose to depart. And in the common modern understanding, a black/African witch takes on a different foreignness, an exoticism that further dehumanizes the black woman. Since the black woman herself is already held inferior and foreign from the white/European woman. Black/African witches, magic-practicing, and even just straight up Afro religions are felt, today and from the 19th century, as “closer” to demons and magic itself because they were imagined as being the furthest race from the white “race”. as the white race was held (by white “scientists”) as being the biologically superior race. And partially because of the medieval precedence of looking at and defining magic itself: or any uncommon ability not granted and proven to be granted by God/the church is evil...since it doesn’t come from God. (And yet, ironically, medieval persons didn’t not have the same conception of race as we do today, but that’s another topic.)

Dragonriding is by far one of the most badass, fantastical elements of the ASoIaF franchise. If not the most, since dragons are culturally seen/used as forces of great, overwhelming pseudo-natural power -- usually evil in Western European ones. And GRRM is already criticized for giving European features to this prime ability and making Targ/Valyrian blood and thus the Valyrian body the site of this OG power.

So one could blame GRRM for writing in Rhaenyra with these words and making Valyrians only pale AND the fantasy genre (which always had a problem with race: Article 1-Article 2) as whole for this particular motivation. Not all his Targs or Targ descents were pale-skinned: Baelor Breakspear [he's still "white", though] and all of Bellegere Otherys' children/descendants, but we don't get to really follow a darker skinned Targ or center them.

Hated that the narrative had a white-adjacent woman distrust, target, and her darker attendant/arguably subordinate through paranoia of a perceived danger of the darker’s girl’s blood and power through her dragon. It would hit too close to home, it is part of a very real problem in many parts of the world today. That skin color was used to illustrate how Nettles couldn’t be desirable to a man like Daemon because her looks indicate that she couldn’t possibly have just earned Sheepstealer’s trust and formed a bond with him on her own (showing her determination and character), when previously Rhaenyra relied on her using said dragons for her own political advancement....well....you can see why some black and brown skinned persons would reconstruct the narrative towards Nettles’ favor. 

But there is also reason to believe that what we're told Rhaenyra does to Nettles being misogynoir motivated is not true bc Septon Eustace--the guy telling us this--hated her, hated Mysaria, hated any low-born woman/person, AND described Mysaria as a witch with witch imagery AND this part of what went down with Nettles (how Mysaria told Rhaenyra Nettles was w/Daemon) is not in the Princess & the Queen's own telling of Rhaenyra's arresting of the dragonseeds.

Even though Rhaenyra obviously was going through it, Daemon managed to save her and she and Sheepstealer both managed to escape, AND Mysaria played on her paranoia, for PoC and Black fantasy fans, it just gets mentally exhausting to see such a pattern of emphasis on blood and skin color come up again.

And you’re going to see this reason for shipping DxN amongst black/PoC persons.

All this being said, in-universe, it simply wasn’t happening (HERE & HERE) and Rhaenyra’s rule still would have been better for Westeros and its women (a reblog by @rhaenyragendereuphoria). A better start.

Why was Rhaenyra given so much shit for having bastards while Aegon's illegitimate children rarely came up? Was it all just sexism or am I missing something?

Sexism is a pretty big factor here, but it's not the only one. Rhaenyra's firstborn is a bastard and she intends to make him take the throne after her, something the Faith, and westerosi society in general, sees as absurd - even if, yes, since they'd inherit though her, their status as Targaryens makes the situation a bit better than, say, Cersei trying to pass her pure Lannister kids as Baratheon's because their "father" was the king. But they're still illegitimate since they are a result of their mom having sex with someone she's not married to. They're "true Targaryens" biologically, but not legally/socially.

Even worse: to keep up the lie of her bastard being the totally legitimate sons of her not-at-all-gay husband, she keeps doubling down on them being given the titles and lands of true Velaryons - which means taking away the claims of noblemen like Vaemond, who are obviously going to be very mad about it, and other lords/heirs might fear being treated the same way if Rhaenyra starts favoring other people's bastards too instead of just her own.

Aegon's bastards exist and they are treated HORRIBLY, living in completely inhumane conditions - but they are out of sight and therefore out of mind. They're hidden away, far from nobility and posing no threat to anyone's claims. To the highborn people of Westeros (who have all the money, manpower and influence) that's where they belong.

Raising your bastard(s) alongside your legitimate children and loving them, Ned Stark or Rhaenyra style, is NOT the norm. Even acknowledging said bastards' existence and providing them with money every now and then so they don't rock the boat too much is not the usual deal.

To the people of Westeros, Aegon II is doing the right thing by pretending his legitimate children are the ONLY children he has, and Rhaenyra already disgraced herself by having bastards at all (see Viserys justifying his anger at Daemon for taking Rhaenyra to a brothel, even though both used to go to places like that, by saying "We were young men") and is bringing extra shame to herself, her family, the crown and society as a whole by not only embracing them, but also expecting them to be treated like people that can demand things and be important. Disgusting.

If Aegon II tried pulling the same stuff Rhaenyra did, he would STILL face quite a lot of backlash, even with the "he's a young guy that gave into his passions because men are like that" excuse - because that only gives him a pass to have bastards, not to let them think they can have anything in life. Even in an ideal situation of the legitimate children being fully okay with their half-sibling getting some of their stuff, that still opens up the precedent for other people's bastards to straight up start wars to steal their sibling's castles and fortunes.

So yeah, from the moment Rhaenyra was stuck with a husband that could not give her kids, she was screwed because her only choices were:

1 - Not have heirs at all, which means nobody would bother making her queen since Aegon's children would be the ones to inherit anyway.

2 - Have bastards and pray to the seven gods that people would believe they were really Laenor's, running the risk of being seen as a woman with no honor at all and pissing off all the nobles if the secret was discovered.

3 - Getting rid of her husband, be it through "divorce" or murder, so she could marry someone else, both of which are almost sure to lead to political headaches.

"rhaenyra was pregnant when she died" i do not understand their attachment to this theory like y'all isn't her death sad and horrible enough as it is? y'all love her and want to make her last moments even worse??? ok

Hi anon! So I admit while I have seen this theory floated, I don't really know how common it as a whole because I tend to avoid the corners of the fandom where it would flourish. I think there are a lot of problems with it, both logically and thematically. And this is probably going to be longer than a post on a silly niche theory needs to be, but it hits on a few of my pet peeves re: the gender essentialist way some corners of the fandom approach Rhaenya's character.

First, let's just get the practical issues out of the way. Logistically, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Assuming the baby she's meant to be carrying is Daemon's (and I do not think Rhaenyra had a man on the side after the fall of KL) Daemon and Rhaenyra died 5 months apart and we know that after Daemon left King's Landing with Nettles, he didn't see Rhaenyra again. Rhaenyra died in the 10th month and Daemon died in the 5th month, and he left KL with Nettles sometime between the Fall of King's Landing and the First Tumbleton, so let's say the 3rd month at the very latest. Also keep in mind, she's grieving, and the book hints at some distance between her and Daemon, possibly created by her rejection of his idea regarding Rosby and Stokeworth. And obviously I'm not saying that Rhaenyra and Daemon absolutely didn't sleep together at all during the period from the Fall of KL to his departure, but I'm saying the window for her to get pregnant is pretty brief and by the time she dies in the 10th month she would almost certainly be visibly pregnant.

The other big practical consideration is that if Rhaenyra were heavily pregnant at the time of her death, there's no reason why this wouldn't be recorded in F&B. I think this is where the show and Ryan Condal have muddied the waters a lot because they give the impression that because F&B is "unreliable," that means that massive swaths of it are simply false, or that major figures and events have been completely erased for no good reason, or because of "bias," but there is really no indication the text is meant to be read this way. Unreliable doesn't mean everything written is a pack of lies. Yes, we are supposed to question the various versions events and read between the lines, and the book itself floats certain theories, dismisses others, and says just enough to lead us in certain directions while leaving the truth ambiguous (for instance, when the book says Daemon had a man on the inside in the green council, we can presume this is Larys because there are no other contenders that make sense), but Rhaenyra being heavily pregnant is something that people would know. It is something Rhaenyra herself would likely point out when she was going from castle to castle looking for help. It is something she would have said to Daemon in her letter, if she wanted him to return.

And, on a narrative level, there's just zero reason for GRRM as a writer to obscure this point. Headcanons aside, there's very little reason to believe that this was GRRM's intention. The only reason to make Rhaenyra pregnant at all is for cheap melodrama-- "think of the unborn baby!" of the type that D&D used when making Talisa pregnant for the Red Wedding scene in GoT (and stabbed in the belly no less!). That's not really his MO as a writer. Rhaenyra's death does not need a pregnancy to make it more tragic.

Not to mention, the basis of this theory is rather dubious, and pretty much revolves around the need to moralize Rhaenyra's stress eating and weight gain as a result of, you guessed it, pregnancy and motherhood. As much as certain fans like to use Rhaenyra being fat as a "gotcha," certain other fans like to do the "Rhaenyra gained weight because she was pregnant seven times, what's Aegon/Helaena/Viserys' excuse?" thing. Not only is it fatphobic, it also leans into gender essentialism, because weight gain due to motherhood = good, weight gain due to anything else = bad.

And that sort of leads into one of my biggest issues with some of the discourse around Rhaenyra's character, in that a lot of it has a very odd gender essentialist slant that reduces Rhaenrya to her status as a mother, and particularly values her womb as a vessel for the continuation of the Targaryens and the dragons. Fans who have latched onto Preston Jacobs' "hatcher" theory often invoke it to connect Rhaenyra's fertility to dragon fertility (even though this theory is about 9 years old and new information about the Targaryen family tree has appeared since then which breaks the original theory). Rhaenyra must live because she is an especially fertile Targaryen woman and without her magical womb, the dragons will cease to exist. And so slaying pregnant Rhaenyra becomes this shorthand for destroying the magic of the world. The show has played into this elevation of motherhood and pregnancy by portraying (righteous) Rhaenyra as the perfect, loving mother, who raises good children that she gives birth to willingly, and (villainous) Alicent as the cold and cruel mother who raises unwanted monsters and then abandons them. Rhaenyra's death then, by the fandom's metric, becomes morally the worst death in the Dance if she is pregnant because Aegon has slain not just a mother, but the symbol of righteous motherhood and magic dragon fertility. There's a similar tone to the fans that insist that Dany's fertility will be magically restored and she will have children. because a woman's worth, and any magic she might carry, is connected to her ability to bear children.

And the sad thing is, a lot of this rhetoric has come about due to stan wars. In the desire from some corners of the fandom to elevate the Targaryens (and, being charitable, I think a lot of this started off as backlash against a lot of the popular discourse surrounding Dany's character after GoT ended), this narrative surrounding Targaryen womanhood has emerged, as if George RR Martin were writing The Mists of Avalon here (and to be clear, let's all be glad he's not) and not deconstructing various fantasy tropes that were genre staples in the mid 90s and to some extent persist today. If anyone thinks George's answer to genre misogyny is to replace it with uncritical gender essentialism, then they lack reading comprehension skills.

idk how anyone could be anything other than team black after reading the books aegon is literally still a rapist in them

csa/sa cw

okay this is actually something i've wanted to talk about for a while! namely, the unreliability of the testimonies in fire and blood, and the fact that mushroom's testimony cannot be used to support the blacks unless you cherry pick from it.

you're 100% right that, according to mushroom, aegon does like watching fighting pits like in the show, and that he was once found by ser criston committing statutory rape of a 12-year-old girl (p. 433). but if you're standing by mushroom's testimony, you also have to stand by the following statements:

mushroom says that rhaenyra chained helaena and alicent in a brothel, and sold them to be gang raped until they were pregnant (pp. 523-524). he directly blames this for helaena's suicide, saying she killed herself because she was pregnant from the gang rape (p. 547). so by mushroom's account, rhaenyra is a rapist by proxy who drove a sa victim to suicide, aka super fucking evil.

mushroom also says that jacaerys cheated on baela and broke his vows to her by taking sara snow's virginity and marrying her during his visit to winterfell (p. 454). never mind that marrying another is antithetical to jace's entire character. if you believe mushroom, jace is a cheater and vow-breaker.

finally, mushroom also says that a 49-year-old daemon abandoned his grieving wife and children in the middle of a war so that he could have an affair with a 17-year-old nettles (p. 528). he also says that daemon preferred the "youngest" sex workers possible (p. 528). so according to mushroom, daemon is also guilty of repeatedly raping minors and of cheating on his wife.

now, you might argue that these accounts are all contradicted by other's testimonies, mainly septon eustace's, so they're likely not true. and i'd believe you! but this is also true for what you're saying about aegon. septon eustace denies mushroom's testimony and says criston found aegon with a mistress, not a child or a sex worker, who was "well cared for" (p. 433).

tldr: no one should be using any part of mushroom's testimony to make any arguments if they're team black OR team green. the only people using mushroom's testimony should be people who are anti targ because he makes ALL of our faves look like evil rapists. i personally don't treat any parts of mushroom's testimony as if they're reliable, because you can't pick and choose which part of a testimony you want to believe just to pretend like it supports your arguments when it very much does not.

I know the books portray both sides as grey but if Aegon was a monster like some team black supporters make him out to be wouldn’t he have killed Rhaenyra’s son with her. Nothing was stopping him from doing it. I’m sure by that point he didn’t have much left to live for except his mother and daughter and I’m sure deep down he knew he was gonna probably die.

So if he was ‘more evil’ than Rhaenyra then wouldn’t he have killed her last living son, not allowing her line to survive. I know he didn’t have a son at that point but surely he would have just named Jaehera heir if that was the case. I think he deep down didn’t want to kill an innocent child. Who knows what Rhaenyra would have done if it was the other way around?

In fact, Aegon is so much better than me, because I don't understand at all how, after everything he went through, after everything that this war took away from him, he spared Rhaenyra's son. If I were in his place, I'd be consumed by anger and hatred. Actually, Aegon was never a monster, even in the book. What did he do? Yes, he was harassing the maids - the usual behavior of a privileged man of that time. There were no rapes or child fights in the original story. He killed Rhaenyra - well, that's the essence of the war - the opposite side has to disappear, Rhaenyra would kill him if she won. When Aegon is called a monster, it begins to seem to me that the standards for this title are very low.

You can 100% don't like rhaenyra and that not misogyny. But if people start deny that she was the rightful heir, and claim aegon is because is a man that sounds a bit misogynistic

I don't give a damn which of these two is the "rightful heir." We aren't smallfolks in Westeros and we don't discuss who will rule us, they're all just imaginary characters. By the way, Aegon and Rhaenyra both had rights to the Iron Throne, which is why some of the people supported Aegon and even the book said that the fact that he was a man made him the rightful heir in the eyes of many. Sorry, they lived in such times. But I personally support the greens because I consider their actions to be the only logical ones in the situation that has developed thanks to Viserys. They took the throne defending themselves, so I think they're right. Plus, I generally find them to be more interesting and fascinating characters.

In the beginning, everyone was saying that Helaena is a victim in the books and the show. But now I see many people claiming that Helaena is not a victim in the books and she’s evil just like her siblings. Why is everyone starting to say she’s not a victim now? I saw someone saying that “there’s not a single line in the book suggesting she was against the usurpation or becoming queen. She didn’t get a mention for Aemond’s kinslaying, unlike Aegon, who threw a party, and Alicent and Otto, who were upset by his sin. She’s obviously not as bad as her family, but she wasn’t innocent either. Book Helaena, before that, was in favor of having Rhaenyra bend the knee after usurping her and having her two youngest sons as hostages, to the same people who wanted her and her family dead, who hid her father’s death, and who were behind Lucerys’ death—all in the name of peace.” Are these valid arguments?

1. their first argument: is that Helena did participate in the council and didn't say anything about the usurpation. And asked rhaenyra to bend the knee.

Book: “Aegon would not hear of it. Septon Eustace tells us that His Grace accused the Grand Maester of disloyalty and spoke of having him thrown into a black cell "with your black friends." But when the two queens-his mother, Queen and his wife, Queen Helena-spoke in favor of Orwyle's proposal, the truculent king gave way reluctantly.”

But the first time she was in the council, she actually spoke up to save Rhaenyra and tried to convince Aegon not to start a war. Helaena didn’t seem to want the war to continue. By supporting the proposal, she showed that she wanted to end the fighting and save lives. Even though Helaena wasn’t a major player in politics, the fact that her support helped change Aegon’s mind shows that she did have some influence on important decisions.

2. Their second argument: having her two youngest sons as hostages.

Book: "The terms offered by the king were generous, Munkun declares in his True Telling. If the princess would acknowledge him as king and make obeisance before the Iron Throne, Aegon II would confirm her in her possession of Dragonstone, and allow the island and castle to pass to her son Jacaerys upon her death. Her second son, Lucerys, would be recognized as the rightful heir to Driftmark, and the lands and holdings of House Velaryon; her boys by Prince Daemon, Aegon the Younger and Viserys, would be given places of honor at court, the former as the king's squire, the latter as his cupbearer. Pardons would be granted to those lords and knights who had conspired treasonously with her against their true king."

Rhaenya would retain Dragonstone and pass it on to her son Jacaerys upon her death. Her son Lucerys would be recognized as the rightful heir to Driftmark, inheriting the Velaryon holdings. Her boys by Prince Daemon, Aegon the Younger and Viserys, would be given places of honor at court (Aegon as the king's squire and Viserys as the king's cupbearer).

Nowhere in the proposal is it stated that her sons would be taken as hostages. The terms are more about securing peace through Rhaenyra's acknowledgment of Aegon Il as the legitimate king. The offer was meant to ensure a peaceful resolution and the safety of her family by offering positions of honor and security for her sons.

3) “She wasn’t innocent either”

Innocence is subjective, but compared to everyone, Helaena is the least culpable. She didn’t engage in violence, scheming, or power plays. The argument against her innocence seems to rely on her passive acceptance of her circumstances, but being a victim of her family’s decisions doesn’t make her guilty by association.

4) “There’s not a single line in the book suggesting she was against the usurpation or becoming queen”

It’s true that the book doesn’t explicitly state Helaena opposed the usurpation. However, this doesn’t mean she was in favor of it. Helaena is portrayed as a gentle character, largely removed from the political scheming of her family. Her lack of open opposition is not an indication of support but rather a reflection of her position as a pawn in a patriarchal system.

5) “She didn’t get a mention for Aemond’s kinslaying, unlike Aegon, who threw a party, and Alicent and Otto, who were upset by his sin.”

just because Helaena didn’t get a mention for Aemond’s kinslaying doesn’t automatically make her guilty or complicit in the act. The fact that she wasn’t as outspoken about Aemond’s actions, does not equate to her being responsible for the sin or even condoning it. Her silence could also be seen as her trying to avoid conflict or being a product of her oppressive circumstances. She was caught between a war she had little control over and might have been simply trying to survive the chaos, not actively encouraging or endorsing the actions of her family.

6) She Represents Victimized Women Who Conform to Traditional Gender Roles

Helaena can be seen as a victim of patriarchy. In her world, women are expected to conform to rigid gender roles—marrying for political reasons, bearing children, and remaining passive in the face of their circumstances. Helaena does not have the agency to challenge these expectations. She is forced into a marriage with her brother, has children to continue her family line, and is expected to play the role of a dutiful wife and mother.

Her victimhood comes from her being so passive and accepting of what’s expected of her. In her society, women are expected to be passive, to accept their role, and never ask questions. Helaena does exactly that, and that’s what makes her a victim. She’s trapped by the expectations put on her, and it’s not her fault.

7) “she accepted what her family did”

It’s unfair to blame Helaena for “accepting” what her family did because, in her situation, what else could she really do? She had little to no power or agency. She was trapped in a world where women, especially royal women, were expected to be passive and obedient. Her actions don’t necessarily mean she agreed with everything happening around her; they simply reflect the limited options available to her.

Helaena wasn’t in a position to challenge her family’s decisions or defy the system. If she had tried to fight back or rebel, she likely would have faced severe consequences.

8) she never hurt anyone.

What really makes Helaena a victim and innocent is that she never hurt anyone. She had this massive power with her dragon, but she never used it to kill or burn others. Even though she had the ability to do so much, she didn’t take advantage of it. The only person she ended up hurting was herself.

Unlike her siblings, Aegon, Rhaenyra, and Aemond, who actively played into the cycle of violence and betrayal, and all of them committed crimes and killed or harmed people. And that’s what makes Helaena different from them.

Helaena really does seem like an innocent child, just like her own children. From the start, she’s thrown into all these adult situations she never asked for. She’s forced to marry her brother, have children, and follow the rules of a world that doesn’t care about her feelings or desires. She’s stuck in this system, and it’s almost like she’s a kid who doesn’t get a say in anything.

What do you think about the hate Helaena is receiving and the arguments against her? She’s been getting a lot of hate recently just because she didn’t “support rhaenyra”, and I don’t understand why. I’d love to hear your thoughts and analysis.

Many Targ women, including Dany herself, have had dragons who could "have done something". Even Rhaena the BB could have gone to war WITH her brother Aegon against Maegor their uncle on Dreamfyre. Left her daughters in the safety of their friends. Doesn't mean they all weren't victims and deserve reader's contempt. And there are many Rhaena-haters who love to point this out, who I've had to defend Rhaena for.

You're going to have complacent women in such a system; doesn't mean they are to inherit a bounty of blame for their own subjection, oppression, or even sometimes other women's. Honestly, to hate Helaena this much to to hate many, many women and girls trained to think less of themselves.

So this:

"Helaena can be seen as a victim of patriarchy. In her world, women are expected to conform to rigid gender roles—marrying for political reasons, bearing children, and remaining passive in the face of their circumstances. Helaena does not have the agency to challenge these expectations. She is forced into a marriage with her brother, has children to continue her family line, and is expected to play the role of a dutiful wife and mother.

Her victimhood comes from her being so passive and accepting of what’s expected of her. In her society, women are expected to be passive, to accept their role, and never ask questions. Helaena does exactly that, and that’s what makes her a victim. She’s trapped by the expectations put on her, and it’s not her fault."

Is correct.

Even under the argument that Helaena should and could have just flew Dreamfyre to Rhaenyra and disobeyed her side of the family (against all the taught and instilled mores of womanood she would have grown up with) AND the observation that she and Alicent talked Aegon down from killing Rhaenyra (thus she does seem to have enough "influence", to some, to at least try to stave Aegon from war/usurpation), Helaena would still be a victim of said war/conflict just as Rhaenyra was. They both lost children to murderous male relatives and even after "obeying" or performing their marital/dynastic duties to said families. Neither did anything amoral to anyone wit ACTUAL power on their side, but Helaena and Rhaenyra are two sides of the same coin in one aspect; whether or not you're a passive/complacent or defensively active woman, youre subject to lose things closest to you bc of your politically subject position as a woman.

Like I mentioned before, Helaena could have tried to persuade Aegon and maybe she did like being Queen if only for some feeling of importance after years of otherwise. But I interpret that she didn't bc Aeogon didn't respect her that much as to forgo his own ambitions or sense of protecting himself. Performing his duties as a father, styling himself as protector. All the more emphasized by how she doesn't know where Aegon is or seems to care when he's bing looked for. And she--like Alysanne--knew that. AND knowing all that, she was mostly on damage control--get Rhaenyra to give up bc it's "too late" at the point when Helaena is finally in the room AFTER Aegon's been crowned. OR/AND she simply never believed, like many women, in the viability of a female ruler in the first place bc of social conditioning.

I wouldn't call her an "innocent child". She definitely wasn't that and we should refrain from infantilizing women. Even the "cheerful" ones who are fine being in the background--it severely underestimates them and objectifies them. I do agree with this:

"Innocence is subjective, but compared to everyone, Helaena is the least culpable. She didn’t engage in violence, scheming, or power plays. The argument against her innocence seems to rely on her passive acceptance of her circumstances, but being a victim of her family’s decisions doesn’t make her guilty by association."

Helaena did not "participate" in said council. She was merely there. She didn not deliberate w/the rest of them on how to proceed wit war and she only, WITH Alicent, talk Aegon down. Something that I think Alicent could have down herself esp in the midst of other men counseling the same and witnessing Aegon's actions and how he treats said mother. ALICENT is the party who has really, EVIDENTLY, been plotting along w/the men. Helaena might be compolicit or complacent; she's not an active plotter, though.

As for "her boys by Prince Daemon, Aegon the Younger and Viserys, would be given places of honor at court, the former as the king's squire, the latter as his cupbearer."

This doesn't have to be explicitly told as a hostage situation to be one. Why do these boys have to be nearer to the reens than their own mother? Because they are male and definitely trueborn and are thus perpetual material to be used against Aegon and his line. So, yes, hostages.

What is unclear is whether Helaena even came up with this, which without good proof, is conjecture and bias.

"It’s true that the book doesn’t explicitly state Helaena opposed the usurpation. However, this doesn’t mean she was in favor of it. Helaena is portrayed as a gentle character, largely removed from the political scheming of her family. Her lack of open opposition is not an indication of support but rather a reflection of her position as a pawn in a patriarchal system."

Yep, but it's enough for people to assign a lot of blame bec complacency is complicity, esp when you've got a really big, old dragon. I can only say that Helaena must have been conditioned into such complacency since youn and many noble women are in her (supposed) mindset. Again. Thus I don't feel people have the right to despise her so troughly. Don't have to like her, but she definitely still is a sociopolitical tool/victim of her own family. Huge dragon or not. Just as Rhaena the BB was, but under conditions less "free" since childhood. Unlike Rhaena, who grew up fairly treated well, autonomous, respected both in and out of her family before the war.

"Unlike her siblings, Aegon, Rhaenyra, and Aemond, who actively played into the cycle of violence and betrayal, and all of them committed crimes and killed or harmed people. And that’s what makes Helaena different from them."

I don't this is particular fair for Rhaenyra's case at all. Rhaenyra was definding herself and actively standing up for her "rights"/birthright and sh didn't ask for Alicent, her brothers, Otto, etc. to usurp her for basically having what they felt entitled to. If we're talking about Nettles, Helaena was never assertive in the first place so that would be another unfair comparison. Helaena would have let things go just as he already does w/Aegon & his affairs. She wouldn't be able to handle much bc she was never even prepared to rule or be an authority the way Rhaenyra, Visenya, Rhaenys ad been. Again, going back Helaena's position shapingher personality and character. It wouldn't be bc she primiarily felt sympathy for Nettles or be compassion-rule-based like Dany.

As for the brothers, Helaena, again, has little power or expectation of authority to gainsay her brithers...one has an even bigger and older and actually battle--hardened dragon...if we're going o repeat "dragons" all day.

Finally, even though Rhaenyra calls Helaena "sweet sister", the relaity is they'd--of any of pairing or grouping of Viserys' kids--would have had the least tiem spent together (alone or otherwise) growing up bc Helaena must have her "goodness" maintained away from any possibility of Rhaenyra's influence even more than for her brothers. Bc these two oculd have commiserated more than Rhaenyra could have with male siblings who ideologically--like men in all of history and today--think themselves to superior and innately different to find commonalities wth even their own flesh sisters. These two could have talked more and Helaena's "exposed" to not be as loyal to "the cause"/Aegon. Thus they did not have a strong bond, if they ever had one. Similar but worse than Rhaenyra w/their brothers in Alicent's/Otto's purposeful arranging it so. Helaena was "sweet" in Rhaenyra's eyes bc she couldn't have and didn't oppose Rhaenyra. Nor did she opposes out of spitre, hatred, fury, entitlement. She simply goes along bc she does not AND feels she cannot do much to stop the war, outnumbered and having been so for years.

That could be hard to accept for some, but it's simply the reality for many girls and women that don't need flagrant recrimination--this actually works toward the opposite effect, discouraging, disengaging, & isolating or making women dig their heels in more bc it's a sort of punishment and if you carry that out in real life against some women/girls. It's more constructive to describe what they themselves have felt and experienced to them as an interpretation, not hold them to a standard twithout trying to see why/how they don't fit that standard.