[TV] House of the Dragon

[crusadernero]

It's also fair to acknowledge (and not many online do for some reason) that the Greens also have their redeeming qualities and are not complete evil.

Otto served as Hand of the King for two monarchs and was excellent at his job, pretty much ruling the country during the final years of Jaehaerys' reign.

Alicent, as indicated by her conversations with Otto and Aegon, still values her old childhood friend enough to tell the future king to be merciful.

And despite the carnage that will ensue, Alicent at least told Aegon that they had to rule with kindness and mercy.

Does Alicent care about the small folk? Maybe not, but she still advised Aegon to be a merciful and kind monarch. Cersei never did that with Joffrey, in fact she straight up admitted she didn't care about the common folk (which is why I don't understand how some people can ever compare Alicent to Cersei).

Aegon himself seemed to enjoy entertaining the folk at his coronation.

I think its more about Alicent telling herself and everyone else that they should care. What she says is one thing, but she is leading and tacking actions that points to something else. She is playing the game like everyone else.

Aegon is not on the level of Joffrey, atleast we havent seen everything that would point towards it. Last episode did tell us that he aint all good though. And of course he liked the attention he got. That attention might just give him the boost to become worse than he already is.

Probably the only good guy here was the poor old king. He wasnt maybe the most tactical, but his heart was good. He wanted peace, for everyone. The others? Nah. Carnage.

[Koriani]

Can someone do me a quick favor and let me know if this forum is heavily "Team Black," or are the people around here intelligent enough to realize that both sides have legitimate complaints - and legitimate failings.

In either case, I'd appreciate it.

Heh.

Until this post I have never heard "team Black" and I have no clue what you're talking about.

So no, that's not this forum. I've read all the posts in the thread so far and its certainly seems like everyone here is more on the "none of these characters are great - they all have big flaws/mistakes in thinking" type of thoughts.

If you're referring to something else - no clue. I'm not even sure who "Team Black" is the team for? (ha) Now if something happens in the next *looks down at the page marker* two pages of posts to change all that, my apologies for misunderstanding. But up until THIS point in the thread - no idea what this question is asking. =D

[crusadernero]

Heh.

Until this post I have never heard "team Black" and I have no clue what you're talking about.

So no, that's not this forum. I've read all the posts in the thread so far and its certainly seems like everyone here is more on the "none of these characters are great - they all have big flaws/mistakes in thinking" type of thoughts.

If you're referring to something else - no clue. I'm not even sure who "Team Black" is the team for? (ha) Now if something happens in the next *looks down at the page marker* two pages of posts to change all that, my apologies for misunderstanding. But up until THIS point in the thread - no idea what this question is asking. =D

Find it weird if anyone sits in any camp with this show. Its all a shitshow and all that was good died with the king. Now everyone plays the game and will do and say whats needed. Everyone can be killed off, anything can happen.

[Koriani]

The foot fetish scene was so funny I couldn't concentrate on the rest of the show. I had tears coming down my face from laughing.

While I didn't find it funny I was really surprised at how 'tame' it was, compared to the online reactions I was reading.

I knew about the 'jist' of the scene coming up from those little articles/snippets of headlines I had caught in the few days between the episode's release on Sunday and when I watched it last night, so I knew the 'fetish' would be on display at some point in the episode, but not the details of the scene outside of that.

And while I certainly felt that 'creep' factor by the end of the scene, at the same time, I was really expecting something WAAAYYYY more 'in your face' about it all due to the "media coverage" (and I use that term very, very, loosely lol) after the fact. I guess it more surprised me that there was any real response at all to a very 'tame' scene (compared to other rape/sex scenes just in GoT alone). As I was expecting a far more... explicit... scene then what we got.

But really that entire episode was shown up by the glory that was the Dragon in the Temple at the end. Mmmmm.....hells yeah, bring that dragon into that Hall, make that statement, and man - can you imagine the histories that would have been if she had just said "Dracarys" at the Dias while everyone was standing there together. Hells Yeah.

Though it broke my immersion watching the guards trying to SHUT THE DOOR?! On the DRAGON?! Wtf? I really didn't get that part of the scene at all. Why were they trying to seal the door? Did they think that was going to seal the dragon IN? What did they think was gonna happen if they sealed the live dragon in the building? Why are the King's Guards so stupid? =D

[Varodoc]

I think its more about Alicent telling herself and everyone else that they should care. What she says is one thing, but she is leading and tacking actions that points to something else. She is playing the game like everyone else.

That she might just be deluding herself is irrelevant, the point and what matters is that she said it in the first place.

How many monarchs in Westeros vowed to rule with kindness and mercy? Or were advised to be kind, merciful, forgiving? The only person of power who vowed to rule with kindness that I can think of was Daenerys, and that's what made her unique and different in the first place. That she actually valued the common folk.

The last convo Alicent had with Aegon, right before his coronation, where she advises him to rule with kindness and mercy, NOT with ruthlessness and fear, is a very important moment for the character. Regardless of whether she was on copium or not.

Aegon is not on the level of Joffrey, atleast we havent seen everything that would point towards it. Last episode did tell us that he aint all good though. And of course he liked the attention he got. That attention might just give him the boost to become worse than he already is.

This scene is literally no different than the Daenerys scene at the end of season 3, where she is celebrated by the former slaves of Yunkai.

Were you worried about Daenerys' future actions after that scene? If Yes, then that's fair. If No, that's hypocritical.

Like Daenerys, Aegon is just getting into his role as king for the first time. He always said that he wasn't fit to be king, he always said that he wasn't going to be a problem for Rhaenya, because he wasn't interested in the throne, but during his coronation (and the actor portrayed this very well), he visibly started accepting his new role and is now embracing his position as king. There's no reason to look at that scene with a concerned or sad approach.

I mean, pretty much everyone at that coronation was happy. The common folk were cheering for Aegon, Aegon himself was happy, Alicent was happy that Aegon finally started acting like a king, the rest of the council were happy. Pretty much everyone was happy and celebrating, until Rhaenys ruined a large portion of the hall, slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians for no reason, and threatened to kill her own family and a king (crimes of kinslaying and kingslaying) during a peaceful event (a coronation).

The hilarious thing is that if the Rhaenys scene was omitted and the episode ended with Aegon's coronation, it literally would have had a happy, fairy tale-like ending.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's also fair to acknowledge (and not many online do for some reason) that the Greens also have their redeeming qualities and are not complete evil.

Otto served as Hand of the King for two monarchs and was excellent at his job, pretty much ruling the country during the final years of Jaehaerys' reign.

And he also planned, right from the beginning, to usurp the throne for his Grandson. And, towards the end of Viserys reign, when Viserys was too weak to sit on the throne, he made decisions that he knew would be contrary to the King's wishes.

Alicent, as indicated by her conversations with Otto and Aegon, still values her old childhood friend enough to tell the future king to be merciful.
And despite the carnage that will ensue, Alicent at least told Aegon that they had to rule with kindness and mercy.

She's also been willing to sit back and let other people do the dirty work to further her own interests. She did not tell Larys to murder his brother and father...but she know he did it and is complicit in her silence. And, while she has reconciliated her relationship with Rhaenyra to some extent, she was willing to maim or kill her childhood friend's son when the King refused to order it.

Does Alicent care about the small folk? Maybe not, but she still advised Aegon to be a merciful and kind monarch. Cersei never did that with Joffrey, in fact she straight up admitted she didn't care about the common folk (which is why I don't understand how some people can ever compare Alicent to Cersei).

Being better than Cersei and Joffrey is not a high bar to clear... but no, Alicent is no Cersei and should not be compared to her. However she does, or at least she should, know that her son will never be the kind of King she wants him to be.

Aegon himself seemed to enjoy entertaining the folk at his coronation.

He enjoyed being the centre of attention and celebrated... I don't think he paritcularly cared much if the people were entertained. All of his actions up to this point do not indicate he cares all that much about anyone other than himself.

None of this is to say that "team black" is morally superior to "team green"... while Rhaenyra and Daemon may not have actually had Laenor murdered...there is the poor sap that Daemon killed so they'd have a body to fake Laenor's death. And a whole slew of other things besides that.

- - - Updated - - -

This scene is literally no different than the Daenerys scene at the end of season 3, where she is celebrated by the former slaves of Yunkai.

Were you worried about Daenerys' future actions after that scene? If Yes, then that's fair. If No, that's hypocritical.

It's quite a bit different...because of who Dany and Aegon were shown to be prior to that moment. Aegon is shown to have been selfish and hedonistic his entire life. Dany was shown to be someone that wants to be a good ruler. She truly believes the world would be better off if she were Queen.

Like Daenerys, Aegon is just getting into his role as king for the first time. He always said that he wasn't fit to be king, he always said that he wasn't going to be a problem for Rhaenya, because he wasn't interested in the throne, but during his coronation (and the actor portrayed this very well), he visibly started accepting his new role and is now embracing his position as king. There's no reason to look at that scene with a concerned or sad approach.

There's plenty of reason to be concerned about Aegon's corronation. As I said, he doesn't seem to care about anyone other than himself.

I mean, pretty much everyone at that coronation was happy. The common folk were cheering for Aegon, Aegon himself was happy, Alicent was happy that Aegon finally started acting like a king, the rest of the council were happy. Pretty much everyone was happy and celebrating, until Rhaenys ruined a large portion of the hall, slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians for no reason, and threatened to kill her own family and a king (crimes of kinslaying and kingslaying) during a peaceful event (a coronation).

The people were sad when they were told to be sad and happy when they were told to be happy. They don't have any particular love for Aegon...most of them don't know anything about him. Aegon was happy because everyone was cheering for him. The council were happy because it looks like their coup was succesful. And no one, on either side, gives two fucks about the peasants that were killed. And we haven't seen Aegon act like a King... we've seeen him act like someone that enjoys people cheering for him. And then we saw him hide behind his mother's skirts.

The hilarious thing is that if the Rhaenys scene was omitted and the episode ended with Aegon's coronation, it literally would have a happy, fairy tale-like ending.

You could also say that there would have been a happy, fairy tale-like ending if the Green's didn't try and usurp the throne. Rhaenyra would be happy to be Queen. Aegon would have been happy to not be King. The people would have cheered for Rhaenyra as much as they cheered for her little brother... because that's what is expected of them at a coronation. And Viserys would not be spinning in his grave.

The Greens are, undeniably, the aggressors here. Even if Alicent believes that Viserys changed his mind about Aegon in his final moments... Otto and the rest of the Greens were going to go ahead with their coup regardless.

[crusadernero]

This scene is literally no different than the Daenerys scene at the end of season 3, where she is celebrated by the former slaves of Yunkai.

Were you worried about Daenerys' future actions after that scene? If Yes, then that's fair. If No, that's hypocritical.

Like Daenerys, Aegon is just getting into his role as king for the first time. He always said that he wasn't fit to be king, he always said that he wasn't going to be a problem for Rhaenya, because he wasn't interested in the throne, but during his coronation (and the actor portrayed this very well), he visibly started accepting his new role and is now embracing his position as king. There's no reason to look at that scene with a concerned or sad approach.

I mean, pretty much everyone at that coronation was happy. The common folk were cheering for Aegon, Aegon himself was happy, Alicent was happy that Aegon finally started acting like a king, the rest of the council were happy. Pretty much everyone was happy and celebrating, until Rhaenys ruined a large portion of the hall, slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians for no reason, and threatened to kill her own family and a king (crimes of kinslaying and kingslaying) during a peaceful event (a coronation).

The hilarious thing is that if the Rhaenys scene was omitted and the episode ended with Aegon's coronation, it literally would have had a happy, fairy tale-like ending.

What else were they supposed to do? They were literally forced there by soldiers. Remember how they were literally forced there to watch Aegon get crowned? They were surrounded by soldiers inside. Start booing? Theres a reason why there was a few seconds of silence.

It was rushed for a reason. People didnt want to go and see it, they had to.

They had two choices:
1. Say nothing and/or start booing. Result? Death.
2. Start cheering for the new king. Cause why not? For them, it most likely doesnt matter.


Wether or not he wanted to be king, doesnt really matter. Getting standing ovation from so many people is a egoboost.

And btw - those people they killed before Aegon got crowned, you know, those that opposed it. What about them? Thats what happend if you didnt bend the knee.

[Varodoc]

And he also planned, right from the beginning, to usurp the throne for his Grandson. And, towards the end of Viserys reign, when Viserys was too weak to sit on the throne, he made decisions that he knew would be contrary to the King's wishes.

He didn't usurp anything. All he did was give Viserys the chance to make a male heir and continue with the traditional laws of succession. Had Viserys publicly replaced Rhaenyra with Aegon as heir, the Dance of Dragons would never have happened.

Otto certainly was power-hungry and wanted his bloodline to be on the throne (via Alicent's child), but he also wasn't the main culprit for the civil war. That's Viserys. The laws of Westeros clearly state that only a man is allowed to rule the Seven Kingdoms. It's unfair, it's unjust, it's not politically correct, but it was the law. If Viserys had followed the law, Aegon would have been recognized as official heir by everyone, all the lords of Westeros would have pledged themselves to him, and Rhaenyra's cause would have ended.

But because Viserys loved Rhaenyra so much (because she reminds him of his wife), he defied law and tradition by keeping Rhaenyra as the official heir, even after Alicent gave him a male heir, which would have resolved all the issues Viserys had originally.

Even though Viserys himself once acknowledged that no one, not even the king, is above tradition, which makes him hypocritical. He acknowledged that even a king had to follow tradition, but then he completely ignored tradition by not making Aegon, his firstborn son, heir to the Iron Throne.

Otto also prevented Daemon from being named heir. Daemon would have been a terrible king and pretty much Maegor 2.0, so that's another good thing Otto did as Hand, Westeros dodged a big bullet there.

I also don't understand why you're bringing this point up to try to prove that Otto is evil. Trying to get his bloodline into the throne is the basic ambition that every noble has, it's the classic game of thrones. Otto saw an opportunity to make House Hightower the second most important in the realm and he took it. That in itself wasn't the main cause of the civil war, that's just your regular game of thrones. It was Viserys' indecision and foolishness, as I explained above.

She's also been willing to sit back and let other people do the dirty work to further her own interests.

I mean, she's a politician, I don't know what you're expecting from her. She did her own duty in the medieval world of Westeros, and provided Viserys with a male heir.

She did not tell Larys to murder his brother and father...but she know he did it and is complicit in her silence

Larys is an exceptional agent and Alicent never had any interactions with the Strong lords. She had no reason to punish Larys for what he did.

One can try to be morally good (like Alicent advising the future king to avoid ruling with fear) while still not acting like an idiot. Alicent isn't Jon Snow. Jon Snow would fire Larys because he killed his siblings, Alicent is smarter than that. She realized that Larys is a useful pawn, that she didn't care about his family, and so she kept him under her protection.

However she does, or at least she should, know that her son will never be the kind of King she wants him to be.

She knows that Aegon is surrounded by capable advisors, like herself and her own father, who served the previous two kings and performed his duties brilliantly. Alicent always had a low opinion of Aegon and saw him as an idiot so even if she knew he wasn't ready to be king, she'd also know that Otto would be pulling the strings anyway.

she was willing to maim or kill her childhood friend's son when the King refused to order it.

She was full of anger and grief because her son had been maimed for life. She was very emotional. After she calmed down, she expressed regret for what she did, noting that she did something not befitting of her station. She acknowledged her mistakes.

- - - Updated - - -

It's quite a bit different...because of who Dany and Aegon were shown to be prior to that moment. Aegon is shown to have been selfish and hedonistic his entire life. Dany was shown to be someone that wants to be a good ruler. She truly believes the world would be better off if she were Queen.

And Aegon has been shown to be someone who doesn't want to rule. GoT in the later seasons made this a huge plot point, with both Tyrion and Varys arguing that Jon would probably be a better monarch than Daenerys because he "doesn't want the crown". Arguing that the best monarchs are those who take the crown out of necessity (like Aegon, who was pushed by his council and his mother), not personal desire.

There's plenty of reason to be concerned about Aegon's corronation. As I said, he doesn't seem to care about anyone other than himself.

Irrelevant, he's a politician. All he has to do is keep the realm at peace, that's his job. He's not supposed to do charity.

The realm would have been at peace if Viserys did his job as king, which was upholding the law by making Aegon king.

You could also say that there would have been a happy, fairy tale-like ending if the Green's didn't try and usurp the throne.

Nope, there would never be one if that happened. There would always be tensions and chaos because the King defied tradition by making a woman the heir to the throne.

It's unfair and unjust for Rhaenyra, she shouldn't be treated like an inferior heir just because she's a woman. But that's the world of Westeros. There's a reason why Viserys was willing to have his own beloved wife butchered just to have a male heir. There's a reason why he was under so much pressure, and it's because the society of Westeros had been led to recognize as legitimate only a male heir.

If the whole bloodline from Alicent never existed and Rhaenyra became queen, there would still be tensions and chaos.

And on top of this, I could also mention how Rhaenyra's children are bastards and the throne would essentially be given to illegitimate bastards. This isn't even another "Joffrey" situation where only a few people know the truth. As both the audience and the characters of the story can easily see, Rhaenyra's children are visibly bastards, they can't be Laenor's sons. So. once her eldest son took the throne after her death, there would 100% be tensions and chaos. Meanwhile, Aegon's heir is not a bastard as he had him with his sister-wife.

- - - Updated - - -

What else were they supposed to do? They were literally forced there by soldiers. Remember how they were literally forced there to watch Aegon get crowned? They were surrounded by soldiers inside. Start booing? Theres a reason why there was a few seconds of silence.

It was rushed for a reason. People didnt want to go and see it, they had to.

They had two choices:
1. Say nothing and/or start booing. Result? Death.
2. Start cheering for the new king. Cause why not? For them, it most likely doesnt matter.


Wether or not he wanted to be king, doesnt really matter. Getting standing ovation from so many people is a egoboost.

I never denied that they were forced to cheer. I am simply pointing out that pretty much everyone was happy that day before Rhaenys appeared.

And btw - those people they killed before Aegon got crowned, you know, those that opposed it. What about them? Thats what happend if you didnt bend the knee.

This is different, we were talking about the large crowd of small folk at the coronation, while here you are just talking about 3 nobles. If the crowd didn't cheer for Aegon, Otto/Aegon wouldn't have been stupid enough to have them slaughtered. He's not Joffrey, he's not stupid enough to cause a city-wide riot.

Meanwhile, having those 3 nobles killed didn't cost anything for Otto. Furthermore, at least one of those nobles was going to leak intel to Rhaenyra so he had to be silenced. It was a calculated move.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

He didn't usurp anything. All he did was give Viserys the chance to make a male heir and continue with the traditional laws of succession. Had Viserys publicly replaced Rhaenyra with Aegon as heir, the Dance of Dragons would never have happened.

The King named his daughter as heir and held that position till the day he died. Otto, regardless of that fact, was going to install his grandson instead. The Dance of the Dragons would never have happened if Otto didn't try and supplant Viserys wishes.

Otto certainly was power-hungry and wanted his bloodline to be on the throne (via Alicent's child), but he also wasn't the main culprit for the civil war. That's Viserys. The laws of Westeros clearly state that only a man is allowed to rule the Seven Kingdoms. It's unfair, it's unjust, it's not politically correct, but it was the law. If Viserys had followed the law, Aegon would have been recognized as official heir by everyone, all the lords of Westeros would have pledged themselves to him, and Rhaenyra's cause would have ended.

Viserys was King. The King makes the laws. He made it law that his Daughter would inherit his throne. The Lords of the Seven Kingdom all swore an oath to Rhaenyra as heir.

But because Viserys loved Rhaenyra so much (because she reminds him of his wife), he defied law and tradition by keeping Rhaenyra as the official heir, even after Alicent gave him a male heir, which would have resolved all the issues Viserys had originally.

Once again, it's the King that makes the laws.

Otto also prevented Daemon from being named heir. Daemon would have been a terrible king and pretty much Maegor 2.0, so that's another good thing Otto did as Hand, Westeros dodged a big bullet there.

Sure, I never claimed "Otto is the source of all evil in this world". Daemon would not have been a good king. At the same time, Otto knows that Aegon isn't exactly a great humanitarian either. He just thinks he'll be easier to manipulate.

I mean, she's a politician, I don't know what you're expecting from her. She did her own duty in the medieval world of Westeros, and provided Viserys with a male heir.

I'm just saying she's not a saint.

Larys is an exceptional agent and Alicent never had any interactions with the Strong lords. She had no reason to punish Larys for what he did.

Kinslaying is a pretty serious crime in Westeros. You said so yourself.

One can try to be morally good (like Alicent advising the future king to avoid ruling with fear) while still not acting like an idiot. Alicent isn't Jon Snow. Jon Snow would fire Larys because he killed his siblings, Alicent is smarter than that. She realized that Larys is a useful pawn, that she didn't care about his family, and so she kept him under her protection.

She didn't even try to be morally good. She never has. She covers for her rapist son who she then puts on the Iron Throne. No, she isn't Jon Snow...or Eddard Stark.. because those were actually morally good people. And I would say that Larys isn't her "useful pawn"... she's his. She's been a pawn for others her entire life.

[InfiniteCharger]

The ending scene was dumb because the dragon's emergence was pointless as we all know this entire series is about the battle between the blacks and and the greens. Having this floor bursting moment doesn't add anything to that or take away from it so it becomes pointless, especially since it deliberately introduces the idea that the conflict could have been ended right then and there. Why would you even want to introduce that possibility at this point in the show when you aren't going to literally follow through on it. Heck at least burn one or two of them while the rest survive would have been a more compelling reason to have the scene versus a stupid stare down. Like how is that changing anything when we all know there is going to be a blood bath either way.

Similarly, why even introduce the idea that Viserys told Alicent that he wanted Aegon II to be King, confusing her for Rhanerys? That is especially odd when they already had an ongoing plot to seat Aegon anyway as shown in the final episode. It is trying too hard to make Alicent seem innocent when she should have known full well that something like this was coming since her father was relieved as the hand earlier in the season. While I don't think it destroys the season, some of these things are just obviously the writers showing their hand versus having things play out in a more realistic way in universe. Of course Alicent should have been in on the plot by this time and her father should have clued her in and convinced her after becoming hand again.

[Varodoc]

The King named his daughter as heir and held that position till the day he died. Otto, regardless of that fact, was going to install his grandson instead. The Dance of the Dragons would never have happened if Otto didn't try and supplant Viserys wishes.

The King can't change the law. At least, not in such an arbitrary way, on a whim. That's the attitude that the Mad King and Joffrey had, the idea that the king can pretty much do whatever the fuck he wants with no concern for the law. Both the Mad King and Joffrey made the kingdom bleed horribly because of this attitude, and so did Viserys.

Viserys didn't have the power to change the law so easily.

What even is the point of laws if the king can pretty much wake up one day and decide "hm, im going to completely abolish this one law, wouldn't that be fun?" No. There are boundaries that even a king can't cross.

The Lords of the Seven Kingdom all swore an oath to Rhaenyra as heir.

They swore an oath before Aegon was born. That happened many years before ep. 9 too, so who knows how many of those lords are still alive.

I'm just saying she's not a saint.

Neither am I. I have no problem believing that Alicent is delusional and on copium.

I'm just being fair to her and acknowledging that it's rare for someone to tell the king not to use fear or ruthlessness, and to show mercy to your main rival and threat if possible.

Especially in Westeros, where the king has a literal firebreathing nuke at his disposal.

Kinslaying is a pretty serious crime in Westeros. You said so yourself.

Even if she wanted to punish Larys, she couldn't do it. Otto is the Hand of the King and the leader of the King's council. Alicent was just another pawn for Otto. So much so that she didn't even know Otto and the council had been plotting for years to put Aegon on the throne after Viserys died. Alicent lacked the authority to punish Larys even if she wanted to. She's not the leader of the council, she'd have to try and convince her father to have Larys replaced on the council, but her father obviously wouldn't care because, as per his own admission, Larys is useful.

She didn't even try to be morally good. She never has. She covers for her rapist son who she then puts on the Iron Throne. No, she isn't Jon Snow...or Eddard Stark.. because those were actually morally good people. And I would say that Larys isn't her "useful pawn"... she's his. She's been a pawn for others her entire life.

No one denies that covering for her rapist son is a terrible act, but you're not being fair to her if you also don't acknowledge that she has tried to do good several times. To begin with, she comforted the girl who was raped and refused to have her harmed any further or even killed. In the latest episode, she advised Aegon to show mercy to Rhaenyra and avoid bloodshed. Based on Viserys' last words (which she unfortunately misinterpreted as she lacked the full picture), she genuinely believes that Aegon, regardless of his flaws, is destined to unite Westeros against the great threat. Therefore, what drives her is the sincere idea that she is doing the realm a favour by putting Aegon on the throne.

[Twdft]

Viserys didn't have the power to change the law so easily.

He didn't change or create any law.

The law is and was that the King names his heir. Tradition was that the heir has to be his oldest son. He went against tradition, but that is his right as king. He miscalculated the pushback his decision would get, biggest mistake being that he can't do anything about it since he'd be dead by the time any heir would take the throne. But still, he was the king, his word about who will be heir is the law. Not that hard to understand, really.

[Koriani]

The ending scene was dumb because the dragon's emergence was pointless as we all know this entire series is about the battle between the blacks and and the greens. Having this floor bursting moment doesn't add anything to that or take away from it so it becomes pointless, especially since it deliberately introduces the idea that the conflict could have been ended right then and there. Why would you even want to introduce that possibility at this point in the show when you aren't going to literally follow through on it. Heck at least burn one or two of them while the rest survive would have been a more compelling reason to have the scene versus a stupid stare down. Like how is that changing anything when we all know there is going to be a blood bath either way.

Similarly, why even introduce the idea that Viserys told Alicent that he wanted Aegon II to be King, confusing her for Rhanerys? That is especially odd when they already had an ongoing plot to seat Aegon anyway as shown in the final episode. It is trying too hard to make Alicent seem innocent when she should have known full well that something like this was coming since her father was relieved as the hand earlier in the season. While I don't think it destroys the season, some of these things are just obviously the writers showing their hand versus having things play out in a more realistic way in universe. Of course Alicent should have been in on the plot by this time and her father should have clued her in and convinced her after becoming hand again.

To *me* - while I get your point about the dragon scene (and ignoring how awesome I love it anyway, cuz dragon) and how "pointless" it seems, I took it entirely different. (and ignoring what we, the audience, know about the history of Westeros and how this all 'ends' as that point can be made about every 'stake' in the show since we know how these people each rule and how this all 'ends' for the individuals and the entire storyline)

The point was, she could, but she did NOT. The point was to show the Queen (Alicent) that she was accepting of her deal (at least that's how I took it and the 'bow of the head' she gave her before the dragon turned), despite how crapily they had gone about it, but she was a "Queen with Power" (dragon) in her OWN right. She COULD have ended all of it and taken her own throne, but she did not. She could have fled "secretly" (with or without her dragon) and declared Driftmark was seceding from the '7 kingdoms' entirely. Hell, should could have burned down King's Landing long before Danny did it (FIRST! lol) - but she did not. She ASKED to have her Dragon back from Alicent earlier in the episode, but she was denied Her, even when Alicent was trying to 'play nice' and make her an ally. And that was a mistake - on Alicent's part, on how you treat with people you want as an "ally", so she effin GOT her Dragon back before leaving.

She showed them they aren't as "All-powerful" as they think they are. That they don't have this 'wrapped up and in hand' as well as they thought they did. And that, even if she leaves an 'ally', they need to be careful with their allies (who, again, have their own power) (Or if she leaves an enemy, she's an enemy who isn't as weak as they expected.)

And since we, the audience, know that they have at least SOME of those "allies" sworn to Aegon due to THREAT in the throne room of IMMEDIATE DEATH if they didn't - yeah, they need to heed that warning of being careful how they treat with "allies."

Its all a power play (duh) - and she showed her power, and then showed her restraint, by NOT using that power, just because she /could/.

I'm quite willing to accept, as the show plays out, that I read that scene entirely wrong in the way I described it above. But there was a point to her NOT destroying the "ruling family" in that moment and it isn't because she can't wait to go to war with them. But she also wasn't about to turn tail and run and cower, leaving her dragon behind.

And trust me, the writers of this show (Or perhaps Martin himself) do not have my utmost love and respect. As far as the points in your second paragraph - this entire show has "B grade" writing/plot logic going on with ALL the characters in the "realistic universe" they are playing in. This is NOT the same caliber as the writing in the original series (for the first 5+ seasons) and its NOT the same writing caliber as MARTIN in the first series. But I've not read the book by Martin so I can't go so far as to say he's "lost his edge" vs. the show writers just not being as good with the adaptation.

I can't even begin to count the number of "what? makes no sense...why?" moments I've had with multiple characters and decisions and actions throughout this entire series. Issues I /never/ had reading the GoT Book series or watching the seasons based closer on the books. I mean don't even "get me started" on how WTF the entire raising of ALL the "heir" children at play (as adults) was described (or lack thereof) because NONE of that makes ZIPPO sense given the 'reality' Viserys/Wife/Daughter were dealing with. So while I won't disagree this episode's writing didn't have the best 'logic sense' to it - I would argue this is par for the course in what you're expected to swallow with this series and MOST other tv series. So it doesn't bother me once I adjusted expectations.

This isn't a "Grade A" or "Top Tier Writing" TV show (the terms myself and hubby throw around) the way the early GoT seasons were. This is more "standard GOOD tv writing" for your above-average shows, but not Top Tier. That's ok. We enjoy the hell out of it anyway as we do 90% of what we watch on tv (that we'd consider "good" but not "best writing"). "Top Tier" TV shows ARE few and far between instead of the norm. And this show, at least first season, has shown me time and again that this is not Top Tier TV writing. And this episode, no more or less than any other, just keeps with that standard. Which is Fine Enough.

At least this episode's climax wasn't ruined by shit-lighting done post-production.

[Varodoc]

He didn't change or create any law.

The law is and was that the King names his heir. Tradition was that the heir has to be his oldest son. He went against tradition, but that is his right as king. He miscalculated the pushback his decision would get, biggest mistake being that he can't do anything about it since he'd be dead by the time any heir would take the throne. But still, he was the king, his word about who will be heir is the law. Not that hard to understand, really.

No, the law doesn't stop there. The law of the Seven Kingdoms is also the law of agnatic primogeniture. So, the firstborn son is the heir to the father's titles and lands.

The reason why Dorne was so special is because they didn't follow agnatic primogeniture like the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, and allowed women to inherit (it is not a coincidence that Dorne is very different culturally from the Seven Kingdoms, and is an independent country in HotD).

"After the tradition of her people, House Martell then ruled Dorne as 'princes', not 'kings' - unless the eldest child was a daughter, for unlike the rest of Westeros, our loyalty isn't commanded by a cock. We follow a Prince or a Princess Martell just the same. "―Oberyn Martell

If the Seven Kingdoms' law didn't discriminate women on the matter of succession, then Dorne wouldn't be considered special by the story.

Viserys was the King of the Seven Kingdoms and thus the law of the Seven Kingdoms stated that Aegon, and not Rhaenyra, should have been the rightful heir via agnatic primogeniture.

I also don't agree with you glossing over the part where Viserys defied tradition. A king should uphold the tradition of the country he rules, not ignore it. Traditions are important, they do matter, they shouldn't just be ignored. Especially not by a public figure like the head of state.

[Linkedblade]

No, the law doesn't stop there. The law of the Seven Kingdoms is also the law of agnatic primogeniture. So, the firstborn son is the heir to the father's titles and lands.

The reason why Dorne was so special is because they didn't follow agnatic primogeniture like the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, and allowed women to inherit (it is not a coincidence that Dorne is very different culturally from the Seven Kingdoms, and is an independent country in HotD).

"After the tradition of her people, House Martell then ruled Dorne as 'princes', not 'kings' - unless the eldest child was a daughter, for unlike the rest of Westeros, our loyalty isn't commanded by a cock. We follow a Prince or a Princess Martell just the same. "―Oberyn Martell

If the Seven Kingdoms' law didn't discriminate women on the matter of succession, then Dorne wouldn't be considered special by the story.

Viserys was the King of the Seven Kingdoms and thus the law of the Seven Kingdoms stated that Aegon, and not Rhaenyra, should have been the rightful heir via agnatic primogeniture.

I also don't agree with you glossing over the part where Viserys defied tradition. A king should uphold the tradition of the country he rules, not ignore it. Traditions are important, they do matter, they shouldn't just be ignored. Especially not by a public figure like the head of state.

I'd be interested to see if there were actual law parchment in Westeros that dictates agnatic primogeniture. Or if it's only tradition

[Twdft]

No, the law doesn't stop there. The law of the Seven Kingdoms is also the law of agnatic primogeniture. So, the firstborn son is the heir to the father's titles and lands.

Then riddle me this: if primogeniture was irrevocable, why wasn't Aegon automatically heir upon his birth?

Primogeniture is tradition, the decision to name an heir is law.

[Ghost of Cow]

"Monarchs can't change laws"

Alrighty then.

[Twdft]

Btw, this is exactly the kind of discussion the smallfolk all over the realm would engage in too. They do care who rules them, even if they can't do anything about it doing public plays about it like Daemon and Rhaenyra witnessed on their night on the town.

[Varodoc]

I'd be interested to see if there were actual law parchment in Westeros that dictates agnatic primogeniture. Or if it's only tradition

It's obviously a law and it was still present even in the GoT era. In fact, Tyrion once reminded Tywin that he was his rightful heir to Casterly Rock. This simple exchange tells us two things: 1) that I am right 2) that the law exists and it was still in place by the time of GoT; as Cersei, despite being older than Tyrion, had no right to Casterly Rock, due to being a woman (Jaime was obviously excluded due to being kingsguard). Leaving Tyrion as the rightful heir to Casterly Rock, as the eldest son still eligible to inherit titles. And even Tywin had to cope with that fact and acknowledge Tyrion as the rightful heir.

Then riddle me this: if primogeniture was irrevocable, why wasn't Aegon automatically heir upon his birth?

Because Viserys was an idiot who planted the seeds of the civil war, like I'm explaining to you and like the Maesters stated in the recounting of the civil war.

He [Viserys] had ruled for six-and-twenty years, reigning over the most prosperous era in the history of the Seven Kingdoms but seeding within it the disastrous decline of his house and the death of the last dragons.[8]
—writings of Yandel

The literal historians of Westeros would agree that the main cause of the civil war, in the end, was Viserys himself.

[Twdft]

The literal historians of Westeros would agree that the main cause of the civil war, in the end, was Viserys himself.

Yeah, I agree his decision to name Rhaenyra heir led to the civil war. That doesn't mean the decision was unlawful. It only means that, even in Westeros, if enough people want tradition be followed revolutions/rebellions/usurpations might be the repercussion of the decision.