[TV] House of the Dragon

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah I get that but if Barack Obama had a white ginger kid. People would not be cool with it

Barack Obama wouldn't have you killed for bringing it up. And people would be a lot cooler with it now than compared to how they would have been about a few hundred years ago.

If you want an example..look at Herschel Walker...he's got multiple kids with different women that he was not married to...and he's running for senator... and he has the full backing of the Republican Party.

[Jotaux]

Yeah I get that but if Barack Obama had a white ginger kid. People would not be cool with it

Thats a bad example, it would be more like two gingers having a black haired kid.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thats a bad example, it would be more like two gingers having a black haired kid.

It's also just not that big of an issue with people anymore. Extra-marital affairs and children out of wedlock just doesnt carry the same level of stigma.

[Jinnobi]

It's also just not that big of an issue with people anymore. Extra-marital affairs and children out of wedlock just doesnt carry the same level of stigma.

On the other hand, if a king or queen had a socially acceptable reason to disinherit someone, there would be no public backlash and civil unrest - as a general rule, anyway.

He did it to Daemon because he said something mean about his dead son. Yes, it was cruel and heartless. Yes, he deserves to be disinherited for the good of the realm. But to give Rhaenyra exception after exception after exception - when all signs pointed to her being a mediocre-to-bad queen - is questionable at best.

Hell, even Viserys questioned his own decision... when he was drunk.

I believe Viserys was not only completely serious, but also completely correct when he told Rhaenyra, "Jaehaerys would've had you disinherited for this," in the wake of her allowing Daemon to have physical relations with her. This is with him not knowing about Criston Cole. This is with him not knowing that she swore on the memory of her mother - the woman Viserys loved as a soulmate - that Daemon didn't "touch her." To pick your deceased mom to swear on when you know you're lying is cold. I bet if Viserys knew everything she did, she'd be given the Daemon treatment.

As she "matures" she's not exactly much more mature. She has an extramarital affair with Harwin Strong, which is putting his life, her life, and the children's lives in danger -- as Strong senior said, the only thing between Harwin and the executioner was a father's wilfull blindness towards his daugher's doings.

I don't think Rhaenyra is an outright villain, or evil (at least not yet) but she is far from the beleaguered victim that many of her fans make her out to be.

[Mehrunes]

Ned Stark resigned as Hand of the King when he refused to participate in the assassination of Daenerys.

Tywin Lannister resigned (in rage, no less) as Hand of the King when Aenys decided to (presumably) rape Joanna and comment on how perky her tits were.

Again, Westeros is not an absolute monarchy.

And, pray tell, where have I said anything about an absolute monarchy? Here's a hint. Just because more than one people disagreed with your hero Varadoc does not automatically mean they agree with each other 100% in turn. This is some rather black and white outlook on the discussion. I said nothing whatsoever about an absolute monarchy in my entire post. It just so happens your best bud said a ton of incorrect nonsense in order to validate their position on the absolute monarchy issue and it's that other nonsense that I was addressing.

And, since you apparently missed that, Robert quite clearly accepted Ned's resignation and told him to ride back to Winterfell. And we have no information about Tywin's resignation in this regard one way or another, so you using it to support your position here is beyond baseless. Especially since if we were to resort to speculation, chances are Aerys wouldn't have blocked Tywin's resignation because he kinda hated him.

There's a difference between being a ruler for life, and having absolute power while ruling for life. There not being a "system" for removing a king from power
doesn't imply the monarch has the level of authority you think it implies.

Do enlighten me as to what level of authority you thought I think it implies. Because if you managed the ancient art of "following context" you'd have realized that I was arguing against Varadoc's position that the small council has sovereignty over the king. If that was the case the small council would be able to oust the king from power in some kind of a legal process. That's not what happened with Aerys. So would you look at that, there not being a system for removing a king from power implies exactly the level of authority I think it implies. Meanwhile I've said absolutely squat about the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms having absolute power.

At the time, there was no male alternative to Daemon. And as Lady Mormont illustrates, when there is no male heir to inherit, the inheritance defaults to the closest female relative to the current head of house (or king).

There being no additional male alternatives to Daemon is immaterial to the point at hand, because Daemon himself was a male heir, which is enough to establish that the position of Varadoc that I was arguing against there was false.

Jaehaerys had no male heirs or female heirs to inherit, so he allowed claimants to petition for the role. This was a special case; it did not imply that the kingdom of Westeros wasn't normally male primogeniture.

You showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of inheritance laws. Inheritance doesn't magically stop at just the children. That was already part of Roman law, let alone the law of medieval England that Game of Thrones is based on. The grandchildren are also part of the line of inheritance and, if the children are already dead, they can become heirs just fine. With there being no need for the current ruler to appoint any of them as the heir themself. And under primogeniture the children of the eldest deceased son would have preference over the children of later sons. The Fire & Blood book literally confirms that primogeniture favored Aemon's line over Baelon's, yet it was Baelon's son that was selected at the Great Council because of something as immaterial to primogeniture as "proximity". So, you know, you're objectively wrong here.

The reason they called Jaehaerys "wise" to let a council of nobles to decide is because, technically, Rhaenys being the eldest niece would make her the inheritor - but Viserys was the eldest male nephew and it would endanger the stability of the realm if he just up and decided that his niece should be heir simply because she was older than Viserys, who was the eldest male nephew.

And here you showcase ignorance of the lore itself, because Fire & Blood said that the form of male preference primogeniture used in Westeros favored Laenor, skipping Rhaenys over. Yet not only was Rhaenys herself also considered in clear violation of the male-preference part, Viserys was ultimately picked anyway, in an even bigger violation of primogeniture as a whole.

So he just let the nobles decide instead of himself.

This is about Jaehaerys not having any children to inherit, and letting the realm chose between two claimants instead of picking one himself. It has nothing to do with whether Westeros is or is not dictated by male primogeniture; it is. That much is clear as day. But primogeniture literally means firstborn child, and Jaehaerys had no children to choose from.

Once again, if the male-preference primogeniture standards of Westeros were already settled law there would be no issue of Jaeherys having to pick anyone himself or ceding that right to the nobles of the kingdom. It would be automatic, following the line of succession under the given inheritance rules, because inheritance doesn't stop at children.

Notice that Corlys, Rhaenys, and Laenor are all the same family - and also related to Viserys. They're denying what everyone can see plainly.

With Viserys and Laenor no longer in the picture, the parentage of the Strong children could be challenged by anyone at any point in the future. And they will.

Them being the same family changes absolutely nothing here. Instead it only underlines the point: all the people whose succession would actually be screwed by Rhaenyra's children being bastards didn't raise the issue at all despite the fact they had nothing tangible to gain from that. Instead the only people who questioned it were those who'd personally benefit only if the opposite was true, making their claims be tainted with obvious self-interest.

Also, if "everyone can see plainly" that they are bastards because they don't look like their father, the same would apply to Robert's children, making Varadoc's point there wrong anyway.

I won't try to answer a question posed to someone else, but...

I will say that there is a difference between
A) an author deliberately clarifying their story in the context of commentary
and
B) what people interpret the author meant when giving an interview to a reporter or magazine

One is a careful, deliberate attempt to elucidate in-universe events; the other is helping a journalist get a damn paycheck. It's not even close to the same level of canonicity.

Unless that commentary comes from their other books, there really isn't and you're just splitting hairs. And I kinda doubt GRMM "carefully and deliberately" comparing Wersterosi kings to US presidents was anything of the sort.

Yes... in the same dialogue, he also tells Viserys that, though he is the Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, he has no right to decide the fate of House Velaryon. So it's interesting how Vaemond believes that Viserys can't just do whatever he wants just because he's king.

You forgot to mention the part where Viserys decided just that half a minute later, forcing Vaemond to question Lucerys' legitimacy in order to actually have a leg to stand on.

[CostinR]

With regards to the Vaemond situation it's worth remembering that Vaemon was looking to usurp his own brother's heir that Corlys had supported. Corlys knew what the children were and accepted them all the same, Vaemond was grasping for power there.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

With regards to the Vaemond situation it's worth remembering that Vaemon was looking to usurp his own brother's heir that Corlys had supported. Corlys knew what the children were and accepted them all the same, Vaemond was grasping for power there.

Corlys was concerned with elevating the House's name and standing. Vaemond was concerned with the House Bloodline. It is a power grab because he wants it for himself... but Corlys was also doing a power grab by ignoring the fact that the children were not of his bloodline. Everybody in the show is doing a power grab....they all just have their own justifications for it.

[Varodoc]

With regards to the Vaemond situation it's worth remembering that Vaemon was looking to usurp his own brother's heir that Corlys had supported. Corlys knew what the children were and accepted them all the same, Vaemond was grasping for power there.

Everyone is grasping for power in Westeros. Stannis and Robb Stark were also grasping for power when they waged wars and they still got celebrated by the fandom.

Was Robb Stark not grasping for power when he demanded independence for his region (with HIM as the king ofc) and waged war against the rest of Westeros? Why did the fandom celebrate him then?

Vaemond's cause was just no matter how you look at the situation. Lucerys was an illegitimate bastard, thus Vaemond was the eldest male heir of Corlys. Just like Stannis with Robert.

Corlys accepting Lucerys doesn't resolve anything. Only Viserys legitimating Lucerys would have resolved the matter, like Dany did with Gendry. Ofc, Viserys would never do this since he'd be conceding that the Greens were right about Rhaenyra's bastards. And Viserys was everything BUT an impartial man.

[CostinR]

Vaemond's cause was just no matter how you look at the situation. Lucerys was an illegitimate bastard, thus Vaemond was the eldest male heir of Corlys. Just like Stannis with Robert..

Robert was murdered by his wife who had cockholded him without him knowing, let alone accepting it, and then Cersei put her bastards on the throne. Stannis thus has a perfectly legitimate case. Every law was on his side, and everyone else was a usurper in the War of Five Kings.

Was Robb Stark not grasping for power when he demanded independence for his region (with HIM as the king ofc) and waged war against the rest of Westeros? Why did the fandom celebrate him then?

People do love the Starks that's true, but perhaps you know being a sympathetic character being thrust into the position as king by your lords as opposed to seeking to seize it from your brother has something to do with it.

But yes, Robb Stark was a usurper and a traitor, not to Joffrey but to Stannis.

It isn't Vaemond's right to usurp the heir that Corlys chose for his house, knowing full well that said boy was bastard. Corlys is the Lord of the Tides not Vaemond. It also isn't Vaemond's right to challenge the power of the king to arbitrate the matter, especially when the king sided with the decision that Corlys, the rightful lord, had made.

Vaemond was an attempted usurper, that paid the price for his decisions. You know what's also telling? That Corlys had trueborn Velaryon heirs, Laena's children specifically, yet at no point did he suggest them instead as Rhaenys, who did concern herself purely with the bloodline, and yes Laena's girls have a greater claim he does.

Female heirs being passed for the Iron Throne specifically doesn't change the situation for women inheriting for regular noble houses. In fact there's quite a few ladies that inherited various titles before, during and after the Dance of Dragons because they were next in line. House Arryn is famously led by a woman in this timeline.

Even if Laenor's "children" were disinherited the next in line is NOT Vaemond as he would claim but Baela.

[Varodoc]

Robert was murdered by his wife who had cockholded him without him knowing, let alone accepting it, and then Cersei put her bastards on the throne. Stannis thus has a perfectly legitimate case. Every law was on his side, and everyone else was a usurper in the War of Five Kings.

And Laenor was allegedly assassinated on the orders of Daemon and Rhaenyra, this was after Laenor was cuckolded by Harwin Strong who is obviously the father of Rhaenyra's children.

Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey Velaryon are illegitimate bastards not fathered by Laenor, thus they have no legal claim to the Iron Throne or Driftmark. The entire realm knows this, there's a reason why Lucerys wished he looked more like Laenor for his entire life, as the entire country whispered behind their back.

People do love the Starks that's true, but perhaps you know being a sympathetic character being thrust into the position as king by your lords as opposed to seeking to seize it from your brother has something to do with it.

It's not "seizing power", it's literally his legitimate birthright, and everyone except Viserys knows this.

The show couldn't be clearer about this point, with Aegon literally telling Viserys that "EVERYONE" knows that Rhaenyra's children are bastards. To which Viserys simply decides to remain on full copium support.

It's not really power-seeking when you just want your birthright against kids that are obviously illegal bastards. And it's certainly par for the course with the game of thrones. Every single person living in King's Landing seeks more power, Vaemond is most certainly not an outlier.

It isn't Vaemond's right to usurp the heir that Corlys chose for his house

It is Vaemond's right to press his claim against a bastard.

Unfortunately for Viserys, Rhaenyra, and Corlys, Westeros isn't a dream world where everyone just accepts bastards running around with no respect for laws and traditions. And, thankfully, the real world is the same, where people can't just do whatever the fuck they want without any concern for the laws, traditions, and customs of society.

As I said earlier, and as the story shows quite clearly, Rhaenyra had no clue about the world she's living in. She was clearly naive and thought that she could just have her cake (having bastards with her secret lover) and eat it too (having those bastards seen as legitimate simply because she's the heir), but the Greens and the rest of the realm gave her a quick reality check.

Vaemond was an attempted usurper, that paid the price for his decisions.

And Viserys was a weak king who paid the price (posthumously for his bad decisions. Everything is as it should be.

That Corlys had trueborn Velaryon heirs, Laena's children specifically, yet at no point did he suggest them instead as Rhaenys, who did concern herself purely with the bloodline, and yes Laena's girls have a greater claim he does.

Of course he didn't, if he did, he'd be conceding that the Greens and the rest of the realm are right about the bastard rumours. He had to save face, but make no mistake, he knew very well that they are bastards. Both he and Rhaenys did.

As Aegon put it, literally the only one in the entire realm who couldn't tell they were bastards was Viserys, who was obviously on copium the entire time.

Female heirs being passed for the Iron Throne specifically doesn't change the situation for women inheriting for regular noble houses. In fact there's quite a few ladies that inherited various titles before, during and after the Dance of Dragons because they were next in line. House Arryn is famously led by a woman in this timeline

And how many of them were chosen over living, male siblings equally eligible to inherit?

Jeyne Arryn, the head of House Arryn during the Dance of Dragons, inherited after her older brothers were all slain. At that point, no one was left to challenge her.

Up to this reply, no one has yet been able to give me an example of a female head of noble house who was chosen in spite of having male siblings who were equally eligible to inherit. [So, No situations like Lyanna Mormont where all the male relatives were exiled and disinherited].

Even if Laenor's "children" were disinherited the next in line is NOT Vaemond as he would claim but Baela.

Since no one ever brings them up as eligible heirs, the story is clear that they are not eligible to inherit, despite what you might think. Otherwise, Vaemond's opponents would have brought them up to discredit him.

What you say could be true technically, but it is ultimately irrelevant, as the story never acknowledges it. Baela was literally in that room and no one ever spoke up about her. Thus, the only conclusion we can draw is that, evidently, she did not have a greater claim than Vaemond. As neither Vaemond nor his Green allies ever saw her as a threat, and Rhaenyra and her allies never tried to argue for her against Vaemond.

Lastly, one of Vaemond's main arguments is that he was the closest kin of Lord Corlys. Which is true, since he was Corlys' brother, while Baela was his grandaughter. It would be one thing if it was Laena, Corlys' daughter, instead of Baela. But it was the granddaughter, so she was farther in line compared to Vaemond. The story and everyone at court seems to acknowledge this fact, as no one ever brings up Baela to challenge Vaemond, nor does anyone ever try to disprove Vaemond's arguments that he is "Corlys' closest kin", as one of the main justifications for his claim.

[CostinR]

And Laenor was allegedly assassinated on the orders of Daemon and Rhaenyra, this was after Laenor was cuckolded by Harwin Strong who is obviously the father of Rhaenyra's children.

Was he? Mushroom claiming it doesn't make it so.

Jeyne Arryn, the head of House Arryn during the Dance of Dragons, inherited after her older brothers were all slain. At that point, no one was left to challenge her.

Nor does Baela have any other male siblings. She is by all counts the legitimate heir and it was brought up by Rhaenys to Corlys in the show. Vaemond is like Jeyne's cousin trying to usurp her rule.

What I will point out is that in Westeros there are numerous times that a female leader took over a house when they had no other siblings. The line of succession goes not to brother of the current lord but to the lord's heirs, if the Strongs aren't accepted it passes from Corlys to Baela.

While male heirs might be preferred, this does not extend to uncles or even cousins ( though some cousins have been known to inherit ). If Laneor had no legitimate heirs then the clearest line is through Laena's own children.

So frankly your argument is rather weak. No one in the lore except the Greens ( and even then only the show ), who are doing it purely for their own gain and certainly not for any legal merit, seem to value Vaemond's argument, no one.

To compare a power grabber to Stannis or Ned Stark? Hardly, and I ain't the biggest fan of the blacks: Hell as far as I see it Otto Hightower is closest to being the good guy in the story. But let's be blunt: This was a pure power grab by everyone involved that was trying to usurp Corlys' heir.

The Driftwood Throne belongs to Corlys, who he passes it to was his decision to make, and not anyone else's save for the king perhaps. He chose, knowing fully well the facts, Lucerys.

[Jinnobi]

And, pray tell, where have I said anything about an absolute monarchy?

You don't need to outright "say it" to be constantly referring and implying concepts that belong only in an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship. This unreasonable demand that you can imply and infer to your heart's content, and still hide behind the "Where did I outright state that?" line of reasoning, is pedantic to the point of childishness - and hypocritical to the core.

If you say, "I would never dream of adopting a dog. They're ugly and stupid, and they smell." And I say, "Why do you dislike dogs so much?" You can't say, "I never said I dislike dogs."

Well, you could. But we would then see through your feeble attempt to save face. Kind of like what you're doing in this thread.

And, since you apparently missed that, Robert quite clearly accepted Ned's resignation and told him to ride back to Winterfell.

He also told Ned that he'd put his head on a spike. He was ranting and angry with his friend.

This time you can't even hide behind the I didn't outright say it excuse. You wrote "Yet Viserys showed that the Hand of the King couldn't even resign without the king's consent."

See, what Viserys showed us is that the monarch in Game of Thrones has considerable leeway in how they choose to act. Viserys blocked his Hand from retiring out of compassion, as he could clearly tell why Strong was attempting to jump ship.

And we have no information about Tywin's resignation in this regard one way or another, so you using it to support your position here is beyond baseless. Especially since if we were to resort to speculation, chances are Aerys wouldn't have blocked Tywin's resignation because he kinda hated him.

Guess you haven't read or listened to this.

[Varodoc]

Was he? Mushroom claiming it doesn't make it so.

Eh? Everyone believes that Laenor was assassinated on the orders of Rhaenyra and Daemon so that Rhaenyra could pursue her lover. The realm doesn't know that Laenor faked his own death. There is a scene immediately preceding Vaemond's petition where Rhaenys literally confronts Rhaenyra about this; as she, like the rest of the realm, believes that Rhaenyra had Laenor assassinated for her selfish pursuit of love. Which is why Rhaenyra was terrified that Rhaenys was going to side with Vaemond and the Greens.

Nor does Baela have any other siblings.

No, but she has a male relative, Vaemond, who is closer in the family tree to Corlys. This is a fact acknowledged by the story and its characters as: 1) No one disproves Vaemond's statement of being the closest kin to Corlys and 2) No one speaks up about this supposed claim that you are giving to Baela (that the story never acknowledges).

What I will point out is that in Westeros there are numerous times that a female leader took over a house when they had no other siblings.

And can you tell me about examples where a female leader took over when they had living, eligible male relatives?

The line of succession goes not to brother of the current lord but to the lord's heirs, if the Strongs aren't accepted it passes from Corlys to Baela.

While male heirs might be preferred, this does not extend to uncles or cousins but to brothers.

Except that Baela was not Corlys' daughter and Laenor's sibling. She was Corlys' granddaughter and Laenor's niece. And, as Vaemond explains and the story acknowledges as an irrefutable truth (that no character ever tries to disprove), Vaemond Velaryon is the closest kin to Corlys Velaryon. Not Baela Velaryon, that no one ever mentions as a possible challenge to Vaemond's claim.

Your argument would have any weight if we were talking about Laena, who was indeed Corlys' daughter and Laenor's sister.

No one in the lore except the Greens ( and even the only the show ), who are doing it purely for their own gain and certainly not for any legal merit, seem to value Vaemond's argument, no one.

Completely false, as the story via Lucerys' statement makes it a canon point that many in the royal court look at the bastards with contempt and whisper behind their back. To the point that Lucerys wishes he looked more like Laenor.

The idea that it's only the Greens who care about the illegitimacy of the Strong bastards is absolutely contradictory with what is shown. If only the Greens cared about it, Lucerys wouldn't have felt so pressured by everyone to the point that he wishes he had a different physical appearance.

And if only the Greens valued Vaemond's claim -- that's still more people than those who valued Baela's claim (0).

[CostinR]

And can you tell me about examples where a female leader took over when they had living, eligible male relatives?

Jeyne Arryn. She had cousins and uncles. Said cousins tried to usurp her even.

Or you know Rhea Royce. She too had eligible male relatives, yet she was the heir.

And if only the Greens valued Vaemond's claim -- that's still more people than those who valued Baela's claim (0).

Rhaenys cared about Baela's claim and told Corlys so in private, not in court true enough because she valued her husband's decision, but she wasn't a fan of Lucerys inheriting.

Just going to point out Rhaenys really doesn't like the idea of a Strong inerhiting Driftmark, you know for the the deaths of her children.

[Varodoc]

Jeyne Arryn. She had cousins and uncles. Said cousins tried to usurp her even.

Or you know Rhea Royce. She too had eligible male relatives, yet she was the heir.

Because they were the daughters of the previous lord. It's a different scenario. They are comparable to Laena, not to Baela.

Baela is not the daughter of Corlys, she's his granddaughter. Therefore, Vaemond is closer kin to Corlys than her. This is a straightforward fact that the story never puts in question. No one ever tries to disprove Vaemond's claim of being the closest kin to Corlys. And Vaemond uses this fact, that he is Corlys' closest kin, as one of the main justifications for his claim.

Rhaenys cared about Baela's claim and told Corlys so in private, not in court true enough because she valued her husband's decision, but she wasn't a fan of Lucerys inheriting.

Otto and Alicent are not stupid. They orchestrated the entire petition. If they genuinely believed that Baela had an equal claim that could seriously oppose Vaemond's, they would have addressed it at their council meeting. At least, they would have tried to take some form of precaution.

Since Otto and Alicent, who are both brilliant and manipulative schemers in their own rights, never even brought up Baela as a potential obstacle; and since Rhaenys never publicly stood for her granddaughter; the only conclusion we can draw is that Baela was not, in the end, an actual threat to Vaemond's claim. That she was not next in line, but Vaemond was.

You said that Rhaenys never publicly stood up for Baela because she didn't want to defy Corlys' wishes. But standing up for Baela wouldn't be defying Corlys' wishes. When Vaemond said "I deserve Driftmark because I am the closest kin to Corlys", all Rhaenys had to do was step up and say "No, actually, Baela is closer in kin than you". She never did. Because Baela is not closer in kin than Vaemond. The uncle is closer in kin than the granddaughter.

[Jinnobi]

Do enlighten me as to what level of authority you thought I think it implies. Because if you managed the ancient art of "following context" you'd have realized that I was arguing against Varadoc's position that the small council has sovereignty over the king. If that was the case the small council would be able to oust the king from power in some kind of a legal process. That's not what happened with Aerys. So would you look at that, there not being a system for removing a king from power implies exactly the level of authority I think it implies. Meanwhile I've said absolutely squat about the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms having absolute power.

It's genuinely funny, in a deeply ironic sense, that you rage and whine I draw conclusions from your clear implications and then draw the inferrence that anyone really thinks the small council has authority over the king.

Tywin could "send the king to bed" because the king was Joffrey. He was no true king, at least not at that time in his life. He was a spoiled brat and a sadist, who held no real power at that point in history.

Clearly, there is a massive difference between the situation with Joffrey and implying that the Small Council has authority over the king. But you're adept at creating strawmen and knocking them down.

[Tojara]

There was certainly a hierarchy within the small council, including the king. Joffrey had tons of power in the open (or perceived power) but when around some of the powerful people, he had little. You see this in the show with public gatherings where he can basically get what he wants with loads of people around because the real ruling body doesn't want everybody to know who is really pulling the strings. They essentially don't want the king to appear weak.

The small council and others could scheme all they want when most of the Targaryen's were ruling, but that's all they could really do is scheme. It doesn't matter how weak the King is when he could easily order a couple people to ride a dragon and torch an entire city, or destroy an entire house. When religion started to influence the realm heavily again during Maegor's time he didn't get the moniker "the cruel', for nothing. Him being mad wasn't really the right word for describing him, he just had zero tolerance for uprising or religion in general. He took his dragon and fucking torched the sept with like thousands inside.

It was echoed multiple times by conversations especially with Rhaenyra and Viserys early in the series. Without dragons they're just like everybody else.

[Lora]

the finale leaked early and holy fuck. its extremely juicy.

[DarkAmbient]

the finale leaked early and holy fuck. its extremely juicy.

Yeah I just watched it. 9/10 episode, a great finale. Will discuss it more after it's officially aired.

Aemond: "Oops."

[Lora]

Yeah I just watched it. 9/10 episode, a great finale. Will discuss it more after it's officially aired.

Aemond: "Oops."

bear in mind i have not read the books so i essentially went into this series blind.

i've had my suspicions when he was given the letter to deliver but i knew the second he landed at the keep and saw Vhagar that he was a dead man walking. i did not expect the OOPs part of it. Absolutely brutal.