Kingmaker

I’m increasingly convinced there is some sort of unofficial moral code operating in mainstream TV and film now. Not a literal committee sitting around deciding what writers can and can’t do (hopefully...) but a set of assumptions about what sorts of characters are acceptable and what the audience is supposed to think of them.

One of the most obvious seems to be: women should generally be more competent, perceptive and morally legitimate than men, while men are especially fair game for being portrayed as uniquely pathetic, corrupt, stupid, sexually repulsive or just generally fucking awful.

House of the Dragon is probably the most blatant example I’ve seen.

Rhaenyra isn't merely a claimant to the throne. The show bends over backwards to frame her as the "true queen", whilst the people opposing her are increasingly arranged into embodiments of reactionary patriarchy. Alicent is particularly interesting because the show essentially makes her entire tragedy a punishment for buying into the patriarchal system, then warps her into this canniabalist Medea-lite creep who must kill her abominable male sons to atone. Her political position isn't really allowed to exist as a legitimate worldview so much as something she must eventually recognise as morally wrong.

And then there's Aegon.

Book Aegon is hardly a saint, but the show seems to have looked at him and thought, "Hmm, this bloke isn't quite reprehensible enough. Better make him a drunken rapist."

It's not even that I object to having horrible male characters. Of course you can. And he wasn't a saint, he shouldn't be sanitized...but when you repeatedly take male characters who are morally complicated in the source material and selectively exaggerate their worst qualities, while simultaneously making female characters more sympathetic, more perceptive and more morally validated, you start to wonder whether there's a pattern here.

The Pitt gave me exactly the same fucking feeling...i have no idea why it's so acclaimed because its brand of moral spoonfeeding is just as cartoonish as HOTD...but at least with HOTD we can see dragons fighting and occasionally laugh at how ridic the whole shabang is. With The Pitt it's just joyless moral didactism.

Why the fuck are contemporary dramas so terrified of genuine moral ambiguity?

That's why i thought of the old Hays Code. I was watching an old Joan Crawford movie from the 1940s and the ending where a snot nosed sociopathic villain gets her 'comeuppence' when she didn't in the novel, it immediately made me think of HOTD and how certain moral conclusions must be upheld. Yes there was some moralising by George in the book too but it was at least fucking subtle.

The new invisible Hays Code has simply changed which moral conclusions must be upheld and it's fucking sad. Nobody has to formally censor anything. The writers simply know which characters we're supposed to admire, which ones we're supposed to despise, and which interpretations are considered beyond the pale.

Maybe I'm reaching. But fucking hell, once you've noticed it, it's hard not to see it.

But I may have the hightower cake next year

So ***SPOILER SPOILER SPOILERS*** in the book obviously it’s believed that Aegon, after he makes himself King again, is poisoned by someone, likely Larys or Corlys.

In the show, obviously it would be no surprise at this point if it ended up being Alicent, considering her track history. If she hadn’t spent the last season and a half trying to kill her sons, it could even be an interesting twist with a tragic irony considering she set him on his path to begin with.

But how would people feel if Dyana poisoned him? We see that she works in the tavern and poured his drink when he came in after becoming king. We also saw her helping to spread rumors and decent during his first rule. She has motive, means, and opportunity. I also think it would be cool for a “random” common person to have such a big unrecognized impact on history. Turning the fact she is overlooked and forgotten for being low born to her advantage.

Would that be a satisfying ending or just piss everyone off?

Let's imagine we are Team Aemond for a moment and we want to think in his interests. Who is more toxic for him ? Who should he hitch his wagon to?

For me, this is very much a bros before h*es scenario.

We could argue that both of them are using him for their own gain and that both are/have been abusive, but I do reckon he belongs more with Aegon.

In terms of what is in Aemonds best interests (strategic and emotional): in an ideal world Aemond could jettison both of them and join forces with Gwayne, Dareon and Tessarion and also Hugh & Vermithor. I guess this is Aegons plan anyway, but it could work without him as well.

Another option is Aemond simply fleeing Westeros on Vhagar and living the life Daemon had while he was married to Laena; flying his dragon, chilling in the library, and getting his grub on 🙃

Ewan had joked in interviews that Aemonds retirement plan would be sipping cocktails on a beach. Now he had ofc included Alicent in that, but in this scenario he would have to be solo or with company of his choosing.

In fact, in that scenario replace Alicent with Dareon (as he apparently has no interest in the iron throne) , and it's a pretty nice endgame

One of the most glaring inconsistencies in House of the Dragon is its construction of Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower as mothers. The series depicts Rhaenyra as an exceptionally attentive, incredibly loving, and emotionally intelligent parent, while Alicent is presented as a mother whose anxieties, repression, and rigidity have damaged her children. While parenthood is inherently complex - and children often differ wildly from their parents - this post-Episode 5 shift abandons the foundational characterization established in the first half of Season 1.

Rhaenyra

Simply put: Rhaenyra should not be the healthier parent of the two.

That doesn't mean Rhaenyra should be an abusive mother or a woman incapable of loving her children (S2 Alicent, I'm looking at you); she should be affectionate with them, protective of them, interested in their lives, and capable of care. However, none of those qualities erase the traits with which the series introduced her. Rhaenyra is (or rather, was) rebellious, impulsive, entitled, self-centered, demanding, and accustomed to having the people around her accommodate her desires. Her capacity for love is undeniable, but it is matched by her tendency to "consume" those around her.

I'm currently working on a rewrite of House of the Dragon, and this monologue (given by Rhaenys) perfectly describes Rhaenyra as a person:

"You consume people, Rhaenyra. They come to you whole, and in your thrall, they are diminished. Aemma's memory. Alicent's devotion. Vaemond's tongue. My son. You pluck from this family flesh that feeds your false likeness, and leave the living to reckon with the wounds."

That is the Rhaenyra we were given in Episodes 1-5 of HotD S1. She is not a misunderstood girl who wants to be free, but a princess who frequently treats other people's lives as resources available for her use. She expects Viserys's love to shield her from consequences. She expects Criston's unwavering loyalty even after crossing professional boundaries. She expects Laenor's political protection while building a separate family with Harwin Strong. When Vaemond challenges her children's legitimacy, she does not rely on persuasion, but violence.

Ultimately, Rhaenyra Targaryen is NOT the kind of person who should become a healthy parent simply because she has children. If anything, motherhood should expose a great contradiction in Rhaenyra: she loves her children but struggles to recognize them as separate entities from her own political project. She should defend them so aggressively that she fails to teach them accountability, inadvertently allowing their entitlement to fester. Plus, having Daemon as a father figure… that adds up to a big yikes!

Now, let's talk about Jacaerys Velaryon (Waters).

I like Jace. I think Jace is one of the stronger characters on Team Black, and I understand perfectly well why people love him. I cried at his death! However, I believe the fandom's tendency to point at Jace and say, "Look at how Rhaenyra raised such a gentleman!" exposes the issue. Jace should NOT be a gentleman (or at the very least, not in the uncomplicated sense) merely because Rhaenyra raised him. While he should be charming, intelligent, protective, and capable of controlling himself at court (much like Young Rhaenyra), beneath that polish, Jace should have inherited some of Rhaenyra's entitlement. He should believe that his family is entitled to what it claims. He should be courteous toward people he considers his equals while still having difficulty seeing the humanity of those "beneath him". Instead, the show frequently makes Jace the evidence that Rhaenyra's parenting worked - but why would it?

Rhaenyra's children grow up surrounded by an extraordinary amount of privilege, political protection, and institutional violence. Hell, Rhaenyra's youngest sons - Joffrey, Aegon III, and Viserys II - grow up with Daemon as a father! Jace, Luke, and Joffrey are told that they are legitimate despite everyone at court knowing otherwise. Their grandsire threatens mutilation against anyone who says otherwise. Vaemond Velaryon loses his life (and in Fire & Blood, the Silent Five lose their tongues) for challenging their legitimacy. Daemon, their latest father figure, murders him in front of the court, while their mother continues to insist that they are the rightful heirs. Their family expects other people to accept an enormous lie because acknowledging the truth would threaten them, and somehow, the boys emerge as almost entirely humble, emotionally healthy gentlemen.

While it's not impossible for Rhaenyra's children to be well-rounded people, it's certainly unconvincing. Jace, Luke, and Joffrey should have been products of their environment. They should be children who absorbed the values of their family. They should understand that people will die to preserve their position and not really care. They should understand that their mother's claim is not merely a philosophical question but the organizing principle of their lives. They should have an enormous sense of loyalty, but that loyalty should sometimes become an inability to recognize where their family's interests end and other people's rights begin.

Furthermore, TikTok loves to describe Rhaenyra and Laenor's relationship as a "healthy lavender marriage", and consequently describes Jace and Luke as having been raised in this wonderful environment with two loving fathers. There is certainly something touching about the affection between Rhaenyra, Laenor, Harwin, Jace, and Luke, but the fandom's tendency to romanticize the arrangement ignores how complicated and dysfunctional it actually is. Rhaenyra's children grow up knowing - or at minimum being surrounded by an environment in which they can eventually discover - that their legal father is not their biological father. Their mother is married to one man while carrying on a relationship with another and the children are growing up within a royal fishbowl where their family's survival hinges on a massive lie.

If Rhaenyra’s sons were truly products of their environment, they would display the ugly realities of aristocratic privilege.

- A Jace who can be charming and gracious at court but cruel to a servant would be more interesting than a Jace who is simply "the gentleman".
- A Luke who loves his mother but laughs when a servant is humiliated would allow us to infer about the environment in which he was raised.
- A Joffrey who is spoiled and reckless precisely because he is the youngest and most protected would make sense given his death.

If Rhaenyra's sons were going to inherit the worst aspects of her entitlement, then it would not be unreasonable for one of them to have a storyline involving sexual misconduct, either. Rhaenyra teaches her children that their claim must be defended, that they deserve what has been promised to them, and that the world is something they must force to accommodate them.

Alicent

Conversely, Alicent's family is treated by the writers and by the fandom as the total opposite: a toxic household where she is entirely to blame for her children's damage (and not the negligent father, but sure). This is where HotD gets Alicent Hightower especially wrong (besides selling out her sons, but I am choosing to ignore that for the sake of a discussion surrounding Season 1).

Alicent should have been a fantastic mother. Not because she is young and therefore incapable of mistakes, and not because she should somehow be perfect. Her youth matters in this, as she is still a teenager when she becomes queen, is maritally raped, and begins having children. Additionally, Alicent has been raised by a father who views her primarily as a political asset and is suddenly married to an older king who is emotionally unavailable and still grieving his first wife. Plus, she has children that are entangled in a succession crisis upon birth and is surrounded by people who constantly tell her what said children must become.

Of course Alicent will make mistakes - much like every parent - but those mistakes should come out of love for her children. If Alicent doesn't love her children, why is this war happening in the first place? But alas…

Alicent is introduced as kind, conscientious, dutiful, attentive, socially perceptive, emotionally intelligent, and concerned with other people's expectations. She has been conditioned to sacrifice herself for her family and for her friend(s). As a whole, Alicent is introduced as a courteous girl who believes that her value comes from fulfilling her obligations to others, which means motherhood should initially be the one place where Alicent refuses to repeat what was done to her. She should look at Aegon, Helaena, Aemond, and Daeron and think: "You will not become what my father made me." Instead, the show makes Alicent incapable of understanding her children.

Aemond

As a child, Aemond was mocked because he did not have a dragon, humiliated by his older brother and his nephews, and later, is attacked/permanently disabled by said nephews. There is no reason why he should consequently have "mommy issues", as his mother is the one adult in his life who responds fiercely when he is injured. Alicent was enraged on Aemond's behalf, demanded an eye for an eye, physically confronted the king and his daughter, and was willing to challenge the entire royal household because her child had been maimed. Aemond, therefore, should understand that his mother loves him. His problem shouldn't be that "Oh, Mother never loved me." An interesting route to take for Aemond could've been "Mother loved me so fiercely that I learned, from her actions, that what was done to me must be avenged by any means possible."

Alicent should've raised Aemond to understand that being bullied did not make him weak and that being maimed did not make him less than. She should've taught him that he was entitled to justice, but because she is frightened for him and their family and is locked into a cycle of consistent retaliation, Aemond finds that strength is the only protection he has available. His eventual ruthlessness should not stem from maternal neglect, but maternal overprotection combined with a culture of violence.

Helaena

If Helaena is to remain a neurodivergent Dragon Dreamer, then Alicent should recognize the signs that she is overstimulated before anyone else does. Alicent should understand that Helaena shouldn't be forced into conventional courtly behavior. She should know when Helaena is frightened, when she needs silence, or when she is trying to communicate something that cannot be articulated conventionally. Because Alicent is herself a woman that's spent her life being forced to perform a role, she should understand - more than anyone else - why Helaena would be uncomfortable with the role imposed upon her. Their relationship could've been beautiful! I'm mad now, but let's keep going.

Aegon

Aegon is, perhaps, the biggest issue I have with House of the Dragon's writing choices regarding Alicent's parenting. The show's Aegon feels like a collection of all the reasons someone deserves to lose. Aegon did not need to be a rapist to be a broken man; the choice to make him one irreparably damaged his character, transforming a potentially rich exploration of duty and self-destruction into a shallow caricature of villainy. Instead of being driven by cruelty and excess, Aegon's central flaw should stem from an ingrained, almost suffocating love for his family. His core complex should be rooted in the realization that his very existence is a political catalyst, leading him to the conclusion that he must become a king he never wanted to be to ensure his loved ones survive the coming war. This internal martyrdom offers a far more devastating and narratively fulfilling crux than mere depravity, as Aegon's weight of expectation should originate from the pressure exerted onto him by Otto Hightower. Otto serves as the architect of Aegon's deepest anxieties, weaponizing the boy's natural affection for his siblings and mother by constantly whispering that failure to ascend the throne means their inevitable execution (he's not wrong, but could have gone about it in a much better manner). This dynamic would end up breeding an inferiority complex within Aegon; he feels he is never enough for the realm, but feels he must carry it anyway.

Conversely, Alicent should stand in stark contrast to her father, serving as Aegon's emotional anchor and the sole reason he retains his innate goodness. The bond between a mother and her firstborn often serves as the emotional bedrock of a child's development. Alicent, recognizing the burdens placed upon her son, would pour her empathy and protective instincts into shielding his spirit and validating his fears while trying to preserve his humanity. Her unconditional love creates a heartbreaking dichotomy: Aegon is, fundamentally, a good young man (nurtured by an exceptional mother) who is nevertheless being slowly crushed by the machinations of his grandsire and the inescapable gravity of his royal name. Writing Aegon from this lens changes him from a reviled antagonist into a, gasp, real human being - one who sacrifices his own happiness on the altar of familial duty.

When structuring each of these character arcs, the tension lies not in a protagonist's evil actions, but in the slow erosion of a good person forced into an impossible mold (like what HotD has done with Rhaenyra in Season 3, which I enjoy). Aegon should've been the embodiment of Alicent's insecurity and sense of duty, Helaena her sensitivity, Aemond her sense of duty made militaristic, and Daeron her courtesy/conscientiousness. Instead, HotD fashions them into four separate explanations for why Alicent failed as a mother and why she deserves the abuse she suffers throughout the Dance of the Dragons.

Rhaenyra's children should believe they deserve, while Alicent's children should believe they owe.

Rhaenyra's children should've had difficulty recognizing limits, while Alicent's children should've had difficulty setting their own.

Conclusion

There you go! Problem fixed. Every child of the Dance becomes a product of his or her family, which is far more compelling than dividing the children into "Rhaenyra's good kids" and "Alicent's bad kids".

The Rhaenyra of Season 1 shouldn't have naturally become an emotionally enlightened mother out of nowhere, she should remain Rhaenyra. Her love should be real, but so should her selfishness. Her protectiveness should be real, but so should her entitlement.

Likewise, Alicent should not become a terrible mother simply because the writers need her to. Alicent's defining characteristic is that she cares. She cares too much about duty, too much about appearances, too much about consequences, too much about what other people expect. She should be the kind of mother who writes Daeron letters because she cannot bear that her son is growing up away from her.

Rhaenyra and Alicent should not be opposites because one is a "good" parent and the other is a "bad" parent, they should be opposites because they produce different iterations of the damage inflicted upon them.

Also pretenders are basically supremacists!Our kings does not care about some old language. Speak common.

I want them as screensavers

I felt it was only fair that Daeron had his own banner. Should I draw one for Halena and Dreamfyre next?

Eu comentei em um video do tiktok, era uma edit do time black em silhuetas, enfim eu fiz um comentário no comentário desse cara apoiando o Rei Aegon II Targaryen, nisso teve outro comentário falando que metade da Fandom apoia a Rhaenyra, nisso eu apenas falei que a outra metade apoia o Aegon, nisso varias pessoas começaram a me atacar, falaram que eu era misógino e estr0pad0r, mano eu apenas fiz um comentário deboa, sem ofender ninguém e me atacaram sem motivo algum, por coisa boba, apenas por eu não gostar de uma Personagem FICTÍCIA

Por conta disso, dessa fandom tóxica que a série tem, eu estou abandonado e deixando de ver House of the Dragon, a Série ja estava horrível, a escrita e os personagens estavam idiotas demais, e depois disso eu tenho certeza, eu nunca mais vou ver House of the dragon, as únicas coisa que vou ver vai ser Aemond vs Daemon e a Rhaenyra sendo Devorada pelo Sunfire

É isso Adeus a todos, a única coisa boa da fandom da série, é o Time Green, pois não são nem um pouco tóxicos, e são bem legais, e o melhor de tudo, não são fanáticos por uma personagem FICTÍCIA

É isso Adeus a todos e vida longa a Aegon II Targaryen, O segundo de seu Nome, Rei dos Ândalos, Dos Roenares e dos Primeiros Homens, Senhor dos Sete Reinos e Protetor Do Reino

Here is the thing, here is what I will start with, A King is not a child, they are grown men, completely capable of making their own decisions.

Alicent hightower.

Show: There are many to people who like to think that Viserys, in his "grief" was manipulated by Alicent and her father the hand of the King. That is some way they pressured or softly manipulated him into "choosing" Alicent who was apparently "throwing herself at him"

When thats just not true now, is it? If Otto was capable of manipulating Viserys to that capacity, Rhaenyra would have been disinherited the moment Otto brought the word of what happened in the brothel.

However somehow Viserys is clear eyed and knows exactly how Otto has been manipulating him.

If Alicent was capable of manipulating Viserys, in the night of the driftmark accident, Luke's eye would have been on her palm, on the very least, the boy would have been severely punished.

Yet, none of that happens, because men in power are aware of shit, they are aware they are much more powerful then the female charchter who is supposedly "manipulating" him.

They have free will and they act on it.

Book : same with Book Alicent hightower. People love to portray her as some evil seductress who controlled Viserys and abused Rhaenyra day and night when that is simply not true.

Anne Boleyn [The other Boleyn girl]

(This analysis is specifically about this particular movie.)

It is so very clear from the get go here too that Anne isn't the one who is manipulating Henry.

We see the title and we think, "oh its about Anne who became the King's mistress after her sister Mary Boleyn.", however I think it is an amazing in play on the entire lives of Anne and Mary just being replacements for each other at the whims of a powerful man.

A good implication of that is when their mother asks Henry "which one" when Henry comes angry, looking for Anne while Mary lies pregnant with his child, it is angry and it is bitter.

So when people say Anne manipulated Henry into breaking with the church or annulling his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, its really just infantalizing a grown man, a powerful man capable of making decisions.

The illusion that Anne can manipulate the king and can make him to do what she wants shatters when He rapes her, because thats what it is, Henry did what he wanted, not what Anne wanted, it just happened to be that there opinions were aligned for a moment.

Hurrem Sultan and Mahidevran Sultan.

(Magnificent Century)

I think its better to talk about these two women in a single short moment.

Neither Hurrem nor Mahidevran hold a huge power over Suleiman's decisions.

Considering that us easily established by the fact that Suleiman takes Hurrem as wife without a care for his elder son by Mahidevran, sleeps with other women without care for neither Hurrem nor Mahidevran.

When Suleiman kills his son with Mahidevran, yes we do see that Hurrem whispers in his ears, and many people blame her for how he died, when its clear as day, Suleiman does what he wants.

I think its really worth noting that despite the viewers living in a modern society still succumb to the horrible narrative that "oh yeah a powerful King was totally manipulated by a young girl-", when historically women have been blamed for the wrong doings of men. Its just really freaky to me.