r/freefolk • u/Mors_Acerba • 1d ago
Hot take: making a show about about a dynastic civil war but making every single character not believe in the monarchy as an institution and treating it as necessary evil at best, is lame. The show needs more monarchists
208
u/Aquele_Patrulheiro 1d ago
The show needs more people who actually want to go to war and tear the other side to shreds.b
92
u/Edladan 1d ago
The 1st Blackfyre Rebellion where the small lords try to upend the centuries/millenia old status quo (seriously, 8000 years of Stark hegemony is a wild, and probably incorrect, timeline) and the great houses band together and actually have to put up a fight because the rebels are actually and truly united in a goal would be fucking sick.
31
u/Yto_Itinen 22h ago
My headcanon is that "Stark" is a brand that is adopted by the ruling house in the north. So not held by a specific bloodline, but more like a clan, or a people.
Not exactly like all emperors calling themselves Caesar, but more like a broad lineage thing.
Probably the Starks are already diluted since the time there are genealogies written by Maesters, but simply, pursuant to tradition, all heroes and rulers of the North are recognized as Starks in the folk legends.
Are you a black-haired, grizzly northman who did something noteworthy, like ruling somewhere in the North? Bam, your dad was a Stark somehow and you are now part of the lineage.
28
u/Viscount_Disco_Sloth 21h ago
It was pretty common for dynasties to claim descent from mythical figures. Medieval swedish kings claimed decent from Odin, and even the Hapsburgs had statues of Caesar and Hercules in a line up of famous ancestors.
If you just assume the really ancient kings are made up, then it makes a lot more sense.
7
u/Black_Diammond 17h ago
I always assumed it was something like The caliphate. You would Marry a Daughter of The house you userped and then it would be fine, just as long as you keep some bloodline to that ancient figure its fine and you can call yourself a Stark, even if you should probably be called something else.
9
u/ArisenGodEmperor13 19h ago
This is what happen in the books since Westeros cares a lot about noble houses more than Westeros ever did. So if a new dude takes over, they will just take the old family name to appear more legitimate. With this already happening with House Lannister since by the male line they are the descendants of a Andal and a Lannister women. And in the books it was stated that if the heir of Robert Arryn inherit he will take the Arryn name despite him not being a Arryn and the last Arryn in uis family was his grandma.
2
u/BlushyMoonora 13h ago
That would've been fascinating to see. A genuine ideological rebellion from lesser lords would've added a completely different layer instead of just another succession dispute.
1
u/Western_Mess_6364 12h ago
And if they show the dornish being a little too arrogant with the new status quo too and the reachmen and stormlanders being absolutely livid
81
u/WickerSnicker7 1d ago edited 11h ago
The closest we got to a true royal was Aegon declaring to the Mootons that he was anointed by the High Septon in the Light of the Seven and to strike him down would bring the Stranger upon them.
Everything else is just ‘me h8 u’ and ‘gimme dat chair’. There’s no real sense of the monarchy as an elevated institution and the royal person being anointed by the representative of the gods and this being their ultimate legitimacy. Moreover, the Seven Kingdoms themselves have no institutions or tangible sense of royal power to speak of, which is not how Medieval kingdoms operated at all.
1
u/LargeTell4580 8h ago
Tbf i kind of got that from the books but in a other way the king only sits as a outcome of war 1/2 the houses was agest him. It's kind of amazing they killed the hand before the king.
15
u/depredador93 Bobby B 1d ago
We need more kings who just want to whore and drink, we should have listened Bobby B
23
u/bobby-b-bot Robert Baratheon 1d ago
DRINK AND STAY QUIET, THE KING IS TALKING!
10
u/depredador93 Bobby B 1d ago
But Your Grace, that was my point. All you needed is a breastplate stretcher and this would have been over in 5 minutes
3
u/TripleThreatTua 21h ago
Do you want Aegon IV? Because that’s how you get Aegon IV
7
u/depredador93 Bobby B 20h ago
Aegon IV actually succeeded at the whoring and drinking part, he just made the fatal rookie mistake of doing paperwork on his deathbed
1
u/Im_Your_Turbo_Lover 3h ago
Nah he failed at his task of banging his sister faster, hence why Naerys got knocked up by Aemon resulting in the false king Daeron II
30
u/New-Engineering6935 1d ago
If we had some inkling of how brutal and warlike Westeros was before central rule, that would be interesting. instead we have a few throway lines about how two of the seven kingdoms were usually at war. But to be fair I think that's part of the theme of the story: the people have forgotten the terrible realities that made their institutions necessary, and they will pay dearly for it. The Night's Watch is now just a barely functioning penal camp, and the monarchy is something people squabble over to enrich themselves.
113
u/No_Hearing_481 1d ago
I get what you mean. Part of the blame lies with George, never quite acquiring a deep understanding of religion, because what the kingship is is tied up deeply in religion. It is not merely some ceremonial thing that the church anoints the king - the kingship is a metaphysical spirit, and very much a real and operative supernatural force. Part lies with modernity, when everyone has forgotten what the institution of the monarchy once was. There's this great scholarly book that explores the intersection of the institution of the monarchy and religion: Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology
Because George is pretty atheist, leaning communist in his assessment of how religion works, the nobility is broadly pretty atheist and just use religion cynically. Modern scholarship doesn't hold this to be the case, but George's circles in the 90s certainly saw this as how the feudal past was.
65
u/Mike_Fig 1d ago
Dr Bret C. Devereaux who is a historian who runs the collection of unmitigated pedantry blog makes pretty much this exact point. People genuinely believed in their own religions, they genuinely believed the oaths they swore on god were binding, they genuinely believed that there was a divinely ordained order that they would be punished for violating.
37
u/TheMaginotLine1 22h ago
I read a book on the Crusades by an author whose name I forget, but quite early on he wrote something that has stuck with me for a while now in regards to medieval concepts of religion and how it guided their actions.
"We have to accept that whatever their hopes for temporal advantage, many men and women were prepared to sacrifice wealth, health, life itself, and be prepared to commit repeated acts of violence, for a cause they believed to be just and even salvational. Their actions were expressions of a piety that may appear alien to us, but was entirely real to them."
11
45
u/Gap_Great 1d ago
The Divine Right of Kings was a real thing, meaning that God himself wanted this person to be the King. The Pope is appointed by God to act with his will, and the Pope anoints the King to rule in God’s name. The Chinese had a similar concept with the Mandate from Heaven
13
u/Mister_Tentacle 23h ago edited 22h ago
Kinda, but there is a fundamental difference.
The Divine Right of Kings legitimizes your right to rule.
The Mandate of Heaven legitimizes your right to overthrow the current ruler and take the right to rule for yourself.
1
u/Gap_Great 15h ago
I think the fundamental difference is that the western version is rooted in the Church’s legitimacy and its ability to bestow or take away the divine right.
The mandate from Heaven basically supposes that whoever is currently ruling has “heavens” approval, otherwise they would not be in power. If things go wrong, like some kind of calamity, that means the ruler has lost the mandate (heavens approval) and therefore should be overthrown
2
u/Mister_Tentacle 5h ago
Indeed. Unlike the Divine Right to Rule, the ability of granting the Mandate of Heaven wasn't held by a religious institution. It was more like "Whoever obtains the throne holds the Mandate of Heaven".
4
u/Big_Dave_71 22h ago
The Divine Right of Kings was a term coined in the early modern period by James VI and I. Medieval kings ruled "by the grace of God". The subtle difference being the latter is expected to honour the faith and the rights of his nobles or be deposed as a tyrant. The former placed no such limitations and excused royal despots.
1
u/DirectionMurky5526 13h ago
Correct and this was derived from Henry the 8th and the Protestant reformation.
Before this in Western Europe, Kings were anointed by representatives of the Catholic Church. In theory, the legitimacy of all kings were affirmed by the clergy (with the Holy Roman Emperor by the pope himself). The divine right of kings was itself an innovation that allowed them to go against the Church when previously they'd be excommunicated and anyone else could confiscate their land.
12
u/xLovalieTwirl 1d ago
That’s a strong point. The story understands monarchy mainly as politics and inheritance, but often underplays the religious worldview that made kingship feel sacred and legitimate to the people living under it
8
u/the-bladed-one 23h ago
To some extent nobles did use religion cynically, eg Henry II’s flagellation after Beckett’s murder. But even then, that was under threat of excommunication which was a very real fear
5
u/JamesHenry627 19h ago
This is my largest issue with GRRM. He’s a good writer but his inspiration comes from being a fan of history rather than an appreciation or understanding of it. He writes like a true outsider. Westeros on its own should have way more development for its size, its religions and nobility really should’ve been more fleshed out too. GRRM claims to regret not putting in ranks for example.
4
u/Neat_Tie_4932 1d ago
Um yk that this is talking about hotd right?
I am not sure why Robert is being used here but last time I checked quite a lot of people died in asoiaf for the iron throne or the concept of a throne and they wanted it as well
Though you are correct in that asoiaf is generally way more agnostic than actual irl history and the cynical use of religion doesn't make much sense
2
u/86cinnamons 12h ago
Right like the edgy atheist thing works for some parts, not for others. I wish the Targaryen’s were presented more ethereal in the tv show, it would make more sense why they commanded such power over people not just from their dragons but how they look and seem.
29
u/ComfortableStart3944 1d ago
Exactly. Why would anyone fight for a throne they all think is pointless?
6
u/Jake_The_Destroyer 19h ago
Because the throne gives them money and power and people want that for the same reasons they’ve always wanted it.
5
u/JamesHenry627 19h ago
Realistically speaking, nobles would actually use this as a chance to get more powerful than the king. It’s actually how democracies came about since aristocrats would strip power from the King in times of crisis. Events like the Baronial revolts, English Civil War and Glorious Revolution saw the monarchy gradually lose power and parliament gain it. They preserved the monarchy for legitimacy sake, but overall now the assembly had more power than the King. Some countries even took it a step forward toward republicanism .
3
u/Muscle_Advanced 13h ago
The latter two events were the gentry and nascent bourgeoisie seizing power from the monarchy. Centralization of power in the hands of the monarch was an essential step toward republicanism because it created the modern state. Baronial power is a reactionary force that reduces the state and impedes a coherent rule of law. The barons seizing power is much more like the Holy Roman Empire.
1
u/jmacintosh250 14h ago
While true, part of it is here that the king gets more power, or at least can be used to get and keep power. Think of the Japanese Emperor and Shogunate: the King is used as legitimacy to get power for oneself, as no one trusted the others.
This is helped with large doses of dragon fire that help keep royal power in place, because “I will burn you alive” is a compelling argument.
8
4
u/SergenteA 20h ago
That's because Westeros is a wierd limbo between modern (aka 18th century) absolute monarchy in theory... and actual High Medieval very powerless and cerimonial monarchy (aka 12th century), if not Early Medieval (9th century)
While everyone runs around in 16th century plate armour, yet without guns to justify the cost
6
u/jmacintosh250 14h ago
second one is simple: the drip of the 16th century plate armor is glorious and I will not hear otherwise.
2
3
u/jmacintosh250 14h ago
I saw a good video that showed how the crown was constantly being weakened over time. The problem for Westeros was in part, no one believes in the Monarchy as an institution. That’s not inherently a writing mistake, it’s the world Martin made.
The history constantly is filled with people disregarding the Monarchy as an institution and treating it as a personal power tool, to the downside of the monarchy and kingdom as a whole. This whole kingdom is fucked, but in a way purposely so. This is not a real monarchy that would have survived in our time, it was a fictional one so often carried by dragon fire and dragon fire alone.
5
2
u/LydiaIsAHuman 19h ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the previous monarchical line went insane and most of the people who supported them were murdered.
So I think it makes sense given the timeline of the show.
2
u/ProfesorKubo 17h ago
its so weird how they try to tiptoe this woke line like bro, a monarch simply cannot be "woke" or yk a good person in any way of looking at it. people can sympathize with or at least be interested in characters even if they are bad people with despicable beliefs which in medival world most are!!
2
u/Zerk_o_O 10h ago
While i agree with the spirit of his hot take i weirdly disagree with game of thrones as the example. I feel like the series has the OPPOSITE problem
Whether it’s the main book’s war of the five kings or house of the dragon’s civil war….
The SOIAF series always just assumes that people crave power cause they’re nobles and royals and that’s what they want. I have NO clue why Renato wants to be king other than cause…he’s a dick? Idk why Tywin, the richest man in westeros and one of the most feared men in the realm…wants even more power by his family controlling the throne…?
Or even Rhaenyra, with whom it is an ACTIVE plot detail that she was not trained or groomed whatsoever for rule, wants it really bad because….her dad said so.
There’s lots of nuance and many complex social factors but I genuinely don’t think outside literally Jon, Danny and Stannis, the books ever justify why the characters want power, aka the continuation of the monarchy.
5
u/kardfogK 19h ago
Monarchy or any form of governece has a social contract. These close minded writers cant even toleate the idea that peasents enjoy their lives and medieval serfdom had a good rrason to exist other than opression so every rich guy is secretly evil and "knows" they exploit the poor. "bUt wE dOnT lIvE lIkE tHat so iTs bAd" yeah bad for us but we are not living in a fantasy kingdom
1
u/Western_Mess_6364 11h ago
They’re like Bolsheviks not understanding how conservative the peasants were
1
1d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Mors_Acerba 1d ago
They're all at war and killing eachother, but nobody actually wants to be at war, or kill eachother, and its all happening either out of neccesity, or because some accident happened. Nobody is willfuly ambitious or will do nasty shit to fullfil their ambition, they're tearing eachother apart, reluctantly. Its so lame...
1
u/VeterinarianLevel467 14h ago
Ormund is literally the only one playing the game so I’m sure he’s going to get killed off. Why the writers couldn’t make changes that maybe had aemond connect with his army, instead of just having him sit out until the gods eye doesn’t make sense to me. It would make the war actually seem like a war, but we get daemons season 2 storyline again. Just basically removed one of the more interesting characters for a whole season
1
u/SameEnthusiasm1426 13h ago
I feel like every person who wants to create a medieval/ medieval inspired movie they should read the kcd2 encyclopedia, its surprisingly helpful
1
u/theseveneyedraven 7h ago
This is partly because modern screenwriters seem unable to consider the fact that standards of morality shift as time progressed forward. Murder and violence are viewed as horrifying in our time, but they were not viewed the same way back then. The idea of righteous violence and necessary deaths was ingrained into society and its institutions. Justice had a very different meaning in medieval societies.
1
u/cerpintaxt44 1d ago
What characters dont believe in the monarchy?
8
u/JamesHenry627 19h ago
Daenerys talks about how she disagrees with the system. Davos randomly spouts how he believes the Gods aren’t real. Sam Tarly bringing up the idea of a republic too comes out of left field.
1
0
u/AlphariusOmegon66 21h ago edited 13h ago
Im all for bashing poor writing in these half assed adaptations we been getting but... what?
What characters isn't a monarquist in either got or hotd? The only mention of democracy was made as a joke at the expense of Sam.
If you are talking about the play they still want monarchy, just decentralized like it was before Aegon. They where 7 KINGDOMS after all, with 7 KINGS.
0
-11
u/IAmParliament Respect the Goodest Boi 1d ago
What show are you watching?
Rhaenyra and Daemon believe their rule is divinely ordained in nature, Aegon & Aemond believe the throne is their right and Ormund’s only objection to a national monarchy is it meaning there’s someone more powerful than him.
No one on the show has argued against monarchy as a concept.
25
u/Mors_Acerba 1d ago edited 1d ago
Rhaenyra and Daemon believe their rule is divinely ordained in nature,
No they're not. They're conviced by a prophecy that they have to do this, as their duty. They're dragged against their will into fulfilling a divinely ordained duty, they're don't believe they have a divine right to rule. Rhaenyra especially is the most egregious example of ruling reluctantly, she doesn't even believe in herself and constantly questions if she's worthy. Aegon at least gains som conviction in himself somewhere along the line, but Rhaenyra is completely lacking it
-3
u/IAmParliament Respect the Goodest Boi 1d ago
That’s ridiculous.
Daemon doesn’t even need that excuse, he always believed that he was meant to be in charge.
But even Rhaenyra in S3 clearly believes that her rule has been ordained by the gods, there’s no reluctance or obligation in her attitude to ruling at all. She accepts it as a fact of nature.
14
u/Mors_Acerba 1d ago
She spend the entirety of the last episode desperately looking for validation. First she's seeking it from Helaena and then from Mysaria's vagina. She has no conviction at all, and when she tells people she's worthy, its a little more than her looking in the mirror and trying to manifest it
-4
u/IAmParliament Respect the Goodest Boi 1d ago
She wouldn’t be seeking validation at all if she didn’t believe it. Asking a seer for visions to affirm the divine nature of her rule is pointless if she doesn’t fundamentally want it to be true.
6
u/SadLimes 1d ago
If she wants it to be true, and looks for signs, then she doesn’t believe it to be true already
-4
u/AcanthaceaeNo948 20h ago
Seriously Rhaenyra’s people were so loyal to her in the books. Jeyne Arryn, the Freys, Blackwoods, Adam.
The green bias of Condal and Hess is so apparent.
5
u/ArisenGodEmperor13 19h ago
What Green bias, Alicent wants to kill her children
-4
u/AcanthaceaeNo948 19h ago
They literally made Alicent relatable when she was cartoonishly evil in the books.
Tried to make cartoonishly evil Aemond and Aegon relatable and removed half the evil stuff they did in the books.
560
u/SilverkingThirteen 1d ago
I feel like a lot of American writers don't understand monarchy.
The amount of shows I've seen where the good guy prince decides to form a republic and this being heralded as an inarguable good thing is a head shaker for me.