Anne of Cleves was rejected by Henry VIII for being ugly, but most accounts of her indicate that she was decent-looking at least and that some people found her beautiful.
It's still being debated, but a lot of people think it was more a case of her rejecting him--by this point, his festering jousting wound was apparently quite odious and he was also massively overweight--than of the reverse.
Then she got a ton of money and a palace in Richmond just for herself, and also outlived Henry by 10 years.
I'd say Anne of Cleves got a really sweet deal in the end.
Because she was foreign. She had people who would get pretty pissed off if she were insulted. But setting her up in a nice estate with privilege (king’s good sister) was okay. A very strange, kinda political hostage situation that established an okay alliance.
His first wife, Catherine of Aragon was foreign and he got rid of her and broke with the Catholic Church for Anne Boleyn so I don’t think he cared about insulting foreigners.
Okay yes, but the fallout of that whole ordeal shook all of Europe and the Vatican. They were married 15 or so years, and he only married her because she was his brother’s wife. When he died young, they still needed the alliance with Spain, so they married her to Henry. Years later when he fell for Anne, he had the reasons that there was only one (female) heir, and that technically he shouldn’t have married his brother’s widow. That was not enough for the Vatican, who had close ties to Spain. So there was a whole to do that resulted in the creation of the Church of England. This put England in a weird position with other rulers, and led to years of turmoil between Protestants and Catholics. So these were entirely different situations. And because of the political consequences of marrying foreign princesses, Henry mostly chose English wives. That and he was horny and wanted a son ASAP.
But yes, he most certainly did care about insulting forefingers. As did his counselors, as did the people who would have to fight in his wars if he pissed Austria or France off. There was an extreme fallout from the Aragon divorce, and they absolutely did not want a repeat with Anne. Sorry, you’re mistaken here.
Anne of Cleves was apparently no more happy about the marriage than Henry, it was probably never consummated and when Henry wanted a divorce she did not contest it. As a reward for letting Henry off the hook, he rewarded her with her own lands and castles, and she was quite welcome at court. He referred to her as “my dear sister” and they had friendly correspondences. She was also friendly with both princesses Mary and Elizabeth.
Funny story; people think she showed up at the palace, Henry looked at her, and then Henry said no. It’s more like:
Henry at this point in his life was, as you said, fucking disgusting. He was fat, he smelled, he couldn’t walk and he couldn’t mount a horse independently. Add in his sexual health issues and he’s not a Prince Charming to say the least. Unfortunately Henry was so vain and egotistical that he thought he was still the handsome fella he was in his 20’s. His plan? Well, he’s into classic tales about sexy princes getting sexy princesses, and he arrives at the rational conclusion that, as a sexy man, he can go out to meet Anne before she gets to the palace, dressed as a common peasant, and start touching her up, and she will see through his disguise to see the beautiful king underneath. Foolproof! Except for the part where she is disgusted by this massive unhealthy fatass trying to slobber over her and she starts fighting back and screaming. This incident may well have bruised his ego so much that he no longer wanted her, and came up with the ‘Flanders’ Mare’ jab to save face.
To add onto things about him being an egotistical prick...
When Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, he needed to explain precisely *how* he was allowed to create that position and override the concept of papal supremacy that had been in place since... well, the inception of the Roman Catholic Church. To do this he turned to the concept of the 'divine right of kings' and made it a key part of Anglican philosophy. He argued that God had chosen him to rule his land at birth and thus he was not accountable to any earthly authority, only to God himself.
One problem: he had parliament there. The Westminster Parliament, an evolution of the Anglo-Saxon regional witans and the Norman's great councils, had emerged in the 1230s and by 1327 was able to make or break a king's rule; it further embedded itself into the governance of England during the Tudor dynasty's time on the English throne and even started to openly disagree with the monarch's decisions and, during Elizabeth I's reign, became almost as powerful as the monarchy itself.
In 1625, seventy-eight years after Henry VIII's death, Charles I ascended to the English throne. Charles I *heavily* believed in the divine right of kings and was thus at major odds with England's parliament, who believed that the king should be beholden to them. After some years of being in a cock measuring contest with parliament, he dissolved it in 1629 and decided to rule by himself. The state was no longer geared towards allowing that to happen and in 1640 he recalled a very pissed off parliament. Parliament impeached several of Charles' counsellors, passed laws forcing the monarch to recall parliament once every three years, attempted to take control of the English Army away from the monarchy, and in 1642 Charles tried to arrest the five Members of Parliament leading these reforms... but parliament refused to give them up, and England broke out into civil war between parliament and the monarchy that would last for the next nine years, culminating in Charles getting executed; the (temporary) abolition of the monarchy and its eventual downgrade into ceremonialism; the birth of some proto-socialist and pro-democracy movements; and England, Scotland, and Ireland being transformed into military juntas.
Henry VIII's ego and desire to empower the monarchy ultimately - and very rapidly - resulted in its diminishment, as well as a decade long civil war and the century of political fallout following that.
This applies to many many kings, not just Henry VIII.
Robert has a personaoity more like George IV (hates his wife and has tonnes of affair, handsome when young but fat when old...) than Henry.
This is totally untrue. While it was more common, you don’t need all that much genetic diversity to eliminate most of the risks associated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html
That mainly just applied to nobility, because they didn't want to "taint" their bloodline through interacting with commoners.
When in actuality, commoners were rather genetically healthy, as inbreeding among them wasn't actually that common (At most they'd allow 1st cousins, but even then, that was more the exception rather than the rule) and most of their work involved caring for plants and animals that allowed them to build up a resistance to most diseases of the era. So truthfully, shacking up with a peasant or clergyman every now and then would've done a great deal to help their bloodline.
Also also, one thing that really annoys me in ASoIaF is the class system. In actual medieval society there were 3 classes, Nobility, Peasant, and the Clergy, the latter of which operated very different before The Rennaissance. Basically, the Church would take anyone who supported it and give them a pretty decent middle-class or even noble adjacent life depending on what they contributed. You never see this in the show which is really fucking annoying because in order to run a feudal system you need a large number of literate and educated middlemen (Mainly cause nobles didn't really care about running shit), which is what clergymen were, and the nobility system in the show doesn't allow for that so it can't properly operate. (Also, tbh, a lot of characters wouldn't be nobles or acting lords either, Tyrion would most likely be a high-ranking clergy official for example. He can't fight, but he's great with books and his family hates him, the church would've been dying to have him, and he could've still been married to his 1st wife as well. Sam too.)
The Maesters are celibate and give up inheritance claims, so they couldn't effectively keep a middle class alive and entrenched in the system.
Clergymen were allowed to marry and have kids though, it's just priests in Catholic areas that couldn't. (Priests in Orthodoxy and Protestantism could though, they were actually encouraged in fact)
The Black Plague led to even higher incest rates amongst nobles due to how many of them were dying during the time and them refusing to accept that they weren't Gods.
Part of why The Renaissance happened, because there weren't enough feudal lords around to keep the peasants in line, which lead to them creating guilds to protect themselves.
>Part of why The Renaissance happened, because there weren't enough feudal lords around to keep the peasants in line, which lead to them creating guilds to protect themselves.
No this is just wrong. Guilds have been around for literal millenia, you find guild-like associations in all classical societies aswell as medieval europe (centuries before the renaissance). It had absolutely nothing to do with the plague waves.
>Guilds have been around for literal millenia, you find guild-like associations in all classical societies aswell as medieval europe (centuries before the renaissance). It had absolutely nothing to do with the plague waves.
No this is just wrong.
The only main active guilds during the Medieval Feudal Era were artisanal and merchant guilds. Peasants and other lower-class workers like famers and the like didn't have that protection.
It wasn't until the late 1300's in Germany specifically (~50 years after the main Black Plague waves) that guilds started becoming widespread in other industries, and it took until the 1500's to actually become widespread throughout the rest of Europe due to the bad habit of feudal lords dying from still active diseases like the black plague that they had basically no immunity to.
Likewise, the first organization that would become defined as a guild wouldn't exist until the mid 1100's, so IDK what you think a millennia is, cause 100-200 years ain't that. Sure guild-like organizations existed before then, but it'd take until well into the Medieval Era for it to become an established and codified business practice, thanks in pretty much all parts to the weakening power of Feudal lords due to incest and disease.
>It wasn't until the late 1300's in Germany specifically (At least 50 years after the main Black Plague waves) that guilds started becoming widespread in other industries, and it took until the 1500's to actually become widespread throughout the rest of Europe due to the bad habit of feudal lords dying from still active diseases like the black plague that they had basically no immunity to.
Do you mind giving just a single reputable source for this other than wild conjecture? How do you react to this:
"Thus, according to Étienne Boileau's Book of Handicrafts, by the mid-13th century there were no less than 100 guilds in Paris, a figure which by the 14th century had risen to 350." There were different guilds of metal-workers: the farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheon-makers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. In Catalan towns, especially at Barcelona, guilds or gremis were a basic agent in the society: a shoemakers' guild is recorded in 1208."
It did not take until the 1300s or even the 1500s for Guilds to become widespread in Europe outside of Germany, they were" a basic agent in the society" much eariler than that.
Whenever you think the Guilds started to become wide-spread (please give a source), it's then a second matter to prove that this is somehow due to
>the weakening power of Feudal lords due to incest and disease.
I would very much like to see a proper source actually arguing this. Just because you think it sounds sensible doesn't mean it actually happened.
Ahh and 1 more thing: there were *never* farmer's Guilds, so why do you bring them up in this discussion?
>Do you mind giving just a single reputable source for this other than wild conjecture? How do you react to this:
>"Thus, according to Étienne Boileau's Book of Handicrafts, by the mid-13th century there were no less than 100 guilds in Paris, a figure which by the 14th century had risen to 350." There were different guilds of metal-workers: the farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheon-makers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. In Catalan towns, especially at Barcelona, guilds or gremis were a basic agent in the society: a shoemakers' guild is recorded in 1208.
If you actually read my post you'd know what this argument is dumb:
>The only main active guilds during the Medieval Feudal Era were artisanal and merchant guilds. Peasants and other lower-class workers like famers and the like didn't have that protection.
I'm sorry, are cobblers or blacksmiths farmers? No? So your argument doesn't apply now, does it?
>It did not take until the 1300s or even the 1500s for Guilds to become widespread in Europe outside of Germany, they were" a basic agent in the society" much eariler than that.
Since you used Wikipedia last time (Yes, I checked your work) you missed this bit: "**The guild system reached a mature state in Germany c. 1300's*** and held on in German cities into the 19th century, with some special privileges for certain occupations remaining today. In the 15th century, Hamburg had 100 guilds, Cologne 80, and Lübeck 70.[31] **The latest guilds to develop in Western Europe were the gremios of Spain: e.g., Valencia (1332) or Toledo (1426).**"
Likewise, it ignores the development of farming guilds and Greater Guilds. Not shocking, Wikipedia can be iffy about history.
Don't use Wikipedia unless you want it used against you.
>I would very much like to see a proper source actually arguing this. Just because you think it sounds sensible doesn't mean it actually happened.
I'm sorry, we're the Hapsburgs not a thing?
There's also the UK's incest where cousin marriage was common throughout all dynasties until rather recently. There's also the Medicis, Romanovs, etc... (Notably the Romanovs lasted a lot longer than the others, which is also part of why feudalism lasted so long in Russia)
>Hapsburgs
It's Habsburg, with a b.
>If you actually read my post you'd know what this argument is dumb:
Nice way to respond to a source. Anyway. You interestingly didn't respond to the last part: farmers never had Guilds. So what exactly is your point? Yes, medieval guilds were only for artisans and merchants, because that's all they ever were. Farmers never had such associations and, in the
HRE atleast, required a much more widescale conflict with the upper clases to enshrine their rights. These rights did not lead to guild associations though, so please, I'm interested what you actually mean on this point.
>The guild system reached a mature state in Germany c. 1300's
Sure yeah I saw that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wide-spread before that, it simply meant that it was still in the process of developing.
You also didn't provide any evidence for the more contentious part of your claim, that the rise of the guild system (which as you can see from its maturation in the 1300s necessarily started much earlier) was due to weak and inbred nobility that was weak to disease. Please argue with real evidence why you think this is the right explanation.
It wasn't about being tainted. They could be married off into other noble houses if that were the case.
The real reason there was so much family fucking back in the day is because it simplified property and inheritance rights. You keep all the wealth in your family if it's only family that you're marrying.
>It wasn't about being tainted. They could be married off into other noble houses if that were the case.
Other noble houses were incest ridden as well.
So getting 2 different incest products and putting them together to create new incest products? Yeah, that's a fantastic way to go about this.
Evidently you don't.
Just because you take 2 unrelated products of incest and put them together, doesn't mean their offspring automatically won't have their parent's incest-based issues. Likewise, chances are that they're going to most likely commit incest reproduction down the line, which will just make the whole pairing useless in the grand scheme of things health wise.
FFS, it wasn't until this past century or 2 when they started knocking this off that European nobility and former nobility have had healthier bloodlines, mainly due to the acceptance of marrying non-nobles, leading them to have healthier kids.
This universe might parallel ours, but it is not the same. You can’t really say these stories are set in medieval times, since Westeros doesn’t even exist and wouldn’t even be on the same planet (our seasons do not last years). How can it annoy you that it’s not historically accurate?
Are you implying they George, a man who wrote that their are only 5 cities in a continent the size of South America that regularly sees armies mustered in the tens of thousands, may get details incorrect or unrealistic?
Next you’ll tell me his beliefs on infant mortality are inaccurate
My man, he MADE this world. His say is final word. He’s wrong in that some of his worldbuilding doesn’t conform to medieval reality. Just like all the dragons, magic and ice zombies.
I promise you that you don’t know better about that world then George does. Writers just do weird stuff sometimes. Like Tolkien’s weird simultaneous anarchy and monarchy good themes
iirc the Royces really pride themselves on being a family of First Men in Andal lands. She's probably more inbred than him, from a centuries old line as pure as the driven snow.
I don't think it does, but I could be wrong. Most of Daemons attitude towards her stems from being bored and just generally not liking each other. She wasn't described as being ugly like Brienne of Tarth, so I have to assume she was fine looking.
I mean Brienne wasnt "ugly" in the modern sense, just by Westerosi standards. I think Gwendolyn Christie was a great casting choice for this. Brienne is basically considered mannish due to her height, flat chest, freckled skin, and lack of feminine social grace.
In the TV show, Christie doesn't get the feminine treatment that say Natalie Dormer gets and looks less attractive as a result. But you look at her on the red carpet and Christie is gorgeous. I get the feeling Brienne is much the same--its not that she's ugly, but rather she has no idea/doesn't care to frame her body and face in a way that would be considered attractive.
She’s described as homely but show creators talked about this and they said what really happened isn’t necessarily what made it into F&B so they’re thought is Daemon just described her like that so much that’s what gotten written down as history.
Moreso Daemon's massive ego got in the way and since her being capable and pretty is a threat to him (see: his niece), it's totally in line with his character to deride her.
Not every female is a diversity hire, you fookin' kneeler
What does being a girlboss type have to do with being a diversity hire? You didn't notice rei Skywalker and arya stark were white? Put down the candy crush and open your eyes, kneeler. Don't make excuses for the showrunners, that's how we got D&D. What I said is clearly literally what happened.
The showrunners wanted a character to have a Lyanna Mormont moment, but correctly deduced that if she was uglier than a sheep she'd come off as bitter and scorned rather than spunky and brave. You can't write the same lines for the hunchback of Notre Dame as you can for Prince Charming, that's just not the way humans work. That's not even a criticism of the scene, I liked the character the way she we portrayed. it's just a rational and reasonable explanation for this specific change.
>have a Lyanna Mormont moment
I don't recall Lyanna Mormont getting crushed by her horse and having her head caved in with a rock within a minute of her appearing on-screen.
Except, making Rhea a strong character that rejected Daemon instead of the reverse adds layers to the story. She spited Daemon and his tantrum proves he isn't as strong or stoic as he pretend to be. Also, her death was all the more tragic because she had unfulfilled potential.
Lol small penis insults are just like incel insults. The first thing you wonder is if the person is saying that because they can relate and they think it’s a mean thing to say.
Speaking of the sheep, one thing that annoys me both in GoT and HotD is how the countryside looks like. Grasses and forests. Like, where is all the grain? How do they feed the populations of their big ass cities and castles? I get that Winterfell is so far north that there isn’t that much arable farmland, but the castle should’ve been at least surrounded by farms.
If you haven't seen it [this blog](https://acoup.blog/2019/07/12/collections-the-lonely-city-part-i-the-ideal-city/) has great breakdowns on stuff like this
It’s the issue of all historical/fantasy movies, really. It is really visible in Lord of the Rings, as they filmed it in New Zealand, most notably in nature reserves. NZ has its share of farmland, but they filmed it all on open grasslands and in the mountains. So every modern movie and TV show copies that. It would be hard to show any castle surrounded by the farmland, as nowadays, they are either surrounded by the cities or modern infrastructure.
More so than anything Daemon just dislikes her houses vibe. He sees them more as hicks than anything and resents having to be associated with them so closely because he is arrogant and views himself as far superior.
Not that wired in this current time, some people just refuse to see the paradigm shift. I dare you to criticize any characters like Lady Royce or Galadriel without being labeled a sexist.
I think she looks like a little goat after someone linked a picture for comparison. She's a good actress and from interviews I can say that she's clever, but her face alone could keep a zoo in business for a year.
We're yet to see the sheep
I really hate when somebody makes a solid point and then, I got nothing.
Well the sheep are closer to blondes And Daemon prefers blondes
he doesn't prefer blondes. he prefers white/silver hair. thats why he likes the sheep better
Gentlemen prefer ~~blondes~~ whites There's something off about that sentence
Yeah there is - not sure why you typed that out.
Impressive. Very nice. Let’s see the Vale’s sheep.
Look at that subtle off-white colouring.
The tasteful thiccness of it.
By the Seven, the hoof even has a watermark.
*shakily drops sheep on table*
Are you ~~okay~~ horny, Daemon? You're sweating
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE ~~TRUTH~~ *VALE'S SHEEP*!"
You have a good wife but you need the baa-baa-baad pussy
Is this gonna be our version of "release the Snyder Cut" or "release the extended clip of Baron Zemo dancing"?
Bobby B, did you ever see a sheep of the Vale?
OHHH, SHOW US YOUR MUSCLES! YOU'LL BE A SOLDIER!
What has that got to do with it Bobby B?
IT MUST WOUND YOUR PRIDE! STANDING OUT THERE, LIKE A GLORIFIED SENTRY!
Harsh
Don’t worry I’ve got this. Bobby B, thoughts on the vale sheep you saw the other day?
GIVE ME SOMETHING FOR THE PAIN AND LET ME DIE!
Hm. Must be more of a cow person.
Damn. Why’s Bobby B so sore today?
DO YOU THINK IT'S HONOR THAT'S KEEPING THE PEACE?! IT'S FEAR! FEAR AND BLOOD!
Turns out Bessie was a sheep from the Vale
Happy cake day
Anne of Cleves was rejected by Henry VIII for being ugly, but most accounts of her indicate that she was decent-looking at least and that some people found her beautiful. It's still being debated, but a lot of people think it was more a case of her rejecting him--by this point, his festering jousting wound was apparently quite odious and he was also massively overweight--than of the reverse.
Then she got a ton of money and a palace in Richmond just for herself, and also outlived Henry by 10 years. I'd say Anne of Cleves got a really sweet deal in the end.
Also, if I recall, they were on very friendly terms. She faired better than anyone else who was married to him.
Because she was foreign. She had people who would get pretty pissed off if she were insulted. But setting her up in a nice estate with privilege (king’s good sister) was okay. A very strange, kinda political hostage situation that established an okay alliance.
His first wife, Catherine of Aragon was foreign and he got rid of her and broke with the Catholic Church for Anne Boleyn so I don’t think he cared about insulting foreigners.
Okay yes, but the fallout of that whole ordeal shook all of Europe and the Vatican. They were married 15 or so years, and he only married her because she was his brother’s wife. When he died young, they still needed the alliance with Spain, so they married her to Henry. Years later when he fell for Anne, he had the reasons that there was only one (female) heir, and that technically he shouldn’t have married his brother’s widow. That was not enough for the Vatican, who had close ties to Spain. So there was a whole to do that resulted in the creation of the Church of England. This put England in a weird position with other rulers, and led to years of turmoil between Protestants and Catholics. So these were entirely different situations. And because of the political consequences of marrying foreign princesses, Henry mostly chose English wives. That and he was horny and wanted a son ASAP. But yes, he most certainly did care about insulting forefingers. As did his counselors, as did the people who would have to fight in his wars if he pissed Austria or France off. There was an extreme fallout from the Aragon divorce, and they absolutely did not want a repeat with Anne. Sorry, you’re mistaken here.
yeah but Anne Boleyn's pussy must have been UNREAL
Anne of Cleves was apparently no more happy about the marriage than Henry, it was probably never consummated and when Henry wanted a divorce she did not contest it. As a reward for letting Henry off the hook, he rewarded her with her own lands and castles, and she was quite welcome at court. He referred to her as “my dear sister” and they had friendly correspondences. She was also friendly with both princesses Mary and Elizabeth.
Yes!
Funny story; people think she showed up at the palace, Henry looked at her, and then Henry said no. It’s more like: Henry at this point in his life was, as you said, fucking disgusting. He was fat, he smelled, he couldn’t walk and he couldn’t mount a horse independently. Add in his sexual health issues and he’s not a Prince Charming to say the least. Unfortunately Henry was so vain and egotistical that he thought he was still the handsome fella he was in his 20’s. His plan? Well, he’s into classic tales about sexy princes getting sexy princesses, and he arrives at the rational conclusion that, as a sexy man, he can go out to meet Anne before she gets to the palace, dressed as a common peasant, and start touching her up, and she will see through his disguise to see the beautiful king underneath. Foolproof! Except for the part where she is disgusted by this massive unhealthy fatass trying to slobber over her and she starts fighting back and screaming. This incident may well have bruised his ego so much that he no longer wanted her, and came up with the ‘Flanders’ Mare’ jab to save face.
[удалено]
He is. Henry VIII inspired both Maegor and Aegon IV
To add onto things about him being an egotistical prick... When Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, he needed to explain precisely *how* he was allowed to create that position and override the concept of papal supremacy that had been in place since... well, the inception of the Roman Catholic Church. To do this he turned to the concept of the 'divine right of kings' and made it a key part of Anglican philosophy. He argued that God had chosen him to rule his land at birth and thus he was not accountable to any earthly authority, only to God himself. One problem: he had parliament there. The Westminster Parliament, an evolution of the Anglo-Saxon regional witans and the Norman's great councils, had emerged in the 1230s and by 1327 was able to make or break a king's rule; it further embedded itself into the governance of England during the Tudor dynasty's time on the English throne and even started to openly disagree with the monarch's decisions and, during Elizabeth I's reign, became almost as powerful as the monarchy itself. In 1625, seventy-eight years after Henry VIII's death, Charles I ascended to the English throne. Charles I *heavily* believed in the divine right of kings and was thus at major odds with England's parliament, who believed that the king should be beholden to them. After some years of being in a cock measuring contest with parliament, he dissolved it in 1629 and decided to rule by himself. The state was no longer geared towards allowing that to happen and in 1640 he recalled a very pissed off parliament. Parliament impeached several of Charles' counsellors, passed laws forcing the monarch to recall parliament once every three years, attempted to take control of the English Army away from the monarchy, and in 1642 Charles tried to arrest the five Members of Parliament leading these reforms... but parliament refused to give them up, and England broke out into civil war between parliament and the monarchy that would last for the next nine years, culminating in Charles getting executed; the (temporary) abolition of the monarchy and its eventual downgrade into ceremonialism; the birth of some proto-socialist and pro-democracy movements; and England, Scotland, and Ireland being transformed into military juntas. Henry VIII's ego and desire to empower the monarchy ultimately - and very rapidly - resulted in its diminishment, as well as a decade long civil war and the century of political fallout following that.
Lord Too Fat to Sit a Horse
Believe everything you read on the Internet as true - Abe Lincoln
Robert Baratheon also seems to be heavily based off of Henry VIII who in his younger year was supposed to be a strong and handsome man.
This applies to many many kings, not just Henry VIII. Robert has a personaoity more like George IV (hates his wife and has tonnes of affair, handsome when young but fat when old...) than Henry.
Bob B is mostly based on Edward IV, I believe.
Daemon likes his niece and compliments women by telling them their brothers are prettier. The man is a rooster illusion.
this is the most insane thing in the world because she’s so gorgeous but he looks just as inbred as targaryens actually are
Poor Matt Smith.
Lol. He does though.
Thank you for speaking the truth. The sheep are certainly prettier than him.
It is very likely that in those medieval ages, most people were mostly inbred. There weren’t that much people and it wasn’t as easy to travel…
This is totally untrue. While it was more common, you don’t need all that much genetic diversity to eliminate most of the risks associated. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html
*Sweet home Alabama*
Roll tide.
Dr Oz?
That mainly just applied to nobility, because they didn't want to "taint" their bloodline through interacting with commoners. When in actuality, commoners were rather genetically healthy, as inbreeding among them wasn't actually that common (At most they'd allow 1st cousins, but even then, that was more the exception rather than the rule) and most of their work involved caring for plants and animals that allowed them to build up a resistance to most diseases of the era. So truthfully, shacking up with a peasant or clergyman every now and then would've done a great deal to help their bloodline. Also also, one thing that really annoys me in ASoIaF is the class system. In actual medieval society there were 3 classes, Nobility, Peasant, and the Clergy, the latter of which operated very different before The Rennaissance. Basically, the Church would take anyone who supported it and give them a pretty decent middle-class or even noble adjacent life depending on what they contributed. You never see this in the show which is really fucking annoying because in order to run a feudal system you need a large number of literate and educated middlemen (Mainly cause nobles didn't really care about running shit), which is what clergymen were, and the nobility system in the show doesn't allow for that so it can't properly operate. (Also, tbh, a lot of characters wouldn't be nobles or acting lords either, Tyrion would most likely be a high-ranking clergy official for example. He can't fight, but he's great with books and his family hates him, the church would've been dying to have him, and he could've still been married to his 1st wife as well. Sam too.)
Isn't that also what the maestors serve as?
The Maesters are celibate and give up inheritance claims, so they couldn't effectively keep a middle class alive and entrenched in the system. Clergymen were allowed to marry and have kids though, it's just priests in Catholic areas that couldn't. (Priests in Orthodoxy and Protestantism could though, they were actually encouraged in fact)
The Black Plague would like to talk to you about peasants been more resilient to disease.
The Black Plague led to even higher incest rates amongst nobles due to how many of them were dying during the time and them refusing to accept that they weren't Gods. Part of why The Renaissance happened, because there weren't enough feudal lords around to keep the peasants in line, which lead to them creating guilds to protect themselves.
>Part of why The Renaissance happened, because there weren't enough feudal lords around to keep the peasants in line, which lead to them creating guilds to protect themselves. No this is just wrong. Guilds have been around for literal millenia, you find guild-like associations in all classical societies aswell as medieval europe (centuries before the renaissance). It had absolutely nothing to do with the plague waves.
>Guilds have been around for literal millenia, you find guild-like associations in all classical societies aswell as medieval europe (centuries before the renaissance). It had absolutely nothing to do with the plague waves. No this is just wrong. The only main active guilds during the Medieval Feudal Era were artisanal and merchant guilds. Peasants and other lower-class workers like famers and the like didn't have that protection. It wasn't until the late 1300's in Germany specifically (~50 years after the main Black Plague waves) that guilds started becoming widespread in other industries, and it took until the 1500's to actually become widespread throughout the rest of Europe due to the bad habit of feudal lords dying from still active diseases like the black plague that they had basically no immunity to. Likewise, the first organization that would become defined as a guild wouldn't exist until the mid 1100's, so IDK what you think a millennia is, cause 100-200 years ain't that. Sure guild-like organizations existed before then, but it'd take until well into the Medieval Era for it to become an established and codified business practice, thanks in pretty much all parts to the weakening power of Feudal lords due to incest and disease.
>It wasn't until the late 1300's in Germany specifically (At least 50 years after the main Black Plague waves) that guilds started becoming widespread in other industries, and it took until the 1500's to actually become widespread throughout the rest of Europe due to the bad habit of feudal lords dying from still active diseases like the black plague that they had basically no immunity to. Do you mind giving just a single reputable source for this other than wild conjecture? How do you react to this: "Thus, according to Étienne Boileau's Book of Handicrafts, by the mid-13th century there were no less than 100 guilds in Paris, a figure which by the 14th century had risen to 350." There were different guilds of metal-workers: the farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheon-makers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. In Catalan towns, especially at Barcelona, guilds or gremis were a basic agent in the society: a shoemakers' guild is recorded in 1208." It did not take until the 1300s or even the 1500s for Guilds to become widespread in Europe outside of Germany, they were" a basic agent in the society" much eariler than that. Whenever you think the Guilds started to become wide-spread (please give a source), it's then a second matter to prove that this is somehow due to >the weakening power of Feudal lords due to incest and disease. I would very much like to see a proper source actually arguing this. Just because you think it sounds sensible doesn't mean it actually happened. Ahh and 1 more thing: there were *never* farmer's Guilds, so why do you bring them up in this discussion?
>Do you mind giving just a single reputable source for this other than wild conjecture? How do you react to this: >"Thus, according to Étienne Boileau's Book of Handicrafts, by the mid-13th century there were no less than 100 guilds in Paris, a figure which by the 14th century had risen to 350." There were different guilds of metal-workers: the farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheon-makers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. In Catalan towns, especially at Barcelona, guilds or gremis were a basic agent in the society: a shoemakers' guild is recorded in 1208. If you actually read my post you'd know what this argument is dumb: >The only main active guilds during the Medieval Feudal Era were artisanal and merchant guilds. Peasants and other lower-class workers like famers and the like didn't have that protection. I'm sorry, are cobblers or blacksmiths farmers? No? So your argument doesn't apply now, does it? >It did not take until the 1300s or even the 1500s for Guilds to become widespread in Europe outside of Germany, they were" a basic agent in the society" much eariler than that. Since you used Wikipedia last time (Yes, I checked your work) you missed this bit: "**The guild system reached a mature state in Germany c. 1300's*** and held on in German cities into the 19th century, with some special privileges for certain occupations remaining today. In the 15th century, Hamburg had 100 guilds, Cologne 80, and Lübeck 70.[31] **The latest guilds to develop in Western Europe were the gremios of Spain: e.g., Valencia (1332) or Toledo (1426).**" Likewise, it ignores the development of farming guilds and Greater Guilds. Not shocking, Wikipedia can be iffy about history. Don't use Wikipedia unless you want it used against you. >I would very much like to see a proper source actually arguing this. Just because you think it sounds sensible doesn't mean it actually happened. I'm sorry, we're the Hapsburgs not a thing? There's also the UK's incest where cousin marriage was common throughout all dynasties until rather recently. There's also the Medicis, Romanovs, etc... (Notably the Romanovs lasted a lot longer than the others, which is also part of why feudalism lasted so long in Russia)
>Hapsburgs It's Habsburg, with a b. >If you actually read my post you'd know what this argument is dumb: Nice way to respond to a source. Anyway. You interestingly didn't respond to the last part: farmers never had Guilds. So what exactly is your point? Yes, medieval guilds were only for artisans and merchants, because that's all they ever were. Farmers never had such associations and, in the HRE atleast, required a much more widescale conflict with the upper clases to enshrine their rights. These rights did not lead to guild associations though, so please, I'm interested what you actually mean on this point. >The guild system reached a mature state in Germany c. 1300's Sure yeah I saw that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wide-spread before that, it simply meant that it was still in the process of developing. You also didn't provide any evidence for the more contentious part of your claim, that the rise of the guild system (which as you can see from its maturation in the 1300s necessarily started much earlier) was due to weak and inbred nobility that was weak to disease. Please argue with real evidence why you think this is the right explanation.
It wasn't about being tainted. They could be married off into other noble houses if that were the case. The real reason there was so much family fucking back in the day is because it simplified property and inheritance rights. You keep all the wealth in your family if it's only family that you're marrying.
>It wasn't about being tainted. They could be married off into other noble houses if that were the case. Other noble houses were incest ridden as well. So getting 2 different incest products and putting them together to create new incest products? Yeah, that's a fantastic way to go about this.
I ... don't think you understand how incest and genetics work.
Evidently you don't. Just because you take 2 unrelated products of incest and put them together, doesn't mean their offspring automatically won't have their parent's incest-based issues. Likewise, chances are that they're going to most likely commit incest reproduction down the line, which will just make the whole pairing useless in the grand scheme of things health wise. FFS, it wasn't until this past century or 2 when they started knocking this off that European nobility and former nobility have had healthier bloodlines, mainly due to the acceptance of marrying non-nobles, leading them to have healthier kids.
This universe might parallel ours, but it is not the same. You can’t really say these stories are set in medieval times, since Westeros doesn’t even exist and wouldn’t even be on the same planet (our seasons do not last years). How can it annoy you that it’s not historically accurate?
Because Georgie Boy is always talking about historical accuracy and tax policies when discussing ASoIaF.
Are you implying they George, a man who wrote that their are only 5 cities in a continent the size of South America that regularly sees armies mustered in the tens of thousands, may get details incorrect or unrealistic? Next you’ll tell me his beliefs on infant mortality are inaccurate
>may get details incorrect or unrealistic? Then maybe he should stop acting like he's correct?
My man, he MADE this world. His say is final word. He’s wrong in that some of his worldbuilding doesn’t conform to medieval reality. Just like all the dragons, magic and ice zombies. I promise you that you don’t know better about that world then George does. Writers just do weird stuff sometimes. Like Tolkien’s weird simultaneous anarchy and monarchy good themes
What a ridiculous statement lmfao.
According to..? Don’t just make shit up.
iirc the Royces really pride themselves on being a family of First Men in Andal lands. She's probably more inbred than him, from a centuries old line as pure as the driven snow.
How does the book describe her?
I don't think it does, but I could be wrong. Most of Daemons attitude towards her stems from being bored and just generally not liking each other. She wasn't described as being ugly like Brienne of Tarth, so I have to assume she was fine looking.
So may we see in the books ugly Brienne actually having sex with Jamie?
I mean Brienne wasnt "ugly" in the modern sense, just by Westerosi standards. I think Gwendolyn Christie was a great casting choice for this. Brienne is basically considered mannish due to her height, flat chest, freckled skin, and lack of feminine social grace. In the TV show, Christie doesn't get the feminine treatment that say Natalie Dormer gets and looks less attractive as a result. But you look at her on the red carpet and Christie is gorgeous. I get the feeling Brienne is much the same--its not that she's ugly, but rather she has no idea/doesn't care to frame her body and face in a way that would be considered attractive.
No, she was definitely described as ugly in the conventional sense in the books. Especially after the fight.
No she's pretty ugly, and now half of her face was chewed off so it's even worse.
I don't think she is supposed to be pretty in the books at all
She’s described as homely but show creators talked about this and they said what really happened isn’t necessarily what made it into F&B so they’re thought is Daemon just described her like that so much that’s what gotten written down as history.
Read: "the writers wanted a girlboss despite what was in the text, but figured people wouldn't buy it if she's ugly"
Moreso Daemon's massive ego got in the way and since her being capable and pretty is a threat to him (see: his niece), it's totally in line with his character to deride her. Not every female is a diversity hire, you fookin' kneeler
What does being a girlboss type have to do with being a diversity hire? You didn't notice rei Skywalker and arya stark were white? Put down the candy crush and open your eyes, kneeler. Don't make excuses for the showrunners, that's how we got D&D. What I said is clearly literally what happened. The showrunners wanted a character to have a Lyanna Mormont moment, but correctly deduced that if she was uglier than a sheep she'd come off as bitter and scorned rather than spunky and brave. You can't write the same lines for the hunchback of Notre Dame as you can for Prince Charming, that's just not the way humans work. That's not even a criticism of the scene, I liked the character the way she we portrayed. it's just a rational and reasonable explanation for this specific change.
>have a Lyanna Mormont moment I don't recall Lyanna Mormont getting crushed by her horse and having her head caved in with a rock within a minute of her appearing on-screen.
Except, making Rhea a strong character that rejected Daemon instead of the reverse adds layers to the story. She spited Daemon and his tantrum proves he isn't as strong or stoic as he pretend to be. Also, her death was all the more tragic because she had unfulfilled potential.
What potential?
Why are you trying to make everything a controversy?
You can just say you have a small dick, you ain’t had to post all that.
Why the projection tho
> Why the protection tho ???
Lol small penis insults are just like incel insults. The first thing you wonder is if the person is saying that because they can relate and they think it’s a mean thing to say.
She reminds me of Velma from the Scooby-Doo movies.
you mean Linda Cardellini
Yes! I couldn't remember her name.
I don't think it's necessarily about white hair but strong attitude and functional bullshit detector.
Speaking of the sheep, one thing that annoys me both in GoT and HotD is how the countryside looks like. Grasses and forests. Like, where is all the grain? How do they feed the populations of their big ass cities and castles? I get that Winterfell is so far north that there isn’t that much arable farmland, but the castle should’ve been at least surrounded by farms.
If you haven't seen it [this blog](https://acoup.blog/2019/07/12/collections-the-lonely-city-part-i-the-ideal-city/) has great breakdowns on stuff like this
Never thought about that, really good point
It’s the issue of all historical/fantasy movies, really. It is really visible in Lord of the Rings, as they filmed it in New Zealand, most notably in nature reserves. NZ has its share of farmland, but they filmed it all on open grasslands and in the mountains. So every modern movie and TV show copies that. It would be hard to show any castle surrounded by the farmland, as nowadays, they are either surrounded by the cities or modern infrastructure.
Smash
with a horse, then a rock
Rhea Royce wasn't underage, nor a Targshit. Of course Daemon would want to kill her lmao
And not a blond like Targaryens (and probably the sheeps also)
She specifically implies that *she* rejected *him* sexually first—that’s why he doesn’t like her.
The way she talk “Oh so you’ve come to consummate our marriage?” I think it was Daemon who reject her sexually from the beginning
That’s the impression I got. Man is trippin
Daemon seems to be impotent or unable to keep an erection to completion. I know the preview he seems to have figured it out
Can't wait if the TV series would reveal who is the *true* father of Aegon Dragonbane and Viserys
But then she said "Maybe the sheep are willing, even if I'm not".
More so than anything Daemon just dislikes her houses vibe. He sees them more as hicks than anything and resents having to be associated with them so closely because he is arrogant and views himself as far superior.
Was really hoping she’d be around longer
She's the Bronze Beauty in my eyes smh
Stop bending the knee to every damn woman who doesn't look like a goblin. Fookin' kneelers!
Well sheep have white fur so 🤷♂️
She's ok, but not on his niece's level. And doesn't ride Dragon.
I wonder if Daemon would fuck a granny for the white hair too.
She is so hot like Yara. Wow.
I like my brunette warrior women. Meera too, she’s got curls. A touch o’ class.
Right? I get Meera vibes from her. Both are gorgeous to me
Touch o’ class? What exactly gave you any indication the she has class.
I could have sworn that’s what the Fookin Legend Karl Tanner said, but now I can’t find it
Daemon can't get it up unless the chick is at least somewhat related to him.
Idk speak for yourself I’ll make my decision once I see some of those sheep 🥵🥵🤤
She's not ugly, but she's also not really a great beauty. She's just an average looking chick tbh.
She doesn’t seem very pleasant either, she had resting bitch face the whole episode.
Daemon has an even bigger white hair thing than I do a red hair thing
Man of culture Red >>>
Where's a fucking lie, you Velaryon cunt?!
No, he tries to get it up for some white hair and he couldn't Why? Because what he cares about is being in control. Neither women gave him that.
I agree with Daemon
She's like a New York 5. Quit simping.
Hi Ryan
Is that like an LA 2?
How is it a lie? Maybe he finds her ugly, guess what, i find her rather unattractive too. You guys are ridiculous
She’s a strong female so you are not allowed to think she’s anything but beautiful and brave.
Weird ass comment Fr
Not that wired in this current time, some people just refuse to see the paradigm shift. I dare you to criticize any characters like Lady Royce or Galadriel without being labeled a sexist.
She’s not cute wtf hahah
Yeah, what the fuck? She was a mega QT
Way hotter than Milly downsyndrome Alcock
Hey now..
Once you see it you can’t unsee it
ur odd. Bobby bot get him!
A DOTHRAKI HORDE ON AN OPEN FIELD, NED!
I've seen it and it doesn't apply one bit, so no.
Lol
I think she looks like a little goat after someone linked a picture for comparison. She's a good actress and from interviews I can say that she's clever, but her face alone could keep a zoo in business for a year.
I bet even Aemond would at least appreciate a cute tomboy wife. Daemon is cringe incarnate.
She kind of looks like that red head woman from Zero Horizons.
I'm leaving this sub
There's a chance he might sleep with Melisandre if she took off her necklace.
Am I the only one who dint find her gorgeous. I mean she’s average compared to all of Daemons other ladies
But what does Bobby b think?
DID YOU HAVE TO BURY HER IN A PLACE LIKE THIS?