Nevtelén :
I’m addressing the idiots in the comments: a queen holds a higher rank than an heir. An heir's position is subject to change, whereas the queen is the person who reigns alongside the king (not necessarily in terms of sovereign rule over the throne, but in status). The queen is the "First Lady" of the kingdom. If Rhaenyra outranked Alicent—who is the queen—then what, for God's sake, is the point of the title "Queen"? Furthermore, Rhaenyra was set to ascend the throne in the *future*, but in a monarchy, the *present* is what matters; whoever sits on the throne right now holds the authority. And besides... if you still think Alicent is in the wrong... could *you* sit idly by with your hands tied if your son lost an eye? Moreover, Rhaenyra commits the ultimate betrayal by passing off her bastards as legitimate. In doing so, she hides her treachery behind a cloak of righteousness. Don't come at me saying, "But they're still Targaryens; they carry Rhaenyra's blood." Frankly, I don't mind the fact that Rhaenyra had illegitimate children—every man in Westeros has bastards, so it wouldn't matter if she did too! The problem—the actual betrayal—is that she presents them as legitimate and names one as her heir. *That* is the offense. By that logic, any lord's bastard could come along and claim a share of their siblings' rights; just imagine the chaos that would ensue. The point is, we can't view issues like this through the lens of our own world or through feminism. Because that isn't our world, and feminism doesn't exist there.
2026-08-02 09:19:53