The Baratheon brothers: Robert, Stannis, and Renly aesthetic.

“We march to victory or we march to defeat, but we go forward, only forward.”

House Baratheon aesthetic.

“Ours is the Fury.”

all of game of thrones is like

you can have a little regicide

as a treat

I do believe Gendry is Cercei’s son.

The prophecy wasn’t wrong,the show couldn’t have made such a stupid mistake. Cercei mentioned her baratheon son not once,but Twice and the second time it was with Robert who confirmed that it was not a lie.Their son wasborn alive

The prophecy only mentioned the children that would die. It said 3 DEAD children for cercei,and 16 bastards for Robert(that would die at the hand of Joffrey). 

It should have said 4 children because Cercei had 4 children, but she said 3 DEAD children. The prophecy was only about the dead children for both of them. 

Maggie,when cercei asked “will I and the king have chidren” The answer is YES, but then she only talks about their dead ones. 

Ours is the fury.

rickonn:

my favourite thing about jon possibly having a targaryen name is that when lyanna told ned he was probs like ‘… ok sis that’s cool but…. how the fuck am i meant to hide jahaerys jacarys jalapeno the third from robert with that name?’ 

Friendly reminder that Stannis never realized that he loved his brothers until after they were both dead ✿◕‿◕✿

Friendly reminder Robert had sex with a 13 year old prostitute, got her pregnant and then abandoned her ✿◕‿◕✿

etherealdany:

There is this pervasive idea in the asoiaf fandom, which partly stems from a misunderstanding of the fact that all of the royal houses are feudalist and have conquering in their history, that the Starks = the moral epicenter of the series, the Starks are Northern, therefore the North (and associated allies) = the moral epicenter, which when juxtaposed against Daenerys and the Targaryens (who come from the East) = the true evil, or at the very least, the “unwoke” House, the only House that should be held accountable for war crimes and participation in feudalist conquering and monarchy. 

This is a really dangerous idea, but it begs the question: did GRRM fuel this idea? Did he write a narrative that dichotomizes “the noble Stark/North” vs. “the evil Targaryen/East”? He is an orientalist. He orientalizes Essos and he Otherizes Dany from the main narrative. These things are true.

But I do not think GRRM has set up a narrative that asks you to unequivocally support any of the houses. I think this “house loyalism” that the fandom plays into is such a misunderstanding of one of GRRM’s biggest themes, which is that the game of thrones is dangerous and it is a red herring that is causing superficial divisions that weaken humanity, especially in the face of the real enemy (which is the cold). 

And I think he did this very early on, from the POV of a character who is inarguably one of the most “moral” and “honorable” people in the entirety of the series: 

The king frowned. “A knife, perhaps. A good sharp one, and a bold man to wield it.”

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert’s hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him. He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar’s wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, “I see no babes. Only dragonspawn.” Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna’s death, and the grief they had shared over her passing.

This time, Ned resolved to keep his temper. “Your Grace, the girl is scarcely more than a child. You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents.” It was said that Rhaegar’s little girl had cried as they dragged her from beneath her bed to face the swords. The boy had been no more than a babe in arms, yet Lord Tywin’s soldiers had torn him from his mother’s breast and dashed his head against a wall.

(Eddard II, AGoT)

A young Ned Stark, still grieving Rickard and Brandon (who were killed by the Targaryen King Aerys II), was still honorable and rational enough to be horrified and appalled at Robert being pleased at the sight of children’s corpses. He walked out on his best friend that day. Not even Jon Arryn could stop him. That was how hot his anger was, at hearing Robert call innocent Targaryen children “dragonspawn”.  If Lyanna’s death hadn’t reunited them, who knows how the Ned/Robert friendship would have turned out?

Setting aside Ned’s later mistakes (especially his bias re: Robert), we get Robert, 14 years later, referring to yet more innocent children, 14-year-old Daenerys and her unborn child, as dragonspawn. 14 years later, this is Ned’s reaction (Eddard II, AGoT): 

This time, Ned resolved to keep his temper. “Your Grace, the girl is scarcely more than a child. You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents.” It was said that Rhaegar’s little girl had cried as they dragged her from beneath her bed to face the swords. The boy had been no more than a babe in arms, yet Lord Tywin’s soldiers had torn him from his mother’s breast and dashed his head against a wall.“

And how long will this one remain an innocent?” Robert’s mouth grew hard. “This child will soon enough spread her legs and start breeding more dragonspawn to plague me.”

“Nonetheless,” Ned said, “the murder of children … it would be vile … unspeakable …”

Robert refers to these Targaryen children as “dragonspawn” quite a few times. But Ned refuses to agree with him. Not only that, but Ned tries to talk him out of his scheme to assassinate Daenerys and her unborn child. 

We know later that when Robert sanctions the assassination of Daenerys, Ned walks out on him (again) and quits as his Hand. It is only on his deathbed that Robert realizes he was wrong to send assassins after her. 

Let’s also take a look at this: 

Robert had shame enough to blush. “It was not the same,” he complained. “Ser Barristan was a knight of the Kingsguard.”

“Whereas Daenerys is a fourteen-year-old girl.” Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. “Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”

“To put an end to Targaryens!” the king growled.

(Eddard VIII, AGoT)

Look at the difference here (GRRM, you fucking master at subtlety!). Ned characterizes their rebellion as a fight specifically against Aerys and his reign. Robert’s clear that he wanted to put an end to an entire House (much like Tywin Lannister did House Reyne, only on a larger scale). Here Ned notes that he fought to end the murder of children at the hands of one King only to have the King he supported and helped crown sanction the murder of other children. And he’s expected to smile and go along with it. 

That we see all of this through Ned’s POV is telling. If we were meant to approve of the mass slaughter of House Targaryen, forget having Dany’s POV; we would not have honorable, moral, compassionate Ned Stark fighting tooth and nail against his best friend, just to protect the 14 year old daughter of the man he rebelled against. We would not have Ned drawing a firm, clear line between rebelling against one tyrant, and mass murdering an entire House, women, children, and elderly included. 

And the only person who stands with Ned is Barristan Selmy. Everyone else agrees that Daenerys and her unborn child deserve to die for the crime of being Targaryens. 

The war had raged for close to a year. Lords great and small had flocked to Robert’s banners; others had remained loyal to Targaryen. The mighty Lannisters of Casterly Rock, the Wardens of the West, had remained aloof from the struggle, ignoring calls to arms from both rebels and royalists. Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King’s Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate.

“Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well,” Robert said. The anger was building in him again. “Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it.”

“You were not there,” Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. “There was no honor in that conquest.”

(Eddard II, AGoT)

Ned has lost sleep over what happened to House Targaryen. Ned, whose father and brother were killed by Aerys II, whose sister was said to have been kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar (but we know that Ned actually knows the truth, that it wasn’t a rape) still feels guilty about their end. And unlike Robert, Ned does not think “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. 

“Oh, I’m certain if you put your mind to it, you could come up with a few names. Varys, say. Cersei. Or Robert. His Grace is most wroth with you. He went on about you at some length after you took your leave of us this morning. The words insolence and ingratitude came into it frequently, I seem to recall.”

Ned did not honor that with a reply. Nor did he offer his guest a seat, but Littlefinger took one anyway. “After you stormed out, it was left to me to convince them not to hire the Faceless Men,” he continued blithely. “Instead Varys will quietly let it be known that we’ll make a lord of whoever does in the Targaryen girl.”

Ned was disgusted. “So now we grant titles to assassins.”

(Eddard VIII, AGoT)

Ned sees no honor in anyone who assassinates a child, whether a child is a Targaryen or a Stark or whoever. 

“No,” Ned pleaded, his voice cracking. “Varys, gods have mercy, do as you like with me, but leave my daughter out of your schemes. Sansa’s no more than a child.”“

Rhaenys was a child too. Prince Rhaegar’s daughter. A precious little thing, younger than your girls. She had a small black kitten she called Balerion, did you know? I always wondered what happened to him. Rhaenys liked to pretend he was the true Balerion, the Black Dread of old, but I imagine the Lannisters taught her the difference between a kitten and a dragon quick enough, the day they broke down her door.” Varys gave a long weary sigh, the sigh of a man who carried all the sadness of the world in a sack upon his shoulders. “The High Septon once told me that as we sin, so do we suffer. If that’s true, Lord Eddard, tell me … why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones? Ponder it, if you would, while you wait upon the queen. And spare a thought for this as well: The next visitor who calls on you could bring you bread and cheese and the milk of the poppy for your pain … or he could bring you Sansa’s head.”

The choice, my dear lord Hand, is entirely yours.“

(Eddard XV, AGoT)

Varys’ narration about Princess Rhaenys stirs Ned from his stubbornness. And it’s a reminder that the same Lannisters whom Robert took in as his allies would do to Sansa what they did to Princess Rhaenys if it came to that. Again we have GRRM’s brilliant method of showing, not telling. If it really were the case that House Targaryen is unique for committing war crimes and using underhanded methods of gaining power, then Varys here would not use what Tywin Lannister did to Princess Rhaenys as a warning to Ned Stark. If non-Targaryen houses were free from complicity in war crimes and oppression, forget the whole war of the five kings. We would not have the tale of what happened to House Targaryen at the hands of Houses Baratheon and Lannister as a caution for the current Patriarch of House Stark. 

Again, that this is told to us through Ned’s POV is significant. This is Ned reflecting on the costs of the Rebellion. This is not Daenerys opining about her House; this is a Stark, who fought against the Targaryens, who has every reason to hate them, being reminded that his children are not safe just because they aren’t Targaryens, and ultimately, that all of these Houses are complicit in violence and oppression, directly and indirectly, whether they fly a dragon, wolf, lion, or stag banner. 

If this was a narrative in which the Targaryens are evil imperialists or whatever and unique in the crimes they commit, we’d have Ned Stark’s POV showing us details about how truly horrible they are –– basically thinking the same things Robert Baratheon verbalizes. But instead, we have Ned Stark, who fought to end Aerys II’s reign, actively reflecting on his guilt at what happened to House Targaryen. We have Ned Stark fighting tooth and nail to protect the Princess of House Targaryen and her unborn child, while everyone else around him tells him that she’s better off dead. Ned Stark, who is unequivocally a hero, unequivocally considered to be in the moral right, part of the House that fans consider to be the moral “epicenter” of the narrative (which it isn’t, as Ned’s own POV makes clear, considering his guilt at being complicit in Robert’s excesses), has this perspective on Daenerys, and on House Targaryen more generally. He feels anger at what happened to Rhaenys and Aegon. He’s always mistrusted the Lannisters for that reason. He walked out on Robert TWICE (once during the Rebellion, once during AGoT) because Robert was sanctioning the murders of Targaryen children, and Ned could not stand by and idly accept that.

The Targaryens are often accused of being fascist blood purists. I’m not going to get into the misuse of important political terminology, or the fact that blood purists don’t marry outside of their House (if they were blood purists, Rhaegar and Elia’s marriage would never have happened), or the fact that all the characters in this series identify with House pride. The fact is that we consistently see through Ned Stark’s POV that Robert Baratheon and others condemn the children of House Targaryen and sanction their murders just for the crime of being Targaryens. Is that not a very example of blood purism? Or what about the fact that we have terms like “dragonspawn”, which reek of fascist ideology. Isn’t Tywin’s own methods, of having Elia and her children brutally murdered, a fascist act in and of itself? Why get all of this information from Ned fucking Stark’s POV instead of Robert Baratheon’s POV if we’re meant to think that House Targaryen = the villains that the rest of the heroes will band together to defeat? 

By all rights, Ned Stark should fear Targaryen Restoration, which is a “threat” that Dany represents and which is exactly why Robert and his Council want her dead. Ned fought Aerys II. Aerys killed Ned’s brother and father. The predominant version of the story is that Rhaegar spirited his sister Lyanna away, but again Ned knows the truth and that she died giving birth to his son. Ned has more reason than anyone to fear a Targaryen Restoration, especially given that he fought to depose the last Targaryen ruler. So if Ned was willing to bitterly swallow the pill of Elia and her children’s deaths (which he did), he’s not incapable of bitterly swallowing the pill of Dany and her unborn child’s deaths. Instead, though, he actively fought the assassination scheme, he quit as Hand because he was so disgusted with it, and he was wracked with guilt about Elia and her children. Again, if we were meant to see House Targaryen as the epitome of evil and imperialism and what not, Ned Stark would have curbed the threat of its restoration too, he would’ve helped nip it in the bud, and that would’ve been the end of Daenerys Targaryen and any hope of a Targaryen Restoration. Why did GRRM instead have Ned Stark keep fighting to protect this child’s life, no matter the future potential of her coming to reclaim her father’s Throne? 

It is because GRRM deconstructs this game of thrones and the very concept of House loyalism. We weren’t meant to glorify house loyalism. Forget the rest of the books for a second that give us plenty of examples of why house loyalism is dangerous. AGoT itself, through Ned’s POV, shows us why house loyalism is wrong: because house loyalism leads to the rape of women and to the brutal murders of children and said children being called dragonspawn, because it normalizes the dehumanization and division of humans based on something as arbitrary as their birth. And note that it’s not Targaryen characters within the narrative who are being held accountable through Ned’s POV; it’s non-Targaryen characters such as Robert and Tywin and even Ned himself. 

So when fans go around promoting the idea that all the other Houses are “good” in some moral way, and that House Targaryen is “bad” in a way the other Houses aren’t, they’re falling for the very trap that grrm proclaims is reactionary and violent and akin to fascist. You’re not supposed to think that House Stark is pure and vanilla and House Tyrell is all roses and House Baratheon is only full of good, rough men who mean well. You’re meant to see the ugly feudalist violence of /all/ of these Houses, not just House Targaryen, you’re meant to shudder at what all of the leaders of these Houses do in the name of protecting their place at the table, and you’re meant to realize that this game of thrones that divides us enables us to justify hurting and dehumanizing and abusing and killing people, in the name of some political cause. 

House Targaryen has its fair share of crimes. No one is doubting that, certainly not Ned. I mean the guy fought against it for god’s sake. But if we were meant to think that the Targaryens are villainous and the rest of Westeros is pure and morally superior, we would not have Ned Stark’s POV’s. To embrace this idea is to throw Ned Stark’s AGoT arc in the trash, to ignore what he struggled for until the bitter end, to spit on the principles he strived to embody while the rest of the world went against him. 

Still can’t get over what big Cersei Vibes™️ this song has