Rhaenyra Targaryen Is Not Very Bright: A Hater's Analysis - Part 2

Of cabbages, bastards, and 'sharp questioning'.

Previous

In Part 1, I discussed my main issues with Rhaenyra Targaryen’s character, which are as follows:

• The narrative is extremely generous to Rhaenyra and her supporters, even while explicitly showing them doing evil things.

• The writers have shown Rhaenyra to be a ‘Valyrian supremacist’, believing that she is superior to others due to her bloodline and cultural heritage. This attitude informs several cruel actions she takes, yet the writers don’t condemn it, and in some cases don’t even acknowledge that her actions were bad.

• The writers have estabished a simplistic moral framework where people are defined as good or evil based largely if not entirely on how much they support Rhaenyra.

• The viewer is constantly told by dialogue that Rhaenyra is a good and worthy ruler, yet we are shown many examples of her being cruel, incompetent, or both.

• Some of Rhaenyra’s grievances, particularly over being the king’s cup-bearer, make no sense. She is aggrieved even when treated the same as a male heir.

• The writers don’t seem to respect the audience’s intelligence, they think that we will take the words of characters being used as author mouthpieces at face value, even when these words contradict what we are shown.

• Characters around Rhaenyra tend to be one-dimensional caricatures who just exist to be sexist to her. This seems to be nothing more than a flimsy justification for her behaviour.

In Part 2, I will be breaking down what I call ‘Cabbagegate’, and Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin, both plot points that I consider to be extremely weak from a writing point of view, and neither make Rhaenyra look smart or responsible enough to rule, as we’re constantly told she is.

Cabbagegate

So, the narrative lets Rhaenyra and her allies away with some pretty serious onscreen atrocities, and shows her to be a weak leader with little authority. However, it also bends itself into a pretzel to make any action she takes appear smart and positive. In Season 2, one subplot involves Rhaenyra's genius scheme to send vegetables to King's Landing, a city that has food shortages due to [checks notes] due to actively being blockaded by Rhaenyra's own forces.

The idea is that the commoners will be so grateful they will turn on the Greens. Does this make sense to you, dear reader?

Well, it must have made sense to the writer’s room, because it works! The poor commoners are thankful to good queen Rhaenyra, who gives them a cabbage with one hand while taking the rest of their food with the other, and only gives the cabbage with an ulterior motive. 'She thinks of us still!' exclaims one peasant, despite the fact that Rhaenyra a) hadn't lived in the capital for years, and b) never showed any signs whatsoever of caring about smallfolk there or anywhere else (see Part 1).

It's insane, stupid, and disrespectful to the audience's intelligence, not to mention the smallfolk's. I'm not sure whether the scheme was Rhaenyra's idea, or Mysaria's. Either way, it's framed as a clever bit of statesmanship from Rhaenyra, which it emphatically isn't.

The awesome stupidity of plebs who are brainwashed by vegetables and can't connect Rhaenyra's blockade (cause) to the fact that they are hungry in the first place (effect) is really remarkable, and I am struggling to think of examples of storytelling as weak as this. Of course, the upshot is that the smallfolk riot in support of Rhaenyra and threateningly swarm Alicent and Helaena. The royal women’s bodyguards are made to look like the bad guys for defending their charges, because the Greens can’t do anything right.

Overall, I doubt that whoever wrote this respects poor people very much, never mind the audience.

The Harwin Affair

Another element that leads me to question Rhaenyra's intelligence and suitability as a leader is her affair with Harwin Strong, with whom she has three illegitimate sons. We are led to conclude that this was Rhaenyra's only way of getting the heirs she needed to secure her claim, since her husband is gay. Also, she and Harwin appear to be a loving couple, and Harwin is one of the few men in the show allowed to come across positively, if only because he mostly exists as an extension of Rhaenyra.

The thing is, Harwin looks nothing like Laenor. In the source, this is because he's dark-haired and Laenor is white-haired (as a Velaryon, who are Valyrians - brilliant naming, GRRM). In the show, it's even more obvious, because Harwin is white and Laenor is black. In real life, this wouldn't necessarily mean all three boys would look black, given that Laenor's mother is white, but if not a single one looks remotely like Laenor (whose sexuality is also an open secret) then people are going to smell a rat. There is even precedent for this in GoT, with Ned Stark deducing that Cersei's children are bastards simply because they had the wrong hair colour.

Could left’s kids pass as right’s? Even if right is known to be gay, and left has a suspiciously paternal dynamic with the kids?

So, what was the plan if one boy turned out the spitting image of Harwin? What if all three had¹? Considering that this is a world where nobility have access to abortion drugs, Rhaenyra could have cut her losses after the second - the show presents the third obviously 100% white baby as the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of Laenor's credibility as father.

Rhaenyra and two out of three suspiciously white sons.

Rhaenyra had to know that her sons' illegitimate status would be beyond obvious, and she even allows Harwin to be pretty openly involved in their lives, which leads to a tense scene in which Criston Cole is able to provoke Harwin into all but admitting he is the father. When it comes up subsequently, it's a scandal and a severe blow to Rhaenyra's claim and her public image, and probably a large factor in her decision to stay away from court, which made her succession many times harder (see Part 1).

Absurdity of the affair

The thing about this affair is that it was so, so avoidable. We see a young Rhaenyra meeting suitors from all over the realm, yet the show presents all of these suitors as disqualified in some way - some are too old, some are too young, some are caricatures with terrible personalities, etc. etc.

The thing is, there are over 300 named noble families in the books, many of which also feature in the TV-universe. If we say (for the sake of argument) that 1/3 of these families sent a suitor, that's 100 men. Were all 100 of them too old, too young, or too obnoxious? If we're extremely generous and assume that 9/10 of noble families are legitimately stupid and send only their worst to court the young princess, Rhaenyra is left with ten acceptable suitors, about whom she could be as picky as she liked. Even if we’re super generous and reduce that to five, she still had options².

Most absurd of all, even Harwin Strong himself (!!!) was at court during this time. His father was on the king's council, he was heir to the biggest castle in Westeros, he was handsome, likeable, single, respected as a knight, and Rhaenyra ends up having three of his kids anyway!

Why couldn't she have married Harwin?

The answer, of course, is because that's not what the book says, and it wouldn’t create enough drama. The show can't be excused though - they did not have to have Harwin and his family already at court, while Rhaenyra is refusing suitors left and right until her father gets so fed up he literally marries her to a gay man³. This way, she absolutely has to have three bastards with a man her father would have been delighted to have as a son-in-law.

Is she just unbelievably picky? Does she have the worst pathological demand avoidance ever? We just don’t know.

It's not good writing. Much as I dislike Rhaenyra, I'm not sure whether we should lay the blame for this plot hole (and I do think it’s a plot hole) at her door.

Still, even if we ignore the fact that Harwin was totally eligible and totally at court, it does seem like she must have been incredibly picky and stubborn - I simply don’t accept that the caricatures we are shown are representative of the quality and variety of men that would be available to a crown princess in a kingdom as big as Westeros is supposed to be⁴.

When a would-be suitor ends up gutted in front of her by a boy who looks about twelve over a totally unrelated argument, we have to wonder whether we’re watching a tragedy or a farce.

Consequences of the affair

Back to the affair itself, and the obviousness of her children's paternity - was Rhaenyra behaving intelligently? Does this seem like the kind of prudent decision-making you would look for in a future ruler?

When she is first confronted, Viserys protects his favourite child from any immediate consequences, as always, but Rhaenyra had to have known that the truth would come out, and that it would seriously and permanently damage her claim. The issue doesn't go away, either - the boys don't miraculously get blacker with age. All efforts to sweep it under the rug only build further resentment, resulting in a serious rift in the family, after which reconciliation becomes impossible.

In other words, this massive own goal from Rhaenyra meant that the chances of a bloodless succession went from slim to nonexistent, and she had to have known that any war between her dragon-riding brothers and her new sociopathic husband (Daemon) would involve mass destruction and countless deaths. Nevertheless, she commits to her course, and her efforts to make peace later seem foolish and half-hearted.

'Sharply Questioned'

This is a smaller point, but one that belongs with my other Rhaenyra comments. Back in Season 1, she demands that a young Aemond, who had just lost an eye in an altercation with her sons, be 'sharply questioned' over who told him her sons were bastards. The resulting spike of tension, and Alicent's appalled indignation over this suggestion, don't really make sense in the context of the show alone - isn't Aemond already being 'sharply questioned' in the normal sense of the words?

However, in GRRM's writing, to be 'sharply questioned' is actually a common euphemism for torture, which explains Alicent's reaction. In other words, Rhaenyra wanted to torture a child (her own brother, though you wouldn't know it from the show's framing) who had already lost an eye over an allegation which everyone in the room knew to be true.

Is this the kind of behaviour you'd want to see in your future queen?

Closing Thoughts

A quick perusal of Reddit indicates that the consensus among her fans is that Rhaenyra is justified regardless because she's opposing patriarchal norms and fighting to set a precedent for future female rulers⁵. She herself never says anything so substantive, yet it is somewhat implied by the surrounding circumstances and by her general attitude.

However, given her questionable competence and poor moral character, she frankly doesn't seem suitable to set that precedent. A sound precedent for female rule in Westeros, of the kind that future generations could point to without being ridiculed⁶, would require:

• A competent predecessor capable of building up goodwill for a non-traditional heir.

• Oaths sworn recently and not under duress⁷.

• A spotless reputation.

• Legitimate heirs born to a heterosexual husband.

• Failing that, bastards who at least look like their legal father.

• Said legal father’s homosexuality not being common knowledge.

• Addressing the lethal grudge between her younger brother and her son.

• Not demanding that her younger brother be tortured.

• Befriending her brothers when they were children⁸.

• Accepting them as her brothers instead of dismissing them as 'Alicent's sons'⁹.

• Not giving dragons to people she has given good reason to hate her (Hugh Hammer).

• Not marrying a violent sociopath who no-one wants near the throne.

• Not being absent from court for years prior to the king's death.

• Not letting her council and juniors undermine and disobey her as queen (see Part 1).

In other words, a peaceful succession might have been feasible for Rhaenyra, if only she wasn't Rhaenyra. If she was a little smarter, a little kinder, and lot more judicious, she could certainly have fulfilled most of these conditions. Obviously, there were some factors outside her control - Viserys was a very shoddy predecessor, and Rhaenyra always would have faced extraordinary opposition, because she was an extraordinary heir. Yet so many of the problems she faces are entirely of her own making, and her cruelty and incompetence can’t be excused.

If the show was a little more self-aware about this, it might have been a better basis for a character¹⁰, but as it is, Rhaenyra is just frustrating to watch. So much of what she does is fruitless and self-defeating, to the point that she resembles a hopeless nepo-baby rather than the strong and decisive ruler we're supposed to believe she is.

In the entirety of Season 2, I think that the vegetable smuggling plot was her one and only victory, and it doesn't even make any logical sense.¹¹ She is also incredibly inconsistent - with nobles, she is such a soft touch that it damages her cause, yet with commoners she is a cruel autocrat. Neither extreme is good, which leads one to wonder why we keep being told she's a good ruler.

The fact that they had to make Aegon a straight-up rapist who can't sit still in council meetings indicates that the writers were at least somewhat aware that Rhaenyra as they envisioned her would be a hard sell to the audience¹². As such, they go for the 'two-party system' approach to political storytelling, where the audience is faced with two shoddy rulers, and manipulated into supporting A because 'at least she's not B'.

That this is also how we choose our leaders in real life is beyond depressing.

1. I say ‘if’, but they kind of did. Rhaenyra’s Valyrian white hair gene, which appears to be incredibly dominant, was overriden by Harwin’s dark hair gene in all three cases. Laenor also shared the Valyrian white hair gene, so…..

2. Better options than Aegon and Helaena had, mind you.

3. Even if Laenor wasn’t gay, it’s not necessarily a good match. See Part 1’s comments on Empress Matilda’s marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou, and how that harmed her succession. In the same way, marrying Rhaenyra into a family as powerful and contentious as House Velaryon could have created more opposition to her succession. Still, anyone would have been better than Daemon.

4. GRRM says that Westeros is about as big as South America, i.e. much much bigger than any real medieval kingdom.

5. Which doesn’t necessarily mean better rights for women generally. See: basically any pre-industrial female monarch.

6. We know from the source that Rhaenyra will become a cautionary tale rather than a positive example.

7. An important nuance in the real Anarchy - Stephen's supporters were able to build support by convincing lords that Henry had been wrong to demand they swear oaths to Matilda.

8. We never see her interact with them except to try and get Aemond tortured.

9. The writers’ obsession with Rhaenyra and Alicent’s relationship demands that every other relationship be framed in such terms.

10. Cersei was both cruel and incompetent, yet far more complex and entertaining, because GRRM understood this about her and wasn’t trying to deceive the audience.

11. The Dragonseeds plot could also be considered a success, but a) it wasn’t her idea, and b) we know from the source that this is going to backfire, and in the show that’s entirely Rhaenyra’s fault for the way she treated Hugh.

12. They also made her literally the chosen one, which seems like another post-hoc way of legitimising her in the eyes of the audience. Why any writer would wish to draw attention to the stupid prophecy from GoT’s final season that everyone hated is beyond me.