The Rafah Invasion Would Be So Catastrophic That Even Biden Momentarily Called It A Red Line, Though

The Rafah invasion would be so catastrophic that even Biden momentarily called it a red line, though of course he walked it back.

It's hard to say something could be worse than what's already happened, nothing I could say wouldn't already apply, but this would massively increase the scale of this ongoing atrocity. Any pressure that can be brought to bear to stop it must be applied.

I don’t think people understand why Alicent was so bothered by Rhaenyra having illegitimate children as much as she was. Yes, part of it was coming from a place of frustration at Rhaenyra for scoffing at tradition and not honouring her marriage vows, but Alicent’s primary focus was on the politics - and how it put her own children in mortal danger.

Painting: The Execution of Lady Jane Grey

You see, if Rhaenyra had legitimate children with Ser Laenor, then the Greens would have no reason whatsoever to try and replace Rhaenyra as heir to the throne with Aegon. They, in truth, would’ve been usurpers. But as we know, Rhaenyra having bastards not only weakened her own claim to the throne but by it, she has given her enemies a legitimate reason to support Aegon instead of her. Just think about it - nearly every lord in the realm has a bastard of his own. If Rhaenyra puts her own bastards on the throne, it sets a precedent - that bastards can have a claim to a title just as much as legitimate children can. This of course presents a HUGE crisis to the lords who probably have multiple bastards running around, now all potential heirs to his house. Some lords might even have older bastard brothers, brothers who would potentially be better rulers than them if they were trueborn. Brothers who would follow Rhaenyra’s suit and place themselves in positions of great power and usurp their trueborn sibling’s claims. No doubt, this would lead to violence, in-fighting, bloodshed and the potential extinction of houses and bloodlines that go back thousands of years.

So naturally, any lord who would be fearful of this playing out would naturally ally themselves with the trueborn children of House Targaryen - Alicent’s children. Whether the Greens want it or not, Aegon, Helaena, Aemond and Daeron would become unwilling figureheads for rebellions against Rhaenyra. These rebels would rally themselves around Alicent’s children, demand them to be crowned instead of Rhaenyra, and of course, Rhaenyra would have absolutely no choice but to execute her half-siblings, to save herself and her children. Whether Alicent’s children want it or not, they are living, breathing, constant challenges to Rhaenyra’s throne.

It’s the exact predicament Mary I of England faced - a Catholic queen who had just deposed her Protestant cousin, the Lady Jane Grey, Mary had no choice but to order 16 year old Jane’s execution in 1554. Despite having Jane imprisoned, rebels kept on popping up around England, all marching on London to dethrone Mary in Jane’s name, even though Jane herself was oblivious to what was happening because she was behind bars and had already relinquished her crown and declared for Mary. Mary was hoping to restore Catholicism to England and was planning to marry a foreign prince so she could provide England with a Catholic heir - but she knew so long as Jane lived, Mary, her future children and England would never know peace. So she reluctantly signed Jane’s death warrant, causing the death of one of England’s most tragic figures.

This would be the fate of Alicent’s children if Rhaenyra ever ascended the throne. No matter how good willed Queen Rhaenyra would be to her siblings, it wouldn’t last. The minute the first lord lit the beacon of rebellion and openly called Rhaenyra’s sons illegitimate usurpers of Alicent’s trueborn children with no right to the throne, Alicent’s children would’ve been executed. There’s absolutely no way Rhaenyra would ever chose Aegon, Helaena, Aemond and Daeron’s lives over her own living children - what mother would?

I find it interesting how the same people who support literal usurpation are so pissy about how Rhaenyra "got Otto removed" as Hand. As if Rhaenyra had this whole conspiracy in place instead of simply defending herself and her claim.

Otto was already getting on Viserys' bad side due to his constant haranguing to get Aegon made heir. The spying on Rhaenyra was the last straw after two years of trying to undermine her and Viserys' wishes.

TG stans trying to portray this as a massive injustice is another instance of them being insanely hypocritical. Otto wasn't a good Hand, he wasn't some kind of marxist reformer trying to better the kingdom. He was a manipulative and ambitious snake who was constantly plotting to better his family's position and ultimately get his blood on the throne.

Otto was Rhaenyra's biggest political rival by the time of episode three. She knew he wanted her deposed and married off to some lord away from KL, so she took action. He wasn't just harassing Viserys, he was having a teenage girl stalked to try to catch her in a compromising position.

Otto started the rivalry and the use of underhanded methods and he lost, go cry about it. Rhaenyra was protecting herself, but it was Viserys who made the call to remove Otto as Hand. Viserys isn't just a puppet controlled by Rhaenyra, he's the king. He may not be as proactive as other kings and is willfully blind to issues in his family, but he's his own person with autonomy.

TG stans are bitter that Rhaenyra was beating their faction before the battle lines were fully drawn. Otto played his hand and lost, just like the greens lost the war. Aside from that, their anger over Otto's removal from court shows yet another facet of their hypocrisy. They're bitching about an "injustice" while rooting for literal treason. TG stans are unreal lmao

Maybe this Will Put Things into Perspective about Rhaenyra & Cersei's Kids Being Bastards or Not...

Feudalism is an early period or a economic phase of a millennia-managed con against anyone who isn't a noble man, and most men are the active conmen.

Neither set of kids were ever declared bastards. Nor were they ever or "acknowledged" as bastards, because noblemen "acknowledge" a child they father onto another woman. noblewomen, in theory, can, but if their having had sex premaritally/extramaritally isn't already known outside of the household they do not. Because to do without it already being known (like with Alys Turnberry) would publicly ruin her prospects for marriage in the future, ruin her reputation, and likely muddy the family's as well.

Robert probably would have removed those kids from the line of succession had he known (and he didn't) if not outight remove them from the mortal coil. But instead, he got gutted. Therefore, Cersei's kids are not officially or "legally" bastards. That prior declaration is what is required to have them "legally" known as bastards.

Bastardry has always been more of a legal question in its nature than a biological fact of nature. Of course, we the audience and most of ther know that Rhaenyra's kids aren't Laenor's biologically; Ned correctly deduced that Cersei's weren't Robert's biologically. However, he was never able to get his information to matter "legally", or to get it to Robert to make a decision on. Whereas Laenor, Corlys, Viserys all knew and decided to maintain the boys as their heirs. And they made this decision based on the lack of knowledge the public has/what they can control. Which is often what any noble does; once again, GRRM has explicitly stated that the lords of Westeros often take advantage to twist "laws" (customs) according to the circumstances around them & their own desires, and it's is not exclusive to bastards already "acknowledged".

The purpose of marriage as an institution is entirely for the lord/nobleman's benefit. It is an institution that was created and developed entirely for a man's political interests (a father's, a brother's, a husband's, a son's, etc.). And it was made to consolidate/monopolize the noble woman's (or really any woman) body and reproductive labor so as to produce living products to pass on the resources/titles mainly the lord and his ancestors have aggregated. To try to make sure those resources are passed to the people the lord wants passed own to, the sexual purity culture imposed on women and girls works to construct shame & suppress female extramarital and premarital sexual activity, which is an aspect of her overall agency. Her agency is re-confined/socially reduced to her sexual activity because she has no other primary function nor legal privileges aside form being a wife, mother, daughter, virgin, etc. Or sometimes the protectoress of her husband's/son's assets: the castle at times of war/siege when the lord is not present; director of his household's activities and servants by being its head overseer of accounts. Therefore, the lord is literally claiming his wife as his effective property through her womb & this is often why when we see women like Daena sleeping with a man not her husband, it is an act of reinforcing her authority or political agency in spite of how she was raised to see her own body.

Finally, the constructed demarcation of bastard vs "trueborn" offspring in Westeros/real EU medieval societies is also meant to

Think about it: why do we not have a world or society (fictional or not) where even though the wife births a child not her husband's the husband's do not willfully or are "legally" compelled to adopt that child as their own, effectively de-fathering the biological father? Because men want to feel as if they have as close to total ownership over female companionship and labor so they consolidate power to themselves and not to women. Having all these designations of gender and "bastardry" that everyone are compelled to follow makes that easier without expending energy or sharing power. Medieval customs put the social-legal identification of "bastard" from the institution of marriage, its compulsions on women, and their reproductive labor/bodies/uteruses being claimed by the men who are "licensed" to own them. Which is why when we say that neither Cersei's nor Rhaenyra's kids are "bastards" it is true, because the purpose of bastardry is to attempt to reclaim the product of reproductive labor and Viserys/Corlys/Laenor/Robert have already done that. To protest about how Robert didn't know about his kids not being his kids is really to protest how he didn't not get the products of Cersei's reproductive labor in the usual male-prioritized business of objectifying female labor that is intrinsic in this feudal society. Whereas Viserys/Laenor/Corlys accepted the products of Rhaenyra's reproductive labor.

All this is also why I really don't care for the impassioned argument of these women were being "unfair" to the system (Rhaenyra) or to their husbands, fathers etc. (Cersei) or them being "liars" or "destructive". Feudalism is itself an objectifying, unfair, unequal system. It is designed to benefit men and mainly men inherently, and directly at the expense of women who risk death itself while a man fathering any sort of kid never risks death. Men lie and destroy the women who birth their children, manage their household, protect their castle, rear their children....and it is all "licensed" and justified under the constructed institutions of marriage, oath-making, knighthood and principles of chastity, virginity, the different sub-meanings of "honor" for men vs women, etc. Men are themselves already objectifying or making an exclusive economic use of their female counterparts as well as going back on their vows (a deal that is still in feudal marriages, even for men) through their socially-allowed extramarital and premarital affairs producing bastards.

I’ve noticed a trend where TG come onto other peoples posts to write a bunch of self righteous horseshit and then immediately blocking the person to stop any further discussion.

It’s very weird behaviour.

The ultimate proof that they don't actually have a valid argument.