Game of Thrones: Which claimant do you support?

[Razgovory]

Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.

Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. (And then the same for fictional ones too.)

Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. 

That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.

It would also help if you knew what the word "autistic" means.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. 

That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.

you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "autistic" either . . .

Motherfucker beat me to it.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't find it too odd to say she's a bit of Anne Boleyn-ish. Yeah the Boleyns were new money but they married into the Howards who were always pushing her marriage.

The comp just doesn't work.  Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly.  Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever.  Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon.  In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.

[Neil]

Joffrey isn't fond of restrictions on his power, so he does have one point of similarity with Henry.

[Razgovory]

Joffrey isn't fond of restrictions on his power, so he does have one point of similarity with Henry.

And most medieval kings.

[Martinus]

I don't find it too odd to say she's a bit of Anne Boleyn-ish. Yeah the Boleyns were new money but they married into the Howards who were always pushing her marriage.

The comp just doesn't work.  Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly.  Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever.  Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon.  In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.

Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.

[Valmy]

Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.

They are not seeking recognition from the other great families.  They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition.  And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.

[Razgovory]

Marty, just admit it, you made the mistake of taking a television program at face value on the issue of history and you got spanked for it.  You've made several attempts to justify your poor decision, but nobody is buying it.

[Martinus]

Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.

They are not seeking recognition from the other great families.  They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition.  And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.

I think you are wrong. I remember quite clearly Tyrells trying to pawn of Margaery first to Renly and the to Lannisters being explained exactly by them seeking a recognition.

[Neil]

Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.

They are not seeking recognition from the other great families.  They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition.  And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.

I think you are wrong. I remember quite clearly Tyrells trying to pawn of Margaery first to Renly and the to Lannisters being explained exactly by them seeking a recognition.

They're not seeking recognition.  They're seeking dominance.  They knew that Renly was a weak man and that by supporting him they could rule Westeros the way the Lannisters had been doing.  And then they realized that there was a better deal to be had by selling themselves to the Lannisters than there would be trying to deal with Stannis, especially because the Lannisters have been gravely weakened.

[Neil]

That said, Martinus is right *shudder* about how the Tyrells are relatively new amongst the Great Houses.  They were jumped up by Aegon when he conquered Westeros.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.

That makes the Tudor comparison more difficult because almost all the major Tudor nobility was relatively speaking jumped up.  Including the ruling dynasty.

[Sheilbh]

The comp just doesn't work.  Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly.  Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever.  Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon.  In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.

Her father was a new man, but her mother was a Howard. Her uncle was the Duke of Norfolk and he made very good use of her to increase his influence (as he later did Catherine Howard. I don't think it's fair to say she behaved foolishly. She was engaged to an important nobleman (the Percys) and then she caught the King's eye. I can think of lots of royal mistresses. She's the first (and off the top of my head, only) woman I can think of who got a King to divorce his wife and remarry. She did all that despite, apparently, only being moderately good looking. If nothing else she was sharp.

She also had an outsized impact on history not just because of Henry's divorce but because of the impetus she gave to the reformers in England - she helped protect and promote the Protestant reformers. On a more personal level her 'court' included at least two of the greatest Tudor Anglican thinkers (Latimer and Parker), so she had some eye for talent at least.

I don't really know what she did that was foolish apart from marry Henry and fail to have a son, but given the circumstances I don't know that that's really blameworthy. She also had an unfortunate afterlife.

I've not read all the books so I'm not entirely up to date, but based on the series I think there's enough of a resemblance to provoke the thought. As I say I think it's the same with Littlefinger and Cromwell.

[Sheilbh]

That makes the Tudor comparison more difficult because almost all the major Tudor nobility was relatively speaking jumped up.  Including the ruling dynasty.

First of all this is in the eye of the reader. Someone who's read about Anney Boleyn may see a resemblance. Someone who's read about Medieval England may see a bit of Isabella in Cersei - as Tom Holland pointed out.

Secondly I don't think Marty or I are saying that these are direct diagrammatic inspirations - like the War of the Roses is. Rather that there's a resemblance. There's something of this or that historical figure, city, event that comes across in this bit of the series or the books. But that recognition or the flash of an idea is part of the fun and an indication of how good a fantasy series it is.

As Holland put it:

Different events – and different periods – elide to consistently potent and surprising effect. In Game of Thrones, episodes from the history of our own world lie in wait for the characters like booby traps.
...
Just as the characters and plot twists of his novels derive from a whole range of different periods, so too do their settings. The default mode is high medieval, but alongside all the tournaments and castles there are echoes as well of earlier periods. Offshore, a recognisably Viking kingdom boasts a fleet of longships; Westeros itself, like dark ages England, was once a heptarchy, a realm of seven kingdoms; the massive rampart of ice which guards its northernmost frontier is recognisably inspired by Hadrian's wall. Beyond Westeros, in a continent traversed by a Targaryen would-be queen, the echoes of our own world's history are just as clear – if more exotic. An army of horsemen sweeps across endless grasslands, much as Genghis Khan's Mongols did; memories of a vanished empire conflate Rome with the legend of Atlantis.

The result might easily have been a hideous mess. Instead, Game of Thrones is fantasy's equivalent of a perfect cocktail. Elements drawn from the hundred years war and the Italian Renaissance, from Chrétien de Troyes and Icelandic epic, fuse to seamless effect. The measure of how credible – on its own terms – people find Martin's alternative history is precisely the phenomenal scale of its popularity.

[garbon]

First of all this is in the eye of the reader. Someone who's read about Anney Boleyn may see a resemblance. Someone who's read about Medieval England may see a bit of Isabella in Cersei - as Tom Holland pointed out.

Secondly I don't think Marty or I are saying that these are direct diagrammatic inspirations - like the War of the Roses is. Rather that there's a resemblance. There's something of this or that historical figure, city, event that comes across in this bit of the series or the books. But that recognition or the flash of an idea is part of the fun and an indication of how good a fantasy series it is.

Well yes if you are willing to retreat to the bit of argument where it's just "oh as a reader I can find a few random elements" then sure.

Also, on that Holland bit - I'm not sure I agree with:

The measure of how credible – on its own terms – people find Martin's alternative history is precisely the phenomenal scale of its popularity.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that its mainstream reader is that savvy on history. More likely just picked up a Phillipa Gregory novel or two.

So I'd really say it is more down to the fun of the story telling and not really a measure of how credible people find it as alternative history.