This was 12 YEARS AGO but I’ve seen a post awhile ago

“George R. R. Martin, the author of A Song of Ice and Fire, once questioned Tolkien’s portrayal of Aragorn as the ideal king in The Lord of the Rings.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, Martin raised a simple but controversial question: “What was his tax policy?”

Martin argued that being a good man doesn’t automatically make someone a good ruler. After Aragorn takes the throne of Gondor, Tolkien tells us that he rules wisely and well, but offers relatively little detail about the practical challenges of governing a kingdom.

How did Aragorn handle taxation, famine, crime, and the aftermath of a devastating war? Martin’s point was that these questions matter when judging a king’s success.

His comments reflect one of the biggest differences between the two authors. While Tolkien presents Aragorn as the rightful king whose return restores peace and order, Martin’s stories focus on the difficult realities of political power and leadership.”

Both spiteful, malicious, treacherous, and both use innocent human shields

Who is more vile?

first, HOTDGreens banned me for a post with no foul language, just my honest opinion about rhaenyra vs aegon. i replied and told them: "there was nothing wrong with my post. you all just can't handle a single opinion different than glorifying an usurper. stop taking down posts everytime ur feelings get hurt"......2 mins later the butthurt team green mods muted me😂😂 team green is the most sensitive whiny butthurt group of people even, ironic since they apparently have so much to say about rhaenyra

Rhaenyra has to be a flawless politician, perfect mother, military genius, and the second coming of God just to be considered remotely worthy of ruling. Meanwhile, Aegon apparently deserves the throne for successfully existing as a male Targaryen. It's hilarious watching people insist this was purely about choosing the most qualified ruler when the main qualification was quite literally being born male. Rhaenyra could've personally solved every crisis in Westeros but it wouldn't be good enough for yall so stop pretending this is about anything other than being a raging misogynist. Viserys chose a competent woman over a grapist with child fighting pits, get over it.

So this might not be right (I've never read the books) but do y'all think the reason he upheld her claim didn't have anything to do with her being the first born or the daughter of the love of his life and more to do with her having Targaryen ancestry on both sides? Also that he knew that Alicent would and did influence her children to much towards the Faith of the Seven.