![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Merlin muse came back and at last I could write the story about Arthur and Morgana I've been wanting to write throughout season 4. It's off to be beta'd now. Arthurian family dynamics are screwed up in any incarnation of the myth, but, to misquote Tolstoy about unhappy families, they're differently screwed up in every single one. Oh, messed up family dynamics, how I love you.
Speaking of messed up families: Game of Thrones has started and continues to be this weird thing which I can enjoy precisely because I'm not emotionally invested and thus do not fret for any of these people. I'll say ( nothing very spoilery, but I'm playing it safe just in case )
Historical aside: fannish osmosis tells me that Martin was vaguely inspired by the War of the Roses. It occurs to me that the most likely match for the Lannisters then might not be the Lancasters but the Woodvilles (though Edward IV. was a far smarter man and more competent king than Robert Baratheon; but he did overindulge himself to his death), except for the part where Tyrion is a transplanted very vague Richard III analogue, i.e. a York. Now A Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire prides itself on bringing gritty medieval realism to the fantasy genre, but personally, I find it rather telling that the later War of the Roses is actually chock full of matriarchs and female power players, Edward IV.'s queen Elizabeth Woodville and her mother Jacquetta being two of them, and singularly lacking in patriarchs (no Tywin Lannister equivalent around in any family, or any other influential patriarch, unless you count Warwick the Kingmaker who instead of being an icy cunning supermachiavellian was a egotastic, incredibly touchy diva dying due to believing in his own hype ). On the Lancaster side, we have Marguerite d'Anjou as the primary mover and shaker, saddled with an insane king at her side, and Margaret Beaufort whose son Henry Tudor is the endgame survivor of the lot in great parts due to her. On the York side, Cecilly Neville, the House of York matriarch, kept things going after the early death of her husband and one of her sons in battle, in the end outlived all her children except for two of her daughters, and her daughter Margaret of York as duchess of Burgundy didn't just provide backup and asylum for her brothers Edward and Richard during those times when York was losing but after the early death of her husband Charles the Bold ruled and saved the duchy. (You can easily make a case for Margaret being the most successful member of the House of York as a ruler, full stop.) All the Margarets in the War of the Roses were tough as nails. So were the Elizabeths, Elizabeth Woodville being one of the all time great pragmatists and survivors as she went from widow of a Lancastrian knight to Edward IV's's queen to coming to terms with Richard III. (whatever you think happened to the princes of the Tower) to seeing her daughter and namesake marry the last king standing, Henry Tudor. And you know what didn't happen to a single one of these women (as far as we know)? Rape. Insanity. Or an early death.
Speaking of messed up families: Game of Thrones has started and continues to be this weird thing which I can enjoy precisely because I'm not emotionally invested and thus do not fret for any of these people. I'll say ( nothing very spoilery, but I'm playing it safe just in case )
Historical aside: fannish osmosis tells me that Martin was vaguely inspired by the War of the Roses. It occurs to me that the most likely match for the Lannisters then might not be the Lancasters but the Woodvilles (though Edward IV. was a far smarter man and more competent king than Robert Baratheon; but he did overindulge himself to his death), except for the part where Tyrion is a transplanted very vague Richard III analogue, i.e. a York. Now A Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire prides itself on bringing gritty medieval realism to the fantasy genre, but personally, I find it rather telling that the later War of the Roses is actually chock full of matriarchs and female power players, Edward IV.'s queen Elizabeth Woodville and her mother Jacquetta being two of them, and singularly lacking in patriarchs (no Tywin Lannister equivalent around in any family, or any other influential patriarch, unless you count Warwick the Kingmaker who instead of being an icy cunning supermachiavellian was a egotastic, incredibly touchy diva dying due to believing in his own hype ). On the Lancaster side, we have Marguerite d'Anjou as the primary mover and shaker, saddled with an insane king at her side, and Margaret Beaufort whose son Henry Tudor is the endgame survivor of the lot in great parts due to her. On the York side, Cecilly Neville, the House of York matriarch, kept things going after the early death of her husband and one of her sons in battle, in the end outlived all her children except for two of her daughters, and her daughter Margaret of York as duchess of Burgundy didn't just provide backup and asylum for her brothers Edward and Richard during those times when York was losing but after the early death of her husband Charles the Bold ruled and saved the duchy. (You can easily make a case for Margaret being the most successful member of the House of York as a ruler, full stop.) All the Margarets in the War of the Roses were tough as nails. So were the Elizabeths, Elizabeth Woodville being one of the all time great pragmatists and survivors as she went from widow of a Lancastrian knight to Edward IV's's queen to coming to terms with Richard III. (whatever you think happened to the princes of the Tower) to seeing her daughter and namesake marry the last king standing, Henry Tudor. And you know what didn't happen to a single one of these women (as far as we know)? Rape. Insanity. Or an early death.
