Introduction and Dispute Over Inheritance

Do you think Vaemond Velaryon deserved his death? The answer is unequivocally no. Anyone who argues otherwise is engaging in the kind of harmful and transparently biased discourse that misinterprets the narrative of George R.R. Martin's Fire and Blood. The show skillfully portrays Vaemond as a character who spoke truth to power, challenging the archetypal white nobility's unjust claim to Rhaenyra Targaryen's inheritance. This defiance should not be regarded as an 'outrageous offense,' but rather as a daring stand against corruption and injustice. Yet, many The Ice Dragon (HOTD) supporters hailed this portrayal as a sign of their biases, cheering for the character's death as if it was deserved.

Daemon and the Women He Called Whores

One should also contemplate why Daemon Velaryon, who called several women 'whores,' maintains his head intact. The contrast is unmistakable, underscoring the complex and often unfair judgements made within the narrative. Why is it that the queen's husband, who makes derogatory remarks about women, is not punished, while characters like Vaemond, who simply disagreed on the matter of inheritance, face severe consequences?

The Greed and Selfishness of Vaemond

Let us delve into the situation from a different perspective. Vaemond Velaryon indeed faced charges of treason, and his decision to confront the Targaryen claimants was audacious. George R.R. Martin’s books and the TV series have included a clause that anyone questioning the parentage of Rhaenyra’s children would be guilty of treason. Vaemond knew the stakes and the consequences of his actions, daring to challenge the authority with which Rhaenyra and her supporters now have. His defiance was not just a matter of conscience but an act of disobedience against the established order.

There were two main reasons why Vaemond’s head fell. Firstly, the king, who had a direct interest in the question of succession, clearly stated that such actions would be considered treasonous. Suggesting that anyone who questioned the legitimacy of Rhaenyra’s claim would face severe repercussions. Secondly, Laenor and Corlys Velaryon, in accepting the bastards as their true-born children, had already agreed to carry on the family’s name. The Velaryons had an agreement that worked for everyone, including the Targaryens, ensuring the smooth transition of power and property.

Legal and Family Considerations

The laws for inheriting property and lordships are not the same as those for the Iron Throne. Vaemond’s actions were dangerously close to usurping the rights of his house and the Velaryon claim to Driftmark. The fact that Luke was part of the succession of the Velaryon claim to Driftmark made Vaemond’s attempts at asserting his position even more inappropriate. The books further emphasize Vaemond’s position, clearly stating that he was Corlys’ nephew, not his brother, standing even further from the claim to Driftmark than Baela and Rhaena.

Conclusion

The narrative in Fire and Blood presents a multifaceted moral and legal dilemma. Vaemond’s death is a product of the complex interplay of honor, inheritance, and loyalty. While his actions were a breach of loyalty to the Velaryon family and the court, the show and the narrative complicate the issue of what is ‘deserved.’ Vaemond’s story serves as a critical examination of feudal power structures and the often manipulative nature of royal succession. It is important to read these texts with an open mind and a critical eye, rather than applying modern biases onto medieval values and moral codes.