The Targaryen Madness Factor/Targaryen Double Standard

[Bronn Urgandy]

These nasty bastards were riding about on Dragons burning all they could, thats not the Hightowers doing.

No one ever made them do this, or Blood and Cheese or any of that, they did it because they are unthinking, horrible Human beings. Targaryens have been great people and monsters, and often both.

[jon rhaegar stark]

Why would I do that? There have been hundreds of Targaryens, most of which neither you or I know about, but by all accounts Aeron Brightflame isn't an unusual occurence and in 300 years, they have got some real atrocities under their belts. Targaryen madness is delivered and explained to us from many sources in these novels, usually intelligent ones, why deny it? No one denys it when somebody says "the Boltons have always been as cruel as they are cunning." It just looks like hopeless fanboying to me, usually from Danearys fans, which is baffling, because a character should not be defined by their family. I am a Stannis fan, but that doesn't mean I have to like Baratheons any more than anyone else. Same goes with the Starks, who outside of Eddard and Sansa bring little emotion out of me. They're just poncy noble families with huge, gaping flaws.

the bolded part is what the main reason for this topic if you prefer a character should not be defined by their family then why should Danny be defined by her family

mad targaryens :

• Prince Aemond Targaryen

• King Maegor I Targaryen

King Baelor I Targaryen

Prince Rhaegel Targaryen

Prince Aerion Targaryen

King Aerys II

Viserys Targaryen - driven mad according to his sister. Sounding half-mad according to Tyrion Lannister.

[Ser Eric]

Nice one on naming mad Targs. The second ever Targ King was also a roaring lunatic as well, I reckon, this isn't me trying to drag them down to promote others, Stark, Baratheon, Tully, whatever, they're all flawed. But Targaryen madness is presented to us from characters well versed in Westeros history, much better than us.

Who, Aenys? How was he mad?

the bolded part is what the main reason for this topic if you prefer a character should not be defined by their family then why should Danny be defined by her family

mad targaryens :

• Prince Aemond Targaryen

• King Maegor I Targaryen

King Baelor I Targaryen

Prince Rhaegel Targaryen

Prince Aerion Targaryen

King Aerys II

Viserys Targaryen - driven mad according to his sister. Sounding half-mad according to Tyrion Lannister.

Aemond and Maegor are both very debatable. Cruel, yes but mad? Not for me.

Baelor is more of a religious fanatic but I can see the reasoning for calling him mad. Aerys was driven mad as well by paranoia.

[yomi]

Well, she walked into a fire (Drogo's funeral pyre) after having weird dreams. Apparently, other Targaryens have tried similar things before and died, which is then seen as typical Targaryen madness. In this case the outcome was different, but that's not really her conscious doing. She seems to have got it right by accident. (Or maybe it was "fate.")

Well, she walks into the fire, she doesn't lit the pyre around her. So failure would have likely not caused her death but just some minor burns, when while walking closer to / into the fire it would have started to hurt her. And some minor burn in case of failure versus some dragons in case of success seems a quiet acceptable risk to me.

I wouldn't say Dany is mad though, self entitled, needlessly cruel, a causer of insane and avoidable shitstorms, but then the same accusations can be levelled at Stannis (not a cruel man, but the burnings) with only one key difference, we know Stannis is pursuing whats right at this point in the story, the Iron Throne is his by rights and has been ever since the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms bent their knee's to Robert and he died without any true born children, we know this, and he's got his head focused on the Others, the White Walkers, which is where it should be, he's fighting the battle that really matters, even if he isn't the true AA (the fact that he gets hate for this is fucking funny). Jury is out on Daenerys right now, so she will understandably get hate for the negatives of her actions. And yes, her reasoning is the reasoning of the lunatic, "I am right and righteous!" Jack the Ripper probably felt the same, but again, this is an accusation that can be levelled at many characters, such as Stannis, difference is we know they're on the right side, whereas again, jury is out on Danearys.

I agree Stannis and Dany have some similarities. They both feel entitled to rule (and both have reasonable arguments based on the laws and philosophy of their time. But if I look on it from my perspective, neither has the right to rule, and the people should be the souvereign and they should elect the goverment.), both order some horrible acts because they consider them necessary or just, and both are fighting for a quiet worthy cause.

I don't see why I should be fine with Stannis because he is someone's brother and at the same time blame Dany even though she's someone's sister, daughter, granddaughter and so on.

And I cannot blame Dany for not fighting against the Others. Stannis only sailed north after he received the letter from the NW; nobody informed Dany of the situation at the Wall yet.

If I have to make a difference at all, I can just see that Stannis is about twice her age and thus should have more experience and make less mistakes but he still seems quiet often to behave like defiant child.

[jon rhaegar stark]

Who, Aenys? How was he mad?

Aemond and Maegor are both very debatable. Cruel, yes but mad? Not for me.

Baelor is more of a religious fanatic but I can see the reasoning for calling him mad. Aerys was driven mad as well by paranoia.

yes those are the one who wiki shows as Mad targaryens ...and it should be noted that only Aerys was called mad and others have done actions due to desperation or arrogance ...

[Nictarion]

Nice one on naming mad Targs. The second ever Targ King was also a roaring lunatic as well, I reckon, this isn't me trying to drag them down to promote others, Stark, Baratheon, Tully, whatever, they're all flawed. But Targaryen madness is presented to us from characters well versed in Westeros history, much better than us.

The second Targaryen king was Aenys. He wasn't mad. I assume you meant Maegor? Many Targs have been cruel, brutal, incompetent, religious zealots, etc, but I don't think many were truly mad. You could probably count them on one hand.

The Targs I'd consider mad are one's that did things like thinking they'd be transformed into dragons (Aerion, Aerys ll) or running around the Red Keep naked and dressing monkeys up like people (Rhaegel).

[Bronn Urgandy]

the bolded part is what the main reason for this topic if you prefer a character should not be defined by their family then why should Danny be defined by her family

mad targaryens :

• Prince Aemond Targaryen
• King Maegor I Targaryen
• King Baelor I Targaryen
• Prince Rhaegel Targaryen
• Prince Aerion Targaryen
• King Aerys II
• Viserys Targaryen - driven mad according to his sister. Sounding half-mad according to Tyrion Lannister.

Baratheons are traditionally big, dark haired, brutal and love a fight. Stannis is all of those things, but he's not defined by those characteristics. Targaryens lean toward madness, are silver haired etc, Dany has many traditional Targ characteristics, but they don't define her. Its what I am trying to say. Madness is in her family, doesn't have to be a negative for her though.

Who, Aenys? How was he mad?

Aemond and Maegor are both very debatable. Cruel, yes but mad? Not for me.

Baelor is more of a religious fanatic but I can see the reasoning for calling him mad. Aerys was driven mad as well by paranoia.

I meant Maegoer, my timeline isn't fantastic. Still, the evidence is there, even in the few we know about.

Well, she walks into the fire, she doesn't lit the pyre around her. So failure would have likely not caused her death but just some minor burns, when while walking closer to / into the fire it would have started to hurt her. And some minor burn in case of failure versus some dragons in case of success seems a quiet acceptable risk to me.

I agree Stannis and Dany have some similarities. They both feel entitled to rule (and both have reasonable arguments based on the laws and philosophy of their time. But if I look on it from my perspective, neither has the right to rule, and the people should be the souvereign and they should elect the goverment.), both order some horrible acts because they consider them necessary or just, and both are fighting for a quiet worthy cause.

I don't see why I should be fine with Stannis because he is someone's brother and at the same time blame Dany even though she's someone's sister, daughter, granddaughter and so on.

And I cannot blame Dany for not fighting against the Others. Stannis only sailed north after he received the letter from the NW; nobody informed Dany of the situation at the Wall yet.

If I have to make a difference at all, I can just see that Stannis is about twice her age and thus should have more experience and make less mistakes but he still seems quiet often to behave like defiant child.

I am as about as anti-monarchy as you can possibly get, I hate the idea of "right to rule" just because of how you were born, but I do sympathise with Stannis because as the law states, he is the King. Its not a viewpoint that I share, I just see it from his perspetive and find his actions understandable, I root for him because he is a great man, brave, tenacious and underneath that hard exterior he is a man that is fighting for the rabble, the kind of person I would be if I was stuck in Westeros (rabble, I mean). Dany is very similar, but because she's jumped in and rocked a continent she has no business interfering in, she makes it harder for me to root for her. Slavery should be annihilated, and her enemies are so cartoonishly evil, but the show in later S4 does it better than the books imo, it shows that not everything she does is for the good. Those Great Masters could not have been all bad people, and her method of "justice" was appalling. Root for a character, by all means, but call them out on their shit. Even I accept that Stannis should've told Robert, though I do buy his reasons for silence.

The second Targaryen king was Aenys. He wasn't mad. I assume you meant Maegor? Many Targs have been cruel, brutal, incompetent, religious zealots, etc, but I don't think many were truly mad. You could probably count them on one hand.

The Targs I'd consider mad are one's that did things like thinking they'd be transformed into dragons (Aerion, Aerys ll) or running around the Red Keep naked and dressing monkeys up like people (Rhaegal).

The ones we know of, for sure. I am not saying its a 50/50 thing, but historically its all but confirmed by knowledgeable historians, and a royal family has many members, most of which you'll never know they existed.

[jon rhaegar stark]

Baratheons are traditionally big, dark haired, brutal and love a fight. Stannis is all of those things, but he's not defined by those characteristics. Targaryens lean toward madness, are silver haired etc, Dany has many traditional Targ characteristics, but they don't define her. Its what I am trying to say. Madness is in her family, doesn't have to be a negative for her though.

I meant Maegoer, my timeline isn't fantastic. Still, the evidence is there, even in the few we know about.

I am as about as anti-monarchy as you can possibly get, I hate the idea of "right to rule" just because of how you were born, but I do sympathise with Stannis because as the law states, he is the King. Its not a viewpoint that I share, I just see it from his perspetive and find his actions understandable, I root for him because he is a great man, brave, tenacious and underneath that hard exterior he is a man that is fighting for the rabble, the kind of person I would be if I was stuck in Westeros (rabble, I mean). Dany is very similar, but because she's jumped in and rocked a continent she has no business interfering in, she makes it harder for me to root for her. Slavery should be annihilated, and her enemies are so cartoonishly evil, but the show in later S4 does it better than the books imo, it shows that not everything she does is for the good. Those Great Masters could not have been all bad people, and her method of "justice" was appalling. Root for a character, by all means, but call them out on their shit. Even I accept that Stannis should've told Robert, though I do buy his reasons for silence.

The ones we know of, for sure. I am not saying its a 50/50 thing, but historically its all but confirmed by knowledgeable historians, and a royal family has many members, most of which you'll never know they existed.

atleast you mention about Show ...if you look at my first post and other posters never says what she had done is right

and Danny herself questions about what she had done ...

about the show lets be honest here it was Hizdar and we know how his story will be in next season ....if there was a innocent slaver that was crucified why shouldnt something about that mentioned in the book....again myself and Danny herself not defending her actions..if Grrm wanted that way wouldnt he added that in the books

i agree Stannis is the rightful heir to the throne and trying to take it and i dont see any wrong in Danny as a trying to claim the throne which had been with her family for 300 years ..

[Kyoshi]

Perhaps I should ask again: why is Targaryen blood a super power tool when considering our favourite characters yet a shortcoming when considering those we don't like? Take Tyrion for instance, people so desperately want him to be a Targaryen just so he can ride a dragon and one day rule the seven kingdoms. Then there's Cersei, people have concluded that her stupidity and cruelty can only be described as madness and that same madness can only be credited to Targaryen blood. This is what I don't understand. There is no consistency in this reasoning.

I'll concede that there's a fine line between madness and greatness. However, this madness is constantly brought up with certain characters just so we can condemn Targaryen blood. Then it's bought up with other characters just so we can praise Targaryen blood...Jon and Tyrion anyone..?

I can argue, since I love Dany and dislike Tyrion, that Tyrion must also be a Targaryen since he:killed his father, showed no remorse, went on to rape a prostitute, showed unkindness to Penny, at times seemed to have given up on living, used wildfire at Blackwater, supposedly killed Nurse, has had dragon dreams since childhood, etc. I can make a similar case for Stannis.

Entitlement and fighting slavery do not make a person mad. Everyone in this whole thing is entitled. They all have a business fighting the other person else this whole thing would be pointless. By that reasoning, the only sane people in this series would be the small folk and slaves since they're not actively starting wars.

[Kyoshi]

I also don't think cruelty is the same as madness, Maegor should not be on the list. Piety is also not madness so I wouldn't call Baelor mad. Else Mel and by extension Stannis, are also mad. Gregor, Ramsay, Tywin, etc. would also be mad if cruelty were the criteria.

Someone who drinks wildfire with the belief he'll transform into a dragon...now THAT'S mad.

[jon rhaegar stark]

People like to leave that half of the quote out.

funny its not only about Targ madness but also on various mentioning about Danny and also for some of the characters when people want to hate them they tend to leave the part of it

in the case of Danny,people mainly complain about the Blood of the Dragon thing and how she does not want to hear about her madness... if u read the books she spends the whole book worrying about becoming mad and a monster like her family and she was the one who asked the question about her father becoming mad if she was so much never want to hear about her father's madness why would she even ask that question...

and like i said in my first post only time she says BLood of Dragon and Do not presume to teach me lessons is the time when Daario proposes Red Wedding 2 and she doesnt want to do it and consider him as a monster for suggesting it ...but you will see posters whining about this only taking half into account and leave the other part out

people see what they want to see

[shockwave]

The second Targaryen king was Aenys. He wasn't mad. I assume you meant Maegor? Many Targs have been cruel, brutal, incompetent, religious zealots, etc, but I don't think many were truly mad. You could probably count them on one hand.

The Targs I'd consider mad are one's that did things like thinking they'd be transformed into dragons (Aerion, Aerys ll) or running around the Red Keep naked and dressing monkeys up like people (Rhaegel).

or the ones that lock up their sisters so they wouldn't be able to seduce him.

[Kyoshi]

The second Targaryen king was Aenys. He wasn't mad. I assume you meant Maegor? Many Targs have been cruel, brutal, incompetent, religious zealots, etc, but I don't think many were truly mad. You could probably count them on one hand.

The Targs I'd consider mad are one's that did things like thinking they'd be transformed into dragons (Aerion, Aerys ll) or running around the Red Keep naked and dressing monkeys up like people (Rhaegel).

I completely agree with the bolded part.

Locking up his sisters was stupid and practical (weird as the combination may be). However, I wouldn't call Baelor mad.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Entitlement and fighting slavery do not make a person mad. Everyone in this whole thing is entitled. They all have a business fighting the other person else this whole thing would be pointless. By that reasoning, the only sane people in this series would be the small folk and slaves since they're not actively starting wars.

Yes, yes, YES!

Robb Stark had a legit gripe, true, but if I were a Westerlands peasant (likely) I'd have no cause to love him. On the other hand, if I were a Claw Isle peasant I'd have plenty of reason to love Stannis, but his waging a borderline religious war for a debatable claim to an ugly Iron Chair and he just will not stop, without the threat of the Others I would also consider him barking mad.

[Bronn Urgandy]

atleast you mention about Show ...if you look at my first post and other posters never says what she had done is right

and Danny herself questions about what she had done ...

about the show lets be honest here it was Hizdar and we know how his story will be in next season ....if there was a innocent slaver that was crucified why shouldnt something about that mentioned in the book....again myself and Danny herself not defending her actions..if Grrm wanted that way wouldnt he added that in the books

i agree Stannis is the rightful heir to the throne and trying to take it and i dont see any wrong in Danny as a trying to claim the throne which had been with her family for 300 years ..

I always took it because of the POV perspective, Dany just didn't and doesn't care about rooting out absurdly guilty from mildly guilty, they all have a level of guilt, even if they objected they still allowed it to happen, but Dany was just "eye for an eye, bitchez!!" and went ahead with her own ridiculousness. I tend to think that anybody who thinks "eye for an eye" is in any way just is not only barking mad, but completely missing the point.

[Fylimar]

I also don't think cruelty is the same as madness, Maegor should not be on the list. Piety is also not madness so I wouldn't call Baelor mad. Else Mel and by extension Stannis, are also mad. Gregor, Ramsay, Tywin, etc. would also be mad if cruelty were the criteria.

Someone who drinks wildfire with the belief he'll transform into a dragon...now THAT'S mad.

Just a little OT: It's a difference between Tywins methodical cruelty (if it serves his House and family legacy, he does whatever it takes - he does not find pleasure in those things, it's just in his eyes necessary and has to be done. It's lack of empathy and a lot of ruthlessness, but not madness ) and Ramsays and Gregors lust for hurting others. They don't gain anything by it, it serves only their 'personal needs'. Therefore I do belief Ramsay and Gregor to be mad (sociopaths would be my guess, but I'm no expert) and I would even throw Quyburn in the madness pool :cool4:

But to try and answer some of your questions (and they are really good ones - very interesting topic):

None of the mentioned people (Jon, Cersei, Tyrion) are confirmed Targs. And imo none of the Lannister children will be found out to be Targaryens.

And Jon: he might have a Targ father (Rhaegar), if R&L=J is true, but he has a mother from a family, where people don't marry their siblings - so he might be lucky.

Stannis: If I remember correctly, the Baratheons descend from a sideline of the Targs and that was a long time ago. Therefore I don't think, he would have inherited many genetic diseases from the main family.

As for Cerseis madness (and I guess it's safe to say, that most here will agree, that she is mad): Madness is not reserved to the Targs as . They have a weakness for it because of their incest - or, to quote my favorite TV Show Babylon 5 concerning another mad emperor: "...when you reduce a family tree to a family bush, you can't hide as much underneath" (Minister Virini to Londo Mollari), but that doesn't mean, that other people in Westeros are not able to get mad without being secret Targaryens

And although I'm not a huge Daenerys fan, I don't think, that she will be mad at some time. She is young and inexperienced, which explains a lot of her bad decisions, and I don't think, that she would have had a formal education, being on the run her whole life, so she might have suffer a lack of knowledge in some areas, that are important for her situation - now and later on -, but if she manages to trust the right people (like Barristan for example), she will be fine, wether she goes to Westeros or not.

And although I do belief that some mental and other diseases in the Targaryen bloodline descend from the century long incest, that doesn't mean, that every Targ has to be mad. Rhaegar might have been a little too obsessed with a prophecy, but other than that, he seemed to be fine, as far as I remember. Viserys could have been mad, but maybe he was just an a**hole and egoist, who knows?

And Aegon seems pretty normal to me - just because he throws away a set of cyvasse figures after loosing, doesn't mean, he is mad. He is a child - I don't think, that we acted all rational here in childhood. He seems to be a very nice and normal boy otherwise.

Well, sorry for the long post :dunno:

[Hrafntýr]

I think one of the reasons that there is this disparity between readers' evaluations of Dany's actions vs. Jon's or Tyrion's has to do with the fact that the writing of Jon and Tyrion dwells quite a lot upon their internal thinking through of their course of action, weighing pros and cons and different considerations, while on several notable occasions Dany's pov doesn't give us any warning about the drastic action she's about to take, i.e. she has decided to do something seemingly intuitively without there being some sort of internal blow-by-blow of her options (I'm thinking here, e.g., about her decision regarding the funeral pyre and "dracarys"). This might give the impression that she is less "rational," despite the fact that her decisions were effective.

What I find interesting is that we get a lot more, that is a fuller account, of this kind of "rational" thinking, weighing of pros and cons, during ADwD when Dany is attempting to rule Mereen, and that seems to be precisely what many readers don't like!

That's just my impression, though, I mean I realize that we do get plenty of examples of Dany thinking things through all through the books, but in Mereen we get few examples of her "surprise" intuitive decision making up until the moment when she steps into the arena with Drogon. And our last moment with her seems to be another one of those moments when Dany has "decided" on a course of action without our being privy to it despite being inside her head (which again, suggests that it's an intuitive/feeling mode of decision making, that she just already knows the right course of action without having to think about it, which could to some people seem irrational).

[Mithras]

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Such an uneducated person with such a great power. How is this supposed to end? And remember, the lapses of Aerys were not frequent at the same age with Dany. He was neither a conqueror nor the hatcher/owner of dragons.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Stannis: If I remember correctly, the Baratheons descend from a sideline of the Targs and that was a long time ago.

Lord Steffon Baratheon's mother was Rhaelle Targaryen. In other words, the distance on the family tree between Bob, Stannis and Renly and the Targs is precisely as long as the distance between Joffrey and Tywin.

[Nictarion]

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Such an uneducated person with such a great power. How is this supposed to end? And remember, the lapses of Aerys were not frequent at the same age with Dany. He was neither a conqueror nor the hatcher/owner of dragons.

Aerys would have totally cracked if he would have had to go through what Dany did at 13. Duskendale was the catalyst for Aerys going off the deep end (which happened to him as a grown man), Dany suffered her traumas as a 13 year old. Yet she didn't crack.