How to understand Aegon IV the unworthy

[purple-eyes]

Recently I heard that GRRM planned to write some POV-style novels about Aegon IV and his life to show us "he is understandable". (after he finish the main series)

So this will surely take a long time, but we can guess.

 

Based on the current story, he is pretty much a horrible ruler.

Had numerous women and mistresses (suspicous situation about Lady Lothtan), humilaited and mistreated his wife and brother consistently and publicly, had infamous relationships with his cousins, made rumors over his own son, legitimitzed all his bastards at death bed, started wars over Dorne and ruined the peace and ended very bad, killed his mistress and her lover brutally, etc.

How do you think Aegon IV can be understood or whitewashed?

1. He got some bad influence in the youth becuase his mother left very early?

2. His wife indeed had affair with Aemon and they made Daeron so he was wronged?

3. He genuinely loved his mistresses (only had one at one time, not much overlapping between them, can we call this as "faith"?)

4. Daeron was secretly deposing him so he had good reason to try to disinherit him?

5. He indeed loved all his bastards so he wanted to give them a better life before he died?

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

[Aemond's Eye]

9 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Recently I heard that GRRM planned to write some POV-style novels about Aegon IV and his life to show us "he is understandable". (after he finish the main series)

So this will surely take a long time, but we can guess.

 

Based on the current story, he is pretty much a horrible ruler.

Had numerous women and mistresses (suspicous situation about Lady Lothtan), humilaited and mistreated his wife and brother consistently and publicly, had infamous relationships with his cousins, made rumors over his own son, legitimitzed all his bastards at death bed, started wars over Dorne and ruined the peace and ended very bad, killed his mistress and her lover brutally, etc.

How do you think Aegon IV can be understood or whitewashed?

1. He got some bad influence in the youth becuase his mother left very early?

2. His wife indeed had affair with Aemon and they made Daeron so he was wronged?

3. He genuinely loved his mistresses (only had one at one time, not much overlapping between them, can we call this as "faith"?)

4. Daeron was secretly deposing him so he had good reason to try to disinherit him?

5. He indeed loved all his bastards so he wanted to give them a better life before he died?

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

I think you've misunderstood what GRRM meant. He's never said he intends to whitewash the character - he means he wants folk to empathise with Aegon and understand why he turned out the way he did. Not necessarily sympathise with him.

Take The Lion King. Scar's motives are understandable and relateable. It doesn't mean he's a wronged character or sympathetic.

[purple-eyes]

3 minutes ago, It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland said:

I think you've misunderstood what GRRM meant. He's never said he intends to whitewash the character - he means he wants folk to empathise with Aegon and understand why he turned out the way he did. Not necessarily sympathise with him.

Take The Lion King. Scar's motives are understandable and relateable. It doesn't mean he's a wronged character or sympathetic.

Yeah, that is why I said "understand or whitewash".

He is already pretty bad by his deeds. 

We just need to hear some reasons and explainations.

But for example, if it is confrimed that Naerys had Daeron with Aemon, then Aegon would get some credit and be partially whitewashed on his actions towards them.

 

 

 

[Lord Ravenstark]

You can understand someone and still think they are bad. Just because I can get your point doesn't mean I will agree with it.

[Aemond's Eye]

Viserys II's wife, Larra Rogare, abandoned her husband & children as she could not adjust to life in Westeros. (The repeated plots against the royal family probably didn't help.) For much of Aegon's early life his father handled the day-to-day governance for Aegon III. Combine that with an absent mother and it's not surprising that a handsome, charming prince became prone to surrounding himself with lickspittles and being the spoiled prince.

Aegon IV was born with little chance of inheriting. His uncle Aegon had two sons, Daeron and Baelor, and there was no reason for him to presume he'd come to power. So he abused his position as a prince for his own gain - as it doesn't seem like his father or anyone else really mentored him for anything else.

By the time he came to power he'd learned he could use his position for sexual conquests with no consequences. He was also naturally charming and handsome. Perhaps had someone honed that charm he'd have made a dilpomat.

His treatment of Naerys seems callous even early on, but I'd wager Aegon knew for a time before that his sister would rather have married their brother, Aemon. Combine that with Aegon being a capable warrior and Aemon being a great one, and I'd say there was jealousy and hurt there. I'd say it's likely to be why he eventually began to listen to the cronies that said Daeron was really Aemon's son. It meant Aemon wasn't the honourable man beyond reproach as everyone thought; it meant the mild-mannered bookworm, Daeron, was not his son, but rather Aemon's - meaning he wasn't 'to blame' for Daeron not being a warrior. Even better, his warrior brother of great renown was. It played to his ego, but I doubt even he believed it, else he'd have officially named Daemon heir. (If he was lucid enough to legitimise all his bastards, he was lucid enough to renounce Daeron and name Daemon heir.)

[The Mountain That Flies]

It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland brings up a number of good points. I'd also point out that many of us understand and sympathize with the pain Robert Baratheon dealt with, but are still capable of being objective about how destructive his coping mechanisms were to his reign as king. Maybe all we need is a few clear reasons why Aegon IV engaged in bad behavior, since the way he's written about now he just appears callous for no reason.

[Lord Varys]

Well, I think George would give us insight into the private thoughts of a hedonistic royal psychopath if he ever wrote Aegon IV's life from his POV. Given George's skill in writing characters and explain their motivations and issues with various things in life this could be quite fun, but I think Aegon would not come off as very sympathetic unless you like to find yourself in the head of a person who gets quite a lot of satisfaction from fucking people's minds as well as their bodies...

And I daresay that history doesn't really know the depths of his depravity yet. The man couldn't hide his sexual appetites or his gluttony (and had no reason to do so, really) but his darker deeds may have gone unchronicled for the most part.

[Good Guy Garlan]

5 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Yeah, that is why I said "understand or whitewash".

He is already pretty bad by his deeds. 

We just need to hear some reasons and explainations.

But for example, if it is confrimed that Naerys had Daeron with Aemon, then Aegon would get some credit and be partially whitewashed on his actions towards them.

 

But that confirmation would be kind of...pretty damn huge. It would basically vindicate the Blackfyres as the ones with the best claim to the throne and would leave every Targ since Daeron as little more than an usurper. 

[purple-eyes]

12 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

But that confirmation would be kind of...pretty damn huge. It would basically vindicate the Blackfyres as the ones with the best claim to the throne and would leave every Targ since Daeron as little more than an usurper. 

talking about this, should not daenerys as true born dsughter be before daemon?

[Aemond's Eye]

8 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

talking about this, should not daenerys as true born dsughter be before daemon?

Not necessarily, no. There's no clear law on whether a legitimised bastard falls behind trueborn children in Westeros, and a Targaryen precedent had already been set that succession was agnatic.

[purple-eyes]

2 minutes ago, It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland said:

Not necessarily, no. There's no clear law on whether a legitimised bastard falls behind trueborn children in Westeros, and a Targaryen precedent had already been set that succession was agnatic.

In westeros, at least we know Ramsey wanted to get rid of any children from Walda. which implied a true born daughter would be before him.

All previous cases in Targ are true born second sons, not legimitized bastard. In Daemon's case, he was chanllenging Daeron by force anyway.

[Aemond's Eye]

10 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

In westeros, at least we know Ramsey wanted to get rid of any children from Walda. which implied a true born daughter would be before him.

All previous cases in Targ are true born second sons, not legimitized bastard. In Daemon's case, he was chanllenging Daeron by force anyway.

It implies that Ramsay is a psychopath who would see any half-sibling as a rival as they were of noble maternal lineage, with a powerful family behind them. You're inferring anything else you take from that.

Daemon being  bastard born has nothing to do with it. He was legitimised and of royal birth on both branches. Agnatic succession was practiced by the Targaryens, and even then it's vague whether there was ever a strict succession law.

Daemon's mother did not inherit before Viserys II - as her years in the Maidenvault left her with no powerful allies to challenge her uncle's succession. So even if we discount Daeron's line, I doubt Daenerys just sits the Throne. She was already married to a Prince of Dorne. He would be her main ally, and some within Dorne would not fight a war for her claim. I'd say lords that fought for Daeron as he was just and the rightful monarch wouldn't necessarily back Daeron's younger sister over her half-brother. The Dance of the Dragons was not ancient history, after all.

But I don't believe that Daeron was Aemon's son anyway.

[purple-eyes]

30 minutes ago, It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland said:

It implies that Ramsay is a psychopath who would see any half-sibling as a rival as they were of noble maternal lineage, with a powerful family behind them. You're inferring anything else you take from that.

Daemon being  bastard born has nothing to do with it. He was legitimised and of royal birth on both branches. Agnatic succession was practiced by the Targaryens, and even then it's vague whether there was ever a strict succession law.

Daemon's mother did not inherit before Viserys II - as her years in the Maidenvault left her with no powerful allies to challenge her uncle's succession. So even if we discount Daeron's line, I doubt Daenerys just sits the Throne. She was already married to a Prince of Dorne. He would be her main ally, and some within Dorne would not fight a war for her claim. I'd say lords that fought for Daeron as he was just and the rightful monarch wouldn't necessarily back Daeron's younger sister over her half-brother. The Dance of the Dragons was not ancient history, after all.

But I don't believe that Daeron was Aemon's son anyway.

Oh, I am not saying people will support daenerys, I am just saying therotically it looks like Dany at least can have some claim for IT over daemon.

I always feel this is one of the reasons Daemon wanted to marry Dany, to strengthen his claim. Because he claimed Daeron is a false born bastard, then lawfully dany is possible to be considered as the heir.

for example, in Robb's will, he had to disinherit Sansa to let Jon Snow take Winterfell. Which means Sansa indeed have some claim over a legitimized Jon Stark. Both parties have some reasons, Jon can say he is a legitimized male son, Sansa can say she is a true born daughter without surviving brothers. Many people may support Jon, but you can not say Sansa had no claim.

 

[Good Guy Garlan]

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

talking about this, should not daenerys as true born dsughter be before daemon?

I don't think so? She may be trueborn but everyone from Daeron to her would be technically a bastard wrongly using the Targ name, while Daemon was a legitimized son of the king, of the main Targ branch. Like, Aerys and Rhaella would've been just two bastards getting married. Two Waters don't make a Targ. 

[purple-eyes]

1 minute ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

I don't think so? She may be trueborn but everyone from Daeron to her would be technically a bastard wrongly using the Targ name, while Daemon was a legitimized son of the king, of the main Targ branch. Like, Aerys and Rhaella would've been just two bastards getting married. Two Waters don't make a Targ. 

oh, i mean the first dany, sister of Daeron.

[Good Guy Garlan]

14 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

oh, i mean the first dany, sister of Daeron.

Oops, gotcha! I guess that'd give the Martells a better claim to the throne than our Dany (the second one) but not better than Aegon's, right? 

(LOL, I just realized Jon wouldn't have no claim either if Daeron was a bastard)

[Cagey Bee]

5 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

 

(LOL, I just realized Jon wouldn't have no claim either if Daeron was a bastard)

Jon and Dany's claim would still exist (speaking purely technically here, not practically) on account of there being some precedence of more distant kin inheriting. I think their claim would be less than a Blackfyre (technically, if Daeron is a bastard), on account of Aegon IV legitimizing *his* bastards, and not his wife's. Still, Daeron would be of royal blood on both sides, and if the people *wanted* him to be legitimate, they could muddle it up as much as they want to for making him fit. Off topic, somewhat... back to the point..

If Aegon IV had believed that Daeron was Aemon's son, then legitimizing Daemon would create a way to ensure an heir. I don't know, I kind of figured that Aegon IV knew that Daeron wasn't his son, but I hope that the reason he doesn't disinherit him is some shred of honor, knowing that Aemon's child would be better than any of his. Pure conjecture, I admit.. but I want to see the best in characters, I guess. Back to the heir point, if Daeron was sickly, then ensuring an heir is a good idea. The problem with my high minded theory, of course, is that I am pretty sure Daeron had children before Aegon IV died..

Back to Daemon and Daenerys.. more food for thought than anything.. I always wondered if Daemon's attraction to Daenerys was this: is Daemon marries Daenerys and Daeron dies (along with his heirs.. fill in the holes as you will.. natural.. assassination.. etc.) then suddenly Daemon/Daenerys are next in line. I figured that was why Daeron packed her off to Dorne.. it keeps them both safe and provides a barrier to any temptation Daemon may have to make a move on Daenerys or on himself. Also, it binds a new great area into the realm, should any would-be-usurpers decide to try anything. I don't know, this all reeks of more complication (especially given the author) and while I do believe the good guys we know from this era are going to still be the good guys, I do get the feeling a *lot* of this story is untold. Back to Aegon IV.. I could see a lot of room to make him a character to like, even if he is a terrible person and king. So much that was important happened before, during, and after his reign..

[redtree]

If Daeron were truly Aemon's son then the real heir wasn't Daemon considering that he legitimized every children of his. He was already 35 when he fathered Daemon. There's a big chance that he had sired older son

[Cagey Bee]

6 minutes ago, redtree said:

If Daeron were truly Aemon's son then the real heir wasn't Daemon considering that he legitimized every children of his. He was already 35 when he fathered Daemon. There's a big chance that he had sired older son

Of the three known Great Bastards, Daemon was the oldest. That being said, there may be one older, but no one has heard of him. If it's a her, then it would matter less. On top of that, Daemon is royal on both sides, and is the epitome of Targaryen; I would think that would give him an edge should any other claimants arise.

[Minstral]

I pretty much think that he deserves the appellation "Unworthy" even if we are made to understand his character. TBH though, I think there is enough implied about him to give us a solid idea of why he turned out as he did. Putting aside the common fodder about his children, wife, and parents (which are certainly a major part in addition to others), he had other familial relations that assuredly influenced him mentally. Consider his cousins Aegon "the Yonge Dragon", Baelor the Blessed, and his own brother Aemon the Dragonkight. AegonUW was said to be pretty handsome, martially skilled, and liked for his wit, but he doesn't steal the show in his own timeline considering the other strong personalities of house Targaryen he has to contend with. He cannot capture the hearts of the Nobility like the Young Dragon, command the same love from the commons like the Blessed, and the Dragonknight is the one who people look to for a hero. His attempt to badmouth his brother and emulate his brothers conquest support that he would always compete with them in his own mind regarding his own self worth. In doing so he probably thinks about the one avenue he can out act them all in, and that would be self indulgence.