Anyone else dislike Valyrians/Targaryens?

[KarlDanski]

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targaryen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

A very big reason though is probably Viserys, and Daenerys Targaryen, because while they did grow up in hiding, and such, their belief that their family was without flaw, and that every other house who rebelled against them are usurpers makes me dislike them. So it may not be a Valyrian thing, but more of a modern Targaryen thing that I dislike. I enjoy Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Daena the Defiant, Maekar Targaryen, Baelor Breakspear etc, and even Velaryons like Addam or Aurane, but the modern Targaryens irk me, doesn't help that Daenerys plans to invade Westeros with a bunch of savages = Dothraki/Ironborn, a bunch of paid swords = Second Sons/Windblown, and gelded "freed" slaves = Unsullied.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targaryen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

A very big reason though is probably Viserys, and Daenerys Targaryen, because while they did grow up in hiding, and such, their belief that their family was without flaw, and that every other house who rebelled against them are usurpers makes me dislike them. So it may not be a Valyrian thing, but more of a modern Targaryen thing that I dislike. I enjoy Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Daena the Defiant, Maekar Targaryen, Baelor Breakspear etc, and even Velaryons like Addam or Aurane, but the modern Targaryens irk me, doesn't help that Daenerys plans to invade Westeros with a bunch of savages = Dothraki/Ironborn, a bunch of paid swords = Second Sons/Windblown, and gelded "freed" slaves = Unsullied.

Most are that, and more, but I think over the current history we have, some tapered off to be more palatable.

I think George chose well when developing and adding them because without them we would have a very different story, and every story needs a good villain

[The Wolves]

2 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targaryen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

A very big reason though is probably Viserys, and Daenerys Targaryen, because while they did grow up in hiding, and such, their belief that their family was without flaw, and that every other house who rebelled against them are usurpers makes me dislike them. So it may not be a Valyrian thing, but more of a modern Targaryen thing that I dislike. I enjoy Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Daena the Defiant, Maekar Targaryen, Baelor Breakspear etc, and even Velaryons like Addam or Aurane, but the modern Targaryens irk me, doesn't help that Daenerys plans to invade Westeros with a bunch of savages = Dothraki/Ironborn, a bunch of paid swords = Second Sons/Windblown, and gelded "freed" slaves = Unsullied.

The Valyrians are no different from the Andals or First Men who came and murdered the Children of the Forrest and each other. All these high lords and kings and queens are arrogant and think they have the "right" to rule. The great houses that ruled their regions for thousands of years are just as arrogant and haughty about their "rights" so the Arryns, Starks, Lannisters, etc.... ain't got nothing on the Targaryens. 

[KarlDanski]

Yes, I agree. I'm more of a fan of the First Men/North/Old Gods rather than the Andals, Valyrians, or Rhoynish, but the Valyrians are extremely arrogant. People like Ned gain loyalty by being a honorable lord, Stannis by being a just, Renly by charisma, Robert by being easy going, Tywin by fear etc, the two Targaryens we know however who are Viserys, and Daenerys are extremely arrogant, and see themselves as superior to the other Westerosi. The TV show whitewashes Dany into a messiah type figure despite being a teen with no training or experience in leadership, military, civic, or political roles, while the books paint scenes where she may be going into madness. Even then, in the books she appears to be even a bigger Mary Sue than show Jon by avoiding all consequences of her actions. Tyrion is noseless, Robb is dead, Theon is dickless, Jon is maybe dead, Ned is dead, Jaime is one handed, Cersei is losing power, Tywin is dead, Sansa is hiding, Bran is crippled, Rickon is wild, Arya is noone, Catelyn is dead, Edmure is captured, Blackfish is on the run, Renly is dead, Stannis is on a suicide march, Robert is dead etc. All of these characters who may or may not be considered main characters are dead, maimed, or very much injured for their mistakes while Daenerys is still spot clean.

[Jasta11]

I don't dislike them per se, but do dislike how much focus is put on the Targaryens, at the expense of IMO more interesting families and region's histories and characters. 

[Lord Varys]

That is a weird question. No Celtigar, Velaryon, or Valyrian from the Free Cities ever talked about their rights to anything nor did they ever say anything about fire and blood. There is also no difference between Viserys III wanting the Iron Throne and the Starks wanting to take Winterfell back after Theon took it from Robb.

Those aristocrats and monarchs are all pompous arrogant asses who think because one of their ancestors took a club and beat some other filthy savages into submission they have now the right to rule over others. They don't, but the people in Westeros don't have the right mindset to see that.

They want to be ruled by kings. And that's what they get. Where those kings are from is basically irrelevant.

However, it is quite clear that the united realm was created by the Targaryens. They conquered the Seven Kingdoms and forged them into one. If they are gone it is rather likely that this realm will disintegrate again, and not necessarily into seven kingdoms but rather three or four.

1 hour ago, KarlDanski said:

People like Ned gain loyalty by being a honorable lord, Stannis by being a just, Renly by charisma, Robert by being easy going, Tywin by fear etc, the two Targaryens we know however who are Viserys, and Daenerys are extremely arrogant, and see themselves as superior to the other Westerosi.

Robert, Stannis, and Renly are basically Targaryens, too. Just as Harrold Hardyng is sort of an Arryn. Aegon V Targaryen was their great-grandfather, and the founder of their house was allegedly a half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror. They might not have Valyrian hair but they have the blue eyes and the Valyrian blood and ancestry.

[KarlDanski]

Robert, Stannis, and Renly have a Targaryen ancestor, but their just as much Baratheon/Durrandon. Thick headed, strong, big, stubborn etc. Robert was one of the best warriors of his time (before being crowned), and Stannis is one of the best commanders in Westeros. Like I said, most of this is coming from Daenerys, Griff, and Viserys, but they have a very "my right" complex. They won the throne through conquest like the ancient First Men, the Andals, the Rhoynar, and Aegon. They expect everyone to kneel or be faced with the dreaded words, "fire and blood". 

Sorry is I misspoke, but I didn't mean to imply that Celtigar, Velaryons, or any other Valyrians were like the personality of Griff, Daenerys, or Viserys, but they do seem to have a superiority complex compared to the Westerosi, or Westerosi Valyrians. This was just a post asking if anyone else disliked the Valyrians, I just dislike the attitude, and personality most of them have.

[Rippounet]

I think there's a real possibility that GRRM purposefully created the Targaryens as arrogant and annoying. They're meant to represent the "classic" fantasy characters who would rule by right of blood. It allows him to question the divine right of rulers, and to ridicule/denounce their elitism and feeling of superiority at the same time.
He's already partially "subverting" the "return of the king queen" trope with Dany, who may not want the IT as much as she thinks she does (she's always longing for that house with the red door, which symbolizes a simple carefree life as a commoner).
The next logical step would be to show that "purity of blood" was always bullshit, and have the two "saviors of the world" (Dany & Jon) turn out to both be bastards. Alternatively, Dany is a real Targ' but decides that she doesn't actually want to rule Westeros after all, kills her dragons, and tries to escape her destiny by becoming a housewife (or sailor)*.

One way or the other, I expect the series to end on a very modern note, possibly even with the death of feudalism. We've seen some hints in that direction with Jon's arc, but also with the D&E stories.

*I'm kidding

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Robert, Stannis, and Renly have a Targaryen ancestor, but their just as much Baratheon/Durrandon. Thick headed, strong, big, stubborn etc. Robert was one of the best warriors of his time (before being crowned), and Stannis is one of the best commanders in Westeros.

There are also quite a few thickheaded, big, and stubborn Targaryens. Stannis very much resembles his great-great-grandfather Maekar Targaryen character-wise and Robert essentially seems to have the prowess/physical shape of the Conqueror or Maegor the Cruel combined with the appetites of Aegon the Unworthy.

And, no, Robert and his brothers are actually more Targaryen than Durrandon because due to the Targaryen incest there Targaryen ancestors simply have a larger impact on their ancestry than the Durrandons. The Durrandons did not marry their sisters and cousins on a regular basis but the Targaryens did.

27 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Like I said, most of this is coming from Daenerys, Griff, and Viserys, but they have a very "my right" complex. They won the throne through conquest like the ancient First Men, the Andals, the Rhoynar, and Aegon. They expect everyone to kneel or be faced with the dreaded words, "fire and blood".

Well, we can assume the Starks, Arryns, Lannisters, Durrandons, and even the Gardeners used similar methods (or even worse) to subdue their enemies and subjects. And again, Robb also wants to reconquer the North after he lost it in ACoK. He is basically just another failed Viserys in that department.

27 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Sorry is I misspoke, but I didn't mean to imply that Celtigar, Velaryons, or any other Valyrians were like the personality of Griff, Daenerys, or Viserys, but they do seem to have a superiority complex compared to the Westerosi, or Westerosi Valyrians. This was just a post asking if anyone else disliked the Valyrians, I just dislike the attitude, and personality most of them have.

We don't know all that much about the Velaryons or Celtigars, and nothing indicates they have a superiority complex or anything like that. They are not exactly the rulers of Westeros. We don't really know what they think nor have we a good way to compare the ancient Targaryens to the ancient royal dynasties they toppled. I'm pretty sure the ancient Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, Gardeners, etc. were as entitled as the average Targaryen prince after the Conquest.

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I think there's a real possibility that GRRM purposefully created the Targaryens as arrogant and annoying.

There are really too few of them out there to even reach such a conclusion. We only have three Targaryens in books, and Aemon is neither arrogant nor annoying. Viserys III might be but I'd rather describe him as desperate and foolish. He is a king in exile and actually pretty aware of the fact that he is a pitiful creature. If he was truly thinking he was a great guy he would not be as afraid of assassins.

That actually leaves only Dany. And Dany is not representative of her entire family.

And in the Dunk & Egg stories only Aerion and Maekar would qualify as arrogant and annoying (to a degree). Baelor, Daeron, Egg, and Bloodraven are neither. 

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

They're meant to represent the "classic" fantasy characters who would rule by right of blood. It allows him to question the divine right of rulers, and to ridicule/denounce their elitism and feeling of superiority at the same time.
He's already partially "subverting" the "return of the king queen" trope with Dany, who may not want the IT as much as she thinks she does (she's always longing for that house with the red door, which symbolizes a simple carefree life as a commoner).
The next logical step would be to show that "purity of blood" was always bullshit, and have the two "saviors of the world" (Dany & Jon) turn out to both be bastards. Alternatively, Dany is a real Targ' but decides that she doesn't actually want to rule Westeros after all, kills her dragons, and tries to escape her destiny by becoming a housewife (or sailor)*.

I actually don't think George has to make things as ridiculously explicit as that. It is quite clear that the right of blood or divine right of kings is a (stupid) concept that has to be enforced. The story has already shown that being a ruler is nothing people should actually want nor is it something that's good to be. Stannis feels as if his crown is burning him, Robb's crown killed him, as did Robert's, Renly's, and Joffrey's.

Purity of blood is not what you mean there, though. That might actually be a concept that is enforced and strengthened by the story. It is legitimate vs. illegitimate birth you are talking about. Dany and Jon could be bastards and still prophesied saviors, scions of some magical dragon bloodline. Daemon Blackfyre was a bastard and still of pure-blooded Valyrian stock.

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

One way or the other, I expect the series to end on a very modern note, possibly even with the death of feudalism. We've seen some hints in that direction with Jon's arc, but also with the D&E stories.

That would be too big a revolution. Things could end with the breaking of the power of the lords (especially if the Others essentially nearly kill all the people of Westeros) and the establishment of some absolute monarchy/rule with a benevolent ruler. Things will go to hell eventually again but after a new War for the Dawn has been one there could be quite a few centuries of peace and growing prosperity.

But in general this series cannot have a really good ending. George is destroying things, not rebuilding them. We'll see how Westeros is utterly destroyed, first be its people and then by winter and the Others. There might be some vision or hope for a better future and people in charge to try to build it but we'll never see that world because this series is not going to show it.

And depending how things end the question about the new government system etc. might actually pretty irrelevant.

[Trigger Warning]

Trumpeting the prestige of your bloodline is basically royalty 101. 

Look at everyone in history that claimed the divine right of kings, mandate of heaven or even descent from gods. 

They had the means for conquest and did what basically anyone else would do with such means. 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think George has to make things as ridiculously explicit as that.

From a literary point of view he doesn't. But we don't know how subtle he intends to be about his take on the genre. In fact, I'll daresay it's quite easy to argue that he hasn't been particularly subtle about it thus far, so it's unclear whether he's going to shoot for something explicit or not for the ending. We'll just have to wait & see, assuming we all live until 2030 that is.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Purity of blood is not what you mean there, though. That might actually be a concept that is enforced and strengthened by the story. It is legitimate vs. illegitimate birth you are talking about.

I'm kind of talking about both. I would expect both legitimacy and purity of blood to be eventually discredited in the story (it pretty much has been for the reader, but not completely for the Westerosi yet).
At present, Dany's arc doesn't really go in that direction, which is why I expect her identity (as in, how she views herself) will matter immensely, if not her blood/parentage.
Of course, a second Dance of Dragons might change how the common folk view Targaryens in Westeros. I think the royalty as an institution has been weakened by the Wo5K already, so it won't take much for the people to be more demanding of their rulers in the future.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That would be too big a revolution. Things could end with the breaking of the power of the lords (especially if the Others essentially nearly kill all the people of Westeros) and the establishment of some absolute monarchy/rule with a benevolent ruler. Things will go to hell eventually again but after a new War for the Dawn has been one there could be quite a few centuries of peace and growing prosperity.

But in general this series cannot have a really good ending. George is destroying things, not rebuilding them. We'll see how Westeros is utterly destroyed, first be its people and then by winter and the Others. There might be some vision or hope for a better future and people in charge to try to build it but we'll never see that world because this series is not going to show it.

And depending how things end the question about the new government system etc. might actually pretty irrelevant.

All true, but that's kinda what I meant by "death of feudalism." I don't see anything ideal like a constitutional monarchy appearing, but I would expect the people in charge of rebuilding in the end to be very different from the lords and kings we've seen in the series. People more live Davos than Stannis for example.

[Renly's Banana]

I mean.. not.. every Valyrian is the same, though. There aren't any Valeryons or Celtigars in our story that are pompous or narcissistic. And not every Targaryen was either. That's the issue with blanket statements like that over an entire race of people. Right? .. 

That being said, in a war between the Valyrians and the Ghiscari, I'll root for the Ghiscari. Because I'm weird and I like them.  

[khal drogon]

Wait every noble is arrogant and think they have the rights to lord over everyone. I don't have a very favorable opinion on any noble if I see them generally. Frankly I see no particular difference in arrogance between Targaryens and houses like Lannister, Baratheon and Greyjoys. You have Stark kings so arrogant calling themselves 'Kings of Winter' and wolves. You have Lannisters who are so arrogant because they have got gold. Then you have Greyjoys who believe every kingdom is theirs to reave. Baratheons, Durrandons, Hoares, Martells everyone seems to have pride and arrogance. I associate these characteristics with nobility as a whole rather than being a hypocrite hating one particular race for it. 

Every race except Rhoynar or Lhazareen has committed genocide. At least Targaryens brought the kingdoms under control in a relatively peaceful manner compared to what the Starks did in the North. 

[khal drogon]

12 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targar yen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

A very big reason though is probably Viserys, and Daenerys Targaryen, because while they did grow up in hiding, and such, their belief that their family was without flaw, and that every other house who rebelled against them are usurpers makes me dislike them. So it may not be a Valyrian thing, but more of a modern Targaryen thing that I dislike. I enjoy Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Daena the Defiant, Maekar Targaryen, Baelor Breakspear etc, and even Velaryons like Addam or Aurane, but the modern Targaryens irk me, doesn't help that Daenerys plans to invade Westeros with a bunch of savages = Dothraki/Ironborn, a bunch of paid swords = Second Sons/Windblown, and gelded "freed" slaves = Unsullied.

They have as much rights to rule the kingdoms as the other houses who ruled before. It's not like those previous houses came to power in any different manner.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

You can't really judge one person by their last name in the series like in real life. Egg seemed like a sweet kid and a man of the people. I'm sure there were plenty of other Targaryens that never thought themselves any better then anyone else. 

[The Gravepisser]

14 hours ago, The Wolves said:

The Valyrians are no different from the Andals or First Men who came and murdered the Children of the Forrest and each other. All these high lords and kings and queens are arrogant and think they have the "right" to rule. The great houses that ruled their regions for thousands of years are just as arrogant and haughty about their "rights" so the Arryns, Starks, Lannisters, etc.... ain't got nothing on the Targaryens. 

They are different concepts. The First Men and the Andals migrated to Westeros. Mass migration is a bloody business but a natural one and there are countless of this example in the real world. The change of climate, growth of population and the push of other tribes forced nomads to seek for new lands. It's rather different from the push of a foreign elite minority with supperior weaponary to rule over a vast majority.

[Joy Hill]

I feel the same way. A bunch of silver-haired, purple-eyed people who view themselves as ethnically superior to other races, who think that they are gods and like to drop nukes on anyone who refuses to bow to them? It does make me root for their destruction.

But the Dunk&Egg series has made the Targs a little more likeable. Maybe the problem is that nearly all the recent Targs (Aerys, Rhaegar, Viserys, Dany) are assholes.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I also hate them. I hate bullies who think that the size of their weapon is the only thing that matters.

[Lion of the West]

I think that the Targaryens are pretty interesting but me commitment and greater interest is with the Andals and most importantly with House Lannister. But the Valyrians can still be interesting and they are a diverse bunch since the fall of Valyria with the Valyrians in Westeros going about in a very different style from the Valyrians in Essos and most importantly in Volantis.

But in the long term I don't think that the Valyrians, or Andals for that matter, are better or worse than anyone else. It usually evens itself out in the long run.

[KarlDanski]

I think I need to rephrase my question since I'm wrong about the Valyrians as a whole. Do any of you hate the Targaryens? I dislike Griff, Viserys, and Daenerys, but I like some Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Aegor Rivers, Brynden Rivers, Egg etc. I feel like arrogance is a trait in Targaryens with people like Daenerys, Viserys, Aerion, Aerys etc. I know that in this type of government that a good majority of the Lords of Westeros are arrogant, but it seems pointed out even more so with the Targaryens, maybe because their main characters or so, but that's just how I feel.