Aegon III's Dancing Bears - Your Thoughts?

[Leo of House Cartel]

- “I mean to give the small folk peace and food and justice. If that will not suffice to win their love, let Mushroom make a progress. Or perhaps we might send a dancing bear. Someone once told me that the commons love nothing half so much as dancing bears. You may call a halt to this feast tonight as well. Send the lords home to their own keeps and give the food to the hungry. Full bellies and dancing bears shall be my policy.” - (TWOIAF, Aegon III)

At first glimpse this speech seems to be rather at odds with the gloom and anguish said to haunt the Dragonbane, what with it's emphasis on pleasing the small folks and somewhat playful remarks about dancing bears and Mushroom. Could such peculiar wording be simple sarcasm in a "screw the small folk, they're making things difficult" kind of way? The talk about Mushroom making a progress due to the Dragonbane's potential inability to win the smallfolk's affection could be looked at as a petulant remark.

The last three sentences seem to be saying "screw the highborn, I'm going to make a difference", yet this "Broken King" has never really been described as a bastion of political/social change so he could merely have been asserting his rule over the various regents who had up until that point played hot potato with his Kingdom.

As the monologue marks the end of what was said to be a shaky regency where the young King seemed to be courted by various puppeteers, perhaps Aegon III was simply burnt out before he even began his rule in earnest, his confusing speech a result of the uncertainty that had governed his childhood. Perhaps he didn't have any real idea of what he was going to do as King, his talk of full bellies and dancing bears being all he felt he could really offer to his subjects.

On the other hand, maybe this King known as "The Unlucky" was a lot sharper than the history books have given him credit for, his talk of well fed smallfolk a hint at unfulfilled future plans. Aegon III bursting into the room to lay the law down to his regents in itself was a pretty confident move for man often described as anything but, as was he and Viserys  being held up in the tower by Marston Waters. George has apparently written a great deal concerning this King, so I wouldn't be surprised if Aegon III's character had some major revelations in future texts.

How do you all interpret this speech? It's a mystery to me so I would love to hear your take on things.

[Lord Varys]

This is likely supposed to be understood as an outline of Aegon III's future political program. Which seems to indicate - the (baser) needs and interests of the smallfolk first, the interests and ambitions of the lords - and the meaningless public display of wealth and splendor - last.

Aegon III was a very unlucky and miserable person in his personal life, but this doesn't mean he was a bad king. The fact that he isolated himself a lot in his childhood and youth (hardly a surprise during the disgrace and circus that was his Regency) doesn't mean he did take no part in his government later on.

His traumatic experiences and his feelings of weakness and helplessness during the Dance and the Regency could have enabled him to relate to the plights of his subjects - after all, he had lost as much in the Dance as the next man, perhaps even more - resulting in him putting their interests first during the long and difficult period of rebuilding and recovery.

There are hints that Aegon III was a pretty competent king, actually. He rule is described as 'sober' in comparison to that of his sons, and Aegon V actually decides to wear Aegon III modest golden circlet as a crown, possibly indicating that his policies of reform and betterment of the lives of the smallfolk were supposed to be a continuation of the policies of Aegon III. The only other king who wore Aegon III's crown was his brother, Viserys II (who most likely was on the same page as Aegon in regards to the policies they were implementing together).

The fact that Aegon III wasn't viewed as that favorable a king is hardly surprising. When you ignore the lords and focus mainly on the real interests of the common people - even completely ignoring costly but entertaining (and extravagant) distractions like tourneys, feasts, and the like - people won't think of you - or remember you - fondly, even if the policies enacted by such a monarch objectively better the lives of a majority of the people. And the fact that Aegon most likely was cold and distant - perhaps even harsh and unpleasant - in personal conversation and during audiences, etc. wouldn't have made him more popular.

Aegon V is also not exactly presented a good king - Yandel basically paints him as a monarch who had controversial ideas and lacked the strength to see them through. He doesn't praise him for his reforms to better the lives of the smallfolk. 

If we ever get a more complete picture of the reign of Aegon V chances are pretty good that we are going to be impressed not only by his plans of reform, but also by the reforms he actually saw through - which were then later overturned first by Jaehaerys II and Aerys II (at the behest of Tywin).

Chances are that the life of a commoner in the late 250s - especially in market town or smaller village - and the life of the smallfolk as we know them from the main series are going to be very different...

[Vaedys Targaryen]

Well, when Aegon III said that he wanted to feed the smallfolk and keep them happy, he could very well have said this in a very melancholic tone. He could just have been like Roose Bolton in his policy:

Quote

A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has been my rule.

Roose is lord and not a king, but his policy is that as long as the smallfolk are fine, then things are fine. No one complains about anything, no one reports anything, justice gets served when needed and people are okay.

Aegon III was a man who could spend days in his chamber and just not talk to anyone, so a rule where there is peace and the smallfolk have nothing to complain about sound like the ideal rule for Aegon III.

[Megorova]

Probably what he said meant, that he will try to do something to bring peace and justice to people, but if his political strategies will fail, then he will use the simplest one to satisfy his people - "Bread and circuses".

From Wikipedia: " "Bread and circuses"

Spoiler

(or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,^[1] as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.^[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.^[5] "

"This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans, using a range of different themes including lust for power and desire for old age to illustrate his argument.^[6] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole:

giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

Aegon's dancing bears are his chosen method of entertaining smallfolk.

"Full bellies (Bread) and dancing bears (and circuses) shall be my policy."

[Leo of House Cartel]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is likely supposed to be understood as an outline of Aegon III's future political program. Which seems to indicate - the (baser) needs and interests of the smallfolk first, the interests and ambitions of the lords - and the meaningless public display of wealth and splendor - last.

Aegon III was a very unlucky and miserable person in his personal life, but this doesn't mean he was a bad king. The fact that he isolated himself a lot in his childhood and youth (hardly a surprise during the disgrace and circus that was his Regency) doesn't mean he did take no part in his government later on.

His traumatic experiences and his feelings of weakness and helplessness during the Dance and the Regency could have enabled him to relate to the plights of his subjects - after all, he had lost as much in the Dance as the next man, perhaps even more - resulting in him putting their interests first during the long and difficult period of rebuilding and recovery.

A fine way of looking at things, you are correct that Aegon had many reasons for his melancholy. Your bit about the Dragonbane potentially suffering more than other men due to the Dance was very poignant - he had lost it all before he even hit puberty, due to the violence and machinations of his own kin, all that remained was a bunch of string pullers until he came of age to make his own moves.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

There are hints that Aegon III was a pretty competent king, actually. He rule is described as 'sober' in comparison to that of his sons, and Aegon V actually decides to wear Aegon III modest golden circlet as a crown, possibly indicating that his policies of reform and betterment of the lives of the smallfolk were supposed to be a continuation of the policies of Aegon III. The only other king who wore Aegon III's crown was his brother, Viserys II (who most likely was on the same page as Aegon in regards to the policies they were implementing together).

Good work noting Aegon V's choice of crown, this seemed like a bit of a red flag to me that all was not as it seemed with Aegon III, the fact that Viserys II and Aegon V, two of the better kings, chose the Dragonsbane's crown would indicate he did something worth respecting during his reign, otherwise why choose the crown of the King who the dragons died under?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that Aegon III wasn't viewed as that favorable a king is hardly surprising. When you ignore the lords and focus mainly on the real interests of the common people - even completely ignoring costly but entertaining (and extravagant) distractions like tourneys, feasts, and the like - people won't think of you - or remember you - fondly, even if the policies enacted by such a monarch objectively better the lives of a majority of the people. And the fact that Aegon most likely was cold and distant - perhaps even harsh and unpleasant - in personal conversation and during audiences, etc. wouldn't have made him more popular.

Aegon V is also not exactly presented a good king - Yandel basically paints him as a monarch who had controversial ideas and lacked the strength to see them through. He doesn't praise him for his reforms to better the lives of the smallfolk. 

If we ever get a more complete picture of the reign of Aegon V chances are pretty good that we are going to be impressed not only by his plans of reform, but also by the reforms he actually saw through - which were then later overturned first by Jaehaerys II and Aerys II (at the behest of Tywin).

Chances are that the life of a commoner in the late 250s - especially in market town or smaller village - and the life of the smallfolk as we know them from the main series are going to be very different...

Do you think the downplaying of Aegon V's reign by Yandel perhaps point towards similiar sentiment towards Aegon III? The likes of Marwyn hint at an anti-Targaryen/dragon biased amongst the Citadel, and the Dance that killed most of Aegon III's family and their dragons was mainly due to the aspirations of certain members of the Oldtown ruling Hightowers.

5 hours ago, Vaedys Targaryen said:

Well, when Aegon III said that he wanted to feed the smallfolk and keep them happy, he could very well have said this in a very melancholic tone. He could just have been like Roose Bolton in his policy:

Roose is lord and not a king, but his policy is that as long as the smallfolk are fine, then things are fine. No one complains about anything, no one reports anything, justice gets served when needed and people are okay.

Aegon III was a man who could spend days in his chamber and just not talk to anyone, so a rule where there is peace and the smallfolk have nothing to complain about sound like the ideal rule for Aegon III.

Another great angle to take, the Roose Bolton quote fits well with how Aegon III has been portrayed and I can't see any fault in the logic that Aegon III just wanted a quiet life.

5 hours ago, Megorova said:

Probably what he said meant, that he will try to do something to bring peace and justice to people, but if his political strategies will fail, then he will use the simplest one to satisfy his people - "Bread and circuses".

From Wikipedia: " "Bread and circuses"

  Reveal hidden contents

(or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,^[1] as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.^[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.^[5] "

"This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans, using a range of different themes including lust for power and desire for old age to illustrate his argument.^[6] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole:

giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

Aegon's dancing bears are his chosen method of entertaining smallfolk.

"Full bellies (Bread) and dancing bears (and circuses) shall be my policy."

I really dig that Bread and Circuses find, we see how such policies can work wonders for a rulers public perception with chapters such as Dany opening the fighting pits or Rhaenys keeping company with Mummers and such. Awesome work with the Latin.

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

Probably what he said meant, that he will try to do something to bring peace and justice to people, but if his political strategies will fail, then he will use the simplest one to satisfy his people - "Bread and circuses".

From Wikipedia: " "Bread and circuses"

  Reveal hidden contents

(or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,^[1] as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.^[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.^[5] "

"This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans, using a range of different themes including lust for power and desire for old age to illustrate his argument.^[6] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole:

giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

Aegon's dancing bears are his chosen method of entertaining smallfolk.

"Full bellies (Bread) and dancing bears (and circuses) shall be my policy."

I also read it as an allusion to ruling the mob in Rome. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

A fine way of looking at things, you are correct that Aegon had many reasons for his melancholy. Your bit about the Dragonbane potentially suffering more than other men due to the Dance was very poignant - he had lost it all before he even hit puberty, due to the violence and machinations of his own kin, all that remained was a bunch of string pullers until he came of age to make his own moves.

The fact that dismissed all of his regents including former regent and then-Hand, Lord Torrhen Manderly (who may have been a pretty good guy) strongly indicates that he had enough of this kind of mismanagement. There is even a hint that Aegon III may have dismissed Grand Maester Munkun, forcing the Citadel to name a replacement for him. Munkun is Grand Maester, regent, and eventually even Hand throughout the Regency but the Grand Maester who delivers Prince Daeron in 153 AC and warns Naerys that another pregnancy might kill her is named Alford. Later on, in 171 AC, when Baelor the Blessed died, Munkun was the Grand Maester who tried to save his life.

This indicates that Munkun was dismissed as Grand Maester by Aegon III at one point, only to be eventually reinstated by either Daeron I or Baelor the Blessed. Could be that Aegon III was so pissed about the man's actions during the Regency that he did not suffer him on his council for his entire reign.

4 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Good work noting Aegon V's choice of crown, this seemed like a bit of a red flag to me that all was not as it seemed with Aegon III, the fact that Viserys II and Aegon V, two of the better kings, chose the Dragonsbane's crown would indicate he did something worth respecting during his reign, otherwise why choose the crown of the King who the dragons died under?

The counter argument would be that Aegon V only wanted some modest crown and chose Aegon III's because he was too lazy to create a new one. But that's not very likely. It is even more striking that Aegon V chose not to wear his father Maekar's warrior-crown. Maekar had just made a new crown, a crown that was neither lost nor destroyed, considering that Jaehaerys II wore it after his father's death.

Jaehaerys II most likely chose his grandfather's crown because the golden circlet of Aegon III was lost with Aegon V at Summerhall.

4 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Do you think the downplaying of Aegon V's reign by Yandel perhaps point towards similiar sentiment towards Aegon III? The likes of Marwyn hint at an anti-Targaryen/dragon biased amongst the Citadel, and the Dance that killed most of Aegon III's family and their dragons was mainly due to the aspirations of certain members of the Oldtown ruling Hightowers.

I don't think that has anything to do with a conspiracy. Rather with the structures of power. There are some commoners in the Citadel, but the maesters are mostly noble-born themselves, and are all servants of the noble class (and the royals, on the top level) so they would be very biased against kings who didn't make placating the noble class their top priority. 

In addition to that, Aegon III wouldn't have been a fun person to be around, so most contemporary sources wouldn't paint a very likable portrait of the man. The letters, chronicles, diaries, etc. from court surviving from that period are not likely going to praise the character and personality of the king.

If there was an anti-dragon conspiracy, I assume that was implemented by Grand Maester Munkun during the Regency. As sole remaining regent in 135 AC (prior to the Great Council of 136 AC, which appointed three new regents by lot) as well as Hand and Grand Maester the man would have had more than enough power to take the necessary steps to arrange the slow poisoning of the dragons.

And I really don't think this anti-dragon thing was something malicious or anything - just the natural reaction of smart, rational, and pragmatic people to the specter of another Dance of the Dragons. If the dragons recovered and the Targaryens had another succession or civil war, and forty instead of twenty huge dragons at their disposal at that time, millions of people could die. It is a miracle that no dragon burned KL, Oldtown, or Lannisport during the Dance. But it could have happened.

I could even see the Citadel being involved in the Storming of the Dragonpit thing. It would have been arranged by Hightower agents trying to topple Rhaenyra, but the mad frenzy the Shepherd worked the people has something unnatural to it. A possible explanation is that maesters gave many of the people storming the Dragonpit a diluted Basilisk venom - perhaps put in the wine and other drinks people were taking in all those pot shops and wine sinks prior to listening to the Shepherd.

It is the same venom Jaqen apparently used to cause Weese's dog to kill the man. And Arya learns in AFfC from the Faceless Men that a mouse tasting it supposedly attacks a lion. That is the kind of stuff you give to people who you want to convince to attack some dragons - and continue and continue and continue to do so while hundreds and thousands of people around you are killed.

4 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Another great angle to take, the Roose Bolton quote fits well with how Aegon III has been portrayed and I can't see any fault in the logic that Aegon III just wanted a quiet life.

Roose just wants people to shut up. He doesn't want people to be happy or even content. He just wants that they cannot complain. It is easier to accomplish if you don't rape them or kill their spouses, but Roose also knows how to keep them quiet when he is in a mood to do that.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

I think a lot of the younger Targaryen kings started their reign optimistic with the belief that they could change Westeros for the better quicker then most would believe possible. However, just like many heads of state, they realize it's an uphill battle that you have to fight tooth and nail to even try to win, particularly when it involves improving the plight of the smallfolk. They become discouraged, probably because at some point they realize it's close to impossible to achieve what they set out to do in the feudalistic system that's been in place for them to rule. 

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I think a lot of the younger Targaryen kings started their reign optimistic with the belief that they could change Westeros for the better quicker then most would believe possible. However, just like many heads of state, they realize it's an uphill battle that you have to fight tooth and nail to even try to win, particularly when it involves improving the plight of the smallfolk. They become discouraged, probably because at some point they realize it's close to impossible to achieve what they set out to do in the feudalistic system that's been in place for them to rule. 

That doesn't sound all that likely, actually. There are very few Targaryens around with that kind of idealism. Pretty much all of them grew up as pampered princes, whose main interests should have revolved around themselves and their needs. That's what privileged people usually are all about, especially such at the very top of the food chains.

Egg and possibly Aegon III may be exceptions because they actually lived with the commoners - or experienced firsthand how powerless normal people feel in the face of the ambitions of scrupulous people - but there is no reason why the others should have gone with any idealism into their offices.

And men like Jaehaerys I - who changed a lot of things, actually - really had the power to enforce those changes. A man like him wouldn't have gotten disillusioned.

[The Sunland Lord]

23 hours ago, Megorova said:

Probably what he said meant, that he will try to do something to bring peace and justice to people, but if his political strategies will fail, then he will use the simplest one to satisfy his people - "Bread and circuses".

From Wikipedia: " "Bread and circuses"

  Reveal hidden contents

(or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,^[1] as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.^[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.^[5] "

"This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans, using a range of different themes including lust for power and desire for old age to illustrate his argument.^[6] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole:

giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

Aegon's dancing bears are his chosen method of entertaining smallfolk.

"Full bellies (Bread) and dancing bears (and circuses) shall be my policy."

This. It is known from ancient times.

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't sound all that likely, actually. There are very few Targaryens around with that kind of idealism. Pretty much all of them grew up as pampered princes, whose main interests should have revolved around themselves and their needs. That's what privileged people usually are all about, especially such at the very top of the food chains.

Even so they still wanted to make an impact, like when Aerys II had all those grand ideas that never went anywhere. Aegon III and Aegon V might have been the only ones who specifically wanted to make change for the smallfolk. The others might have wanted too because they wanted to be remembered as great kings for years to come. In Daeron I's case he probably thought finally conquering Dorne would cement his legacy and improve Westeros for the better as a united realm.  Whether it's ego or idealism, I'm sure most of the younger kings wanted to make their mark on history in some way. All highborn boys and girls grow up hearing about the great accomplishments and deeds of their forefathers. It would only be natural for them to want to be remembered the same way. 

 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And men like Jaehaerys I - who changed a lot of things, actually - really had the power to enforce those changes. A man like him wouldn't have gotten disillusioned.

I think it could be argued that Jaehaerys I could be seen as an outlier. His time spent in office, choice of Hand, treating his Queen as an equal. Nonetheless he was the exact type of King Westeros needed after Maegor.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Even so they still wanted to make an impact, like when Aerys II had all those grand ideas that never went anywhere.

Sure, but that is a different matter. There are things even kings like the Targaryens are unlikely to be able change - or unwilling to even try to change. And the whole class structure of the society they live and grew up in would be one of those things.

Any king - and perhaps even any lord - wants to make an impact on (family) history, that's clear.

Daeron I really wanted to be remembered for 'completing the Conquest', just as Baelor is remembered for his Great Sept, and Daeron II for actually 'completing the Conquest' by not conquering Dorne at all, etc.

19 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I think it could be argued that Jaehaerys I could be seen as an outlier. His time spent in office, choice of Hand, treating his Queen as an equal. Nonetheless he was the exact type of King Westeros needed after Maegor.

Jaehaerys I would have been a good example, but the man setting the standard was the Conqueror. He is the one they all try to emulate. And his sons actually began that kind of thing - Aenys and Maegor both tried to leave their mark on history with the completion of the Red Keep (and Maegor with the Dragonpit, in addition to that).

[Ralphis Baratheon]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys I would have been a good example, but the man setting the standard was the Conqueror.

I guess that would depend on whether they considered conquering more impressive than ruling. Some would argue that the latter is harder than the former. Viserys I reign started off well because Jaehaerys left him a a secure Throne and Westeros. One he created by bringing peace and stability to the realm where Aenys and Maegor failed. The same cannot be said for Aenys, as the realm Aegon I left him was no where near as strong as the one Viserys I inherited.

That said Jaehaerys had the good fortune of having Alysanne as a Queen. As opposed to Aegon I having Visenya, who undermined Aenys rule. Yet she was a conqueror just like Aegon. Does that mean Visenya was the standard over Good Queen Alysanne? Or perhaps young future kings and queens should aspire to be the best of both Aegon/Jaehaerys and Visenya/Alysanne. Be a conqueror who is good, and rules wisely.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I guess that would depend on whether they considered conquering more impressive than ruling. Some would argue that the latter is harder than the former. Viserys I reign started off well because Jaehaerys left him a a secure Throne and Westeros. One he created by bringing peace and stability to the realm where Aenys and Maegor failed. The same cannot be said for Aenys, as the realm Aegon I left him was no where near as strong as the one Viserys I inherited.

Aegon is the one the subsequent generations continued by reusing his name over and over again. Almost every Targaryen generation had an Aegon.

Jaehaerys is by comparison a less popular name. Not to mention that his conciliatory approach would have been against both the martial and the controlling tendencies in many monarchs.

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

That said Jaehaerys had the good fortune of having Alysanne as a Queen. As opposed to Aegon I having Visenya, who undermined Aenys rule. Yet she was a conqueror just like Aegon. Does that mean Visenya was the standard over Good Queen Alysanne? Or perhaps young future kings and queens should aspire to be the best of both Aegon/Jaehaerys and Visenya/Alysanne. Be a conqueror who is good, and rules wisely.

Aegon had Rhaenys. She is the prototypical Targaryen queen, the one honored by a sept, the one idealized by the royal family and the smallfolk alike. After her, the 'Rhaen-' in the Targaryen family are legion.

Alysanne also becomes very popular, but she seems to be just another Queen Rhaenys, as popular and good as her grandmother.