Jump to content

Lord Varys

Members
  • Content count

    19,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Varys

  • Rank
    Most Devious 'Man' In The Seven Kingdoms
  • Birthday 11/25/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Definitely somewhere in King's Landing

Recent Profile Visitors

42,624 profile views
  1. A lot of people in those books like to things to nipples... And seeing your sister as your property and your sexual partner is part of growing up as a Targaryen, especially if your are the head of the family. Your sister is not just your sister but also your future wife. This doesn't mean that sexualized violence is good or anything, but it means that he didn't exactly cross any (meaningful) boundaries in the world and the family he grew up in. There is no indication that Viserys doesn't understand other people's feelings or stuff like that. We hardly see him interact with anyone but Dany - and his relationship with her is actually complex. He loves and hates her, and the reason why he hates is not that unreasonable. She killed her mother in birth, and she fails to understand what they have lost and what their family history destines them to be. She actually adjusts to life in exile. When Viserys looks at his sister he sees the end royalty and nobility, a girl who wants to be a sailor, a girl who is happy when playing with the rabble on the streets. And when she suddenly turns the table and makes her adapting skills a strength he cannot suffer that - like pretty much any man in this world couldn't suffer it if his little sister (or wife) were suddenly calling the shots. But even Dany herself doesn't remember her brother as being a monster or anything of that sort. She actually misses him, just as she misses the savage husband who actually raped her and did not only mistreat her nipples. But all of that has nothing to do with sanity or the quality of Viserys III as a king. He could have had private issues like a lot of kings had and still rule reasonable well. Even his father could do that. Because you can actually have the sanity to surround yourself with competent men.
  2. Bran has delusions about returning to Winterfell and all. Sure neither he and Rickon have any plans to retake what's theirs, but Arya and Sansa do have such desires, and they all are still too young to make any proper plans. But it would be their duty to try to take back what was once theirs. That's part of what constitutes nobility and royalty. You are born with a great legacy and you have to live up to it. And if somebody wrongs your father or your family or even your more distant ancestors you have avenge them. That's how this goes. But there is no difference there, is there? Viserys was a young and innocent child when evil people stole what was his and his family's, murdering them all in the process of it. Bran and Rickon (and Sansa and Arya) suffered the same fate, and they all get twisted and warped by the events they live through, too. Just as Viserys was. I mean, we know Bran and Arya intimately, that's why many people don't see them as monsters, but if you were not in their heads when they were killing or mind-raping other people. Now, Viserys is still an ass but he is no murderer nor mind-rapist. Abusing your little sister and using her as a pawn in your game is not nice, but no great crime, either. In fact, the latter usually is the fate of royal women in this world, so by the standards of the world Viserys didn't exactly do much wrong. He certainly was a lousy parent/elder brother, but that's hardly surprising considering what he went through. Dany had at least Viserys - but Viserys had no one from the day Willem Darry died. Barristan compares Viserys to his father, but he actually never knew the boy Aerys II intimately. And Aerys II was not particularly mad in his youth or young adulthood. Not to mention that his 'madness' wasn't of the cruel sort. He was eccentric, changeable, and not very bright - and an ass in his personal relationships, but he was no Aerion, no Maegor, not even an Aemond or Aegon II. He only became overly paranoid and did only develop cruel tendencies in the justice department after Duskendale - prior to that he only saw red when another of his children died in infancy. That certainly wasn't great but not exactly something to brand him as a particularly worse king or very cruel person. Aerys II ended were he was after a long history of a declining mental illness in combination with considerable stress and trauma. And even then he by far wasn't the worst Targaryen king or even among the worst ugly thugs George has invented for this series (Joffrey is much worse even as a 13-year-old, Ramsay and Roose are far beyond that territory, as are Gregor Clegane, Qyburn, and most of Gregor's thugs). Viserys III may not have depicted signs that he was another Rhaegar, but whatever 'diagnosis' Barristan attests the boy later, after he knows what his father eventually became, clearly cannot have been even remotely in the same league as what Joffrey did. Because the man Viserys III we meet in the series is no sadist. He is a pitiful creature who is basically afraid of his own shadow, who can be lead around by the nose by all the people around him (Illyrio, Jorah), and who obviously and clearly only to be acknowledged as 'the king' he thinks he is - or has to be. You can see that in his last moments. The man wasn't mad when he got killed, he was just drunk - and he wanted to show Drogo that he was a great and manly man, too. He clearly didn't understand how to properly do that, but he tried, in his way. Can you point such things out? Viserys III never butchers cats, never plans to murder children, never actually does more to Dany to physically chastise her - which is clearly no big issue in this world. He never indicates he would murder entire families - like his father. He wants to be loved and respected. He is the kind of king who would likely not even execute a murderer if the man were properly sucking up to him. One can make a case that Viserys III would have even been a better king than Robert. Chances are that he would have attended his council session, and if only to bask in the fact that he was king now and could actually rule. Robert never even wanted to rule. Well, the guy is clearly not my favorite character, but he is tragic character nonetheless. And certainly not a character who should be compared to his father's mad exploits or Joffrey. Joffrey certainly is also craven but he clearly shows some problematic traits in the sadism department - with the cat and his later behavior - that is completely absent in Viserys. And in the young Aerys II, too. That guy didn't show much promise but he wasn't like Maegor or Aerion. If he had been, Aegon V would have likely cut him out of the succession favoring Duncan's children instead (assuming he had any), never mind the fact that their mother was a commoner, or even his Baratheon grandson, Steffon.
  3. Lord Varys

    Jon's Shield Hall Speech and Subsequent Plan

    Since they don't even talk about any plans and it is rather clear that Bran is still a child who doesn't know what's good for him such an explanation is odd. I mean, do we think that Lord Wyman would have cared that Bran had 'a plan' had they met on the road? I don't think so. There are several important Liddles with Stannis, so it is odd that nobody told him that at least one of Lord Eddard's sons is still alive. But nobody seems to look for Bran, anyway. Not sure why one couldn't mention that in a raven. Sure, Wyman doesn't trust his own maester, but he doesn't has to allow his maester to read letters he has already sealed. The Boltons clearly do know what happened, so loyalist Stark friends have to know it, too, so they can look for the boys. Well, it rather obvious failing to actually reveal and install a successor to Robb's crown while his kingdom hasn't completely disintegrated is rather crucial. A legitimized Jon technically could have taken possession of Winterfell long before Roose Bolton ever returned back north. The reason why Northmen gather around Roose at all is because Robb Stark didn't leave any male heirs. Oh, but if Ramsay can write a letter to Jon Snow he can write a lot of letters to other castles in the North, too. He can also send out messenger riders, etc. Not all the remaining Manderly strength was with Lord Wyman, true, but Lord Wyman didn't have the will to actually actively move in favor of a Stark restoration while Tywin was still alive and while Davos hadn't yet arrived in the city. Those castles are hundreds of leagues away from the Wall, and none of them actually can support the thousands of refugees Jon has taken in. The Glovers and Karstarks don't have sufficient winter provisions for themselves. They cannot feed additional mouths. Roose has some problems with provisions at Winterfell, too, but there is no indication that he and his Dustin and Ryswell allies are in as dire situation there as the Glovers and Karstarks. And the latter are real down to their last men. Cregan Karstark apparently didn't have a sufficient enough garrison to pursue Alys Karstark or to keep her out of Karhold upon her arrival with Sigorn and his men. The problem with the islands is that they don't seem to have the ships to move people there, especially at the eastern coast. The Skagosi don't have ships, and Jon didn't even have the ships for the original Hardhome mission. Also, Jon actually wants to hold the Wall and prevent the Others from coming into the Realm. How could he hope to accomplish that if pretty much all his men abandoned their posts?
  4. Aegon II and Aemond weren't mad, but they certainly were pretty cruel (especially Aemond) and they were clearly the dumbest Targaryens to ever mount a dragon. No, that's the difference in their upbringing. Viserys remembers what it means to be a royal prince. He wants what's his by right and he remembers and knows what he has lost, just as Brandon and Rickon want back what's theirs and remember what they had (and Sansa and Arya, too). Dany doesn't know what she has lost because she never lived at court and spent only days on Dragonstone. Dany basically is what Robb's son would be, if Jeyne gave birth to a posthumous son. Viserys is more a tragic character. He suffered from becoming an impoverished exile, was not able/willing to adapt to Dothraki culture, and couldn't cope with the fact that the little sister he should have married (and who he had protected and care for since she was a small girl) suddenly was was more important than he was. He certainly wasn't nice to Dany, basically using her as a punching ball when he felt bad, but that in and of itself doesn't make him a monster. Viserys is not his father, he is not his Aerion Brightflame or Maegor the Cruel, he is not even Aemond or Aegon II or Prince Daemon. As a king he wouldn't have been great, but he wouldn't have been cruel, either. All he wanted was to wear a crown, he didn't want to kill people or enact his sadistic or cruel desires.
  5. Rhaegar can qualify as 'mad' in the same sense as Daeron I and Baelor the Blessed (and Duncan the Small, for that matter). He acted like spoiled child or an entitled brat 'following his heart' or 'fulfilling prophecy', not caring about the conventions of the society he lived in or his duty to his father, his dynasty, and his people. And he paid his price for that. Viserys III wasn't really mad, no matter what Barristan says. He wasn't exactly very bright or particularly competent, but he doesn't resemble Joffrey in any way. He has no sadistic tendencies, and he clearly neither a narcissist nor particularly cruel. All he wants is to get back home and be called a king. It is not madness that gets him killed, it is stupidity.
  6. Lord Varys

    Jon's Shield Hall Speech and Subsequent Plan

    One Liddle knows that Brandon Stark was alive. They don't know where he is nor whether he is still alive. And they did not care that he was alive, either, did they? They saw him and they let him go rather than take him in. An absent prince is as good as a dead one. And apparently said Liddle - or other Liddles with Stannis in ADwD - didn't care to inform either Stannis or Jon Snow about the fact that Brandon Stark is still alive (and thus Rickon Stark, too). In fact, Lord Wyman Manderly and Robett Glover also don't care to inform Jon Snow about stuff like that, just as Howland Reed - if Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover are with him - also does not care to inform Jon Snow about Robb's will - assuming it actually legitimized him. The sham of 'Arya Stark' would have been unraveled the moment Jon and Jeyne actually met - unless Jon was willing to support an impostor Arya Stark - which I don't see - this thing would have unraveled immediately. Wyman Manderly would be dead, too, if Stannis was crushed - and Ramsay/Roose would likely send 'chops of Manderly' to White Harbor rather than 'pieces of prince' considering that Roose would be learning about the Frey pies before he would allow the fat man to die. Wylis Manderly was pretty much a shell of a man when Jaime freed him at Harrenhal. That guy is not likely going to continue his father's plans once said father - and all the Manderly knights at Winterfell - met an unpleasant end. The Stark power base for a restoration of Rickon Stark would be almost non-existent after a Bolton victory at Winterfell. But they have no fall-back position, have they? Castle Black and the other castles at the Wall cannot be defended against the south, so it should be rather easy to crush them completely. Shireen or Stannis or Robb's will could legitimize Jon, but that wouldn't get him out of his vows. He could not possibly set himself up as the new ruler of the North. Especially not with the wildlings backing him.
  7. Lord Varys

    Jon's Shield Hall Speech and Subsequent Plan

    They agreed to the wildling plan with Tormund - they did not agree to allow the wildlings to march into the North avenging Stannis or fight against the Boltons. They may no longer want to fight the Boltons after they know they won. There is a time when you have to make peace even if you hate it. And they would have just lost 3,000 men, give or take, if Stannis lost. Because it is made perfectly clear that the clansmen at the village won't yield or stop fighting in their fight against the Boltons. They will fight to the bitter end, and if the Boltons won then all of them - or at least most of them - will be dead. Even if they had men left - they would first have to ride back there and they would have muster such men, because if whatever men they have had assembled already they would have gone with Stannis. That would take considerable time, even if it were feasible. Even if we assume Jon is terribly lucky and kills Ramsay - what's the point of that? Ramsay isn't the Warden of the North, his father is. And the fact that Ramsay already wrote two intimidation letters - one to Asha and another one to Jon before the Pink Letter - strongly suggests that this third letter is just part of that 'genre', too, meaning that Roose would be - if the letter were true - in perfect health and complete control of Winterfell. Half the North already bent the knee to Roose before Stannis marched - how likely is it that any of the men playing both sides or trying to conspire against him would continue such efforts after Stannis and most/all his troops (including the Northmen he gathered) were destroyed? Jon cannot hope to prevail against the Bolton if they crushed Stannis. Even if Jon actually surprised Ramsay somehow - he would have just taken out Roose Bolton's unpopular son. Roose himself is not going to be played by Jon. If Roose had won then Jon's wildling army would suffer the same fate Stannis' wildling army would have suffered on their way to the Dreadfort. The Northmen would attack it on the way because there is simply no way a majority of the Northmen would accept a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch leading an army against Winterfell.
  8. Robert certainly is counted as a king. But he is just a successful usurper, not the legitimate heir/rightful king. Robert himself understands this when he points out that half the realm still calls him usurper. Aegon IV certainly was the worst king on the Iron Throne ever, but nobody ever questioned his claim to the throne. And why should they? He was the oldest son of the last king, and he and his father (and his descendants) were the last Targaryens around. Robert beggared the Crown. Littlefinger has (pretty much) nothing to do with that. The man is in his late twenties and only became Master of Coin later in Robert's reign. The idea that only he actually knows what's in Robert's treasury makes no sense. Littlefinger rose to prominence and power when Jon and Robert needed the incomes of the Crown to increase, to finance Robert's extravagances. They didn't bring in a nobody because anybody could do the job, they brought him in because he seemed to be able to give Robert what he wanted. Littlefinger likely also steals from the Crown, but it is not because of him that Robert has to loan huge sums from Casterly Rock, Highgarden, the Faith, and the Iron Bank. Well, he was a Targaryen, sat the Iron Throne, completed a great castle and started to build the Dragonpit. He certainly liked prestige just as much as raw power. Viserys III was a child when his exile began. He needed at least ten years to grow old enough to hope to do stuff on his own. Robert is afraid of the Dothraki alliance and even more of any children Dany and Drogo might have. We never see a popular and broad Targaryen uprising because no Targaryens have made a move until ADwD. But they will. The books are full of hints in that direction. It would have been more difficult while Robert was still alive, but even then the alliance who put him into power was rotten to the core. The Lannisters and Starks are more interested in ripping each other to pieces, as are Robert's own brothers. And with Jon Arryn gone and Hoster Tully dying the Baratheons cannot really count on the Vale and the Riverlands, either. And Robert himself was no longer the great manly warrior he had been in his early twenties. He was a fat drunkard who may no longer have been able to plan a proper campaign - nor able to count on any of the men around him. He himself admits to Ned that he is the only friend he has left. As for Essosi exiles - there were four Blackfyre pretenders (five, if we count Aenys Blackfyre) who came from Essos. They were not without support - and unlike the Targaryens they never actually sat the throne nor were the ones who conquered the Seven Kingdoms and built the Iron Throne. But with the War of the Five Kings now basically de-legitimizing the royal pretensions of the Baratheons, Lannisters, and Starks - all they gave the Seven Kingdoms were blood and carnage - the desire for nostalgia and the good old days should be very high. Robert's Rebellion didn't exactly end some sort of long reign of terror (Aerys II's reign was 20+ years of peace and plenty with considerable erratic behavior in the last couple of years). It started a civil war. Aerys II was burning people in his capital, but KL is a very small place in a large Realm. 99 % of the population had no issues with the Mad King nor anything to fear from him because the guy either did not know they existed or what they were doing. It would certainly have been an injustice to kill Ned and Robert, but those are just two men - against all those who died during the war. A war that ended with the murder of innocent women and children. In that sense, there is no reason to assume the majority of Westeros sees Robert Baratheon as 'a hero'. Sure, but people still don't care about the ice zombies and stuff. But they do care about the Targaryens. In the Riverlands, in Dorne, even in White Harbor. And apparently even in the Stormlands, as Aegon's example right now shows. Who Aegon actually is is pretty much irrelevant. He is either going to fly as Rhaegar's son or not at all. Nobody in Westeros is going to support a Blackfyre descendant now. But chances are pretty much zero that Aegon's mother would be the one with the dragon blood. It would likely be Illyrio himself who chose to father his son on a woman who was likely to give the boy proper Valyrian features - which was necessary to create a fake Aegon. Illyrio himself doesn't seem to have proper Valyrian features (and if he is some obscure descendant of Daemon Blackfyre through a couple of daughters, etc. then it is not exactly likely that his children would suddenly look like proper Targaryens) - but we know Rhaegar's Aegon had such features. If you saw a unique opportunity to create a fake prince due to the manner how the real child died then you would, in this world, likely fuck a dozen or more Lyseni prostitutes with silver-gold hair and purple eyes because you don't have much time to actually produce the child. It was a year old when it died, so even if you father one right away you will have to add another nine months which means your Aegon will be about two years younger than the real one (which is actually how Tyrion describes him - 15-16 years to the real Aegon's 18 in 300 AC). The window of opportunity isn't going to remain open for long. And you cannot be sure that your child will have the Valyrian features you need, you cannot even be sure that it will be male. So Illyrio likely had much fun with a dozen or a score of Lyseni prostitutes and then picked the boy (and the mother) who suited his desires best and discarded the rest. If Illyrio ever married the Serra woman then this may have had more to do with the fact that he wanted his Aegon to be a legitimate child, entitled/able to easily inherit his vast estates upon his death should the Westeros plans be scrapped or postponed indefinitely or he simply to die before they are put into motion.
  9. Lord Varys

    R+L=J v.166

    Oh, come on, I specify what I meant by that sentence immediately thereafter: Proper textual evidence is not hearsay. There is also textual evidence that Sansa Stark slew Joffrey Baratheon and transformed into a winged wolf, just as there is textual evidence that Stannis Baratheon controlled the boar that killed Robert Baratheon via skinchanging. We usually don't cite this 'textual evidence' as textual evidence when discussing those topics, do we? Ned talks about Lyanna's death to Robert and then he remembers her death, but he never actually confirms that he promised her to bring her back home. The author sets the stage that a first-time reader interprets the passage in such a way - Lyanna was dying, Ned talked to her, and he promised her to bring her body home - but with what we learn later it is exceedingly unlikely that the question of Lyanna's final resting place ever came up in that conversation. Especially if Lyanna actually fell in love with Rhaegar and married him and knew he was dead when she died, too, it would be rather odd that she would have wanted to be dumped (anonymously) into the Stark crypts like a maiden who died before her marriage. Instead, one assumes, she would have wished to rest beside her husband - which would have been on Dragonstone, where all the Targaryens (and presumably also their non-sibling spouses) are interred. That is confirmed basically for all the Targaryen kings and queens up to the Dance (aside from Alyssa Velaryon who was buried at Storm's End, with her second husband's family). But as I said above already - my point is not to claim Lyanna did not ask for that or that Ned did not promise it. My point is that it is just FACTUALLY WRONG to claim we know she asked and he made such a promise. Because we don't. Structurally this is exactly the same mistake as claiming that we 'know' that Jon Snow is Ned's son - because we have textual evidence for that, too, and people also believe that this is true. It was always odd to interpret the above scene in such a way. Because Lyanna is very afraid in Ned's memory there, so what is this about? Is this Lyanna woman supposed to be so superstitious that she could only think about her proper burial place when she was dying? Most likely not, as later chapters indicate. But I recall that I noted this oddity during my first read and thought that this was strange.
  10. Not necessarily. There may be some people in Westeros - just as there are people here - who interpret the marriage as valid, falling and on their knees and kissing the feet of 'the rightful king' whereas others may take a more, well, reasoned approach. Just at it will be with Aegon. Many will see him as 'the rightful king' come back to save them from certain doom. But not everybody. But, sure, Ned branded Lyanna's son a bastard. That stain is never going to leave him. We see how Alyn Velaryon is not exactly welcome in the elite circle of nobility never mind the fact that Rhaenyra legitimized him, and Aegon IV's great bastards had the same issues. It should be Brynden Targaryen, but it is Brynden Rivers, even after the guy became Hand. Thus even for people believing the marriage to be valid will not suddenly not treat Jon as a bastard or not see the bastard in him. In Jon's case the main issue is not really the marriage but the question who actually is going to buy this story - i.e. that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married if that was done in secret, that she was pregnant, if that was unknown to the public, that she had a living child, and that said child happened to be the bastard of Eddard Stark. You have to buy a lot to actually buy that Jon is a prince or even 'the rightful king'.
  11. Lord Varys

    R+L=J v.166

    I didn't say that Lya couldn't have asked Ned to promise her that, I pointed out that we have no evidence that what he told Robert is actually true. We don't know from Lyanna Stark where she wanted to be buried. A character claiming X is the case isn't the same as X being the case - and us knowing that X is the case. And you do know that. Ned Stark also said Jon Snow was his bastard. Does this mean he is his son? No. There is ample evidence to question anything Ned told or insinuated about Lyanna, especially in conversation with Robert. Overall, the idea that there were no other people at the tower - at a place close to the Prince's Pass - is also not very believable. There must have been at least a wetnurse considering that neither Ned nor Howland could have breastfed the child (if the child was there). And if a wetnurse was there then a maester, other servants, etc. could have been there, too. It could help in that tearing down the tower thing as well as in the transporting department. Prince Aegon also had Yandry and Ysilla on the Shy Maid, and nobody thought that the first thing they would once they parted ways is to rat him out. Just because some commoners know things doesn't mean they have to tell tales. Especially since some Dornish peasants may not ever have had the opportunity to connect whatever child was in that tower to Eddard Stark's bastard. They may have never even heard that Eddard Stark had a bastard, nor understood who the guy was who had arrived there. There is also no reason not to believe Ned dropped off Lyanna's corpse at the next septry or castle where silent sisters were available while he was continuing on to Starfall for some reason. Lyanna was dead and he could pick up her bones on the way back. In fact, it is actually rather interesting that Ned actually went to Starfall afterwards. He could have handed Dawn to some local Dornishmen, charging them with returning it. He could also have kept it to hand it over to Robert as a trophy of war (or as a means for negotiation with the Daynes later on). One assumes he must have felt a rather strong need to go there, or else he would have just then and there decided to deal with his family issues. He had just lost his sister and a bunch of very good friends, not to mention the infant he had to deal with.
  12. Lord Varys

    R+L=J v.166

    There is no textual evidence that she made such a wish. All we have is Ned telling Robert that this is what she wanted, but that's not the same as us knowing she actually asked for that, is it? Ned definitely lied to Robert about Lyanna and her child, so there is no reason to assume he told him the truth about where she wanted to be buried. He could have just made that up to justify his own wish to bring his Lya back to Winterfell where she, in his opinion, belonged. He even broke tradition in granting her a statue in the crypts, indicating that she meant more to him than the average Stark sister meant to the average Lord of Winterfell - because none of those ever got such statues. But even if she actually wasted her dying breath on specifying her final resting place - at this point we have no evidence that this happened. Only Ned's word to Robert. And that's not worth all that much.
  13. Lord Varys

    Prince of Dragonstone

    The Prince of Dragonstone was originally just a nickname of Prince Maegor. He was the Prince of Dragonstone because he spent most of his time there, but he did not rule the place which was basically the second residence of King Aegon. In those times being the Heir Apparent had nothing to do with that nickname. Prince Aenys was the unquestioned Heir Apparent, Prince Maegor was just the spare. 'Prince of Dragonstone' became a relevant title when King Aenys, after he had exiled Maegor, decided to grant this title to his Heir Apparent, Prince Aegon. At that time Dragonstone was the major royal residence considering that the Red Keep was not yet completed, so this was more a ceremonial title then a title that came with a lordship. During Maegor's reign there was neither a Prince nor a Princess of Dragonstone, although it seems that Dragonstone effectively became the residence and seat of Maegor's mother, the Dowager Queen Visenya. Jaehaerys I granted Dragonstone as residence and seat to his elder sister, Queen Rhaena. She ruled it in her own right but still under jurisdiction of Jaehaerys I. This was the first time that Dragonstone was treated as an independent lordship/domain under the rule of the Iron Throne. Prior to that it was effectively one of two royal residences of the Targaryen king. After Rhaena moved to the Widow's Tower at Harrenhal Jaehaerys I's Heir Apparent Aemon was created Prince of Dragonstone in 62 AC. This is the first time that the creation of a Prince of Dragonstone and the formal investiture of the Heir Apparent were the same act. And that's how it was until Aerys II was overthrown. After Aemon died, Baelon followed him as Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent, then Viserys, and then Rhaenyra. Although it is interesting whether there will be other exceptions like the one with Rhaena. The childless Aegon III could grant Dragonstone as seat and lordship to his brother Viserys, so that he and his sons have seats they can leave to their descendants if he and Daenaera produce heirs to sit the Iron Throne. If that were the case then Daeron I and Baelor won't succeed to the Iron Throne as Princes of Dragonstone. Instead their uncle and Hand will bear that title until Viserys II's branch takes over the Iron Throne. Aemon was also the first Prince of Dragonstone who actually resided at and ruled Dragonstone (at least until he became Master of Laws). Baelon later did the same until he became Hand, and Viserys may have, too, for a short time. Rhaenyra definitely did, and we also know that the future Daeron II and Rhaegar also lived on and ruled Dragonstone rather than residing in the Red Keep. You don't become Prince of Dragonstone by default by being the eldest child, just as you are not the Heir Apparent just because you happen to be the eldest child. One assumes, for instance, that there was neither an acknowledged Heir Apparent nor a Prince of Dragonstone when King Maekar died in 233 AC. Else the succession wouldn't have been in doubt.
  14. Lord Varys

    Tolkien 3.0

    There is something like that in The Road goes ever on, but I'm not recalling right now that this extended to a ban on her even in the SA and TA. And in the Silmarillion texts Tolkien never made Galadriel a follower of Feanor at all. She had the same desire, sure, and she spilled some blood, but she never swore any vows and was thus only cursed by extension. That was never much pretext for a ban. Especially since we actually learn that a lot of the Noldor returned to Valinor after the War of Wrath, and the destruction of Eregion, and after the end of the SA. How likely is that Galadriel was basically the only one who was not allowed to return? Oh, I think she would have been able to do more than just that. She had already preserved Lórien for over 5,000 years thanks to Nenya. But that wasn't all that much. In the TA Imladris and Lórien are basically reservations for the native people, little islands in the wilderness surrounded by Men who already rule Middle-earth. With the One Ring she could have changed that, too. She could have gotten what she wanted in the beginning. Or rather: a twisted version of that. She didn't set out to become an obscure fairy-queen in some forest reservation.
  15. Lord Varys

    Tolkien 3.0

    Perhaps I'm misremembering, but didn't Galadriel not only ever defend her Teleri kin against the Feanorians? I'm not sure how that would justify a continuous ban on her after the War of Wrath (assuming it did before which I'm not sure is justified). Sure, her remaining behind can be seen as an act of defiance, but the idea that she was still not allowed to return at the end of the TA never made much sense to me. The temptation of the Ring for her is also, rather obviously, that the Ring actually would give her the means to not only get what she wanted when she set out, but also to keep it in perpetuity and to a degree Nenya and the other Rings of Power could not grant her. That is pretty big never mind why exactly she originally left and was not allowed to come back.
×