[spoilers] Rank the rulers

[Lord Varys]

For me it would be:

1. Jaehaerys I (and Alysanne)

2. Aegon I, Visenya, and Rhaenys

3. Viserys I

4. Aenys I

5. Alyssa

6. Aegon III

7. Rhaenyra

8. Maegor

9. Aegon II

The first two shouldn't contentious, and the rational further down the road is to group those who tried to be good rulers but failed to put before those who did pretty much nothing and those before those who actually fucked things up bad time.

And, yeah, Aegon II is the greatest piece of shit on the Iron Throne in that book. He is worse than Maegor, in my opinion.

Aegon III might be better once he rules in his own right, but he didn't really do much during the Regency. However, Gyldayn's introduction to 'the Broken King' doesn't really sound as if we can expect much from him. If his rule doesn't suck it will be mostly due to the people around him, not because of a lot he himself does.

[DMC]

Hm.  I think I'd put Alyssa over Aenys - the notion to marry Rogar was a good one and it's hard to blame her for what transpired after.  I also think, as you mentioned, it's premature to rate Aegon III as of yet.  Think I'd probably have Aegon II over Maegor, but don't really care.  Otherwise agree.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Hm.  I think I'd put Alyssa over Aenys - the notion to marry Rogar was a good one and it's hard to blame her for what transpired after.

On the personal level one can understand Alyssa, but from a political level her marriage to Rogar and herself being torn between her husband and her children was the root of the issue. But she made good calls, too - the War for the White Cloaks resulted in great KG, helping and encouraging her son to take the lead and not look weak (like Catelyn did with Robb). And, of course, cleaning up her mess at the cost of her personal happiness.

Why I find Aenys is better than his reputation is his willingness to actually include Maegor into his government - he was not forced to give Maegor a place at court, much less to make him Hand. That things between him and Maegor/Visenya failed wasn't really his fault. And even what he did later - the Dragonstone business - wasn't really that bad. Maegor was lucky that he still had a head at that point.

Also, the whole thing about the Aegon-Rhaena marriage shows the man could be determined after all. But he clearly had severe issues with properly dealing with real challenges.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I also think, as you mentioned, it's premature to rate Aegon III as of yet.

Yeah, but it only refers to the Regency era. And he rarely shines there, and allows himself to be pushed far too often and easily. 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Think I'd probably have Aegon II over Maegor, but don't really care.  Otherwise agree.

Oh, the living torches put Aegon II in Maegor territory - as does the feast in Aemond's honor after the murder of Lucerys. Unlike Maegor Aegon II accomplished nothing during his reign. Maegor at least broke the Faith. That was a solid basis for Jaehaerys I to continue. Aegon II left his successor pretty much a destroyed Realm.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

On the personal level one can understand Alyssa, but from a political level her marriage to Rogar and herself being torn between her husband and her children was the root of the issue.

Disagree.  Seems apparent to me she married Rogar out of duty, and who knows it could have been his price.  Regardless, politically it's prudent to reward those you owe a clear debt to, as Jaehaerys alludes to when he lifts Rogar back up after the Rhaella/Oldtown business.  That alone puts her above Aenys in my book.  Plus I don't count Aenys insisting upon the Rhaena/Aegon match as a positive for him.

As for Aenys bringing Maegor back into the fold, he clearly erred here as he deferred too much to him.  Notice Viserys never makes Daemon Hand, and certainly never bestows Blackfyre upon even though he's just about more worthy of it as Maegor is to Aenys.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but it only refers to the Regency era. And he rarely shines there, and allows himself to be pushed far too often and easily.

I agree that his indifference during the regency was irresponsible and reflects poorly, but I'm willing to give the kid a pass on that.  Even after Viserys came back.

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor at least broke the Faith. 

Dunno about that.  Dude had Lords Rowan and Oakheart in the same company as a charlatan septon threatening to attack Oldtown at the time of his death.  In terms of new content, I think this book makes clear how Jaehaerys was the one that reconciled the faith.  If you imagine Jaehaerys not existing/dead and Maegor surviving as King for another ten years, seems pretty clear the wars with the faith would continue.

As for Aegon II, I agree he seemed pretty bad, but he also seemed incompetent.  I'll take an incompetent tyrant over a competent tyrant twice on Sundays.  And Maegor was a competent tyrant.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Disagree.  Seems apparent to me she married Rogar out of duty, and who knows it could have been his price.  Regardless, politically it's prudent to reward those you owe a clear debt to, as Jaehaerys alludes to when he lifts Rogar back up after the Rhaella/Oldtown business.  That alone puts her above Aenys in my book.  Plus I don't count Aenys insisting upon the Rhaena/Aegon match as a positive for him.

No, it is strongly implied she actually loved the man. He married her out of ambition, but she loved. That's why she weeps when she fires him.

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for Aenys bringing Maegor back into the fold, he clearly erred here as he deferred too much to him.  Notice Viserys never makes Daemon Hand, and certainly never bestows Blackfyre upon even though he's just about more worthy of it as Maegor is to Aenys.

Back then Blackfyre was just a sword. The legend about 'the sword of kings' was only developing. And I was thinking about Daeron II and Daemon Blackfyre there. If Daeron II had taken a page out of Aenys' book there perhaps there wouldn't have been a Blackfyre Rebellion. After all, Maegor did not rebel against his royal brother.

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Dunno about that.  Dude had Lords Rowan and Oakheart in the same company as a charlatan septon threatening to attack Oldtown at the time of his death.  In terms of new content, I think this book makes clear how Jaehaerys was the one that reconciled the faith.  If you imagine Jaehaerys not existing/dead and Maegor surviving as King for another ten years, seems pretty clear the wars with the faith would continue.

Maegor destroyed the Faith Militant and he was the one who had the High Septon kiss his feet. Jaehaerys I had a foundation to build on. He could have never done what he did had Maegor not first taught them the price of defiance - and he not shown the Realm that the Faith gives in if pressured hard enough.

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for Aegon II, I agree he seemed pretty bad, but he also seemed incompetent.  I'll take an incompetent tyrant over a competent tyrant twice on Sundays.  And Maegor was a competent tyrant.

Again, Maegor accomplished something for his dynasty and even the Realm as such - finished the Red Keep, started the Dragonpit, put the Faith in his place. Aegon II accomplished nothing. His legacy basically are the two silly heads of his dead brothers. That's literally all he left posterity.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it is strongly implied she actually loved the man. He married her out of ambition, but she loved. That's why she weeps when she fires him.

Gotta agree to disagree there.  I think she may have had affection for him, but the reason she's weeping is because she's scared for her children, which guides all of her actions.  And makes her a better regent than Aenys was a king.

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Back then Blackfyre was just a sword. The legend about 'the sword of kings' was only developing.

That may be true.  Gyldayn clearly would disagree based on his commentary though.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I was thinking about Daeron II and Daemon Blackfyre there. If Daeron II had taken a page out of Aenys' book there perhaps there wouldn't have been a Blackfyre Rebellion. After all, Maegor did not rebel against his royal brother.

So what was Daeron II supposed to do?  Re-bestow Blackfyre upon Daemon?  Not sure what you're saying here.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor destroyed the Faith Militant and he was the one who had the High Septon kiss his feet. Jaehaerys I had a foundation to build on. He could have never done what he did had Maegor not first taught them the price of defiance - and he not shown the Realm that the Faith gives in if pressured hard enough.

I don't know how you can be sure of these assertions.  If the faith is modeled after the catholic church in the middle ages, which I think it is, then they are above all subtle -- and pliable.  Which means Jaehaerys would have been an eminently better adversary than Maegor ever could be.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

His legacy basically are the two silly heads of his dead brothers.

Yeah, wonder what happened to those.  Anyway, my..criteria is more based on who would make the most negative or positive damage in the long run?  When it comes to Maegor v Aegon II, I think it's clear Maegor clearly would have if you control for time and exogenous factors.  Aegon II would have just deferred.  Now, if he were defer to Aemond, I suppose that's an interesting discussion.

[The Sleeper]

By some lights Alyssa overthrew Maegor, and safeguarded her son's reign, which included some personal cost.

Aenys paved the way for Maegor to disinherit his son and Viserys was self-indulgent while burying his head in the sand. So I would put Alyssa third and those two near the bottom. 

Frankly I am less than impressed with Aegon. He didn't seem to make a lot of headway in unifying the realm and his forces asses were consistently whooped until the dragons got involved. And it seems that if it wasn't for Visenya he would have died sooner. So Alyssa second and Aegon third. 

[naseridrl]

I'd have Alysanne top, with Barth.  I found myself much more impressed with them than Jaehaerys in that chapter.  Jae was still superior to the Targ Kings though in the book, along with Alyssa. After them I'd have the conquerors, Visenya/Aegon/Rhaenys.  After that for me they've all got their good and bad points and not a vast amount separates them out.

[direpupy]

Alyssa had her moments but she really only impressed me once and that was when she fired Rogar other then that she seemed quite average.

Alysanne likewise had her moments and made a great counsilor for Jaehaerys, but a ruler she was not. This she showed when she could not see how it was more prudent to name Baelon heir over Rhaenys in light of Baelon's popularity and the biasednes of most lords when it comes to male versus female heirs. The ability to make hard/harsh disisions a trait that you need as a ruler also eluded her, as shown in the cases of there daughters Saera and Daella.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, DMC said:

Gotta agree to disagree there.  I think she may have had affection for him, but the reason she's weeping is because she's scared for her children, which guides all of her actions.  And makes her a better regent than Aenys was a king.

Oh, but the description of the Golden Wedding and all strongly imply Alyssa sought happiness in this wedding. That sort of implies there was some love there, for her.

And the tears I really see as her finally understanding what this man is about. She has little reason to fear for her children because of Rogar since she can not only fire him, but also take along with his badge. Not to mention her children ride pretty big dragons.

16 hours ago, DMC said:

That may be true.  Gyldayn clearly would disagree based on his commentary though.

The legend was in the making. Visenya used this gift as a way to undermine Aenys. She didn't have to do that. What do you think she would have done if Aenys had made a show out of slighting rather than embracing Maegor and presenting him with Blackfyre? He tried to work with his half-brother - but he didn't have to do that.

16 hours ago, DMC said:

So what was Daeron II supposed to do?  Re-bestow Blackfyre upon Daemon?  Not sure what you're saying here.

No, I meant including him into the family and the government. Trying to keep the family together.

16 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know how you can be sure of these assertions.  If the faith is modeled after the catholic church in the middle ages, which I think it is, then they are above all subtle -- and pliable.  Which means Jaehaerys would have been an eminently better adversary than Maegor ever could be.

Without Maegor, Jaehaerys' decision to marry Alysanne would have marked the end of his reign.

16 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah, wonder what happened to those.  Anyway, my..criteria is more based on who would make the most negative or positive damage in the long run?  When it comes to Maegor v Aegon II, I think it's clear Maegor clearly would have if you control for time and exogenous factors.  Aegon II would have just deferred.  Now, if he were defer to Aemond, I suppose that's an interesting discussion.

Oh, well, my main criteria where 'lasting legacies' and attempts to do good. Aegon II pretty much did nothing good for the kingdom or his dynasty, whereas Maegor at least gave his city the Red Keep and the Dragonpit (half of it at least) and he broke the military power of the Faith. That's why I think he is better. Aside from that, these two are not that different.

2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Aenys paved the way for Maegor to disinherit his son and Viserys was self-indulgent while burying his head in the sand. So I would put Alyssa third and those two near the bottom. 

He didn't really do that. Maegor was in exile when Aenys died.

2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Frankly I am less than impressed with Aegon. He didn't seem to make a lot of headway in unifying the realm and his forces asses were consistently whooped until the dragons got involved. And it seems that if it wasn't for Visenya he would have died sooner. So Alyssa second and Aegon third. 

Aegon kept the Realm together and enforced the King's Peace. That in and of itself is a huge accomplishment.

2 hours ago, naseridrl said:

I'd have Alysanne top, with Barth.  I found myself much more impressed with them than Jaehaerys in that chapter.  Jae was still superior to the Targ Kings though in the book, along with Alyssa. After them I'd have the conquerors, Visenya/Aegon/Rhaenys.  After that for me they've all got their good and bad points and not a vast amount separates them out.

Alysanne is clearly the smarter one, I'd agree there. Jaehaerys is smart, too, but far too conventional and unimaginative for my taste. Without Alysanne he wouldn't have been even half the great king he turned out to be.

But Alysanne never ruled. That's why I had her in brackets there with Jaehaerys. Rhaenys and Visenya were co-rulers, sitting the Iron Throne. Alysanne never did that. And while Alyssa Velaryon never sat the Iron Throne, either, she did rule the Seven Kingdoms for 1.5 years or so.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Alyssa had her moments but she really only impressed me once and that was when she fired Rogar other then that she seemed quite average.

She has some moments before, but her choices for the council were mixed bags. Corbray and her brother were great choices, Celtigar and Tully not so much. And her listening to Mattheus and giving in to fear over the incest thing also caused massive problems. But one should never underestimate Rogar's voice in there. He would have fanned those fears, starting with the desire to marry Alysanne to his brother Orryn.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Alysanne likewise had her moments and made a great counsilor for Jaehaerys, but a ruler she was not. This she showed when she could not see how it was more prudent to name Baelon heir over Rhaenys in light of Baelon's popularity and the biasednes of most lords when it comes to male versus female heirs. The ability to make hard/harsh disisions a trait that you need as a ruler also eluded her, as shown in the cases of there daughters Saera and Daella.

Oh, I don't know. If Baelon himself had stood with Rhaenys this could have worked. And as it stands this was a spur of the moment idea, anyway, not exactly something that was planned. Baelon was groomed to be Aemon's Hand, he could have served Rhaenys in the same capacity. And with House Velaryon, House Baratheon, and Prince Baelon behind a Queen Rhaenys, nobody in the Realm would grumbled or dared object to this thing.

In Daella's case Jaehaerys failed completely as a father and a king. There was no reason that this daughter had to be married off at this early age (or at all). Alysanne herself didn't really see that until it was too late, either, but she saw it. What Jaehaerys thought about that Gyldayn didn't know. But since that's the first crack leading to the Great Rift one assumes Jaehaerys was not willing to admit that he shared responsibility in his daughter's death.

Alysanne trying to get Saera back has essentially nothing to do with her ability as a ruler. Saera did shitty things, but wanting her back didn't put the kingdom or the government at risk. Alysanne doesn't show any of that softness when dealing with matters of state (e.g. her take on Lucamore the Lusty and his wives).

[naseridrl]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Alysanne is clearly the smarter one, I'd agree there. Jaehaerys is smart, too, but far too conventional and unimaginative for my taste. Without Alysanne he wouldn't have been even half the great king he turned out to be.

I got the feeling Jaehaerys was very normative.  He fit well into the world he lived in, he was largely happy to keep the status quo as it was. He saw no real need to change things, he could see problems or areas to fix if someone else pointed them out to him but he wasn't someone who thought of reform or change of his own devices.  Which isn't really that shocking considering Westeros as a world was made for and by people like him, whereas as a woman or a commoner Alysanne and Barth could see problems/failings/shortcomings where he couldn't because he'd never experienced that side of the coin. 

[Bael's Bastard]

I think Aenys and Viserys I were somewhat similar. I don't think Viserys would have fared as well as he did had he inherited the situation Aenys did from Aegon I, and I think Aenys might have had just as long a reign as Viserys I had he inherited the world of tamed Faith and Targaryen exceptionalism that Viserys I did. And though I think Maegor was at least a little worse than Daemon, had things gone a little bit differently, Daemon very well might have attempted to usurp his brother's heir(s) like Maegor did his. Since he was able to wed Viserys's chosen heir, he only had to support her against Viserys's sons. In a sense, he was able to justify fighting to deprive what should have been Viserys's heirs according to every previous Targaryen precedent and Andal law, Aegon II, by supporting who Viserys had chosen as his heir, Rhaenyra, who he had locked down as his wife. I have to hand it to GRRM for creating two characters (Maegor and Daemon) who are not worlds different, but who many are likely to have very different feelings about.

[direpupy]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I don't know. If Baelon himself had stood with Rhaenys this could have worked. And as it stands this was a spur of the moment idea, anyway, not exactly something that was planned. Baelon was groomed to be Aemon's Hand, he could have served Rhaenys in the same capacity. And with House Velaryon, House Baratheon, and Prince Baelon behind a Queen Rhaenys, nobody in the Realm would grumbled or dared object to this thing.

I disagree even if there was no open dicent there would always have been discusions and such and Jaehaerys did discus it with his small council so it was not as spur of the moment as you asume.

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Daella's case Jaehaerys failed completely as a father and a king. There was no reason that this daughter had to be married off at this early age (or at all). Alysanne herself didn't really see that until it was too late, either, but she saw it. What Jaehaerys thought about that Gyldayn didn't know. But since that's the first crack leading to the Great Rift one assumes Jaehaerys was not willing to admit that he shared responsibility in his daughter's death.

Daughters in medieval times where there to be married to further the interest of the family, so her not getting married at all would have been out of the question. As to the age you do realize that we constanly hear about women getting married at a even younger age without any problem, so this is not much of an argument.

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 Alysanne trying to get Saera back has essentially nothing to do with her ability as a ruler. Saera did shitty things, but wanting her back didn't put the kingdom or the government at risk. Alysanne doesn't show any of that softness when dealing with matters of state (e.g. her take on Lucamore the Lusty and his wives).

Wrong, this is about the honor of the house, to show weakness by forgiving Saera after what she did and how she dishonored house Targaryen would have lead to talk of how the King could not rule his own house, so how can he rule the realm.

The fact that she can not be tough with her own family shows that Alysanne did not have the makings of a ruler, being tough on somebody who is not related to you is easy, the real test is when it is somebody you love and she failed that test.

[Lord Varys]

26 minutes ago, naseridrl said:

I got the feeling Jaehaerys was very normative.  He fit well into the world he lived in, he was largely happy to keep the status quo as it was. He saw no real need to change things, he could see problems or areas to fix if someone else pointed them out to him but he wasn't someone who thought of reform or change of his own devices.  Which isn't really that shocking considering Westeros as a world was made for and by people like him, whereas as a woman or a commoner Alysanne and Barth could see problems/failings/shortcomings where he couldn't because he'd never experienced that side of the coin. 

Yeah, Jaehaerys I is all male (and royal) privilege. One can see that in 'the arguments' he uses when 'defending' the Long Night, how he apparently ignored Aerea while he lived at court, how he pardoned Rogar (who, let's be frank, should have lost his head for what he tried to play) and forced his mother to continue to live with that man and condemned Saera as a whore (who is a psychopath and in relation to her mental state possibly the worst Targaryen we have met so far, but that's something none of her parents realize).

Without Alysanne or Barth the First Night would have stayed, there would have been Widow's Law, and no fountains in KL. Although the Realm would have gotten roads and KL cobblestones. I'm sure Rego Draz was happy about the latter ;-).

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I disagree even if there was no open dicent there would always have been discusions and such and Jaehaerys did discus it with his small council so it was not as spur of the moment as you asume.

There are seemingly conflicted accounts on that one:

Quote

On his return to King’s Landing, Baelon was hailed as a hero by cheering throngs, and embraced by his father the king, who named him Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne. It was a popular decree. The smallfolk loved Baelon the Brave, and the lords of the realm saw him as his brother’s obvious successor.

Later:

Quote

Jaehaerys did not make his decision lightly; he is known to have discussed the matter with his small council. Undoubtedly he consulted Septon Barth, as he did on all important matters, and the views of Grand Maester Elysar were given much weight. All were in accord. Baelon, a seasoned knight of thirty-five, was better suited for rule than the eighteen-year-old Princess Rhaenys or her unborn babe (who might or might not be a boy, whereas Prince Baelon had already sired two healthy sons, Viserys and Daemon). The love of the commons for Baelon the Brave was also cited.

It is not exactly clear when those deliberations took place, nor is there any confirmation that they actually took place, e.g. Gyldayn only speculates that Jaehaerys consulted Barth on the matter, he gives us no citation that this actually took place. The consultation of Elysar is also just asserted, without actually being confirmed by a source. It might be this did happen before Baelon's return from Tarth and all, but the way the whole thing was done indicates it was done without at least consulting with Prince Baelon himself - who was on Tarth and was declared heir apparent on his return, never mind whether he wanted that or not.

You cannot exactly tell your father the king that you don't want the throne in front of a crowd cheering as a hero, can you?

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Daughters in medieval times where there to be married to further the interest of the family, so her not getting married at all would have been out of the question. As to the age you do realize that we constanly hear about women getting married at a even younger age without any problem, so this is not much of an argument.

You do recall as how small and frail Princess Daella is described, I assume? And while there is a tendency to marry girls off this isn't a given. There are quite a few unmarried noblewoman in ASoIaF, no? The Mad Maid, Brienne of Tarth, Elissa Farman (and Rhaena's other favorites), Jeyne Arryn, Arianne Martell, Asha Greyjoy (at least insofar as she herself is concerned), etc. In Daella's case it was quite clear that marrying her and expect her to bear children was playing with her very life to a much higher degree than if she had been a strong and tall woman, and somewhat older.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Wrong, this is about the honor of the house, to show weakness by forgiving Saera after what she did and how she dishonored house Targaryen would have lead to talk of how the King could not rule his own house, so how can he rule the realm.

Taking her back doesn't exactly mean to not punish her. Or would you describe her apparent temporal banishment to Oldtown as House Targaryen and the king losing face? Not to mention that women are not men. They are less important than men. Saera might never make a proper match, but her sleeping around doesn't necessarily damage the image of a king the same way it does when a brother or a son defies him.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

The fact that she can not be tough with her own family shows that Alysanne did not have the makings of a ruler, being tough on somebody who is not related to you is easy, the real test is when it is somebody you love and she failed that test.

You are confusing things here. Jaehaerys is using two different standards when he doesn't try to get Saera back (who he actually punished rather mildly at Oldtown) despite the fact that he wants to (which is made evident by his senile delusions which are very reminiscent of Hoster Tully's dying ramblings) whereas he basically pardons all male traitors who are not KG breaking their vows.

Saera basically had the same lifestyle as Lord Rogar - who made a fool out of the Queen Regent with his Lysene slave girls orgy (assuming this took place).

Trying to get Saera back from Lys doesn't cost the king and the queen any face considering that she wasn't exiled by the king. And it is clearly Jaehaerys own twisted moral sense and his failings as a father that cause him to react the way he does there - for him his daughter is a whore. For Alysanne she is still their daughter (that neither understand she is actually a psychopath and they can be glad to be rid of her is another matter entirely).

51 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I think Aenys and Viserys I were somewhat similar. I don't think Viserys would have fared as well as he did had he inherited the situation Aenys did from Aegon I, and I think Aenys might have had just as long a reign as Viserys I had he inherited the world of tamed Faith and Targaryen exceptionalism that Viserys I did.

I'd agree there, although I think it seems clear Viserys I was more decisive when faced with difficulty. Not all that much, but more than Aenys. Aenys was indecisive and very reluctant to make use of the dragons, and that was a major flaw, but this image of 'the weak king' concocted also in part on the basis of him being not the warrior Maegor was seems to be wrong.

But in the end personal shortcomings don't figure all that much into judging a ruler as a ruler. Aenys failed to prevent his Realm to descend into civil war and uprising, whereas Viserys I gave the Seven Kingdoms 26 years of peace and plenty. He shares a part of the blame for his troubled succession, but the people actually starting and fighting the war are more to blame for that than the dead man.

51 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

And though I think Maegor was at least a little worse than Daemon, had things gone a little bit differently, Daemon very well might have attempted to usurp his brother's heir(s) like Maegor did his. Since he was able to wed Viserys's chosen heir, he only had to support her against Viserys's sons. In a sense, he was able to justify fighting to deprive what should have been Viserys's heirs according to every previous Targaryen precedent and Andal law, Aegon II, by supporting who Viserys had chosen as his heir, Rhaenyra, who he had locked down as his wife. I have to hand it to GRRM for creating two characters (Maegor and Daemon) who are not worlds different, but who many are likely to have very different feelings about.

Daemon doesn't really fit into this discussion here, unless we want to assess his role as 'King of the Stepstones' ;-). He never ruled Westeros.

[HamSandLich]

Saera sleeping around absolutely damages the image of the Targaryen dynasty(in the context of a pre-modern, misogynistic feudal aristocracy). Not only does it put the paternal descent of any of her hypothetical children into question (a huge problem in the feudal aristocratic social structure) but it demonstrates that Jaehaerys is unwilling or unable to control his own household (i.e. force them to conform to the norms of feudal behavior), which damages the perception of him being a capable central ruler. At this point, people were still grumbling about Exceptionalism (they only put up with it because Maegor was so extreme and Jaehaerys was comparatively a breath of fresh air), if the Targs keep bending and breaking more and more social norms in that particular way, then their power base begins to crumble. Princess Saera being brought back, "deflowered and wanton" from Lys and presented as a normal dynastic marriage prospect would be a big snub to many potential allies.

[The Sleeper]

14 minutes ago, HamSandLich said:

Saera sleeping around absolutely damages the image of the Targaryen dynasty(in the context of a pre-modern, misogynistic feudal aristocracy). Not only does it put the paternal descent of any of her hypothetical children into question (a huge problem in the feudal aristocratic social structure) but it demonstrates that Jaehaerys is unwilling or unable to control his own household (i.e. force them to conform to the norms of feudal behavior), which damages the perception of him being a capable central ruler. At this point, people were still grumbling about Exceptionalism (they only put up with it because Maegor was so extreme and Jaehaerys was comparatively a breath of fresh air), if the Targs keep bending and breaking more and more social norms in that particular way, then their power base begins to crumble. Princess Saera being brought back, "deflowered and wanton" from Lys and presented as a normal dynastic marriage prospect would be a big snub to many potential allies.

You could argue that having her work as a prostitute is worse in terms of reputation. Particularly if her identity was known. 

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, HamSandLich said:

Saera sleeping around absolutely damages the image of the Targaryen dynasty(in the context of a pre-modern, misogynistic feudal aristocracy). Not only does it put the paternal descent of any of her hypothetical children into question (a huge problem in the feudal aristocratic social structure) but it demonstrates that Jaehaerys is unwilling or unable to control his own household (i.e. force them to conform to the norms of feudal behavior), which damages the perception of him being a capable central ruler. At this point, people were still grumbling about Exceptionalism (they only put up with it because Maegor was so extreme and Jaehaerys was comparatively a breath of fresh air), if the Targs keep bending and breaking more and more social norms in that particular way, then their power base begins to crumble. Princess Saera being brought back, "deflowered and wanton" from Lys and presented as a normal dynastic marriage prospect would be a big snub to many potential allies.

If you were right, then people should have demanded she be much stronger punished than she was. She was just confined to her chambers for sleeping around. She went to Oldtown because she tried to steal a dragon, never forget that.

It was a pretty big scandal, but so what? She wasn't even pregnant. Did the Wyldes send Coryanne Wylde into exile for giving birth to a bastard? Not that I recall...

And nobody - neither Alysanne nor I - said anything about Saera coming back and enjoying court life and getting a rich and proper marriage the way a 'normal princess' would. It was just about getting her back.

Because, quite frankly, a Targaryen princess serving as a (slave?) whore at the pleasure gardens of Lys also does damage the image of House Targaryen. Any captain coming back with fancy tales from Lys about fucking Saera would have trouble respecting her father, his sister-wife, his daughters, and granddaughters. That's how the mechanism in a world such as this works. Getting Saera out of Lys and back to court (into her chambers, say, without the ability to leave the castle) would actually help restore the image of House Targaryen.

[HamSandLich]

Expending resources and creating an international incident in order to regain an unreliable marriage prospect(because that's what Saera's utility is to a feudal lord) would definitely damage their reputation. They may not have known she was a sociopath and his framing of her behavior was extremely gendered, but Jaehaerys recognized there was no reforming Saera when she fled to Lys. She'd have been a source of destabilizing intrigue in King's Landing, in Lys, she's out of sight, and therefore, to most Westerosi, out of mind. She was disowned and disinherited after she fled, Westeros has a remarkable ability to disassociate disinherited/exiled nobles from their houses, its why the Night's Watch, the Citadel, and the Faith have been such good social stopgaps for centuries.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, HamSandLich said:

Expending resources and creating an international incident in order to regain an unreliable marriage prospect(because that's what Saera's utility is to a feudal lord) would definitely damage their reputation.

People don't view their children only as 'marriage prospects'. Not in our medieval times and not in Westeros.

 

[HamSandLich]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

People don't view their children only as 'marriage prospects'

Jaehaerys and Alysanne may not, but other feudal lords certainly would. Its what Tywin thought of Cersei, its what Brienne's father thought of her, and even if they were more than just marriage prospects, countless lords have still used their children as political capital. The Lords of Westeros are not going to risk their lives in a war with Lys to "save" Saera, not if the justification is, "Alysanne wants her daughter back". Many of them won't want to marry their sons off to her (because the paternity of her children would be in question), many of them won't enjoy seeing her pit their sons against each other in honor duels for her "favor." Politically, Saera is bad news. Whether they marry her off or keep her at court, she's going to cause an incident one way or another, and its going to reflect poorly on the dynasty. In Lys, she's outside of Westeros' political and social scene and can cause minimal harm.