Jump to content
Alexander Leonard

Why was Visenya wiling to share husband with her younger sister?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Alexander Leonard said:

I feel sorry for Visenya because she was the first child of their parents and heir presumptive at her birth. But later the birth of her little brother took away everything that belonged to her. It must be painful to grow up alongside her little brother knowing that everything she used to have is now his. And later her younger sister took away half of her husband, and then her sister's son took the throne from her own son. She played such a pivotal part in the Conquest, yet she was never given the right to rule the land she conquered.

According to GRRM, "Visenya is a year or two older than Aegon, Rhaenys a year or two younger" (SSM: December 24, 2005), so it is highly unlikely that Visenya could ever remembered a time before Aegon was alive and heir to Dragonstone.

It never would have been a reasonable expectation for Visenya to think she would rule Dragonstone, as Dragonstone is not Dorne, and Aegon was preceded as Lord of Dragonstone by nine other Targaryen males spanning approximately a century.

It would be understandable if Visenya had resented having to share Aegon with Rhaenys. or that Rhaenys had been able to give birth to a son before her, but she really has no case to claim that Rhaenys's son (Aegon's firstborn) took the throne from her's (Aegon's second).

If she had given birth to a son first, that son likely would have succeeded Aegon, and she would have had a case had Aegon attempted to favor a younger son by Rhaenys.

Yes, she played her role in the conquest, just like Rhaenys did, and they had considerable authority in ruling the Seven Kingdoms with Aegon, but neither had a "right" to rule over Aegon.

SSM: December 24, 2005:
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/More_Targaryen_Descriptions/

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Alexander Leonard said:

I feel sorry for Visenya because she was the first child of their parents and heir presumptive at her birth. But later the birth of her little brother took away everything that belonged to her. It must be painful to grow up alongside her little brother knowing that everything she used to have is now his. And later her younger sister took away half of her husband, and then her sister's son took the throne from her own son. She played such a pivotal part in the Conquest, yet she was never given the right to rule the land she conquered.

Considering that Visenya was just two years older (confirmed in FaB) than Aegon she should have never felt any loss there.

However, it might be that Aegon and his sister-wives co-ruled Dragonstone the way Aegon and Elaena did some generations before. Might be that Aegon only became the big guy when they forged the Iron Throne for him. We really don't know.

Overall Aegon I was a less powerful king than his successors since it seems the rulings his sister-wives made in his name did stand. The Rule of Six, for example, was not preliminary until Aegon I had confirmed it, the man sentenced to 94 strokes were not allowed to lay his case before the king after his return.

Alysanne never made any final decisions in her husband's name, and Queen Alicent later could not speak with her son's voice and make a pact with Corlys Velaryon that was binding to Aegon II.

Co-rule does not really have to mean committee rule with everybody having the same voice, it can also mean that there is chair or head with final authority who delegates a lot of his power to his co-rulers. And that's clearly what Aegon did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I'm not sure Visenya ever was 'a sorceress'. Especially the piece of her resorting to sorcery when age robbed her of her strength at arms sounds like a textbook case of misogyny if you ask me. Visenya was basically an unconventional freak woman, and history treated her as such. Queen Rhaena is later treated in exactly the same manner, and in her case we have no reason whatsoever to believe the foul rumors that she were a witch, etc.

 

Misogyny or no, she definitely relied on dark magic (which actually exists in this world). Maegor's recovery from his coma is implied to have been done with magic, since he seems cursed after he wakes up with demon children and an even bloodier streak than he once had before his coma. Plus, Visenya manages to keep Aenys alive when nobody else can? In a world where half the characters know magic of some kind, it's not misogynist to suggest that Visenya was a sorceress. It's an equal opportunity situation with people like Thoros of Myr, Moqorro, the sorcerer who castrated Varys, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon married both his sisters because otherwise Orys could be considered as candidate for the sister he doesn't marry. That means dragons and power could be splitted between KL and Storm's end as it was case for KL and Driftmark.

The first dragonseed didn't show any Targaryen signs such as taking dragon and marrying Velaryon. He wasn't even considered as heir for Iron Throne until Aenys was born. So Aegon thought Stormlands he gave to his bastard brother was enough for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

Aegon married both his sisters because otherwise Orys could be considered as candidate for the sister he doesn't marry. That means dragons and power could be splitted between KL and Storm's end as it was case for KL and Driftmark.

The first dragonseed didn't show any Targaryen signs such as taking dragon and marrying Velaryon. He wasn't even considered as heir for Iron Throne until Aenys was born. So Aegon thought Stormlands he gave to his bastard brother was enough for him.

I doubt Aegon was concerned about Orys wedding one of his sisters. Aegon was Lord of Dragonstone, and Orys was an unacknowledged bastard, so there was virtually no chance of Orys wedding one of his sisters without his permission. Furthermore, Aegon is the one who granted Storm's End to Orys in the first place, which occurred during the conquest of Westeros, when Aegon had already been wed to both his sisters for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

According to GRRM, "Visenya is a year or two older than Aegon, Rhaenys a year or two younger" (SSM: December 24, 2005), so it is highly unlikely that Visenya could ever remembered a time before Aegon was alive and heir to Dragonstone.

It never would have been a reasonable expectation for Visenya to think she would rule Dragonstone, as Dragonstone is not Dorne, and Aegon was preceded as Lord of Dragonstone by nine other Targaryen males spanning approximately a century.

It would be understandable if Visenya had resented having to share Aegon with Rhaenys. or that Rhaenys had been able to give birth to a son before her, but she really has no case to claim that Rhaenys's son (Aegon's firstborn) took the throne from her's (Aegon's second).

If she had given birth to a son first, that son likely would have succeeded Aegon, and she would have had a case had Aegon attempted to favor a younger son by Rhaenys.

Yes, she played her role in the conquest, just like Rhaenys did, and they had considerable authority in ruling the Seven Kingdoms with Aegon, but neither had a "right" to rule over Aegon.

SSM: December 24, 2005:
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/More_Targaryen_Descriptions/

The rule of succession was really unfair. It should have been changed to recognize the contribution of Visenya and Rhaenys in the Conquest. Aegon should have named Visenya his heir and Rhaenys heir to Visenya (if she was not killed), and Aegon's first born child (whoever his or her mother was) heir after his two sister-wives. Visenya and Rhaenys (if not killed) were both capable of and deserved to be ruling Queen in their own right. They should really have preceded their sons in the line of succession because their sons really did nothing in the Conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alexander Leonard said:

The rule of succession was really unfair. It should have been changed to recognize the contribution of Visenya and Rhaenys in the Conquest. Aegon should have named Visenya his heir and Rhaenys heir to Visenya (if she was not killed), and Aegon's first born child (whoever his or her mother was) heir after his two sister-wives. Visenya and Rhaenys (if not killed) were both capable of and deserved to be ruling Queen in their own right. They should really have preceded their sons in the line of succession because their sons really did nothing in the Conquest.

Not sure we have received any information about whether Aegon had named any heirs prior to the birth of Aenys. For all we know Visenya might have been his chosen heir prior to the birth of Aenys. Or perhaps he didn't name an heir until Aenys was born. Whatever the case, Visenya was never going to be the heir or ruler of Dragonstone or Westeros over Aegon so long as he lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Not sure we have received any information about whether Aegon had named any heirs prior to the birth of Aenys. For all we know Visenya might have been his chosen heir prior to the birth of Aenys. Or perhaps he didn't name an heir until Aenys was born. Whatever the case, Visenya was never going to be the heir or ruler of Dragonstone or Westeros over Aegon so long as he lived.

Yeah I agree. Since Aegon also played a leading role in the Conquest and rode the largest dragon himself, I have no problem with him being the ruling King when he was alive. I was just saying that the two sisters, rather than their sons, should have succeeded him when he died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Rule of Six, for example, was not preliminary until Aegon I had confirmed it, the man sentenced to 94 strokes were not allowed to lay his case before the king after his return.

The story of the Rule of Six is interesting. Rhaenys effectively made it into law that husband could beat his wife if he found her unfaithful. Considering the fact that she was also a married woman, and the rumor that she had other lovers, shouldn't she be worried that this law might come back to haunt her if, one day, Aegon found out that she did have other lovers? The law she made would give him the right to beat herself in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alexander Leonard said:

I was just saying that the two sisters, rather than their sons, should have succeeded him when he died.

Yeah, and in my opinion Aegon should have decreed that the Seven Kingdoms would become a democracy after his death. But there is a reason why neither of that happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canon Claude said:

Misogyny or no, she definitely relied on dark magic (which actually exists in this world). Maegor's recovery from his coma is implied to have been done with magic, since he seems cursed after he wakes up with demon children and an even bloodier streak than he once had before his coma. Plus, Visenya manages to keep Aenys alive when nobody else can? In a world where half the characters know magic of some kind, it's not misogynist to suggest that Visenya was a sorceress. It's an equal opportunity situation with people like Thoros of Myr, Moqorro, the sorcerer who castrated Varys, etc.

Maegor's recovery was accomplished by Tyanna, not Visenya. And Tyanna seems to have been an actual sorceress.

Visenya could have picked up some really good medical tricks over the years - or she just stopped poisoning Aenys while he was in her care. That alone would have made him better, there is no reason to assume magic was behind that.

My point is just that we have Gyldayn never giving us a concrete spell Visenya wrought, a concrete event when she actually accomplished something with magic. This doesn't mean she was not interested in such things - but it isn't really confirmation. Else we can take the slanders about Rhaena also a confirmation that she was a sorceress, murdered Maegor for afar, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Yeah, and in my opinion Aegon should have decreed that the Seven Kingdoms would become a democracy after his death. But there is a reason why neither of that happened...

Don't be sarcastic. Naming Visenya and Rhaenys as Aegon's heirs wouldn't change the dynastic nature of the rule of succession because the two women themselves were princesses at birth. Aegon could still ensure only his kin ascend to the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alexander Leonard said:

Don't be sarcastic. Naming Visenya and Rhaenys as Aegon's heirs wouldn't change the dynastic nature of the rule of succession because the two women themselves were princesses at birth. Aegon could still ensure only his kin ascend to the throne.

They were just daughters of the previous Lord of Dragonstone, not princesses. They were only queens on account of being Aegon's wives when he became king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the whole thread is based on your desire to see a beloved character having a good time. That's ok, but in the end Visenya getting in charge of the Targaryens or her inheriting ahead of her brother or her brother's children just because of her magnificence is just as realistic and goes against Westeros's customs as my point about democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess then Aegon's heir in absence of any sons would have been Orys Baratheon, Lord Aerion's other son.

Lord Rogar's barely veiled pretensions to sit the Iron Throne in FaB underline the fact that the Baratheons are basically an illegitimate male branch of House Baratheon, and Lord Orys was Aegon's closest friend and confidant. And he happened to outlive him.

Daemon Velaryon would have come later, but he is only (and presumably) a distant female line Targaryen descendant, and would have been not particularly close to the throne had Aegon I not had a son his sister Alyssa could marry.

Naming an older sibling your heir would be nonsensical. You want a younger person to succeed you if you are a king, not an older one.

But we can safely say that Aegon would have taken more wives if Visenya and Rhaenys both hadn't given him children. He would tried as long as was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But we can safely say that Aegon would have taken more wives if Visenya and Rhaenys both hadn't given him children. He would tried as long as was necessary.

I doubt that. That would be an insult to both of his sisters. He couldn't do that after all that they had done for him. By doing so he would alienate Visenya and Rhaenys and their dragons! The two sisters and their dragons united had real power to overthrow him.

I am sure his sisters would demand a divorce or annulment if he dared to propose to another woman. Only in one scenario this could happen. That is his sisters were also bored with him and the three decided to part way peacefully, and then he would be free to propose to whoever he wanted to marry.

If that happened, and the two sisters remarried and were able to have children with new husbands, that would be very embarrassing for Aegon. People would think he is sterile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

They were just daughters of the previous Lord of Dragonstone, not princesses. They were only queens on account of being Aegon's wives when he became king.

Yeah you are right. They were daughters of a lord, not princesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon needed heirs. After Rhaenys' death he only had Visenya, and she was nearing the end of her childbearing years in the early 10s. Once it had become clear that Visenya was barren/no longer fertile Aegon would have had no other choice.

Orys could have been his presumptive heir for the time being, but the risk was very high that the Conquest would be undone if Aegon had failed to establish a dynasty of his own blood. Perhaps if Orys had claimed a dragon of his own things could have worked, but without that things would have become difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Visenya actually love Aegon, romantically? Maybe she also felt the same as Aegon, had to marry him because it was their duty as elder siblings. I'm sure she loved him and Rhaenys as family though.

The fact she was the elder sibling and Aegon was the eldest son and therefore the heir and more ''important'' is a different conversation I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 11:39 PM, Alexander Leonard said:

Haha considering her strong personality, I cannot imagine she would put up with that. She would most likely strike him in the face if her younger brother dared to speak like that.

Right she just badass like that i so can see her doing just that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×