Why did Aegon the Conqueror didn't have more children?

[TheLastWolf]

5 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

On 11/24/2020 at 8:20 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Stannis is uncomfortable around women in general. Plus, neither him nor Selyse like each other on a personal level. In fact, if it weren't for Melisandre I would think he's asexual.

If it weren't for Melisandre, I would think Stannis is either gay or asexual. But most likely gay.

Oh he's gay alright. Poor/Lucky Davos... 

Spoiler

If it wasn't for my Hand, i wouldn't have come at all

My tongue is yours, Your Grace, and you are free to do with it as it pleases you 

PARAPHRASED OF COURSE 

In fact, all three brothers are. Renly Loras

" Bobby B and Ned, frolicking in the bed "

(rhymes nicely nah?) 

[Lord Varys]

On 12/25/2020 at 4:30 AM, Lion of the West said:

For the dynastic purposes that's very possible. But not necessarily for how they wanted to live their lives as human beings. I figure that most people feel a duty to their house and such. But this duty probably isn't the only think they care for or want to do with their lives.

That would make some sense - although not much sense, since two sons are not nearly enough sons to guarantee a continuation of the dynasty - if they had had Aenys and Maegor early in their marriage. But they didn't.

And it makes no sense at all that these people - who just had conquered an entire continent - would want to see all their work undone by as stupid a decision as having too few children too late.

If the Conqueror's marriages had remained childless then everything would have unraveled once they had grown too old to mount their dragons ... not to mention the fact that they may have lacked universally accepted heirs capable of becoming dragonriders.

[PetiteSir]

I'm assuming we learned this from FaB, but what is the context of which we heard that Aegon and Rhaenys had sex often? Are we certain they were actually having sex? Or was it that Aegon simply enjoyed Rhaenys' company in his chambers more often than Visenya? The reason why I ask is because perhaps the question is not about Aegon's sterility, but his interest in sex? It could be that – for most of his young life where he was focused so much on building his empire and conquering Westeros – he wasn't focused on procreating? It seems counterintuitive considering his position and the general interest in the bloodline to birth heirs, but we also know that Kings/Royalty can be fairly selfish when it comes to their desires and personal lives. (Baelor did not have any issue. Though for religious reasons, it's not out of the question that Aegon wouldn't have his own). It never seemed to me that Aegon was a particularly lustful or desiring man, though he was not incapable of love or affection. Considering his character, it could be that he did not consider having children until he united Westeros (or, most of it). And when both children happened to be sons (what one would hope for), he simply stopped trying – because he never quite cared for trying in the first place?

 

I'm not saying that one or both children couldn't still be illegitimate (especially Maegar, whose disposition and the fact that he could not reproduce could speak to some other force at work).

 

It could be far fetched, but I figured it was a different angle to look at the situation. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, PetiteSir said:

I'm assuming we learned this from FaB, but what is the context of which we heard that Aegon and Rhaenys had sex often? Are we certain they were actually having sex? Or was it that Aegon simply enjoyed Rhaenys' company in his chambers more often than Visenya? The reason why I ask is because perhaps the question is not about Aegon's sterility, but his interest in sex? It could be that – for most of his young life where he was focused so much on building his empire and conquering Westeros – he wasn't focused on procreating? It seems counterintuitive considering his position and the general interest in the bloodline to birth heirs, but we also know that Kings/Royalty can be fairly selfish when it comes to their desires and personal lives. (Baelor did not have any issue. Though for religious reasons, it's not out of the question that Aegon wouldn't have his own). It never seemed to me that Aegon was a particularly lustful or desiring man, though he was not incapable of love or affection. Considering his character, it could be that he did not consider having children until he united Westeros (or, most of it). And when both children happened to be sons (what one would hope for), he simply stopped trying – because he never quite cared for trying in the first place?

I'm not saying that one or both children couldn't still be illegitimate (especially Maegar, whose disposition and the fact that he could not reproduce could speak to some other force at work).

It could be far fetched, but I figured it was a different angle to look at the situation. 

We only know that Aegon visited Rhaenys' bedchamber (with her in it) about ten times as often as he spent the nights in Visenya's bedchamber. Now, we don't know what they did in there - although I guess contemporaries must have known what happened inside at least for the Aegonfort which wasn't a proper castle (on Dragonstone it would have been different), so servants and guards should have heard a lot of what was going on behind the doors of the bedchambers (assuming they had proper bedchambers in the early days) - but chances are pretty good that Aegon didn't just go to the bedchambers of his sister-wives to talk to them. He could have done that all day long in his solar, or whatever council chambers and other rooms lacking beds they had. You only go into the bedchamber to sleep or have sex. Those are very private rooms in a medieval setting. And if you don't want to have sex you can just go to your own bedchamber which Aegon did have.

In addition, you have the fact that Aegon married both his sisters which was highly unusual. The explanation we get for this marriage is that Aegon very much desired his sister Rhaenys whereas he only married Visenya because it was his duty as per the Targaryen marriage ideal.

Chances are very low indeed that this means Aegon never had sex with Rhaenys.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Targaryens were already in their twenties when the Conquest began, meaning they could have been married for about a decade at that time - most likely they were married for at least five years in 2 BC -, and they were not already tied up in the Conquest business in those years.

In that sense - that Visenya is believed to be perhaps barren in 10-11 AC is hardly a surprise - it might be that Aegon had about as much intercourse with her as Stannis has with Selyse, possibly even less. But not with Rhaenys. There we have to go with a very passionate and sexual relationship, and a deep romantic/sexual desire (at least on Aegon's part - whether Rhaenys loved him as much as he apparently loved her we don't know).

And there it is indeed very, very odd that Rhaenys' first pregnancy is Aenys in 7 AC, nine years after the beginning of the Conquest, and most likely fifteen or twenty years after the beginning of their marriage.

And from a dynastic point of view, the fact that Aegon had a second wife in Visenya would mean that once they realized - after a couple of years trying to have children with Rhaenys - he would, for dynastic purposes (especially after the Conquest when they really needed heirs), try to impregnate Visenya. And since that also didn't work until 11-12 AC chances are very good that something fishy was going on there.

For Rhaenys we have her favorites as potential true fathers of Aenys, and Visenya could have used spells and sorcery to get pregnant, creating a male clone of herself, say, or just helping along Aegon's bad seed to quicken ... or take the Rhaenys route in secret and getting pregnant by means of a sperm-donor behind the scenes.

[PetiteSir]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

but chances are pretty good that Aegon didn't just go to the bedchambers of his sister-wives to talk to them. He could have done that all day long in his solar, or whatever council chambers and other rooms lacking beds they had. You only go into the bedchamber to sleep or have sex. Those are very private rooms in a medieval setting. And if you don't want to have sex you can just go to your own bedchamber which Aegon did have.

I don't disagree with you, though just to play devil's advocate on my idea, I don't think sharing a bedchamber with someone ipso facto means there is sex going on – even in this setting. I don't deny that Aegon had strong feelings for Rhaenys, as he obviously favored her above his other sister – and seemingly above anyone else. But that doesn't indicate exactly that it was based on sexual desire/attraction. I'm saying that he could have been somewhat asexual. He enjoyed Rhaenys' company in private, he obviously loved her and cared for her – that I am not denying – so he wanted to share beds with her often. Husbands and wives share beds with one another even when sex isn't involved, and even though there are other chambers to talk during the day, there is a closeness and intimacy of the bedchamber that would give them more privacy to talk or even cuddle. I'm also not indicating that they never had sex – it's just possible it wasn't as often and spirited as we're meant to believe – or if it was even penetrative sex. 

 

As mentioned before, this is just conjecture for the sake of another argument – especially since there's a decent amount of people here who are very much against Aegon being impotent, despite the evidence. This is just another way to look at it: Aegon didn't have that much of a sex drive, but concerned himself with procreating once he deemed it very necessary. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For Rhaenys we have her favorites as potential true fathers of Aenys, and Visenya could have used spells and sorcery to get pregnant, creating a male clone of herself, say, or just helping along Aegon's bad seed to quicken ... or take the Rhaenys route in secret and getting pregnant by means of a sperm-donor behind the scenes.

Despite my point, I would actually agree to this completely. It's very subtle, but we know that Rhaenys had favorites and that Visenya dealt with sorcery (and the result being Maegar) – and they're perfectly logical conclusions considering how long they were married (and if, indeed, he had a powerful sexual attraction to Rhaenys). Honestly, I would find that to be a really compelling bit of lore; that the entire Targaryen dynasty had never actually descended from Aegon the Conquerer. I don't think it would ever be revealed in the story itself, but maybe for the reader to surmise. That would be rather cheeky. 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, PetiteSir said:

I don't disagree with you, though just to play devil's advocate on my idea, I don't think sharing a bedchamber with someone ipso facto means there is sex going on – even in this setting. I don't deny that Aegon had strong feelings for Rhaenys, as he obviously favored her above his other sister – and seemingly above anyone else. But that doesn't indicate exactly that it was based on sexual desire/attraction. I'm saying that he could have been somewhat asexual. He enjoyed Rhaenys' company in private, he obviously loved her and cared for her – that I am not denying – so he wanted to share beds with her often. Husbands and wives share beds with one another even when sex isn't involved, and even though there are other chambers to talk during the day, there is a closeness and intimacy of the bedchamber that would give them more privacy to talk or even cuddle. I'm also not indicating that they never had sex – it's just possible it wasn't as often and spirited as we're meant to believe – or if it was even penetrative sex.

Oh, I certainly could see this be the case, theoretically. After all, I'm also a strong proponent of the idea that Nettles and Daemon sharing a bathtub also must not mean they were having an affair ... rather being another piece indicating that Daemon realized the girl was his daughter.

But if Aegon really had problems in the fertility department then this alone could also explain why he never acknowledged any bastards ... because he simply couldn't father any. If he was discreet with his whores and affairs then history - especially as brief a history as we have on his reign - wouldn't have recorded that.

Assuming a man with two wives wasn't all that interesting in sex without any direct hint in that direction - like we do have with Archmaester Vaegon, Baelor the Blessed (sort of), and Aerys I - is somewhat of a stretch.

9 hours ago, PetiteSir said:

As mentioned before, this is just conjecture for the sake of another argument – especially since there's a decent amount of people here who are very much against Aegon being impotent, despite the evidence. This is just another way to look at it: Aegon didn't have that much of a sex drive, but concerned himself with procreating once he deemed it very necessary. 

Well, not impotent, just sterile, there is a difference there ;-).

9 hours ago, PetiteSir said:

Despite my point, I would actually agree to this completely. It's very subtle, but we know that Rhaenys had favorites and that Visenya dealt with sorcery (and the result being Maegar) – and they're perfectly logical conclusions considering how long they were married (and if, indeed, he had a powerful sexual attraction to Rhaenys). Honestly, I would find that to be a really compelling bit of lore; that the entire Targaryen dynasty had never actually descended from Aegon the Conquerer. I don't think it would ever be revealed in the story itself, but maybe for the reader to surmise. That would be rather cheeky. 

Yes, that is the reason why I came up with that idea in the first place. It is a subtle way to turn the Targaryen dynasty on its head. And with the mothers being Targaryens both Aenys (and his descendants) and Maegor still have Targaryen blood and everything that goes with that in the magic and prophecy department. They would just not be biological descendants of Aegon the Conqueror.

And one of the first questions I asked myself when thinking about a Westerosi history book was how George would be able to include a successful Cersei-like plot, i.e. a scenario where a queen or lady passed the children she had by another man as the children of her royal husband. If it works, then the official history will be that the children are the seed of the father, so there have to be other clues.

We have them both for Aenys and Maegor in the entire setup of their conception, the number of children the Conqueror had, the number of pregnancies for both queens (just two are known), everything happening rather late in their marriage, etc.

We have less subtle clues later for Rhaenyra's elder sons. There, too, we get rumors hinting at the possibility that Laenor Velaryon wasn't their father. But, like with Aegon, most likely, if the man - like Laenor - was in the whole thing (because he did not want or could not father children) then it is pretty much impossible to counter the official story. After all, if a father acknowledges his wife's children as his own then the case is pretty much closed. With Rhaenyra's sons the real problems only start after Laenor's early death.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 10/30/2019 at 12:39 PM, Angel Eyes said:

How come Aegon the Conqueror only had two children? These were born relatively late; Aenys was born when Aegon was 34, and Maegor when he was nearly 40. Compare with Ned Stark who had five children (six if you count Jon) by the same age. It just seems unwise, since Aenys was a weak heir whose parentage was disputed, and Maegor was a psychopathic monster.

I think with the death of Rhaenys put the kibosh on that idea .

[Angel Eyes]

7 minutes ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

I think with the death of Rhaenys put the kibosh on that idea .

I’m aware of that, but why weren’t there more before Aenys, since most nobles we know have children relatively early? Contrast with Ned, who had six children by the time he was 34 (Aegon’s age when Aenys was born) or Tywin, who had three by the time he was 31, to give an example or two? In the Targaryen family, Rhaegar was born when Aerys and Rhaella were not yet 16, Viserys II was the father of three by the time he was 20.

[Angel Eyes]

On 11/21/2020 at 2:23 AM, The Grey Wolf said:

Honestly, if F & B is any indication, GRRM is terrified of family trees. Just look at the fact that despite nine of Jaehaerys I's thirteen children surviving childhood he has only seven known grandchildren, three of which are bastards.

"Who's afraid of the family tree, family tree, family tree,"

"Who's afraid of the family tree"

 

I'm one of the types who does upkeep on my family tree on my downtime.

[The Grey Wolf]

@Angel Eyes

I'm not entirely unsympathetic given the size of the family tree I'm currently working on. Nonetheless, the lack of cadet branches during the Dance really weakens the whole "golden age going to shit" vibe GRRM was clearly going for.

[BlackLightning]

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Angel Eyes

I'm not entirely unsympathetic given the size of the family tree I'm currently working on. Nonetheless, the lack of cadet branches during the Dance really weakens the whole "golden age going to shit" vibe GRRM was clearly going for.

You think so?

I thought the Dance worked well as it was one branch of the family versus another. The daughter of the king and her family versus her stepmother and half-brothers. It's a political drama version of Cinderella with swords, crazy seasons and fire-breathing dragons. Golden age gone to shit.

How would the Dance been a stronger story if there were more cadet branches? I'm interested...

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

You think so?

I thought the Dance worked well as it was one branch of the family versus another. The daughter of the king and her family versus her stepmother and half-brothers. It's a political drama version of Cinderella with swords, crazy seasons and fire-breathing dragons. Golden age gone to shit.

How would the Dance been a stronger story if there were more cadet branches? I'm interested...

The idea is that there would have been more dragonrider factions which would have to be courted during the war, more potential for powerful power players playing both sides, etc. - instead of wasting most dragons on small children or mad women who didn't do much with them, anyway.

And it is just somewhat disappointing that nobody from Aenys to Viserys I was able to establish a single male cadet branch of the royal bloodline besides the ruling branch.

Jaehaerys I could have a younger brother giving him Targaryen cousins, he could have as many sons with offspring as Edward III or Henry II, and Viserys I could have had more living siblings than just Daemon.

With the incest marriage policy in place the family would have still not exploded, but it could have been somewhat bigger and more established.

And the Dance could have then cut down all of those branches rather than focusing so much on killing off children.

[BlackLightning]

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is that there would have been more dragonrider factions which would have to be courted during the war, more potential for powerful power players playing both sides, etc. - instead of wasting most dragons on small children or mad women who didn't do much with them, anyway.

And it is just somewhat disappointing that nobody from Aenys to Viserys I was able to establish a single male cadet branch of the royal bloodline besides the ruling branch.

Jaehaerys I could have a younger brother giving him Targaryen cousins, he could have as many sons with offspring as Edward III or Henry II, and Viserys I could have had more living siblings than just Daemon.

With the incest marriage policy in place the family would have still not exploded, but it could have been somewhat bigger and more established.

And the Dance could have then cut down all of those branches rather than focusing so much on killing off children.

Oh okay yeah I see.

Yeah, when you mention it, the story of the First Dance of Dragons is pretty naked.

The North doesn't do anything until the very end and they are only present in the story for all of fifteen minutes before they vanish. The West and the Iron Islands, despite the fact that a lot is happening over yonder, are both very quiet. The Vale is also very quiet despite making both their allegiance known and taking action. Even the Stormlands would pop in and out inconsistently.

The only regions that mattered and did anything consistently were the Crownlands, the Reach and the Riverlands.

Dorne is obviously involved behind-the-scenes but...just a little bit more than nothing from them. The Triarchy, similar to Dorne, is also involved but you wouldn't have thought so given how none of the main characters care.

With those other dragonrider factions calling those other regions home, things would be very different.

Like right now, I'm imagining:

1. the return of Saera Targaryen and her sons who, having since aligned with the Triarchy, were the ones to take Viserys hostage in the hopes of acquiring a dragon
2. Aliandra Martell scheming to claim dragon eggs for herself without her father's knowledge or consent, putting all of Dorne at risk of Targaryen reprisal
3. the dragonriding offspring of Rhea Royce and Daemon Targaryen who grew up hating his/her father and wanting to become a member of the Targaryen royal family rather being a lordly Royce
4. Viserys and Daemon having a little brother, Jaehaerys and Alysanne having another son survive to adulthood, one of Jaehaerys or Alysanne's daughters (surprise!!!) manages to claim a dragon for herself in her father's old age or Rhaenys and Corlys having another child (male or female). Whatever the case: this Targaryen or Velaryon offspring grows up, gets a dragon, gets married and has children who may have their own dragon. He/she hates both Aegon and Rhaenyra, so it's a matter of who he/she hates less and/or who gets to him/her first.
5. Jaehaerys and Alysanne having another son survive to adulthood (Gaemon?) and have children: he builds himself a Queenscrown or a Summerhall with their permission, gets a dragon and a family of his own
6. A Targaryen prince who voluntarily joins the Night's Watch with his dragon (similar to Jon Snow and Ghost) and he dies making the future possession of his dragon something of a secession crisis

Congratulations, you have converted me. I'm with you and @The Grey Wolf now. GRRM dropped the ball.

[The Grey Wolf]

@BlackLightning

Viserys I and Daemon did have a younger brother but he died in the cradle. Prior to the release of F & B V1 many people, including myself, hoped he would be the ape prince from Axell Florent's story, which would have helped make sense of Daemon being Rhaenyra's favorite uncle, but oh well.

[BlackLightning]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:26 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

@BlackLightning

Viserys I and Daemon did have a younger brother but he died in the cradle. Prior to the release of F & B V1 many people, including myself, hoped he would be the ape prince from Axell Florent's story, which would have helped make sense of Daemon being Rhaenyra's favorite uncle, but oh well.

Ape prince?

I don't know what you're talking about. What chapter is this story of Axell Florent's located?

[Ran]

The story is in ADwD, the 2nd Davos chapter. It should be said that in context the story is something Axell is using to mock Davos to his companions, and not actually part of Targaryen history.

[BlackLightning]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

The story is in ADwD, the 2nd Davos chapter. It should be said that in context the story is something Axell is using to mock Davos to his companions, and not actually part of Targaryen history.

Good to know.

It's been a while since I read Dance.

[Lord Varys]

The way the story is told Ser Axell definitely indicates that he is talking about a real person. He is not saying 'there once was a prince' like one could say 'there was a king or a prince who did this or that' but he talks about a Targaryen princeling.

That sort of roots the story more in Westerosi history than it would if he had made it clear it was just an invented story. And if were to tell a similar story about a prince from a specific country and dynasty then our audience would also

But the Ape Prince story still is kind of in FaB with Queen Visenya and her fool who was, in the end, replaced by an ape. Her fool and not her son died, but she apparently treated an ape like a person - and that ape replaced somebody she apparently liked pretty well ... and considering her weird sense of humor chances are not that bad that she also may have humiliated people by offering the hand of the ape to the daughters and sisters of men she wanted to mock. Although nothing of this is made explicit in the text.

Thus Axell's story seems to be inspired by this anecdote about Queen Visenya.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

Oh okay yeah I see.

Yeah, when you mention it, the story of the First Dance of Dragons is pretty naked.

Well, it is kind of sad that George invented a lot of Targaryens to kill off back when he started to make Dunk & Egg - a lot of people have to die for Maekar and eventually Egg to become king - and pretty much dropped that kind of approach with the earlier Targaryens. It is even kind of silly to give Jaehaerys and Alysanne so many children when they can, in total, just produce four grandchildren. You don't need thirteen children for that.

And to be clear - I'm not saying everybody has to have children. It is totally acceptable that some children do not have (living) offspring. But the fate of Jaehaerys I's children is too much in this regard.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

1. the return of Saera Targaryen and her sons who, having since aligned with the Triarchy, were the ones to take Viserys hostage in the hopes of acquiring a dragon

That isn't a bad idea - that neither she nor her sons ever showed up again is likely due to George only fleshing out Saera's story when he wrote the Jaehaerys material - to then decide that he won't revisit the reign of Viserys I and the Dance. That's also the reason why Archmaester Vaegon just disappears.

Saera could still be alive during the Dance, and her sons and grandchildren (if she had any) could be as well. It is very odd that they would not try to exploit the chaos in Westeros for their own gain.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

1. the dragonriding offspring of Rhea Royce and Daemon Targaryen who grew up hating his/her father and wanting to become a member of the Targaryen royal family rather being a lordly Royce

That could have worked as well. There would have been no harm in Daemon having children from his first marriage.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

1. Viserys and Daemon having a little brother, Jaehaerys and Alysanne having another son survive to adulthood, one of Jaehaerys or Alysanne's daughters (surprise!!!) manages to claim a dragon for herself in her father's old age or Rhaenys and Corlys having another child (male or female). Whatever the case: this Targaryen or Velaryon offspring grows up, gets a dragon, gets married and has children who may have their own dragon. He/she hates both Aegon and Rhaenyra, so it's a matter of who he/she hates less and/or who gets to him/her first.

Yes, something like that would have been great. And with that one can also go with the general thing that the children aren't the parents, i.e. like with Boremund and Borros Baratheon the child of a loyal friend doesn't have to be as loyal - or vice versa.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

1. Jaehaerys and Alysanne having another son survive to adulthood (Gaemon?) and have children: he builds himself a Queenscrown or a Summerhall with their permission, gets a dragon and a family of his own

Yes, the fact there were not other Targaryen castles is also a pretty big letdown coming directly from the fact that nobody succeeded in establishing a cadet branch. And it is even somewhat off with Jaehaerys I's two sons. Aemon was the Heir Apparent and he would inherit the throne, so they should have given a title and a castle to Baelon, especially after he and Alyssa started to have children, since if things went as they were supposed to then Aemon's children and grandchildren would have sat the Iron Throne, not Baelon's descendants.

And to a lesser degree this is also an issue with Aenys' growing family back in the day. Aegon I just has two children, and lacking a proper castle for himself in KL it is not surprising he didn't throw a castle at Maegor, but King Aenys had three sons and two surviving daughters - he should have provided for Viserys and Jaehaerys in light of the fact that Aegon and Rhaena were supposed to continue the royal branch of the family.

I mean, he does that for Aegon/Rhaena when he gives them Dragonstone as a wedding gift, but his other children would grow up eventually, too.

On 2/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, BlackLightning said:

1. A Targaryen prince who voluntarily joins the Night's Watch with his dragon (similar to Jon Snow and Ghost) and he dies making the future possession of his dragon something of a secession crisis

It seems that a dragon would not thrive at the Wall, but the idea could have been interesting, anyway.

Overall, I think Viserys I's court being full with the king's uncles and aunts (and the occasional great-uncle/great-aunt) and crawling with a dozen or more cousins could have worked very well to complement the peace and prosperity story with a very fertile, successful royal family. That also happens with the dragons ... but not the royal family, apparently. It could also have helped to show how crucial successful moderation is - Jaehaerys I is famous for that, and Viserys I also was able to keep the peace.

In fact, if you read some of the early paragraphs of 'Heirs of the Dragon' then you get the impression that the Targaryens were supposed to have multiplied quite a bit - but if you look at the actual individuals then this just isn't the case.

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The way the story is told Ser Axell definitely indicates that he is talking about a real person. He is not saying 'there once was a prince' like one could say 'there was a king or a prince who did this or that' but he talks about a Targaryen princeling.

So the fact that he says it's a Targaryen prince is the "definite" proof? What is the prince's name, then? The reason it's not given is because it does not exist.

And one notes the precedent of the non-existent Princess Daeryssa being rescued by the "Kingsguard" knight Serwyn of the Mirror Shield (who never was a Kingsguard, and never was a knight). People make up stories.  They'll make up stories about the Targaryens, inventing Targaryens that do not exist and incidents that did not happen, as no doubt there are stories about Starks that never existed, Lannisters, etc. Axell's story is much more clearly one of those.

Folks just need to let this one go.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

So the fact that he says it's a Targaryen prince is the "definite" proof? What is the prince's name, then? The reason it's not given is because it does not exist.

And one notes the precedent of the non-existent Princess Daeryssa being rescued by the "Kingsguard" knight Serwyn of the Mirror Shield (who never was a Kingsguard, and never was a knight). People make up stories.  They'll make up stories about the Targaryens, inventing Targaryens that do not exist and incidents that did not happen, as no doubt there are stories about Starks that never existed, Lannisters, etc. Axell's story is much more clearly one of those.

Folks just need to let this one go.

Of course one can imagine this as a completely made up story (but I don't think we have to do that due to the Visenya anecdote - there may not have been an Ape Prince but we do have our Ape Queen now) but it is kind of odd to use a prince from a specific house for that - like 'Once upon a time there was a prince of the House of Windsor...'

If you do that, then people tend to ask 'What was his name, when did he live, who was his father', etc. When you say 'once there was an (English) prince' then this is less likely.

Also, Axell isn't a singer, nor is he telling a fairy-tale. His anecdote is supposed to tell something about Davos ... and that doesn't work all that well if the story is completely invented.