Jump to content

Is Aegon the Unworthy based on George the IV?


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

So one of my favorite parts of ASOIAF are all the historical parallels. So when reading about Aegon the IV-th my first though was Henry VIII. However in hindsight George the IV-th seems way more likely. Unlike both Aegon IV and George IV, Henry the VIII was a very strong, athletic man in his youth, and he was also pretty devoted to his wifes (until he had them executed). George on the other hand was always incredibly lustful and gluttonous and was in a stale marriage with a woman he despised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So one of my favorite parts of ASOIAF are all the historical parallels. So when reading about Aegon the IV-th my first though was Henry VIII. However in hindsight George the IV-th seems way more likely. Unlike both Aegon IV and George IV

Aegon in his youth was noted as athletic, a skilled jouster and huntsman, etc. So that's very Henry VIII-like as well. He was overshadowed by his brother Aemon in terms of martial exploits, of course.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Aegon in his youth was noted as athletic, a skilled jouster and huntsman, etc. So that's very Henry VIII-like as well. He was overshadowed by his brother Aemon in terms of martial exploits, of course.

I'm must say I'd have preferred it if we had gotten some more less marital Targaryens especially in those we never had any reason to expect to excel in that field (I'd have found it great if Aegon the Uncrowned or his brother Viserys had been the first true mad/simple/meek Targaryens). The Unworthy I'd always imagined to be more of the less martial quality as well - it could have been his way to focus more on his brain and his courtly charisma rather than the knightly stuff to avoid being outshone by Aemon again and again. Although I guess Aemon being so much better than he was still is going to be the main reason why he didn't get along with him.

With FaB we even have Aegon III as potentially decent material in the knightly department (that he is never going to excel there will be because of his own choice, not because he lacks talent or ability) and one could even expect Viserys II to become a pretty good knight now that he gets along so well with the new master-at-arms (not to mention the courage he showed on the drawbridge).

We really got too many great guys from them. Up to the Dance there are only Aenys and Viserys I as sort of letdowns among the male Targaryens, but both were at least well-meaning, whereas we have no Rhaegel-like madness, or blatant stupidity/incompetence. It would have been nice if there had been some Aerys II-like princes every once in a while (or even some Targaryen cousin showing very problematic traits).

The problem with the Henry VIII parallel is that Aegon IV was only king for twelve years whereas Henry ruled for decades. It may turn out that his gluttony truly started to go out of proportions later in his reign, but if he was indulding himself before it could very well turn out that he was no longer a particularly athletic or muscular guy when he took the throne at the age of thirty-seven (which by Westerosi standards means he was well past his youthful years and already knocking at the doors of old age).

But then, George definitely seems to want to paint the picture that Aegon IV desires really started to explode/reach a different level after he became king and could finally do whatever the hell he wanted. So perhaps he was still in perfect shape while approaching forty and only started to lose things as he became king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Most likely Henry VIII, IMHO.  

Although, Henry never actually legitimised any of his natural children, despite loading Henry Fitzroy with almost princely honours.  He turned both Mary and Elizabeth into bastards, but strangely, kept them in the line of succession, after Edward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Most likely Henry VIII, IMHO.  

Although, Henry never actually legitimised any of his natural children, despite loading Henry Fitzroy with almost princely honours.  He turned both Mary and Elizabeth into bastards, but strangely, kept them in the line of succession, after Edward.

That had to do with the status of the earlier marriages, which changed. The first marriage was annulled, and Anne Boleyn was similarly condemned. But Henry VIII never went through with the idea that his daughters weren't his daughters (and he always sort of knew that they were born in wedlock), so that would be the explanation there.

A core issue of Henry VIII was always to have his own children follow him. When death approached, Edward was still a boy, so chances were not that bad that he might die before producing children of his own, meaning that from a dynastic point of view it made a lot of sense to fix a line of succession to ensure a continuation of the line of Henry VIII rather than open the possibility (as Edward's cabal later tried when he died) to have a descendant from a cadet branch be installed. Not to mention that Tudors (which really weren't proper royalty at all) were not fully established and accepted even during the reign of Henry VIII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...