Jump to content
The Bard of Banefort

Does Visenya Deserve More Criticism?

Recommended Posts

Among ASOIAF fans, there's often a lot of talk about whether readers are too hard on certain characters (particularly female ones), but after re-reading the material on Aenys and Maegor, I've come to wonder if Visenya should be viewed in a more critical light, both on a Doylist and a Watsonian level. Even if she didn't kill Aenys, she committed treason by supplanting the rightful heir to the throne--Aegon the Uncrowned--with her own son, and in doing so, helped subject the realm to six years of terror on behalf of Maegor the Cruel. This puts her in the company of Renly Baratheon, who tried to take the Iron Throne simply because he wanted it, and would have therefore set a precedent that laws of inheritance didn't matter, permitting anyone with a following to wage war against the lawful heir. We're not even given any real argument for why Visenya thought Maegor should rule instead of Aegon, aside from nepotism. (Although Aenys was rumored to have been a bastard at birth, it's never brought up again in Fire and Blood, and it wasn't until after Aenys' death that Maegor moved to take the throne). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone on record saying that the Conqueror should have left orders to garrotte Visenya and Maegor after his death - you can't be much more critical than that.

I think the soft spot many people have for Visenya comes from information we had about her prior to TWoIaF and FaB. In the books she is not presented as a positive characters. She did some good things in the first decade of the reign of Aegon I, while her sister was still around, but in old age she became very nasty.

Even if Visenya didn't murder King Aenys - she clearly also undermined his reign, which is even more damning in light of all the favors Aenys granted Maegor before their falling-out - Blackfyre, a sort of co-rule, the Handship, possibly even Balerion (who Aenys certainly could have kept from Maegor).

The few positive traits about Visenya in comparison to Maegor are that she did not actively persecute her brother-husband's grandchildren and daughter-in-law. Visenya seems to have played a crucial role in preventing a war between the Velaryons and Maegor early on after Maegor's usurpation and she later took care of (and perhaps even protected) Alyssa, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne from Maegor. Something like the murder of Viserys only started after Visenya's death. And one assumes that she also played a role in resolving issues with the Hightowers and the Faith and it is confirmed that she prevented Maegor from executing as many people as he wanted to after the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye (the deaths of Aegon and Quicksilver count as battle deaths).

The sole reason why Visenya wanted to see Maegor on the throne - both instead of Aenys which she could not pull off as well as in place of Aenys' sons - is that he was her son and she was his mother. And she clearly did not understand or care what kind of a monstrous freak son she had. After all, there is no indication that she ever had a falling-out with Maegor over anything he did (all we know is that she didn't like Tyanna all that well, which might be simple royal elitism considering she was little more than a common whore and thus utterly undeserving and unsuited to become a queen).

Aenys' parentage does indeed never come up as a reason why Visenya favored her son over him and his children - and if my take on the children of the Conqueror's sister-wives is correct then Maegor was as much Aegon's son as Aenys (meaning not his biological son at all). If both she or Maegor had cared about this bastard talk they definitely should/would have used that as a means to discredit Aenys' sons.

The issues of the laws of succession doesn't matter at this point. There was just one king on the Iron Throne at this time, and no binding law for the throne or House Targaryen. And we have no clue whether the succession of the Lords of Dragonstone went always from acknowledged/anointed heir to acknowledged/anointed heir or whether some of the scions of Lord Aenar did not take things in their own hands and put down their own siblings or cousins to get what they thought was theirs by right.

If this was so then Maegor was just following some precedent of his own ancestors and didn't do something that wrong. And there certainly is a case to be made that King Aenys was losing/had already lost the Conquest of his father and that some dragonless youth hiding from filthy rabble in some castle in the West was manifestly unsuited to try to restore the Targaryen reign in Westeros. But, of course, this wouldn't exactly be all that strong a case. Although the support Maegor gets early on during his reign definitely shows that very few people care about the rightful heir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

All members of this family could be served more criticism IMO. But what stood out to me about Visenya was how she wasn't really a stateswoman or a politician....she was just another tyrant who wanted to burn people to solve problems:

Quote

 

“You are a fool and a weakling, nephew. Do you think any man would ever have dared speak so to your father? You have a dragon. Use him. Fly to Oldtown and make this Starry Sept another Harrenhal. Or give me leave, and let me roast this pious fool for you.” 

 

At this point it was 41 years into their rule and people were rebelling against this family, and they had no foresight or reflexive thinking to understand why people were resisting them or how actions like this ^ would only result in more resistance.

To Visenya's credit she was ever the warrior who knew exactly what she was about. Similar to Cersei, which I can admire. I think Rhaenys is worse for being a hypocrite. She claimed to love the small folk, women, and children so much she burned them to death in her attacks on Dorne.

Fire and Blood is a good farce. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

All members of this family could be served more criticism IMO. But what stood out to me about Visenya was how she wasn't really a stateswoman or a politician....she was just another tyrant who wanted to burn people to solve problems:

Burning people can indeed resolve your problems, especially if you kill them all. Jaime holds that view in AFfC. Nobody is going to come back to avenge his family if the entire family is dead. That is a rather valid point even with the Valyrians. The dragonlords should have destroyed Braavos as soon as they learned about its existence ... then those meddlesome Faceless Men would have never had the opportunity to cause the Doom and kill millions and millions of people (many of them, you know, innocents).

But then - they never burned Oldtown. Not even Maegor followed mommy's advice there, possibly because Visenya never gave Aenys that particular advice or because she reconsidered after they had burned a bunch of lesser castles in the West and the Riverlands.

After all, in truth the oh so powerful Targaryens were rather tame and forgiving animals. Aegon the Conqueror's burned perhaps a couple of thousand people overall. He made one big example out of Harrenhal - and all of Westeros but the savages on the Iron Islands cheered the eradication of House Hoare, especially the Riverlanders joining him. They were rather forgiving and complaisant conquerors. All they did was break the power of the other royal houses - they did not even extinguish most of them (which any sane conquering family would have done). If you compare Aegon the Conqueror to William the Conqueror the former is a weakling joke.

William made the English bleed, he put them in their place, introduced serfdom, took their lands, brought in his Normans and gave them the high offices in the land, making French the official language of the land for the next 350 years (and changing Old English to the pigeon language they call English today).

The Targaryens took the language, religion, and silly savage customs (knighthood, tourneys, banners, all that feudal crap) of their subjects - they did not force one thing of their own on their subjects - which would be only proper for a conqueror. Even the Andals accomplished more than the Targaryens in that field.

Aegon the Conqueror's grandson is the ideal Westerosi knight and king - he has literally nothing in common with the culture and tradition of his Valyrian ancestors. In fact, he is apparently abhorred by the idea that the triarchs of Volantis could become dragonlords - which, from a Valyrian perspective, is very much the worst betrayal of your identity I can think of.

The one thing the Targaryens continued to do was occasionally marrying their sisters (avuncular and cousin marriages were known among the great houses of Westeros, thus not that big of a deal) - and that was a huge fight. Of the Valyrian identity of the Targaryens from Egg's or Dany's days is literally nothing left but their looks. Any other noble houses of Westeros is more connected to their family traditions than they are.

[Aside from, perhaps, the Northmen who gave up their own language in favor of the Andal Common Tongue for literally no reason that has ever been given.]

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

At this point it was 41 years into their rule and people were rebelling against this family, and they had no foresight or reflexive thinking to understand why people were resisting them or how actions like this ^ would only result in more resistance.

This was not bad advice. House Targaryen crushed the Faith like a bug because Maegor followed his mother's advice there. King Aenys was weak and forgiving and didn't know what he wanted - and his enemies smelled that and turned against him. Like the Meereenese turned against weak-willed and soft Daenerys in ADwD. If she had taken a page out of Maegor's book, followed Daario's advice, and staged her own Red Wedding by putting down the entire Meereenese elite during her own wedding (along with the leadership of the Yunkai'i) none of her people would have to fight and die in the coming battles. And slavery would be a thing of the past. She is encouraging the Green Grace and her allies to turn against with pretty much every action she takes throughout ADwD - not because she is stern or cruel but because she soft, forgiving, relenting, and weak.

If she had had the courage butcher the entire Meereenese elite before the Yunkai'i turned against the freedmen of Astapor, taking and burning Yunkai while they were preparing for war, Astapor might yet stand, and its freed slaves might still be alive/not again in bondage.

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

To Visenya's credit she was ever the warrior who knew exactly what she was about. Similar to Cersei, which I can admire.

Cersei isn't a warrior, and she doesn't really know what she wants.

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think Rhaenys is worse for being a hypocrite. She claimed to love the small folk, women, and children so much she burned them to death in her attacks on Dorne.

LOL, that's you filling unknowns with your own weirdo prejudices and misconceptions. Queen Rhaenys did more for the smallfolk than any other queen aside from Alysanne (not that we know much about Westerosi queens).

Conflating war with peace time is just ridiculous. What comes next? Why not declare Dunk a thug for slaying his fellow knights Lucas Inchfield and Tommard Heddle? Why not declare Arthur Dayne a monster because he hunted some bandits in the Kingswood and butchered a couple of Northmen at the tower of joy? Or condemning pilots throwing bombs in war to weirdo people killing innocents for fun?

I don't think the Targaryen conquest of Westeros was justified - just as none of their wars or conquests were justified. And the First Dornish War, being entirely unprovoked and completely pointless, was definitely one of the worst wars we learn about in the books.

However, Aegon's Conquest of the Six Kingdoms clearly was the mildest and least bloody war of conquest Westeros ever saw, before and after the Conquest. It would be many if so much as 10,000 people died during the land battles (there are not many people in the Stormlands which saw the thickest fighting, the Field of Fire was a joke insofar as casualties were concerned (only 5,100), and we don't know how many men were at Harrenhal likely a couple of thousand). The destruction of the Targaryen fleet off Gulltown could have killed many people, but that's difficult to say. The entire North bent the knee without so much as a single Northman fighting a Targaryen man (by comparison - the Starks needed to fight a millennia-long, constant war of aggression and expansions, wading through a literal sea of blood, to conquer the land they ruled when Torrhen bent the knee - and they still had to deal with unruly bannermen and the threat of constant rebellion).

If the Conquest in total killed 15,000 people it would be a big number. Considering the size of the conquered lands this is essentially nothing.

And it is quite clear that the dragons are what ensured this bloodless victory. Because people were afraid of them and, considering Aegon's just and forgiving and friendly nature, they saw no dishonor/problem in yielding. The various conventional wars between the Hundred and Seven Kingdoms throughout the ages would have been much bloodier and crueler because the average king and ambitious lord wouldn't have been deterred by a magical super weapon to try to avenge real or imagined slights, conquer the lands he wanted to have, win the glory in battle they all hungered for.

Just think of the past glories (i.e. the violent history) of House Osgrey.

Share this post


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

Burning people can indeed resolve your problems, especially if you kill them all. Jaime holds that view in AFfC. Nobody is going to come back to avenge his family if the entire family is dead. That is a rather valid point even with the Valyrians. The dragonlords should have destroyed Braavos as soon as they learned about its existence

I don't need to read further than this. :shocked:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't need to read further than this. :shocked:

Well, we talk about a show where Eddard Stark beheaded some poor confused fellow in the very first chapter. People resolve their problems by killing people for little to no reason all the time. Ned's best friend took his throne over the corpses of an infant and a little girl. And while the honorable Ned doesn't like that he accepted it in the end.

And it is just a fact that the Reynes and Tarbecks won't ever come back to haunt the Lannisters thanks to Tywin eradicating them ... while him missing some Targaryens and Starks might come back to haunt his descendants big time. What kind of lesson do you draw from this? That you pardon your enemies again and again like poor foolish Tytos?

Killing people to get rid of them is a very crucial part of feudal politics in this world. And we will see the good guys perfecting it - with such houses as the Boltons, Freys, Cleganes, Baelishs, and possibly even the Lannisters of Casterly Rock.

Nobody is going to make peace with any of those by marrying their children to them, nobody is going to give them quarter or spare their lives after what their leaders pulled off. Not with the stakes being as high as they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was an asset to the conquest but a problem in peacetime. She only understood the stick and while her brother and sister both knew how to win Lords to their side with the carrot and thus create reasons to kneel - however if you merely bring Fire and Blood and just Fire and Blood to table then well those against you have nothing to lose. After all of Maegor's killing his reign ended with him facing long odds on a civil war, while he had killed thousands there were still men willing to fight him to the bitter end. It's a trait he got from his mother because his father the Conqueror knew when to help a kneeling man back to his feet.

Share this post


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

Well, we talk about a show where Eddard Stark beheaded some poor confused fellow in the very first chapter. People resolve their problems by killing people for little to no reason all the time. Ned's best friend took his throne over the corpses of an infant and a little girl. And while the honorable Ned doesn't like that he accepted it in the end.

And it is just a fact that the Reynes and Tarbecks won't ever come back to haunt the Lannisters thanks to Tywin eradicating them ... while him missing some Targaryens and Starks might come back to haunt his descendants big time. What kind of lesson do you draw from this? That you pardon your enemies again and again like poor foolish Tytos?

Killing people to get rid of them is a very crucial part of feudal politics in this world. And we will see the good guys perfecting it - with such houses as the Boltons, Freys, Cleganes, Baelishs, and possibly even the Lannisters of Casterly Rock.

Nobody is going to make peace with any of those by marrying their children to them, nobody is going to give them quarter or spare their lives after what their leaders pulled off. Not with the stakes being as high as they are now.

Your comments give me the creeps. The story isn't valorizing Strongmen Dictators, showing them to be wise and prescient. They are shown to be short sighted jocks and bullies who only know how to solve problems with violence. Visenya and her ilk are uncreative brutes who can't or don't want to use political machinations, compromise, soft coercion, and statecraft to solve problems. She just wants to burn them all up like every tyrant by using the easiest route possible. If burning down a sept, city, or killing all the lords was the smart choice, Tywin would be alive and thriving, Theon would be king of Winterfell, Victarion would be the savior of humanity, Balon would get whatever he wanted, and Walder Frey would be a sympathetic main character. The Reynes were killed off for the interim, but that's not a foundation to establish a dynasty. Tywin won't have what he seeks, in the long run. 

Eliminating all your enemies in one fell swoop seems powerful but it actually makes their power brittle in the long run. Which is why there's no difference between the rebellions at year 41 and the rebellions at year 298 with Robert et al. The Targaryens became weak despite all their flexing. 

And you're in favor of the Valyrians genociding Braavvos, a colony of escaped slaves? What the fuck? Why would the author approve of that crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Your comments give me the creeps. The story isn't valorizing Strongmen Dictators, showing them to be wise and prescient. They are shown to be short sighted jocks and bullies who only know how to solve problems with violence. 

There are no dictators in this story, just monarchs and lords which are pretty much as bad as dictators considering their non-existent justification or legitimacy of rule, but they are still not dictators.

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Visenya and her ilk are uncreative brutes who can't or don't want to use political machinations, compromise, soft coercion, and statecraft to solve problems.

I'm no fan of Visenya's - I said her brother-husband should have executed her and his monstrous second son on his deathbed rather than allow them to survive him and kill his grandchildren - but she still isn't the kind of character you try to make her.

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She just wants to burn them all up like every tyrant by using the easiest route possible. If burning down a sept, city, or killing all the lords was the smart choice, Tywin would be alive and thriving, Theon would be king of Winterfell, Victarion would be the savior of humanity, Balon would get whatever he wanted, and Walder Frey would be a sympathetic main character. The Reynes were killed off for the interim, but that's not a foundation to establish a dynasty. Tywin won't have what he seeks, in the long run.

Tywin failed because he brutalized and tortured his son, not because he eradicated rebels. That's just a fact of the story - Castamere has literally nothing to do with Tywin's death. Neither does the Sack, or any other cruelty in the field Tywin commanded. Theon failed because he was a moron biting up more than he could chew, not because he betrayed the Starks and killed children who may have been his own. It is the same with Walder Frey.

Smart cruelty, smart betrayal, smart treason, measured cruelty - that's what wins you the day in this world. And that's what all the successful rulers do. No king or lord has clean hands in the world. No one is a hero or an example for clean moral leadership. They are all thugs - some more than others, but they are all thugs. Sandor Clegane is right about that.

You can pretend that those superficial (rather irrelevant) sins like kinslaying or breaking of guest right, etc. come back to haunt people (and George likes to play with that, just as he likes to play with the ridiculous curse of Harrenhal) but he does not have his feudal system bite itself in the ass. The kings and lords and knight are not all cast down from their high horses and high seats by the smallfolk, they are not led up to the guillotine where they belong. No, they are allowed sit in their fancy castles, defend their precious honor against real or imagined slights, and can waste the lives and resources of the people they exploit.

This is just a shitty world they are living in, period. And nothing is going to change that.

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Eliminating all your enemies in one fell swoop seems powerful but it actually makes their power brittle in the long run. Which is why there's no difference between the rebellions at year 41 and the rebellions at year 298 with Robert et al. The Targaryens became weak despite all their flexing.

That depends on the number of enemies you have. If you kill them all and they are not that many and you have many allies then there are no issues with killing them - that's how great Stark kings of old presumably got away with eradicating dozens of noble and royal houses in the North. Obviously they put down all their enemies/didn't make enough of them to be put down in turn.

The Targaryens lost their power because their last king was a raving paranoid lunatic who should have been a mental asylum rather than a throne. I mean, the Targaryens still have the throne, you know. The Baratheons are just black-haired Baratheons. They are of the same blood, just a bastard branch who strengthened their claim by marrying Egg's daughter. They are as much Targaryens as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn.

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And you're in favor of the Valyrians genociding Braavvos, a colony of escaped slaves? What the fuck? Why would the author approve of that crap. 

No, I'm saying that the Valyrians not showing mercy to the Braavosi could have saved millions and millions of lives (many of them innocent slaves living in the Lands of the Long Summer). I'm pointing out how showing mercy can come back to haunt you, too. Just as it did Dany. She should have killed all the Wise Master of Yunkai rather than allowing them to keep their lives and wealth, just as she should have eradicated or dispossessed or exiled the entire elite of Meereen. Only that could have pacified her new kingdom. Compromise only makes sense if both sides want to compromise - and the Ghiscari never wanted to compromise. Not before Dany took their cities, and most definitely not thereafter.

Offering the fate leniency if you were Aenys Targaryen when Visenya made her suggestion is lunacy.

I mean, indulge us - if you were Visenya Targaryen what would you have told your nephew in her stead? Or better still: How would you, as Aenys Targaryen, have dealt with the Faith Militant Uprising?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smashing the Faith Militant was the right thing to do.  I accept that Aegon was a pussycat, compared to William I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, how could I almost forget this bit:

“She was not without humor, however, and for many years kept her own fool, a hirsute hunchback called Lord Monkeyface whose antics amused her greatly. When he choked to death on a peach pit, the queen acquired an ape and dressed it in Lord Monkeyface’s clothing. “The new one is cleverer,” she was wont to say.”

Of all the ways to humanize her, Martin goes with "making fun of people with disabilities." It's almost like he wants us to not like these people at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this precedent business it's not like people don't know they can usurp a ruler with enough power and popular support. It's just a rebellion unless they win, then they'll justify it legally and the status quo will return until another ruler comes along that has to deal with a usurper with enough popular support, it's the natural ebb and flow of politics. There are almost always alternatives with a claim that people will support if the legitimate heir is objectionable enough, the Anarchy in England lasted 20 years but it didn't break the idea of legitimate succession in the eyes of the people of England, legitimacy just keeps the wheels spinning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Oh, how could I almost forget this bit:

“She was not without humor, however, and for many years kept her own fool, a hirsute hunchback called Lord Monkeyface whose antics amused her greatly. When he choked to death on a peach pit, the queen acquired an ape and dressed it in Lord Monkeyface’s clothing. “The new one is cleverer,” she was wont to say.”

Of all the ways to humanize her, Martin goes with "making fun of people with disabilities." It's almost like he wants us to not like these people at all. 

LOL, you mean like he 'humanized' the Karstarks by having them despise Bran the cripple because of him having a disability, the son of their own liege lord?

9 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

She was an asset to the conquest but a problem in peacetime. She only understood the stick and while her brother and sister both knew how to win Lords to their side with the carrot and thus create reasons to kneel - however if you merely bring Fire and Blood and just Fire and Blood to table then well those against you have nothing to lose. After all of Maegor's killing his reign ended with him facing long odds on a civil war, while he had killed thousands there were still men willing to fight him to the bitter end. It's a trait he got from his mother because his father the Conqueror knew when to help a kneeling man back to his feet.

Visenya was pretty harsh, but Maegor only lost it after his mother was gone. Neither his dealing with the Faith Militant in 42-44 AC nor him putting down Aegon's rebellion seems to have been that big of a deal. He lost it when he continued brutalizing his people - and especially his own family - even after he had effectively already won the war.

And she also knew how to help up fallen foes back on their feet. She was the one who pushed murder not to execute all the rebels at the Gods Eye. She wasn't as charismatic or accommodating as Aegon I - nor as much a people person as her sister Rhaenys - but she wasn't a loose cannon like her son, either.

Still, she definitely shares a huge chunk of the blame for the Targaryen succession war after the death of her brother-husband. If she had overcome her issues and been loyal to her nephew and king rather than undermining him things could have been very different. Not to mention preventing her foolish son from taking a second wife.

3 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

I don't get this precedent business it's not like people don't know they can usurp a ruler with enough power and popular support. It's just a rebellion unless they win, then they'll justify it legally and the status quo will return until another ruler comes along that has to deal with a usurper with enough popular support, it's the natural ebb and flow of politics. There are almost always alternatives with a claim that people will support if the legitimate heir is objectionable enough, the Anarchy in England lasted 20 years but it didn't break the idea of legitimate succession in the eyes of the people of England, legitimacy just keeps the wheels spinning. 

The precedent business is that if you successfully do something (and then legitimize it) other people feel encouraged to try it, too, eroding the legitimacy of the primogeniture succession system, possibly even the entire dynasty system.

We see how Robert's successful usurpation encouraged both other usurpations in his family as well as secession. Maegor's successful usurpation set the first precedent for that kind of thing, and thus Visenya definitely is the one who shares some blame for encouraging later Targaryens to follow Maegor's example. The restoration of the rightful (and fertile) branch to the throne as well as Maegor's tyranny helped to devaluate his example, but this was still an overall shitty thing to do.

Westeros isn't exactly much of society of order and law, but it is quite clear that the son follows the father, not the exiled half-brother.

Share this post


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

LOL, you mean like he 'humanized' the Karstarks by having them despise Bran the cripple because of him having a disability, the son of their own liege lord?

10 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Well, that wasn't made for us to like them, not that the Karstarks did it, but some soldiers did.

 

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We see how Robert's successful usurpation encouraged both other usurpations in his family as well as secession. Maegor's successful usurpation set the first precedent for that kind of thing, and thus Visenya definitely is the one who shares some blame for encouraging later Targaryens to follow Maegor's example. The restoration of the rightful (and fertile) branch to the throne as well as Maegor's tyranny helped to devaluate his example, but this was still an overall shitty thing to do.

 

You talk as if the Robellion and Maegor's war have been the only usurpation in 8 thousands years, that the Greens or the Black Dragon were thinking on the most hated King in history when they made their move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well, that wasn't made for us to like them, not that the Karstarks did it, but some soldiers did.

I tried to point how ridiculous it is to interpret this as an attempt by the author to 'humanize' Visenya - obviously I failed with you. The overall point of that remark was to give some credence to Axell Florent's tale about the Targaryen Ape Prince (who turned out to be Visenya Targaryen's fool rather than the son of some prince).

But then, to be sure, her keeping a fool sort of indicates she had a better heart than people who prefer to see cripples and freaks dead. People with disabilities like Mushroom and Lord Monkeyface making a living as court jesters is better than them having to fend for themselves - even Penny and Groat seem to have had a better life as professional entertainers than they would have had if they had tried to fit in with 'normal people' on their terms.

3 minutes ago, frenin said:

You talk as if the Robellion and Maegor's war have been the only usurpation in 8 thousands years, that the Greens or the Black Dragon were thinking on the most hated King in history when they made their move.

Those don't really count (especially since we know about pretty much one of those usurpations anything, aside from Ronard the Bastard's) having been done in ancient times in kingdoms that no longer exist as independent realms. But for the Iron Throne Seven Kingdoms it does matter how a monarch sitting the Iron Throne gets there.

Share this post


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

I tried to point how ridiculous it is to interpret this as an attempt by the author to 'humanize' Visenya - obviously I failed with you. The overall point of that remark was to give some credence to Axell Florent's tale about the Targaryen Ape Prince (who turned out to be Visenya Targaryen's fool rather than the son of some prince).

But then, to be sure, her keeping a fool sort of indicates she had a better heart than people who prefer to see cripples and freaks dead. People with disabilities like Mushroom and Lord Monkeyface making a living as court jesters is better than them having to fend for themselves - even Penny and Groat seem to have had a better life as professional entertainers than they would have had if they had tried to fit in with 'normal people' on their terms.

I didn't enter in that, I said that the Karstarks lin wasn't given for us to like them, don't really care about whether you have a good heart for treating people as animals.

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those don't really count (especially since we know about pretty much one of those usurpations anything, aside from Ronard the Bastard's) having been done in ancient times in kingdoms that no longer exist as independent realms. But for the Iron Throne Seven Kingdoms it does matter how a monarch sitting the Iron Throne gets there.

Well i'd say that they relly count since they show that usurpations are possible and there if your ambitious enough to do it, the concept of usurpation didn't start with Maegor or rediscovered, after a long fog, with Robert.

Share this post


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

I didn't enter in that, I said that the Karstarks lin wasn't given for us to like them, don't really care about whether you have a good heart for treating people as animals.

And neither was the story about Visenya.

Just now, frenin said:

Well i'd say that they relly count since they show that usurpations are possible and there if your ambitious enough to do it, the concept of usurpation didn't start with Maegor or rediscovered, after a long fog, with Robert.

Nobody ever doubted that usurpations are possible. But it is a difference if they are just a theoretical possibility because they happened before in other ancient regimes or whether they happen rather early in a new dynasty. There were usurpations in the British history, too, yet somehow that doesn't play a role in the succession of American presidents, no?

Share this post


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

And neither was the story about Visenya.

Quote

That part was and so is the thread.

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody ever doubted that usurpations are possible. But it is a difference if they are just a theoretical possibility because they happened before in other ancient regimes or whether they happen rather early in a new dynasty. There were usurpations in the British history, too, yet somehow that doesn't play a role in the succession of American presidents, no?

UK isn't USA, Westeros is the same tho, same traditions, same laws, same soil etc etc etc, all mixed in one. Usurpations are possible, it's only up to the people whether they do it or not, acting as if Maegor started something when his name is never brought up but for polygamy is preposterous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, frenin said:

That part was and so is the thread.

Nope, there is a claim that the point of the fool story is supposed to humanize Visenya - when it could just as well be supposed to make her look more ridiculous and weird.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

UK isn't USA, Westeros is the same tho, same traditions, same laws, same soil etc etc etc, all mixed in one. Usurpations are possible, it's only up to the people whether they do it or not, acting as if Maegor started something when his name is never brought up but for polygamy is preposterous. 

LOL, it was. The US are just rebellious colonies who got away with their rebellion.

The idea is that if something actually happens in a legal system/state then it is more real and alive than it would be if it were just dead history. The US could become a monarchy or a military dictatorship tomorrow - that prospect is mostly theoretical right now. But it wouldn't be theoretical anymore if there was a real and rather recent historical precedent.

The idea that it makes no difference that younger sons in a newly-established monarchy do not accept primogeniture just because some other long-abolished monarchies also may have issues with that kind of thing is not convincing. Especially in light of the fact that we don't even know whether the kings of the Seven Kingdoms actually had to deal with many usurpation (attempts). Keep in mind that none of the old dynasties but those of the Riverlands was ever overthrown.

Share this post


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

Nope, there is a claim that the point of the fool story is supposed to humanize Visenya - when it could just as well be supposed to make her look more ridiculous and weird.

Quote

That's humanizing, it's not only about make them more sympathetic and i am to suppose that the clain is irony,

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, it was. The US are just rebellious colonies who got away with their rebellion.

The idea is that if something actually happens in a legal system/state then it is more real and alive than it would be if it were just dead history. The US could become a monarchy or a military dictatorship tomorrow - that prospect is mostly theoretical right now. But it wouldn't be theoretical anymore if there was a real and rather recent historical precedent.

The idea that it makes no difference that younger sons in a newly-established monarchy do not accept primogeniture just because some other long-abolished monarchies also may have issues with that kind of thing is not convincing. Especially in light of the fact that we don't even know whether the kings of the Seven Kingdoms actually had to deal with many usurpation (attempts). Keep in mind that none of the old dynasties but those of the Riverlands was ever overthrown.

True, my bad.

I know your idea, but since there hasn't been much difference and no one ever cites Maegor when they're going to usurp, they don't care about Maegor, because usurpation is long established  way to get what they want. Maegor is cited mostly for his feud with the Faith anyway.

 

 

 

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

×