Why are Valyrians and Qartheen so incredibly pale and white?

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I phrased that poorly. It makes no sense to call Bloodraven an albino when his father and uncle and one of his half-brothers and many of his parental kin also were albinos.

• Submitted By: Les Dabel

  [Note: The following is a mail sent to Les Dabel, of Dabel Brothers Productions, as part of their preparation for adapting an excerpt from "The Sworn Sword" in the second edition of the Hedge Knight graphic novel. Included at the end is a follow-up.]

  Do you have LEGENDS II? There's a detailed description of Bloodraven, aka Lord Brynden Rivers, in "The Sworn Sword." He is the most distinctive of the three, an albino with a red winestain birthmark on his neck and cheek that looks (vaguely) like a raven in flight.

• The Great Bastards

  [Note: The following continues GRRM's series of descriptions of notable Targaryens (and Targaryen bastards) for Amoka. Added to it is a correction related to the arms of Bittersteel, which GRRM had changed since his original conception.]

  BLOODRAVEN

  Bloodraven first, since I've already described him in "The Sworn Sword." The natural son of King Aegon IV by his sixth mistress, Lady Mylessa ('Missy') Blackwood, Brynden Rivers is an albino, with milk white skin and white hair, worn long. His eye is red -- the one he still has, the right. At the Battle of the Redgrass Field, his left eye was put out by Bittersteel when they dueled. He seldom wears an eye patch, but prefers to display his scar and empty socket to the world.

   

Quote

What doesn't make sense is to pretend that the Valyrians and the Targaryens do not also fit the descriptions of albinos - and thus are albinos even if the author doesn't realize this. Viserys and Dany could have been played by albino actors without having to wear those bad wigs - because albinos do look like Targaryens.

And this whole thing clashes rather severely with George's other intentions to depict things 'realistically', i.e. his depiction of Brienne as muscular, heavily built warrior rather than a clichéd fantasy woman warrior, his decision to not have four-legged dragons (because it would make no sense that there would be six-legged vertebrates), his decision to try to portray kingship and politics realistically, etc.

It is quite clear the man never properly researched albinism - both when he had his Valyrians there, but especially with Bloodraven himself who definitely shouldn't be a great natural archer if he actually was an albino.

The cliche is thinking Brienne can't be tall and muscular.

Martin does follow a general outline for kingship, but even in that, even in creating sigils, even in creating the Citadel, the Red Wedding/Black Dinner, etc, he says he uses his own rules when needed. I believe the term he uses is "loosely based", not rigidly based to a T.

Again, you keep making the point, that despite what a real world albino should or should not be able to do, GRRM has them do it anyway. His world, his rules. Also, Martin even clarifies to people like Amok that Bloodraven is exceptional in his looks because he is an albino.

I highly doubt GRRM made an entire race pf people clinically/physically/genetically albino by mistake- by 40 year mistake. Even in his past stories he has numerous otherwordly, inhumanly beautiful people but they are not albinos. He does have an actual named and described albino in his story Armageddon Rag. It's not that difficult to see the difference in his fantasy archetypes, and real ones. GRRM even makes the distinction with the raven that signifies fall:

• A Clash of Kings - Prologue

  "It will," Cressen said. But not for years yet, I pray, and then not for long. "Ah, here is Pylos with the bird."

  Shireen gave a cry of delight. Even Cressen had to admit the bird made an impressive sight, white as snow and larger than any hawk, with the bright black eyes that meant it was no mere albino, but a truebred white raven of the Citadel. "Here," he called. The raven spread its wings, leapt into the air, and flapped noisily across the room to land on the table beside him.

 

Quote

A fantasy albino is a meaningless concept - like fantasy horses or fantasy pigs or fantasy pigeons. If you use a real world concept you use it either the way it is in the real world, or you establish in detail how it is different from the real world concept - which isn't done for albinos in this case.

If an author hung the gun on the wall and no one ever used it, then yes, it would be meaningless. That isn't the case here. That Valyrians/Targaryens are not albino, but rather inhumanly beautiful as the books say, and there is a reason for that.

[Lollygag]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For people with very pale skin it is rather difficult/dangerous to get dark skin. A realistical depiction of Targaryens would have them all wear hats outside and ensure that their skin is protected from sunlight. Else most of them would die of skin cancer pretty early - and prior to that they would have to deal with sunburns the entire time.

Quote

Targs also often have eyes that almost black. Not the color to go for when trying to indicate albinism.

Not often, one or two have such eyes. Albinos with colorless irises do have 'red eyes' - although they look more pinkish violet than red. But not all albinos have colorless irises - many do have bluish or violet eyes.

Again, if you go look at real albinos they all look like George's Valyrians.

The important issue is that it is ridiculous to assume Bloodraven is an albino when the Targaryens themselves are already described as albinos without the author realizing this.

You're making my point for me. I'm a blonde with very light skin and I come from a place where we're a dime a dozen. Some have problems. A lot of us do not. I can be outside all day without sunblock at all and get no burn, only a slight tanning. You're judging the accuracy of this on incorrect stereotypes. Blonde people have existed for thousands and thousands and thousands of years without sunscreen and living all day out in the sun. We don't explode in the sun like vampires. The way Valyrians are written as having light skin (not albino white) and having no problem with the sun is fine.

Dany has eyes that are so dark as to be almost black. So does Jon. Rhaegar has dark eyes. Aegon has darker eyes. If you want to go there, Tyrion has one "black" eye, implying certain things. Those are most of the in-story Targs. Only Viserys has explicitly stated light eyes (lilac).

Also, when the early books were written, the internet barely existed. It cracks me up when people google something now and try to apply that as what we should be judging as common understanding in the 90's which is 30 years ago. 

 

No, they don't look like albinos except when specified as such.

Silver/gold hair =/= white hair. GRRM says it when hair is literally white.

Purple eyes, often so dark as to be almost black =/= the red (colorless) eyes most people understand albinos to have and which BR, a stated albino, has.

Fairish skin =/= true white skin which stands out (think of the skin that many red-haired people have). While their hair and eyes are remarked upon as unusual, not a single statement about their skin color being unusual. And they have no problem with the sun without sunblock. Neither do the Lannisters or Tullys for that matter. It's entirely realistic as in rl, sunscreen and the modernization which lets us stay indoors all of the time are very recent things.

Reading into them as being literal albinos is incorrect, though I'd say making the association seems spot on as it does look like the reader is supposed to make some sort of comparison.

 

Correcting myself. Aegon doesn't just have darker eyes, Tyrion connects them to black eyes.

ADWD Tyrion IV

Those eyes of his would melt them. Like his sire, Young Griff had blue eyes, but where the father's eyes were pale, the son's were dark. By lamplight they turned black, and in the light of dusk they seemed purple. His eyelashes were as long as any woman's.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

You're making my point for me. I'm a blonde with very light skin and I come from a place where we're a dime a dozen. Some have problems. A lot of us do not. I can be outside all day without sunblock at all and get no burn, only a slight tanning. You're judging the accuracy of this on incorrect stereotypes. Blonde people have existed for thousands and thousands and thousands of years without sunscreen and living all day out in the sun. We don't explode in the sun like vampires. The way Valyrians are written as having light skin (not albino white) and having no problem with the sun is fine.

It defies a realistic setting to have a people with pale skin flourish in a tropical or sub-tropical climate zones. There is a reason why black skin is an evolutionary advantage in Africa and Australia whereas it a disadvantage in Scandinavia.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Dany has eyes that are so dark as to be almost black. So does Jon. Rhaegar has dark eyes. Aegon has darker eyes. If you want to go there, Tyrion has one "black" eye, implying certain things. Those are most of the in-story Targs. Only Viserys has explicitly stated light eyes (lilac).

Dany has violet eyes, not purple eyes - or rather: different people describe her eyes differently. First they are violet, later some people describe them as purple. Rhaegar had indigo eyes which apparently were darker than Aegon's in Jon's memory. Jon Snow has dark grey eyes, not purplish eyes. Tyrion's eye could be a dark purple - or just some other dark color. Dark blue, grey, etc.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Also, when the early books were written, the internet barely existed. It cracks me up when people google something now and try to apply that as what we should be judging as common understanding in the 90's which is 30 years ago. 

Oh, I don't blame him for that - but he did have the internet when writing TMK or sending descriptions via email to Amok.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

No, they don't look like albinos except when specified as such.

Silver/gold hair =/= white hair. GRRM says it when hair is literally white.

But not all albinos have white hair - albino white is pretty much Valyrian white. There are some albinos whose hair resembles the white of old people hair, but there are also albinos who look exactly like Valyrians. Just go and do a picture search of albinos. It isn't that hard.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Purple eyes, often so dark as to be almost black =/= the red (colorless) eyes most people understand albinos to have and which BR, a stated albino, has.

Valyrian eyes do vary - they stretch from clear blue to purplish colors. Just like albino eyes do, too.

And if you actually mix silver and gold as colors you get an albino platinum white. That isn't some other color, it is exactly that color.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Reading into them as being literal albinos is incorrect, though I'd say making the association seems spot on as it does look like the reader is supposed to make some sort of comparison.

I'd rather say the author didn't realize how varied real albinos are, just as he clearly didn't understood that it makes no sense that a 'proper albino' like Bloodraven should be a great archer. The guy would completely suck at archery, especially after he lost one eye.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Correcting myself. Aegon doesn't just have darker eyes, Tyrion connects them to black eyes.

ADWD Tyrion IV

Those eyes of his would melt them. Like his sire, Young Griff had blue eyes, but where the father's eyes were pale, the son's were dark. By lamplight they turned black, and in the light of dusk they seemed purple. His eyelashes were as long as any woman's.

George plays around with the fact that eye color varies under different conditions. We do see him doing that first pretty well in TMK where Daemon's eyes do not really resemble Egg's so much when he has black hair and blueish clothing. And I'd expect that Aegon's eyes do see less purplish while the lad has still his blue hair - which he does on the Rhoyne as well as when Jon compares his eyes to Rhaegar's - than they will be when he has silver-gold hair and walks around in the Targaryen colors.

[Lollygag]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It defies a realistic setting to have a people with pale skin flourish in a tropical or sub-tropical climate zones. There is a reason why black skin is an evolutionary advantage in Africa and Australia whereas it a disadvantage in Scandinavia.

Dany has violet eyes, not purple eyes - or rather: different people describe her eyes differently. First they are violet, later some people describe them as purple. Rhaegar had indigo eyes which apparently were darker than Aegon's in Jon's memory. Jon Snow has dark grey eyes, not purplish eyes. Tyrion's eye could be a dark purple - or just some other dark color. Dark blue, grey, etc.

Oh, I don't blame him for that - but he did have the internet when writing TMK or sending descriptions via email to Amok.

But not all albinos have white hair - albino white is pretty much Valyrian white. There are some albinos whose hair resembles the white of old people hair, but there are also albinos who look exactly like Valyrians. Just go and do a picture search of albinos. It isn't that hard.

Valyrian eyes do vary - they stretch from clear blue to purplish colors. Just like albino eyes do, too.

And if you actually mix silver and gold as colors you get an albino platinum white. That isn't some other color, it is exactly that color.

I'd rather say the author didn't realize how varied real albinos are, just as he clearly didn't understood that it makes no sense that a 'proper albino' like Bloodraven should be a great archer. The guy would completely suck at archery, especially after he lost one eye.

George plays around with the fact that eye color varies under different conditions. We do see him doing that first pretty well in TMK where Daemon's eyes do not really resemble Egg's so much when he has black hair and blueish clothing. And I'd expect that Aegon's eyes do see less purplish while the lad has still his blue hair - which he does on the Rhoyne as well as when Jon compares his eyes to Rhaegar's - than they will be when he has silver-gold hair and walks around in the Targaryen colors.

Um, you're ignoring the points I did make and responded to points I didn't make. Arguing for the sake of arguing as per usual and why I won't respond further.

I'll reiterate my points about Valyrians not being written as albinos (though again, I do think they're written in such a way as to draw an association):

Fair skinned people do just fine with a lot of sun exposure* so the Targs doing fine in the sun is entirely realistic. This is not how one would portray an albino. Their hair and eyes are unusual but their skin is never described as unusually light compared to non-Valyrians. The Targs are written with silver/gold hair, not white. And no, gold =/= white, nor does silver = white. Mixing them also =/= true white. Most of the Targs in the story proper have eyes so dark as to be almost black (read: very heavily pigmented). Again, not how one would write a type of albino. Viserys is the except with lilac eyes, and that has more do to with GRRM using light eyes as a marker for a bad person (frozen eyes, frozen heart). No person with pale eyes in ASOIAF is any sort of good person, so Viserys being written with light eyes is more about theme of characterization which extends throughout the series in regards to this trait.

 

*A bit of clarification. I'm correcting a wide-spread misconception about fair-skinned people not being vampire-lite when it comes to sun but not advocating that light-skinned people be reckless in the sun. We've done fine for thousands and thousands and thousands of years with no sunscreen and working outdoors all day before modernization. But the conditions that our ancestors lived in isn't the one we live in. Because of modernization (atmospheric pollution), the quality of the sun that hits the earth today is different than what our ancestors experienced. Then we've flooded our bodies with chemicals which affect us who-knows-how, but it's probably some sort of bad depending and chemicals are definitely linked to cancer. There's also something to be said for spending all of this time indoors, even as a child, and then spending all day on a beach blasting ourselves with sun that our bodies aren't used to handling which is something our ancestors did not do. They kept their bodies in a situation where they weren't shocked by anything unfamiliar. They lived within an environment to which their bodies had long been adapted.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Um, you're ignoring the points I did make and responded to points I didn't make. Arguing for the sake of arguing as per usual and why I won't respond further.

I'll reiterate my points about Valyrians not being written as albinos (though again, I do think they're written in such a way as to draw an association):

The author and you ignore that albinism is a spectrum. The Valyrians fit the bill effectively just as well as Bloodraven does.

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Fair skinned people do just fine with a lot of sun exposure* so the Targs doing fine in the sun is entirely realistic. This is not how one would portray an albino. Their hair and eyes are unusual but their skin is never described as unusually light compared to non-Valyrians. The Targs are written with silver/gold hair, not white. And no, gold =/= white, nor does silver = white. Mixing them also =/= true white. Most of the Targs in the story proper have eyes so dark as to be almost black (read: very heavily pigmented). Again, not how one would write a type of albino. Viserys is the except with lilac eyes, and that has more do to with GRRM using light eyes as a marker for a bad person (frozen eyes, frozen heart). No person with pale eyes in ASOIAF is any sort of good person, so Viserys being written with light eyes is more about theme of characterization which extends throughout the series in regards to this trait.

You apparently didn't bother to actually look at real albinos.

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

*A bit of clarification. I'm correcting a wide-spread misconception about fair-skinned people not being vampire-lite when it comes to sun but not advocating that light-skinned people be reckless in the sun. We've done fine for thousands and thousands and thousands of years with no sunscreen and working outdoors all day before modernization. But the conditions that our ancestors lived in isn't the one we live in. Because of modernization (atmospheric pollution), the quality of the sun that hits the earth today is different than what our ancestors experienced. Then we've flooded our bodies with chemicals which affect us who-knows-how, but it's probably some sort of bad depending and chemicals are definitely linked to cancer. There's also something to be said for spending all of this time indoors, even as a child, and then spending all day on a beach blasting ourselves with sun that our bodies aren't used to handling which is something our ancestors did not do. They kept their bodies in a situation where they weren't shocked by anything unfamiliar. They lived within an environment to which their bodies had long been adapted.

Nobody made any such cases, but I'd contest that fair-skinned paople 'did fine' in the past - there is an evolutionary reason why fair-skinned people did not develop in Africa, just as there are reason why dark-skinned people did not thrive in Scandinavia. Too much melanin result in severe vitamin D deficiencies in places where you get little to no sun in winter.

And of course even albinos can live long enough to breed in regions were they are faced with extreme sunlight the entire day, but obviously this wasn't the case in the evolutionary history of the human species since there are very few light-skinned people in Africa.

[kissdbyfire]

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The author and you ignore that albinism is a spectrum. The Valyrians fit the bill effectively just as well as Bloodraven does.

Why do you say that the author has ignored that “albinism is a spectrum“? We would have to have a much greater incidence of albinism to be able to determine that. Off the top of my head, there are only 3 albinos in ASoIaF, namely, Bloodraven, Ghost, and the GoHH. 

You, on the other hand, have been deliberately ignoring what everyone is saying, b/c you have a different opinion. And that’s all there is to it. We are all entitled to have our own opinions on any subject, to be sure. But having an opinion doesn’t mean we are right. 

So, one more time, for the road: Targaryens/Valyrians aren’t albinos. I am also done w/ this discussion. 

[Roswell]

We cannot know for certain but my guess is the presence of an albino-like gene.   Although being pale is not the same as the complete lack of melanin.  The Targaryens are very beautiful and thus will not have the freckles or imperfections of those who are sensitive to the light.  

[TheCannuck]

I read a very interesting article pertaining to Inuit peoples and why they have retained their darker skin color despite inhabiting a region with low UV exposure. They found that because their diets consist of mainly fatty fish that are rich in vitamin D, they are able to retain their higher melanin levels as the sun is not their primary source of vitamin D. Perhaps the reverse can be true as well? Some type of fantasy diet that inhibits melanin production. 

Anywho, my personal take on this subject is that, while George has gone to great lengths to include many realistic elements in his fantasy world, it is just that. Fantasy. And I believe that with how wonderful a tale Mr. Martin has spun we can give him a break on this one. As I highly doubt he would want people arguing about skin color. There's far to much of that going on in the real world as it is.

[Bowen Marsh]

To underline their uniqueness.  They have physical characteristics which make them different from the other families in Westeros.  I do not think there is any internal reason except that it serves the story.  They live in a tightly controlled society.  The nobles rule by right of class and held themselves apart from the folks they ruled over.  The Targaryens have these unique looks to make them different from the other families.  This difference is one reason why their rule was accepted.  They were not ruling over peers and equals.  The Targaryens had no equal.  The nobles and the commons respected that difference.  It is easier on your honor to take orders from demigods.  Your pride will be wounded if you had to take orders from your peers.  

[Targknight]

Albinism  

[Orm]

On 7/29/2020 at 5:36 AM, Bowen Marsh said:

The Targaryens have these unique looks to make them different from the other families.  This difference is one reason why their rule was accepted.  They were not ruling over peers and equals.  The Targaryens had no equal.  The nobles and the commons respected that difference.  It is easier on your honor to take orders from demigods.  Your pride will be wounded if you had to take orders from your peers.  

Well Robert was accepted as king quite well without displaying any Targ features........ Not saying that his features in his youth weren't "a maiden's fantasy" but still proves my point......

I don't think that there looks had anything to do with their right to rule........

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Orm said:

Well Robert was accepted as king quite well without displaying any Targ features........ Not saying that his features in his youth weren't "a maiden's fantasy" but still proves my point......

I don't think that there looks had anything to do with their right to rule........

Well, it seems that the Doctrine of Exceptionalism also sort of established how a proper Targaryen should look like - linking Valyrian looks, dragons, incest, and royal powers closely together.

How detrimental it could be for a Targaryen to not look Valyrian we may learn in further detail in FaB II when the roots of the Blackfyre Rebellion are discussed - it has already been hinted at that Baelor Breakspear looking like his mother made him look less impressive than Daemon Blackfyre despite the fact that he seems to have been his equal in the lists.

And of course Robert's kingship was much weaker than all the Targaryens before him due to the fact that he usurped the throne without completely eradicating the bloodline of his royal cousin.

No Targaryen was ever as dependent on a strong coalition of great houses to put and keep him in power as Robert was - they all had the advantage to point to their predecessors on the Iron Throne, going back to Aegon I, and the fact that Westeros was conquered by them and the people had accepted them as their rulers.

The whole outsider effect should have helped with that, too - the Targaryens were above the old grudges the Starks had with the Arryns, the Lannisters with the Reach lords, etc.

Robert does have a strong claim to the Iron Throne through his grandmother, but he still also is a great lord of the Realm who, by means of his usurpation, rises above his peers unexpectedly. This is not something said peers like - you can see what Robert being king even did to his friendship with Ned. They are no longer equals.

If a prince becomes king that is to be expected. People know this will happen one day. But it is different with a fellow lord.

[Frey family reunion]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole outsider effect should have helped with that, too - the Targaryens were above the old grudges the Starks had with the Arryns, the Lannisters with the Reach lords, etc.

Robert does have a strong claim to the Iron Throne through his grandmother, but he still also is a great lord of the Realm who, by means of his usurpation, rises above his peers unexpectedly. This is not something said peers like - you can see what Robert being king even did to his friendship with Ned. They are no longer equals.

That's a pretty good point that I had never really considered before.  This may be another reason why it was important that Robert was crowned as opposed to Stark or Arryn.  Robert was a descendant of the Targaryens, so the other Lords could delude themselves with the idea that Robert still had a Targaryen justification for him to be their king.  Otherwise they would have to admit that they were now bending the knee to an upjumped house who used to be their equal.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

That's a pretty good point that I had never really considered before.  This may be another reason why it was important that Robert was crowned as opposed to Stark or Arryn.  Robert was a descendant of the Targaryens, so the other Lords could delude themselves with the idea that Robert still had a Targaryen justification for him to be their king.  Otherwise they would have to admit that they were now bending the knee to an upjumped house who used to be their equal.

I've never seen anyone delluding themselves, the blood was quite literally for them to shut up. But the loyalists saw what they were being offered and swallowed it, because they really didn't have more options.

Had Ned or Jon Arryn taken the Throne, they would've been in the exact same position.

I have yet to see a loyalist arguing about Robert's blood.

 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No Targaryen was ever as dependent on a strong coalition of great houses to put and keep him in power as Robert was - they all had the advantage to point to their predecessors on the Iron Throne, going back to Aegon I, and the fact that Westeros was conquered by them and the people had accepted them as their rulers.

I'd say Daeron was, his throne was dependant of it. But sure, no Targ prior Robert was in his boots.

The first had dragons to quiet people, Robert's coalition serves here, and the rest had tradition.

Is what it entails doing something first, you have no precedents for your action. Or weren't Aegon, Aenys, Maegor and Jaeharys dependent of strong deterrents to rule properly??

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

That's a pretty good point that I had never really considered before.  This may be another reason why it was important that Robert was crowned as opposed to Stark or Arryn.  Robert was a descendant of the Targaryens, so the other Lords could delude themselves with the idea that Robert still had a Targaryen justification for him to be their king.  Otherwise they would have to admit that they were now bending the knee to an upjumped house who used to be their equal.

It is a pity we have no clue who the hell first came up with the idea of a 'King Robert'. Was it Robert himself, was the entire thing Jon Arryn's idea - who one intuitively considers as the ideological father of 'the royal house Baratheon' idea -, was it something the knights and men-at-arms in the army came up with as Robert's popularity as super general and rebel leader grew?

But we just have no idea.

In the Baratheon case Robert has the advantage of his Targaryen royal blood both, one assumes, by virtue of Princess Rhaelle and by virtue of Lord Orys Baratheon himself, but his disadvantage is also pretty clear:

The Baratheons have the strongest blood claim outside House Targaryen, but they are among the weaker great houses. They are only a royal house in their own right through the female line and they are of (alleged baseborn) bastard descent. Their lands are poor compared to Riverlands, the Reach, the West, the Vale, and perhaps even the North (if you consider the resources of the entire North combined).

In a sense the great lords are peers, but some are more prestigious than others, with the Lannisters, Arryns, and Starks (in that order, I'd say) being the most illustrious houses if you just look at their royal ancestry and the age and longevity of their dynasties prior to the Conquest. The Starks are among the most ancient royal houses in Westeros, the Arryns are the first and foremost (and purest) Andal nobility in the Seven Kingdoms, and the Lannisters are really without any peers considering that to their royal blood and ancestry and nobility comes their enormous wealth and all the splendor that goes with that. We certainly have other houses with equal standing, the Hightowers especially.

This is certainly a problem - the idea that some poor, ragged backwater fellow (I'm exaggerating here) becomes your overlord is very hard to swallow. A Lord Harrold Hardyng might get some problems, too, considering he is pretty much nobody on his father's side - just as Alyn Velaryon was not exactly welcomed as the new Lord of Driftmark by his Velaryon kin.

It is no surprise that Tywin and Cersei and Jaime actually looked down on Robert, that Pycelle prayed Tywin would be king, not Robert, that even Jon Snow thinks Jaime would make a finer king than Robert ever could, etc. It is not as obvious as it would have been if Robert hadn't been a Targaryen descendant, but it is there nonetheless.

On first glance one is ready to see the Lannisters aspiring to be or present themselves as kings as presumption and hubris (think how Jon trashes Joff for including his mother's arms in his personal sigil) but on second glance one realizes that the Lannisters are old royalty themselves, like the Starks and Arryns are, too. And we see how quickly the Starks remember that they were kings once when the war takes up steam...

The Baratheons are clearly not seen as equal to the Targaryens - although I maintain Robert could have taken the Targaryen name considering his close kinship, not to mention doing other things like adopting the dragon banner, continuing the royal incest, keeping the dragon skulls in the throne room, etc. We know why he didn't do any of that (or at least can make good arguments that this was because he hated the Targaryens) but not trying to make himself as Targaryen as possible definitely weakened the perception of his new dynasty. It made him look more normal, more like little or nothing had changed when he transitioned from Lord of Storm's End to King on the Iron Throne.

If we look on the details of the Targaryen history we know so far, then no king - not even the weakest Targaryen king - fell prey to the ambitions of his in-laws to the degree Robert Baratheon did. The Cersei-Robert match as such was already a sign of Robert's relative weakness - Jon thought Robert had to marry Cersei to strengthen Robert's position. No king before had to marry a woman just to increase his chances to keep his throne.

And in a very real sense it is the weakness of the Baratheon regime - which, to be sure, also has much to do with Robert's personal weakness as a ruler - which allows his former peers - the lions and the wolves and the other two stage Robert, in his stupidity, made into great lords, too - to tear the Realm apart.

Tywin is able with the strength and charisma of his own person to basically become a new sort of Targaryen king behind the scenes. He is the man who makes Joffrey and Tommen king and ensures they remain on the throne. That is something he can do because of his personal authority and reputation as well as with the power and splendor that comes with being the Lord of Casterly Rock. But his authority is personal and special - as soon as he is no longer in the picture the Lannister-run government falls prey to the same weaknesses as Robert's before - even quicker and to a higher degree considering the rumors about the true parentage of Cersei's children.

If there had been a clearer hierarchy, if the royals hadn't marry their most powerful bannermen to keep them in line/rely on their support in a moment of need, if the king had had the luxury to staff court and council with people on the basis of their merit (like, say, Jaehaerys I did) rather than on the basis whether they were kin, in-laws, old rebel friends, or too powerful to ignore then things would have run much better there.

It is stuff like that that led me to conclude that deposing Aerys II was good, but crowning Robert was bad - especially crowning Robert while not punishing the Lannisters for their crimes. If Robert had punished Tywin and Jaime then they may have even been able to get the Dornish on board of the new regime, possibly even making some sort of compromise with the exiled Targaryens - Dany as bride for Joffrey, say, with Viserys III getting Dragonstone as a hereditary lordship.

But better still it would have been if the rebels had installed a new Targaryen king in Viserys III (or perhaps better in young Aegon if the boy hadn't been killed), whose regency government would have been ran by Jon and Ned, with support from Doran Martell and some competent Targaryen loyalists.

That way a truly lasting peace could have been created, especially if the new young king would have been properly educated and informed about why the rebels had done what they did and why his father/grandfather had to be removed from power.

41 minutes ago, frenin said:

I'd say Daeron was, his throne was dependant of it. But sure, no Targ prior Robert was in his boots.

Which Daeron do you mean here?

I'd say neither was as dependent on the great lords since neither got power or retained it due to a marriage/close alliance with the most powerful lords in the Realm. And no Targaryen court was ever dominated by an overbearing Lannister or Tyrell father-/brother-in-law.

41 minutes ago, frenin said:

The first had dragons to quiet people, Robert's coalition serves here, and the rest had tradition.

Such a coalition is already a weakness. If you can only be king by virtue of the support of (some of your most) powerful lords you do not have all that much sovereignty. You are almost primus inter pares and not a sovereign monarch who actually rules over his subjects. Robert is never in a position where he can truly risk to anger Tywin or Eddard or Jon. He needs them more than they need him.

[frenin]

On 8/3/2020 at 11:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Which Daeron do you mean here?

I'd say neither was as dependent on the great lords since neither got power or retained it due to a marriage/close alliance with the most powerful lords in the Realm. 

Daeron 2, he basically married his children to the Stormlands, Dorne, Vale and the Marches to compensate for the fact of his dornish wife, without those marriages, he would've lost his own throne, It wasn't until Daemon and his elder sons had died and after both Maekar and Baelor proved to be an unstoppable duo that the Throne rested again secured for his line.

Daemon Blackfyre, opposed to him, didn't need to marry his children off  to the lords to get their support.

 

 

On 8/3/2020 at 11:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

And no Targaryen court was ever dominated by an overbearing Lannister or Tyrell father-/brother-in-law.

I'm sorry when was ever Robert dominated either by Tywin or Jaime??

I wouldn't say that Jofrey or Tommen are dominated either, they are still kids after all.

 

On 8/3/2020 at 11:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Such a coalition is already a weakness. If you can only be king by virtue of the support of (some of your most) powerful lords you do not have all that much sovereignty. You are almost primus inter pares and not a sovereign monarch who actually rules over his subjects. Robert is never in a position where he can truly risk to anger Tywin or Eddard or Jon. He needs them more than they need him.

Such coalitions are necessary if you pretend to rule properly and you don't have dragons.

Without a fiery deterrent, be it a Baratheon, be it a Lannister, be it a Targaryen , the King is in practice Primus inter pares, feudal monarchies were based on that idea, absolutism is hard to materializewhen you have no dragons. 

Why do you think Egg planned to marry his kids to as many high lords as possible?? He could not rule properly otherwise.

Robert can risk anger Eddard, Tywin or old Jon, the thing about this coalitions is that people are always ready to jump in, if he angers one of them, he just needs to replace them with a Tyrell, what Robert can't do,and is what neither Aerys, not Rhaegar learnt until it was too late for them, is angering many or all of them. Then sure he's going down.

But i really see no difference between Robert and Aerys or Egg.

As show Brynden puts it, even the maddest of kings know not to bully more than one powerful lord at a time.

 

 

Quote

It is no surprise that Tywin and Cersei and Jaime actually looked down on Robert, that Pycelle prayed Tywin would be king, not Robert, that even Jon Snow thinks Jaime would make a finer king than Robert ever could, etc. It is not as obvious as it would have been if Robert hadn't been a Targaryen descendant, but it is there nonetheless.

It is not. Jaime and Cersei actually resent Robert and Tywin considers, rightly so, the man a fool. But they alsp also look down on Aerys and the man was a Targaryen.

And Jon doesn't think that Jaime would make a finer king that Robert ever could, he believes that Jaime looks like a king while fat Robert doesn't.

 

 

Quote

The Baratheons are clearly not seen as equal to the Targaryens - although I maintain Robert could have taken the Targaryen name considering his close kinship, not to mention doing other things like adopting the dragon banner, continuing the royal incest, keeping the dragon skulls in the throne room, etc. We know why he didn't do any of that (or at least can make good arguments that this was because he hated the Targaryens) but not trying to make himself as Targaryen as possible definitely weakened the perception of his new dynasty. It made him look more normal, more like little or nothing had changed when he transitioned from Lord of Storm's End to King on the Iron Throne.

Sure by the Targaryens and sympathizers, i doubt that those who fought for Robert, give a damn about any of that.

I certainly have never seen a folk saying something like "Renly seems like a proper fellow, but his eyes are not violet".

I do have seen a lot of fans saying it however, perhaps they bought in those things more than  the actual characters do.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

Daeron 2, he basically married his children to the Stormlands, Dorne, Vale and the Marches to compensate for the fact of his dornish wife, without those marriages, he would've lost his own throne, It wasn't until Daemon and his elder sons had died and after both Maekar and Baelor proved to be an unstoppable duo that the Throne rested again secured for his line.

There is no indication that there is a causal link between the marriage of Daeron's sons and the support Daeron II got during the Blackfyre Rebellion. Nor is there actually any indication that those were truly political matches and not just cousin marriages - with Daeron II marrying his sons to the granddaughters or great-granddaughters of Baela and Rhaena Targaryen (which is effectively confirmed for Aelinor Penrose). Even if there was - the only significant house Daeron II chose was Alys Arryn for his third son, a madman (and that may have been a marriage which took place after the Redgrass Field considering Rhaegel's children were still children in 212 AC). Dondarrions and Penroses do not sway entire regions to a cause, and neither do Daynes - a completely pointless marriage from a political point of view in light of the fact that Daeron II had both a Princess of Dorne for a wife and the Prince of Dorne as his brother-in-law. There was no need to reinforce the link with Dorne, one assumes.

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

Daemon Blackfyre, opposed to him, didn't need to marry his children off  to the lords to get their support.

To be sure, we have no idea what kind of marriage pacts Daemon Blackfyre made for any of his seven sons and his unknown number of daughters. We do have reason, however, that the link between him and Bittersteel was strengthened by the betrothal of Calla and Aegor.

It would not surprise me to learn that Daemon had promised the hands of Aegon and Aemon and young Daemon II to the daughters or sisters of his more powerful followers.

But then, we don't really have so much as a single great house supporting Daemon Blackfyre, so chances are pretty good that his men were from second-tier and third-tier houses, for the most part, with really powerful houses just hedging their bets by sending token forces to both sides, or allowing younger sons to do as they pleased.

I mean, the single big name among Daemon's followers seems to have been Robb Reyne, and he was just a Ser with us still not knowing whether all of House Reyne supported the Black Dragon, or only this guy in some kind of Rogar Royce scenario.

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

Without a fiery deterrent, be it a Baratheon, be it a Lannister, be it a Targaryen , the King is in practice Primus inter pares, feudal monarchies were based on that idea, absolutism is hard to materializewhen you have no dragons. 

If you don't see the difference between Aerys II and other dragonless Targaryen kings and Robert I can't help you. They are there.

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why do you think Egg planned to marry his kids to as many high lords as possible?? He could not rule properly otherwise.

Because the man wanted to make drastic changes to the feudal status quo.

I do formulate precisely and with intention - getting/remaining in power isn't the same as implementing drastic reforms. Aegon V didn't have to arrange marriages for his children because his Hand thought he might lose the throne if he didn't - Robert Baratheon had to marry Cersei for that reason.

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert can risk anger Eddard, Tywin or old Jon, the thing about this coalitions is that people are always ready to jump in, if he angers one of them, he just needs to replace them with a Tyrell, what Robert can't do,and is what neither Aerys, not Rhaegar learnt until it was too late for them, is angering many or all of them. Then sure he's going down.

No, Robert's problem is that to stay in power, to prevent the specter of a Targaryen restoration he has to keep more people sweet than a man who didn't gain the throne via usurpation.

Robert has clear enemies among his lords - mostly in the Reach and Dorne, but elsewhere, too - who only do not move against him because he has strong allies among certain great houses. If he no longer has such allies, he risks that the wolves will come for him. And he is afraid of that.

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

It is not. Jaime and Cersei actually resent Robert and Tywin considers, rightly so, the man a fool. But they alsp also look down on Aerys and the man was a Targaryen.

The man was suffering from mental illness ... and still there are people who view him as more of a king than Robert.

[frenin]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that there is a causal link between the marriage of Daeron's sons and the support Daeron II got during the Blackfyre Rebellion. Nor is there actually any indication that those were truly political matches and not just cousin marriages - with Daeron II marrying his sons to the granddaughters or great-granddaughters of Baela and Rhaena Targaryen (which is effectively confirmed for Aelinor Penrose). Even if there was - the only significant house Daeron II chose was Alys Arryn for his third son, a madman (and that may have been a marriage which took place after the Redgrass Field considering Rhaegel's children were still children in 212 AC). Dondarrions and Penroses do not sway entire regions to a cause, and neither do Daynes - a completely pointless marriage from a political point of view in light of the fact that Daeron II had both a Princess of Dorne for a wife and the Prince of Dorne as his brother-in-law. There was no need to reinforce the link with Dorne, one assumes.

It just so happens that his more powerful supporters were all linked to them somehow and that without them,  the war would've been lost.

Dondarrions and Penrose happened to be marcher houses, the zone that was most pissed for Daeron's policies, the Dondarrions are also one of the most powerful bannermen of Storm's End to and where they heed at, would carry a lot of way. And last time i saw it, mad Targs, still counts as Targ princes.

The Yronwoods and his bannermen still supported Daemon, that the Martells supported a Targ pretender=/ the entirety of Dorne would throw their might to support a war between two people that were their enemies until yesterday, and Daeron needed Dorne's support,

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

To be sure, we have no idea what kind of marriage pacts Daemon Blackfyre made for any of his seven sons and his unknown number of daughters. We do have reason, however, that the link between him and Bittersteel was strengthened by the betrothal of Calla and Aegor.

Skilled as the man  may have been at arms, Bittersteel is not a lord, let alone a highlord, that union would've been made by fraternty bonds, not a promise of power, since it still passed tears until Daemon decided to rebel.

 

Quote

If we look on the details of the Targaryen history we know so far, then no king - not even the weakest Targaryen king - fell prey to the ambitions of his in-laws to the degree Robert Baratheon did.

True i believe, but that's just good ol nepotism and yes, Targs fell for that.

 

Quote

The Cersei-Robert match as such was already a sign of Robert's relative weakness - Jon thought Robert had to marry Cersei to strengthen Robert's position. No king before had to marry a woman just to increase his chances to keep his throne.

No?? What Aegon 2 had to do then??

 

Quote

If there had been a clearer hierarchy, if the royals hadn't marry their most powerful bannermen to keep them in line/rely on their support in a moment of need, if the king had had the luxury to staff court and council with people on the basis of their merit (like, say, Jaehaerys I did) rather than on the basis whether they were kin, in-laws, old rebel friends, or too powerful to ignore then things would have run much better there.

Yes, it does seem that Robert invented nepotism. 

Btw, save Renly bewcause we don't know what he did .  Pycelle Varys, Stannis, Jon Arryn and Petyr were all skilled. Robert's council wasn't about lack of merit or skill, but lack of loyalty, had they put their skill to the Realm's service, that small council would've been without doubts the best of Westeros's history, alas each of them had their own plan.

Btw, the royals marry their most powerful bannermen  or powerful bannreman to keep them in line or for their support a couple times.  Rhaenyra married Laenor Velaryon, Maegor married Ceryse Hightower comes to mind.

And well, Egg deserves a book on his own.

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But then, we don't really have so much as a single great house supporting Daemon Blackfyre, so chances are pretty good that his men were from second-tier and third-tier houses, for the most part, with really powerful houses just hedging their bets by sending token forces to both sides, or allowing younger sons to do as they pleased.

I mean, the single big name among Daemon's followers seems to have been Robb Reyne, and he was just a Ser with us still not knowing whether all of House Reyne supported the Black Dragon, or only this guy in some kind of Rogar Royce scenario.

We know that the Brackens and the Yronwoods fully supported him, and that the Hightowers, Tarbeck and Oakhearts supported both.

We also know that half the Realm stood with Daemon.

 

Quote

In this manner did the First Blackfyre Rebellion begin, in the year 196 AC. Reversing the colors of the traditional Targaryen arms to show a black dragon on a red field, the rebels declared for Princess Daena’s bastard son Daemon Blackfyre, First of His Name, proclaiming him the eldest true son of King Aegon IV, and his half brother Daeron the bastard. Subsequently many battles were fought between the black and red dragons in the Vale, the westerlands, the riverlands, and elsewhere.

 

Quote

Dunk could not deny the truth of that. Until this moment, he had never met a man who’d fought for the Pretender. I must have, though. There were thousands of them. Half the realm was for the red dragon, and half was for the black.

I'm not surprised with so many great houses supporting Daeron, he meant status quo while Daemon rupturism, still, if the Great Lord that supports the king has to fight against half his vassals because they support Daemon, Daemon has half the kingdom on his side.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you don't see the difference between Aerys II and other dragonless Targaryen kings and Robert I can't help you. They are there.

They certainly had a better standing than Robert,  Robert was the first of his line and the dragonless Kings reigned over an established dynasty.

That's about it however and the Lannisters, the Baratheons or the Greyjoys only needed just that, time to settle down, after that, no, there wouldn't be a difference between them.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because the man wanted to make drastic changes to the feudal status quo.

I do formulate precisely and with intention - getting/remaining in power isn't the same as implementing drastic reforms. Aegon V didn't have to arrange marriages for his children because his Hand thought he might lose the throne if he didn't - Robert Baratheon had to marry Cersei for that reason.

How isn't Robert usurping the Throne a drastic change to the feudal status quo??

Do you think that Robert would need that marriage had he rode Balerion??

I know that you formulate your question very especifically so, the only answer is "Targaryens great", you're cheating at solitaire however.

 

 Aegon 5 had to arrange marriages for his children because otherwise he couldn't reign properly and he sure as hell had to appease angry lords, chief among them was Lyonel Baratheon to whom Aegon 5 delivered his own daughter as hostage and bride to be for Ormund Baratheon.

As usual you're trying to make your cake and eat it too as usual, by, as usual, setting rather arbitrary good ways of ruling and using them as facts to prove your point.

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, Robert's problem is that to stay in power, to prevent the specter of a Targaryen restoration he has to keep more people sweet than a man who didn't gain the throne via usurpation.

I don't know about that. He clearly didn't keep Ned sweet and threatened to kill him, i don't really know where that notion comes but certainly not from the books.

He ignored his own Hand often and didn't care either and just gave the totle of Warden of the East to Jaime. If his afraid of his own partisans abandoning him, he clearly has a very odd way to show it. He was afraid of some loyalists joining Viserys, he wasn't worried that his own old guard might abandon him.

It's what conquest has however, William the Conqueror had to replace the old Saxon nobility with his men to repay them the kindness of making him king, i bet that had he had dragons, he would not care much about them. 

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert has clear enemies among his lords - mostly in the Reach and Dorne, but elsewhere, too - who only do not move against him because he has strong allies among certain great houses. If he no longer has such allies, he risks that the wolves will come for him. And he is afraid of that.

He has some people that dislike him, but there is no King that can said that he was universally loved. again, if Aegon didn't have dragons or his dragons had died said during the war with Dorne, the wolves would've tore him apart. It's the good thing about deterrents, that they actually deter people from acting against you. Who would've thought...

Had Aerys had dragons, he would still sit on the throne. Do you think that any king can sit on the throne for long without allies??  They either need allies, and the Targs had allies for all their reign, or they better have a big stick to bully people around.

Aerys also was afraid of that, i can't tell where the difference is.

Jaeharys 1 also had clear enemies among his lords... and the Church and he only subdued those enemies with yet again deterrents. How much do you think a dragonless Jaeharys would've lasted while he was an enemy oft the Starks and Baratheons, the pious lords of the Realm and the Faith?? How  well do you think his quest about convining the folk that he could fuck his sister and they shouldn't kill him for that would've gone without dragons?? How many lords do you think would've stand by him after a Jaeharys without the power to coerce the Faith into doing his biddding, was accused of being being an abomination by the newly elected High Septon Matheus??

 

Yes, without a deterrent, in form of a powerful alliance, Robert's position would've been far from secure,  it is the very same with every single ruler in Westeros.

 

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The man was suffering from mental illness ... and still there are people who view him as more of a king than Robert.

Such as?? That's new.

There were people that saw him as their king, period.  Mad or not, they understood that it had no bearing with their oaths. What they didn't do was decide that Aerys was "more of a king" than Robert. 

Unless ofc you're talking about his children and the Targ fandom, then sure.

[S. D]

Racism

[Orm]

On 8/4/2020 at 3:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is no surprise that Tywin and Cersei and Jaime actually looked down on Robert, that Pycelle prayed Tywin would be king, not Robert, that even Jon Snow thinks Jaime would make a finer king than Robert ever could, etc. It is not as obvious as it would have been if Robert hadn't been a Targaryen descendant, but it is there nonetheless.

Cersei, I remember looks down on the Estermont blood in Robert through his mum.... But never have I ever read any Lannister or any other "great" house  stating that Baratheon/Durrandon blood is beneath them.... Or even question their legitimacy as royals unless your a Targ loyalist...

Jon says that cause Robert in AGOT is just a sorry ass to what he was.....

"Peerless Robert Baratheon", "Giant among princes", "Muscled like a maiden's fantasy", "Baratheon fights as a King should fight" etc etc

Then we have this again with Renly,

According to Sansa, Renly is the "handsomest man she had ever seen", "powerful frame", "Jet black mane" etc

So what is your point actually? The Baratheons who are Durrandons in all but name even have devine origins to their credit , which no other great house has......