Torrhen Manderly - Thoughts?

[James Steller]

How do you feel about Torrhen Manderly based on what we know about him?

He was a key figure during the Dance of the Dragons, and also the Regency of Aegon III. GRRM doesn't frame him in a very clear light, since he’s considered an honest and capable administrator but he’s also pretty prejudiced towards bastards and foreigners. Plus there’s that important moment at the end of FaB (one of my favourite moments from that book or any of GRRM’s books, frankly) where he is confronted by Aegon on the day he comes of age, where he finally takes control of his own life and cancels the grand progress. Obviously there’s a few ways to take that scene, and I have my own mixed feelings, even though I do love that scene as a great spot to conclude the book (even though it means that there should be three volumes of FaB for adequate time with each king).
 

But I imagine that Torrhen inspires a lot of mixed opinions from the fans, hence why I bring him up now. 

[Curled Finger]

You know what I also liked about the former Hand?  He took Mushroom with him.  Ah that regency bred some strange alliances, but I could totally see this one working.  Mushroom goes out in style.  

[Floki of the Ironborn]

2 hours ago, James Steller said:

GRRM doesn't frame him in a very clear light, since he’s considered an honest and capable administrator but he’s also pretty prejudiced towards bastards and foreigners. Plus there’s that important moment at the end of FaB (one of my favourite moments from that book or any of GRRM’s books, frankly) where he is confronted by Aegon on the day he comes of age, where he finally takes control of his own life and cancels the grand progress. Obviously there’s a few ways to take that scene, and I have my own mixed feelings

It really doesn't sound like you have mixed feelings about it. Torrhen Manderly's given a thankless task of putting the realm back together in the ashes of a grand conspiracy. He does it efficiently (though yeah, he's clearly got a snobbish elitist attitude which I don't like) and all he gets is a sulky boy, even though, need I remind you, Torrhen advised Rhaenyra to come to White Harbour with him instead of going to Dragonstone. He was there for that, too, Aegon, and so he should know full well that if Rhaenyra had listened to Torrhen, she might still be alive. 

And what does that little boy king do when he comes of age? Tells Torrhen to get out of his house in the most threatening and insulting manner. He cancels a huge progress which would likely have done him a world of good to try and adjust back into reality. It might also remind him that he's a king now, and he's got responsibilities. Torrhen had the boy's best interests at heart, but Aegon's too much of an ungrateful little snot. "Thanks for all your help, now I'm cancelling the last several months of painstaking work and negotiations. Oh, and you can go eff right off home to White Harbour, don't let the door hit you on the way out." I'm not surprised in the slightest that Torrhen never forgave Aegon for that kind of treatment. I certainly wouldn't if it was me. 

So yeah, GRRM actually made me feel sorry for a snobby rich guy. Well played, George. I think it speaks to his talent as a writer.

[James Steller]

6 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Torrhen Manderly's given a thankless task of putting the realm back together in the ashes of a grand conspiracy. He does it efficiently (though yeah, he's clearly got a snobbish elitist attitude which I don't like) and all he gets is a sulky boy, even though, need I remind you, Torrhen advised Rhaenyra to come to White Harbour with him instead of going to Dragonstone. He was there for that, too, Aegon, and so he should know full well that if Rhaenyra had listened to Torrhen, she might still be alive. 

You’re assuming that Aegon remembers that interaction, which we don’t know if he does or not. And even if he did, why does that make Torrhen exempt from any and all criticism? 

Aegon also didn't ask Torrhen to become Hand. Torrhen chose to show up at the council and he chose to take the office. He could have declined for any number of justifiable reasons.

6 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

And what does that little boy king do when he comes of age? Tells Torrhen to get out of his house in the most threatening and insulting manner. He cancels a huge progress which would likely have done him a world of good to try and adjust back into reality. It might also remind him that he's a king now, and he's got responsibilities. Torrhen had the boy's best interests at heart, but Aegon's too much of an ungrateful little snot. "Thanks for all your help, now I'm cancelling the last several months of painstaking work and negotiations. Oh, and you can go eff right off home to White Harbour, don't let the door hit you on the way out." I'm not surprised in the slightest that Torrhen never forgave Aegon for that kind of treatment. I certainly wouldn't if it was me. 

More assumptions and accusations. How do we know that Torrhen was only thinking about Aegon’s best interests? And would the grand progress really have helped Aegon? If a grand royal tour cures PTSD, why not send people on cruises as therapy? Plus, Torrhen was being self serving; the progress was his idea, his creation; it’s not like he’s got nothing to gain. He didn’t take the office of Hand of the King out of charity or genuine concern for Aegon. Based on how he turned on Nettles and Addam Velaryon, and how he sentenced one of the Rogares to be thrashed “for being a Lyseni”, I’d say that Torrhen is far less kindly than you made him sound.

And the real clincher for me is the fact that Aegon didn’t like him. It’s not like Aegon hates everyone: he trusts people who respect him. Tyland Lannister was suggesting that Aegon be executed, but then when he became king, he accepted it and became a mentor to Aegon. Self serving, no doubt, but he actually wants to help Aegon learn how to rule, and Aegon obliges. Then of course, Unwin Peake shows up and treats Aegon like a child to be exploited. He also turns Aegon’s entire court against him by filling it with his cronies. Why would Aegon trust anyone after all that? And if Torrhen couldn’t earn his respect, it says to me that he didn’t try. That speaks to his personality as a prejudiced Westerosi man with little empathy.

Was Torrhen a good administrator? Probably. Was he a good knight? I’m sure that was true. But he was not necessarily an innocent victim. Aegon tried to be actively involved in his government when Tyland and Unwin were in charge, and he didn’t even bother with Torrhen. It could speak to Aegon’s giving up, but I honestly don’t blame him for having that attitude. And his lack of a connection with Torrhen could also speak to Torrhen’s personality as well. We don’t know and can’t know for sure. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

What I find interesting is that the MUSH says that Torrhen died in 139 AC while sleeping. Now the MUSH is not canon, but it is usually not that far off when it comes to canon characters. So combined with the mention that Aegon turned an ally into an enemy, Thorren's death could make for an interesting story.

[Lord Varys]

Torrhen and Medrick are both suckers simply for the fact that they actually advised Rhaenyra to arrest/execute Addam Velaryon and Nettles.

Aside from that shitty thing, neither of those men showed any particularly good qualities. And the whole Rogare trial thing also reflects very badly on Torrhen.

The progress plan also seems to have been something Torrhen wanted for himself - you don't make a plan to show of the king if the king doesn't want to be showed off.

[James Steller]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The progress plan also seems to have been something Torrhen wanted for himself - you don't make a plan to show of the king if the king doesn't want to be showed off.

Exactly! It baffles me that nobody ever considered that Aegon would have the nerve to cancel the progress as soon as he came of age. Torrhen and Munkun clearly didn’t even try to engage Aegon (and the fact that Munkun managed to survive the conspiracy purge is puzzling, frankly, but anyway). Either Aegon didn’t say anything to them and simply waited for his sixteenth birthday, or they were completely clueless, or a bit of both. Either way, I love reading about Aegon finally taking charge of his life after so much manipulation and deception.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Exactly! It baffles me that nobody ever considered that Aegon would have the nerve to cancel the progress as soon as he came of age. Torrhen and Munkun clearly didn’t even try to engage Aegon (and the fact that Munkun managed to survive the conspiracy purge is puzzling, frankly, but anyway). Either Aegon didn’t say anything to them and simply waited for his sixteenth birthday, or they were completely clueless, or a bit of both. Either way, I love reading about Aegon finally taking charge of his life after so much manipulation and deception.

Ah, well, that scene is so powerful because George completely stole that 'Pray, do tell me how old I am' from Richard II, who used that routine to end being dominated by his uncles.

As for the court not being completely cleansed after the Secret Siege - there you see that a regency government is usually much weaker than one run by an actual monarch because people have to tread very carefully, make compromises, etc. - especially the kind of shitty government we had after the Dance, which had a regency council and not one clear regent who was effectively king. In the main series we see the Iron Throne's power and authority decline as well as Lannisters and Tyrells struggle for power in the wake of Tywin's death (who clearly dominated court as the de facto king prior to that).

As for Aegon III - he tried a couple of times to be king earlier during the regency era, but he wasn't encouraged in this and his attempts were neither successful nor lasting (think about him attending council, him trying to name KG, etc.). After the Secret Siege he clearly closed down again, leaving everything to whoever courtier wanted to do stuff, and allowing Viserys to represent him when the regents and other officers were chosen.

One imagines that the people at court simply did not realize to what degree Aegon III resented how he was treated and how little he trusted the men running the kingdom for him. Silence and absence can be read as consent and approval.

How effective Aegon III will be, and how much his government will be his government we will have to wait and see.

His show at the council meeting could have been just that - a show. He may have returned to his chambers for the next year or so after choosing a Hand he thought he could trust.

I kind of expect him to dismiss Munkun as well, considering his role during the regency and the Secret Siege. We do know that Alford was Grand Maester 153 AC but Munkun was back in office in 171 AC Munkun was back in office. That indicates that Aegon III will dismiss Munkun from his service without executing him or sending him to the Wall (he could go into exile, though), and that at least one Grand Maester - or perhaps even a succession of Grand Maesters - will serve him during his reign, with a later king - Daeron I or Baelor - deciding after the death of a Grand Maester that old Munkun might come back in.

This could be a reaction to Munkun's behavior during the regency ... or it might happen at a later point during Aegon III's reign. But it definitely would have to happen before 153 AC.

I don't expect Aegon III to name a new Master of Coin (Isembard Arryn seems to be a good choice) nor do I think Alyn Velaryon is going to replace Gedmund Peake soon as Master of Ships when he is currently on his second voyage. The most crucial new addition to the court would be Maester Rowley as lord confessor, Munkun's choice. Even if Munkun has to go soon, Munkun's man, Rowley, will stay.

[James Steller]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How effective Aegon III will be, and how much his government will be his government we will have to wait and see.

I hope he’ll want to do the right thing and simply be unable to succeed, but then I suppose that’ll turn his story into a bit of a retread of Aegon V (or would Aegon V be a retread?). They both seem to want to do right by the smallfolk, and they both end up trying to bring dragons back to do it. I don’t think Egg loathes the nobility like Aegon III did, though, and plus Egg wasn’t riddled with PTSD and melancholy.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

15 hours ago, James Steller said:

How do we know that Torrhen was only thinking about Aegon’s best interests? And would the grand progress really have helped Aegon? If a grand royal tour cures PTSD, why not send people on cruises as therapy? Plus, Torrhen was being self serving; the progress was his idea, his creation; it’s not like he’s got nothing to gain. He didn’t take the office of Hand of the King out of charity or genuine concern for Aegon. Based on how he turned on Nettles and Addam Velaryon, and how he sentenced one of the Rogares to be thrashed “for being a Lyseni”, I’d say that Torrhen is far less kindly than you made him sound.

And the real clincher for me is the fact that Aegon didn’t like him. It’s not like Aegon hates everyone: he trusts people who respect him. Tyland Lannister was suggesting that Aegon be executed, but then when he became king, he accepted it and became a mentor to Aegon. Self serving, no doubt, but he actually wants to help Aegon learn how to rule, and Aegon obliges. Then of course, Unwin Peake shows up and treats Aegon like a child to be exploited. He also turns Aegon’s entire court against him by filling it with his cronies. Why would Aegon trust anyone after all that? And if Torrhen couldn’t earn his respect, it says to me that he didn’t try. That speaks to his personality as a prejudiced Westerosi man with little empathy.

Was Torrhen a good administrator? Probably. Was he a good knight? I’m sure that was true. But he was not necessarily an innocent victim. Aegon tried to be actively involved in his government when Tyland and Unwin were in charge, and he didn’t even bother with Torrhen. It could speak to Aegon’s giving up, but I honestly don’t blame him for having that attitude. And his lack of a connection with Torrhen could also speak to Torrhen’s personality as well. We don’t know and can’t know for sure. 

This sounds like you're enabling Aegon. He was not the only victim of the Dance, nor was he even the biggest victim. How many orphans froze to death or died of starvation after their parents died during the Dance? And meanwhile, there's a teen boy sitting in the most luxurious quarters in all the Seven Kingdoms, whose family is responsible for all the devastation. Excuse me if I don't bother playing a violin for Aegon. 

Torrhen was thinking of the smallfolk's morale at least, and he was also thinking of Aegon's well-being. Sure, he was no psychiatrist, but he was doing what he thought was best. I'd have been fine if Aegon had told Unwin Peake to get lost, but Torrhen did not deserve that kind of treatment.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Torrhen and Medrick are both suckers simply for the fact that they actually advised Rhaenyra to arrest/execute Addam Velaryon and Nettles.

Aside from that shitty thing, neither of those men showed any particularly good qualities. And the whole Rogare trial thing also reflects very badly on Torrhen.

The Manderly brothers are also among the last loyal allies of Rhaenyra in King's Landing. They get her out and urge her to come north to White Harbour. If she'd listened to them, she would have lived, and probably been crowned queen again once Aegon was cornered in King's Landing by the three or four armies converging on King's Landing from the North, Riverlands, Vale, and sea.

Also, yes, I already said I don't like the snobbish racism that Torrhen shows, but in his defence, the Rogares really screwed a lot of people over. How did you feel about those Wall Street fat cats in 2008 when they crashed the US economy and got a big bailout for their troubles? I'd have loved to see them get some of the punishments that the Rogares got. 

[Canon Claude]

9 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

What I find interesting is that the MUSH says that Torrhen died in 139 AC while sleeping. Now the MUSH is not canon, but it is usually not that far off when it comes to canon characters. So combined with the mention that Aegon turned an ally into an enemy, Thorren's death could make for an interesting story.

I don't understand. Why would a man dying in his sleep be an interesting story? Or do you mean to say that Torrhen might die some other way?

[The Wondering Wolf]

4 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Or do you mean to say that Torrhen might die some other way?

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't think he was old at that point, so depending how the enmity between him and Aegon turns out, he might have been killed. Of course this is all speculation.

[frenin]

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

Exactly! It baffles me that nobody ever considered that Aegon would have the nerve to cancel the progress as soon as he came of age.

It baffles me that some consider it a good idea, The progress was to increase the King's popularity, which mind you, never was high.

 

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

Torrhen and Munkun clearly didn’t even try to engage Aegon (and the fact that Munkun managed to survive the conspiracy purge is puzzling, frankly, but anyway).

Why would they?? Aegon had lost any taste for ruling after the siege and until he turned sixteen. It's not like Manderly was Unwin Peake.

 

 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The progress plan also seems to have been something Torrhen wanted for himself - you don't make a plan to show of the king if the king doesn't want to be showed off.

You do uf you think the kings needs it. 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Torrhen was thinking of the smallfolk's morale at least, and he was also thinking of Aegon's well-being. Sure, he was no psychiatrist, but he was doing what he thought was best. I'd have been fine if Aegon had told Unwin Peake to get lost, but Torrhen did not deserve that kind of treatment.

Manderly thought about the lords he wanted to show Aegon to. Yes, the smallfolk would have also seen him, but he was continuing to think of the king as a piece he could literally move about the Seven Kingdoms as he saw fit - which is made crystal clear by the fact the man didn't ask the king whether he wanted to make a progress at all nor ask him for input where he wanted to go and what route they should take.

Aegon III makes it clear that he is no pawn when cancels that progress. He makes it clear that people wanting something from him have to go to him and that he is not capering to the whims of his undeserving subjects half of which sided with his evil uncle in the last war.

10 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

The Manderly brothers are also among the last loyal allies of Rhaenyra in King's Landing. They get her out and urge her to come north to White Harbour. If she'd listened to them, she would have lived, and probably been crowned queen again once Aegon was cornered in King's Landing by the three or four armies converging on King's Landing from the North, Riverlands, Vale, and sea.

Sure, but that's just an accident. Rhaenyra has no idea that Aegon II is waiting for her on Dragonstone, no? The Manderly brothers were loyal, yes, but they were not exactly good advisers back in KL.

10 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Also, yes, I already said I don't like the snobbish racism that Torrhen shows, but in his defence, the Rogares really screwed a lot of people over. How did you feel about those Wall Street fat cats in 2008 when they crashed the US economy and got a big bailout for their troubles? I'd have loved to see them get some of the punishments that the Rogares got. 

No Rogare in KL screwed anybody over. None of them were involved in Lysaro's embezzlement. If they had been involved in Lysaro's snowball system you would have a point ... but they weren't, so this was a travesty of justice, and Torrhen Manderly is the most guilty party there, running the trials.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

You do uf you think the kings needs it. 

But your opinion is irrelevant if you are just the King's Hand and you make plans for a time when the king rules in his own right. You would have to ask the king whether he wants to go on a progress or not ... and if you think he should for this or that reason then you cannot make plans as if you were the king yourself but you have to convince the king that he should see things your way. If you try to rule him the Manderly way you go down his way.

Manderly later is still pissed that the king gutted the progress ... which was Manderly's baby, something he had put much work and effort into. And something which, if it had happened with Manderly remaining the Hand, would have likely also given much prestige and glory to Manderly considering Aegon III wouldn't have won anybody's love on the progress. In fact, considering his personality he would have likely irritated most of the lords and knights he would have visited by not talking much, not being interested in much, and generally not giving a damn about them.

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't think he was old at that point, so depending how the enmity between him and Aegon turns out, he might have been killed. Of course this is all speculation.

If the MUSH number there was accurate then I doubt that Manderly's enmity is going to be worth much. It would be scarcely three years till his death, and I'd be surprised if the guy staged a rebellion or supported some pretender's bid for the Iron Throne in this short a time. It seems more likely that this enmity caused the Manderlys to turn from loyalists of Aegon III to a house which didn't give a damn about that particular king and refused to help him with men and money and other support further down the road.

If the MUSH isn't correct there, then all bets are off and one could see Lord Torrhen actively turning against his king later on.

But honestly, I more see Manderly being insulted and hurt there than actually be antagonized.

[GoldenGail3]

I don't think Torrhen Manderly deserved what Aegon III did to him. I think Aegon made a huge folly with the way he treated Torrhen so.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

21 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

What I find interesting is that the MUSH says that Torrhen died in 139 AC while sleeping. Now the MUSH is not canon, but it is usually not that far off when it comes to canon characters.

The detail in the MUSH I find the most interesting about Torrhen Manderly is that the Jeyne Manderly who marries Rickon Stark, the son and heir of Lord Cregan Stark, was one of his daughters. In the end of Fire & Blood, there is a mention of Torrhen sending letters to his daughters.

It seems after he lost favor with Aegon III, Torrhen worked to get closer with the Starks. I doubt Torrhen died in 139 AC as Jeyne was 9 and Rickon was 11 at the time, but it's not like early betrothal/marriage are uncommon in Westeros either.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Why would they?? Aegon had lost any taste for ruling after the siege and until he turned sixteen. 

Frankly, he should have abdicated after they found Viserys. Viserys would have been able to push back against Unwin Peake and then made a staunch ally out of Torrhen Manderly (in fact, he DID make an ally out of him while Aegon was busy sitting in the corner listening to a Fallout Boy and Simple Plan on repeat). Plus that means Daeron I and Baelor I never become kings, and Viserys actually gets some time to be a good king before his son poisons him.

[Canon Claude]

40 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Frankly, he should have abdicated after they found Viserys. Viserys would have been able to push back against Unwin Peake and then made a staunch ally out of Torrhen Manderly (in fact, he DID make an ally out of him while Aegon was busy sitting in the corner listening to a Fallout Boy and Simple Plan on repeat). Plus that means Daeron I and Baelor I never become kings, and Viserys actually gets some time to be a good king before his son poisons him.

And what exactly is Aegon supposed to do instead in that scenario? 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Frankly, he should have abdicated after they found Viserys. Viserys would have been able to push back against Unwin Peake and then made a staunch ally out of Torrhen Manderly (in fact, he DID make an ally out of him while Aegon was busy sitting in the corner listening to a Fallout Boy and Simple Plan on repeat). Plus that means Daeron I and Baelor I never become kings, and Viserys actually gets some time to be a good king before his son poisons him.

That makes little sense. Viserys was two years younger than Aegon, meaning a longer regency. Viserys is smarter than Aegon, yes, but he also wasn't at court during the Dance and the first years of the regency, meaning he would have had no clue about the power dynamics. And Peake and his cronies - and possibly others as well - may have never accepted him as king while he was married to the foreign banker whore.

Viserys and his wife were sort of accepted because they were just heirs. Before Viserys could be king the Rogares would have to go. Chances are very low that the Westerosi would have accepted Viserys' children by Larra if they had been the immediate heirs to the throne.

It seems this only flew because Westeros had decades to get accustomed to those Rogare-Targaryens ... and because the court and the city quickly hounded Larra back to Lys, ensuring her heathen and barbarous foreigner ways didn't influence her children.

[frenin]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But your opinion is irrelevant if you are just the King's Hand and you make plans for a time when the king rules in his own right. You would have to ask the king whether he wants to go on a progress or not ... and if you think he should for this or that reason then you cannot make plans as if you were the king yourself but you have to convince the king that he should see things your way. If you try to rule him the Manderly way you go down his way.

If the decision was made at a time where the king was already an adult, you'd have a point, but it wasn't. The decision was taken many months before it happened, Aegon could have turned 16 on the road if the preparations were faster.

Nor Manderly tried to rule him, or Aegon made an enemy in a very absurd manner because of that.  He wanted to be his own man and that could only start by forming his own council, Manderly was always going down.

 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, the smallfolk would have also seen him, but he was continuing to think of the king as a piece he could literally move about the Seven Kingdoms as he saw fit

Sure, minor Kings usually are treated like that,  the fact that Aegon isolated himself, didn't make it clearer.

 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He makes it clear that people wanting something from him have to go to him and that he is not capering to the whims of his undeserving subjects half of which sided with his evil uncle in the last war.

The other half saved his ass during the last war and answer loyally to his call when he needed them, if he can't do at least a progress, he's too dumb to rule, at least he had his brother to smooth things over.

Torrhen Manderly himself was one of his mother's last and fiercests supporters, still he treated him like garbage.

 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He makes it clear that people wanting something from him have to go to him and that he is not capering to the whims of his undeserving subjects half of which sided with his evil uncle in the last war.

Likely, but at least he would have been seen.

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And Peake and his cronies - and possibly others as well - may have never accepted him as king while he was married to the foreign banker whore.

What options did he have?? Peake was not sole regent, he was one among many, he only got to rule like that because the regents were more often than not, too lazy, too fragmented or both to properly keep him in check, as soon as they did, he lost his power.

And Viserys was not the easily pushover his elder brother accepted to become.

Btw ¿Whore?