Torrhen Manderly - Thoughts?

[Floki of the Ironborn]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

If the Westerosi are THAT xenophobic, then why were foreigners sailing over for the Maiden's Ball? Why have so many other Targaryen kings looked eastwards for marriage opportunities? It was always an option beforehand and it was an option afterwards too. Aegon IV wasn't vilified for sleeping with foreign-born women, and Daemon Blackfyre's claim to kingship was never challenged on the grounds that he'd married a Tyroshi.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

If the Westerosi are THAT xenophobic, then why were foreigners sailing over for the Maiden's Ball? Why have so many other Targaryen kings looked eastwards for marriage opportunities? It was always an option beforehand and it was an option afterwards too. Aegon IV wasn't vilified for sleeping with foreign-born women, and Daemon Blackfyre's claim to kingship was never challenged on the grounds that he'd married a Tyroshi.

As for the first question - perhaps because they didn't know how bad they were?

The problem with Larra and the other Rogares is not necessarily the same kind of problem Tyanna of the Tower or Rohanne and Kiera of Tyrosh would have had. For one - Larra didn't even bother learning the Common Tongue nor did she convert to the Faith. Instead, she insisted to raise her children (also) in her own foreign religious traditions.

Might be that Rohanne and Kiera faced similar problems - we don't know so far. Tyanna was never popular at court, not even with Maegor's mother, and the whole story of Rego Draz shows that the Westerosi - and especially the Kingslanders - are just bigoted, xenophobic scum.

But the general point here is that the Rogares were loathed and the people who wanted to replace Aegon III with Viserys - Peake's gang among them - did not for a moment consider the possibility to make Larra Rogare their queen or allow her and her family so much as a share in power at court.

In that sense - Viserys II wouldn't have been an option as king for the court if he had stood by/insisted to keep his Lysene wife. That is why they tried to murder Aegon III and Daenaera, intending to frame the Rogares for the murder so a King Viserys II would be free to take a proper Westerosi wife, apparently Cassandra Baratheon.

[The Wondering Wolf]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:33 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

F&B states Munkun served for "a good part" of Aegon's reign, so he might have been dismissed at some point, but I don't think it was shortly after the end of the regnency

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

F&B states Munkun served for "a good part" of Aegon's reign, so he might have been dismissed at some point, but I don't think it was shortly after the end of the regnency

Yeah, it might be later ... but with George's weird takes on numbers a good part could easily mean the six years of the regency era.

The thing is that dismissing a Grand Maester seems to be highly irregular. Aegon III has a good precedent with his mother dismissing Orwyle and replacing him with Gerardys, but that seems to be the only case so far.

I'm also somewhat of a loss at what could trigger such a dismissal if it takes place long after the end of the regency. Perhaps something involving the deaths of some dragons? Munkun being unable to heal them despite his promises? Actual treason should mean his head, not just a mere dismissal, and one can see why Aegon III would not want to continue to work with Munkun on his council or at his court after the Secret Siege business - and other things during his minority.

One would also not really see why Daeron I or Baelor would want to restore Munkun to his office later in time if he were to be dismissed for a serious crime. Especially with Viserys serving as Hand, remembering everything Munkun would have done during his brother's reign. Not getting along with Aegon III would be a mild (and pretty subjective reason, on the king's part) for such a dismissal.

But it is all idle speculation.

[The Wondering Wolf]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, it might be later ... but with George's weird takes on numbers a good part could easily mean the six years of the regency era.

Could be an explanation, although a rather unsatisfying one. Even GRRM should realise that six years out of 26 is not really a "good part". 

Another interesting thing is the number of Grand Maesters who served between 136 and 257 AC. In total there have been more than 40, but between 5 and 136 AC and from 257 AC onwards there were only 16 (17 counting Gerardys), which leaves around 25 for 120 years. That means any of them served less than five years on average.

[James Steller]

44 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Could be an explanation, although a rather unsatisfying one. Even GRRM should realise that six years out of 26 is not really a "good part". 

Another interesting thing is the number of Grand Maesters who served between 136 and 257 AC. In total there have been more than 40, but between 5 and 136 AC and from 257 AC onwards there were only 16 (17 counting Gerardys), which leaves around 25 for 120 years. That means any of them served less than five years on average.

That wouldn’t surprise me, given their ages.

[The Wondering Wolf]

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

That wouldn’t surprise me, given their ages.

Sure, but the average for the known ones is 11 years (10 with Gerardys). Now Pycelle is a clear exception and might distort the picture, the amount of average time for the Grand Maesters between 136 and 257 AC is significantly shorter though. 

[James Steller]

7 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Sure, but the average for the known ones is 11 years (10 with Gerardys). Now Pycelle is a clear exception and might distort the picture, the amount of average time for the Grand Maesters between 136 and 257 AC is significantly shorter though. 

Consider all the conflict and diseases coming up in those years, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bloodraven’s spies take out a few Grand Maesters, or we lose more to the spring sickness, Dornish assassination plots, Blackfyre conspiracies, that sort of thing.

[The Wondering Wolf]

17 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Consider all the conflict and diseases coming up in those years, though.

That seems likely, yes. At some points between 136 and 257 AC the Grand Maesters have to die like flies to make all of them fit in. Not sure if that already happens during the reign of Aegon III though.