Eustace vs Mushroom

[James Steller]

3 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

To paraphrase Balin from the Hobbit movies: it’s not a show! It’s an ABOMINATION!

Abominations! Mutations! *Deviations!* That's all you're going to find on HBO!

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/16/2021 at 1:50 PM, Lord Varys said:

But we just have biased sources

A biased measurement doesn't give "no information" either. In fact, a reliably biased instrument can have a correction applied in order to give an accurate measurement. Eustace, Mushroom and the various maesters cited by Gyldayn aren't mechanical devices, but such biases are given as reasons to take claims with a grain of salt (which is not the same as discarding them).

Quote

And Daemon is a changeable, inconsistent character who seems to have been no longer as obsessed with the throne as he was back in the 100s.

Why do you say that?

Quote

Why should she pass a child of Daemon's for a child of Laenor's if this wasn't true?

Quote

If she had borne only one child for her husband, it would have been enough to disarm suspicion . . . but then she would not have been Cersei

One child looking like Laenor and attributed to him makes the appearance of others seem more like chance.

Quote

Inventing entire conversations is a crucial part of ancient historiography

I can think of a medieval monk who made up such stuff, but Geoffrey of Monmouth was fictionalizing basically everything notable in his history rather than just conversations and it was for a time so far back people wouldn't know better (although he claimed to be translating an older book).

Quote

How far removed our 'insiders' with 'secret knowledge' are from the actual events can be easily gleaned from the fact that they are a septon and a fool (who was reputedly an illiterate lackwit).

Orwyle is also an "insider" on the Small Council as well as being a maester, even if his account is slanted to make him look better and has other known inaccuracies. I don't know why being a septon makes Eustace so unreliable (rather than his status as a Green partisan who claimed the throne itself rejected Rhaenyra). Septon Barth seems to have been right about everything even as he wrote things that seemed outlandish to maesters. Eustace would be removed from events on Dragonstone (and Orwyle only visited there briefly) though.

Quote

How accurate a 'secret history' would Moon Boy and the present Red Keep septon we don't even know by name be able to write about the War of the Five Kings? It would likely be a preposterous inaccurate and ridiculous tale.

What would be so preposterous about an account of the War of the Five Kings written by a septon whose name you don't know?

Quote

Eustace's and Mushroom's accounts - and all those inspired by them - could be equally inadequate. That they are the only ones

They aren't, Munkun's history citing Orwyle is another huge source for Gyldayn.

On 12/16/2021 at 2:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

It would have been great if George had taken it as far as some of the ancient historians with invented speeches, using them as means to illustrate or establish political or philosophical differences.

What are Gyldayn's politics and philosophical views? What is he trying to accomplish with his history of the Targaryens? Because he really comes across as obsessed with sex and salacious stories, rather like Mushroom.

Quote

how Gyldayn might want to view their marriage

Why would he want want to view the marriage in any particular way? I'm not saying it's implausible someone would want to spin their marriage for some reason, but we don't know Gyldayn's reasons.

On 12/16/2021 at 4:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'd be very surprised if Eustace and Mushroom showed up in the show.

Mushroom seems much more likely than Eustace, because he also acts as an entertaining character within the story and can be shown doing things other than just listening and writing.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

A biased measurement doesn't give "no information" either. In fact, a reliably biased instrument can have a correction applied in order to give an accurate measurement. Eustace, Mushroom and the various maesters cited by Gyldayn aren't mechanical devices, but such biases are given as reasons to take claims with a grain of salt (which is not the same as discarding them).

We don't discard them. We just point out that in those contested issues they are not necessarily good sources. Their theories might have some merit in some cases ... and no merit in others.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why do you say that?

Because it is the impression I have. Daemon wasn't the same man in 120 AC as he was in 105 AC.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

One child looking like Laenor and attributed to him makes the appearance of others seem more like chance.

Who cares? Rhaenyra loved her uncle and if she knew her child was the first living son Daemon Targaryen ever fathered - which he apparently was - and if she knew - which she did - that hear dear uncle really craved sons then it makes perfect sense she would pass his child as Laenor's even if technically the boy could have been his.

Aegon III isn't Daemon's child because he necessarily fathered him. He is viewed as his trueborn son because Rhaenyra was married to Daemon when the boy was born.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I can think of a medieval monk who made up such stuff, but Geoffrey of Monmouth was fictionalizing basically everything notable in his history rather than just conversations and it was for a time so far back people wouldn't know better (although he claimed to be translating an older book).

As Ran and I have already pointed out, this is a common practice in ancient and medieval historiography.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Orwyle is also an "insider" on the Small Council as well as being a maester, even if his account is slanted to make him look better and has other known inaccuracies. I don't know why being a septon makes Eustace so unreliable (rather than his status as a Green partisan who claimed the throne itself rejected Rhaenyra). Septon Barth seems to have been right about everything even as he wrote things that seemed outlandish to maesters. Eustace would be removed from events on Dragonstone (and Orwyle only visited there briefly) though.

For one, there is actually no indication that Eustace was a 'Green partisan', just as there is no indication that Mushroom was a 'Black partisan'. We have Gyldayn mention in passing that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra all that much and that Mushroom apparently liked her ... but no quote from their works we are given reveals that they themselves had a view on who was 'the rightful monarch', etc. Those feelings could just be personal animosity rather than political animosities.

Especially in Mushroom's case his sympathy for Rhaenyra didn't stop him from telling as ribald tales about her and her family as he did about Aegon II and Aemond.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What would be so preposterous about an account of the War of the Five Kings written by a septon whose name you don't know?

Because our knowledge about the books very much implies that no big player confides into that septon to the degree that he could write a very accurate account about court intrigues.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They aren't, Munkun's history citing Orwyle is another huge source for Gyldayn.

And Orwyle is apparently a bad source on court intrigue and stuff ... to the point that Munkun's otherwise very accurate and exhaustive general history of the Dance is marred by the Orwyle source. And this makes sense. Not only did he spend most of the war in a cell, he was also a relative newcomer to court when the Dance started and did - originally at least - belong to neither party (which means folks wouldn't have confided in him as if he they might have if he had been a trusted ally). And then we know that the document he wrote was actually not so much 'a history' but rather his own lengthy confession written for the purpose to exonerate himself and escape the death penalty.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What are Gyldayn's politics and philosophical views? What is he trying to accomplish with his history of the Targaryens? Because he really comes across as obsessed with sex and salacious stories, rather like Mushroom.

Sure, the Coryanne Wylde obsession definitely shows that Gyldayn has very strange priorities. One imagines he earned one his links in history with a very pointless research about that silly topic and thus insisted to make that a big part of his Targaryen history.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why would he want want to view the marriage in any particular way? I'm not saying it's implausible someone would want to spin their marriage for some reason, but we don't know Gyldayn's reasons.

It is pretty clear that Gyldayn is a fan of/likes the image of Queen Alysanne he creates. And while he tells us how badly Alysanne fared at the end of her life, he seems to also add some rosey colors at the end.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/20/2021 at 2:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

Because it is the impression I have.

Where does your impression come from?

Quote

it makes perfect sense she would pass his child as Laenor's even if technically the boy could have been his.

That sounds like you agree it would have made sense to attribute the child to Laenor if the timing that made possible! Did you intend to write something different?

Quote

Aegon III isn't Daemon's child because he necessarily fathered him

Are you saying he might not have been fathered by Daemon?

Quote

We have Gyldayn mention in passing that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra all that much and that Mushroom apparently liked her ... but no quote from their works we are given reveals that they themselves had a view on who was 'the rightful monarch', etc

In addition to Rhaenyra, Aegon II looks better in Eustace's account vs Mushroom's (even if at best he still leaves much to be desired). Some of the issue is that Mushroom is inclined to sensationalize lots of people, but Aegon expressing reluctance to take his sister's crown (whereas Kaeth called him "grasping") is a specific addition of Eustace's rather than him merely declining to say something outrageous.

Quote

Because our knowledge about the books very much implies that no big player confides into that septon to the degree that he could write a very accurate account about court intrigues.

An account lacking certain secrets would not necessarily be an inaccurate one. And Eustace claims to have been an eyewitness for some of his account.

Quote

he spend most of the war in a cell

He was in a cell during the half-year between Rhaenyra seizing KL and Perkin the Flea opening the dungeons.

Quote

which means folks wouldn't have confided in him as if he they might have if he had been a trusted ally

Which is related to why that account deals less with rumors than Eustace's & Mushroom's.

Quote

One imagines he earned one his links in history with a very pointless research about that silly topic

Would the Citadel really grant someone a link for writing about smut?

Quote

It is pretty clear that Gyldayn is a fan of/likes the image of Queen Alysanne he creates

What are his reasons for liking her or creating that image?

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Where does your impression come from?

That he basically doesn't do anything from 120-129 AC to install himself or Rhaenyra in a powerful position at court. Much less to prepare for a succession war.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That sounds like you agree it would have made sense to attribute the child to Laenor if the timing that made possible! Did you intend to write something different?

Yes, I forget a 'not' there. The point is that Rhaenyra was under no obligation to pass Laenor's child as Laenor's child even if it was his child after she had married Daemon.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Are you saying he might not have been fathered by Daemon?

I say we don't know since we don't know if Aegon was fathered before or after Laenor's death. The grief sex started after Laena's death, not Laenor's.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

In addition to Rhaenyra, Aegon II looks better in Eustace's account vs Mushroom's (even if at best he still leaves much to be desired). Some of the issue is that Mushroom is inclined to sensationalize lots of people, but Aegon expressing reluctance to take his sister's crown (whereas Kaeth called him "grasping") is a specific addition of Eustace's rather than him merely declining to say something outrageous.

But that doesn't actually mean that Eustace was a Green partisan. He wrote his history years after the war was over. He knew its outcome, he knew that Rhaenyra died in the fighting. That he painted Aegon II as a guy who had to be pushed to take the throne indicates that he may have not felt comfortable with Aegon II taking the throne, and viewed his rise as a coup. He would only want to exonerate Aegon if he felt the guy shouldn't have acted against his father's wishes.

He also writes with hindsight about Rhaenyra 'being rejected by the Iron Throne'. He knows he ultimate fate which allows him to construct his narrative in a way to foreshadow her ultimate demise in a tantalizing manner. Also, we don't know if Eustace always didn't like Rhaenyra ... or if that only started during her reign? He could have blamed her for the chaos that engulfed KL at the end and after her reign.

Mushroom doesn't portray Rhaenyra in a more sympathetic manner than Aegon II, Mushroom's alleged personal preferences aside.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

An account lacking certain secrets would not necessarily be an inaccurate one. And Eustace claims to have been an eyewitness for some of his account.

That doesn't mean anything. If crucial decisions were made behind closed doors and you have no idea that they were made and how they affected the world you live in then you history pretty much sucks.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Which is related to why that account deals less with rumors than Eustace's & Mushroom's.

Nobody said it deals less with rumors ... Gyldayn just says that Munkun's history follows Orwyle's account too closely on court matters which, in his opinion, mars its overall quality.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What are his reasons for liking her or creating that image?

How do I know? That he likes to write about her and paint her in a very positve light is pretty obvious.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/22/2021 at 6:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

That he painted Aegon II as a guy who had to be pushed to take the throne indicates that he may have not felt comfortable with Aegon II taking the throne, and viewed his rise as a coup.

But Eustace calls Aegon's half-sister "Rhaenyra the Pretender", whereas the Blacks use that epithet for Aegon II. Aegon II is shown as having his mind changed after he's told that Rhaenyra will try to kill him & his brothers because they are threats to her bastards inheriting. That's a more justifiable motivation than avarice, and in hindsight that warning is bolstered by what actually happened to his family (Eustace also adds the detail about Mysaria maliciously telling Helaena about how Maelor died, thus inducing her suicide).

Quote

Mushroom doesn't portray Rhaenyra in a more sympathetic manner than Aegon II, Mushroom's alleged personal preferences aside.

Gyldayn specifically refers to their different stances on Rhaenyra when he contrasts how they portray her. Eustace has her smile rather than weep at Maelor's head, and laugh at Sunfyre's injuries.

Quote

That doesn't mean anything. If crucial decisions were made behind closed doors and you have no idea that they were made and how they affected the world you live in then you history pretty much sucks.

Quote

As a confidant and confessor to King Viserys and his queens, Eustace was well placed to know much and more of what went on.

 

Quote

Nobody said it deals less with rumors

Quote

In this instance, we must be grateful for Grand Maester Munkun’s True Telling, for he alone confines himself to the High Hall of the Eyrie, rather than its bedchambers.

 

Quote

How do I know? That he likes to write about her and paint her in a very positve light is pretty obvious.

Let's look at Gyldayn through a Watsonian lens. Everything he wrote was actually written by GRRM. Does GRRM give us any indication that Gyldayn distorted his account of Alysanne and that we should be more skeptical of how great she was? Or does GRRM himself refer to her as Good Queen Alysanne? GRRM has said during the release of F&B that Jaehaerys I is his personal favorite Targaryen king, and Gyldayn also says that he ruled over more years of peace than any other king and that "the good years were twice as good as the bad years were bad. [...] when men look back today upon the Conciliator’s reign it is easy to mistake it for one long green and gentle summer". There doesn't seem to be much of a gap between them, except that Gyldayn is a Westerosi who attributes parts of their reign to the blessings of the gods.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

But Eustace calls Aegon's half-sister "Rhaenyra the Pretender", whereas the Blacks use that epithet for Aegon II. Aegon II is shown as having his mind changed after he's told that Rhaenyra will try to kill him & his brothers because they are threats to her bastards inheriting. That's a more justifiable motivation than avarice, and in hindsight that warning is bolstered by what actually happened to his family (Eustace also adds the detail about Mysaria maliciously telling Helaena about how Maelor died, thus inducing her suicide).

Eustace writes his history years later after the war is over. And nobody ever said he was a Black. And he refers to 'Rhaenyra the Pretender' one time ... after her death and Aegon's restoration, when folks were viewing her as a failed pretender since her half-brother had murdered her.

That is not a political statement. If Eustace were referring to Rhaenyra exclusively as 'Princess Rhaenyra' rather than 'Queen Rhaenyra' and if he would constantly refer to her as 'the pretender' then you could assume serious partisanship there. But as things stands, the guy is just a historian, not a man with a strong political agenda.

Or rather: If he has one, then portraying the Faith and the Seven in a proper manner, since in that department he is clearly biased.

22 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Gyldayn specifically refers to their different stances on Rhaenyra when he contrasts how they portray her. Eustace has her smile rather than weep at Maelor's head, and laugh at Sunfyre's injuries.

And that is relevant how? How can we draw from such trivial details a political agenda?

Again, nobody denies that Gyldayn is of the opinion that Mushroom supposedly liked Rhaenyra while Eustace didn't like her all that much - but whether those preferences mean they actually espoused either the Green or the Black cause or allowed their personal feelings to color their portrayal of Rhaenyra is completely unclear.

For instance, in Eustace's case we have no clue whether his issues with Rhaenyra are just general misogyny. Did he dislike because of her character or just because she was a woman? We don't know. Did he believe her father had no right to name her heir? Most likely not - since then he should have portrayed Aegon II as a proud defender of 'the law' rather than a timid fellow who didn't want to move against his late father's wishes and his elder half-sister.

Mushroom supposedly liking Rhaenyra didn't stop him from telling outrageous stories about her and her family. So who cares whether he liked or disliked her?

And come on - Gyldayn heavily draws on Mushroom and Eustace and Orwyle-Munkun for his history. Of course he isn't saying that they suck as sources since then he would indicate that his history might suck, too.

Of course - a court septon and a court jester are better sources than folks who didn't live at court at all ... but that they lived at court doesn't make them very reliable sources. They seem to be the best primary sources on the Dance and the reign of Viserys I who also ended up writing/dictating manuscripts ... but that doesn't mean they are good sources.

Which is what I illustrated with the comparison to the War of the Five Kings. Technically a court septon and Moon Boy could also have 'access' to crucial information and stuff ... but if we read our novels then we realize the only thing they would have firsthand knowledge about are public events - court sessions, for instance. They would also have knowledge about a lot of rumors but they would tell them little and less about what *actually transpired*.

That's why Gyldayn and his sources cannot tell us what Larys Strong was all about, why Mysaria didn't flee the city, why Rhaenyra didn't take Alicent with her when she fled, etc.

22 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Let's look at Gyldayn through a Watsonian lens. Everything he wrote was actually written by GRRM. Does GRRM give us any indication that Gyldayn distorted his account of Alysanne and that we should be more skeptical of how great she was? Or does GRRM himself refer to her as Good Queen Alysanne? GRRM has said during the release of F&B that Jaehaerys I is his personal favorite Targaryen king, and Gyldayn also says that he ruled over more years of peace than any other king and that "the good years were twice as good as the bad years were bad. [...] when men look back today upon the Conciliator’s reign it is easy to mistake it for one long green and gentle summer". There doesn't seem to be much of a gap between them, except that Gyldayn is a Westerosi who attributes parts of their reign to the blessings of the gods.

That George wrote the book doesn't mean what he wrote is supposed to be 'true'.

The bottom line is - the entire reign of Jaehaerys I contains a lot of detailed scenes with entire conversations which are not attributed to sources at all ... or only rather vaguely. Nothing indicates whatever sources Gyldayn did or may have used even go back to eyewitnesses.

Thus the whole setting we get is just a story. The general outline is 'true' - the dates, wars, births, deaths, etc. and, one imagines, the general circumstances surrounding crucial events like Rhaena's and Elissa's story, the murders of Androw, the tragedy of Aerea (which is well-attested).

Also, of course, all the policies implemented by the king and queen - the laws, the roads, the other reforms, etc.

The rest - you can enjoy as a story within in a story, but not as an accurate representation of what Jaehaerys and Alysanne thought and said.

[FictionIsntReal]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody ever said he was a Black. And he refers to 'Rhaenyra the Pretender' one time ... after her death and Aegon's restoration, when folks were viewing her as a failed pretender since her half-brother had murdered her.

Who else refers to her as "the Pretender"? Just a section about how Criston Cole advocated retaliating against the Blood & Cheese incident and Aegon II himself. And Eustace never refers to Aegon II as a pretender despite him also being murdered later, though Jacaerys IS referred to as seeking to fight against "the pretender Aegon II" well before Aegon died, and Rhaenyra herself refers to him as "my half-brother the pretender". Finally, Eustace himself is the one who annointed Aegon as king, which is hard to reconcile with the idea that he believed that very ascencion was illegal.

Quote

If Eustace were referring to Rhaenyra exclusively as 'Princess Rhaenyra' rather than 'Queen Rhaenyra'

I can't find any quotes from him referring to her as "Queen Rhaenyra", though he does call her "Her Grace".

Quote

Or rather: If he has one, then portraying the Faith and the Seven in a proper manner, since in that department he is clearly biased.

Religion is definitely a more prominent theme in his account, but making "waspish" digs about how much Rhaenyra was eating is a separate thing which just seems to reflect his dislike of her.

Quote

And that is relevant how? How can we draw from such trivial details a political agenda?

The personal is the political in a monarchy. Eustace repeatedly makes digs at Rhaenyra, refers to her as "Pretender" when others don't, is the only source for Aegon reluctantly taking the crown for (what would prove to be justified) fear of Rhaenyra, and in more tertiary but still relatively pro-Green point has Daeron "sickened" by the sack of Tumbletown and trying to stop it (though Munkun says the same).

Quote

or allowed their personal feelings to color their portrayal of Rhaenyra is completely unclear

Gyldayn repeatedly refers to their different feelings when noting how they colored their portrayals of Rhaenyra differently, so it's not at all unclear to him! And you yourself once said we should be skeptical of the account of Rhaenyra being cut by the throne because it was from the anti-Rhaenyra Eustace.

Quote

For instance, in Eustace's case we have no clue whether his issues with Rhaenyra are just general misogyny. Did he dislike because of her character or just because she was a woman?

I've noted previously that Eustace sometimes makes Alicent look better than Aegon.

Quote

Most likely not - since then he should have portrayed Aegon II as a proud defender of 'the law' rather than a timid fellow who didn't want to move against his late father's wishes and his elder half-sister.

Eustace portrays him as a gluttonous drinker & horndog who knocks over Otto's inkpot due to his disregard for his cerebral approach to the conflict. Depicting him as a Stannis-esque legalist would not fit Eustace's own characterization of him nor the reputation he had more broadly.

Quote

Mushroom supposedly liking Rhaenyra didn't stop him from telling outrageous stories about her and her family. So who cares whether he liked or disliked her?

Mushroom is an outrageous storyteller who both wants to tell such stories and has a soft spot for Rhaenyra.

Quote

Of course he isn't saying that they suck as sources since then he would indicate that his history might suck, too.

He repeatedly acknowledges the shortcomings of his sources and notes points where he's skeptical of them.

Quote

They seem to be the best primary sources on the Dance and the reign of Viserys I who also ended up writing/dictating manuscripts ... but that doesn't mean they are good sources.

Both better than Orwyle? I have in the past said that Mushroom is surprisingly accurate, citing things like the dragon Byron Swann tried to kill (where both Tyrion & Gyldayn say Munkun/Orwyle is not to be trusted) and whether Laenor actually fathered any children. But with your lower opinion of Mushroom I thought you'd prefer Orwyle to him (even if your relatively high opinion of Eustace means you might rank him above Orwyle).

Quote

That George wrote the book doesn't mean what he wrote is supposed to be 'true'.

All of ASoIaF is fiction My point is the lack of distance between Gyldayn & GRRM. The latter gives us little reason to be skeptical of the former's take on Jaehaerys/Alysanne, in contrast to Yandel obviously slanting his account of Robert's rebellion for the currently ruling monarch or the numerous incidents where Gyldayn notes the slant of his sources.

Quote

The bottom line is - the entire reign of Jaehaerys I contains a lot of detailed scenes with entire conversations which are not attributed to sources at all ... or only rather vaguely. Nothing indicates whatever sources Gyldayn did or may have used even go back to eyewitnesses.

And, as I've said, that's GRRM's normal mode. The historian conceit in which a source is mentioned is unusual for him, and he doesn't use that with real constraints on what would be plausible for a cited source.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Who else refers to her as "the Pretender"? Just a section about how Criston Cole advocated retaliating against the Blood & Cheese incident and Aegon II himself. And Eustace never refers to Aegon II as a pretender despite him also being murdered later, though Jacaerys IS referred to as seeking to fight against "the pretender Aegon II" well before Aegon died, and Rhaenyra herself refers to him as "my half-brother the pretender". Finally, Eustace himself is the one who annointed Aegon as king, which is hard to reconcile with the idea that he believed that very ascencion was illegal.

Don't confuse historians quoting their characters with what they themselves say. But Eustace referring to Rhaenyra as 'the Pretender' after her death isn't necessarily a political statement. It is representative of the majority view at that particular time when Aegon II was restored to the kingship. It would have been a political statement if we had quotes from him where it is clear he viewed Rhaenyra as a pretender from the start or Aegon II as the rightful king from the beginning.

A pretender is somebody who tries to be a monarch and failed at that. Rhaenyra was a monarch for a time but she gave up the throne, ran away, and then died. Aegon II was a pretender while he was hiding under his rock but he died as a king since he was not deposed before his death.

If the Lads had stormed the city and taken Aegon II prisoner then they could have formally deposed him before they executed him in the name of the true king, Aegon III. That way, Aegon II may have been viewed as a pretender. Just like Maegor would have if Jaehaerys had arrested him and formally deposed and condemned as a usurper and pretender before executing him.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The personal is the political in a monarchy. Eustace repeatedly makes digs at Rhaenyra, refers to her as "Pretender" when others don't, is the only source for Aegon reluctantly taking the crown for (what would prove to be justified) fear of Rhaenyra, and in more tertiary but still relatively pro-Green point has Daeron "sickened" by the sack of Tumbletown and trying to stop it (though Munkun says the same).

We don't know whether others named Rhaenyra pretender or not. We just have the quotes we have, not their complete texts.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Gyldayn repeatedly refers to their different feelings when noting how they colored their portrayals of Rhaenyra differently, so it's not at all unclear to him! And you yourself once said we should be skeptical of the account of Rhaenyra being cut by the throne because it was from the anti-Rhaenyra Eustace.

Of course, but I think I was wrong there. I still don't buy the stupid story there, but I'd not argue that Eustace was some Green partisan (if he was then Rhaenyra would have executed him along with Otto Hightower) ... rather I'd say that Eustace knowing how Rhaenyra's story would end when writing his story influenced how he would foreshadow her ultimate demise.

It is very in-character for him to go with stupid religious superstition giving special meaning to the Iron Throne. We see that in the main books as well when Stannis' supporters brought before Joffrey in ACoK also view Joffrey injuring himself on the throne as a sign that he is a false king. That's just horseshit.

As I said - even if we assume that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra we don't know when that began. If it was a result of him witnessing her reign and not liking what he saw then this would have nothing to do with what happened earlier.

Eustace's takes on Rhaenyra and Daemon during the reign of Viserys I all seem to be more reliable than Mushroom's and don't seem to be colored by political partisanship.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I've noted previously that Eustace sometimes makes Alicent look better than Aegon.

Not sure how that's relevant since we don't have a nuanced picture of Alicent to say whether somebody tried to portray her in a better way.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Eustace portrays him as a gluttonous drinker & horndog who knocks over Otto's inkpot due to his disregard for his cerebral approach to the conflict. Depicting him as a Stannis-esque legalist would not fit Eustace's own characterization of him nor the reputation he had more broadly.

Eustace clearly misrepresents Aegon's character in the scene where he claims he refused to betray his half-sister. It is quite clear that the Aegon II we get both in Eustace's other quotes as well as the Aegon II other sources reflect would not never have any problems stealing Rhaenyra's throne.

He might still not have been eager to be king, but not for the reasons Eustace puts in his mouth.

The idea that the scenario of Aegon II caring about 'the law' would have been more unrealistic/unbelievable than the scenario we get is nothing we have to take seriously. I'd find an Aegon believing his father should have named him the heir more believable than the Aegon who says it is false to steal your sister's birthright.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Mushroom is an outrageous storyteller who both wants to tell such stories and has a soft spot for Rhaenyra.

Allegedly, I don't see this soft spot anywhere in the book.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He repeatedly acknowledges the shortcomings of his sources and notes points where he's skeptical of them.

Yes, but who cares? Just because Gyldayn likes or dislikes something doesn't mean we can trust his judgment there.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Both better than Orwyle? I have in the past said that Mushroom is surprisingly accurate, citing things like the dragon Byron Swann tried to kill (where both Tyrion & Gyldayn say Munkun/Orwyle is not to be trusted) and whether Laenor actually fathered any children. But with your lower opinion of Mushroom I thought you'd prefer Orwyle to him (even if your relatively high opinion of Eustace means you might rank him above Orwyle).

We don't have many quotes from Orwyle, and they come to us via Munkun's work, anyway. The manuscript Orwyle wrote didn't seem to be available to Gyldayn independent of Munkun's work.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

All of ASoIaF is fiction My point is the lack of distance between Gyldayn & GRRM. The latter gives us little reason to be skeptical of the former's take on Jaehaerys/Alysanne, in contrast to Yandel obviously slanting his account of Robert's rebellion for the currently ruling monarch or the numerous incidents where Gyldayn notes the slant of his sources.

That we don't have many conflicting sources about other periods doesn't mean the sources and Gyldayn's text there are any more reliable.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/24/2021 at 5:35 PM, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II was a pretender while he was hiding under his rock but he died as a king since he was not deposed before his death.

His enemies regarded him as a pretender while he ruled in KL, just as Criston regarded Rhaenyra as a pretender at the start of the Dance.

Quote

We don't know whether others named Rhaenyra pretender or not. We just have the quotes we have, not their complete texts.

What we have IS the "complete texts", because GRRM didn't write any more. So he writes as Gyldayn that Eustace disliked Rhaenyra, and quotes him referring to her as "Pretender" when he doesn't do that for his other sources.

Quote

I'd not argue that Eustace was some Green partisan (if he was then Rhaenyra would have executed him along with Otto Hightower)

We get an explicit explanation for why Eustace was not executed in one instance where KL was seized: "it seems more likely that Ser Perkin did not wish to provoke the enmity of the Faith". And Eustace was replaced by Septon Bernard, who unrepentantly confessed to treason against Aegon III but the High Septon successfully requested for his life to be spared.

Quote

It is very in-character for him to go with stupid religious superstition giving special meaning to the Iron Throne

Does the Faith of the Seven actually put religious significance on the Iron Throne itself? It was created by Aegon the Conqueror, who per GRRM converted for political reasons and had an incestuous polygamous marriage not under the auspices of the Faith.

Quote

We see that in the main books as well when Stannis' supporters brought before Joffrey in ACoK also view Joffrey injuring himself on the throne as a sign that he is a false king.

Those Stannis supporters aren't basing their belief on hindsight from Joffrey being executed as a pretender. Wouldn't the parallel from them suggest Eustace was indeed anti-Rhaenyra, just as Gyldayn says?

Quote

even if we assume that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra

"Assume" seems like the wrong word when Gyldayn explicitly tells us that as a fact repeatedly.

Quote

we don't know when that began

I can guess. He was a confessor & confidant to Alicent, but as far as we know not Rhaenyra (who lived on Dragonstone). People in the Red Keep tended to favor the Greens, while supporters of the Blacks were found on Dragonstone (if only to keep them away from their Green rivals). For all we know the Hightowers would have angled to replace him if they hadn't favored him, just as Unwin later did replace him with a relative & conspirator.

Quote

Eustace's takes on Rhaenyra and Daemon during the reign of Viserys I all seem to be more reliable than Mushroom's

When it comes to Rhaenyra's first three children, I think Mushroom's account is so heavily implied to be correct (not merely by Gyldayn's references their appearance, but also the parallel with Cersei's three children) as to say Eustace was simply wrong.

Quote

and don't seem to be colored by political partisanship

The story of Daemon seducing Rhaenyra and taking her maidenhead when he was himself already married doesn't reflect well on him (or on her given Westerosi attitudes regarding female sexuality, particularly among the Faith if the High Sparrow is any indicator), and doesn't appear in Runciter's account (which merely says Daemon quarreled with Viserys). He also accuses Daemon of causing the fire at Harrenhal in order to kill Harwin Strong (whose presence he attests at the births of Rhaenyra's children) due to him being a rival for Rhaenyra. I recall you have said it's implausible that Daemon would find Harwin to actually be a rival, which should thus make you more suspicious of Eustace.

Quote

Not sure how that's relevant since we don't have a nuanced picture of Alicent to say whether somebody tried to portray her in a better way.

You have written that the Greens come across as warmongers, and Eustace's depiction of Alicent leans against that. She & Helaena together convince Aegon II to send the delegation to Dragonstone with what (per Munkun) were generous peace terms. Otto Hightower isn't Alicent, but Aegon II's dismissal of him over her objections in favor of the more belligerent Cole (who also drew first blood per Eustace's account) is a rejection of her preference for diplomacy over violence. Eustace also has Alicent suggests a Great Council to Rhaenyra, only for Rhaenyra to reject it in the expectation that Aegon would win. Later Alicent suggests that the realm be divided to end the war and spare her sons lives, which Rhaenyra rejects. For that section, it's unclear how much of it comes from Eustace and/or Munkun.

Quote

 

He might still not have been eager to be king, but not for the reasons Eustace puts in his mouth.

The idea that the scenario of Aegon II caring about 'the law' would have been more unrealistic/unbelievable than the scenario we get is nothing we have to take seriously

 

Aegon caring about something more than his short-term impulses is hard to take seriously. He's absent from the Green Council even though the Greens knew Viserys was dying, and he doesn't get along with Otto & Alicent's preferred approach to the conflict that resulted. It doesn't seem like he had consulted them at all about what would happen after his father died, or had any plans for that. He's a lazy young man who does not seem to have anticipated (or wanted) any responsibility at the time he was asked to take the crown. However implausible, it would be more believable for him to give a disingenous excuse about his father & half-sister (and then to be persuaded by an appeal to the safety of his own family in KL) than for him to even think about laws written with those ink-pots he knocks over. And of course this all grows out of your suggestion that Eustace thought it was a transgression of the law to crown Aegon, when none of his actions support that and the annointing suggests otherwise.

Quote

Allegedly, I don't see this soft spot anywhere in the book.

It's explicitly given as a reason on two occasions for Mushroom to portray her more positively than Eustace.

Quote

Yes, but who cares? Just because Gyldayn likes or dislikes something doesn't mean we can trust his judgment there.

Gyldayn gives reason to be skeptical of Munkun/Orwyle & Eustace's account of which dragon Byron Swann was trying to kill but NOT Mushroom. Tyrion explains why Munkun was wrong and how a letter from Swann's squire points to the same dragon Mushroom picked. GRRM is making very clear who to trust there.

Quote

That we don't have many conflicting sources about other periods doesn't mean the sources and Gyldayn's text there are any more reliable.

GRRM invents conflicting sources specifically in order to make something ambiguous. If he actually wanted to, he could have made more of F&B ambiguous. Whether out of laziness or a desire that such content be considered reliable, he didn't in those places.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

His enemies regarded him as a pretender while he ruled in KL, just as Criston regarded Rhaenyra as a pretender at the start of the Dance.

We are talking about how the historians call the characters, not the historical figures.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What we have IS the "complete texts", because GRRM didn't write any more. So he writes as Gyldayn that Eustace disliked Rhaenyra, and quotes him referring to her as "Pretender" when he doesn't do that for his other sources.

But we do have a fictional world where the full texts exist. And it is part of the fictional setting that those quotes are quotes.

Eustace calling Rhaenyra a pretender in the context where he does may very well be consensus among historians.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

We get an explicit explanation for why Eustace was not executed in one instance where KL was seized: "it seems more likely that Ser Perkin did not wish to provoke the enmity of the Faith". And Eustace was replaced by Septon Bernard, who unrepentantly confessed to treason against Aegon III but the High Septon successfully requested for his life to be spared.

Irrelevant to Rhaenyra's attitude towards him. She, like any dragonriding Targaryen monarch, certainly could risk the enmity of the Faith.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Does the Faith of the Seven actually put religious significance on the Iron Throne itself? It was created by Aegon the Conqueror, who per GRRM converted for political reasons and had an incestuous polygamous marriage not under the auspices of the Faith.

Eustace is clearly very superstitious, believing all kind of nonsense.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Those Stannis supporters aren't basing their belief on hindsight from Joffrey being executed as a pretender. Wouldn't the parallel from them suggest Eustace was indeed anti-Rhaenyra, just as Gyldayn says?

Eustace writes a history book. He constructs the narrative in his telling in a certain manner.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

"Assume" seems like the wrong word when Gyldayn explicitly tells us that as a fact repeatedly.

And how does he know this? Since he doesn't tell it is just his claim/opinion.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I can guess. He was a confessor & confidant to Alicent, but as far as we know not Rhaenyra (who lived on Dragonstone).

Rhaenyra lived on Dragonstone later in her life, after the birth of her second son.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

People in the Red Keep tended to favor the Greens, while supporters of the Blacks were found on Dragonstone (if only to keep them away from their Green rivals). For all we know the Hightowers would have angled to replace him if they hadn't favored him, just as Unwin later did replace him with a relative & conspirator.

Eustace was the castle septon, so it was the king's call to replace him. And he was there before Alicent became queen.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

When it comes to Rhaenyra's first three children, I think Mushroom's account is so heavily implied to be correct (not merely by Gyldayn's references their appearance, but also the parallel with Cersei's three children) as to say Eustace was simply wrong.

Not sure how speculation about the parentage of a bunch of children would be representative of the accuracy of an entire history book.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The story of Daemon seducing Rhaenyra and taking her maidenhead when he was himself already married doesn't reflect well on him (or on her given Westerosi attitudes regarding female sexuality, particularly among the Faith if the High Sparrow is any indicator), and doesn't appear in Runciter's account (which merely says Daemon quarreled with Viserys). He also accuses Daemon of causing the fire at Harrenhal in order to kill Harwin Strong (whose presence he attests at the births of Rhaenyra's children) due to him being a rival for Rhaenyra. I recall you have said it's implausible that Daemon would find Harwin to actually be a rival, which should thus make you more suspicious of Eustace.

I take speculation as speculation. And Daemon is clearly an ass, so folks suspecting him of ugly things makes sense in context.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You have written that the Greens come across as warmongers, and Eustace's depiction of Alicent leans against that. She & Helaena together convince Aegon II to send the delegation to Dragonstone with what (per Munkun) were generous peace terms.

LOL, these people tried to secure what they stole with the coup. Trying to stop a war when you yourself already started it by stealing the throne isn't you being peaceful. It is you trying to get away with a crime.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Otto Hightower isn't Alicent, but Aegon II's dismissal of him over her objections in favor of the more belligerent Cole (who also drew first blood per Eustace's account) is a rejection of her preference for diplomacy over violence.

That's a weird construction on your part since Otto Hightower's 'diplomacy' was the diplomacy of war. He wanted to ensure that Rhaenyra is defeated in the field, too. The only difference is that Otto knew what he was doing and how to do it ... while Cole as a hothead who dragged the royal family themselves into the gory mess.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Eustace also has Alicent suggests a Great Council to Rhaenyra, only for Rhaenyra to reject it in the expectation that Aegon would win. Later Alicent suggests that the realm be divided to end the war and spare her sons lives, which Rhaenyra rejects. For that section, it's unclear how much of it comes from Eustace and/or Munkun.

That just tells us that Alicent wasn't stupid - which nobody ever claimed she was.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Aegon caring about something more than his short-term impulses is hard to take seriously. He's absent from the Green Council even though the Greens knew Viserys was dying, and he doesn't get along with Otto & Alicent's preferred approach to the conflict that resulted. It doesn't seem like he had consulted them at all about what would happen after his father died, or had any plans for that. He's a lazy young man who does not seem to have anticipated (or wanted) any responsibility at the time he was asked to take the crown. However implausible, it would be more believable for him to give a disingenous excuse about his father & half-sister (and then to be persuaded by an appeal to the safety of his own family in KL) than for him to even think about laws written with those ink-pots he knocks over. And of course this all grows out of your suggestion that Eustace thought it was a transgression of the law to crown Aegon, when none of his actions support that and the annointing suggests otherwise.

LOL, that's just nonsense. Aegon grew up in a patriarchal society. Every page, squire, knight - basically every man he ever drank with - should have told him that law and tradition make him the Heir Apparent and that he should be king upon his father's death. He would have been very aware of that. And thus he should have told everybody that it was right and proper that he should be king ... even if he didn't want to.

Also, Aegon losing his temper doesn't mean he doesn't like the law. His stupid grandfather just didn't seem to be doing anything to defend his throne, so he fired him and named a more active Hand.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's explicitly given as a reason on two occasions for Mushroom to portray her more positively than Eustace.

And what's that besides Gyldayn's opinion?

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Gyldayn gives reason to be skeptical of Munkun/Orwyle & Eustace's account of which dragon Byron Swann was trying to kill but NOT Mushroom. Tyrion explains why Munkun was wrong and how a letter from Swann's squire points to the same dragon Mushroom picked. GRRM is making very clear who to trust there.

GRRM invents conflicting sources specifically in order to make something ambiguous. If he actually wanted to, he could have made more of F&B ambiguous. Whether out of laziness or a desire that such content be considered reliable, he didn't in those places.

I don't buy the story that Swann wanted to kill Syrax, either, never mind what Tyrion says.

[FictionIsntReal]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking about how the historians call the characters, not the historical figures.

Eustace is the ONLY historian who calls Rhaenyra "Pretender". The simplest explanation is that the guy we are repeatedly told disliked Rhaenyra, and who needlessly inserts jabs at her, shared the view of the historical figures (associated with the very king he annointed instead of her) who also called her that. Against the idea that he indeed disliked Rhaenyra there is... what?

Quote

But we do have a fictional world where the full texts exist. And it is part of the fictional setting that those quotes are quotes.

There is no indication within that fictional world that Gyldayn is choosing unrepresentative quotes (you might as well claim everything new in F&B is simply made up by him). Quotes are presented as quotes to remind us of the particular perspective of the person being quoted... such as Eustace being known as anti-Rhaenyra.

Quote

Eustace calling Rhaenyra a pretender in the context where he does may very well be consensus among historians.

None of the other sources call her that, and he's not merely an historian but also one of those historical figures within these events.

Quote

She, like any dragonriding Targaryen monarch, certainly could risk the enmity of the Faith.

She was overthrown in part by a street preacher. Aegon the Conqueror had dragons when no one else did, and he still converted to the Faith on the belief that he needed their support to rule. Maegor the Cruel tried to take them on, and he's remembered as an example of what to never do. The crown since then has pledged to protect the Faith. And if you argue that Rhaenyra was too reckless to care about angering potential supporters during the Dance, recall that she refused to alter Andal succession laws of her vassals Rosby & Stokeworth for fear of upsetting people, and she denied Daemon's suggestion to destroy Houses Baratheon & Lannister in order to give their lands to the dragonseeds (after Corlys again pointed out her vassals would turn against her).

Quote

Eustace is clearly very superstitious, believing all kind of nonsense.

Fair enough.

Quote

Eustace writes a history book. He constructs the narrative in his telling in a certain manner.

And you don't think he constructs his narrative with the aim of condemning Rhaenyra, just as Stannis' supporters condemned Joffrey?

Quote

And how does he know this? Since he doesn't tell it is just his claim/opinion.

Gyldayn is GRRM. Gyldayn knows things because GRRM knows them and uses Gyldayn to convey that information to us. As I have noted, the claims to source things historically can be nonsensical, but that's just how things are. How does Gyldayn come across those lost fragments of Septon Barth's writing? How did Yandel get access to Gyldayn's work before it was finished? Because GRRM decided that should be the case.

Quote

Rhaenyra lived on Dragonstone later in her life, after the birth of her second son.

And Eustace was not said to be her confessor/confidant prior to that either.

Quote

Eustace was the castle septon, so it was the king's call to replace him. And he was there before Alicent became queen.

When Otto Hightower suggested that Daemon be replaced as heir with Rhaenyra, Viserys did it even though there were some obvious reasons not to. When he suggested that Viserys remove Daemon as Master of Coin, and then Master of Laws, Viserys did that as well. Otto didn't always get his way, but he certainly had pull.

Quote

Not sure how speculation about the parentage of a bunch of children would be representative of the accuracy of an entire history book.

I can't evaluate all the claims made in the book, so I look at the ones in dispute I have the most confidence in.

Quote

I take speculation as speculation. And Daemon is clearly an ass, so folks suspecting him of ugly things makes sense in context.

Do you read the maester sources making such speculations about him? We've got Mellos making the bombshell speculation that Viserys caused the fire at Harrenhal to prevent Harwin from letting slip he fathered Rhaenyra's children instead Eustace's culprit of Daemon (or the unsourced speculation Gyldayn relays about Larys).

Quote

LOL, these people tried to secure what they stole with the coup. Trying to stop a war when you yourself already started it by stealing the throne isn't you being peaceful. It is you trying to get away with a crime.

Your personal opinion of the Greens as a whole is irrelevant. My point is that Eustace makes Alicent look wiser & less belligerent than Aegon II. If he was just a misogynist whose support for Aegon II was entirely based on that, you wouldn't expect that.

Quote

That's a weird construction on your part since Otto Hightower's 'diplomacy' was the diplomacy of war.

He had a peace deal sent to Rhaenyra. That's the opposite of war, even if you regard it as an unjust/illegal peace.

Quote

He wanted to ensure that Rhaenyra is defeated in the field, too.

Yes, he wanted his side to win whether diplomatically or militarily. The point is that he & Alicent come out looking much better than Aemond, Criston & Aegon II. Just as Joffrey (and, later, Cersei) comes across worse than Tyrion & Tywin (or Kevan, the "good man for a bad cause").

Quote

That just tells us that Alicent wasn't stupid - which nobody ever claimed she was.

The point is that he provides info when others don't, and that info makes her look better (I'll take "not stupid" as meaning that, relative to Aegon II).

Quote

Also, Aegon losing his temper doesn't mean he doesn't like the law

It's not that he "dislikes" the law, but rather that he dismisses anything other than brute force.

Quote

And what's that besides Gyldayn's opinion?

Gyldayn is GRRM, and that he has multiple instances of Eustace making Rhaenyra look worse supports what he tells us repeatedly.

Quote

I don't buy the story that Swann wanted to kill Syrax, either, never mind what Tyrion says.

Why do you think GRRM had Gyldayn explain why Orwyle & Eustace were probably wrong, but didn't add such a detail for Mushroom? And why did he have an independent source in Tyrion explain why Munkun was wrong with the added detail (not found in F&B) about the squire's letter supporting the claim that the dragon was Syrax? It's not like there's going to be ANOTHER history book explaining why Gyldayn & Tyrion are wrong about that at some point in the future, and even if there were it would seem really pointless for GRRM to repeatedly support the idea that it was Syrax (and that other theories were wrong) if that isn't what we were supposed to conclude.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Eustace is the ONLY historian who calls Rhaenyra "Pretender". The simplest explanation is that the guy we are repeatedly told disliked Rhaenyra, and who needlessly inserts jabs at her, shared the view of the historical figures (associated with the very king he annointed instead of her) who also called her that. Against the idea that he indeed disliked Rhaenyra there is... what?

I don't care what you think is 'the simplest explanation'. Rhaenyra would have been viewed as a pretender during the restoration of Aegon II even by her own followers - she was the rightful queen (like Aegon the Uncrowned, say) but she failed and was killed, making her a pretender.

Being called 'pretender' isn't an insult, you know.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

There is no indication within that fictional world that Gyldayn is choosing unrepresentative quotes (you might as well claim everything new in F&B is simply made up by him). Quotes are presented as quotes to remind us of the particular perspective of the person being quoted... such as Eustace being known as anti-Rhaenyra.

I do contest that George wants to present Eustace as having a particularly strong 'anti-Rhaenyra bias'.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

None of the other sources call her that, and he's not merely an historian but also one of those historical figures within these events.

He is still writing a history, i.e. a historiographer, and as such he writes with hindsight, and is not driven by whatever feelings he had while living through the events.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

She was overthrown in part by a street preacher. Aegon the Conqueror had dragons when no one else did, and he still converted to the Faith on the belief that he needed their support to rule. Maegor the Cruel tried to take them on, and he's remembered as an example of what to never do. The crown since then has pledged to protect the Faith. And if you argue that Rhaenyra was too reckless to care about angering potential supporters during the Dance, recall that she refused to alter Andal succession laws of her vassals Rosby & Stokeworth for fear of upsetting people, and she denied Daemon's suggestion to destroy Houses Baratheon & Lannister in order to give their lands to the dragonseeds (after Corlys again pointed out her vassals would turn against her).

Aegon didn't 'convert to the Faith'.

Nothing you say addresses my point - that Eustace would have died with Otto, Jasper, etc. if Rhaenyra had viewed him as a crucial Green partisan.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And you don't think he constructs his narrative with the aim of condemning Rhaenyra, just as Stannis' supporters condemned Joffrey?

No, I view his history as the work of somebody who constructs his history so it foreshadows the eventual downfall of Rhaenyra ... since that's what happens.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Gyldayn is GRRM. Gyldayn knows things because GRRM knows them and uses Gyldayn to convey that information to us. As I have noted, the claims to source things historically can be nonsensical, but that's just how things are. How does Gyldayn come across those lost fragments of Septon Barth's writing? How did Yandel get access to Gyldayn's work before it was finished? Because GRRM decided that should be the case.

LOL, no. Gyldayn isn't GRRM. Gyldayn doesn't know what George knows, he only knows what George puts into his mouth. We don't know if Gyldayn actually knows anything tangible about the Targaryens, have no idea whether any of his interpretations and conclusions about events do reflect the author's view on the matter.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And Eustace was not said to be her confessor/confidant prior to that either.

Nobody says Eustace was Alicent's confessor, either, so what?

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

When Otto Hightower suggested that Daemon be replaced as heir with Rhaenyra, Viserys did it even though there were some obvious reasons not to. When he suggested that Viserys remove Daemon as Master of Coin, and then Master of Laws, Viserys did that as well. Otto didn't always get his way, but he certainly had pull.

So what? You falsely compared Peake's doing - who was effectively king as Hand, Protector of the Realm, and most powerful regent - to what the Greens may have been able to do. They were just one faction at court, whereas Peake ran the government.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Your personal opinion of the Greens as a whole is irrelevant. My point is that Eustace makes Alicent look wiser & less belligerent than Aegon II. If he was just a misogynist whose support for Aegon II was entirely based on that, you wouldn't expect that.

LOL, what? Eustace has Alicent and Helaena behave more like proper women, i.e. such who advise their men and push for peace, etc. ... like a good little queen should. And if that's what they did during the war, at least publicly, then he, as a historian, would depict that. He wouldn't invent them behaving completely different if this wasn't the case.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He had a peace deal sent to Rhaenyra. That's the opposite of war, even if you regard it as an unjust/illegal peace.

So what? Rhaenyra did answer with her own offer of peace, didn't she? And as far as we know Eustace never portray her as a war-monger, either.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Yes, he wanted his side to win whether diplomatically or militarily. The point is that he & Alicent come out looking much better than Aemond, Criston & Aegon II. Just as Joffrey (and, later, Cersei) comes across worse than Tyrion & Tywin (or Kevan, the "good man for a bad cause").

LOL, perhaps that's the case because Aemond, Criston, and Aegon II actually were morons?

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's not that he "dislikes" the law, but rather that he dismisses anything other than brute force.

At a point when he got the impression that his grandfather was doing nothing. Otto should have included his grandson in his own government, should have explained to him what they were doing and how they would secure his throne. Apparently he didn't do that to the satisfaction of both Aegon II and Criston Cole.

There is no indication that Aegon II only uses 'brute force' or thinks that 'brute force' made him king.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why do you think GRRM had Gyldayn explain why Orwyle & Eustace were probably wrong, but didn't add such a detail for Mushroom? And why did he have an independent source in Tyrion explain why Munkun was wrong with the added detail (not found in F&B) about the squire's letter supporting the claim that the dragon was Syrax? It's not like there's going to be ANOTHER history book explaining why Gyldayn & Tyrion are wrong about that at some point in the future, and even if there were it would seem really pointless for GRRM to repeatedly support the idea that it was Syrax (and that other theories were wrong) if that isn't what we were supposed to conclude.

Just the fact that an attack on Syrax within the Red Keep at a time when the son of a Marcher Lord whose overlord was decidedly Green (which is one of Tyrion's arguments as to why Syrax should have been the target) doesn't seem to be the kind of scenario which would become a mystery.

A knight of House Swann trying to slay the queen's dragon in the Red Keep would be something a lot of people would have witnessed and/or heard of. Mushroom and Eustace were right there and had every opportunity to witness the entire thing and/or receive immediate second hand reports about Ser Byron's death (say, from folks who dealt with his charred corpse). Likewise, Munkun should have found eye witnesses about this episode as well considering he interviewed a lot of Dance veterans for his history. Not to mention that folks would have told Lord Swann what had happened to his son, so there would be no confusion at all.

Gyldayn also tells us that Byron was at Storm's End when Luke and Aemond met, so no chance for him to get to Rhaenyra's faction thereafter if the Baratheons siding with Aegon II determined the allegiances of most of their bannermen. It isn't impossible that Byron ended up as a knight in service of Aegon II thereafter and subsequently pretended to switch to Rhaenyra after she took the castle ... but trying to slay a dragon in the very yard of the Red Keep sounds and feels like a completely ridiculous idea. Even if he could fool the dragon he might be seen and stopped before doing the deed, and chances to get away with that after the fact seem to be effectively zero. Yet unlike the suicidal dragonslayers we meet later, Byron definitely tried to be sneaky, meaning he valued his own life.

Also, using the shield would indicate the dragon was awake and able to see things, i.e. it wasn't night.

Most importantly, though, we know Syrax was a lazy castle dragon, never involved in a proper fight until her death, and very familiar to the presence of humans. Swann would have had no need to hide behind a shielt. He could have just approached her, spear in hand. The dragon would have never viewed him as a danger.

Byron at Storm's End means he witnessed Vhagar killing Luke and his dragon ... and that could have motivated him to want to put down that beast.

Him and his squire tracking down and trying to kill either Sunfyre or Vhagar out in the wild makes thus much more sense in context.

We have no idea what Tyrion's source for the letter of the squire is, so unless he saw the original he just read that in another book. Doesn't prove anything.

[FictionIsntReal]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra would have been viewed as a pretender during the restoration of Aegon II even by her own followers - she was the rightful queen (like Aegon the Uncrowned, say) but she failed and was killed, making her a pretender.

Which of them refer to her as such?

Quote

Being called 'pretender' isn't an insult, you know.

But Rhaenyra DOES call Aegon II "pretender" even when he's crowned & sitting on the Iron Throne. What can that mean other than "not the rightful king"?

Quote

I do contest that George wants to present Eustace as having a particularly strong 'anti-Rhaenyra bias'.

Then why does he repeatedly present us with the claim that he disliked Rhaenyra, paired with examples of him making her look worse?

Quote

Aegon didn't 'convert to the Faith'.

Quote

 

[Did Aegon Targaryen convert to the Faith as a political maneuver?]

yes

 

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Asshai.com_Forum_Chat

Quote

Nothing you say addresses my point - that Eustace would have died with Otto, Jasper, etc. if Rhaenyra had viewed him as a crucial Green partisan.

"Green partisan" is not the same as "crucial Green partisan". He was never a member of the Small Council. And, of course, neither Otto nor Jasper were clerics whose executions the High Septon might have objected to.

Quote

No, I view his history as the work of somebody who constructs his history so it foreshadows the eventual downfall of Rhaenyra ... since that's what happens.

Is adding digs about her eating a lot or smiling at Maelor's head or laughing at Sunfyre's ruined condition for "foreshadowing"? Is his claim (which Gyldayn finds dubious) about Mysaria antagonizing Helaena into suicide?

Quote

he only knows what George puts into his mouth

Correct, GRRM has chosen to put those words into his mouth, without actually being constrained by what sources Gyldayn could realistically have. And we don't get any rival historians to Gyldayn covering the same time period, Gyldayn is instead the ONLY one we'll get.

Quote

have no idea whether any of his interpretations and conclusions about events do reflect the author's view on the matter

We know GRRM wrote it all and published it for us to read. We haven't gotten a new book in the main series for more than a decade, but we got this in the mean time. He didn't use a random-number generator or a thousand monkeys on typewriters to produce the text. He chose for this to be THE history we get of those events, not the original works of the sources he draws on. That's not "no idea" to me. Eustace never existed until he was created for the history, and he was created with the idea (per Ran, whom you once quoted) of having a slant against Rhaenyra.

Quote

Nobody says Eustace was Alicent's confessor, either, so what?

Quote

As a confidant and confessor to King Viserys and his queens

Alicent was one of Viserys' queens.

Quote

So what? You falsely compared Peake's doing - who was effectively king as Hand, Protector of the Realm, and most powerful regent - to what the Greens may have been able to do

Whether a comparison is "false" is subjective. Peake's action was relevant because it was replacing the Red Keep's septon with a preferred one, which is a hypothetical at issue (I could have also added how Cersei had a High Septon assassinated because she thought he was aligned with Tyrion, but nobody has accused the Hightowers of plotting any assassinations). And Otto was able to get Viserys to replace people. I said "would have angled" not "would have succeeded", and that was preceded by "For all we know", which does not indicate something I have high confidence in.

Quote

Eustace has Alicent and Helaena behave more like proper women, i.e. such who advise their men and push for peace, etc. ... like a good little queen should.

That would be what's called "benevolent sexism", not misogyny. Eustace does not hate either of them. And Aegon's preference for force over diplomacy is not portrayed as valorous and manly (even if his willingness to personally engage in combat might be), rather knocking over his grandfather's ink just looks childish & immature.

Quote

And if that's what they did during the war, at least publicly, then he, as a historian

Stuff that was done publicly can be found in Munkun's account. Eustace specifically is cited for other things. And why would Alicent be publicly arguing with her son the king?

Quote

So what?

So what is that we have Eustace specified as the source for the claim that it Aegon ordered Orwyle imprisoned for his suggestion of a peace envoy, only to be convinced by Alicent & Helaena to agree to it.

Quote

Rhaenyra did answer with her own offer of peace

We have no source specified on that, though we do have the quote “Tell my half-brother that I will have my throne, or I will have his head.”, which sounds more like a "warmonger" than what Munkun calls "generous" terms.

Quote

LOL, perhaps that's the case because Aemond, Criston, and Aegon II actually were morons?

Criston seems smarter than the other two. Rook's Rest (a trap he planned) successfully took out a Black dragon & its rider. Aemond refusing to add his support (with Vhagar) to Green armies later led to defeat. He offers to yield at one point to avoid needless deaths. I just don't buy that a "moron" could rise from steward's son to LC of the KG, even under as flawed a king as Viserys. He's remembered as embodying both the best & worst aspects of the KG, and I don't think that fits either.

Quote

At a point when he got the impression that his grandfather was doing nothing. Otto should have included his grandson in his own government, should have explained to him what they were doing and how they would secure his throne. Apparently he didn't do that to the satisfaction of both Aegon II and Criston Cole.

I don't recall an instance after the first Green Council where Aegon is said to be absent (and in that case he's with a paramour, off where he can't initially be found). And that it wasn't to Aegon's satisfaction just fits Eustace's characterization of him as being less wise than the Higtowers.

Quote

There is no indication that Aegon II only uses 'brute force' or thinks that 'brute force' made him king.

Quote

“Thrones are won with swords, not quills. Spill blood, not ink.”

It's GRRM deliberately reversing Tywin's quote about winning a war via quills & ravens rather than swords & spears.

Quote

Mushroom and Eustace were right there and had every opportunity to witness the entire thing and/or receive immediate second hand reports about Ser Byron's death (say, from folks who dealt with his charred corpse). Likewise, Munkun should have found eye witnesses about this episode as well considering he interviewed a lot of Dance veterans for his history.

Mushroom being present (unlike Orwyle) is the reason Gyldayn doesn't express doubts about his version. And Munkun got his account from Orwyle (who, as noted, wasn't there) which would explain why he didn't seek out anyone to tell him about how Byron Swann died. Eustace didn't write about it at all in his initial history, and of course wasn't as close to Rhaenyra as Mushroom was.

Quote

Gyldayn also tells us that Byron was at Storm's End when Luke and Aemond met, so no chance for him to get to Rhaenyra's faction thereafter if the Baratheons siding with Aegon II determined the allegiances of most of their bannermen. It isn't impossible that Byron ended up as a knight in service of Aegon II thereafter and subsequently pretended to switch to Rhaenyra after she took the castle

Nobody said he "pretended to switch".

Quote

Even if he could fool the dragon he might be seen and stopped before doing the deed, and chances to get away with that after the fact seem to be effectively zero. Yet unlike the suicidal dragonslayers we meet later, Byron definitely tried to be sneaky, meaning he valued his own life.

He tried to be sneaky because if he just got killed immediately by the dragon he would accomplish nothing. He did not have an angry mob with him to continue the attack after he died.

Quote

Also, using the shield would indicate the dragon was awake and able to see things, i.e. it wasn't night.

Using the shield would be a reasonable thing if you were unsure whether the dragon was asleep or not. And if you're going to take on a dragon by yourself, you should attempt to avoid the risk of it waking up & seeing you.

Quote

Most importantly, though, we know Syrax was a lazy castle dragon, never involved in a proper fight until her death, and very familiar to the presence of humans. Swann would have had no need to hide behind a shielt. He could have just approached her, spear in hand. The dragon would have never viewed him as a danger.

Dragons are too dangerous for a single human to confidently think they can kill, even lazy castle ones. The ones in the dragonpit required large mobs.

Quote

Byron at Storm's End means he witnessed Vhagar killing Luke and his dragon ... and that could have motivated him to want to put down that beast.

You have no reason to think Byron would have had any such motivation, and furthermore Vhagar was being ridden by Aemond and not simply acting of his own accord. Killing Aemond (if your baseless speculation about his motivations were correct) would seem to be simpler, as he wouldn't even be protected by KG. Nowhere in the text does ANYONE so much as raise the motivation you've made up. Why do you think that is?

Quote

Him and his squire tracking down and trying to kill either Sunfyre or Vhagar out in the wild makes thus much more sense in context.

Your speculation earlier just applied to Vhagar, not Sunfyre. How would he be able to find Sunfyre? As Gyldayn notes, its whereabouts were unknown at the time, and when found it was on Dragonstone. And of course, Gyldayn doesn't express doubt that such an attack could have taken place there rather than in the wild, even though GRRM easily could have added that detail (thus rather even-handedly expressing skepticism toward all three claims).

Quote

We have no idea what Tyrion's source for the letter of the squire is, so unless he saw the original he just read that in another book.

You don't know that he didn't read the original. The detail of the squire's letter is something GRRM made up so Tyrion could debunk Haldon for his reliance on Munkun (and note that GRRM doesn't give Haldon a comeback such as the ones you're inventing). GRRM didn't have to make that up, he did it for a reason. And he doubled down on that in F&B for a reason. Why would he do that if it wasn't to stack the deck in favor of Syrax being the target?

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Which of them refer to her as such?

But Rhaenyra DOES call Aegon II "pretender" even when he's crowned & sitting on the Iron Throne. What can that mean other than "not the rightful king"?

Of course - you can also use 'pretender' as an insult, but Eustace-Gyldayn capitalizes it, making it a moniker - it is Rhaenyra the Pretender, not just a general 'that silly pretender' remark, indicating that at the time - and perhaps even afterwards - the consensus was that Rhaenyra the Pretender was indeed not a sitting monarch. Which is why she isn't in the list of monarchs, etc.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Then why does he repeatedly present us with the claim that he disliked Rhaenyra, paired with examples of him making her look worse?

Because that's fun? I mean, it is kind of silly to assume that any historical record about facial expressions and uttered sentences is accurate if written years and decades later. So the whole thing is fabrication anyway ... but that doesn't mean the general setting (i.e. that Rhaenyra said something when confronted by Maelor's head or Sunfyre's dying body) might be correct.

Perhaps personal preferences influenced what sentences Eustace and Mushroom pulled out of their respective asses, and perhaps not. I don't really think that it matters very much.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

"Green partisan" is not the same as "crucial Green partisan". He was never a member of the Small Council. And, of course, neither Otto nor Jasper were clerics whose executions the High Septon might have objected to.

Rhaenyra didn't just execute members of the Green Council. Eustace being the guy who anointed Aegon could very well have caused her to view him as a crucial Green partisan.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Is adding digs about her eating a lot or smiling at Maelor's head or laughing at Sunfyre's ruined condition for "foreshadowing"? Is his claim (which Gyldayn finds dubious) about Mysaria antagonizing Helaena into suicide?

I'm not sure if Eustace is factually incorrect with his words about the fat woman eating cakes while her uncle-husband fucked some aging whore.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Correct, GRRM has chosen to put those words into his mouth, without actually being constrained by what sources Gyldayn could realistically have. And we don't get any rival historians to Gyldayn covering the same time period, Gyldayn is instead the ONLY one we'll get.

We know GRRM wrote it all and published it for us to read. We haven't gotten a new book in the main series for more than a decade, but we got this in the mean time. He didn't use a random-number generator or a thousand monkeys on typewriters to produce the text. He chose for this to be THE history we get of those events, not the original works of the sources he draws on. That's not "no idea" to me. Eustace never existed until he was created for the history, and he was created with the idea (per Ran, whom you once quoted) of having a slant against Rhaenyra.

This isn't definitive history, it is just a history. The fact that we are getting it means nothing more than that. It means George had fun writing 'fake history' ... it doesn't mean George wanted to actually write a complete or accurate fake history. If he had wanted to tell the full story he would have written novels or he would have just written a fake history from the omniscient POV of GRRM, telling us what actually happened.

Also, the whole concept of biased sources kind of crept into the discourse with TWoIaF and the incomplete novellas, not so much the actual history. With FaB in full, Eustace and Mushroom aren't particularly biased in a political sense, especially not along the Greens vs. Blacks conflict.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That would be what's called "benevolent sexism", not misogyny. Eustace does not hate either of them. And Aegon's preference for force over diplomacy is not portrayed as valorous and manly (even if his willingness to personally engage in combat might be), rather knocking over his grandfather's ink just looks childish & immature.

It seems like something that was so well-known because happening in public that no historian writing a history of the Dance could ignore it, regardless how biased he might be.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Stuff that was done publicly can be found in Munkun's account. Eustace specifically is cited for other things. And why would Alicent be publicly arguing with her son the king?

Nope, Eustace is also cited when we talk public stuff.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

We have no source specified on that, though we do have the quote “Tell my half-brother that I will have my throne, or I will have his head.”, which sounds more like a "warmonger" than what Munkun calls "generous" terms.

Ah, sorry, Rhaenyra was the first to offer peace, not Aegon II. When she had her coronation she informed her half-siblings about her conditions for peace, demanded that they show up and do her homage, etc. and that was then met with the Green peace proposal after Aegon II was, supposedly, convinced by his women to do that.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Criston seems smarter than the other two. Rook's Rest (a trap he planned) successfully took out a Black dragon & its rider. Aemond refusing to add his support (with Vhagar) to Green armies later led to defeat. He offers to yield at one point to avoid needless deaths. I just don't buy that a "moron" could rise from steward's son to LC of the KG, even under as flawed a king as Viserys. He's remembered as embodying both the best & worst aspects of the KG, and I don't think that fits either.

Criston Cole started the war in the Crownlands which, in the end, led to the defeat on the Kingsroad and Aegon II's demise. This wasn't necessary. Otto Hightower had a plan to carry the war to Rhaenyra without endangering the capital and the people in the region.

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I don't recall an instance after the first Green Council where Aegon is said to be absent (and in that case he's with a paramour, off where he can't initially be found). And that it wasn't to Aegon's satisfaction just fits Eustace's characterization of him as being less wise than the Higtowers.

LOL, if Otto had done a good job with his grandson he wouldn't have been fired.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/29/2021 at 7:05 PM, Lord Varys said:

Eustace-Gyldayn capitalizes it, making it a moniker - it is Rhaenyra the Pretender, not just a general 'that silly pretender' remark, indicating that at the time - and perhaps even afterwards - the consensus was that Rhaenyra the Pretender was indeed not a sitting monarch.

Gyldayn quotes Eustace calling her "Pretender". No other source is quoted as calling her that. And Gyldayn repeatedly refers to her as "Queen Rhaenyra" when he's not quoting, with no "Pretender" added to that.

Quote

Because that's fun?

Perhaps it is fun, but consider the semiotics. GRRM is not a child arranging letter-blocks without any idea of what message they spell. He wrote a text which communicates ideas to the reader. There is intent behind that.

Quote

I mean, it is kind of silly to assume that any historical record about facial expressions and uttered sentences is accurate if written years and decades later.

The point of the different accounts of facial expressions is not to have either of them be "accurate". Instead they are to serve as examples of slanted history, with Eustace making Rhaenyra look worse (as Gyldayn says he is biased toward) and Mushroom better. Gyldayn himself does not give any indication he considers either of them to be more reliable or doubtful in such instances.

Quote

So the whole thing is fabrication anyway

It's a "fabrication" in that GRRM is the author behind everything, so he fabricated Eustace just as he fabricated Rhaenyra. And, I assert, he fabricated Eustace for a reason (multiple reasons, actually).

Quote

Perhaps personal preferences influenced what sentences Eustace and Mushroom pulled out of their respective asses, and perhaps not. I don't really think that it matters very much.

You may not think it matters, but GRRM though it relevant enough to repeatedly have Gyldayn comment on those sources respective slants when presenting the different ways they recorded those events.

Quote

Rhaenyra didn't just execute members of the Green Council.

Where any of those people clergy of the Faith?

Quote

I'm not sure if Eustace is factually incorrect with his words about the fat woman eating cakes while her uncle-husband fucked some aging whore.

He was not obligated to say anything at all, and Gyldayn notes that he wrote that "waspishly". Eustace chose to write that for a reason when others didn't. And the obvious reason is... he disliked her, just as we were repeatedly told.

Quote

Perhaps personal preferences influenced what sentences Eustace and Mushroom pulled out of their respective asses, and perhaps not. I don't really think that it matters very much.

You may not think it matters, but GRRM though it relevant enough to repeatedly have Gyldayn comment on those sources respective slants when presenting the different ways they recorded those events.

Quote

Rhaenyra didn't just execute members of the Green Council.

Where any of those people clergy of the Faith?

Quote

I'm not sure if Eustace is factually incorrect with his words about the fat woman eating cakes while her uncle-husband fucked some aging whore.

He was not obligated to say anything at all, and Gyldayn notes that he wrote that "waspishly". Eustace chose to write that for a reason when others didn't. And the obvious reason is... he disliked her, just as we were repeatedly told.

Quote

This isn't definitive history, it is just a history

It's the ONLY history for this material we will get. GRRM chose for this to be it. That makes it not just "a" history anymore. The fragments we get of Munkun/Orwyle, Eustace or Mushroom were given the task of being merely "a" limited perspective by GRRM. And their limitations are part of the text of Gyldayn, being explicitly commented on. But we readers are not given indications by GRRM that Gyldayn might be at all wrong about something like whether Eustace disliked Rhaenyra.

Quote

it doesn't mean George wanted to actually write a complete or accurate fake history

The text itself notes where it's incomplete and Gyldayn doesn't know what happened. That's again deliberate on GRRM's part. But when Gyldayn is more confident in something, that's also deliberate.

Quote

With FaB in full, Eustace and Mushroom aren't particularly biased

Gyldayn explicitly says they are, always paired with examples of them slanting things in accordance. If GRRM wanted to drop the notion of them being biased, he could have, but he didn't.

Quote

It seems like something that was so well-known because happening in public that no historian writing a history of the Dance could ignore it, regardless how biased he might be.

Aegon threatening to lock up Orwyle for his suggestion until he was convinced by Alicent & Helaena is not something that happened in public, nor is him knocking over Otto's ink. Hence the citing of Eustace, who as noted was Alicent's confessor & confidant.

Quote

Ah, sorry, Rhaenyra was the first to offer peace

It's never described as such. Her talk of forgiveness was also only limited to her own blood, justified to avoid the curse of kinslaying. Hence the rest of the Small Council (including Aegon II's own mother & grandfather) would not necessarily be included.

Quote

LOL, if Otto had done a good job with his grandson he wouldn't have been fired.

You yourself just said that Otto was smarter than Aegon II & Criston because they were "morons". So is a moron replacing someone smarter than him with another moron a reflection of the smarter man's failure, or just a moron acting moronically? We've got examples of the Mad King ignoring or reversing Tywin's ideas even to his own detriment, and of Joffrey dismissing his ideas of diplomatically turning former enemies back into loyalists. In each case that's suppose to reflect badly on the King, not the Hand.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Gyldayn quotes Eustace calling her "Pretender". No other source is quoted as calling her that. And Gyldayn repeatedly refers to her as "Queen Rhaenyra" when he's not quoting, with no "Pretender" added to that.

Perhaps it is fun, but consider the semiotics. GRRM is not a child arranging letter-blocks without any idea of what message they spell. He wrote a text which communicates ideas to the reader. There is intent behind that.

The point of the different accounts of facial expressions is not to have either of them be "accurate". Instead they are to serve as examples of slanted history, with Eustace making Rhaenyra look worse (as Gyldayn says he is biased toward) and Mushroom better. Gyldayn himself does not give any indication he considers either of them to be more reliable or doubtful in such instances.

My point just is that I don't consider such 'slants' to be very important. If the bias of a historian causes him to make fun of a character he describes by focusing on their body size or making them a tidbit more insulting than they actually were (especially in scenario where they weren't actually present) then that's not really important bias.

Even more so in light of the fact that Mushroom allegedly liking Rhaenyra (but clearly loathing her son and successor, Aegon III) didn't actually cause him to paint her in a general positive light.

Biased historians create heroes and villains - and to our knowledge neither Mushroom nor Eustace actually did do that.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's a "fabrication" in that GRRM is the author behind everything, so he fabricated Eustace just as he fabricated Rhaenyra. And, I assert, he fabricated Eustace for a reason (multiple reasons, actually).

Man, he used those contradicting sources to make this a more convincing fake history book.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You may not think it matters, but GRRM though it relevant enough to repeatedly have Gyldayn comment on those sources respective slants when presenting the different ways they recorded those events.

If Gyldayn's criteria that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra and Mushroom liked her are only the quotes he gave then I don't care for his opinion because those quotes do not show the kind of bias I'd care about.

To me, Eustace is a pretty decent historian whose history is colored by his obsession with court gossip and his zealous views of the Northmen, etc. And Mushroom is basically just a completely unreliable bag full of lies and exaggerations who may provide the occasional gem of good insight, but nothing more.

And the claim that Mushroom liked Rhaenyra is pretty much a joke considering what stories this guy recorded about her and her family. Mushroom may have enjoyed performing for Rhaenyra, he may have liked her patronage, but any idea that he liked her as a person seems to be completely without basis for me.

The ugly way in which he tries to write himself into 'world history' by dragging his member into everything, claiming he came up with the dragonseeds idea, tried to mount Silverwing, etc. pretty much show his real priorities.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He was not obligated to say anything at all, and Gyldayn notes that he wrote that "waspishly". Eustace chose to write that for a reason when others didn't. And the obvious reason is... he disliked her, just as we were repeatedly told.

I never said he liked her, I just said that it might have just been a personal dislike, not a political dislike that allows us to view him as a pro-Green historian. As I repeatedly said, he could have just grown to dislike her during her short reign.

Whatever biases Eustace had, they didn't stop him from also telling us unpleasant anecdotes about the Greens.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's the ONLY history for this material we will get. GRRM chose for this to be it. That makes it not just "a" history anymore. The fragments we get of Munkun/Orwyle, Eustace or Mushroom were given the task of being merely "a" limited perspective by GRRM. And their limitations are part of the text of Gyldayn, being explicitly commented on. But we readers are not given indications by GRRM that Gyldayn might be at all wrong about something like whether Eustace disliked Rhaenyra.

I just don't care. If you were to ask George whether FaB were 'the definitive history of House Targaryen' he would say: No, but's the only one you are getting.'

Just deal with the fact that you do not have a definitive history.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The text itself notes where it's incomplete and Gyldayn doesn't know what happened. That's again deliberate on GRRM's part. But when Gyldayn is more confident in something, that's also deliberate.

Of course it is deliberate, but who cares? Just because Gyldayn thinks something is correct doesn't mean he is right.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Aegon threatening to lock up Orwyle for his suggestion until he was convinced by Alicent & Helaena is not something that happened in public, nor is him knocking over Otto's ink. Hence the citing of Eustace, who as noted was Alicent's confessor & confidant.

We don't know how public those events were ... the king could have been attended by a retinue when visiting Otto in the Tower of the Hand.

But the point of the former event you mention may be to show us that Eustace constructs a rather inconsistent Aegon II, having him timid and meek and dutiful when the crown is offered to him, but insisting that Rhaenyra, etc. be killed when she actually crowned herself as he, originally, supposedly wanted her to do.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's never described as such. Her talk of forgiveness was also only limited to her own blood, justified to avoid the curse of kinslaying. Hence the rest of the Small Council (including Aegon II's own mother & grandfather) would not necessarily be included.

Why should they be included? They were traitors, after all. But note that while Alicent and Otto were declared traitors, Rhaenyra didn't say whether she would actually execute them. Otto lost his head later on, but that was after she had been forced to fight a bloody war. And Alicent wasn't executed at all.

Chances are not that bad that Otto may have been allowed to take the black, say.

16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You yourself just said that Otto was smarter than Aegon II & Criston because they were "morons". So is a moron replacing someone smarter than him with another moron a reflection of the smarter man's failure, or just a moron acting moronically? We've got examples of the Mad King ignoring or reversing Tywin's ideas even to his own detriment, and of Joffrey dismissing his ideas of diplomatically turning former enemies back into loyalists. In each case that's suppose to reflect badly on the King, not the Hand.

Sorry, but Otto was Aegon's grandfather, not just his Hand. He had ten years to groom him for the role of king and obviously failed at that.

Tywin was no Aerys' grandfather, so the comparison on your part makes no sense. Tywin way Joff's grandfather but he had no opportunity to prepare him for his role as king since he didn't live at court - Cersei did, and like Alicent and Otto she failed at preparing Joff for the role of king.

And, of course, Otto and Alicent did not only fail with Aegon but also Aemond, who were even worse than Aegon, all things considered.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/31/2021 at 3:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

My point just is that I don't consider such 'slants' to be very important.

What you consider important is up to you. If it were indisputably the case that the world was ending tomorrow, and you didn't care, I couldn't force you to.

Quote

If the bias of a historian causes him to make fun of a character he describes by focusing on their body size or making them a tidbit more insulting than they actually were (especially in scenario where they weren't actually present) then that's not really important bias.

And that wouldn't affect your assessment of other disputed claims by such an historian?

Quote

Even more so in light of the fact that Mushroom allegedly liking Rhaenyra (but clearly loathing her son and successor, Aegon III) didn't actually cause him to paint her in a general positive light.

Mushroom exists both to be someone close to Rhaenyra & the Blacks on Dragonstone, but also to embrace the most lurid & entertaining stories.

Quote

Man, he used those contradicting sources to make this a more convincing fake history book.

It's not a "convincing" fake history book (what histories have so many references to a dwarf's prodigious member?), and despite what Noah Hawley might tell you authors include scenes for a reason rather than just because stuff happens in real life.

Quote

If Gyldayn's criteria that Eustace didn't like Rhaenyra and Mushroom liked her are only the quotes he gave then I don't care for his opinion because those quotes do not show the kind of bias I'd care about.

We don't get the full text of Eustace & Mushroom's work, we have the fragments Gyldayn gives us & Gyldayn's own assessment of them, including details about their own lives & connections to the people & events they're commenting on.

Quote

I never said he liked her, I just said that it might have just been a personal dislike, not a political dislike that allows us to view him as a pro-Green historian.

Talking about how the Iron Throne rejected her and calling her "Pretender" when none of the other historians don't isn't evidence of a political stance? And the fact that he's the one who annointed Aegon king in the first place isn't relevant?

Quote

Whatever biases Eustace had, they didn't stop him from also telling us unpleasant anecdotes about the Greens.

I'll grant he tells some unpleasant things about Aegon II, Criston Cole & Aemond. Not so much the Hightowers, to one of whom he served as a confessor & confidant. Mushroom claims Alicent performed sexual favors on Old King Jaehaerys & poisoned King Viserys, but Eustace doesn't even mention such rumors in order to dismiss them (which is his usual role as a foil to Mushroom).

Quote

Just deal with the fact that you do not have a definitive history.

It's certainly not "definitive" in that there are things which are explicitly ambiguous, with Gyldayn not suggesting any one conflicting account is correct.

Quote

Of course it is deliberate, but who cares? Just because Gyldayn thinks something is correct doesn't mean he is right.

WHY would GRRM have Gyldayn suggest that Eustace & Munkun (but not Mushroom) were wrong about something, and SEPARATELY have Tyrion tell us that Munkun was wrong and the correct answer was the same one Mushroom picked? Do you think GRRM randomly had them both indicate the same answer, without giving any indication they're wrong? Do you think all of F&B can be dismissed because Gyldayn could just be wrong about all of it?

Quote

We don't know how public those events were ... the king could have been attended by a retinue when visiting Otto in the Tower of the Hand.

When do retinues go up the tower? Isn't the simpler explanation that Alicent just told Eustace (but not Orwyle) about it?

Quote

But the point of the former event you mention may be to show us that Eustace constructs a rather inconsistent Aegon II, having him timid and meek and dutiful when the crown is offered to him, but insisting that Rhaenyra, etc. be killed when she actually crowned herself as he, originally, supposedly wanted her to do.

Since you find Eustace's account so implausible, doesn't that undercut your characterization of him as "a pretty decent historian" without any important political bias? And the bit about him insisting Rhaenyra be arrested & killed for crowning herself comes BEFORE Eustace specifically is cited in that section.

Quote

Why should they be included? They were traitors, after all.

A "peace deal" is incompatible with insisting that high-ranking members of the opposite coalition be killed. Is the Hand of the King going to agree to his own execution? Is king Aegon II going to agree to the killing of his own mother & grandfather?

Quote

But note that while Alicent and Otto were declared traitors, Rhaenyra didn't say whether she would actually execute them.

Aegon's offer included pardons that weren't limited to his kin. Because it was an actual peace offering, and as such got described as one ("generous" per Munkun), whereas Rhaenyra's wasn't because it wasn't actually a peace offering but an ultimatum.

Quote

Sorry, but Otto was Aegon's grandfather, not just his Hand. He had ten years to groom him for the role of king and obviously failed at that.

A son is the responsibility of his father, not his grandfather.

Quote

Tywin was no Aerys' grandfather, so the comparison on your part makes no sense

The point is that Tywin was his Hand, just as Otto was Aegon's Hand. A sufficiently ignorant & headstrong king can override his wiser Hand, and this reflects worse on the king than the Hand. I suppose Robert ignoring the evidence Jon Arryn presented against Janos Slynt might be another example you'd prefer, although in that case Jon Arryn had promoted Janos in the first place and Robert's decision is chalked up (by Stannis) to another SC member's influence.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And that wouldn't affect your assessment of other disputed claims by such an historian?

Nope, because I'm smart enough to not really consider such quotes and descriptions are not likely to be accurate in any case, regardless of the bias of the historian.

What does make me doubtful is if people tell outlandish tales which are not corrobarated by any other sources despite the fact they should have been in light of the scandal this should have caused.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Mushroom exists both to be someone close to Rhaenyra & the Blacks on Dragonstone, but also to embrace the most lurid & entertaining stories.

Mushroom doesn't show any pro-Black bias, he just tells ribald anecdotes.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

We don't get the full text of Eustace & Mushroom's work, we have the fragments Gyldayn gives us & Gyldayn's own assessment of them, including details about their own lives & connections to the people & events they're commenting on.

So what? That doesn't give us any means to judge either of them independently.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Talking about how the Iron Throne rejected her and calling her "Pretender" when none of the other historians don't isn't evidence of a political stance? And the fact that he's the one who annointed Aegon king in the first place isn't relevant?

Not really ... in light of the fact that Rhaenyra fell and was subsequently (apparently) not counted among the sitting monarchs.

Eustace was the castle septon. When the High Septon refused to anoint Aegon II Eustace had to do the job, just as he likely anointed Rhaenyra after she had taken the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I'll grant he tells some unpleasant things about Aegon II, Criston Cole & Aemond. Not so much the Hightowers, to one of whom he served as a confessor & confidant. Mushroom claims Alicent performed sexual favors on Old King Jaehaerys & poisoned King Viserys, but Eustace doesn't even mention such rumors in order to dismiss them (which is his usual role as a foil to Mushroom).

Eustace doesn't mention a lot of Mushroom's fabrications. And nobody seems to have bothered much with the Hightowers - we don't know the name of Otto's brother or father, not the name of his children aside from Alicent and Gwayne, not the name or house of his wife or how his daughter Alicent looked like.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's certainly not "definitive" in that there are things which are explicitly ambiguous, with Gyldayn not suggesting any one conflicting account is correct.

No, it is not a definitive history because it is an in-universe work rather than George's own history of House Targaryen.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

WHY would GRRM have Gyldayn suggest that Eustace & Munkun (but not Mushroom) were wrong about something, and SEPARATELY have Tyrion tell us that Munkun was wrong and the correct answer was the same one Mushroom picked? Do you think GRRM randomly had them both indicate the same answer, without giving any indication they're wrong? Do you think all of F&B can be dismissed because Gyldayn could just be wrong about all of it?

I think the Syrax story makes less sense regardless who supports it because of how the Dance of the Dragons unfolded. If Syrax had ever been in the field - in a camp, say, or at a castle in the Stormlands - then this anecdote would have been somewhat credible. But as it is I just feel it makes little sense that Swann could or would want to slay Syrax.

And as I'm saying all the time:

FaB works for the genuine dates - births, deaths, marriages, names and numbers of children, coronations, wars and battles, plagues, laws, etc. - but all the private stuff is very much in doubt.

Certain things Gyldayn puts much focus and effort on - like Elissa's journeys and the tragedy of Aerea - can be considered to be pretty decent attempts to figure out what actually happened, but even there the actual quotes are most likely not accurate.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

When do retinues go up the tower? Isn't the simpler explanation that Alicent just told Eustace (but not Orwyle) about it?

Who should have told Alicent about this? She didn't live with her father but had the apartments below his in the Tower of the Hand?

We learn that King Aegon II was surrounded by the KG at all times - which is why Blood and Cheese couldn't kill him - so at least they should have been with him when he visited his grandfather - and since that actually took place after Blood and Cheese we would expect that the king's person was not just protected by the KG but had additional guardsmen about him.

In any case - a king basically never walks around unattended. Also, I'd cast doubt on the entire scene on the basis that I don't see Aegon II - or any king, for that matter - to actually visit his Hand in his chambers. The Hand is a servant, the king summons him and he comes, the king doesn't go to him as if he was somebody who was at the beck and call of somebody else.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Since you find Eustace's account so implausible, doesn't that undercut your characterization of him as "a pretty decent historian" without any important political bias? And the bit about him insisting Rhaenyra be arrested & killed for crowning herself comes BEFORE Eustace specifically is cited in that section.

Eustace wrote a pretty big book about the reign of Viserys I and the Dance that came after. This is how Gyldayn describes him and his history:

Quote

Septon Eustace, who served in the royal sept in the Red Keep during much of this time, and later rose to the ranks of the Most Devout, set down the most detailed history of this period. As a confidant and confessor to King Viserys and his queens, Eustace was well placed to know much and more of what went on. Nor was he reticent about recording even the most shocking and salacious rumors and accusations, though the bulk of The Reign of King Viserys, First of His Name, and the Dance of the Dragons That Came After remains a sober and somewhat ponderous history.

He also included court gossip, but that wasn't his main theme. He actually wrote the most detailed history on the period, although Gyldayn considers it somewhat ponderous.

That Gyldayn often gives us direct Eustace quotes when he wants to focus on court intrigues and rumors is not the fault of the good septon.

Whereas Gyldayn makes it quite clear that The Testimony of Mushroom isn't a proper history book but just a collection of ribald stories:

Quote

Whereas Septon Eustace records the secrets of bedchamber and brothel in hushed, condemnatory tones, Mushroom delights in the same, and his Testimony consists of little but ribald tales and gossip, piling stabbings, poisonings, betrayals, seductions, and debaucheries one atop the other.

 

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

A "peace deal" is incompatible with insisting that high-ranking members of the opposite coalition be killed. Is the Hand of the King going to agree to his own execution? Is king Aegon II going to agree to the killing of his own mother & grandfather?

Is Queen Rhaenyra going to agree to her throne being stolen by a bunch of up-jumped pricks?

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Aegon's offer included pardons that weren't limited to his kin. Because it was an actual peace offering, and as such got described as one ("generous" per Munkun), whereas Rhaenyra's wasn't because it wasn't actually a peace offering but an ultimatum.

Of course they were limited to his kin - Rhaenyra was his half-sister, her children his nephews, Daemon his uncle, Daemon's daughters his cousins, and the Velaryons were his cousins, too.

It is not Rhaenyra's fault that the Hightowers weren't her kin, is it?

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

A son is the responsibility of his father, not his grandfather.

Sorry, you are just being obnoxious. Otto and Alicent wanted to make Aegon king - his father didn't. So he was under no obligation to mold him into a good king. But Otto and Alicent were - and they failed at that spectacularly.

Otto was right there at court, from 120-129 AC. He had every opportunity to include into the government in some capacity, to prepare him to shoulder some responsibility. He could have done that under the pretense that he could serve his half-sister better if he didn't become the wastrel and drunkard he became.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The point is that Tywin was his Hand, just as Otto was Aegon's Hand. A sufficiently ignorant & headstrong king can override his wiser Hand, and this reflects worse on the king than the Hand. I suppose Robert ignoring the evidence Jon Arryn presented against Janos Slynt might be another example you'd prefer, although in that case Jon Arryn had promoted Janos in the first place and Robert's decision is chalked up (by Stannis) to another SC member's influence.

It is just not very clever on your part the Aegon-Otto relationship as that of king and Hand when they were also grandson and grandfather.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/2/2022 at 2:34 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nope, because I'm smart enough to not really consider such quotes and descriptions are not likely to be accurate in any case, regardless of the bias of the historian.

This isn't ancient history from Eustace's perspective, he was a contemporary of the figures involved. And it's not merely the exact wording which is doubtful, it's that anything like that conversation at all took place. But Eustace claims it did, which I say makes him seem less reliable (particularly on an issue as political as this).

Quote

What does make me doubtful is if people tell outlandish tales which are not corrobarated by any other sources

Does Tyrion bringing up the squire's letter serve as "corroboration" of Mushroom's claim about Byron Swann? Does Mellos' claim that King Viserys killed Harwin to hush up his parentage of the "Velaryon" boys serve as "corroboration" for Mushroom's claim about said parentage? Is Eustace's claim about Aegon discussed above not itself "outlandish" and doesn't it lack corroboration from any other source?

Quote

Mushroom doesn't show any pro-Black bias

Quote

the day was “as black as Prince Aemond’s heart,” says Mushroom

 

Quote

So what? That doesn't give us any means to judge either of them independently.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independently". Independent of Gyldayn? Independent of each other rather than as foils to each other?

Quote

Not really ... in light of the fact that Rhaenyra fell and was subsequently (apparently) not counted among the sitting monarchs.

Even though none of the other sources refer to her as "Pretender"?

Quote

Eustace was the castle septon. When the High Septon refused to anoint Aegon II

Not "refused", he was far off in Oldtown and "too old and frail"

Quote

just as he likely anointed Rhaenyra after she had taken the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

There is no evidence he did, and she was already proclaimed Queen on Dragonstone with a crown smuggled out of KL.

Quote

Eustace doesn't mention a lot of Mushroom's fabrications

Quote

Whereas Septon Eustace records the secrets of bedchamber and brothel in hushed, condemnatory tones, Mushroom delights in the same [...] Mushroom says as much in his Testimony and Grand Maester Mellos hints at it, whilst Septon Eustace raises the rumors only to dismiss them [...] Septon Eustace repeats the widespread rumor that Jeyne Arryn preferred the intimate companionship of other women, then goes on to say it was not true [...] It should not surprise us, therefore, that Grand Maester Munkun and Septon Eustace both dutifully assert Ser Laenor’s parentage…but Mushroom, as ever, dissents [...] Grand Maester Munkun and Septon Eustace both found this story most unlikely, as do I.

Not all of those are from Mushroom, but one of Eustace's traits is to bring up & dismiss rumors.

Quote

And nobody seems to have bothered much with the Hightowers

Mushroom is not nobody, and I just said he accused Alicent of poisoning her husband, the king.

Quote

No, it is not a definitive history because it is an in-universe work rather than George's own history of House Targaryen.

It's BOTH an in-universe work AND George's own history. He'd given fragments of history before, and starting with TWOIAF he came up with a more fleshed out account which grew into F&B.

Quote

If Syrax had ever been in the field - in a camp, say, or at a castle in the Stormlands - then this anecdote would have been somewhat credible

The Shepherd got a huge mob of people to kill dragons that had flown from Dragonstone to KL, regardless of where those dragons had been before. Syrax was killed by that mob. What's so implausible about Byron trying to do it before they did? Particularly since the dragon had been used to seize the city even if you don't consider that "in the field".

Quote

But as it is I just feel it makes little sense that Swann could or would want to slay Syrax.

Like Tyrion said, he was a Stormlander sworn to the Baratheons, who were on the side of the Greens. The Greens knew they were at a disadvantage when it came to dragons, and the "Pretender" Queen's own dragon would be a high target attack to diminish her own legitimacy.

Your stance on this is a bit like my take on the person behind the catspaw. I think it doesn't make a lick of sense for it to have been Joffrey, but since GRRM independently had both Tyrion & Jaime come to same conclusion (and made sure to include that in his script for "The Lion and the Rose" regardless of how little that POV stuff could translate on screen, in addition to saying Storm of Swords would resolve that mystery) he obviously disagrees with me. I chalk it up to him retconning Jaime's character after the first book, and I just have to deal with it. These are works of fiction rather than real life, and our own conceptions of realism can be irrelevant.

Quote

Who should have told Alicent about this? She didn't live with her father but had the apartments below his in the Tower of the Hand?

A father doesn't need to live with his daughter in the same apartment to tell her such things, particularly if they're discussing her son, the king.

Quote

We learn that King Aegon II was surrounded by the KG at all times - which is why Blood and Cheese couldn't kill him - so at least they should have been with him when he visited his grandfather - and since that actually took place after Blood and Cheese we would expect that the king's person was not just protected by the KG but had additional guardsmen about him.

Fair enough, and Eustace does mention Arryk praying at the Red Keep's sept prior to being dispatched to Dragonstone, so that is another person who could have privately disclosed something to him.

Quote

Also, I'd cast doubt on the entire scene

Another instance of you not finding Eustace to be a reliable historian, even if you claim otherwise.

Quote

I don't see Aegon II - or any king, for that matter - to actually visit his Hand in his chambers. The Hand is a servant, the king summons him and he comes, the king doesn't go to him as if he was somebody who was at the beck and call of somebody else

A king could summon his Hand and yell at him for what is perceived to be an ineffective strategy, which may or may not result in any change. But actually invading his office and disrupting the efforts you're disparaging sends a stronger signal that you're not going to put up with more of the same.

Quote

Is Queen Rhaenyra going to agree to her throne being stolen by a bunch of up-jumped pricks?

Calling them "pricks" does not change whether it's a "peace" deal or not (remember again that word is used for Aegon's offer, not Rhaenyra's proclamation). And if she prioritized the safety of her family, she might well have. Aerea Targaryen was the eldest child of Aegon the Uncrowned (and was explicitly named heir by the late king Maegor), and daughters are supposed to inherit before uncles, but Jaehaerys succeeded Maegor anyway (though there was an attempt to replace him on the throne with Aerea). Rhaenys "the Queen Who Never Was" was unhappy about being passed over in favor of her uncle to inherit Dragonstone, and for her line to be passed over again when that same uncle died, but no war resulted then.

Quote

Of course they were limited to his kin - Rhaenyra was his half-sister, her children his nephews, Daemon his uncle, Daemon's daughters his cousins, and the Velaryons were his cousins, too.

It is not Rhaenyra's fault that the Hightowers weren't her kin, is it?

The point is that Aegon's peace deal (which was actually described as a "peace" deal, unlike her proclamation) offered pardons for EVERYONE, without being limited to kin. And it IS her fault that she didn't offer pardons for everyone, thus ensuring they would fight against her.

Quote

Otto and Alicent wanted to make Aegon king - his father didn't. So he was under no obligation to mold him into a good king

Children are the responsibility of their fathers (this is called "patriarchy") in Westeros regardless of what they are to inherit. If man's firstborn son dies and his useless second-born must replace him as heir, can he shrug off responsibility by saying "I hadn't planned for THIS son to inherit!"? A mother and maternal grandfather can have influence insofar as the father himself permits it.

Quote

It is just not very clever on your part the Aegon-Otto relationship as that of king and Hand when they were also grandson and grandfather.

The point is not to be "clever", the point is whether a king's disagreement with his Hand reflects poorly on the king or the Hand. Within F&B it's said that "Otto was losing the trust of his king, who mistook his efforts for inaction, and
his caution for cowardice". Clearly "mistook" means Aegon was making a mistake.