Do you think Aegon the Unworthy poisoned his father, Viserys II?

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

It was noted that Viserys II died of a mysterious illness, that many suspect to be poison at the hands of his son. Do you think it’s true?

Given the way Aegon the Unworthy died, in agony in his own filth, it seems like a Kinslayer type death.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Absolutely he did. And he probably poisoned Baelor too.

[sifth]

In all likelihood. He Aegon IV is one of the worst kings in the series and for many reasons.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

Yes he did.

[Alester Florent]

I'm inclined to think Baelor actually did starve himself to death, because it's the kind of braindead idiocy he would think was a great idea.

The only thing that makes me doubt whether Aegon poisoned Viserys is that Aegon appears to have even so utterly incompetent in every field except getting women pregnant* that pulling off a successful poisoning almost seems beyond him.

*Did Boris Johnson take him for a role model?

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

*Did Boris Johnson take him for a role model?

Bojo did have what would be called 'a low cunning' though. I don't know if Aegon IV even had that.

[Many-Faced Votary]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Bojo did have what would be called 'a low cunning' though. I don't know if Aegon IV even had that.

Aegon IV wasn't dumb. At least there is something understandable about incompetence as a result of lacking the mental faculties to rule; he doesn't even have that. In fact, he was said to have dazzled lords with his wit as a youth, so at minimum he had a strong social intelligence. Unfortunately, he was so blatantly vile that he intentionally ruled as poorly as possible, doing the opposite of what a good king should. (It's pretty much for this reason that he legitimized his bastard children on his deathbed.)

That is why I consider him worse than Maegor I, who at least had the traits of likely being insane and of stabilizing the Targaryen dynasty by eliminating real and serious threats to the Iron Throne (not that it's an excuse, but it is actually a reason), and Aerys II, who was obviously increasingly off his rocker after the Defiance at Duskendale broke him.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

1 hour ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Aegon IV wasn't dumb. At least there is something understandable about incompetence as a result of lacking the mental faculties to rule; he doesn't even have that. In fact, he was said to have dazzled lords with his wit as a youth, so at minimum he had a strong social intelligence. Unfortunately, he was so blatantly vile that he intentionally ruled as poorly as possible, doing the opposite of what a good king should. (It's pretty much for this reason that he legitimized his bastard children on his deathbed.)

That is why I consider him worse than Maegor I, who at least had the traits of likely being insane and of stabilizing the Targaryen dynasty by eliminating real and serious threats to the Iron Throne (not that it's an excuse, but it is actually a reason), and Aerys II, who was obviously increasingly off his rocker after the Defiance at Duskendale broke him.

Maegor at least ensured the Targaryens survived as a dynasty past him.

[Alester Florent]

9 hours ago, Lord Edmure of Riverrun said:

Maegor at least ensured the Targaryens survived as a dynasty past him.

Aegon gets blamed for the Blackfyre Rebellions, which he certainly lit the fuse for, but I think this is too kind to Bittersteel and Daemon. It's not like they rebelled immediately upon Aegon's death like in the Dance, where they were claiming Daemon was the legitimate king as of right; they waited twelve years.

And as far as ensuring the Targs survived him, one could conceivably see Aegon thinking on his deathbed that there was only one Targ left (Daeron) and deciding to artificially multiply the numbers by legitimising his bastards, to help ensure the dynasty's survival.

And if he had been a bit more restrained about it, this might even have worked. He could safely have legitimised Bloodraven, for instance. The problem with Daemon seems to have been that he showered him with obvious favouritism and gave him Blackfyre - but Daemon himself (only 14 and younger than Daeron) in the absence of all that may not have been an obvious threat.

I think we need to know what was going on in those twelve years, really. Was it that Daemon and Bittersteel were essentially loyal to Daeron (notwithstanding the Bittersteel/Bloodraven rivalry) until suddenly something happened to annoy Daemon, and then malconents got in his head? Or were there a number of near-misses before the big kick-off (in which case, failure to head these off in the long run would seriously damage Daeron's reputation)? We're probably going to need BaF to give us the details.

Don't get me wrong, I think Aegon was an utterly shit king and I only excuse him the bottom spot on Targ king rankings on points.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

2 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Aegon gets blamed for the Blackfyre Rebellions, which he certainly lit the fuse for, but I think this is too kind to Bittersteel and Daemon. It's not like they rebelled immediately upon Aegon's death like in the Dance, where they were claiming Daemon was the legitimate king as of right; they waited twelve years.

And as far as ensuring the Targs survived him, one could conceivably see Aegon thinking on his deathbed that there was only one Targ left (Daeron) and deciding to artificially multiply the numbers by legitimising his bastards, to help ensure the dynasty's survival.

And if he had been a bit more restrained about it, this might even have worked. He could safely have legitimised Bloodraven, for instance. The problem with Daemon seems to have been that he showered him with obvious favouritism and gave him Blackfyre - but Daemon himself (only 14 and younger than Daeron) in the absence of all that may not have been an obvious threat.

I think we need to know what was going on in those twelve years, really. Was it that Daemon and Bittersteel were essentially loyal to Daeron (notwithstanding the Bittersteel/Bloodraven rivalry) until suddenly something happened to annoy Daemon, and then malconents got in his head? Or were there a number of near-misses before the big kick-off (in which case, failure to head these off in the long run would seriously damage Daeron's reputation)? We're probably going to need BaF to give us the details.

Don't get me wrong, I think Aegon was an utterly shit king and I only excuse him the bottom spot on Targ king rankings on points.

I said Maegor, not Aegon IV

[Alester Florent]

6 minutes ago, Lord Edmure of Riverrun said:

I said Maegor, not Aegon IV

I know. My point was that Aegon might have been trying to ensure the Targs survived as a dynasty, since he only had the one legitimate child. Admittedly, I have now actually checked the dates and Daeron had four sons of his own by the time of Aegon's death, one of them (Baelor) about the same age as Daemon, so that holds up less well than it did in my mind when I posted it.

And for all that can be said about Aegon vs Maegor, while Maegor was obviously trying to have kids of his own he did a good job of exterminating other male Targs. Had he had his way, he'd probably have killed Jaehaerys too, and that would have been the end of the dynasty.

[Lord Varys]

We have no way of assessing the likelihood of this idea, since there is literally no textual evidence in favor or against it. We don't know the nature of Viserys II's illness, nor where Aegon IV was at the time his father got sick and died, nor whether they were getting along at the time or not. All that would allow us to better judge whether Aegon had both motive and opportunity.

If Aegon did the deed I think he would have needed considerable motivation and, considering the fact that he was pretty smart, he would likely have acted through another person, possibly a woman.

My personal scenario for an Aegon actually arranging his father's murder is Viserys II intending to name Daeron II his Heir Apparent rather than Aegon IV, passing over his son. Viserys II was supposed to be a very smart man, so him actually allowing his wastrel son to succeed him when he already had an adult grandson with better qualities who already had (at least one) son(s) of his own feels like him being only half as smart as he should have been.

The scenario could have been Viserys II postponing naming a new Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone because, say, Daeron and Myriah were on a progress/extended visit in Dorne (presenting young Baelor to his Dornish kin, say) and Viserys II intended to wait until Daeron returned to court. So Aegon gets annoyed, suspects something is going on, and eventually figures out what his father intends to do (perhaps by way of the hold he has over some female courtiers he seduced earlier).

Then he arranges his father's death.

23 hours ago, Lord Edmure of Riverrun said:

Maegor at least ensured the Targaryens survived as a dynasty past him.

Maegor tried to destroy the Targaryen dynasty, not ensure its survival. He killed two of Aenys' sons and intended to kill the third.

[James Steller]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no way of assessing the likelihood of this idea, since there is literally no textual evidence in favor or against it. We don't know the nature of Viserys II's illness, nor where Aegon IV was at the time his father got sick and died, nor whether they were getting along at the time or not. All that would allow us to better judge whether Aegon had both motive and opportunity.

If Aegon did the deed I think he would have needed considerable motivation and, considering the fact that he was pretty smart, he would likely have acted through another person, possibly a woman.

My personal scenario for an Aegon actually arranging his father's murder is Viserys II intending to name Daeron II his Heir Apparent rather than Aegon IV, passing over his son. Viserys II was supposed to be a very smart man, so him actually allowing his wastrel son to succeed him when he already had an adult grandson with much better qualities who already had (at least one) son(s) of his own feels like him being only half as smart as he should have been.

The scenario could have been Viserys II postponing naming a new Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone because, say, Daeron and Myriah were on a progress/extended visit in Dorne (presenting young Baelor to his Dornish kin, say) and Viserys II intended to wait until Daeron returned to court. So Aegon gets annoyed, suspects something is going on, and eventually figures out what his father intends to do (perhaps by way of the hold he has over some female courtiers he seduced earlier).

Then he arranges his father's death.

 

This. 

I always thought it strange that Viserys II would not realise just what a terrible successor his eldest son is, but maybe he did know and tried to prevent him from ruling? It would make Aegon IV's own battles with his son far more poetic in hindsight. Aegon IV, struggling for what he felt was rightfully his, cursed with a son whom he also despised but couldn't disinherit for fear of tearing the realm apart. Only when he was at the brink of death was he able to stick the knife in his son's back, cursing everyone with chaos and misery in a last spiteful act.