Varys Targaryen?

[alguien]

A single look under my name should have told you that much unless you have no clue where Denmark is.

Then everything makes a little more sense. In point of fact, out side the legal realm, the term "conclusive evidence" is commonly used to mean proof.

Link. proof [ proof ] noun (plural proofs) Definition: 1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something

Evidence that is contradicted was never evidence in the first place, so the phrase has no real meaning outside the legal term.

YOU. ARE. MAKING. THE. BOLDED. PART. UP. I simply cannot simplify it further than that. Nowhere is this prerequisite part of the definitions I've found. It is a construct in your own mind. Like I said, by all means, continue to use the word incorrectly. Evidence is merely something that helps one make a conclusion. Nowhere does it say that in its usage it has to prove the conclusion, that it has to be true, or any of the other qualifiers you've been giving it. Take a moment to ponder the fact that several native English speakers in this thread have been completely baffled and disagreed with how you're using the word and reflect that perhaps you are using it incorrectly.

Now, back to topic at hand. (finally--apologies for extreme threadjack)

While there is no conclusive proof for Varys to be a Targaryen (or not) there is evidence on both sides. I was thinking more about this last night as I was doing ASOS re-read.

Probably one of the stronger argument against Varys having Targaryen blood is simply that no one has mentioned it. You'd think that if he was some sort of castrated Targaryen that this fact would be hard to hide. Therefore its more likely, if he had the bloodline, that it was from the wrong side of the sheets. Which begs to question, why his parts were used for a magic spell?

Lots of people have King's blood. Even Stannis. It seems that the power of King's blood is fueled by belief that there is power, much how Mance Rayder's blood might have had power or his son's. Therefore, unless the sorcerer knew of Varys's theoretical Targaryen ancestry, or Varys did, or there were people who believed that the descendants of Bittersteel, Bloodraven, or Blackfyre had king's blood, his body was just used because the guy needed boy's genitalia--else anyone with a drop o' dragon blood would be the equivalent of a magical potions steroid.

So, evidence in favor of Varys Targaryen--his body was used in a magic spell--and there is power in a king's blood.

But evidence against, how much power does king's blood actually have? How much does it have after being distilled? Is it merely fueled by belief?

[Szar]

YOU. ARE. MAKING. THE. BOLDED. PART. UP. I simply cannot simplify it further than that. Nowhere is this prerequisite part of the definitions I've found. It is a construct in your own mind. Like I said, by all means, continue to use the word incorrectly. Evidence is merely something that helps one make a conclusion. Nowhere does it say that in its usage it has to prove the conclusion, that it has to be true, or any of the other qualifiers you've been giving it. Take a moment to ponder the fact that several native English speakers in this thread have been completely baffled and disagreed with how you're using the word and reflect that perhaps you are using it incorrectly.

........

Oookay.

You go on believing that. I'm done. Arguing further would simply be a shouting match, since you seem firmly entrenched in this belief, despite the staggering degree with which you're wrong.

[alguien]

Oookay.

You go on believing that. I'm done. Arguing further would simply be a shouting match, since you seem firmly entrenched in this belief, despite the staggering degree with which you're wrong.

You mean, despite the overwhelming evidence and unanimous opinion on this thread that your definition is wrong and the fact that English isn't your first language? Fine with me.

[Szar]

Sigh. I guess I just can't leave it.

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

(emphasis mine)

But that is my final contribution to this argument; I'm not going to respond further.

[Weak With The Dawn]

You mean, despite the overwhelming evidence and unanimous opinion on this thread that your definition is wrong and the fact that English isn't your first language? Fine with me.

As somone who works in a Law Firm, I need to step in here

Conclusive Evidence

and

Evidence are two different terms. Regardless of anything else Szar has said, the fact that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is its own legal term and is only used as a legal term is 100% right. Conclusive Evidence has become colloquialism by too many people who watch Law & order.

Evidence that is contradicted was never evidence in the first place, so the phrase has no real meaning outside the legal term.

As far as the legal term is concerned this is true and has not been made up what so ever. Also as he has clearly defined in the post above me, your own definitions of Evidence have given Proof as an synonymous word, meaning that when he stated "evidence and proof are close enough terms for the purpose of his discussion" all you did was prove him right.

Can we please stop derailing and talk about Varys again!?

I hear he likes to wear purple.

So, evidence in favor of Varys Targaryen--his body was used in a magic spell--and there is power in a king's blood.

If you look at the list of arguments for and againt I posted a couple days ago, an argument against this is that Targs have Valyrian blood, and so do the Lysene. Valyrian were the old kings, so if kings blood = Valyrian, then any Lysene would do, thus Varys does not have to be a Targ. So even that one can sway both directions.

Is it merely fueled by belief?

This is a good question, because Mel, who promotes the use of Kings Blood, seems to believe that belief is well enough. Even less so, the title itself, legitimate or not, is enough for Mel to use your blood.

If I were to plop you into ASOIAF and tell Mel that you were the Queen of England, even though England does not exist. I believe that she would be after your blood, for the off chance that the Prophecy is speaking symbolically instead of directly, you would need to use the blood of royalty, and those who merely posses the title, in jest, in err, or otherwise.

[alguien]

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

emphasis mine. Just say proof from now on to avoid mistakes in common usage. Thanks. Back to the regularly scheduled program.

I hear he likes to wear purple.

Maybe it brings out his eyes. :wideeyed:

If you look at the list of arguments for and againt I posted a couple days ago, an argument against this is that Targs have Valyrian blood, and so do the Lysene. Valyrian were the old kings, so if kings blood = Valyrian, then any Lysene would do, thus Varys does not have to be a Targ. So even that one can sway both directions.

Agreed. Also the fact even if he was a descendant, how much was his blood diluted so that it would make a difference?

This is a good question, because Mel, who promotes the use of Kings Blood, seems to believe that belief is well enough. Even less so, the title itself, legitimate or not, is enough for Mel to use your blood.

If I were to plop you into ASOIAF and tell Mel that you were the Queen of England, even though England does not exist. I believe that she would be after your blood, for the off chance that the Prophecy is speaking symbolically instead of directly, you would need to use the blood of royalty, and those who merely posses the title, in jest, in err, or otherwise.

There is a tendency in fantasy (Gaiman, Pratchett, Jim Butcher spring to mind) that magic is in part fueled by the strength of belief in its practicioner, though other outside factors, (ie: dragons in ASOIAF, Jonathan Strange's spell in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell) may make magic more effective. So Melisandre may have been powered by her belief and even more augmented by the presence of dragons.

The sorcerer who cut Varys may simply have had a spell that called for a boy's genitalia. Or OTOH his belief in the power of Varys's (distilled) Valyrian or Targaryen blood may have augmented the spell. But perhaps that occured unknowingly. So I agree that its evidence that cuts both ways.

On another topic, even more curious,if Varys wanted stability for the realm, why is he helping the Targaryen's? They're not the most stable of rulers, even their own king effectively said they have a 50% of going mad. Why help them, unless he (possibly) has another loyalty to them that goes beyond stability of the realm.

[AvengingAryaFan]

unintentional post

[AvengingAryaFan]

As somone who works in a Law Firm, I need to step in here

Conclusive Evidence

and

Evidence are two different terms. Regardless of anything else Szar has said, the fact that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is its own legal term and is only used as a legal term is 100% right. Conclusive Evidence has become colloquialism by too many people who watch Law & order.

As far as the legal term is concerned this is true and has not been made up what so ever. Also as he has clearly defined in the post above me, your own definitions of Evidence have given Proof as an synonymous word, meaning that when he stated "evidence and proof are close enough terms for the purpose of his discussion" all you did was prove him right.

Can we please stop derailing and talk about Varys again!?

No Moose, you don't need to step in here. Silent Speaker gave a good, succinct summary of the issue. Your remarks are substantially mistaken, except the portion that I underlined. Ask an attorney you respect whether "proof" is properly a synonym of "evidence." Time permitting, he/she will patiently explain that it is not. Your assertion that "conclusive evidence" "... is only used as a legal term is 100% right" is 100% wrong. Google "conclusive evidence" and you will immediately see that the term is widely used outside of law.

The meaning of "evidence" is critical to the arguments about the Varys = Targaryen theory, as well as to almost every discussion of theories on this board, because the term is constantly bandied about. The fact that people understand the word very differently ensures that there will be substantially more heat and less light generated by the discussions.

The definition that was forcefully driven home when I attended UCLA law school (J.D. 1996) was: Evidence is any fact tending to prove or disprove a contention. But you needn't rely on my credentials; I set forth some dictionary definitions earlier in the thread, and Nadie provided more.

Those who misunderstand the word "evidence" generally believe that it is synonymous with "proof". Given that many disagree about "evidence" but agree on the meaning of the word "proof", why don't those people just say "proof" or "conclusive evidence" and avoid the disputed term "evidence" altogether? Why do they insist on using a word whose meaning is disputed, when they could instead use the uncontroversial word "proof" that they believe means the same thing?

By the way, what do those people call "a fact having any tendency to support a contention"? Do they need to write out the entire phrase? Strange that they would believe English lacks a word for such an important concept.

[Weak With The Dawn]

On another topic, even more curious,if Varys wanted stability for the realm, why is he helping the Targaryen's? They're not the most stable of rulers, even their own king effectively said they have a 50% of going mad. Why help them, unless he (possibly) has another loyalty to them that goes beyond stability of the realm.

Look at the current state of Westeros when Varys sent Barristan over. The Battle of Blackwater Bay had just been fought, so Stannis was defeated, sure, but the realm itself was still in turmoil and King's Landing is chaotic, every noble lord backstabbing the others for a right to the crown. If the rightful heir to the throne returned, especially during such trying times, it's likely the realm would unite beneath her banner. Also, to note, not all King's "Going Mad" led to horrible ends. Baelor the Blessed was definitely crazy to some degree. The Targs may not have always been the kindest rulers, but they still hold the strongest right to the throne.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...

On another topic, even more curious,if Varys wanted stability for the realm, why is he helping the Targaryen's? They're not the most stable of rulers, even their own king effectively said they have a 50% of going mad. Why help them, unless he (possibly) has another loyalty to them that goes beyond stability of the realm.

Hmm. While I agree with your basic premise that support for the Targaryens is a very uncertain way to support "the realm," I'd also point out that while Varys may be supporting "the realm," he isn't necessarily supporting the stability of the realm. His objection to the war wasn't general, it was temporal: it's too early. And his tolerance of Tyrion confronting and possibly killing Tywin is hardly supportive of stability.

Of course, in those instances he seems to be in favor of instability in the realm for the purposes of aiding the Targaryens. Which brings us back to your basic contention that his actions seem to suggest a deep prejudice in favor of Targaryen rule of Westeros.

[alguien]

Look at the current state of Westeros when Varys sent Barristan over. The Battle of Blackwater Bay had just been fought, so Stannis was defeated, sure, but the realm itself was still in turmoil and King's Landing is chaotic, every noble lord backstabbing the others for a right to the crown. If the rightful heir to the throne returned, especially during such trying times, it's likely the realm would unite beneath her banner. Also, to note, not all King's "Going Mad" led to horrible ends. Baelor the Blessed was definitely crazy to some degree. The Targs may not have always been the kindest rulers, but they still hold the strongest right to the throne.

I think Varys sent Barristan before Blackwater Bay to be honest. Didn't he basically send him right after he'd been dismissed?

In any event, even before that Varys was working to keep Dany alive by warning Jorah, who admitted Varys just wanted to girl watched. If we wanted to keep a stable realm, as Pycelle pointed out and Varys agreed with--at least to the face of the council--then Daenarys had to die.

OTOH, perhaps he just wanted to keep her alive to keep his options open. Death is so terribly final as a certain dwarf was known to say, while life is full of possibilities.

[the silent speaker]

Jorah, who admitted Varys just wanted to girl watched

Admitted to who? If to Daenerys when he was trying to tell her to keep him around, that's not an 'admission'; it's an attempt to temper a previous admission to make himself look better, and is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

[alguien]

Admitted to who? If to Daenerys when he was trying to tell her to keep him around, that's not an 'admission'; it's an attempt to temper a previous admission to make himself look better, and is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

I'm all for healthy cynicism and suspicion, but I don't this is the case here. We know Varys warned Jorah because he had read the letters before stopping the wine-seller from poisoning her.

[Weak With The Dawn]

I think Varys sent Barristan before Blackwater Bay to be honest. Didn't he basically send him right after he'd been dismissed?

In any event, even before that Varys was working to keep Dany alive by warning Jorah, who admitted Varys just wanted to girl watched. If we wanted to keep a stable realm, as Pycelle pointed out and Varys agreed with--at least to the face of the council--then Daenarys had to die.

OTOH, perhaps he just wanted to keep her alive to keep his options open. Death is so terribly final as a certain dwarf was known to say, while life is full of possibilities.

You're right, he was sent before the Blackwater, which means the realm had 4 kings and lots of blood.

Also, I'm not convinced Varys wouldn't put Danys head on a spike it it was for the good of the realm.

[alguien]

You're right, he was sent before the Blackwater, which means the realm had 4 kings and lots of blood.

Actually, he sent him before there was even more than one king. Rob hadn't declared himself yet, Stannis had done nothing, it was pre-Renly declaration (though right around the same time) and before Balon.

So, while the realm was warring, the five kings thing hadn't come about yet.

Also, I'm not convinced Varys wouldn't put Danys head on a spike it it was for the good of the realm.

Neither am I. He might have had loyalty to Targaryens, but if he hates magic, then there is definitely a reason to kill Dany.

[Lord Varys]

It's true that Varys had said that he hates magic; but the point would be more accurate, if you said, Varys hates people who are practising magic. There is no indication that he is trying to build a non-magical world, as the Citadel might do.

And since her meetings with Mirri Maz Duur and Pyat Pree, Daenerys Targaryen herself pretty much hates the sorcerer kind of people. So they should have enough in common.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that Varys is trying to bring Dany down, if he believes she brought magic back by waking the dragons. But as he was supporting the Targaryen for quite some time, he should have known about the prophecies surrounding them.

And his desire to crush Stannis might have to do with his own prophecy related beliefs. When Stannis killed Renly and Penrose, Varys could have already heard about Dany waking the dragons; and thus have known that Stannis's sorceress has made the wrong choice. To support the real Azor Ahai you should do everything in your power to crush the frauds.

[Jaime Hill/Waters]

On another topic, even more curious,if Varys wanted stability for the realm, why is he helping the Targaryen's? They're not the most stable of rulers, even their own king effectively said they have a 50% of going mad. Why help them, unless he (possibly) has another loyalty to them that goes beyond stability of the realm.

I don't see that Varys helping only Targaryens. He try find and help all off kings desendants. Ingludin: Genry, and other Roberts basterds, Viserys and Daenerys. And why he do that? Meybe because he is familiar with prophesy where is Prinse who has promised? Myebe he don't know who this Prinse/Prinsess is but try help and find all bossibilities. And he try help Eddard and Tyrion. But why? Meybe because they are good for kingdom. He try send Eddard to Wall. Why? Meybe because he know that there is The Major Danger: Others. He try send Tyrion to Dany. Why? Meybe because he now thinks (after dragons born) that Dany is Prinse Who Have Promised, and Tyrion can help him save the Westeros?

[Satoris T Born]

I don't see that Varys helping only Targaryens. He try find and help all off kings desendants. Ingludin: Genry, and other Roberts basterds, Viserys and Daenerys. And why he do that? Meybe because he is familiar with prophesy where is Prinse who has promised? Myebe he don't know who this Prinse/Prinsess is but try help and find all bossibilities. And he try help Eddard and Tyrion. But why? Meybe because they are good for kingdom. He try send Eddard to Wall. Why? Meybe because he know that there is The Major Danger: Others. He try send Tyrion to Dany. Why? Meybe because he now thinks (after dragons born) that Dany is Prinse Who Have Promised, and Tyrion can help him save the Westeros?

Well, he wasn't really helping the king's descendants. He wasn't hurting them, though. Varys knew that killing Ned would start a war, and as someone pointed out before, he didn't want the sh*t storm happening before the Targ kids were ready to invade. A long way off...and he probably had Dorne in on it somehow. Maybe some other quiet lords who were staunch loyalists.

I don't think Varys knew anything about Others or things like that. In the least, if he turns out to not be Targ, he is looking to maintain the best king for the realm. As such, while not liking war, he is the type to realize you can't make a GOOD omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Varys looks out for the realm. But that doesn't mean he will allow anyone to rule so long as it's peaceful- he wants peace, prosperity, and the right people in the right roles. As such, some folks can stay here, those folks can stay there, and this guy has to go, and so does this guy. Varys isn't anybody's dummy. He could have offed Robert at anytime. But he was biding his time to get the true rulers back in power, and why rock the boat while trying to get exiled underage heirs to the throne back into Westeros, all the while trying to raise support secretly and risking your neck?

And more, why not unless you had either major incentive to be such a Targ loyalist...

What would be the more realistic role of the guy wanting to do that?? Some council advisor, who likes to be secretive and gossipy risking everything for a small chance at reinstating the children of a bygone house with hopes that they will be welcomed for some type of reward even though you are already a major component to the current administration.....or a secret Targaryen wanting to see your family back in the game?

[Jaime Hill/Waters]

Satoris T Born

Hhmm. Meybe you need more that you can undestand what I mean. http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=35202

Why Varys want Targaryen back to rule, if he is som Targ bastard? What he then get to herself. He was in Small Counsil, what els you can wish? To be Hand? Why? He cant seed sons so he not need land or lordship. And he say that he want best for the kindom, and he say that its too early to wolf and lion war when he talk to Illyrio. But he think that war need to come. Is war best for kindom? Only if kindom is more redy then to face Others. And how that be. Because Prinse who has promised lead them to war.

[Jaime Hill/Waters]

And one more thing. GRRM dont want that you see what is Varys motivate. But if you look very deep you can find the truth on Varys. Grrm always hint big things. Remember Red Wedding or Jon's parentage dilem?