#anti Aegon IV Targaryen

[the-daily-dreamer]

The targaryen ruled 130 years without dragons. And the most capable kings were all targaryen. After them it was a decline for the throne. Robert, joffrey, tommen, cercei were all sith ruler .

I see targ stans are investing in high quality air to fill their heads lol

But anyways. “The most capable kings were all targaryens”. You know who else were targaryens? The worst rulers of Westeros. Robert, Cersei, Joffrey, and Tommen aren’t even close to the worst kings and queen to rule. And bringing them up as evidence to show that the targaryens are good is so disingenuous.

Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy, The Mad King Aerys, Rhaenyra (yes, I know that’s controversial), and Daenerys (yes, I know that’s even more controversial) are all far FAR worse than anyone you mentioned.

Maegor killed his wife and her entire family. He was a usurper (apparently it’s good when the targs you like do it lol), a kinslayer (also a thing only good when it’s targs you like doing it), raped and tortured many people, wiped out entire houses, killed any and everyone that he saw in any way as deserving, and created a huge war with the faith of the seven.

Aegon the unworthy was corrupt and lazy and legitimized his bastards leading to the blackfyre rebellions that led to endless bloodshed for 5 generations.

Aerys was so bad he had a rebellion staged against him that ended his family dynasty. He burned fathers and sons together. He tortured people and burned them alive. He abused and raped his wife when he would burn people alive. He wanted to kill the entire city of kings landing.

Rhaenyra (who like it or not went down in history as one of the worst rulers) known as maegor with teats taxed her people to starvation. She had daily executions. She had knights inquisitors hunt down and punish people.

Daenerys burnt down kings landing, was complicit in the rape and enslavement of hundreds, ruined city economies so badly slavery was a better option, then profited from said slavery, abandoned the people she conquered (no doubt ensuring they will be enslaved much more harshly after supporting her), raped a “free” slave that she admits still acted like a slave because that’s all she knew, oh yeah and again, SHE BURNT DOWN KINGS LANDING. And this is after the people you listed.

And this isn’t including non Targaryen rulers that ruined lives like the blackfyres. Or rulers that are bad but weirdly beloved like Aegon I who basically conquered people by threatening to kill them and everyone they loved, subjugating a country for hundreds of years.

The best rulers I admit were Targaryens. But that’s because they were the only rulers save for 4 people. Of those four, two were bad and two were incompetent. Not nearly the sadistic “mad” people I described above. And funnily enough, as soon as a Targaryen came back to power…things got worse again. Funny how that is.

Oh and by the way. Going with the histories of Westeros. Guess who is among the best rulers according to small folk Aegon II and Alicent. Seethe :)

[pookiebearsnookumsalicent]

I want to stay optimistic, but I don't have much faith that the HOTD writers will go through with any of the messages in the Dance aside from misogyny. Obviously, misogyny plays a big role in the Dance because it is the means to and end for the Greens, but the way the show focuses on this to favor Rhaenyra's claim and rule and this sort of diminishes the complexity of the story. By making it so that one side rightful, righteous, chosen by some divine powers, etc., etc. and one side that is perverse and corrupted and only there for greed, it takes away from one of the most important lessons in the Dance: Targaryens are not a divine superior race that should be exempt from the rage of common men that suffer at the cost of them.

(Also, ik ambition was a major motivator for the Greens in the books, but the books didn't try to frame Rhaenyra's right to the throne as God-given)

You might have already guessed, but the part of the dance I anticipated the most was Targaryens who perceive themselves to be divine and superior take the realm to shit fighting over a throne that neither of them actually deserve. They fight at the cost of everything and lose everything for a throne that neither of them keep for long because they are both inadequate rulers that rely heavily on their respective councils. When they make decisions on their own, their nearly equal incompetence shows because Aegon's choices are emotional and stupid and Rhaenyra's are paranoid and stupid. These are the people that cause the death of the dragons.

It feels like the show is trying to appeal to those stans that bend over backwards to defend their fave tyrants and believe the throne is a rightful possession of the Targaryens.

[atopvisenyashill]

If Jaehaerys was all about minimizing the power of Targaryen daughters but marrying them off to less-than-ideal suitors (love that idea), how do you think that applies to the match of Rhaenys and Corlys? Does it, even? Or does it need to, given expected Rhaenys's station at the time? He says she couldn't have picked a better man.

And, also, do you think this can be applied to Daemon's match with Rhea?

LETS DIG INNNN okay this got so longgggg but i was trying to be fair while also discussing like, so much sex crime-

So like the post said re: Alyssa & Baelon’s marriage, I think there's some interference from Alysanne here. Especially early on in their marriage, before she's made it clear that she can in fact live without his ass, I think we have several cases where he's ~indulging~ Alysanne's more romantic ideas about what ruling should look like and what being a targaryen should be about. Giving her wins that ultimately don’t cost him much (before she starts asking for things he doesn’t approve of).

I think by the time Rhaenys marries Corlys, Jaehaerys has already written her off as a potential heir, but if he denies her marriage to Corlys, that risks not only pissing off Corlys - who imo already has A Whole Thing about being Just As Valyrian As The Targaryens, so he will take offense - but also tips Alysanne off to the fact that he has no intention of letting the crown pass to Rhaenys or her sons. He knows this is a sore spot for her because she insisted that little Daenerys be considered crown princess and heir over Aemon, and Jaehaerys already brushed her off about that. So if he tries to marry Rhaenys off to like, a Tully who already has three heirs or some random Darry, Alysanne is going to argue that Rhaenys deserves a much loftier match given her status, and get really paranoid about why Rhaenys is getting a shitty match. I think he's trying to put off naming Baelon as his/Aemon’s heir for as long as possible because he knows it's going to be a fight, especially given that Alysanne is usually the one in charge of marriages, and this has precedent (that marriages are the Queen's domain - Visenya and Rhaenys made marriage matches as well).

But also. I think (and I can't believe I'm gonna do my man Ned dirty like this) that like Ned (bleh), Jaehaerys learns the "wrong lesson" from his sister. Rhaena married extremely beneath her and that caused major problems for her, so Jaehaerys is making sure that Rhaenys doesn't marry far beneath her as well. Because see, Rhaena spends much of her life miserable, without a direction in life, without even a castle to her name that she can hide out in. Everything that is hers is actually Jaehaerys' and it eats away at her until the day she dies. Beyond that, keeping Rhaena on as a guest is expensive because people want to see her, because she comes with her own household, and because she has a whole ass dragon that needs to be fed. So even if she wanted to live off the goodwill of others, that goodwill runs out quick due to logistics. She only gets Harrenhal because Maegor Towers is sickly and the last of his line, and even then, it's not really hers - it belongs to the crown.

I think Jaehaerys looked at how unhappy she was and what a huge pain in the ass it was, and figures he needs to give Rhaenys a consolation prize in a way he doesn’t need to give to the younger daughters, bc they never had a chance to inherit. Rhaenys has assumed the crown will pass if not to her then to her son, as has Alysanne, and I think its likely Aemon and Jocelyn also assumed that the crown would pass to Rhaenys' eventual son. Jaehaerys can’t just deny her all the trappings of being crown princess/mother to a king and expect her to take it lying down. And to be clear, I do think there’s some emotional aspect to this - I think he did feel guilty over stealing Rhaena’s crown and throne even if he felt he was doing it ~for the good of the realm bc Aegon had died. When Rhaena makes her “you are rhaenys i am visenya i have always known this” comment, she nails the dynamic, but I think Rhaena being the ~rejected bride~ does hurt Jaehaerys - she deserved, in his eyes, to grow old with their brother and have the power of a queen consort. BUT. At the same time, he’s a raging violent misogynist who believes Alysanne is the only exception to her gender, that it is simply right and natural that a woman only derives power from her husband. It’s why Baelon gets to claim Balerion when he’s young, but Alyssa is barred until her wedding. A dragon is a responsibility, a realm is a burden, and in his eyes Alyssa Velaryon, Rhaena, and Visenya all failed to live up to the challenge. So yes, he wants something good for Rhaenys - he wants her to have a happier life than Rhaena did, and he’s willing to gamble just like he did with the Baelon/Alyssa marriage, and indulge Rhaenys and Alysanne in giving her a dragon and a husband who could back her claim because she needs something to keep her calm when he inevitably usurps her, in contrast to the way Rhaena had absolutely nothing to distract her from her misery. And his gamble pays off is the thing - he neutralizes her dragon and her husband bc Corlys is off fighting still when the announcement is made, and Rhaenys is heavily pregnant and probably not really riding Meleys. He figured - bc of his love for Alyssa, Alysanne, and Rhaenys, however goddamn deranged and ultimately meaningless that love is - that he could move the pieces enough to get the outcome he thought was best and he was right!

For Daemon's part, I do think this is part of why Alysanne ships him off to the Vale yes. Notable to me that every marriage match does have a seat of their own, even if it's not an important one, unlike second son Androw Farman - Daella would have gotten the Eyrie, Viserra would have gotten White Harbor, and while none of Saera's matches were lofty they were all heirs with nice enough seats. But Daemon would run into a similar problem where it would be too expensive to keep him around if he marries some random noble lady living with her dad, but if he marries too high up that’s just as bad, so giving him an heiress and then kicking him the fuck out is a good way to deal with him.

BUT. I actually do have a conspiracy theory here that something happened at KL that caused a huge stir within the family and Alysanne dealt with it by shipping Daemon off. What happened? Well...obviously I think Viserys and Daemon got caught fucking lmao, I call myself a Visaemon truther for a reason. I do also think there's a chance that Alysanne suspected Daemon was fucking around with Gael as well - they're only a year apart, they grew up in King’s Landing together, Gael & Alysanne have been back at court a few years, Targaryens love to do that stuff, etc. I’m not saying he IS the father, the timeline is close enough that they could have fucked around but not close enough to have gotten her pregnant - he marries Rhea in 97 and Gael disappears from court in 99. But my other conspiracy about Jaehaerys being the father does kinda fit this too - that Alysanne noticed something was up but suspected the wrong man. I don't think Alysanne would ever want to even entertain the thought that Jaehaerys was raping one of her daughters, even if she realized what he had done to Alysanne herself was rape. Much easier to blame it on/suspect eternal Problem Child Daemon, especially if he's also being groomed by fucking Viserys; he's already an oversexed lecher who seduced gentle, married Viserys away from sweet Aemma, what else isn't he capable of? (and the double tap there of like, hypersexualization of bisexuality + Alysanne’s complete refusal to deal with how unhappy she is with Jaehaerys equals, to me, her constantly punishing her children and grandchildren because she can’t punish Jaehaerys, and proving this point to herself that she couldn’t have been manipulated into marrying him because look, her daughters are marrying the same way as well. And if she suspects even subconsciously that Jaehaerys is raping Gael? And punishes Daemon for ~seducing~ her poor sweet innocent Gael and stealing away Viserys from his sweet innocent wife Aemma? yeah that tracks with how she treats Saera and Viserra).

um tldr i think jaehaerys simply gambled that he could still control the situation when it came to defanging rhaenys, but also knew he couldn’t just give her nothing, if not for sentiment sake, then at least for logistics sake and to avoid a small rebellion, so when rhaenys & alysanne float the match, he can’t say no to it, so he just controls it. and i do think alysanne sent daemon off to the vale in part to defang him as well, yes, in addition to my not insane i’m right conspiracies about exactly what was cookin in king’s landing circa 97-99 ac (it was a lot of sex crimes, that’s what was cookin).

[drakaripykiros130ac]

So few people realize that this Dance and the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne, kind of puts a dent in the idea of an absolute monarchy.

Think about it for a moment. What is an absolute monarchy? It is a system of government where you have one ruler who has complete authority over state and government.

In simpler terms: the monarch can do whatever he wants (while also in accordance to written laws).

Since there was no succession law at the time, King Viserys could choose whoever he wanted as his heir. And he chose his eldest child, Rhaenyra. The King’s word is law in an absolute monarchy, so to deny Rhaenyra her right to sit the throne goes against the imposed system, just because certain lords don’t like it or are too ambitious for their own good.

Take Aegon IV for example. He legitimized all of his bastards before he died. It was a cruel and shitty move, yes. But it was perfectly legal. The monarch has the power to legitimize bastards, and that’s exactly what he did. Once again, people didn’t like it and continued to refer to Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar etc. as bastards.

So, I don’t even get why Westeros continues to “function” under an absolute monarchy, when no one actually obeys the system.

There will always be sneaky and overly ambitious lords who plot at every turn *cough* Hightowers *cough*, but if people bothered to obey the system, these upstarts wouldn’t stand a chance.

[thesunfyre4446]

Everyone talks too much about how Rhaenyra's bloodline that survive and stayed with the throne, but little the peaple talk about how much shit her line did, they did had some good kings(I think?) But some of them were the worst. Her own grandson, Aegon IV that legitimized all of his bastards and because of this 5 Blackfyre rebellions happened.

And while I was writting this, I noticed tyhat Rhaenyra had 4 granddaughters and 2 of them are just like her, having bastards, one with the cousin who was married with his own sister (her cousin), who didn’t like the marriage and suffered because of him and she was like:"you already have a terrible marriage, I'll just make it worse and I won’t care about you at all" (Naerys deserved a lot better, Daena was a little shit doing this with her) and the other with her own aunt husband (I really wanted to know Baela's reaction of this)

haha lol yeah some of her descendances were def evil & insane & ruined westeros

mm well naerys seems to just want aegon to leave her alone so i don't think she was very uspet about her husband having an affair, and aegon prob took advantage of daena's imprisonment (i've been planning to write an aegon-naerys-aemon analysis) and i actually really like elaena! she's really cool! alyn velaryon is actually the worst and i hate him so much. baela's story is so tragic - she was doomed to live her grandmother's wife - being the "queen who never was", married to an ambitious man who cheated on her, lady of driftmark...

i think that the most important thing about rhaenyra's bloodline is viserys ii inheriting the throne over daena. rhaenyra's own son cementing the "son before daughters & uncle before daughters" precedence is very ironic and symbolic. her descendants had absolutely no interest in honoring her legacy & the reason their family died. they didn't care. they literally have another civil war 2 generations later.

[queen-helaena109]

The line

"24/7 Baby Machine So He Can Live Out His Picket Fence Dream"

is Aemma, Alysanne, Alicent and Naerys to the core.

[every-dayiwakeup]

Canon: *provides plenty of reasons to explain a character's behavior*

Antis:

[horizon-verizon]

What do you think of people who believe in the inherent madness of the Targaryens? (my opinion: this is bullshit, and I'm sick of seeing so many people supporting this shit)

Long story short (because I'm feeling a bit sleepy, we'll see how long that lasts), I think that the "madness" Targs supposedly have is more their boldness and willingness to go around expected boundaries or capabilities before and during Rhaneyra's generation. That the Westerosi and others around them didn't think it wise or possible to accomplish (Daeron I was not mad, he was more brash and arrogant. *EDIT* And young with both a lot of power and dreams of conquest like Aegon I *END OF EDIT*)

After her? Growing desperation, something like nostalgia but really a thing deeper and sharper, more poignant than even that. Aerys II and Aerion Brightflame were the only two I can immediately remember as having been actually insane, while people like Viserys (Dany's brother), Aegon IV, and Baelor were living in a world around their own egos. Even Aerion is a grey-black place.

Yes, saintly Baelor was narcissistic. I mean, the maidenvault? Zealous narcissism *EDIT* exacerbated by the suffering at the hands of the Wyls: being poisoned and unconscious on the trip back to the Keep.*END OF EDIT*

But out of all the Targs, there weren't many who were crazy or self-involved and very few who needed a straightjacket.

[long-claw]

feel so bad for egg because can you imagine unlearning the targaryen mess that is "sibling incest is cool 😎", only for two of your kids to be the first ones to shag and get married (IN SECRET) since your great grandfather the unworthy died

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Thinking of the most prominent succession struggles in asoiaf and realizing that a good majority of them are not even because of some evil bastard usurping their trueborn relative. Alys Karstark’s dilemma is caused by her uncle wanting to forcibly marry her and steal her birthright. Renly is Stannis’ trueborn brother and yet he declares himself king despite Stannis being older. Euron is Balon’s trueborn brother and Asha’s uncle and yet look at what he did. Littlefinger wants to use a trueborn Harry Harding to take over Sweetrobin’s rights (though not so openly). And the Dance of the Dragons was between a trueborn pair of brother and sister. And if we are to see a repeat of it, it will be between a trueborn daughter of the last Targaryen king (Dany) and a trueborn son (Aegon) of the previous crown prince.

That’s what makes the whole “Jon was a threat to Catelyn’s children” argument so frustrating because people act as if Jon was a ticking time bomb that was going to blow at any minute, purely on account of him being a bastard. When historically, we’re given much more precedent for trueborn relatives to usurp each other.

This frustrating argument arises out of two problems:

ASOIAF stans are not engaging as critically with the text as they should be. Catelyn’s historical evidence lies in the series of Blackfyre Rebellions which happened after a legitimized bastard rose up against his brother. But context is key here. Not only were there several factors that led to this fallout (e.g., Daemon being given the conqueror’s sword Blackfyre, anti-Dornish sentiment not working in Daeron’s favor, Daeron himself being a suspected bastard, Daemon’s overall popularity, etc), but people ignore Bloodraven (a BASTARD!) who supported his trueborn brother’s claim during this series of conflicts. Daemon did not rebel because all bastards are inclined to treachery and all bastards bring evil to those around them. If any bastards raised near trueborns are a threat to the trueborn’s inheritance, then why not Bittersteel? Why not Shiera? Why didn’t other Stark bastards rebel against their trueborn siblings? Several factors led to the conflict specifically between Daemon and Daeron. Instead of taking Catelyn’s filtered history at face value, we should instead recognize that Daemon was given legal basis to push for his claim (after a series of events that symbolically recognized him as the worthy and true heir) as he was now a legitimized son, and succession struggles are, more oft than not, likely to happen between recognized legitimate competing claims. And here’s the thing, Ned Stark at no point indicated that he was going to give Jon legitimacy in the North. And he never indicated that he would give it to Jon over Robb. On the contrary, everyone knew that Robb was the heir. Robb was the one being given lessons, Robb was the one helping Ned attend to visiting lords, Robb was the one who would inherit Ice, etc. By Alys’ account in ADWD, preparations were being made for Robb’s future (NOT for Jon, who was largely ignored). There was no opportunity for Jon to pose any threat to Robb or his children because Ned did not give him legitimacy and he did not allow him to gain backing with the Northern lords. Aegon IV created Daemon and his subsequent rebellion(s), but Ned Stark did not do the same with Jon. Despite Catelyn treating Jon as a walking crisis center, there’s little evidence to the effect. In fact, we might as well say that Bran or Rickon or any of Sansa’s or Arya’s sons would pose an even bigger threat to Robb’s legacy than Jon would, you know given historical precedent and all that.

Treating Jon’s mere existence as one that inherently comes with dire consequences for “le poor trueborns” plays into bastardphobia, which is actually in world bigotry (and grrm considers Jon to be a marginalized individual on account of his bastardy). Saying that Jon is a threat to the Stark kids is saying that all bastards are threats to trueborns but like….so are the trueborns. History, actual hiatory, shows us that trueborns are a bigger threat to each other. But no one is saying “Bran is a threat to Robb’s kids” even though there is precedent. Bran is also getting a lordling’s education just as Robb is, and Bran is allowed to engage with the upper class on important occasions and gain visibility just as Robb is, and Bran is even expected to command his own castle and men (which would even give him ability to stake his claim). So why isn’t he a threat? Instead, Jon is the one who is singled out - because he’s a bastard. He’s being singled out because Catelyn said he should be singled out, despite there being little actual evidence to his supposed incoming usurpation. Which is ironic because the literal purpose of his story is to critique these bigoted views. Jon is just as honorable and good and kind as any other trueborn son, if not more so. And we have seen him sacrificing his own happiness for his siblings (e.g., the direwolf pups and refusing Winterfell because he will not usurp Sansa’s rights). It’s one thing for Catelyn to show ignorance, but we as readers should know better because we have a full picture and not only do we have an understanding of the history being cited by Catelyn (and what is being purposefully ignored), we also know Jon. So we should be saying, “wait no, there’s no indication that Jon is any more a threat than any one of Ned’s sons”.

It is understandable (but not justifiable tbh) that Catelyn is biased against Jon; he is the ever present product of her husband’s affair. But that’s just it, she’s biased. So she has a biased application of history. And she has a biased (and bigoted) view of Jon’s place in it. We as readers have a full picture though. So shouldn’t we be having more nuanced dialogue regarding this instead of taking her biased word for it?

[atopvisenyashill]

LISTEN i understand where jaehaerys’ behavior towards his wife & daughters & granddaughters comes from but sometimes i just think about his sheer hostility towards alyssa and i’m like. alright you raggedy little punk ass even maegor who went through wives like shein lingerie had some level of love and respect for his mom what is your everloving PROBLEM

[aegonslawyer]

there’s smth funny about anti aegon ppl trying to claim tom hates his job meanwhile tom is like I FUCKIN LOVE AEGON TARGARYEN THIS IS THE MOST FUN IVE HAD AS AN ACTOR

[15-lizards]

so this must be a weird request, but i was thinking about myriah martell (daeron ii's wife) and her relationship with the targaryen court. i figured that, as naerys wasn't such a strong figure at court nor the most fashionable, during aegon iv's rule myriah would be the closest to a fashion icon/inspiration for daeron's faction, however, as a martell in a deeply anti-dorne with a racist father-by-law/king, her influence would probably be quite limited at the time of his reign, both in fashion and in politics. hopefully, if martin doesn't kill her in f&b2, how do you think her queenship would influence the fashion in court? if you have any ideas of how as princess of dragonstone she and her supporters would dress, i'd love to hear about them too! (sorry for the bad english, i am brazilian and am writing this at 3am during research for fanfic, so it's not my most cohesive moment)

I am so sorry this is so late dear I just noticed this while I’m clearing out my ask box

Okay side note so I’ve never been able to decide on one main inspiration for Dorne, and I really don’t want that to read as orientalist conglomeration of multiple middle eastern cultures. I just can’t decide which real-world culture works the best, so please let me know if anything I say comes off as orientalist bc I really don’t want to do that!

Okay all that being said: I feel like Pakistani and Indian fashions are the biggest inspos for this time period in particular. Unfortunately we don’t know much about Myriah’s personality, but she seemed to mesh well with Daeron, so I take that as her being a more moderate, calm personality. Dressing in clothes that were fitting for her station as a princess of Dorne with gold stitched silks etc. but still have some degree of modesty at the same time. Her and her ladies always wore a few layers over their gowns, and always had some sort of shawl or scarf with them. Despite their compliance to the standards of Kings Landing, Dornish fashions never caught on completely, though over the years the Dornish fashion began to change a bit, with fuller skirts and more fitted bodices, while the prominent women of the city began to wear layered gowns and have the edges of their clothing embroidered in gold

[daenerysies]

it’s hard to take some individuals seriously on this app (or ANY social media app since they use the same talking points that can be disproved with a quick google search or idk OPENING THE BOOK) when they go on and on and on about how the series as a whole is only about ‘feudalism BAD’ which YES it is but this is a fictional f a n t a s y series and deliberately choosing to ignore that grrm is known for using his work to critique multiple points of interest and maybe, just maybe, he can critique the monarchy and still bring up other talking points; like how rhaenyra was usurped due to misogyny (it’s also weird the number of people that don’t seem to care about grrm creating the amethyst empress and the bloodstone emperor as direct parallels to rhaenyra and aegon and how each event affects the world of asoiaf but whatever).

it’s ridiculous to claim you’re team green (which means you want aegon to be king, not that you like tg characters) and in response to those on the other side try to take the ‘moral high ground’ by ONLY mentioning how the monarchy is bad when rhaenyra, a potential female ruler, is involved (which is a bit on the nose, don’t you think?) stanning team green and being anti targaryen is almost point blank the definition of hypocrisy. trying to claim you support them bc they were being neglected/abused (even though most of the abuse came directly from their mother and grandfather) which apparently gives them the ‘right’ to steal the throne, or the use of andal tradition (not law) as a way to demean rhaenyra’s position as heir, or even how they only want what’s ’best’ for the realm and aegon is that; despite how he very much would have been aegon the unworthy before we even made it to aegon iv’s generation; and no, you can’t use ‘he had a better council!’ when he fired anyone who didn’t immediately give him what he wants i.e. removing otto as hand bc of him not wanting to resort completely to bloodshed during the dance.

so feudalism is fine if it benefits alicent? aegon? aemond? but i thought all targaryen’s are evil and should go extinct? and aren’t alicent’s children TARGARYENS? so by spreading anti targaryen rhetoric you should be happy that the green’s entire bloodline was wiped out, right? it’s normal to like/dislike certain characters but to state that an entire house should be obliterated whilst liking the characters that exacerbate the worst traits of said house (or are enablers of said behavior) is especially rich, and would really be downright hilarious if it didn’t showcase how insincere and sanctimonious some can be in this fandom. stop constantly moving the goalpost and just admit that your views contradict one another regularly, it would make it a million times easier to engage with you.

[drakaripykiros130ac]

I don't understand how anyone can like the Greens in the series. I like them in the books because they are good villains, specifically Alicent. I would have given anything to see her come to life on screen rather than the pathetic thing we were treated to. That doesn't help with the fact that apparently Ryan Condal has finally confirmed he's team Greens... I'll never understand this guy. How could he read the book and say that no, the Greens were justified in any way ?! Also, the guts you have to have, even within this fandom, to openly say you support the group of misogynistic and blood purist usurpers... In the sense of saying that they are completely right or that Blacks are just as horrible! But in what universe ?! Ryan Condal would also have said that we would probably change preferred camps in season 2... Man, you can still dream, even with your stupid supporting documents for TG everyone still prefers the Blacks team. It's distressing that the director of the series himself doesn't understand anything he's adapting and that so many people are going in this direction. The number of idiots who tried to explain to me that both teams were equally horrible, that the Greens can't be pure villains because GRRM only writes complex characters, it's obvious. Like GRRM has never written a pure villain ? Are you sure you've read the books he wrote ? No but I swear that since the release of the series, asoiaf fans are worse than before in their unjustified hatred of the Targaryens... These people think they are moral by wanting to put the two teams on the same level or by saying that the Blacks are worse. That revolts me.

Essentially what neutrals think ;

“Yes, it’s not good what the Greens did, but the Blacks are no better seen as they dared to fight back for their rights.”

Like... What dimension did I land in ?!

Just last time, I received comments from someone supposedly accepting that the Greens were worse, but trying to explain to me that Daemon groomed Rhaenyra (which is false book or series), that the murder of 'a Greens child is unjustified (while the Greens shed blood first and we are in a feudal context) that Lucerys taking Aemond's eye is unjustified (Wtf ?!) ah and the best thing was to me say at face value that Daemon was not a gray character and that he was like Aegon IV... (Again... WTF ?!)

https://www.tumblr.com/darklinaforever/701570671006875648/i-hate-when-people-say-greens-and-blacks-are-on

(Afterwards I wasn't gentle in my answers either, but I'm fed up with this type of people)

I personally never liked the greens in the book. To me, they were always the villains. Always. I never viewed Daemon and Rhaenyra as pure innocent angels, don’t get me wrong. I recognize the few mistakes Rhaenyra makes in the book, as well as Daemon’s many, many faults.

For instance, yes, Rhaenyra should not have had Vaemond murdered (even though what he spoke was treasonous and threatened her position as well as the lives of her children). She should not have gone so far with the taxes during her reign (even though she was left with no choice).

However, in this story, despite all their faults, I always felt Rhaenyra and Daemon were perfectly justified. Because their good qualities kind of eclipse the bad stuff. The Blacks are the anti-heroes of the story. They have done some questionable things, but all of them have been justified/done with good reason and good purpose.

The Greens are a whole different story. Everything they have done (mainly Alicent and Otto), they have done out of jealousy and pure greed (hence why they were given the color “green” - the color of greed and envy). 95 % of the war crimes are done by the Greens. Literally the only thing the Blacks are to be held accountable for is B&C. Other than that, every crime was courtesy of the Greens.

To me, the Greens have always been split between those who are anti-villains (Aegon, Helaena, Daeron), and those who are pure villains (Alicent, Otto, Aemond).

For the anti-villains: The one time Aegon presents some goodness is when he has reservations about usurping his half-sister. Other than that, he is pure evil; Helaena can’t be considered a pure innocent soul either. She has good qualities, but she is extremely underdeveloped as a character in the book and we don’t know her thoughts, her motives. She didn’t protest the usurpation and accepted the position of queen consort easily; Daeron is somehow given a free pass by certain people because he is “the daring”, and while that’s true, these people forget how he burned a whole village of innocent people alive.

For the pure villains, not much need be said. Alicent and Otto are a bunch of opportunistic hypocrites and vicious upstarts. I haven’t sensed any bit of goodness in them. Aemond is a psycho with zero redeeming qualities.

Now, in the show, I don’t feel as if the Greens are portrayed better than they have been in the book. I feel like the show writers (mainly Ryan Condal) are trying to come up with lame excuses for them, and it’s just not working. The great majority of the viewers still hate Alicent as much as they did in the book, regardless how many times she presents those “doe eyes”, and the great majority still believe the Greens are in the wrong.

In the show, when it comes to the Greens, there’s always some sort of “reason”, some sort of “accident”. Alicent didn’t mean to shoot her mouth off and convince Larys to murder the current hand, Lyonel Strong, so that her father could return as Hand (even though that is exactly what she wanted). Aemond didn’t mean to let Vhagar know that he wants Lucerys dead (even though his pursuing and direct attack showed his intentions to murder the boy). Crispin somehow didn’t mean to crush Beesbury’s skull in that ball, even though he acted aggressively towards the man for simply speaking the truth and nothing but the truth at that treasonous Council meeting.

These excuses the show writers make for the greens make no sense whatsoever. They should have stuck with the actual canon portrayal, because it’s just ridiculous at this point.

So what if the two sides are not evenly matched?

They’re not supposed to!

GRRM doesn’t write purely good vs bad in his universe, that is true. He loves the complexity of the characters and the stories. However, that does not mean that he intended for the Blacks and the Greens to be evenly matched in this story.

He himself admitted that he wrote the book more in the Blacks’ favor because that’s how he felt (ironic, considering that Fire and Blood is told from the point of view of green supporters). It’s his story. I have seen people accuse him of being biased, always in favor of the Blacks.

Yes, he clearly wrote the Blacks as the protagonists, with better developed characters, with the best allies, the most heroic/epic deaths, most dragons, most Houses supporting them.

I mean, the Starks are TB, while the Lannisters are TG. That alone should give you a clue as to which side you’re supposed to be rooting for.

Clearly GRRM is Team Black, but who says he can’t be? Who says that the sides have to be evenly matched? It’s his story! If he says the Blacks are right, the Blacks are right.

TG stans are just in denial at this point.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

Hello Bamfsteel. I have been following your blog for over a year now but I realize I haven't commented or reblogged much (I kinda avoid online interaction because I'm terrified of accidentally offending someone). But I cannot express how much I love your blog, and admire you for carrying on despite the hate you get from antis. I was already ambivalent about Daemon, but you got me rooting for him... and for Daena, Rohanne, and Aegor, the last of whom in particular is basically unanimously hated by the fandom (hell, one random tvtropes page even called him worse than Aerys the Mad King)!! So I'm grateful for your blog and hope you keep posting.

Anyway, as a fan of both the Blackfyres and Arthuriana, I'm currently planning to write an Arthurian retelling of Daemon I's life and was wondering about how he chose his sigil/heraldry. Twoiaf says that he simply reversed the Targaryen colors because that's what all bastards do. But I don't know if there are any other examples of this happening in canon.

On the contrary, I recall Jon saying to Arya in AGoT: "Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister."

So now I wonder if the 'black dragon on a red field' was actually Daena's personal coat of arms, and Daemon simply chose it after Aegon's acknowledgement as a symbol of defiance and loyalty to his beloved mother. I love the notion that the chivalrous-to-the-last-breath Daemon Blackfyre didn't care all that much for his terrible and blatantly unchivalrous 'father' and instead everything he did, from winning the squires tourney to rebelling against Daeron, was his way of making his mother proud and atoning for all the humiliation she had to suffer due to his birth.

Sorry for the long ask. I am just excited to meet a fellow Blackfyre fan :)

Hello, thesupercat. Thank you for the long ask, and putting up with my slow responses over the past year. I have a little more free time/motivation to write recently, so I’m trying to answer more questions. I’m glad that my posts could bring your fandom experience some happiness. If you ever write the Arthuriana about Daemon I, don’t be afraid to send me a link.

TWOIAF and Dunk actually have different origins of the Black Dragon sigil; Dunk claims “the arms of House Targaryen had borne a three-headed dragon, red on black. Daemon the Pretender had reversed those colors on his own banners, as many bastards did.” (The Sworn Sword) but TWOIAF actually says “Reversing the colors of the traditional Targaryen arms to show a black dragon on a red field, the rebels declared for Princess Daena's bastard son Daemon Blackfyre, First of His Name, proclaiming him the eldest true son of King Aegon IV, and his half brother Darren the bastard.” (TWOIAF Darren II) What a lot of antis miss in their analysis of Daemon and Aegor is conflating their actions with that of what the Reds said their supporters did (if Daemon didn’t create the sigil, it could be evidence that the rebellion wasn’t premeditated, which I believe) I actually had an interesting debate about which version of the origin of the sigil was more logical with someone (I’d taken Dunk’s word to be true), but it’s actually more interesting if the rebels came up with it, because you’re right (no matter what the wiki has to say about it) the reversed sigil color scheme alone doesn’t actually indicate illegitimate origin: it requires that and a diagonal (usually red) slash, called in heraldry a “bend sinister” (which was used in real life illegitimate sigils, like the cadet branches of the House of Bourbon, Conti and Condé). There are multiple examples of illegitimate sons/their descendants using the reversed colors of their father’s house and the bend sinister: Walder Rivers and Walder of Woodmere (a silver castle on a blue field and a red bend sinister, for Frey), and the cadet branch houses Oldflowers (ten white hands on a green field and a red bend sinister, for Gardner), Vikary (quartered with a white lion on red crossed by a gold bend sinister, for Reyne), and Bolling (quartered with a gold stag on a black field and an orange bend sinister, for Durrandon). The other illegitimate children whose sigils are described are variations on a family sigil without the inverse colors (Aegor Rivers, Brynden Rivers) or something completely different (Benedict Justman, Blackshield). Far from being a simple sigil that marks being illegitimate Targaryen, the black-dragon-on-red-field is a symbol of anti-Targaryen defiance that rejects the “bend sinister” marker for a different lineage of dragon (a cat of a different coat, I guess), which makes a lot of sense if you consider the war was due to disgust at the current Targ regime. Daemon technically had the right to use the Targaryen sigil proper since he was legitimized (look at the Velaryon boys), but I’m certain Da3ron would’ve forbid him because that would be “putting him on princely level” never mind that he is a prince as Daena’s son and Yandel knows this; he might’ve actually used a different style of arms before the First Blackfyre that we don’t know of (same with Aegor, who got the black wings on his Pegasus sigil due to House Blackfyre; I headcanon him using a plain blue field during his youth, for the Riverlands), or even the sigil we know of with the bend sinister (which the rebels removed acclaiming Daemon their legitimate king waging war against an illegitimate usurper; also as a Targaryen bastard, Da3ron could’ve had the same sigil as Daemon which the rebels wouldn’t have wanted). But, you seem to be correct that whoever created the sigil put more thought into it than “reversed color scheme is what all illegitimate children do”.

There are two women described as having personal arms: Rhaenyra Targaryen and Barbrey Dustin, ruling ladies with important family connections. The Targaryen sigil is also often personalized to distinguish between brothers and cousins (Aerion, Prince Daeron, Valarr, Maekar all have variations on dragon position, color, borders, number), though usually not for the king or his heir except in civil war conflicts (both Rhaenyra and her brother Aegon II have variations on the Targaryen sigil. Which I guess makes sense why Daemon’s supporters wanted a separate Blackfyre sigil). Daena was also acclaimed queen by some, and according to a GRRM answer wanted to be queen, so it’s possible she had a variation on the Targaryen sigil as personal arms. It’s interesting that the most popular variation on using house sigils is when the person wants to honor their mother’s family: Harras Harlaw (Serrett peacock), Joffrey/Tommen/Myrcella (Lannister lion, which Jon thinks is overly proud), Cleos Frey (Lannister lion), Benfrey Frey (Rosby chevronnels), both Big and Little Walder (who quarter the Frey castles with sigils of their mother’s and grandmother’s families), and Harry Hardyng (quartering the diamonds of Hardyng with 2 Falcons for his Arryn grandmother and 1 broken wheel for his Waynwood mother) all incorporate their mother’s/grandmother’s family sigils to show their high lineage. Even Rhaenyra Targaryen quartered her two red dragons with the Arryn falcon for her mother and the silver seahorse for her first husband. It’s entirely possible Daena, famous for wearing black during her youth and twice uncrowned, incorporated a black dragon into her personal arms (though I like to think she also incorporated the Velaryon seahorse for her mother’s family, to better differentiate herself from the “usurper branch” of Viserys II), and Daemon accepted the nickname “the Black Dragon” partly to honor her (the connection between them wearing black was one of my earliest hc posts). That Daemon’s descent from Daena is emphasized in the same sentence as his supporters creating the black-dragon-on-red-field banner could be seen as connecting the reversal of “traditional Targ arms” to her, as being “Targaryen on both sides” was used at least in Rhaenyra’s case as a mark of better legitimacy. Tl;dr if you want to say that Daemon’s battle sigil is a black dragon to honor Daena, there’s enough symbolic connections considering other examples of personal/illegitimate arms to make that argument, especially for a fanfic.

I hope you have a good rest of your day. My askbox is always open if you have more questions, though response time may be slow.