#house darklyn | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lives4lovesworld · 2 years ago

Text

This meta will highlight GRRM own bias and double standards when it comes to his (= the narrative's) judgement of Aerys II Targaryen, as well as the insincerity of the fandom's obsession and exaggeration of Aerys II's "madness" and cruelty.

GRRM singles Aerys out in his cruelty and has it directly linked to his unstable mental state, which is quite ironic(?) if one i) actually consideres how normalized violence, collective punishment and arbitrariness in ASoIaF world is. Yet few and far between are actually mad, and even fewer dubbed as such, and ii) puts his in direct comparison to other characters, which are never condemned as much as Aerys (if at all) by the narrative. And the fandom naturally doubles down on GRRM hypocrisy (given how anti!Targaryen it is) and insists to exaggerate Aerys's madness in every sense to one up against Daenerys Stormborn.

Aerys is condemn for his preferred method of execution. The fandom even goes so far to write numerous metas arguing death-through-fire somehow is crueler, worser and morally more appaling than any other method, especially when it's a Targaryen monarch to use it. This absurdity as already been refuted a couple of times in the context of defending show!Daenerys burning large parts of her enemies in the field, instead of the having her men exclusively killing them in battle. But as always it falls on deaf ears, since this hypocritical fandom holds Targaryen (and only Targaryens) to modern standards, to the point where they are condemn for executing their enemies. PERIOD.

And Aerys is the biggest victim of this absurdity. Both within the fandom (since nobody cares for him, no one defends him in pointing out the double standards) and narrative (since Daenerys has, unlike what the fandom conjuncts out of thin air, never burned anyone but Mirri Maz Duur and is a rescuer above all so GRRM obviously does and can not condemn her for deeds she didn't commit).

For example, he and Stannis Baratheon have both burnt their hands for "bad counsel during the war". Qarlton Chelsted was burned for his objection against Aerys's plan to torch King's Landing and Alester Florent for the letter that offered Stannis's full surrender (x) to House Lannister, after his lethal demise at the Blackwater (x). Stannis's hand was even his kin (through marriage) and in killing him, he committed one of the gravest crimes in their world. Yet Stannis is neither condemn as "mad" for the execution nor for the kinslaying nor the style of said execution.

The only thing GRRM seems to condemn Stannis for are his reasons behind all of his "sacrifices"; which is to misuse the power of death for his own personal gain. Be it to murder Renly to avoid defeat, take a rival out and gain his army, for favorable winds for his expedition, put a stop to the blizzard or gain dragons/be Azor Ahai. Although all of Stannis's misfortunes in his failing campaign for the Iron Throne (his demise at the Blackwater, his inability to gain anyone's genuine support, House Karstark's betrayal and the blizzard) could be interpreted as narrative punishment, Stannis's reputation (as a righteous, capable man) within the narrative never suffers.

The fandom as well has no qualms how Stannis let his uncle be burned alive in order. Especially, those that refuse to accept that Stannis is in fact NOT Azor Ahai, do not even condemn for that. It's excused as "means to an end" or "products of his time". Another prime example of the fandom's blatant hypocrisy and double standards one might add; While members of House Targaryen are condemn for the use of magic, especially blood sacrifices, and Daenerys is even accuse of burning people alive and kinslaying without this being the case, Stannis is allowed to utilize (blood and dark) magic, (consider) murder and burn people as he pleases, (consider) kinslaying (nephew, brother uncle-in-law and in the future his own daughter) and still be proclaimed the Right Man to Rule™ and altruistic TKwC.

Somehow in the fandom's nonsensical moral belief system Aerys depriving sadistic pleasure in watching men burn makes it apparently morally more appaling than Stannis's religious frantic, megalomaniac reasoning ("for the greater good") behind his executions (and given the fact that he is in fact NOT Azor Ahai/The Chosen One one could argue all these sacrifice are completely in vain.)

Aerys's cruelty is not unique for the ASoIaF world. And more importantly, I would dare to say that most of his "atrocities" such as i) the annihilation of House Darklyns and Hollard ii) the maiming of Ilyan Payne iii) his execution of Brandon Stark, Rickard Stark and their escort and his call for Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon's heads and iv) him prohibiting Elia Martell and her children to leave King's Landing, would not be seen as one of a madman, if Aerys's mental decline would have NOT been as apparent.

i) Lord Deny seized his King, killed his escort and subjected Aerys to torture for about half a year and threatened to have him killed in hopes to get the desired charter for Duskendale granted, that had been denied.

This was unprovoked high treason and broke all the laws such as the sacred guest right, the king's peace and all vows to obey and defend the king. How exactly should a king have dealt with such an uprising and insult to his person and political power? Which ruler would have suffered such grand affront, without exerting harsh punishment? Which ruler could have even allowed himself to be merciful, if it meant he will be seen as a weak king, signaling to the rest of the realm that one can take the king captive and hold hostage and get away with it?

To put in perspective; Robert Baratheon brutally smashed Balon Greyjoy's rebellion, burnt their homes, broke their castles, raped and murder the common folk and lastly gave Balon's last son as hostage to Eddard Stark to secure Balon's submission (x) after his elder brothers were slain. House Reyne and House Tarbeck were both in debt to House Lannister. Soley to restore House Lannister's prestige, Tywin demanded immediate repayment from them, (hostages if it was not possible). Both houses refused. Despite Tytos Lannister settling the matter, Tywin deliberately provoked both houses by ordering their respective lords to answer to Casterly Rock for their crimes. When refused, Tywin (without the leave of his lordly father!) raised an army and started his war of annihilation. The ruins of these houses' castles were left as reminders of the fate that awaits those who scorn the power of Casterly Rock, and "The Rains of Castamere" was written as a tribute to the event. Stannis Baratheon considered torching and raiding Claw Isle as punishment for its Lord bending the knee in captivity and House Stark extinguished House Greystark when it rose in rebellion together with House Bolton.

None of these extreme violent acts are deemed as "[their] terrible revenge" nor are these men seen as mad, cruel or unfit. And mind you, no one of these men experienced captivity and torture on their own person.

When one such reported that the captain of the Hand's personal guard, a knight named Ser Ilyn Payne, had been heard boasting it was Lord Tywin who truly ruled the Seven Kingdoms, His Grace sent the Kingsguard to arrest the man and had his tongue ripped out with red-hot pincers. - TWoIaF; The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II

ii) The maiming of Ilyan Payne is seen as way too extreme even for ASoIaF (only exclusively by the fandom) and as "Aerys being unable to hear the hard truth", despite a monarch (unfortunately) being well in his rights to teach his subject "respect", if he openly mocks his better, extreme violent punishment from a ruler being normalized as sign of strength and a warning to any potential rebels.

The crimes everything boils down to;

The full depth of King Aerys's madness was subsequently revealed in his depraved actions against Lord Stark, his heir, and their supporters after they demanded redress for Rhaegar's wrongs. Instead of granting them fair hearing, King Aerys had them brutally slain, then followed these murders by demanding that Lord Jon Arryn execute his former wards, Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark. - TWoIaF; The Fall of the Dragons: Robert’s Rebellion

iii) While the inverse-annals are clearly baised, GRRM has made it clear that Aerys is responsible for the rebellion (x), and that his call to execute them all was another product of his cruelty and paranoia. Which omits any nuance the situation had such nuances as;

Brandon and Rickard were on their way again back to Riverrun for the impending wedding between him and Catelyn Tully, when word reached Brandon of Lyanna's supposed abduction by Prince Rhaegar Targaryen. Brandon, along with his squire Ethan Glover, Kyle Royce, Elbert Arryn, and Jeffory Mallister, rode to King's Landing immediately. Upon entering the Red Keep, Brandon shouted for Rhaegar to "come out and die". Rhaegar was not present, however, and Brandon and his companions were arrested by King Aerys II Targaryen and charged with plotting Rhaegar's murder. - awoiaf.westeros.org; Aerys II Targaryen: Year of the False Spring

A paramount lord and his heir barging into the royal court of a king (half of which would rather dethrone him and most did not see him as the ruler of the realm) and brazenly demand the crown prince's head BASED ON RUMORS alone in front of said court. For a supposed crime that stands in direct contrary to what is known of said heir (x, x, x).

While it's a well established fact that this fandom only intrest is to present House Stark as poor, oppressed, altruistic and wronged victims and House Targaryen as the evil warmongering lunatics, it is still mind blowing to see people glorify Brandon's stupidity as Protective Big Bro Thang™, talk how he should have escape the situation unscattered (because they believe the starks are the Main Characters™ and should have all the Syndromes (like plot armor) of one) and his execution being yet another uncalled atrocity of Aerys's madness, when Brandon literally has committed high treason through his rash actions. Even Catelyn call Brandon's action "rash" and his would-be father-in-law Hoster Tully called him a "gallant fool" for it.

A highborn father that would have politely ask them to lay out their complains (again) behind closed doors so he might calmly listen to these allegations and their wish to see his oldest one dead after the spectacle of their entrance, has yet to be named by obnoxious neutrals and "intellectuals" preaching such scenario as the solution to this fiasco.

Realistically speaking, what should Aerys have done with a paramount lord, his heir and their escort breaking the king's peace and threatening House Targaryen's power by demanding the Crown Prince's head? Insulted this gravely that they about to rise in rebellion with mighty allies. When it comes to this situation Aerys had been caught between a rock and a hard place;

He could have a) dismissed the accusations, let them go home and have the realm think of him as weak. Home to their seats, where hot headed Brandon would have likely raised the north in rebellion anyway and whose brother's foster brother Robert Baratheon would have likely joined him for his wounded pride. Risk the riverlands to stand with them as well for their siege lord's daughter Catelyn would have wed Brandon Stark. Possibly the Vale too, for Jon Arryn's beloved forster son's brother has raised in rebellion and his bride is Lord Tully's other daughter and Brandon Stark's sister in law. Or b) use this incident to dispose his 'disloyal son', so his chosen heir Viserys would have less threats in his ascend on the throne later on, yet simountanastly signaling the realm that one can demand a Targaryen prince's head based on rumors alone. Establishing a most dangerous precedent for the future of House Targaryen.

What might have salvage the situation without an all-out-war or an unacceptable, most dangerous precedent for House Targaryen('s might) would have been to dismiss the accusations. Instead of summoning the fathers of the escort and executing them all along with Rickard and Brandon, he should have send them to the Wall (which would have made Eddard Lord of Winterfell) and send for Benjen Stark as cupbearer or squire at the court (so he might functions as hostage over the North).

And even this might have not have worked for i) it would have been still a too mild punishment for conspiring to murder the Iron Throne' heir and ii) for they could have just refuse to take the black once at the Wall, return to Winterfell with the help of the Night Watch and call to war anyway (though House Tully and Arryn might have been more reluctant to join them in such a scenario)

Do these nuances make Rickard, Brandon and Co's execution less gruesome and the call for Eddard and Robert's death morally justified? No, but they show that they could have been committed by a sane sovereign too. But instead of being seen as actions of a madman they would have been seen as too-harsh (failed) precautions. (IMO Tywin and Stannis would act the same way in such a situation with the big difference that they would be cold and caculative, whereas Aerys had become aroused)

Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side. - TWpIaF; The Fall of the Dragons; The End

iv) Same with iii) if one was to look at the political situation (especially before the rebellion) and analyze Aerys's actions without dismissing them all as one kf a deranged lunatic, this particular action was actually quite savvy.

Prior to the rebellion, the royal court had been devided into two parties; the king's and the prince's;

Chief amongst the Mad King's supporters were three lords of his small council: Qarlton Chelsted, master of coin, Lucerys Velaryon, master of ships, and Symond Staunton, master of laws. The eunuch Varys, master of whisperers, and Wisdom Rossart, grand master of the Guild of Alchemists, also enjoyed the king's trust. Prince Rhaegar's support came from the younger men at court, including Lord Jon Connington, Ser Myles Mooton of Maidenpool, and Ser Richard Lonmouth. The Dornishmen who had come to court with the Princess Elia were in the prince's confidence as well, particularly Prince Lewyn Martell, Elia's uncle and a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard. But the most formidable of all Rhaegar's friends and allies in King's Landing was surely Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. - TWoIaF; The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring

Essentially the Second Dance of Dragons was brewing;

To Grand Maester Pycelle and Lord Owen Merryweather, the King's Hand, fell the unenviable task of keeping peace between these factions, even as their rivalry grew ever more venomous. In a letter to the Citadel, Pycelle wrote that the divisions within the Red Keep reminded him uncomfortably of the situation before the Dance of the Dragons a century before, when the enmity between Queen Alicent and Princess Rhaenyra had split the realm in two, to grievous cost. A similarly bloody conflict might await the Seven Kingdoms once again, he warned, unless some accord could be reached that would satisfy both Prince Rhaegar's supporters and the king's. - TWoIaF; The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring

So contrary to the fandom's insistence of Aerys's reason behind his prohibition for Elia and the children to leave the capital being unreasonable paranoia or malice (or even godamn racism??), Aerys was smart. By ensuring that they were located in the capital, he gave the dornish forces a reason to defend it (essentially ensuring his survival) then had Elia and the children been safely in Sunspear or Dragonstone, they would have had no reason to continue to fight (and be slowly overrun) for the defense of King's Landing if the only one remaining there was the king that had disinherited Rhaegar's entire lineage and proclaimed Viserys his heir after Rhaegar death at the Trident (ergo putting an end to Dorne's hope to size the Iron Throne through a Martell-Queen Consort and later a half Martell-king).

Also contrary to the fandom's insistence on how Aerys's cruelty and paranoia breaks even Westeros's norm in taking hostages in war, even from his supposed allies and families (through marriages) is not unusual; the kings of the Winter are known to have taken child hostages to secure their subjects' submission, Quentyn had been given to Lord Yronwood as "blood debt" by Doran Martell. Theon had been taken hostage by Eddard Stark to ensure his father's submission. The Redwyne twins have been taken hostages by the Lannister court to ensure their father's loyalty (to lend them his fleet in their war). Where is the condemnation for them? Also contrary to the fandom's insistence highborn hostages, especially those who are considered family members are also not treated badly. They experience most of the privileges their birth and status grants them. Cases such Sansa in King's Landing and Jaime in Riverrun are the expection, not the rule.

But what is to expect from a fandom that lays the blame for Elia Martell and her children's gruesome murders on Aerys Targaryen (her father-in-law and their grandfather) and Rhaegar Targaryen (her by-then dead husband and their father) instead on the heads of the rebels like the liege lord of the men to commit the murders (Tywin Lannister) or the self-styled king (Robert Baratheon) who sanctioned these murders later (going so far as to making mentioned liege lord his father-in-law)?

Aerys II Targaryen has always been exclusively presented by the fandom as this horrendous sadistic monster without a heart. Every act of his a epitome of stupidity and cruelty with Aerys's madness as an inevitable by-product from coming from an incestuous union, despite this not supported being the text.

Aerys Targaryen was not born that way. His mental state in his later years was a product of the immense trauma he experienced throughout his entire life; from witnessing the death of his entire family when he was 15 years old, to being powerless as he and Rhaella were forced to suffer still births, miscarriages and dead babes in the cribs to his imprisonment and torture in Duskendale (x). The justified constant fear of being dethroned by his own son (x) and the feeling of never being deemed worthy or competent enough by others to the point where he not even seen as The King (x) likely only added to his instability and cruelty.

His paranoia, especially concerned Tywin Lannister and Rhaegar Targaryen, was also anything but irrational; Aerys was not in the wrong to mistrust Rhaegar as he later planned to dethrone him, which could only result in Aerys’s death should Rhaegar wish to ascend the throne as comfortable as possible. Nor for being wary of Tywin Lannister, who gambled with his life at Duskendale in hopes to get Rhaegar on the throne with his daughter as his queen. (x)

Aerys was not a fool to prevent Tywin from becoming Rhaegar’s father-in-law. Before the rebellion, they were the biggest threats to Aerys’s reign. Not only did he prevent an alliance between his two greastest threats, in giving Rhaegar Elia Martell to wife. The princess to the least densly populated kingdom (which is quite hated by the more "civilized" southern kingdoms such as the Dornish Marches, Reach and Stormlands for their blood feuds (x,x)) and with a small army, he also prevented Rhaegar from gaining exponentially more support had he married a noble daughter from a house with more wealth, resources and men (like Cersei Lannister)

And mind you (!) had Steffon Baratheon succeeded in finding a "maid of noble birth from an old Valyrian bloodline" in the Free Cities, Aerys would have given Rhaegar's a woman to wife that has absolutely no ties to any kingdom (which would have given him no political advantage beside whatever wealth her family would have had across the sea) and who would bee seen as 'foreign stranger', similar to Larra Rogar, Viserys II's wife.

Such a choice at the time was politically quite savvy: His supposed heir secured the succession without shifting the power balance too much by preventing Rhaegar from amassing even more support through an more politically advantageous match. That this choice later on backfired in the face of an external political threat (e.g. the rebellion) was unforeseeable and unfortunate.

Jaime's rise to a kingsguard was as well a less then perfect solution by Aerys for his (justified) fears; in appointing Jaime as kingsguard he had gained the most valuable hostage against any possible rebellion from Tywin Lannister, but he also had to endure Tywin's son day and night as shadow. Aerys seemed to have played by the motto "keep your friends close, but your foes closer" with Jaime as he had previously done with Tywin, whom he had refused to dismiss as Hand or accept his resignation (x, x) and suffered greatly from it (at first mentally, later with his life). (x)

As said, the reason why I wrote this meta was to showcase the imsincerity of the fandom's obsession and exaggeration of Aerys II's "madness" and cruelty, as well as to point the nuances that are often overlooked simply because Aerys was mad.

Afterall, how comes that Aerys's cruelty and madness is more empathized than anyone else's by the fandom? Where does the intrest and obsession for it as well as the need to deliberately twist Aerys's relatively peaceful reign (x, x) into one of terror unseen before come from?

Simple because Aerys's cruelty and madness must be given such great narrative and political importance, and his reign must be one of the darkest times yet, so when dany antis proceed to write their "metas" of how of Daenerys will be rejected by Westeros, never know home or love, become the-hidden-mad!queen-all-along™ and step into her father's foot steps by torching King's Landing and committing mass murder, have a "basis". The first one is even more ridiculous considering that Rhagear was beloved during his days, and is still, despite actually living under Aerys's roof till his 16th birthday, unlike Dany.

Nothing more, and one knows so because the same people won't predicted the same for their tool-character "Aegon VI" who is the Mad King's supposed grandson and son to Prince Rhaegar, whom most of them condemn just as harshly for whatever headcanon (pRophECy oBbsEsSed, vIsenYa) that has been treated as canon for too long. Not to mention that there is an abundance of characters whose fathers were horrible, yet there aren't daily posts on a character's utter mental decline based upon their father's flaws. (bioessentialism)

In conclusion and defense of Aerys II Targaryen; i) he is as much of a victim of tragedy and cruelty than he was an enabler, ii) his paranoia was not unreasonable iii) his cruelty is not at all unique for the medivial ASoIaF world nor in comparison to other characters. In fact neither his paranoia nor his cruelty makes him stand out in his madness, but rather his manic-depressive behavior iv) how his mental state does not render all of his decisions as one of a mad man.

I would also like to say that a forced abdication of Aerys decided by a Great Council with Rhaegar ascending the throne would have neither be the perfect solution as it is often presented. Had his abdication gone relatively smoothly (which would NOT have necessarily be the case (x)) it would shaken the laws and rules of Westeros to its core.

As the first Great Council had done it, it would have given the lords of the realm again the idea and power to decide who is to rule them. Which would have not be the positive, progressive, humanitarian step towards democracy as most mistake it but path a way of war and instability ambitious, vile lords would have misused for their own gain yet again.

If the first Great Council had established an iron precedent on the matter of succession, than such a second one (in which the lords could abdicate their rightful king because they are not content with him) would have path the way for any man to inherit his male relative's position if he manges to convince enough of his subjects to abdicate their current sovereign and put him as his heir (as son, brother, nephew, grandson etc...) through bribery and whatnot.

An era of chaos unseen would follow. Just imagine what the lords of the realm would have done with a king like Aegon V that would robb them some of their absolute power through his reforms. It would hollow out the crown of any power to protect and serve the small folk (be it through humanitarian reforms, against its lords or plan costly, necessary infrastructure)

The wars such as the Wot5K are a direct result of the illegitimacy of Robert's rebellion and how it had shaken Westeros's laws. Instead of the once rather cemented hereditary monarchy, Robert opened the door for Westeros to be wreaked by every sovereign that believes he can muster enough manpower to establish himself a self-styled King. (x)

IMO instead of gathering a Second Great Council, Rhaegar honestly should have just found a discreet way to have his father's poisoned. Although this would have been OCC for noble, valiant Rhaegar and quite harsh to expect from a son to do to his father (no matter their estranged relationship) it would the most practical decision.

#asoiaf #asoiaf meta #targnation #aerys ii targaryen #robert's rebellion #rhaegar targaryen #elia martell #tywin lannister #robert baratheon #eddard stark #rickard stark #brandon stark (son of rickard stark)#jon arryn #house darklyn #house hollard #the defiance of duskendale #sack of king's landing #this will definitely become my most controversial meta (the way I will be canceled for this-)

110 notes · View notes