#awoiaf characterization

[horizon-verizon]

Comparing Daenerys and Young Griff is so delicious because his protectors essentially raised him to be like who Daenerys is. Young Griff’s upbringing as a “nobody” was artificial. No matter how many floors he had to scrub or times somebody thought he was just a sellsword’s son, he was always promised one day he would be royalty, and was treated as such by his protectors. He never went cold, hungry. He was never a slave, a beggar or abused. He doesn’t have the authentic perspective of someone on the other side of the power scale like Daenerys does.

Daenerys had to learn everything she did for survival. She is empathetic to “small folk” because she may have been born royal but never lived that way until her dragons hatched. Young Griff learned everything he did just to fit a mold.

I think it’s also fun to think of Aegon V too. Unlike Daenerys and Young Griff, Egg knew what it was to live as a royal, he was given the full perspective of the class hierarchy. Him living as someone lowborn was what led him to deconstruct and question all the classism he had been fed. And what’s most important about this is that it was his choice to live undercover with Dunk, to temporarily give his privileges up and he got an experience that was some what in between manufactured like Young Griff and authentic like Daenerys.

As it relates to Young Griff, Egg could’ve quit his game at any moment. All it would take is pulling off his boot and calling his dad or Bloodraven, and he still always had Dunk to protect him. But undercover, he really did get an authentic experience of being low born.

And it’s so interesting how Varys took inspiration from Egg to create his own enlightened monarch by manufactured an Egg journey for Young Griff, but how much value is there in a journey like that when you know the endgame is to be king like Young Griff ?

If the last question wasn't rhetorical:

When Àegon V was walking around with Duncan the Tall, he had not been slàted as the heir nor was he even close to being the royal heir. So he was curious and concerned with how the common people lived, the poor and all that. As a child. And he was considerably more compassionate and inquisitive than Young Griff seems to be, expecting to become King. So much for that. You're bringing an important difference Varys seemingly didn't account for, which seems uncharacteristic--not the part Abt expecting to be king, I don't think that that completely devalues or destroys the mission to make at least a more compassionate monarch. You can still be a noble, not live amongst the people, and still be considerate and actionable towards commonborn or peasants, like Alysanne. It's not common, so sometimes or most of it you need to make a more extreme deed like Aegon and force the noble into that separate life depending on the person. This still goes back to Varys making a mistake--how could he trust that a rich merchant and a noble knight would put this smallfolk-first, "enlightened" king before all other sorts of education? How would one go about explaining this?

[horizon-verizon]

It's funny how fans prefer to see this Daenerys as eternally suffering, always raped and without achieving any kind of power or affection for the life she had to live, only harmed by the evil men in her life, the one who forced her to marry and the one she married... Wait. Isn't this the narrative that TG uses with Show Alicent?

I wouldn't care as much if it didn't seem like fans are also using Daenerys not because they care about her or their situation but to attack Daeron and Dorn to sympathize more with Daemon. Curiously, the other woman who was also exchanged was also in an unknown place, canonically we know that she lived in a racist environment after her marriage and we have no evidence that her husband loved her for anything other than her political value...Those people don't say anything.

They don't want a character with layers, they want a victimized character that allows them to hate characters they don't like. Exactly the same thing that fans of Elia, Alicent and Sansa do.

The "other woman who was also exchanged" anon talks about is Myriah, who married Daeron. Her and Daenerys were both exchanged for Dorne to be enfolded into Westeros under the Westeros throne and neither can be really said to have been put into terrible, soul crushing positions or circumstances even with the socio-political unfairness of noblewomen being used in marriages for any number of reasons in Westeros.

This anon breaks down how and why Daenerys, becoming Princess (consort) of Dorne was likely not the horror that some fans paint it as in their belief that she and Daemon were in love AND their possible affections were like, one-in-a-thousand type of love: LINK.

[horizon-verizon]

"He withdrew from courtly life, rejected personal ambition, and built his identity around faith and chastity."

In a way, Harwin too demonstrated a quiet form of devotion. As heir to Harrenhal, he was expected to marry and secure a political alliance, yet he never did. Instead, both in the book and the show, he remained devoted to Princess Rhaenyra, maintaining a visible presence in her household and staying loyal to her until his death. His decision to remain unmarried, despite the expectations, reflects a private, principled form of commitment. He did not openly challenge the political order, but he also refused to participate in its fiction. He chose to stay, to love, and to serve, without recognition, reward, or protection. Where Bonifer removed himself from court entirely, Harwin remained close, quietly accepting the risks of forbidden proximity. He just loved Rhaenyra.

Daemon Targaryen’s path was more openly defiant. Married at sixteen to Rhea, he had no say in the matter and rejected it on every level...emotionally, physically, and politically. He never consummated the union, thereby denying House Royce any chance at a Targaryen heir. While some frame his actions as arrogance, they can also be read as the only form of resistance available to a young man forced into a life he never chose. Later, Daemon reclaimed his agency by securing his own marriages, first to Laena Velaryon, then to Rhaenyra, both made on his terms. In Laena’s case, he went so far as to kill a Braavosi suitor in a duel to secure her hand. His choices reflect a man who, once given control, acted decisively and unapologetically.

Daemon Blackfyre’s story, despite its romantic framing, lacks the personal cost or emotional risk that defines the others. His supposed heartbreak was never expressed, never acted upon, and never cost him anything until it became politically useful. Unlike Bonifer, Harwin, and Daemon, who took personal and emotional risks, Daemon Blackfyre conformed until ambition, not love, drove him to rebel.

MUAH! Perfect analysis, anon!

To the storage bin, no notes.

[horizon-verizon]

I think...there’s no clear evidence about whether Daenerys was happy or unhappy in her marriage to Maron. The text never explores her personal feelings, and there are no records of her resisting the match, suffering in Dorne, or expressing resentment. Given how maesters recorded instances of forced or unhappy marriages among Targaryen women (such as Rhaena’s ordeal with Maegor), it is reasonable to assume that if Daenerys had openly opposed her marriage or faced mistreatment, it would have been noted. The absence of such records suggests that, while her personal feelings are unknown, her marriage did not result in scandal or misery. Instead, it was part of Daeron’s long-term strategy to peacefully integrate Dorne into the Seven Kingdoms, and by all accounts, it succeeded. Unlike many politically arranged unions that led to strife or eventual rebellion, Daenerys’ marriage ensured stability, reinforcing her role as a respected political figure within Dornish society rather than a foreign pawn. Now, when it comes to Daeron’s actions, he was no better or worse than other noblemen in Westeros who used family members to secure alliances. However, what set him apart was the scale of his ambition. He was not merely strengthening a noble house but unifying an entire kingdom through diplomacy. His "gamble" paid off in lasting political stability. Daenerys’ position as Princess of Dorne granted her a clear political role rather than leaving her isolated or powerless in a foreign court with no real influence. In contrast to characters like Sansa, who was repeatedly treated as a bargaining chip, Daenerys' placement in Dorne appears to have been one of integration rather than exile. Yes, she was “used” for political purposes, but she wasn’t discarded, and her role in Dorne appears to have been relatively stable. That said, the rumors linking Daenerys to Daemon likely carried social consequences. While they had no direct impact on the rebellion or her political standing, they may have subtly influenced how she was perceived at the Dornish court. Dorne had only recently joined Westeros, and some Dornish nobles remained skeptical of Targaryen influence. If whispers of a past "love" between Daenerys and Daemon persisted, it could have created social friction, making her integration more difficult. Even if there was never any real suspicion of her loyalty, perception alone could have shaped how she was treated by Dornish lords who viewed her as an outsider. While she was never politically linked to the Blackfyre cause in later years, suggesting her marriage remained secure, it is not far-fetched to consider that such rumors may have caused personal or social strain. At the same time, these rumors likely mattered more to Daemon’s legacy than to Daenery's actual life. Associating him with a tragic love story made him more than just a failed usurper. It elevated him to a romanticized figure, one whose cause carried emotional weight beyond mere ambition. Just as historical narratives tend to paint Daemon as a noble warrior rather than a warmonger, the idea of a doomed love only strengthened his mythos. His supporters would have seen it as further proof that he was the rightful king, not only in lineage but in fate, chosen by blood, battle, and even love. This rumored romance with Daenerys only added another layer reinforcing the idea that he, not Daeron, was the true Targaryen king in every way (the audacity!), and Daeron took all that from him. While this had no bearing on Daenerys’ political trajectory, it contributed to the broader framing of the Blackfyre Rebellion as more than just a military uprising; it was cast as a fight for a lost legacy, one in which even "love" was said to be on Daemon’s side 🙄.

Another anon, an earlier one, has said some of the things you have said so Iwill link my response to them bc some is what I would have said here. I basically agree.

If I sound too short with my responses and not giving all my thoughts on that first post, I am on my way home on public transportation and it's hot.

You bring up pretty great points about the consequences for Daenerys, her story of integration, and Daeron II's conditions of using her. I suspect you and the other anon are trying to argue against an uncritical lens of Daemon Blackfyre stanning / the working of more propaganda. AND ITS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO SO, especially coming off of what F&B tells us.

[horizon-verizon]

Sigh... That comparison falls apart when you consider why these marriages happened, how they were arranged, and the treatment of the women involved.

Daeron II’s marriage arrangement was part of a long-term diplomatic strategy to unite Dorne with Westeros. It was a mutual agreement between two ruling powers, reinforcing stability rather than enforcing submission. Daenerys was given an established political role as Princess of Dorne, integrating her into Dornish governance. She was not just a wife. She was a political figure in her own right. Viserys, on the other hand, wasn’t making a strategic alliance. He was making a desperate bargain for military power. His arrangement with Khal Drogo was purely transactional. He sold Dany to a warlord in exchange for an army. Unlike Daeron’s Daenerys, who held status and security, Viserys' Danys had no agency, no role, and no guaranteed protection in the Dothraki hierarchy. The treatment of both Daenerys is also completely different. Daeron’s Daenerys was respected; her marriage was a political partnership between equals, and as far as we know, she was treated with dignity. She was married to a prince, not a warlord. Meanwhile, Viserys’ Daenerys was handed over without choice and reduced to an object in a power exchange. Khal Drogo did not see her as a political figure or equal. She was simply a slavewife by Dothraki standards, with no initial support system in his khalasar. The outcomes of these marriages only reinforce the divide. Daeron’s marriage arrangement was a political success. Dorne was peacefully integrated into the 7K. Viserys, on the other hand, got nothing. He died before Dany could even fulfill the deal he brokered. The only person who truly benefited from that marriage was Dany herself, and only because she adapted, survived, and built her own path to power.

Before others say it: Daenaerys Targaryen the Dornish-married princess was a poliitcal figure in that she was both critical to two states' diplomatic connection as well as for her act of making the Water Gardens happen--forever changing class relations in Dorne up unitl the present day...esp for how and why she does it when she tell sher son to forever think about common folk.

Your points of nuance is defining, anon, and yeah; perhaps we as a fandom get too carried away with the horror of contemplating a life where political marriage means severely affecting one's autonomy.

[horizon-verizon]

I’m already dreading the release of “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”, watch Targaryens haters treat Egg as their token anti incest Targaryen boy and a contrast to tyrant mad Daenerys, as if he’s not one of Daenerys’s few ancestors who have intended parallels with her.

A bald Targaryen with a cruel and sexually abusive older brother who fancied himself a dragon and died while burning, has lived among smallfolk and beggars, has a famous Kingsguard as a close companion, showed compassion for the downtrodden and tried to pass reforms to help them, damn what the nobility say. Egg is paralleled most prominently with Daenerys but his tragedy at Summerhall contrasts against Daenerys’s triumph on the Dothraki sea.

You have now made me upset, anon. 😭

[horizon-verizon]

I know no ones cares about the author’s words anymore but GRRM himself confirmed Daenerys and Daemon were in love in an interview on 2012.

https://t.co/LD9VvCpyCv

Could you tell us something of what happened in the relationship between the first Daenerys, Daemon Blackfyre, and the prince of Dorne?

Despite Daemon and Daenerys being in love, her brother the king, Daeron the Good, was more concerned with matters of state than matters of love. There had been many years of fighting with Dorne, and failure to bring them into the Seven Kingdoms while not being able to keep them from harassing the Seven Kingdoms. So he realized that where violence failed, perhaps marriage could bring an end to hostilites and so he uses his sister to make an alliance with the prince of Dorne. It's a political marriage, pure and simple, a convenient marriage to guarantee a union between Dorne and the Seven Kingdoms. And also, he prefers to give his sister to the prince of Dorne over a bastard bother with whom he'd already had a few clashes and whom too many people were looking one as a legitimate claimant to the throne or rightful king. That was the straw that broke the camel's back, and helps lead to Daemon becoming the first Blackfyre Pretender.

The question was if Daenerys STILL loved him by the time of the Rebellion and vice versa after all that time, and did Daemons love for her give him justified motivation to rebel against Daeron....or was it primarily/just Daemon choosing to use such a narrative to paint himself (or allowing others to) as the aggressive party of a less deserving king? Not that did they ever. Even if Daemon still loved Daenerys after all that time, he used her silent absence for his political gains and image of the hypermasculine, warrior-king who would not "lose" to foreign Dornish entities.

[horizon-verizon]

ehh....Daemon "used" Daenerys, too. The Blackfyre faction used Daenerys as a symbol to enhance his image. As far as we know, she had no personal involvement in the rebellion, yet her name and supposed past with Daemon became part of the narrative surrounding his claim. She had no choice in how her image was used, no voice in the matter, and yet she was turned into a passive symbol of what Daemon had supposedly lost: his crown, his birthright, and even the woman who was “meant” for him. The Blackfyre supporters weaponized her image to serve their cause, not as an active participant, but as a tool in political warfare. Whether the rumors of their romance were true or not, they didn’t matter. What mattered was how they could be used to reinforce the idea that Daemon had been robbed of everything, further fueling the resentment against Daeron. And it worked! This made Daemon more than just a rival claimant; it turned him into a tragic figure.

Anon responds to this post.

Yes, the AWOIAF text explicitly states that Daemon's supporters "claimed" Daenerys loved Daemon and they were unduly separated. I think, anon, you're arguing against the claimed IMPOSSIBILITY of Daenerys having a "true" marriage with Maron on the basis of her having loved Daemon and Daeron was just a meanie who tore a lovestruck couple apart AND/OR PRIMARILY that we should not rely on the blanket words of the claimants in the text. I agree. That is not the "real" story, the real story is of propaganda & hypermasculinization for what another anon calls "warrior-king, strong military ruler" over a "diplomatic", "soft" one. Yes, it is true that as part of that hypermasculinization, the silent person that is Daenerys Targaryen became the figure for Daemon's forced loss of a sexual partner/heir-bringer (this a blow to his "dignity"). She is no longer real apart from Daemon and his campaign, even in the histories.