Lord Varys

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Varys

  • Rank
    Most Devious 'Man' In The Seven Kingdoms
  • Birthday 11/25/1982

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Definitely somewhere in King's Landing

Recent Profile Visitors

31,643 profile views
  1. Guys, Brandon might have fathered a literal army of little Snows. But you know what? Considering the way this society is set up he was never under any obligation to acknowledge so much as a single child as his seed. It is entirely up to him to do this, especially if he fucked a lot of commoners. King Robert only acknowledged one of his bastards, Edric Storm, and that only because his brother and sister-in-law - as well as most of the people attending Stannis' wedding - stumbled in on him and Delena Florent when he was fucking her in Stannis and Selyse's wedding bed. That was difficult to ignore. But in any other case - even if you deflower or fuck a noblewoman - the fact that said woman slept with you outside of wedlock means she could have slept with any other man, too, freeing you from the responsibility of playing the father for a child which may not be yours, anyway. Theon and even Robb may have fathered children on the common wenches they slept with. Brandon might have, too, especially while he was traveling the North, choosing a different woman to warm his bed each night. Even Tyrion might also have produced a literal army of little Hills without ever realizing it - because all the whores in the Westerlands learned that they better not approach Lord Tywin in such matters after the Tysha affair. Not every woman has the audacity of Ramsay's mother to actually confront the nobleman about the child he fathered - and Roose only acknowledged Ramsay as his son because the little brat had his eyes and looks. Not to mention the 'controversial way' in which Ramsay was fathered in the first place. If a child looks nothing like his alleged father it should be easy for him to dismiss the claim that it is his son, even if the mother was his lover or paramour for months or even years. Brandon is not described as the kind of guy you want to trouble with things he doesn't want to hear - and neither is Lord Rickard, for that matter. The idea that Brandon would have been obliged to actually listen to anything 'a whore' (and any woman seduced by him could have been a whore in his eyes) was telling him isn't very likely.
  2. Didn't catch that before, but, yeah, from what we learn via the App and what may be behind the power of shade of the evening (twisted/different kinds of weirwood trees) it seems to be pretty clear that Qarth is likely going to come back in an important way. TWoIaF gave us the Qaathi and sort of implied that Qarth was not that great of a place before the Doom took Valyria - and it is clear that the current prominence of the Qartheen grew from them being able to exploit that power vacuum very effectively - but the Undying of Qarth in their prime must have been powerful enemies. And there are dead dragons in the Red Waste. Now, it seems as if Valyria eventually forced the Qartheen to pay them tribute/acknowledge their status as the big power in their corner of the world, but since Euron apparently took Dragonbinder from Pyat Pree and his warlocks, the chances are pretty good that the ancient Undying actually beat the dragonlords back one time, killing some dragons and salvaging more than just trinkets after they downed the dragons. At least that's a much more plausible scenario in my opinion than either the Undying/warlocks or Euron ever visiting Valyria after the Doom. In any case, even the briefest history of Qarth should mention tensions/conflicts between the Qartheen and the Valyrians, and give us theories on speculations on the nature/history of Qartheen magic. Which George may not have been willing to do at this point. In fact, chances are pretty good that Qarth is going to come back even as a location in the books. Daenerys is now a dragonrider, she can return to Qarth. And she should, considering that the Qartheen have actually joined the Yunkish allies in their campaign against her. And Xaro Xhaon Daxos is still alive, too. He certainly presumed too much when he tried to lecture her on slavery, etc. back in ADwD. I don't think she is going to let this go. Besides, Quaithe might still be in Qarth, and Daenerys might finally meet her again to find out who the hell she actually is behind that mask. Not to mention that learning about the warlocks of Qarth from whatever warlocks are still left in the city would also come in handy when Dany is finally going to deal with Euron - whose current magical powers seem to be based on Qartheen sorcery to a great deal. In that sense, the chances are pretty good that Dany will send/lead a khalasar (or multiple khalasars) to Qarth to put down her enemies there. If she doesn't do that then slavery will return to Essos as soon as she leaves the region. Qarth could also be the place where Archmaester Marwyn finally catches up with Daenerys. It could be where he and Quaithe finally tell her what she should do with all the power she has acquired - take her warriors and dragons to Westeros and help save mankind from certain death. She is not likely going to learn about that in Vaes Dothrak. And if there is a connection between the shade of the evening and the weirwoods then the warlocks of Qarth might also be able to give Dany/Marwyn/Quaithe some insight into the power of the greenseers and, perhaps, even into the Others (if they have been created by or are connected to weirwood magic).
  3. While this is a nice idea, we have no evidence that Orys Baratheon's mother or his (alleged) father even were retainers of the Targaryens on Dragonstone. All we do know is that Orys Baratheon himself became Aegon Targaryen's best friend. There is no link between Orys and Lord Aerion that we know of. His (alleged) parents could have been Valyrian (nobles) in the service of the Targaryens. But they could just as well been mere commoners or the descendants of slaves. We don't know. What we do know is that Orys Baratheon didn't look Valyrian, making it exceedingly unlikely that there was much tangible evidence that he was Aerion's son. He didn't look like his alleged father, nor like his alleged half-siblings. And he wasn't acknowledged by Lord Aerion, either. In light of those facts, the chances are not very good that anybody would believe Aerion was Orys' father just because his official father (if he had one) was away when the child was conceived. Why couldn't be some other man Orys' father? It is also rather telling that Argilac the Arrogant outright dismissed the possibility of Orys Baratheon marrying his daughter and heir. He wanted a closer relation with the Targaryens on Dragonstone and if Orys had been a scion of Valyrian nobility as well as (very likely) the half-brother of Lord Aegon there wouldn't have been a good reason to react as harshly as he did. But if Orys Baratheon was nothing but a baseborn nobody whose sole special feature was that he had been befriended by Aegon Targaryen for some reason then it was clearly an insult to offer such a man as potential husband to the daughter of a king. And it is rather telling that Orys was later never officially declared Aegon's half-brother by King Aegon himself - nor legitimized as a Targaryen. Aegon could have done both, and if you think about it then Orys' standing with Argella Durrandon and his bannermen and vassals in the Stormlands would have been much better if an Orys Targaryen had ruled over them than an Orys Baratheon (or at least an Orys Baratheon who was publicly declared to be the half-brother of King Aegon). In light of all that the chances are not bad that Orys Baratheon is not, in fact, Aerion Targaryen's son and the whole thing is just that - a rumor. We know the First Night was practiced on Dragonstone. Perhaps Orys Baratheon was nothing but an alleged dragonseed, the son of one of many women Lord Aerion had before their legal husband? We don't know.
  4. It is in the West. Go to George's page and read his complete history of the Westerlands. We have no evidence that Bloodraven actually was aware of or used his skinchanger abilities back when he was Hand of the King. If George wanted to give us that impression then Dunk wouldn't have Maynard Plumm in TMK but a weird/eerie animal which followed and watched him the entire time (or Plumm would have been accompanied by such an animal). An animal he would meet again in Bloodraven's tent in the end. What we do have evidence of is that Bloodraven already knew how to use glamors back in TMK. We know where skinchanging and greenseeing come from. It is a rare magical talent the Children, the giants, and humans beings have. There is no indication that it is a hereditary trait. TPatQ wasn't recently released. It was released long before TWoIaF and is actually part of the texts TWoIaF is based. George doesn't have to give us details on Valyrian history to confirm or make it so that there were dragons fighting dragons back in Old Valyria. All he needed to do was to have a character mention this fact. And he had Prince Daemon do just that. People believing things doesn't make them so. That is a common misconception. We have evidence indicating that the Faceless Men caused the Doom, yes. That is usually due to the fact that they ride their dragons when they are killed. Rhaenyra and Aegon II survive the deaths of their dragons, though. As do Jaehaera, Aegon III, Baela and Rhaena, and Viserys I. There is a mental connection, yes, but I don't think 'soulbound' is the right way to describe that. No, there is nothing indicating that. Blood sacrifices are part of many magical rituals, often times in a rather arbitrary manner. Since we don't know any details as to how the first dragonlords became dragonlords we have no reason to assume that blood sacrificed played any role there. They could have been a part of that ritual, but we simply don't know. Dany using a blood sacrifice to hatch her dragons points nowhere. It has nothing to do with the first dragonlords. We don't even have a reason that the way the Valyrians first bonded with their dragons is even an important point that's going to be revealed in the story. Valyria is not exactly at the center of this story, you know. Robert's Rebellion takes place nearly exactly 150 years after the Dance. And that war didn't really finish the Targaryens, did it? The Valyrian dragons were bred for war. And they died in war, just as the Targaryen dragons did. Killing and being killed was their purpose in life. There is no indication that dragons do not like to kill each other. In fact, Vermithor attacks two other dragons all by himself, and he, Tessarion, and Seasmoke rip each other to pieces without any rider influencing their actions. Have those dragons 'sinned', too? And what about Sunfyre and Grey Ghost? Sunfyre killed that dragon simply because he could, presumably. Or the Cannibal. He fed on dragon eggs and hatchlings. LOL, most of the people up there had severe issues. Joff is an unruly young child who gets agitated when he cuts himself on the throne in ACoK. Aerys II was a well-known madman who was apparently simply not willing or capable to sit still on the throne, leading to the many cuts he suffered up there. Rhaenyra sat on the throne for hours and hours in full armor, after she had taken KL. There is no indication that she cut herself, simply talk about blood dripping down her legs - which most likely came from a delicate woman unaccustomed to armor wearing armor for a day and a night - first on dragonback during the day and then on the Iron Throne during the night. Viserys I was a fat and sick man when he ascended the Iron Throne and cut himself up there when delivering a judgment. Fat and sick men are more likely to cut themselves on a monstrosity like the Iron Throne than young and agile men, no? And Maegor was simply killed on the throne - either he killed himself, or he was murdered up there. But Jaehaerys and Alysanne's half-uncle killed a dragon, no? And their brother Aegon tried to kill a dragon and used his dragon to attack another, as they later intended to do, too. Surely they sinned as much as Rhaenyra and Daemon's descendants, no? Those whose dragons later died. Yet the Targaryens and their dragons thrived during the reigns of both Jaehaerys I and Viserys I, never mind the fact that the Targaryens and their dragons attacked and killed each other after the death of King Aenys. There is no such legend, just the claim that the people of Asshai supposedly taught the Valyrians how to bond with the dragons. But there is no proof that this is true. The point is just that we don't know when the Valyrians were dragonlords. Valyria could have stood for a hundred years before the first dragonlord claimed his dragon. She says she took care of Rhaego. But there is no talk about her cursing him. Dany saw an alternate reality. We have no way of what reality, just that it was one of many possible alternate realities. We cannot draw any conclusions about the 'real reality' from visions about alternate realities. Because it may be a consequence of having the blood of the dragon that some of your children do not look normal and are not exactly viable. The fact that people want to kill dragons doesn't mean anybody poisoned the Targaryens or their children. We have no reason to believe those centaurs were not 'natural creatures'. But we do know that the Valyrian dragonlords acquired the ability to bond with dragons at a certain point in history. They permanently changed. They didn't have the blood of the dragon forever. Even if the Valyrians were taught the spells to bond with their dragons - they would have still gone through those spells themselves. The Valyrians are the Valyrians. There is no reason to believe that any Valyrian had ever to do something like Dany did. There were dragons back in Valyria. A lot of them. And they were thriving there. There was no reason why anybody should try to hatch dragon eggs with magic. No idea, really, while we don't know what exactly the horn can do. But if Moqorro lied and the person blowing the horn is actually supposed to be the one to control the dragon(s) then I'd not be surprised if people with the blood of the dragon (like Dany, Brown Ben Plumm, and Tyrion) could actually use the horn to do whatever it is supposed to do. Sure dragons are special. And beautiful. And dangerous. But their purpose was to be used as weapons. And weapons can break. The point here is that Valyria never had a really imperial center. It was run by two scores of powerful families who didn't exactly live together in unison. And their political system was even more egalitarian considering that any free landowner in Valyria could elect officials. Many of those dragonlords hated each other. And they fought against each other occasionally on dragonback, using their dragons to kill, you know, their dragons. And presumably each other along with them.
  5. I don't think we need an answer to that. The best guess would be that it was the name of Orys Baratheon's mother. Or the name of his alleged father, considering that it is just a rumor that he was Aerion Targaryen's son. The fact that Orys had a family name and not just some bastard's name or recognizable moniker indicates that he inherited said name either from his mother or alleged father. We don't know whether the Targaryens had fallen to the savage Westerosi custom of marking their illegitimate children with bastard names. Orys' mother could thus have been a Baratheon by birth, able to pass her name as if she had been married. Or she may have been married and the whole bastard thing is just a false or wrong rumor.
  6. People can talk all day long. People in power do what they want, not what some bog devil, commoner, or obscure Dornishmen tell them. Stannis also told people that his brother's sons were bastards and abominations born of incest. He was laughed out of town. The fact that people who know the truth about Jon's parentage might eventually publicly talk about that isn't the same as people in power actually listening to or believing their stories and act on them. The boys were legitimized by Queen Rhaenyra's royal decree because they were late consort's bastard children. That's why they were legitimized, not because one of them claimed a dragon. Nor is there any indication that Rhaenyra, Jacaerys, or Corlys saw Addam succeeding and Alyn failing as 'proof' of anything. Neither of those things are 'proofs' in any real sense of the word, just as Aegon claiming a dragon and Jon Connington and Varys publicly declaring that he is Rhaegar's son by Elia doesn't prove anything. Nobody said anything about Jon actually having a horn like Dragonbinder (although he certainly could acquire such a horn, perhaps even Dragonbinder itself - after all, you also believe that one of Dany's dragons lives long enough to get to Westeros and Jon, so why not also Dragonbinder?). I said that the existence of horns like Dragonbinder allows for Daenerys to dismiss the possibility that somebody claiming one of her dragons has to mean said person has Targaryen or dragonlord blood. It would set a precedent that anybody can claim a dragon under the right circumstances. You repeat yourself and add nothing of substance. At this point more people know that Jon Snow is a skinchanger than people know he is supposedly a Targaryen descendant. This knowledge can and will spread. The other knowledge might not even be publicly revealed. If Daenerys interacts with Jon Snow she can learn that the man is a skinchanger five seconds after she learns his name. And out goes 'the proof' that Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son. If a skinchanger can control a dragon then any skinchanger could technically control a dragon. And any skinchanger isn't Rhaegar's son or a Targaryen descendant. LOL, you don't know much about logic, do you? The fact that you do something doesn't mean you have to it. So you think Drogon couldn't hunt himself plenty of food out in the Dothraki Sea? You can repeat that until TWoW comes out, that doesn't make it true. And even if it were - he could have gotten it all by himself. George has said that magic will increase while the story progresses. The magical realism of today might not be the magical realism of tomorrow - never mind that this isn't even a proper term. Magic is never realistic, nor are zombies and dragons any more believable than talking dragons. LOL, you are not using the scientific method (and if you did use it you would waste your time because you are talking about literature). The scientific method would tell you that you have insufficient data to conclude that Drogon first breathed fire in the House of the Undying. You don't have a thorough list of Drogon's doing between his hatching (when he breathed smoke) and the House of the Undying. We don't. No, we don't say that a dragon first can breathe fire at five months because we have no reason to do so. In fact, we also have no reason to assume that any dragons but Dany's were fed by humans. If dragons were creatures who have to be breastfed fed charred meat by people then they would not be creatures that can survive in the wild since there is no hint whatsoever that (wild) dragons do any parenting when there are no humans around to do it for them. Dany's dragons are all dragons we have, but this doesn't mean you have sufficient knowledge to draw general conclusions from that flimsy basis of evidence. Especially not since those are magical creatures you cannot even compare to their real world counterparts. LOL, I didn't make any claim, and thus I don't have a burden of proof. You claim you know when dragons in general and Drogon in particular first breathe(d) fire. I just pointed out that dragons might be able to do that sooner than you think. But I don't have to prove that because I don't claim I know. In fact, I've gone on record saying that I don't really claim a dragon hatched at Winterfell, either. I just said that I think that's possible and that I somewhat like the idea. LOL, the arguments are of the same structures as a parent of an autistic child claiming that all human children only learn to speak (defectively) at the age of ten because that's how this was in this special case. If you don't have a sufficient amount of evidence - and isolated cases aren't a sufficient amount of evidence - you have to shut up. Pointing out that this is the only evidence we have is irrelevant. Your basis isn't sufficient and I don't care that's all you got. If that's all you got you can't make a proper judgment and you should remain silent. How should I know? Because of magic. This is a fantasy series. It could be a different kind of dragon, one that is more magical and less in demand of food. How did Smaug survive beneath the Erebor for over a hundred years? Didn't he need something to eat? We do know that Tolkien's dragons eat, too, you know... How do you know that young dragons resemble young cobras in any way? Do you also think young cobras have to be fed by third parties before they can feed themselves? I happen to know that this isn't the case.
  7. Not as far as we know. Again, I gave you Bloodraven's quote on the matter. Right now the Children of the Forest have no greenseers at all. They are dependent on human albino and crippled human child. That isn't true, either, as I've already pointed out. There were skinchangers in the southern parts of Westeros, too. And there might still be. And the issue with the whole thing is that your culture/environment has to allow or enable you to explore your innate magical talents. If you are a skinchanger or even a potential greenseer the people around have to help/allow you to make use of that gift. If they don't - and if nobody teaches you how to do it - you won't become a (good) skinchanger and most definitely not a greenseer. Sure, he was known as having a thousand eyes and one, but that just means that he had a lot of spies, not necessarily that he controlled animals. He could have controlled some, yes, but as of yet we have no evidence that he did while he was Hand of King Aerys I. In TMK he uses a glamor to infiltrate Whitewalls. If he had familiar, an enslaved animal at his side, he could have just sent that creature into the castle. But he didn't do that. He went himself, in the guise of Maynard Plumm. Again, there is no textual evidence that anybody sees skinchanging/greenseeing as a trait that runs in bloodlines or is inherited genetically. There are no skinchanger or greenseer bloodlines or dynasties. We don't have any detailed information on the magical traditions and cultures of Essos. Skinchangers could exist there, too. But in TPatQ. Prince Daemon confirms that dragons killed dragons back in Old Valyria. And he compares what he and Rhaenyra would have to do in the coming Dance with what the Valyrians of old did to each other and the dragons, indicating that the internal dragonlord infighting involving dragon battles was about as bad - or even worse - than the Dance of the Dragons. No, he explicitly referred to the history of Valyria, not the history of Westeros. And Daemon Targaryen knows much more about the history of Valyria than you or I. There is no causal link to any of that. Aegon III, Jaehaera, Viserys II, and their descendants had nothing to do with the Dance. People imagining causal links and connections doesn't mean they are there. No, because we actually do have a couple of theories about the Doom, and no such theory indicates that dragons killing dragons had anything to do with the Doom. How do you know that? You have no idea how those bonds work, nor do you have any reason to believe that dragons killing dragons has any effect on the dragons or their riders. The Iron Throne is just a chair. There is nothing magical about that thing, or the fact that old, sick, mad, clumsy, or agitated people risk injuring themselves when fervently gesticulate or otherwise work themselves in a frenzy on a chair with as many sharp barbs and spikes as the Iron Throne. If dragons killing dragons is 'a sin' then Jaehaerys, Alysanne, Rhaena, and their children and grandchildren should have suffered the consequences of that sin as much as Aegon III, Viserys II, and their descendants did, no? Yet they prospered and thrived. We don't know whether Valyria was founded before or after the first dragonlords tamed dragons. Could very well be that the city of Valyria already existed at that point. You don't need dragons to found a city, after all. There is no proof for this claim of yours. The vision of Rhaego was a vision of what could have been. Rhaego could have been not deformed in the womb or he could have been deformed in the womb. We don't know and have no way of knowing. All we do know is that Rhaego was not dead in the womb when Dany entered the tent. There is also no reason to believe Mirri cursed Rhaego. He likely was the sacrifice Dany and Mirri used to heal Drogo, but that doesn't mean Rhaego was cursed. There is no proof for such things in the sources we have. That is why I implied that this whole thing would have been 'messy'. It would have been a very ugly thing but we really don't know what dragons and humans can do with each other in this world, if they really want to. Nor do we know what powerful sorcerers can help them accomplish. It is pretty clear that a human-dragon mating would only have worked with magical assistance. But if such assistance was given it could have worked, no? We don't need a detailed explanation. We have the traditional belief that the dragonlords of Valyria had 'the blood of the dragon'. That is enough for me to imply that there might be a literal kinship between Valyrian dragonlords and their dragons. It is, after all, what 'having the blood of the dragon' is supposed to mean in this context. Sure, which makes the whole miracle less miraculous because the spell was just an accelerant. It didn't create anything, it just activated or awakened something that was never truly gone. And that's why what Dany - who inherited the blood of the dragon from her Valyrian ancestors - did is no way near in the same magical league as the stuff the Valyrians of old did - who first established a permanent link between humans and dragons. Because there is no indication that sacrificial magic had anything to do with the stuff the Valyrians of old did to establish their link with the dragons. It may be a reference to the fact that 'non-mortal men' in the figurative sense - Valyrian dragonlords - do not die when blowing the horn because the blood of the dragon setting them apart from mortal/lesser men allows them to blow horns like Dragonbinder. And that could very well be the reason why nobody ever successfully used such a horn against the Valyrians. Sure we do. You cannot dismiss Prince Daemon on that one. And again - nothing indicates the Doom was caused by a silly conflict between some dragonlords involving dragons killing each other. Dragons weren't all that special in Valyria, anyway. The dragonlords had hundreds of dragons. Valyria was never an empire, it was always a Freehold. It never had an imperial hierarchy or bureaucracy. And there was constant infighting which apparently also included dragons fighting and killing other dragons. Valyrian magic was rooted in blood and fire, not necessarily in dragons. Dragons were part of their power structure, a very important part, especially in the military department, but we really don't know the extent of the power of the most powerful Valyrian sorcerers. They could very well have been more powerful than dragonlords and their dragons. After all, we do know that the fires of the Fourteen Flames burned hotter than dragonfire. And the spells of the sorcerers of Valyria controlled the Fourteen Flames.
  8. Maekar is the fourth son of a king. He can neither demand nor expect anything. He is at the very end of the succession and a King Valarr doesn't owe anything to this man or his sons. Now, Aerion could become a problem to Valarr and his sons, but Daeron and Aegon are not likely to become difficult. If Valarr and Matarys hadn't died, Maekar and his sons would have been as prominent or important in the long run as Genna's and Tygett's children are for the Lannisters of Casterly Rock. They are part of the family, but not necessarily people that are at the center of attention. Valarr is very cold to Dunk during Baelor's funeral. He doesn't completely condemn him, but then - he doesn't seem to be a bad person. However, Valarr knows what kind of man cousin Aerion is - and he is the one to blame for the Trial of Seven. Cousin Daeron is to be blamed for the whole thing, too, because he participated in it, as is uncle Maekar who fought in the thing and killed Baelor. And cousin Aegon, too, since he is the boy who made a fuzz about the puppeteer in the first, starting the entire affair. Even if Valarr believed that Maekar did not want to kill Baelor - and I'm pretty sure he would have believed that - their relationship would have still been poisoned by the fact that Maekar did what he did. And it wasn't an accident or anything, it was a trial-by-combat. Maekar chose to fight with a heavy weapon and he chose to attack his brother Baelor with considerable strength. Maekar may not have wanted to kill his brother, but he accepted that this might happen. If he had wanted to protect his brother's life he would have followed the example of Daeron or the Kingsguard. I don't think King Valarr would have been keen look into the face of that man everyday at court, let alone interact and work with that man in his own government. Would you want to do that with an uncle who took your father from you the way Maekar killed Baelor? In fact, chances are not that bad that King Aerys I chose Bloodraven over Maekar as Hand because he, too, was wroth with brother Maekar for the death of their older brother. We don't know how close Aerys and Baelor were, but it is Baelor's untimely death - as well as Valarr and Matarys' death in the spring - that force Prince Aerys to become king - which apparently wasn't exactly something he had expected or worked towards. If the man had intended to continue his life as a scholarly, eccentric hermit without wearing a crown, then he might have been pissed that his younger brother's silly behavior - as well as the behavior of the sons of that man - had ruined his quiet life. And it makes no sense to reward such a brother for that kind of thing by giving him great power.
  9. No idea. Since she is never so much as mentioned during any of the Dunk & Egg stories it is not unlikely that she was already dead by then - or that she was at KL or on Dragonstone during THK and died in the spring. But then - if she had been alive, and if Prince Baelor was doing a royal progress through the southern parts of Westeros, then it would have been very odd that the future queen wasn't with him - especially not in light of the fact that Valarr had his first debut at a tourney. Thinking about that - it is also odd that Valarr's wife Kiera was nowhere to be seen - but she may have been at an advance stage of her pregnancy at that point. No idea. What we can say is that she apparently didn't marry Prince Daeron in 209-211 AC. After all, it would have been mentioned if Egg's brother had taken a wife, even more so if said wife had been the widow of Prince Valarr. Depending on who she actually is she may have returned to Tyrosh for a time before she ended up marrying Daeron. We have no idea. We don't know anything about Matarys, but Valarr doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would make either Bloodraven or Maekar his Hand. Bloodraven because he was an old guy already, and a man who had a pretty bad reputation (although I guess he could have kept his place on the Small Council, if Bloodraven had already a place there during the reign of Daeron II). Maekar not because he had killed Valarr's own father, Prince Baelor. A King Valarr wouldn't have forgiven Maekar and his sons - Daeron, Aerion, and Aegon - for the part they all played at Ashford. They would have been banished from court, never receiving any royal favors throughout Valarr's reign. It is not even clear whether Maekar would have been allowed to keep Summerhall. Valarr may have forced them all into exile. One assumes he would have named a younger man his Hand, one of his friends or some other man who had sought and won his favor.
  10. Bran and Bloodraven are greenseers. They can control many animals at the same time. While animals (and humans) might fight against being controlled by them, their powers seem to be so great that this isn't necessarily all that much of an issue. For Varamyr it was a great success to become Sixskins. Bran and Bloodraven both are far beyond that already, and that only if you count the ravens they control. Bloodraven's statistics: One should assume that Bloodraven would have mentioned it if certain bloodlines had a greater likelihood to produce skinchangers and greenseers than others. In addition, if this was the case the Children would have long ago started breeding their greenseers and skinchangers just as the Valyrians bred their dragonlords. It would have been a necessary requirement during their war with the First Men. And we also know that there are giant greenseer predecessors to Bloodraven in that cave, strongly indicating that all species have that magical talent. The First Men are not different by blood from the Andals or the Rhoynar, only by their culture and religion. Not to mention - you know - that all the Rhoynar and Andals in Westeros are First Men, too, just as as most of the First Men (especially the noble bloodlines who enter into arranged marriages) are also of Andal descent. The Blackwoods may keep the old gods, but that doesn't make them less Andal than, say, the Tullys, Brackens, Strongs, or any other family in the Andal kingdoms with First Men roots. We cannot really say that because the Lannisters might very well be older than the Starks, being founded before the Long Night by the First Man Lann the Clever on those Casterly girls (who were also First Men, of course). The Lannisters eventually intermarried with the Andals, just as the Gardeners, Durrandons, and Hightowers did, but there is no indication that this had any impact on their magical talent. Because, again, there is no indication that Andals lack the potential to become skinchangers and greenseers. Their culture may not help them pursuing or discovering such talents and careers, but that has no bearing on the innate talent. If we look at Bloodraven then there is actually no indication the man knew he was a skinchanger during TMK. He is a sorcerer and interested in magic, but neither Maynard Plumm nor Bloodraven himself is accompanied by or particularly familiar with (an) animal(s). One should assume that Bloodraven wouldn't have troubled himself with wearing a glamor and personally infiltrating Whitewalls if he could have just used, you know, a raven, a cat, a dog, or some other animal to spy on Daemon II Blackfyre and his followers. And it might very well be that he only discovered he was a skinchanger when he met other skinchangers up at the Wall - after all, we know that skinchangers always recognize each other. The culture down in KL was not likely to encourage young Brynden to delve into the mysteries of skinchanging. The Targaryens would have explored other types of magic. There is no indication that the Children or First Men greenseers ever practiced incest or married close kin. In fact, if we consider the wildling culture it is exceedingly unlikely that the ancient First Men did stuff like that. And we do know that there were skinchangers in other places like the West (I think the story of the Banefort skinchanger who had lions devour a Lannister is only in the unabridged version of the story on George's page, but it is there) and the Iron Islands (where the Farwynds are reputed skinchangers controlling the spotted whales there - likely George's versions of orcas). And again - there are giant greenseers, too. While there is a chance that Children and First Men intermarried, there is small chance that giants and Children ever intermarried. Nope, the Valyrian history was apparently full of such conflicts. And even TWoIaF makes clear that those struggles were constant, due to the fact that multiple houses vied for control of the Freehold. Those times when only one family controlled the Freehold were exceedingly rare, apparently. This is what Daemon Targaryen has to say on the matter: There is no indication either that dragons, the world, or fate care about dragons killing dragons or people slaying their close kin. That's not nice and all, but there is no indication, either, that the gods or fate or anyone on the grand scale of things cares about stuff like that. The Dance was stupidity but not necessarily something the Targaryens were later punished for. Besides, the dragonlords of Valyria putting dragon against dragon wouldn't have necessarily have been close kin. They were marrying their own brothers and sisters, and if you do that for only, say, ten generations of so then you are only very distantly related to the other noble family in your neighborhood doing the same. Many dragonlord families may have effectively been only related to themselves, basically. Killing rival dragonlords and dragons would then have been nothing to be ashamed of, nor anything particularly bad. This is the description of Quicksilver's end from TSotD: It also mentions that there were battles between dragons and dragonlords back in Valyria. Maegor was never 'rejected' by the Iron Throne. He just died while sitting on the thing. And there is no indication whatsoever that the throne itself killed him by its own volition (it is just a chair, chairs don't have wills of their own), nor is it particularly likely that this was an accident. Superstitious morons ascribing agency to artifacts doesn't make it so. That's with Rhaenyra bleeding on the throne (after having spent and entire day and night in armor, first on dragonback and then on the Iron Throne with her skin not exactly being accustomed to that kind of finery) or Viserys I, Aerys II, and Joffrey cutting themselves on the throne means pretty much nothing besides them being clumsy. You would have to prove a causal link there. Besides, you do recall that Prince Aegon fought his royal uncle, too, right? And Jaehaerys I, Alysanne, and Rhaena did, too. Yet neither of those lines ended nor were they punished by fate in any way. Aegon's daughters Aerea and Rhaella lived. And Jaehaerys and Alysanne were the most fertile Targaryen couple ever. It was a battle, not necessarily a drawn-out war. And it involved the fight between two dragons. It could also be that dragons are, in the end, just natural creatures, and the Valyrians just made them much larger, more effective weapons. Since there is no indication that the First Men or Andals had any troubles with wild dragons after the Long Night, I doubt that there were dragons there in those days. And nothing indicates Valyria was there before the Long Night. That may be the case - but then, magic obviously allowed them to make their human-dragon hybrids as human as possible. The Valyrian dragonlords can interbreed with 'normal humans' and produce viable, fertile offspring. That makes them, perhaps, a sub-species of human beings, but not a new species. You also have to keep in mind that magic should allow them to only partially 'dragonize' their offspring. Human-dragon hybrids do not necessarily have to be 50% dragon and 50% human. Not when sorcerers are doing the thing. The point is that if the Valyrians on Gogossos could produce human-animal hybrids then the first dragonlords of Valyria could also have done a similar thing to themselves. If this works in Gogossos with slaves it could also work in Valyria with Valyrians. Dany's child isn't the only monstrosity the Targaryens produced in their history - Maegor, Rhaenyra, Laena Velaryon, possibly even Aerys II and Rhaella - they all produced weird stillborn children. And while Dany's child may have died during Mirri Maz Duur's ritual, Rhaego could have still been a twisted, half-human creature before that. All Dany knew is that he was alive and kicking before she entered the tent. She didn't know how he looked. Now, I assume the magic in the tent reacted with 'the blood of the dragon' in Rhaego and caused the child to manifest dragon-like attributes before its life force was used to heal/revive Drogo, but we'll likely never learn what actually happened there. They would only want to outbreed them to the point that they were viable creatures, and recognizably human who were still able to become dragonriders. The whole thing is all about controlling dragons. That's the point of the entire enterprise. If they actually mated with dragons in a literal sense in the beginning one assumes there was one person who fucked or got fucked by a dragon, and then the offspring of that union, in turn, mated with normal humans until the dragon aspects were lessened and lessened until the standard silver-golden haired and purple-eyed Valyrian showed up. And then they had to introduce the incest thing to not outbreed the ability to control dragons. But that's only the idea if there was a literal human-dragon mating thing. If not, then they could have just magically included or introduced aspects of dragons into themselves, making the whole thing less messy. We don't know whether those eggs were truly dead. Dany feels they are hot, and she feels that there is life inside them. It still requires magic to bring it forth, but it is not created by the spell. It is already there. Else Dany could just as well have created dragons out of thin air. Dany certainly may have been destined to do what she did. But again - that has nothing to do with the origins or dragons or the dragonlords of old. There is no reason to believe that. Death can pay for life, fine. But nobody ever said anything about death paying for your and your family's ability to control dragons. The Valyrian dragonlords saw themselves as being above gods and men. They were not seeing each other as 'mortal men' in a figurative sense. They were above mortal men, never mind the fact that were still mortal in the literal sense. See above. Dragons killed each other back in Old Valyria. How so? There could have been rules for that kind of thing. And forty dragons ripping to pieces 5-10 of a stupid family daring the challenge a much more powerful dragonlord family wouldn't be the end of Valyria. Half the city might not even realize or care that this happened. Nobody ever said that those Valyrian dragon civil wars were all-out wars like the Dance. After all, dragons were not the only source of power in Old Valyria. There were sorcerer (princes) there, too, and we have no idea what they could do. If I had to guess I'd say some dragonlord controlling one dragon may have been very unwise to challenge a guy whose spells were controlling the Fourteen Flames...
  11. Since Lord Tymond Lannister threw his support behind Prince Viserys' claim at the Great Council I doubt a member of the major branch of House Lannister is going to turn out to be one of those lesser claimants. In that sense, the Lannisters are in a similar position as the Hightowers there - with Tymond and Otto strongly supporting Viserys it makes not that much sense to assume they themselves or their relations laid claim to the Iron Throne themselves. But, still, people are strange sometimes. Aenys Blackfyre also thought he had a better claim than 'King Daemon III Blackfyre', etc. An Alysanne Farman was the first wife of Gerold Lannister. But they had no issue. Still, the Farmans seem to be one of the most prestigious and powerful houses of the West, making it not unlikely at all that there were multiple marriages between them and the Lannisters. But then - Androw Farman was only the second son of Lord Farman. Unless Rhaena and Androw's children married into House Lannister (or the elder son, and Androw became the next Lord of Fair Isle)it is not very likely that the Lords of Casterly Rock some generations down the line married their heirs to the children of (landless) knights or whatever. Targaryen blood or not, the Lannisters are proud. But with the six Targaryen-Hightower girls it is really impossible to say who has a drop of the blood of the dragon and who doesn't. Pretty much everybody could, if some of those girls were as fertile as Queen Alysanne. And I'm pretty sure Ronnel and Aelinor Penrose are both descended from Rhaena and Garmund Hightower. Perhaps even Jena Dondarrion. One assumes the newly written section on the reign of the Old King in 'Fire and Blood' touches on those subjects. Aside from such family matters and marriage arrangement there shouldn't be a lot of interesting stuff to cover, anyway.
  12. But those are contingent factors. The West under Tytos would have been much weaker than under Tywin. Just as the Riverlands under the strong Mudd or Justman kings would have had much more authority than the Tullys of today. That the Riverlands were also crippled by the ineffectiveness of their leaders during the War of the Five Kings is also pretty clear. I didn't say I count all the civilians. Only those willing to risk their lives fighting against the Targaryen and Tyrell oppressors. Those would have been more than the able-bodied men the average lord drafted into his army but still significantly less than the entire Dornish population - many of which may have accepted the Conquest while others simply were not willing to risk their lives by actively joining the resistance fighters. The people I count would be determined villagers who rose up in rebellion against the Targaryen garrison of a castle who never before or again would be part of any organized army. The brotherhood in the Riverlands likely has many members who never fought in a proper army, too. Yet now they are experienced and dangerous warriors and killers. That isn't really relevant since nobody ever talked about an army being assembled at Winterfell. Torrhen's army could have assembled at multiple points in the North like Winterfell, Barrowton, and White Harbor only to unite at Moat Cailin (or perhaps even only in the Riverlands). During the Dance, there were multiple waves of Northmen assembling at those locations, too. Roderick Dustin had assembled his own army at Barrowton, the Manderlys their own forces at White Harbor (who likely joined Rhaenyra's forces by ship), and in the end Lord Cregan came with his own army which he assembled at Winterfell.
  13. Oh, it was just an idea I remember tossing around when first reading TPatQ. At that point, we had no idea what had happened to all of Jaehaerys I's daughters and to any of of the other descendants King Aenys (and Aegon the Conqueror) may have had. The revelation that Rhaenys and Visenya had only one son each came as a considerable surprise to all of us. And we didn't even have the names of the many wives of Maegor the Cruel at that point, if I'm not mistaken. In light of the incest marriage policy - as well as Viserys I's first marriage to a cousin - it wasn't that far-fetched to assume that Alicent Hightower may have been an even more distant cousin of Viserys I on the Targaryen side, allowing her to marry the king. With what we know now about the constant attempts of the Hightowers to marry into House Targaryen - first Aegon, then succeeding with - it makes more sense that the Viserys-Alicent match wasn't challenged. In fact, the impression one gets is that the Hightowers are seen as the second most noble bloodline of Westeros after the Targaryens, due to the prestige that comes with their age, wealth, and influence over the Faith and the Citadel. Thus I'd agree that it makes perfect sense for the Viserys-Alicent match to play out as it does in TRP. The king falls in love with a young woman who happens to be of an impeccable noble bloodline that allows her to marry said king without causing a scandal. But the idea of Princess Rhaella marrying into House Hightower is still an interesting possibility/idea, is it not? Somewhat more interesting than her just becoming a septa. Still, it would likely be more interesting if those nine lesser claimants came from other houses and bloodlines than the Hightowers. Some Targaryen-Farmans sound pretty interesting to me, and Aerea (and Rhaella) founding other (now obscure) cadet branches of House Targaryen through the female line would be pretty interesting. The Strongs might be an interesting possibility, too.
  14. I never said they were true. But I'm inclined to believe that the differences in strength given in those sources - i.e. the Reach at the top, the West second, etc. - are more or less accurate. My point was never about how strong a given region actually is - it was simply about the fact that I think we have good reason to believe the Westerlands are stronger than the Riverlands. I don't think so, on the basis of the fact that King Torrhen had about a year to gather his full strength and only assembled an army of 30,000 men. And later there is no indication, either, that Robb assembled less than half the total strength of the North when he assembled his ~20,000 men. This isn't likely if we don't know that Whent men went to war at all. Do we see any Whent men with Edmure, Cat, and Robb at Riverrun, ever? No, we don't. No, they aren't. Minisa Whent has been dead a long time ago, and Lord Walter Whent and his sons stood with Prince Rhaegar against Lord Hoster at the Trident. The point being that Raymun Darry being at Riverrun doesn't mean he came with his entire strength. Just as any lord being there might not have come with his entire strength. A guy with some men being at place X means just that - that he and some men are there. Not that all the man's men that could have been there actually were there. The point is just that we don't know how many men Mooton sent where. His town of Maidenpool wasn't in danger from the Lannisters. And he wasn't exactly the best friend of either Lord Hoster or his heir. Why should he have sent his entire strength to fight in the Tully war? Lord Swann still supported King Joffrey, did he not? Just as Lord Selwyn supported Renly by sending him Brienne and some archers. Or just how Lord Estermont sent men to Joffrey and Renly both, being 'a careful friend' of all the Baratheon pretenders. You can declare for someone and support him without actually committing all that many resources to this person or their cause. That implies that she didn't send all that many. After all, unlike those Northmen who did send many she still has the strength to put down some Ironborn on Northern soil, unlike the Tallharts or Glovers who couldn't even defend their castles against the invaders. It is very much implied both by Lady Barbrey herself as well as by the fact that prominent Dustin (and Ryswell) men are nowhere to be seen in Robb's army. Still, they did not send as many men as they might have send had Eddard Stark called his banners, no? Especially not, you know, Lady Dustin. And, of course, Robb wasn't Edmure, was he? But the point here simply is that Edmure didn't have any banners to raise because he simply didn't own any yet. Edmure may have raised the banners of Riverrun in the name of his dying father, Lord Hoster Tully, but not in his own name. He was just his father's heir at that point. And while the banners were first raised Lord Hoster was still conscious and able to influence things. He was the one who forced the young Riverlords to seek justice from the king in AGoT when Gregor first attacked the Riverlands, after all. I'm not really sure that 50,000 Dornish warriors don't exist. I doubt Dorne could assemble so many warriors to invade the Stormlands or the Reach, nor necessarily to fight a pitched battle in the mountains against an invading army, but the Young Dragon's book claims he fought 50,000 Dornishmen during his Conquest of Dorne. A war that continued on Dornish soil after it was 'officially won'. If you keep troops to keep it occupied then the pool of people from which freedom fighters, resistance fighters, partisans, etc. draw their support naturally grows larger than the pool from which a lord or prince draws the men he marches off to fight hundreds or thousands of miles away from their villages and homes. Daeron's men didn't only have to fight against Dornish spear men on the battlefield, but also Dornish women, children, and old people in their villages and homes. For that kind of warfare, 50,000 warriors may be actually too low an estimate. Still, those 50,000 people wouldn't be marching in a conventional Dornish army. On a smaller scale you can compare it to the resistance the Winterfell folk shows to Theon after he has taken the castle. Many of that people are not likely to ever go to war, but they can fight back and kill invaders when they are attacked, especially if they use guile and betrayal to kill the enemy when they are not expecting it. Sure there is. It is a reason of principle. Only stuff in canonical works is part of the canon. If you talk to George today and he tells you something that's not canon, either. It is only canon if it is part of books published by George R.R. Martin. Anything else simply isn't part of the canon, never mind that it may or may not be correct (and stuff that isn't in the books certainly can be - and has been - revised). We have proof of that insofar as we know that the Targaryen rule put an end to the constant warfare in the Seven Kingdoms, which would have reduced the number of people being killed in war. And if we talk about the North, there is no indication that there was any war up there from the Conquest until the troubles they faced with the Skagosi, Dagon Greyjoy, and then eventually Raymun Redbeard. The Conqueror didn't kill any Northmen, during the reigns of Aenys and Maegor there was no war in the North, even the Dance saw nor war on Northern soil. And neither did any of the Blackfyre rebellions as far as we know. Some Northmen left the North to fight in the Dance, but they did so because they wanted to die in battle. Because they did not want to cause trouble for their families in the coming winter. Hard winters certainly could have culled all that growth again, especially during the two six-year-winters we know of. But the fact that the population would have slowly increased due to the end of war - especially during a period of mild winters - cannot really be doubted.
  15. Well, I remember tossing around the idea that Otto Hightower may have had a Targaryen grandmother, explaining why Lord Beesbury claimed that Rhaenyra had more Targaryen blood than her half-brother. But that was when only TPatQ was out. With TRP it seems that neither Otto nor Alicent had so much as a drop of Targaryen blood since it simply doesn't come up when Viserys I's decision to marry Alicent comes up in the text. When Alicent is discussed they say that her noble Hightower blood makes her a proper queen and all, and nobody can really object to the king's decision (presumably despite the fact that Alicent is merely a knight's daughter, the granddaughter of a previous Lord of Oldtown). One should assume that it would have come up that Otto's grandmother may have been Princess Rhaella Targaryen if that had been the case. But then - as we later learned George actually only laid out the reigns of Aegon, Aenys, Maegor, Viserys I, the Dance, and the Regency of Aegon III in detail. About Jaehaerys I's long reign there exists little more than the stuff we got in TWoIaF. We simply don't know yet what happened to Rhaena and her daughters. Which means that it isn't impossible that it turns out that Rhaella is Otto's grandmother. The decision to make her a septa was made by Maegor, and Rhaena, Alyssa Velaryon, and Jaehaerys I may have not approved of that after the fact. And the Lord of Oldtown apparently went out of his way to protect Rhaella from Maegor's wrath, defying his command. It is certainly possible that she became his ward after that, and was eventually married to his son or grandson. With Jaehaerys I and Alysanne not yet married in 48 AC it also wouldn't be very wise of Alyssa Velaryon to remove Rhaella permanently from the pool of viable heirs by making her a septa. Maegor didn't really want Aegon's girls to succeed him. He just made Aerea his presumptive heir until he finally had the (male) heir of his own body he so desperately wanted. For his purpose one grandniece - the elder one - was enough. The spare Rhaella was not necessary. But if Jaehaerys I and Alysanne had had trouble producing (healthy) children everybody would have looked to Aerea and Rhaella as the ones to continue the Targaryen bloodline and producing potential heirs of Jaehaerys I. Still, in light of the fact that we have this whole 'nine lesser claimants' thing at the Great Council of 101 AC, it is not that likely that Otto Hightower - the Hand who presided over the council - and his children had Targaryen blood. After all, some of those lesser claimants must have been descendants of Rhaena, Aerea, and Rhaella since we do know that the descendants of Jaehaerys I supported either Laenor Velaryon or Prince Viserys. There is also the possibility that there were illegitimate Targaryens - or the descendants of illegitimate Targaryens around. Say, grandchildren of acknowledged bastards of King Aenys, (children of) bastards of Jaehaerys I (if such people existed) or acknowledged bastards of Jaehaerys I's sons Aemon, Baelon, and Vaegon. Such could also have made up part of the lesser claimants. But at least some of those lesser claimants should have been legitimate descendants of King Aenys through the female line - which means they must have been descendants of Rhaena, Aerea, or Rhaella. For Rhaena TSotD introduced a potential third husband in the guise of the second son of the Lord of Fair Isle, Androw Farman. It may turn out that Rhaena married this man after Maegor's death, also explaining why Jaehaerys I didn't take both his sisters to wife like Aegon the Conqueror did. After all, Targaryen tradition in Aegon's days demanded that a man marry his older sister. If Jaehaerys I was already as deeply in love with Alysanne as he later was at the age of fourteen tradition should have caused to marry Alysanne in addition to Rhaena - like Aegon married Rhaenys in addition to Visenya. However, that never happened. And it is very odd that Jaehaerys I would marry Alysanne in a political/arranged rather than his older sister who had not only been queen at Maegor's side and a pretender queen at the side of Jaehaerys I's older brother, Prince Aegon, but had also proven her fertility by giving Aegon twin girls. One assumes there would have been a discussion what to do with Princess/Queen Dowager Rhaena Targaryen. A very good explanation as to why she didn't marry a third king may very well have been that she wanted to finally follow her heart and settle down with the man she loved on Fair Isle. Depending how many children they had there could have been both Targaryen-Farmans and other Westermen with Targaryen-Farman blood trying to lay claim to the Iron Throne in 101 AC. And if Rhaella ended up marrying into House Hightower then Otto - being of the lesser branch of House Hightower - might have refused to support the claim of his older brother, the Lord of Oldtown, when the man presented his claim at the Great Council. After all, his way to take control of the Iron Throne was much more subtle, revolving around getting his daughter into the pants of various kings and princes. The question who Aerea married in the end is also very interesting. But we don't know anything about that at this point, either.