Lord_Pepsi_Cupps

Velaryons are not Valyrian?

57 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, LmL said:

@Lord Varys I know you are not a fan of the Dawn Age Dragonlords to Westeros theory - you've not been a fan since Durran Durrandon and I came up with it last year. That's fair, but you're not quite right about the Daynes.

Just to clarify - I don't like the idea of there having been a Great Empire of the Dawn with dragonriders and Asshai being a part of it, and the whole Yi Tish legends playing an important role in everything.

I never oppose the idea that the Last Hero/Lightbringer might be somehow connected to dragons, the Daynes, and Dawn. The similarities parallels there are way too striking to be irrelevant. I think it pretty likely that the Last Hero was a dragonrider, became a dragonrider, or arrived in Westeros from some the Lands of the Long Summer or even Asshai.

But then, as long as we don't really know when exactly Valyria was founded and when exactly the Long Night took place it is pretty moot to assume whether some early Valyrians could have been involved. If the time line is more confusing than we realize then the ancient Asshai'i civilization (human or non-human) that built that place might have been long gone before the Long Night came about. And, say, the people mastering the dragons of the Fourteen Flames were people influenced by magical traditions rediscovered by people who went to Asshai.

10 hours ago, LmL said:

First, George has said no Targs married into House Dayne. This their looks cannot be explained in this fashion.

It wouldn't be a Targaryen marrying into House Dayne. It would have been a Hightower girl whose mother was a Targaryen marrying into House Dayne. That's a slight difference.

10 hours ago, LmL said:

Its not just Darkstar's hair and eyes, and the fact that Arianne thinks their children would be as beautiful as dragonlords. Edric Dayne has dark blue eyes that, if I recall correctly, appear purple in certain lighting and sound very similar to Egg's and fAegon's eyes.

As far as I remember his eyes are described as being purple by Arya in ASoS.

10 hours ago, LmL said:

He also has hair the color of ash, paler than blonde Arta says. That's in the right ballpark, potentially similar to Tyrion's paler that blonde hair.

Yeah, that goes in the right direction, I guess.

10 hours ago, LmL said:

And Maekar married Dyanna Dayne and all their children came out Targ looking, save the drunkard who only got partial Targ looks, potentially a remnant of Maekar's Dornish mother.

We actually don't know how Aemon, Daella, or Rhae look like (we don't Aemon's hair color before it turned white and we have no idea whether he once had purple eyes). Aerion and Egg have Valyrian features. The others might look different.

Prince Daeron had normal blond hair and I don't remember his eye color right now. That could very well be a trait he inherited from his Dayne ancestors (the Martells usually seem to have darker hair, possibly a general Rhoynish trait).

10 hours ago, LmL said:

That all points to Dyanna having Targ-ish looks, and helps explain why Maekar may have consider her a worthy Targ bride even though Dayne is not a Great House.

Well, Maekar's marriage likely would have been arranged. He wouldn't have chosen his bride all by himself. My take on the rather odd choices of brides for the sons of Daeron II (Dondarrion, Penrose, and Dayne - Alys Arryn for Prince Rhaegel is a suitable bride for a royal prince) is that Daeron II chose Targaryen cousins through the female line as brides for his sons. And that makes it likely that Jena Dondarrion and Aelinor Penrose (who is a confirmed cousin of Aerys I on the Targaryen side of the family) are descended from a daughter of Rhaena and Garmund who married into those families, and a similar thing might also have happened with House Dayne.

There are scenarios imaginable how this came about. Say, Daeron I arranged marriages with two of the Targaryen-Hightower girls and the Dondarrion/Penrose lord/heir either in preparation of the Conquest of Dorne or as a reward for two Stormland houses who showed great valor and courage during the war.

And the heir to Starfall easily enough could have been among the hostages Daeron I took after he had conquered Dorne. Such a man could then have met a daughter of Rhaena's at court where she was serving as a lady-in-waiting and Baelor I might have later decided that such a match could help in the peace process between the Iron Throne and Dorne.

I also imagine that Dyanna and Maekar are likely to have met at court with Dyanna (eventually) coming to court to serve as a lady-in-waiting to Mariah Martell. Thus it could also be a marriage based on romance and love, at least in part. But I very much doubt Maekar just married a woman of his own choosing.

The idea that Daeron II married his two elder sons to insignificant houses like the Dondarrions and Penroses when it is said that Egg's own marriage to Betha Blackwood would have caused a scandal had he not been at the end of the line of succession just doesn't make much sense. I agree that there would also have been political gain for Daeron II to marry the Prince of Dragonstone to the daughter of a prominent Marcher Lord but then ... why not a Baratheon girl? The entirety of the Stormlands would have come with such a match while a Targaryen-Dondarrion match only brought the Dondarrions to Daeron II.

But if we keep in mind that the Targaryen marriage policy favored not only incest marriages but also cousin marriages it makes sense to assume that more obscure Targaryen brides are likely to have been cousins through the female line. After all, the Velaryons were often enough chosen as spouses for members of the royal family for exactly that reason. They were not particularly powerful or noble in their own right. At least not in the beginning.

10 hours ago, LmL said:

Finally, consider the fused stone fortress on Battle Isle. It is essentially ironclad proof of dawn age dragonlords in Westeros, so someone has to descend from them. As for maintaining a look through ten thousand years, obviously not in the real world, but it seems a distinct look can be maintained in Westeros. 

We don't have to assume that the industry of the magics behind the Valyrian dragonstone thing were already invented when Battle Island was made. I mean, we know (or have strong evidence to suspect) that only the Valyrians perfected the whole dragonbonding and dragonriding thing to such a degree that they became a world power in the process of it. But the underlying magical principles behind the Valyrian spells would have been there all the time, perhaps in more crude and more personal manner.

I mean, an ancient First Man could easily enough develop a blood magic spell that binds an individual dragon to him for both of their lifetimes without ever permanently establishing a link between the man's bloodline and the dragon's. This is even more likely if such a person had the help of the Children of the Forest or was himself a skinchanger or greenseer.

And if Valyria is actually older than we think it is Battle Island could very well have been made by early Valyrians before they developed their more advanced dragonstone-creating techniques. They wouldn't have had those from the start.

8 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

I'm not sure about including a link to the Seastone Chair - but if the proto-Velaryons were among the original arrivals to the Iron Islands from the GEotD, they may have set up their seat there (hence the oily stone throne). The moon-crash made them flee but they survived "the sea deity" and his wrath, and built a new throne out of what they saw as a gift from that deity.

The oily black stone is different from the black stone that seems to be Valyrian-like fused black stone. The impression one gets is that the Ironborn are from a very different stock than all the other humans, presumably descended from some Deep Ones.

And we have no reason to believe that all the 'underwater creatures' or their deities are interconnected. The Squishers of Crackclaw Point and the webbed hand and feet of the members of House Borrell indicate connections to non-human creatures but whether the Deep Ones of the Iron Islands have anything to do with those (or those living near the Thousand Isles) is completely unknown.

I mean, it is hardly a coincidence that the Storm God is a good guy in the myths of the Sistermen while he is the evil guy in the religion of the Ironborn.

8 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

All that stuff about the people from the sea (merlings, selikes...) may indeed just be twisted tales of the Geodawnians. They were I believe the first seafarers, we've discussed that here before - this is what the Church of Starry Wisdom is hinting at ("starry wisdom" is celestial navigation, allowing ships to cross oceans rather than just skirt the coastline; it must have made the first seafarers seem like sorcerers, it's such a huge technology leap). If the Geodawnians (or one faction) were already widely feared for their seafaring "sorcery", then an angry boiling sea and tsunamis would have been retroactively tied to this "sea people". If they were "merlings", then this must be the work of their god, the Merling King, etc.

Well, the Church of Starry Wisdom is a nod to Lovecraft. It is very unlikely that George actually wants to rip off more of his work and give it a prominent place in his own. I mean, the Amethyst Emperor is literally worshiping the Shining Trapezohedron. It is not likely that this is going to play an important role in the story. Else Robert Bloch should have appeared by now.

7 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

In certain stages of Alzheimer's or just moments of cloudy judgment due to serious illness, you do get people mistaking their children for their spouses - presumably the physical similarity plays a part. But it can just be that she was there, taking care of him the way a daughter would, and he was just sick and confused.

It is beyond curious though that at every point at which we have a Hightower's appearance hinted at, there's these confusing double-meanings. Once, twice, but three times?

We should not assume to much here. We have no clue whether the thirteen children of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne all had Valyrian features. Those are a lot of children and while Jaehaerys and Alysanne are siblings, Aenys I and Alyssa Velaryon were not. Alyssa is bent to have Targaryen/Velaryon/Valyrian ancestors but also non-Valyrian ancestors, and Aenys I is rumored to have not been the Conqueror's seed which would make him only half-Targaryen.

It is easily enough imaginable that Princess Saera did not actually have all that prominent Valyrian features - say, only purple eyes and more common hair, similar to whatever hair Alicent Hightower had. Only if we knew for certain that all of Jaehaerys' daughters (and Saera especially) had Valyrian hair would it make sense to assume that Alicent might have had similar Valyrian hair.

7 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

As for whether the Hightowers will be important or not - I mean, why include them in tPatQ and The Rogue Prince? These aren't early versions of the story where he's just planting seeds to see if anything grows out of them later on, this was written after aDwD came out. GRRM isn't just keeping the Hightower question on a low fire, he's adding salt and seasoning to the dish.

I'm pretty sure Oldtown and the Citadel will become important in future books. But House Hightower might not really become all that important. If George wanted to go that road one of the Citadel-connected people we meet in AFfC would have been a Hightower. I'm pretty sure they will play a significant secondary role, though. Like, say, the Florents did (and still do, sort of) in Stannis' story.

The reason why a Hightower queen became the mother of the younger children of Viserys I and the family that's mostly to blame for the Dance is most likely simply to give us an explanation as to why this house wasn't eradicated root and stem thereafter. If it had been, say, Alicent Stark/Arryn/Lannister/Baratheon one would have wondered why they could keep their wealth, influence, and titles after all that.

George even made it so that Alicent and Otto Hightower weren't the Lord of Oldtown and his daughter but merely members of a cadet branch of House Hightower - which sort shifts the blame away from the main branch of House Hightower despite the fact that Lord Ormund supported Aegon II during the Dance.

Ormund Hightower was killed anyway, but it is understandable that nobody held his children responsible for the war. If Ormund had been Otto then it is not very likely that the Targaryen kings would have allowed the Hightowers to keep Oldtown.

In that sense the Hightowers gave George the opportunity to use an already established noble house without inventing a new one which would then be eradicated in the course of the war.

7 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

And they're in such a prominent role as well - and not just for their scheming for power. All four of Alicent's children turned out to be dragonriders, and at least 2 of her 3 grandchildren were as well. This is something that more than one Targ queen apparently couldn't boast of. 

If you believe the rumors about Aenys I's true heritage as well as the rumors about Rhaenyra's three Velaryon sons then this isn't all that surprising. And Alicent's grandchildren weren't dragonriders. Jaehaerys and Jaehaera got dragon eggs and those eggs hatched, but they had yet to claim their dragons as had Aegon the Elder (who rode his dragon Stormcloud only one time). There is a difference between the hatching for a dragon egg giving to a Targaryen child and him/her actually mounting that dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is also possible that Garmund's eldest daughter by Garmund Hightower inherited the Hightower and ruled as Lady of Oldtown after her father (assuming Garmund was the eldest son of Lord Ormund which is not unlikely). In the Reach there was at least one Queen Regnant and thus female inheritance should be easier there than elsewhere, especially for a niece/cousin of the king. Aegon III, his sons, and Prince Viserys would want one of their own as the Lady of Oldtown rather than some other guy.

Eventually the son of such a daughter could have taken the Hightower name to continue the line just as the sons of Lady Oakheart and Lady Waynwood are doing right now. Or Garmund's eldest daughter could have married some Hightower cousin from a cadet branch.

The chances that the Hightowers have at least a drop of Targaryen blood are pretty high.

That's also possible. I had been thinking of Shells Whent, a Whent by birth whose father had ruled Harrenhal. She married her cousin, Walter Whent... Was that to ensure Harrenhal would remain in their family?  Or to ensure there would be no fighting over the inheritance of the castle?

Either way, I agree that the chances are very good for the Hightowers to have some Valyrian blood.

 

11 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

In certain stages of Alzheimer's or just moments of cloudy judgment due to serious illness, you do get people mistaking their children for their spouses - presumably the physical similarity plays a part. But it can just be that she was there, taking care of him the way a daughter would, and he was just sick and confused.

It is beyond curious though that at every point at which we have a Hightower's appearance hinted at, there's these confusing double-meanings. Once, twice, but three times?

It I'd definitely interesting. Alicent lived prior to Rhaena's marriage, so if she had the looks, they do not originate with Rhaena. It is a point I hope Fire and Blood might clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

That's also possible. I had been thinking of Shells Whent, a Whent by birth whose father had ruled Harrenhal. She married her cousin, Walter Whent... Was that to ensure Harrenhal would remain in their family?  Or to ensure there would be no fighting over the inheritance of the castle?

I'm not sure that's the official Whent story. It would be a way to reconcile the SSM from 2000 (in no way binding) with the fact that Lady Shella is confirmed to have been a Whent by birth.

In my opinion it might have been a much better way to make Lady Shella a sister of Lord Walter who inherited Harrenhal after he and all his children had died. The sons and Lord Walter himself might have fought in the War of the Usurper, after all.

5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Either way, I agree that the chances are very good for the Hightowers to have some Valyrian blood.

If Garmund Hightower wasn't the Lord of Oldtown (which in itself would be a strange idea consider that the king's sister most likely would not be married to some household knight) then whoever was should have been rather interested in marrying his heir to the daughter of a Targaryen princess.

Vice versa it is somewhat less likely considering that Rhaena's eldest daughter would have little to gain from marrying some cousin. But then, in such a scenario the Lady of Oldtown would pass on her name to her children, allowing her to marry pretty much anybody.

If Garmund was the Lord of Oldtown I could only see his eldest daughter not succeeding him as Lady of Oldtown if Rhaena died young and Garmund took another wife who gave him a son. I honestly doubt that Aegon III's niece could have been put aside in favor of some Hightower cousin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure that's the official Whent story. It would be a way to reconcile the SSM from 2000 (in no way binding) with the fact that Lady Shella is confirmed to have been a Whent by birth.

In my opinion it might have been a much better way to make Lady Shella a sister of Lord Walter who inherited Harrenhal after he and all his children had died. The sons and Lord Walter himself might have fought in the War of the Usurper, after all.

 

Wait where was she confirmed to be a whet from birth. How would he make Shella  a sister of him if they are already not related? What do you mean by that statement.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said:

Wait where was she confirmed to be a whet from birth. How would he make Shella  a sister of him if they are already not related? What do you mean by that statement.   

It is stated in books that the smith of Harrenhal was in service of Lady Whent and her father, grandfather, etc. down to the last Lothston. That wouldn't have been the case if Lady Shella wasn't a Whent herself.

The SSM from 2000 I mean refers to George confirming that Lady Shella was also the mother of the fair maid at the Tourney of Harrenhal which would make her Lord Walter's wife. One can try to reconcile that by going with the cousin theory that Lord Walter and Lady Shella were both Whents from birth who married each other but we actually have no reason to believe that Shella actually was the mother of the fair maid. That might be outdated information. Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is stated in books that the smith of Harrenhal was in service of Lady Whent and her father, grandfather, etc. down to the last Lothston. That wouldn't have been the case if Lady Shella wasn't a Whent herself.

The SSM from 2000 I mean refers to George confirming that Lady Shella was also the mother of the fair maid at the Tourney of Harrenhal which would make her Lord Walter's wife.

Oh i thought that you said something else. Yeah she was definitely a whet. I dint know why i said that. Oh alright. But what is a sim just out of curiosity. OMG i just noticed that you are lord Varys. Your not just the TV show version either your the real deal. But no i really like how you used an amok picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure that's the official Whent story. It would be a way to reconcile the SSM from 2000 (in no way binding) with the fact that Lady Shella is confirmed to have been a Whent by birth.

In my opinion it might have been a much better way to make Lady Shella a sister of Lord Walter who inherited Harrenhal after he and all his children had died. The sons and Lord Walter himself might have fought in the War of the Usurper, after all.

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is stated in books that the smith of Harrenhal was in service of Lady Whent and her father, grandfather, etc. down to the last Lothston. That wouldn't have been the case if Lady Shella wasn't a Whent herself.

The SSM from 2000 I mean refers to George confirming that Lady Shella was also the mother of the fair maid at the Tourney of Harrenhal which would make her Lord Walter's wife. One can try to reconcile that by going with the cousin theory that Lord Walter and Lady Shella were both Whents from birth who married each other but we actually have no reason to believe that Shella actually was the mother of the fair maid. That might be outdated information. Or not.

The SSM might not be binding, but there is nothing that contradicts its contents. Thus, we do have a reason to assume that Shella was the mother of the fair maid, and therefore the wife to Lord Walter Whent. Martin said so, himself, afterall.

Besides, he adresses her husband too

Q: I was wondering if you would tell me where Lady Shella Whent is right now. We know that she isn't at Harrenhal, and that she had left Harrenhal before Tywin got there. But where is she? Also, is she the aunt of the Maid /Queen of the Harrenhal tournament? or the Queen of tournament herself? If the former, is she Lady Minisa Whent 's and Ser Oswel Whent's sister?

A: Lady Shella Whent was the mother of the "fair maid" at the Harrenhal tournament. Ser Oswell Whent would have been her husband's brother, and therefore uncle to the "fair maid."

Martin is clear here, that in his opinion, Shella, a Whent by birth, was married to Oswell Whent's brother, making her husband a Whent by birth as well.

That both Walter and Shella were Whents by birth is not a theory, it is something clearly stated in the books. Martin goes on to confirm that Shella's husband was a Whent by birth, and TWOIAF further only adds his first name to the picture.

 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Garmund Hightower wasn't the Lord of Oldtown (which in itself would be a strange idea consider that the king's sister most likely would not be married to some household knight) then whoever was should have been rather interested in marrying his heir to the daughter of a Targaryen princess.

Agreed.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa it is somewhat less likely considering that Rhaena's eldest daughter would have little to gain from marrying some cousin. But then, in such a scenario the Lady of Oldtown would pass on her name to her children, allowing her to marry pretty much anybody.

If Garmund was the Lord of Oldtown I could only see his eldest daughter not succeeding him as Lady of Oldtown if Rhaena died young and Garmund took another wife who gave him a son. I honestly doubt that Aegon III's niece could have been put aside in favor of some Hightower cousin.

That is possible, of course. But still, marrying your closest male cousin is a way to prevent any claims that said male cousin or his descendents might make to the lordship in the future. A condition of the marriage pact might have been that the rule remained with the daughter of Garmund and Rhaena, for example.

I'm not saying that this is what happened. But I do think that it is possible that this is what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

That both Walter and Shella were Whents by birth is not a theory, it is something clearly stated in the books. Martin goes on to confirm that Shella's husband was a Whent by birth, and TWOIAF further only adds his first name to the picture.

Sure, but it is possible that one of the hints in that direction has been superseded by the fact that Lady Shella is definitely a Whent by birth and a Lady of Harrenhal in her own right by the time of her death.

We cannot really unite the whole thing because Gendry tells us that Lady Shella's branch was the main branch of House Whent. Unless Lord Walter Whent wasn't her brother it makes no sense that Lady Shella's father should have been a Lord of Harrenhal. Lady Shella's father's heir would have been she or one of her siblings not her father's nephew, Walter.

50 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

That is possible, of course. But still, marrying your closest male cousin is a way to prevent any claims that said male cousin or his descendents might make to the lordship in the future. A condition of the marriage pact might have been that the rule remained with the daughter of Garmund and Rhaena, for example.

Sure, that's possible. However, if Garmund was Lord of Oldtown and married to the king's sister then he would have felt little pressure to name some nephew his heir in place of his eldest daughter. And even if people tried to pressure him in such a way the support from the Iron Throne and his own power as Lord of Oldtown should have been enough.

Such a marriage pact would sound plausible if there rival branch had a strong claim of his own - something we cannot really assume there. If Garmund was Ormund's eldest son then his status as Lord of Oldtown should have been secure. And being married to a Targaryen dragonrider could only have helped emphasize the fact that he was in control rather than weakening it (at least while Morning was still alive).

But I'm not saying such a match is impossible, either. Just that we don't have to assume that such a thing took place. We don't even know whether Ormund's sons (aside from, presumably, Garmund) were married or had any legitimate male issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2016 at 9:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

If you believe the rumors about Aenys I's true heritage as well as the rumors about Rhaenyra's three Velaryon sons then this isn't all that surprising. And Alicent's grandchildren weren't dragonriders. Jaehaerys and Jaehaera got dragon eggs and those eggs hatched, but they had yet to claim their dragons as had Aegon the Elder (who rode his dragon Stormcloud only one time). There is a difference between the hatching for a dragon egg giving to a Targaryen child and him/her actually mounting that dragon.

It depends on how you interpret the stories, and we seem to find different things to be important, which of course is normal. If I'm reading you correctly, you say that Rhaenyra and Rheanys are evidence that a single dragonriding parent is good enough? 

To me, it's more about the fact of Rhaenyra and Rheanys being dragonriding women giving birth to dragonriding children whose fathers may not have been dragonriders - I see a strong hint that GRRM is telling us the mother matters more than the father. This of course is controversial, because it's possible to see it as saying something else entirely.

The case of Rhaenys and Aenys I initially seems like no more than a cute curiosity - "just imagine if none of the Targs are actually descended from Aegon, fascinating!" But if you look beneath the shock value of that (assuming for now that we believe the rumours), it opens up a range of interesting questions. The "need" for them to descend from Aegon himself (when Rhaenys shares his DNA, as they are full siblings) is partly rooted in Westerosi patriarchy. Were the Valyrians patriarchal at all? Their stories and family lines are interpreted through Westerosi eyes, where you duly see explained a string of generations where the "son-and-heir" would "marry his sister" - but shouldn't we question that interpretation? 

Was it maybe the daughter (the next generation's mother) that was more relevant than the son? Was it in fact the case that the future "mother of dragons" would be "marrying her brother" - to maximise the likelihood of her kids being dragonriders - rather than vice versa? I'm not saying the Valyrians were a matriarchy, just that the Westerosi interpretations place a potentially undue weight on the sons. It's about what lens you apply, and it's not an irrelevant point. And thematically, we don't see a "father of dragons" character, whereas "mother of dragons" is a crucial trope.

To me, the stories of Rhaenys and Rhaenyra both (and also Rhaenys the QWNW) are subtly indicating that a woman dragonrider is somehow more relevant to having dragonriding children, since there seems to be a 100% success rate in all of these cases where the father was not, or may not have been, a dragonrider. Of course, Aegon may have been Aenys' father and the Sea Snake may have inherited a lucky dragon gene via the Velaryon-Targ connections; and the marriage of dragonriders Alysanne and Jaehaerys seems to have produced at least one non-dragonrider  - but it's about which part of these stories stands out more as being suspicious, and whether seen together they signal a message. 

I see the message as being that the mother is, in some way, "more important" than the father when it comes to "the blood of the dragon". Not as a "sure thing", but perhaps as a question of the probability of having dragonriding children. Yes, on the whole it may be ideal to have them both be dragonriding siblings, but a dragonrider mom alone seems to be astoundingly effective too. This seems to be the very purpose of repeatedly inserting doubt about who the father was - to show that this very much matters in a patriarchal society, but that it may not impact so much on producing dragonbabies. This may also explain why Rhaenyra was so blazé about risking having THREE children with Strong - she was comfortably trusting her own blood would do the trick (though she of course had to bow to the need to deny they were bastards, for political reasons).

To turn to Alicent then (on the assumption the stories of Rhaenys and Rhaenyra are relevant to understand this case - assumption I find easy to make), this may undermine the explanation that her 4 dragonriding children can simply be explained by the fact that Viserys was their father. Consequently, it highlights the question of Alicent's own bloodline, feeding back into the Hightower-dragonblood hypothesis. Again, just one piece of the wider puzzle.

As for the point about kids who have their own dragons that may not turn out to be dragonriders - I'm not sure this is as relevant as you say. Surely they would be able to tell if the child is developing the requisite bond with the dragon? And then it would just be a matter of time for the dragon to become large enough (and the child to grow up sufficiently, so you don't have a four-year-old riding a flying weapon) for there to be mounting? If the bond wasn't clearly there (evidenced for example in how the dragon behaved towards the child), wouldn't the dragon be a risk to the child, as it could attack? Granted, we don't know the details of how the bond happens.

So I would still say that a ridiculously high proportion of Alicent's descendants had a dragon bond, even if J and J's dragons were too young to ride yet.

Edited by Lord_Pepsi_Cupps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but it is possible that one of the hints in that direction has been superseded by the fact that Lady Shella is definitely a Whent by birth and a Lady of Harrenhal in her own right by the time of her death.

If Martin one day says, "no, I have changed my mind. Shella was the fair maid after all, and inherited Harrenhal from her father, Walter", then that'll be the case from that day onwards. But, thus far, the information that we have about Shella and Walter all fits extremely well, while there is nothing that suggests that something is wrong.

Afterall, at the time of the SSM, ACOK had been released for several years, in which Shella's status as a Whent by birth was clearly stated, as well as where "Lord Whent" was discussed as being alive during the Lannisport tourney of 289 AC. ASOS had already been released as well (in the UK) by the time of the SSM, in which the Harrenhal tourney of "Lord Whent" was discussed. No further information regarding the events was released ever since, except for Martin saying a month after ASOS's release that, not only Shella, but also Walter (whose name we only learned in 2014) was a Whent by birth, by confirming that Walter and Oswell were siblings.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We cannot really unite the whole thing because Gendry tells us that Lady Shella's branch was the main branch of House Whent. Unless Lord Walter Whent wasn't her brother it makes no sense that Lady Shella's father should have been a Lord of Harrenhal. Lady Shella's father's heir would have been she or one of her siblings not her father's nephew, Walter.

Walter would have become the Lord of Harrenhal due to his marriage to the Lady of Harrenhal. It would not be unlikely for them to have co-ruled. Marriage to a Lady ruling in her own right grants the husband a lordship, and it would depend on the lady in question how much of the rule is left to the man in that case, and how much she takes onto herself. 

Gerold will never willingly forsake the pleasures of Lannisport and the splendor of Casterly Rock for some little lordship. He has more influence as Lord Tybolt's brother and adviser than he could ever hope for as my husband. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

Well. I've long thought that one of the many Chekhov's guns lying around is the string of Volcanoes down the eastern coast of Westeros (Hardhome, Dragonstone above ground, Spears of the Merling King as evidence of underwater eruptions). Almost like the Ring of Fire in the Pacific, but as far as we can tell only down the Westerosi side.

Well done on spotting Hardhome as a volcano there. However I'm sceptical as to there being a Ring of Fire along the entire eastern coast of Westeros. There may be one around the Narrow Sea (which is almost certainly the result of the Southern Westeros tectonic plate moving away from the Eastern Essos plate), and examples of formations resulting from this include Dragonstone, Driftmark, Tarth, Massey's Hook, possibly a few of the Stepstones, and the range of hills south of Braavos.

13 hours ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

A large enough meteor impact can actually trigger volcanic eruptions, most prominently on the exact opposite side of the globe from the impact point. For example, the Deccan traps in India may have been "triggered" by the large meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs, and subsequently the enormous ongoing eruptions from the Deccan traps would have contributed to creating a planetary winter - so it wasn't just dust from the meteor that done it.

Volcanic activity is a well established phenomenon in Planetos, and it doesn't necessarily need a metoeor impact to explain it. In addition the Deccan Traps were already erupting when the dino-killing meteorite hit, and the question is merely did the impact exacerbate the eruptions (this is hotly - no pun intended - debated among scientists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

It depends on how you interpret the stories, and we seem to find different things to be important, which of course is normal. If I'm reading you correctly, you say that Rhaenyra and Rheanys are evidence that a single dragonriding parent is good enough?

I'd say we have more than enough reason to believe that, yes. My take on that would that Targaryen incest - which essentially was going on for generations - favoring sibling marriages but making due with the occasional aunt/uncle or cousin marriage gives the 'magical dragonbonding potential gene' the strength to survive the occasional infusion of completely foreign blood.

Imagine you are descendant of Princess Aerea living during the series. Your ancestors did not intermarry with members of House Targaryen for the last 250 years or so. Yet there is a still a very long line of Valyrian dragonlords practicing incest among your distant ancestors and those are not going to go away. The potential that you might become a dragonrider is slowly weakening over time as more and more new blood enters the bloodline of your descendants but I guess the probability that you cannot become a dragonrider will never be completely 0 in such a case.

The idea that only an incest marriage can bring forth dragonriders or only dragonriders can give both to other dragonriders doesn't hold much water, I'd say.

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

To me, it's more about the fact of Rhaenyra and Rheanys being dragonriding women giving birth to dragonriding children whose fathers may not have been dragonriders - I see a strong hint that GRRM is telling us the mother matters more than the father. This of course is controversial, because it's possible to see it as saying something else entirely.

I don't see any reason to put a particular focus on the female line especially since that would mean that no present-day Targaryen would be likely to be able to become a dragonrider because they are Blackwoods, Daynes, Martells, Rogares through the female line, not Targaryens.

While you can make a case - as I do - that Dyanna Dayne could have had Targaryen blood this is less likely for Betha Blackwood (although some people have speculated that one of Bloodraven's sisters might have married into the Blackwood family) and completely unlikely for Mariah Martell.

Even more importantly, it is pretty obvious that the 'dragonbonding gene' is not only what enables Targaryens to become dragonriders but it is also the inherited special trait that enables Daenerys to become the Mother of Dragons. If there was anything to this then the Targaryen royal line would have lost the potential to bring forth dragonriders when Daeron II married Mariah Martell.

Or it might even have stopped with Larra Rogare. She is a Valyrian noblewoman and possibly the descendant of a old dragonlord family whose main Valyrian branch died during the Doom but there is no reason to believe she had any Targaryen blood (the incest marriages make it actually rather unlikely that the Targaryens intermarried with the Rogares back in Valyria if they were both dragonlord families).

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

The case of Rhaenys and Aenys I initially seems like no more than a cute curiosity - "just imagine if none of the Targs are actually descended from Aegon, fascinating!" But if you look beneath the shock value of that (assuming for now that we believe the rumours), it opens up a range of interesting questions. The "need" for them to descend from Aegon himself (when Rhaenys shares his DNA, as they are full siblings) is partly rooted in Westerosi patriarchy. Were the Valyrians patriarchal at all? Their stories and family lines are interpreted through Westerosi eyes, where you duly see explained a string of generations where the "son-and-heir" would "marry his sister" - but shouldn't we question that interpretation? 

Genetically it doesn't really matter, I think. Rhaenys is as much an incest brat as Aegon and Visenya, and one infusion of foreign blood is not going to ruin the family line.

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

Was it maybe the daughter (the next generation's mother) that was more relevant than the son? Was it in fact the case that the future "mother of dragons" would be "marrying her brother" - to maximise the likelihood of her kids being dragonriders - rather than vice versa? I'm not saying the Valyrians were a matriarchy, just that the Westerosi interpretations place a potentially undue weight on the sons. It's about what lens you apply, and it's not an irrelevant point.

The Valyrians definitely were no matriarchy in any way, shape, of form. There is no hint that the women were the heads of the dragonlord families nor is there any reason to believe that women played a very prestigious role in Valyria. The idea that female dragonlords were irrelevant is clearly wrong, of course. Being a dragonlord would mean that you had a vast amount of power in Valyria.

But Yandel is pointing out that men and women were equal in the Rhoynish city states. He never does anything of that sort with Valyria when he clearly could have done it. The incest marries essentially allow women both to play very important roles as well as being completely sidelined by their brother-husbands (say, if they are raised in a way that makes it clear that they are and will always remain the property of their male family members).

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

To me, the stories of Rhaenys and Rhaenyra both (and also Rhaenys the QWNW) are subtly indicating that a woman dragonrider is somehow more relevant to having dragonriding children, since there seems to be a 100% success rate in all of these cases where the father was not, or may not have been, a dragonrider. Of course, Aegon may have been Aenys' father and the Sea Snake may have inherited a lucky dragon gene via the Velaryon-Targ connections; and the marriage of dragonriders Alysanne and Jaehaerys seems to have produced at least one non-dragonrider  - but it's about which part of these stories stands out more as being suspicious, and whether seen together they signal a message. 

We don't have a less than 100% rate in the cases where only the father was a dragonrider. Aenys I had five living children among which four are confirmed dragonriders (Aegon, Rhaena, Jaehaerys, Alysanne) and Prince Viserys might also have been a dragonrider without us knowing it yet. Alyssa Velaryon could also have been a dragonrider but we don't know that yet.

Jaehaerys and Alysanne were both dragonriders yet one of their sons - Vaegon the Dragonless - is confirmed to have been no dragonrider as might have been many of their younger daughters (although we don't know whether this was due to lack of dragons or them being not allowed or unable to claim any).

Viserys I's children by Aemma and Alicent all became dragonriders, too. Yet Prince Viserys, the youngest son of Rhaenyra and Daemon, did not. Apparently his egg never even hatched.

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

To turn to Alicent then (on the assumption the stories of Rhaenys and Rhaenyra are relevant to understand this case - assumption I find easy to make), this may undermine the explanation that her 4 dragonriding children can simply be explained by the fact that Viserys was their father. Consequently, it highlights the question of Alicent's own bloodline, feeding back into the Hightower-dragonblood hypothesis. Again, just one piece of the wider puzzle.

We know that Alicent and Otto had no immediate Targaryen ancestor. Lyman Beesbury points out that Rhaenyra has more Targaryen blood than her half-siblings because her mother was also a grandchild of Jaehaerys I. Technically Alicent could be descended from Aenys I through Aerea or Rhalla but we have no reason to believe that's the case (that would have made Otto and his brother, the Lord of Oldtown,one of the nine lesser claimants that were dismissed at the Great Council and it doesn't seem likely the Hightowers did anything else but to back Viserys' bid for the Iron Throne). The Hightowers could always have some Velaryon ancestors, though. The house seems to have been quite numerous in the first century.

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

As for the point about kids who have their own dragons that may not turn out to be dragonriders - I'm not sure this is as relevant as you say. Surely they would be able to tell if the child is developing the requisite bond with the dragon? And then it would just be a matter of time for the dragon to become large enough (and the child to grow up sufficiently, so you don't have a four-year-old riding a flying weapon) for there to be mounting? If the bond wasn't clearly there (evidenced for example in how the dragon behaved towards the child), wouldn't the dragon be a risk to the child, as it could attack? Granted, we don't know the details of how the bond happens.

Sure, but think of it that way. Any Targaryen child regardless whether an incest brat for the last ten generations or being some sort of half-blood like the Hightower-Targaryens or Rhaenyra's elder sons who has the chance to bond with a dragon hatchling has the chance to use whatever magical dragonbonding ability he or she has to full effect. Even if the child has less potential than or purer-blooded Targaryen it is still likely to succeed.

The idea that such a person is likely to succeed when trying to mount and claim a mean-tempered adult dragon doesn't make much sense to me. Inheriting the magical potential is a necessary condition to become a dragonrider but it might not always be sufficient. To become a dragonrider you have actually to claim a dragon by mounting it. Dany has hatched three dragon eggs and she is pretty close to all her three dragons but she can only mount one and when she mounts Drogon in ADwD they have become so estranged that the dragon nearly killed her.

6 minutes ago, Lord_Pepsi_Cupps said:

So I would still say that a ridiculously high proportion of Alicent's descendants had a dragon bond, even if J and J's dragons were too young to ride yet.

The fact is that Gyldayn tells us (only in the case of Aegon the Younger, though) that he had his young dragon Stormcloud but had yet to mount him. Thus it is confirmed that there is a difference between having some sort of tangible bond with a dragon and actually having made a dragon your mount. Considering that Jaehaerys and Jaehaera are three years younger than Aegon it is exceedingly unlikely that they had already become dragonriders when the Dance began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

If Martin one day says, "no, I have changed my mind. Shella was the fair maid after all, and inherited Harrenhal from her father, Walter", then that'll be the case from that day onwards. But, thus far, the information that we have about Shella and Walter all fits extremely well, while there is nothing that suggests that something is wrong.

Afterall, at the time of the SSM, ACOK had been released for several years, in which Shella's status as a Whent by birth was clearly stated, as well as where "Lord Whent" was discussed as being alive during the Lannisport tourney of 289 AC. ASOS had already been released as well (in the UK) by the time of the SSM, in which the Harrenhal tourney of "Lord Whent" was discussed. No further information regarding the events was released ever since, except for Martin saying a month after ASOS's release that, not only Shella, but also Walter (whose name we only learned in 2014) was a Whent by birth, by confirming that Walter and Oswell were siblings.

I'm not really opposed to the cousin idea. I just find it is not fitting well with the fact that Lady Shella and her father are mentioned as successive Lords of Harrenhal.

7 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Walter would have become the Lord of Harrenhal due to his marriage to the Lady of Harrenhal. It would not be unlikely for them to have co-ruled. Marriage to a Lady ruling in her own right grants the husband a lordship, and it would depend on the lady in question how much of the rule is left to the man in that case, and how much she takes onto herself. 

Gerold will never willingly forsake the pleasures of Lannisport and the splendor of Casterly Rock for some little lordship. He has more influence as Lord Tybolt's brother and adviser than he could ever hope for as my husband. 

There is certainly a lot of uncertainty how much power the lord husband of a Ruling Lady has over her and her lordship. I'm with you that it is not unlikely that Ruling Ladies might be more often than not under the thumb of their husbands, with them calling the shots while they only technically were in charge.

However, I don't see any such scenario with Lord Walter Whent, nor is the scenario of some sort of co-rule between husband and wife established. Yandel clearly paints Lord Walter as the Lord of Harrenhal as do other sources referring to him.

And in the example of Gerold we have no reason to assume that this means that Gerold would have become the Ruling Lord of Coldmoat - rather that by marrying Rohanne he would have been able to set himself up in an important position in another lordship. As brother of the Lord of Casterly Rock he would always remain a household knight. But the lord husband of a Ruling Lady would be in a different position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Magic' is so passé.

everyone be prepared to have a good long swig of the Preston cool aid.

'blood mages' of valyria.  I'm more inclined to the think these were the last holders of the knowledge to use genetic engineering to create/tame dragons. As they used it to create the 'valyrian' features. Perhaps the valyrians we're like the enhanced slave soldiers of the GEOTD and broke away after the Long Night.

'Sorcerers' who 'banked the fires of the 14 flames' were most probably using geothermal engineering to use the power of the volcanos to their advantage.

GEOTD

The true reason everything is as it is now.  A fallen technologically advanced civilisation where the knowledge of genetics and technology were held until the long night and the valyrians made off with this knowledge, some way, some how.

fight me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Dragon has three heads said:

'Magic' is so passé.

everyone be prepared to have a good long swig of the Preston cool aid.

'blood mages' of valyria.  I'm more inclined to the think these were the last holders of the knowledge to use genetic engineering to create/tame dragons. As they used it to create the 'valyrian' features. Perhaps the valyrians we're like the enhanced slave soldiers of the GEOTD and broke away after the Long Night.

'Sorcerers' who 'banked the fires of the 14 flames' were most probably using geothermal engineering to use the power of the volcanos to their advantage.

GEOTD

The true reason everything is as it is now.  A fallen technologically advanced civilisation where the knowledge of genetics and technology were held until the long night and the valyrians made off with this knowledge, some way, some how.

fight me.

Ok, here it comes. 

This is is a fantasy novel where the author said that magic exists. Therfore, attempts to explain away the magic in the series are futile. It's not passé, it's called fantasy. 

It was nice chatting! 

Edited by LmL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kidding aside, I do think Martin likes to present multiple potential explanations for basically everything in his books, and I have to think that this is done so that readers can read in what they wish and form their own conclusions. That's one of the things that keeps people debating these books so long. It's done so brilliantly that one can even make a decent case that there is no magic in the books at all, and many have done so. Obviously there is magic in the books, but the fact that some of these magical acts could be explained there means  gives people room to speculate, which is fun. It's a real skill Martin has developed. 

But yes, there is definitely magic in the books. 

Edited by LmL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 9:01 AM, The Dragon has three heads said:

'Magic' is so passé.

everyone be prepared to have a good long swig of the Preston cool aid.

'blood mages' of valyria.  I'm more inclined to the think these were the last holders of the knowledge to use genetic engineering to create/tame dragons. As they used it to create the 'valyrian' features. Perhaps the valyrians we're like the enhanced slave soldiers of the GEOTD and broke away after the Long Night.

'Sorcerers' who 'banked the fires of the 14 flames' were most probably using geothermal engineering to use the power of the volcanos to their advantage.

GEOTD

The true reason everything is as it is now.  A fallen technologically advanced civilisation where the knowledge of genetics and technology were held until the long night and the valyrians made off with this knowledge, some way, some how.

fight me.

I think Preston Jacobs is good for stirring the pot, but he takes things quite literally when it suits him, and also just ignores things that don't suit his argument.

For example, in the "magic is just advanced science" argument, he still does accept that skinchanging and dream-sending exist, they're crucial to his interpretations. But that's not "advanced science".

Or take forging Valyrian steel - how does human sacrifice (the most heavily hinted at secret to making/reforming Valyrian steel) have an "advanced scientific" explanation?

Or Arya seeing the Faceless Men change their faces? She explains both seeing it (after Harrenhal), and experiencing it - it doesn't make sense if you try to explain it as advanced science.

Or sure, you can say it's just science so advanced that it can do *anything* it wants and doesn't obey the laws of nature; fine, but then you're basically just talking about magic without saying "magic".

But my biggest gripe with this argument is that it rests almost completely on interpreting Martin's works before ASOIAF - aliens, hive minds, etc. There's no denying Martin revisits ideas, but Preston Jacobs basically says Martin just copycats his own past works, without ever exploring new understandings or taking things further into new directions. Like ASOIAF is just one big exercise in which Martin puts his old ideas in a new package, without any imagination. How boring that would be for a writer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so seriously now...

Im aware of his penchant to make things fit his point of view, and I don't think he discredits GRRM for using old ideas, every artist does this.  For me, having resd most of GRRMs previous work it opened my eyes to a lot of possibilities the traditional fantasy bore fest would usually not and the chance-and it IS just a chance, that all the fantasy elements or even SOME of them could be techno relics of lost civilizations really made his world far more interesting than it would be otherwise.  Maybe this was just what he intended with TWOIAF, or maybe he was finally giving the nod to his older readers.

Further, I feel that of course he would say magic exists.  He has too, to keep the game going.  There has been some pretty hard to explain 'magic' and some pretty easy to explain tech, plus the racial memory of genetic engineering that seems to be seemed seared into the valyrians very core seems odd in a world where incest is seen as abomination in 99% of cultures.

Some people hate his stuff, some people believe it's 100% correct, I would say he's partly right, and partly wrong.  Guess we'll see which is which!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daynes and the Hightowers always seemed a bit strange to me, they are considered as a house originated from First Men, but they look a lot like Valyrians, we can see it through Lord Edric Dayne and Ser Gerold Dayne, also Ashara Dayne, I think Arthur Dayne also had the Valyrian look, but I don't recall if we actually know about his looks, my memory fails me now.

I think some Valyrian families (smaller ones) were already settling in Westeros, as they probably were not a big deal in Valryia, even House Targaryen was not that great for Valyrian standards. We had dragonriders from House Velaryon, I think that means they have the blood of Valyria, although that can also be from the times the Velaryons married with the Targaryens, maybe the blood was inherited. But if they are of Valyrian origin, I am pretty sure the Daynes and the Hightowers are of Valyrian ancestry as well, no other first men origin families have purple eyes and silver hair. Also, there is the Merlin King legend, maybe the Velaryons are related to the deep ones? And remember, their coat of arms is a seahorse, same applies to the Celtigar, their sigil are crabs. Maybe you are right, man, they seem to be bonded to the sea more than to the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.