Jump to content

Dany, blood of the Dragom?


PrinceHenryris

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

No, not everyone, but around that time there was a lot of Valyrian descendants living on dragonstone.

I know that because she can ride a dragon. While we have seen people with diluted Valyrian blood be rejected by a dragon (Quentyn Martell) but as far as I'm aware we have no examples of non-Valyrians riding dragons. If such an example could be pointed out, then I will gladly amend my statement.

Yet not all of the people in Dragonstone were Valyrian. Since there were ancient Westerosi dragons there is no reason why we should believe that only Valyrians can do it.

13 hours ago, Maxxine said:

I think "most likely" is an overstatement. Though it's a possible, I think considering the centuries of history of seemingly only Valyrians riding dragons the probabilities trend toward her most likely being a dragonspawn. The only reason there's a chance she isn't a dragonspawn is because she bonded with her dragon by feeding it sheep instead of however others bonded with dragons and we don't have any medieval DNA tests.  

The way they bonded was why I am not sure if she was Valyrian.

16 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Depends how far back you go. If we stop after two generations, Daenerys is full-blooded Targaryen.

Unless all of her ancestors married into the family not even Dany is full blooded. If Rhaella and Aerys were not full blooded Targs she cannot be one. It isn't the name that matters but the blood.

16 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

Is reincarnation a fact in ASOIAF? 

No it isn't. There is no proof from the books about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2017 at 1:55 AM, PrinceHenryris said:

Aegon V was 1/4 Targaryen.  He was also  1/4 Martell and 1/2 Dayne.

He married a Blackwood.

So, Aegon V's kids were 1/8 Targaryen, 1/8 Martell, 2/8 Dayne, and 1/2 Blackwood.

Jaehyris II and Shaera, the same mix.

Aerys II and Rhaella, the same mix.

So, why is Dany the perfect Targaryen woman and the mother of dragons?

Because that's not how genes work. Creating a child isn't like mixing two colors of paint together, you get certain genes or you don't. She's blonde because she has two copies of the blonde gene (or more correctly, lacks a gene for any other hair color). She has purple eyes because she has a gene for purple eyes (this seems to be dominant, unlike the hair color). And she can bond with dragons because she has that gene too.

It's worth noting for the record that the Daynes, for reasons that are still unexplained, have the same hair and eye phenotypes as the Valyrians. And the Martells have intermarried with both Targaryens and Daynes as well, so there's no mystery about anyone having a "Valyrian" appearance. We don't understand how bonding with dragons works, but the fact that the last time a Blackwood produced children with a Targaryen the result was an extremely powerful psychic it's a good bet that Betha's contribution to the Targaryen genome didn't hurt their chances.

In fact, here genes may be exactly what allows dragon bonding in the first place.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Blackwood psychic genes are recessive: you need "PP" to have the trait. And let's say that the Targaryen dragon-brain genes are recessive: you need "DD". If you need both traits to be "Mother of Dragons" (whatever that really means) then they basically just had to keep rolling the dice after the addition of the Blackwood genes. Aegon V's kids would have all been DdPp. Then once they started mating brother to sister you would start getting more novel mixes: the odds of getting DDPP are something like 1/20.

But who the hell knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blood and blood lines as very intresting and important.  Bloodline are how you inherit,  short of the iron throne people can inherit lordship or ladyship from paterlinal or matrilineal blood ties.  Robert earn the throne by conquest but Ned, Tywin, or Jon Arryn take the throne Robert did because of his targaryen bloodlines.  Targaryens have been attempting to purify their blood thinking it would help bring back dragons.  Potientially Rickard stark marrying his first cousin aided his grandchildren to be wargs and the last greenseer.  Mel has been looking for  valaryian blood as the "kings blood" in my opinion.  The song of ice and fire is a story about certain genetic and magical blood combining to fight for the battle of the dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

Blood and blood lines as very intresting and important.  Bloodline are how you inherit,  short of the iron throne people can inherit lordship or ladyship from paterlinal or matrilineal blood ties.  Robert earn the throne by conquest but Ned, Tywin, or Jon Arryn take the throne Robert did because of his targaryen bloodlines.  Targaryens have been attempting to purify their blood thinking it would help bring back dragons.  Potientially Rickard stark marrying his first cousin aided his grandchildren to be wargs and the last greenseer.  Mel has been looking for  valaryian blood as the "kings blood" in my opinion.  The song of ice and fire is a story about certain genetic and magical blood combining to fight for the battle of the dawn

I say it's not about combining but preventing the combining of certain genes.  The result of ice and fire is just as likely to be bad than it is to be good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, it could be bad or good we don't know.  Countless times in the book a song was depicted as story.  So to me song of ice and fire is just the story of ice and fire.  It will bittersweet not totally bitter or totally sweet. There will be some happiness but it will be at a cost.  We are watching the story of Jon and Dany and those who effect their lives.  One or both may die but this is their song so far.  Others are characters to further their plot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2017 at 7:26 AM, 300 H&H Mag said:

There are actually no pure bloods in terms of the bloodline.  The Targaryens of recent times have Arryn, Martell, Blackwood, and Dayne blood.  Aegon V's children married, and their children in turn married.  That makes Rhaegar, Viserys, and Daenerys as pure as possible given the possible marriage opportunities available.  Dany's coming has been long awaited and prophesied. She is Azor Ahai - the one who will wake dragons from stone; the prince that was promised. 

I never saw where they said azor ahai= prince that was promised 

I don't think grrm refers to them as one in the same even once

i think dany = AA and Jon= tptwp 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said she is pure blood?

You don't need to be full targaryen to be a dragonrider, as we saw in the dance of the dragons (the war, not the book hehe), bastards of dragonstone (Ulf the white, Hugh hammer and Nettles) who apparentely had none of the targaryen traits were able to ride Silverwing, Vermithor and Sheepstealer respectively.

Maybe it doesn't require ANY valirian blood at all, we don't how dragon bonding works yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

Blood and blood lines as very intresting and important.  Bloodline are how you inherit,  short of the iron throne people can inherit lordship or ladyship from paterlinal or matrilineal blood ties.  Robert earn the throne by conquest but Ned, Tywin, or Jon Arryn take the throne Robert did because of his targaryen bloodlines.  Targaryens have been attempting to purify their blood thinking it would help bring back dragons.  Potientially Rickard stark marrying his first cousin aided his grandchildren to be wargs and the last greenseer.  Mel has been looking for  valaryian blood as the "kings blood" in my opinion.  The song of ice and fire is a story about certain genetic and magical blood combining to fight for the battle of the dawn

Not conquest. Right of arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2017 at 8:09 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I am not if theories, with no text proof, count.

 

 We do know there were ancient Westerosi dragons.

Bonded dragons? If so, please provide a source or text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 3, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Targaryen Restoration said:

It wasn't luck.  Dany knew what she was doing with those eggs.  She knew they would hatch. 

I agree. The book Game of Thrones mentions how she has been watching or studying the witches or spellbinders around her and I think they gave her the spark idea, but she connected the dots herself. This was also how she said she knew to burn Mirri Mazz Durr too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Daeronstarkaryen said:

I never saw where they said azor ahai= prince that was promised 

I don't think grrm refers to them as one in the same even once

i think dany = AA and Jon= tptwp 

 

GRRM never confirms or deny they are one in the same. Other characters use both terms interchangeably.  Characters such as Mel and Maestor Aemon used both of them.  They seem to be intertwined both prophecies have something to do with the targaryan line and waking dragons, salt and smoke.   One prophecy seems to originate from valyria and the other from asshai in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2017 at 4:27 AM, Daeronstarkaryen said:

I don't think grrm refers to them as one in the same even once

Not true;

Quote

He is discarding the gods that he has worshiped since his childhood and accepting the Red God and giving himself to the Lord of Light and in return, Melisandre sees that the Lord of Light gives him a token of his role as the Prince that was Promised by  ancient prophecy and  that's the sword Lightbringer.~GRRM

29 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They were the only ones domesticating and bonding dragons.

How do you know that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How do you know that?

Ugh!! You know what, I constantly see you making condescending remarks and attacking people because they post something that condratics with the fan fiction version of how you want GRRM's story to go. And every time someone calls you on on your bias, illogical, and hypocritical bs, you throw a hissy fit, calling foul. I've tried to be amicable with you in the past, to no avail, obviously because you cannot accept that ASOIAF is not the story that you desire it to be. 

Instead of calling you out on the false and illogical argument you are trying to make here, I gave you the opportunity to back up your statement, but of course you ignore my request (perhaps you have me and others on ignore so you can spread your propaganda without opposition :dunno: ), and go on to call someone out, with the ridiculous question of how do you know that? You want to know why the poster you are challenging, as well as I and everyone else who has read the books know that the Valyrians are the only ones known to bond with dragons? It's because that is what we are told in the text. Is it possible that there are others who could have done so? Sure, but untill that is revealed, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. 

You claim that there were ancient Westorosi dragons, fine, but there is absolutely nothing at all in the text to suggest that these dragons were tamed or bonded. Until you can provide the text or a source to suggest otherwise, your argument is complete rubbish. Please do try to refrain from your nonsensical and condescending remarks, and stop calling people out, if you are not willing to follow the rules and guidelines that you so often are preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2017 at 6:12 PM, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

GRRM never confirms or deny they are one in the same. Other characters use both terms interchangeably.  Characters such as Mel and Maestor Aemon used both of them.  They seem to be intertwined both prophecies have something to do with the targaryan line and waking dragons, salt and smoke.   One prophecy seems to originate from valyria and the other from asshai in my opinion.

And Maester Aemon only does so when talking to Mel who clearly believes they are the same.

9 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true;

How do you know that?

That quote from GRRM does not specifically say that they're the same. He's talking about them being the same from Mel's perspective, and given that he mentions Lightbringer as a token from R'hllor and we all know Stannis' LB is fake, added to the fact that Mel gets things messed up all the time, there's still plenty of room for TDtwP and AAR to be different people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That quote from GRRM does not specifically say that they're the same. He's talking about them being the same from Mel's perspective, and given that he mentions Lightbringer as a token from R'hllor and we all know Stannis' LB is fake, added to the fact that Mel gets things messed up all the time, there's still plenty of room for TDtwP and AAR to be different people.

The way I see it if he meant Mel he would had told that it was from Mel's point of view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The way I see it if he meant Mel he would had told that it was from Mel's point of view. 

It's pretty obvious that he's talking about Mel's perspective. She is the only character who has equated AAR with TDtwP. She's the only character who thinks both are Stannis. She's the only character who misinterprets her flame visions so far as we know. Her track record on these things is not good.

If you expect him to start spelling every little detail out for us, you're bound to be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 11:41 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

It's pretty obvious that he's talking about Mel's perspective. She is the only character who has equated AAR with TDtwP. She's the only character who thinks both are Stannis. She's the only character who misinterprets her flame visions so far as we know. Her track record on these things is not good.

I don't agree. I don't believe that the author would had done something like that. A director or a screenwriter who has no connection to the books of course, but not the author.

If you expect him to start spelling every little detail out for us, you're bound to be disappointed.

It isn't a little detail its a major detail which makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't agree. I don't believe that the author would had done something like that. A director or a screenwriter who has no connection to the books of course, but not the author.

It isn't a little detail its a major detail which makes perfect sense.

You don't know any authors, do you?

Given the fact that the author doesn't use or even like the one hero trope, I'd say no it's not a major detail, and the interpretation that they are separate makes equally perfect sense in light of our knowledge of GRRM and how he writes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You don't know any authors, do you?

Personally?

15 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Given the fact that the author doesn't use or even like the one hero trope, I'd say no it's not a major detail, and the interpretation that they are separate makes equally perfect sense in light of our knowledge of GRRM and how he writes.

Well this is what you think but I disagree. I believe that the fact that it was the author who said it and never said that it was in Mel's perspective, speak volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...