Daeron the Daring

Hmmm, no. What you describe doesn't really fit with actual lore: -Dragons used to habit the whole planet. Why they stopped doing that could possibly be explained by a close to apocalypse state of the world, or the Valyrians simply gathering them (out of fear of someone else riding them too), but they seemed to have been around continuously. -George's dragons are two-legged. They shouldn't be, but they are. George wasn't aware of this when he imagined them, but adressed the issue since. If you want to, you can imagine them having 4 legs. The number of their legs is never mentioned directly, but every illustration still uses the two-legged version. -The Great Empire of the Dawn and the Valyrian Freehold are set apart by thousands of years. -Valyria was inhabited by dragons to begin with. If there was a dragon extinction, and then their ressurection by the Freehold, we should know by now, but there's also no reason why couldn't they (or anyone else) bring back the original dragons, with leftover eggs, for example, just like in Daenerys' case. What you try to get to, however, could be squeezed into the lore, but it'd be really pointless and tight, and overall weird to have this flavor added.

Even if dragons were genetically engineered, (a theory only ever mentioned by Barth, even valyrians had a mystical origin story for them) they would likely not originate from Valyria or the valyrians, but from Asshai. I would consider their story the most reliable, not only because it aligns with what the valyrians say about finding the dragons around the Fourteen Flames, but also because it gives a precedent to the existence of dragons before the valyrians were a thing or they began to ride them. Something all mythical origin stories agree on is that they were around before too. However, Septon Barth does say they may have been genetically engineered by valyrians and their magic (something the Freehold did to begin with), but let's not forget that Barth was a massive Targaryen fanboy, possibly heavily biased towards valyrians in general because of that, making it obvious why he would credit the creation of dragons to valyrians: To elevate Jaehaerys I's status even further. After all, he is one of the 7 preachers of the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. There's a lot of arguments and counterarguments to be made here, but if they were made by human magic, I'd rather have my vote on ancient asshai. But the bondage some people (valyrians) are capable to create with them is definitely made possible by magic.

Sure thing. But you fail to provide a why and a what. And both of those seems to have lost steam, even if that was true. Like, do we have anything strange from the maesters in the main story? Qyburn expelled, reasonable. Pycelle being a Lannister fanboy, casual behaviour. Marwyn droping hints and tidbits? Maybe, but he's still a solid, well-known and well-respected maester. As I said before, it's simply nepotism 95% of the time. What would imply a conspiracy also implies far more reasonable and dominant reasons as well. So what? Do you think the Catholic Church did not have the same "from rag to rich" poilicy just as explicit as the Citadel? They did. There did not exist any discrimination against anyone, so long that they've been born a catholic. On paper. On paper, 90% of countries of the world preach equality, regardless of gender, sexuality or skincolor. Even the most democratic ones fail to accomplish actual equality. I don't see a world where anything is perfect or flawless, and that includes the Citadel just like anything else. No. What we can be certain of (or certain enough to not debate) is that he wanted Rickard to make big moves. Not explicitly at the Targaryens' loss. That they may or may not have ended up being a target of this is quite straigtforward, because, you know, Aerys murdered Rickard and Brandon. With the knowledge we have, we cannot say Aerys' actions were a response to any grand scheme. Rickard's also not the triggering factor. It is Rhaegar, first of all. Then Lyanna. Then Brandon. Then Aerys himself. The decline of the Targaryens is the Targaryens' fault, because even if there was anything behind the scenes going on, Ned and Bobby were not involved directly, and Jon Arryn did not need a conspiracy to join the rebels, considering Aerys killed his nephew and heir, and also demanded the heads of his 2 wards (who were rebelling to being with). So yea, I would say the actions of characters rather indicate no conspiracy than any, and it's not a close comparison.

What you describe here is no evidence to anything other than nepotism. 99% of the feudal higher end participates in that. Do you have evidence for this too? In theory, yes, the Citadel doesn't discriminate, and anyone can become a master based on their capabilities. But you got nepotism as the backbone of society. One really good real life exalple would be the catholic clergy. Baiscally, anyone from the most humbe background could climb the ranks and become the Pope. But far more bishops, cardinal bishops and popes were of noble origin than not, due to unequal chances and dicrimination too. If I was Archmaester Walgrave, I'd rather want my bastard son serve a Lord Paramount than House Manwoody. That's just a no brainer in Westeros.

I always wanted mermaids in the story. I bet the fisherman's daughter was one, and Jon will lead an assault on the Wall with his army of fishes.

I don't think ASOIAF is the story of the Targaryens. I think the conditons you mention above rather solidifies the idea of the chosen one. His is the song of Ice and Fire, the Starks and the Targaryens. But the Lannisters come really-really close in every other way to being just as significant as the two mentioned above, just not regarding the PTWP/Azor Ahai stuff.

Not really. There's simply no way Joanna and Aerys were having an affair, which does leave us with tbe option of him maybe (huge maybe) forcing himself on her. But Joanna would definitely have no reason not to tell this to Tywin. It wasn't too long ago that Lyonel Baratheon rebelled against Aegon V because Prince Duncan broke his betrothal by marrying Jenny of Oldstones. I would argue Tywin would, in this scenario, have the balls to rebel, or the guts to deal with Aerys another way. There's also no reason to assume Joanna would be the kind of person to be silent about such a thing. If anything, it's the opposite, since she probably befited Tywin's woman ideal, making her having enough self esteem to not just do nothing about being raped, especially for their position.

I always find it funny how people think Ned was ugly just because Catelyn says he's not as handsome as Brandon, who was like the maddest of them lads, and thus he had no chance (lookswise) with someone like Ashara. It's not as if he didn't manage to have a loveful marriage with Catelyn, who's also described as really beautiful. And no, not in a settled-for-tha-brotha way, despite the fact that, yes, Ned had to compete with the memory of his brother, who was basically him on steroids and crack, 24/7.

Not saying there wasn't a plan behind the many marriage pacts an proposed/planned, but this, to me, also feels like a natural process. Think about it. The Seven Kingdoms have lacked the unity until 300 years ago, before the conquest. There wasn't a well established good relation between any kingdoms prior to the Conquest. The only rleation we don't nnow nothing of is that of the Vale and the Riverlands (Iron Islands, basically). Both the Durrandons and the Hoares have been fighting over what is now the Crownlands and the Riverlands (to some extent), yet it is the Arryns who stay out of it, with such close proximity to the regions in question. Anyway, not my point. What I'm saying is that everyone was isolationist prior the conquest. There were no good relations between the great houses, and it is the unification of the continent that started to end the hostility. And it is time that made the 7 into 1, and it may just be a natural thing to open up to new possibilities after some time. The way I see it, Rickard was ambitious, but there wasn't a valid concern behind to bring together so many of the great houses. And it's not like Jon Arryn didn't have an heir, his nephew, Elbert Arryn (later one of the companions of Brandon, gets killed by Aerys), who I'm 99% sure wasn't married, engaged, but still young, who had nothing going on, altough there were quite a few good options to cement the STAB, or widen it even further. The person who most likely had reasons to make allies was the Princess of Dorne, the mother of Doran, Elia and Oberyn. Dorne was still relatively hostile towards both the Reach and the Stormlands, and they also were becoming just distant kin to the Targaryens (with the Baratheons becoming the ones with close ties).

Yea sure. He will bind the free cities to the Iron Chair too, recolonize Valyria and also discovers land west of Westeros, which he also conquers and colonizes, because that's what heroes do during and after apocalypses that wreck the whole world. Conquering.

Yes, the entire order acting as a whole, especially through several generations and centuries, pushing the same agenda is not likely. I disagree with possible conspiracies being reserved to the higher ranks of the order tho. If you and I were two competent maesters in Westeros, sent to a wealthy and influential house of a certain region (let's say every kingdom has 10+ of those), I'm sure just the two of us could make real shit go down, if there's anything going down. Or maybe we arrive with an agenda already. It shouldn't take all that much, really, and if we were to assume that such a clique formed before the rebellion, you wouldn't need more than 10 maesters at the right location, with 1 or 2 maybe in the higher ranks just to have the right assignments. I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Not the point. The point I'm making is that the Citadel is not a charity organization or the Red Cross itself. They don't give a fuck about the people, at best they care about the nobles they serve, who also don't care about the people like 95% of the time. The people who are willing to sacrifice the life of thousands, and the livelihood and peace of millions for their own personal gains. All the while they claim to have divine right to do such things, just as Targaryens (aka valyrians) do the same with dragons.

Is there really a place the Blackfish could not go to, if he wanted to?

Didn't Cersei want to become queen? Jaime should've freed Aerys of Rhaella, and make him marry his sister.

Even if that was true (it's not, but it's irrelevant), it doesn't give reasons for the Citadel, as a whole, to act. Their enemy could be magic, and under that banner, dragons and their potential riders, but the death of dragons wasn't caused by maesters, nor the downfall of the Targaryens. One took a succession war (something not exclusive to Targaryens or dragonriding folks), and the other a madman. Yet the last two stayed completely untouched by them. Neither am I. Maesters are human beings. Some are ambitious, others may feel threatened by this or that. Maybe there were, or still are cliques of maesters to achieve certain goals, but it's hard to see the whole order move as a whole. Maybe maesters are not too keen about magic. That may had been different in the past. Or maybe not. Marwyn, I'm sure, is an unusual character among the maesters, not a disliked, but rather a confusing one. Barbrey isn't a dull person either. Maester Walys probably influenced Rickard Stark, or rather led him to a path of craving for glory, which led to the abandonment of the usual isolationist politics of the North. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of certain groups of maesters working their way towards certain goals, but they are given too much credit for things they may have only wanted to accomplish, but likely played no big part in, if any.

I think it's stupid to compare Sam to Jon. They had different interests growing up, and it's clear that Jon had a training and Sam did not. There's not much else to discuss here, the confrontations Sam faced weren't really about fighting prowess, but rather bravery. Or purely survival instincts. And even if they were, it would not make Sam a good fighter. Definitely not better than Jon. That being said, Jon isn't really someone who would be famed for his fighting skills, but is definitely not casual or bad.

Hey, I don't have time to look it up, but there's a webpage lining up every post and comment George made about TWOW. I'm pretty sure you will be able to find it on that page, I can personally recall reading the specifics you mentioned.

Jaime is the most selfless person. He helped his sister through the rough parts of life like no brother would. He was so selfless, he gave up his whole inheritance and took the life of a celibate only to work as the full-time protector of his twinsister. She wanted to protect his sister's virginity so bad, he took it for himself, where it's safest. His sword was always sharp to serve Cersei in any imaginable way. You can't name a more chivalrous person.

Well, that depends on almost everything else. Littlefinger does want Ned dead, and he does use Lysa for that. The stag and the lion at each other's throat is beneficial for Varys, who would be letting it happen (just like he let it happen in the story itself). It made Doran's larping plan set into motion, and it brought the Reach into an elevated position. The only other way I can imagine Ned gets to know the truth is from Stannis. To him, Stannis is a reliable source, his story is round and at point, extended by Jon Arryn's involvement, which clears up the possible reason behind his death. Stannis is the man who would switch the balance, yes, but Ned is likely doomed anyway. Mostly because of Littlefinger, but again because Varys doesn't seem to want competent people lurking around when Targaryens come back for the iron chair. And Littlefinger makes a natural ally of the Targaryens, something that he might opt for even in the books, later on.

There isn't a need for Myrcella to stay at Winterfell (it would be unusual). If Robert would've wanted to, he would've been stubborn about it, and there wasn't much reason to believe Cersei could've stopped him. But she likely wanted him dead for long at that point, and it's hard to see Robert not dying to Cersei's 'plan'. Add to that the fact that basically everyone benefited from the fallout between the Lannisters and the Starks (except they themselves, including the Tullys), and it's hard to see how such a match and alliance could've gond trough. (Because an unknowing Ned would've stayed loyal to a horrible Joffrey, even without a royal marriage) What I mean is that Cersei would've fucked it up after killing Robert anyway. There's not much else to think of here.

Nah, fam, they are both crazy to begin with.

If there's truly a deep isolation, it's voluntary. They aren't that distant from the Iron Islands, and branches of the family hold lands and titles on main islands too, namely Great Wyk.

Wasn't gonna point it out (I may not even be right), but you only approached the whole situation from the Stark hater viewpoint, which seems to me has reasons. Not that it's unusual, I may as well do the same, you tell me. I only halfway know what you think or may think about certain topics, but it seems to me that you fall in line with people who rarely question if they're in the wrong or open up to other possibilities. Not (at all) the "let me write down the same shit and ignore everything else" kind of way, but the "let's show this guy how it is" kind of way. The deranged people make you (and me too) build up defensive mechanisms that easily overextend to places they shouldn't. You may have biases towards me because of my username. In reality, I choose this because I felt too much shade thrown at the Targaryen 'faction' (I feel really cringe writing this), but also because I haven't seen too many reasonable voices on that side, at the time. I do like Targaryens in general because of the exotic concept (incest was an exotic concept to me back when I started out with Game of Thrones, ok?), but I rarely like specific Targaryens. You wouldn't tell it by my name, and I would certainly connect dots regarding your profile pic too. But I can't ask you to appreciate the things I do. What I can ask is not to see me as a natural enemy just because I do like Daenerys, or rather Targaryens in general. (I like Daenerys because of her hero status, tho)

Of course. I wasn't really supporting the idea they proposed, but ain't fully crazy. Altough you do need some of it to actually bet on it.

Yes, but you're also projecting your own bias right now. The way this works is simply caused by gaining immunity over the reasonable criticism directed at your (or my) personal favorites, because the deranged craziness justifies (to some) the glorification of the obvious heroes to any level, discarding their flaws, which ultimately is what makes them good characters and good persons. I personally never made a serious reply to someone demonizing any character, that in reality, didn't deserve it. I'm much more bothered by the glossing people give to given characters, which ultimately leads to the same pattern of behaviour, except it's required a little more brain. People behave too much like football fans (says me) when critical thinking is required instead, but that's a general problem of our society, so if you feel like there's no space for self-improvement, just clown on folks.

I mean, Elissa Farman did it. If the Farwynds of Lonely Island are obsessed with the West, you'd think they heard about it. Or at least the 3 islands she discovered when the Hightowers still accompanied her.