Jump to content

Daeron the Daring

Members
  • Posts

    1,525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daeron the Daring

  • Birthday 05/09/2002

Profile Information

  • A dragonrider among 'Others'...
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Looks like Heaven.
  • Interests
    Not your business. Socialism.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,762 profile views

Daeron the Daring's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. At one point she becomes complicit, if she hadn't yet. Her future is clearly set out to turn on Littlefinger and stop being a puppet in his 'game'. Right now she's deepdiving into it. It's something that we expect to change, but yes, in a way, Robert is in the process of being poisoned/murdered. And if he's gonna cling onto his own life a bit too long, Petyr might have to take more effective measures. I'd be lying if I didn't instantly feel how morally wrong Sansa's position in this is when I read the book. She's just a child as well, ofcourse.
  2. Welcome to the board! Nice to see new members writing long articles. While it is always an itriguing quest to find an answer to the unraveled fate of the Targaryens unaccounted for, the scale of our speculation often outgrows the boundaries of probability. I myself like to engage in these discussions, but I also treat them under a different mindset. As such, it's not really likely that George would set up secret identities and generations of bloodlines on such a scale. I find in unlikely that, say, Aerion Brightflame's bastard descendants of the possible ones of Maegor Targaryen carry any sort of relevancy in case they exist. On the long list of unlikely ideas, however, it's not a wild take to think Maegor Targaryen did have descendants that would fade into obscurity or never have been prominent. However, Maegor falls in line with a couple other Targaryens of the time who would have nothing noteworthy to be mentioned for, and their fate is largely up to speculation. Who did Aegon's sisters marry, or even Vaella 'the Simple'? However, these three were all women, trough the lense of a patriarchic feudal society they are significantly less important than Maegor Targaryen, the rightful king in accordance to primogeniture. I'd rule out the possibility that Maegor had a childless marriage with Vaella, as she was his senior by 10 years. If he had children with any level of significance (children, who, say, didn't die in infancy), I guess we'd know of it, regardless of who he married. But it's not a wild take to think that he lived a bachelor's life up to age 26, when he died at Summerhall. If he had to leave the Seven Kingdoms for political reasons, I guess we'd be informed of it, since Egg's life and reign as well documented by the sources we got on him. This ultimately comes down on how much George wants tor rationalise such speculations. I'm not sure if people tought Varys or Illyrio were secretly Targaryens/Blackfyres before Young Griff made his appearance, but we're left with big cliffhangers. If we knew there is something to look at, we could allow ourselves to make bolder assumptions.
  3. I feel like, for the readers, working out a precise timeline of events is practically not possible. George is the kind of writer that explores its story as he writes it, but he's also the kind of writer, according to himself, who doesn't leave ambiguity for himself. I think he once said he knows every Night's Watch member by name, because fiveliners and fillers have to live and breathe a whole life for him to be able to use them, down to the most absurdly minimal roles said characters must play. As such, I am convinced he knows what went down, because he doesn't allow himself ambiguity, and the inconsistencies are born alongside the knowledge of the truth. But the inconsistencies that are supposed to deceive us exist, and they make it hard to distinguish between false, true, misunderstood or misrepresented history. The character of the supposed ultimate villain (say: Blood Emperor, Night's King) that brough the Long Night upon the World is heavily intertwined with that of the hero that helped end it (Azor Ahai, The Last Hero. TPTWP). I feel like even if these ultimate villains and heroes aren't a single person, they are a longer list of characters who's actions often served in creating villains and heroes alike. Let's not move away from Westeros: The Night's King is the 13th Commander of the Night's Watch, and the Last Hero is the last one remaining of a group of heroes of 13 individuals. These two supposedly different characters might have lived hundreds of years apart, or may have been a single one: Why was the Night's King explicitly the king of the Night? Was the Long Night not over by his time? If yes, how could the Wall be built during the Long Night, sor far up north? Was the Wall a final solution or a tool to victory? If the Wall couldn't be built during the Long Night (I think it's obvious how impossible that would be, with every magical element in consideration), why are the Others present by the time of the 13th Lord Commander? It seems as tough we can construct a fairly convincing story: The Last Hero is the Night's King, who along with his 12 predecessors/companions were the first of leaders of an alliance and order of men against the Night, which would later develop into the Night's Watch we know today. It was, however, this 13th hero that becomes important, as he reaches the Children of the Forest. Interestingly, we are told the 12 other LC's/heroes give their life for the cause, and yet the Others only follow our ultimate hero, creeping up to him, closer and closer, as per Old Nan. But he does reach the Children of the Forest, who either provide a lethal weapon against the White Walkers or a means to bargain and reconcile with them, which ultimately results in the establishment of The Wall. However, our last hero either gets corrupted by the force he managed to struck by a blow so huge it had to retreat, or he fails to present his end of the bargain as something acceptable to the people of Westeros. The people of Westeros must preserve his legacy, his heroic deeds and (what they perceive) as his failure. But to make it easier to swallow and process for the generations to come, to not ruin the hope the Last Hero gave, they separate these two into a romantic hero and a romantic villain. If we had to make this person into a single character, it'd be Brandon the Builder, but I'm taking a long shot with this one. Brandon the Builder is also a loosely used mythical figure, but obviously the point of singularity, the one thing associated with him we don't question is when we talk of him in relation to the Wall. Either way, the world, at some point, will be in need of another such hero, who fulfills his duty to the fullest and doesn't fail in the process, or gets stopped in the process. Or the original hero was always meant to create a status quo, which is meant to be replaced by a final solution. The Children of the Forest are an interesting bunch. They don't feel like the guilty type (which makes them look guilty) in the creation of the Others, but they do have a solution at hand, unsurprisingly. I feel like the parallels arise with the work of Tolkien, with the first men, Great Empire of the Dawn, proto-Valyrians or just every human in general paralleling NĂºmenor (and it's downfall the Long Night) and the Children of the Forest paralleling the Valar. The establishment of the Realms in Exile and the victory over Sauron is defeating the Long Night, but the Ring isn't destroyed, nor are the Others gone, because of the failure of Isildur/The Last Hero. And yet, we're told by George himself: This isn't the same story, so: Will George destroy the Ring, and was it the Valar who caused the Long Night? Did Isildur's Corpse Queen sway him to the dark side? Isildur's not misunderstood, was The Last Hero different? We know there's no Ring to be destroyed, without the Ring, there's nothing to corrupt the Night's King.
  4. Hear me out: Bloodraven and Shiera had a daughter, who was the lover of Rodrik Stark, the Wandering Wolf. They had a child together, the Tattered Prince, who (obviously) is the father of Illyrio. Now the backstory of Illyrio's mother is complicated, because this woman was the granddaughter of Alys Rivers and Aemond Targaryen trough their son, who got abducted as a child by the greem men of the Isle fo Faces, but left after a hundred years on an important quest. This guy, still young (magic), married the daughter of Bittersteel and Calla Blackfyre, and the two had a daughter, Illyrio's mother, and a son. We'll return to this son soon, but let's go back to Illyrio, who as a part Targaryen, part Blackfyre and part Stark, found himself finding his long lost Blackfyre cousin Serra Blackfyre, the older sister of Vaerys Blackfyre. Their parents were Maegor Targaryen and the secret daughter of Maelys the Monstrous (quite a beauty, actually. Remember, the Blackfyre line only died out on the male line, becaus ethey forgot about his secret daughter). Anyway Illyrio is the father of Young Griff, but this line ends here, because, I hope you can follow me on this, we still have to talk about the son of the Tattered Prince, because Tattered Prince Jr. met the descendant of Bellegere Otherys and Aegon IV, who became the mother of the current Black Pearl of Bravos and Jaqen H'ghar, the faceless asassin, whose real name is Rhaevaegaerys. That's it for today, I'm still figuring out what's the connection between this branch and the bastards fathered by Aerion during his exile. One of these supposed bastards, who (obviously) existed, might have been the mother of Maelys the Monstrous. Who was a Targaryen-Blackfyre hybrid, hence the two heads. The reason the two heads are exclusive to Maelys and are absent in the case of Illyrio's Targaryen-Blacfyre mother is because the son of Alys Rivers and Aemond Targaryen weren't the descendants of Aegon IV.
  5. The influence of byzantine architecture extended to North Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor. (As these places were ruled by the ERE for centuries, and the RE beforehand) Especially the Levant and Asia Minor are a perfect parallel with Dorne when it comes to geography and the climate.
  6. Well, I'm not gonna try to convince you on wether the dothraki will cross the sea or not. I, personally, simply, hope they stay in Essos. But to think that anyone would oppose Daenerys except those without a choice is a long shot. With Westeros' history, if there was a random ass nobody with three dragons and 3000 men, half the realm would rally behind said person. If said random person was a Targaryen, and especially one with a mildly sympathetic character, most will do. Because they did do it when it was a maniac lunatic without any dragons. Aegon will be a good demonstration of the "loyalty" the nobles of Westeros have for Targaryens. Speaking of whom, nobles ultimately care about themselves, it's a romantic construct for us and (very importantly) them too to believe they care about the smallfolk outside materially depending on their own portion of said population, no matter how we twist it. Even when they are decent people. (And yes, this includes Daenaerys) That the lords of Westeros would care about a dothraki rampage on the continent would only be true if their own domains were also in line for the same fate. Nobody had, would or will object to looting and pillaging the enemy, because that's what the Five Kings already did. If I was one such lord, the main thing that would bother me is that I'd have no benefit from all the looting, possible land and wealth redistribution. The people and factions she will have to fight is the ones she will want to take revenge on. The ball will be in her court because it will be a challenge on her character to show mercy and ultimately focus on the right thing, which is the coming winter. Aegon V got it right that the nobility wouldn't oppose his reforms if he had dragons.
  7. Well, Jaehaerys really is nothing but a wild guess: It would be befitting for Rhaegar to use the name, since he seemed like the guy who wants to follow the steps of his ancestors with being a great monarch. I suppose Viserys falls into that category as well, the only advantage Jaehaerys has is that it's the name of Rhaegars' grandpa. On the other hand, we know for sure Maester Aemon and Rhaegar were exchanging letters. There is definitely ground laid down for him to honor this old relative with whom he might have developed a lot of types of relationships. It wouldn't be a far reach to say maester Aemon was at least a mentor to him, potentially a father figure. Plus, there's the reoccuring actual pattern with Aegons having Aemons as brothers. Because the pattern you talk about simply doesn't exist. And there are a couple smaller reasons to that, and two majors: the first one is the legacy of Rhaenys, Aegon's wife he loved, and mother of all Targaryens basically. The name Visenya was only ever used a single time after the original: In Rhaenyra's case. Which makes the connection obvious: She saw a role model in how a female Targaryen should and can stand on its two feet, independently, with her being the first woman meant to sit on the Iron Throne. On the male side, there's a major reason as to why the traditional names lost popularity as well: the appearance of Daeron, which is a cool name, otherwise it wouldn't have become the second-most used male name, losing only to Aegon, despite making its first appearance at halftime. Sure, it started out with *me* getting this name, but the reason it became popular is because Aegon III's wife, Daenaera Velaryon was a Velaryon cousins' daughter, who's name was Daeron Velaryon (son of Vaemond, btw). As a sidenote, Daeron Velaryon was likely at around a decade or even more older than Daeron the Daring, so Alicent/Viserys may have been introduced to the idea of the name by him. Anyway, Daeron I, the Young Dragon was clearly named after his Velaryon grandfather, and thus a new phenomena was born, which was naming your male child Daeron. The legacies of Aegon III and Aegon IV also made Aegon more unpopular. The Unworthy was named by Viserys I because he really loved his brotha Aegon III, not because Aegon was trending. The pattern is nonexistent, not because there isn't any attempt to (re)create it (besides possibly Rhaegar, who definitely named Aegon after the conqueror, and not after Aegon V, altough that could've been the sugar on top), but it's far from plausible that this idea could survive certain generations. There isn't a single Targaryen sibling trio that would qualify for it (except maybe the first 3 children of Aenys), but I'll give you that you made Viserys a third candidate for Jon's potential name for me, a close one behind Jaehaerys. I really looked into the origins of the names and their patterns, when it comes to valyrians (Targaryens and Velaryons) at one point. I tell you all this by memory, yes it's an unhealthy level of knowledge. For example, the name Daemon was introduced at a time when there was a Lord Daemon Velaryon still alive or not too long ago deceased, a former Hand of the King and whose grandfather was also Daemon Velaryon (Lord of the Tides during the conquest and ancestor of Targaryens via Alyssa Velaryon as well btw). But there was also a Daemion Targaryen, Lord of Dragonstone before the conquest. You factor these informations in, and there's no oddity as to why our Rouge Prince was named Daemon. A real oddity, for example, is why the Alyssa/Alysanne names didn't stick around.
  8. We do not know when Ned arrived at the Tower of Joy. He might have been there before, or just weeks after, as we have examples of women dying of birth months and 1-2 years after birth due to complications originating from it. The reason this matters, in my opinion, is that it determines if Jon was given any name by his mother, valyrian or not. If Lyanna survived for at least 1-2 days after giving birth, I assume he must've given a name to the baby. It would significantly improve the odds for this if they talked this trough with Rhaegar, which I guess is a 50/50, they had a lot of time on their hands. I personally don't buy into this "trying to give birth to the original three conquerors of Westeros" idea that Rhaegar is supposed to have had. Yes, he might have been really into the "The dragon has three heads." idea, but he named his firstborn Rhaenys. Visenya is a well remembered character, but she is infamous for her own character and that of her side of the Targaryen family. Her story, not even in relation with Aegon, was in any way romantic, so I don't know why someone would want to rekindle the memory of the original trio. On the other hand, Rhaenys and Aegon did go down in history as the king and queen who loved each other. Him naming his children after them feels nothing more than honoring the legacy of the two people all Targaryens would descend from. Who's to say he excluded Viserys from his supposed vision anyway, who was much closer in age to his own children than him. That Lyanna would give Jon a valyrian name is no extra hardship for Eddard in my opinion, who already has to come up with a cover for the baby, regardless of what Lyanna did, and wether or not Jon is a trueborn in any absurd way. It doesn't seem to me that Lyanna discussed the question of his future once/if she dies, I feel like it wouldn't be true to their characters for either. Overall, while I tend to think it's more likely that Jon was given a name by Rhaegar/Lyanna than not, I think this part of his story/past would remain largely unimportant in comparison to his heritage, which actually is supposed to matter. On that note, I'd say Aemon and Jaehaerys are the most likely candidates for Jon's potential actual name. However, I think he will ultimately go down in history as Jon Snow, not as Jon Stark/Targaryen or *insert valyrian name* Targaryen, simply because his real name would become important only if he was a reigning monarch of any political entity (except if it was King-beyond-the-Wall/King of the Freefolk, which would cement the name Jon Snow). True, in recent years, the possibility of King Jon objectively increased, but I still find it highly unlikely.
  9. Not only the idea falls short of a purpose, it doesn't feel like anyone would have no better use of a supposed sum of money it takes to hire a faceless man. I imagine Varys of all people would know ways to be more cost efficient if he wanted to kill anyone (not to mention that he is responsible for certain people's safety. If something were to happenn to important inhabitants of the Red Keep, we know who'd they suspect collaborated or failed to provide safety). I highly doubt Jaqen was in Westeros (or rather in the dungeons of KL) on any westerosi nobleman's account. It's clear the HoBaW work with an agenda. My bet is he was doing homework for them or went completely rouge, maybe even after he was freed by Arya (altough he does seem committed to the principles of the teachings we assume he received).
  10. It always bothered me if dornish architecture could be inspired by byzantine one in some part as well.
  11. The Vale often felt to me like Bohemia (today's Czechia): A moderately sized country, isolated from the rest of the continent with a mountain range, very densely populated for its size, surprisingly a lot of cultivable land (the Vale is supposed to be a breadbasket if we take after George). The Riverlands, and to some extent the Crownlands too kinda feel like the Benelux region+Ruhr-Rhineland. The Westerlands is a lot like Austria, Hungary, or Burgundy with its supposed high level of urbanization and gold mines and mountain ranges. Maybe Eastern Roman Empire. Interestingly enough, the Narrow sea is much more like the North Sea/Baltic Sea, and the Sunset sea screams off Mediterranean vibes.
  12. The end of the beginning of what would begin to become the beginning of a beginning end for all ending ends. It makes more sense than OP.
  13. OG Jon would be romantically invested in the person he thinks is her sister by this point. Not to mention that avunculate marriages are literally a thing in the lore.
  14. I feel like this question is largely pointless. Let's not forget half the realm supported a mad monarch purely for being a Targaryen, and a person who, by pure lack of luck, happened to stumble into a group of friendly relations. I strongly believe that a Stark, an Arryn or Tully would've supported a "Mad King" Aerys II, if they weren't pretty much caught up on the opposing side, simply because how the Starks operated throughout history (trying to give as few fucks about the south as possible), and how much of a loyal branch the Arryns and especially the Tullys were. Targaryen legitimacy was very much intact. So much so that it took a series of unfortunate events and mistakes for Aerys to fail. If a Targaryen shows up on the shores, on top of all with 3 dragons, few people would want to challenge that, unless it's a life-death question for them. But it's very clear that's not the fights Daenerys would have to fight anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...