[Spoilers] The Princess and the Queen, complete spoilers discussion

[PrimeRhaegar]

Just finished reading the PatQ... OMG! This is clearly the Maesters devilish work. History is written by the victors and it sounds very much like the Maesters were motivated, actively involved and documenting the civil war. I dont believe any of it...

Every time magic crops up in GRRM's world. People fear it or try to control it to gain power. So in some ways the Maesters could be doing the world a favour but i feel sorry for the Starks and Targs. Everyone wants a bit of Kings blood for themselves! Or to kill them so there is no more Kings blood! Bad times! The Maesters are clearly playing both sides to eliminate the dragons. What a coincidence... All those dragons tied up in the Dragon pit... And in marches an army of dragonslayers to kill the lot at any cost... Bullsh!t.. I dont believe the account of how Aemon died... Nor that Aegon went to Dragonstone without the queen knowing... Theres something about the queens letter to the Baratheons and how badly it was received that makes me think it was the maesters playing chinese whispers... The slandering of the bastards as treacherous and trying to throw their lot in for the kingship with no more right than the fact they have a dragon!? ... Women going mad left right and centre, cuts from the iron throne!? C'mon!? its laugh out loud funny how transparent it is! This has to be propaganda against all magic... dragons, magic bloodlines and even women (strikes me as strange the maesters are a male order - c'mon alleras!) The only winners in all this is the people who want dragons dead... And DwD Marwyn tells us it was the maesters...this must be what he was talking about surely? All too suspicious for me... All i really took from that novella is the same as from asoiaf... Too many manipulators behind the scenes trying to make a grab for power...

i'm with you and lady dustin in not trsuting those bastards. Especially that mention of what was said when daemon and aemond met up e was saying it was alys that saw him there, when everyone knew that daemon told them to spread the word of where he was.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

About the deaths of four of Aenar's dragons -

Aegon I, before the Conquest, did intervene in a conflict in Essos. Perhaps one or more of the original five was lost in a similar event.

As for dragons lost between the Conquest and the Dance-

The struggle with the Faith Militant may have accounted for a few.

The Maesters. Yeah. Everything we've experienced while reading aSoIaF tells us that how we perceive events depends on our viewpoint. It is perhaps the single strongest theme in the series. In tPatQ we are presented with a work that poses as an objective, scholarly study, but that's a masquerade; it's just as biased as a Cersei chapter. Even more so, in fact, because it is biased deliberately. It's actually designed to deceive on some points.

I wonder if we could piece together who Vhagar's riders were. There could have been as many as four. (One pre-Visenya, Visenya herself, one post-Visenya, then Aemond.) That could be a record.

[Lykos]

How did you conclude Vermithor might mean "storm dragon" or "thunder dragon"? Did that come solely from the nickname "The Bronze Fury"?

Vermi - thor. So the name means worm (think of "Dragons, Wyrms and Wyverns") of thunder, I guess.

[Nictarion]

Im starting my re read and noticing the typos in the book version too. I just saw that when Daeron is told about Viserys death, it says that he wept for his grandsire.

I was wondering about this to.

[Sevumar]

Vermi - thor. So the name means worm (think of "Dragons, Wyrms and Wyverns") of thunder, I guess.

If we're assuming that Valyrian is based entirely on real-world languages. Without using the constructed language made for the show, we don't know that much about Valyrian, but we have some good guesses as to what dragons with "dragon" in their name might look like.

Dracarys is "dragonfire" we're told, and -rys is an ending we see a lot in names of Valyrian origin, reinforcing the cultural attachment to fire. We also would expect dragons like Sunfyre and Dreamfyre (along with the sword Blackfyre) to also end in -rys.

The English renderings of most dragon names don't seem self-referential, at least from the small sample size we have.

[eggs]

I haven't had time to peruse this thing but I did skim and Im really digging it so far.

Roddy the Ruin....holy crap. good day to be a fan of the northmen.

I find it kinda weird though, that every major war has been more way epic than Roberts Rebellion. Grrm needs to expand on RR asap.

[Black_Goat]

I enjoyed "TPatQ". Do we know if there are any other historical-account novellas in the works, or will all that be saved for the world book and the GRRMarillion?

Some observations:

I love that, even as we learn details of the Dance, other bits of history (Viserys I's ascension for one) are thrown into question. How very...Martinesque.

Surprised by Criston Cole's comparatively small role...history has really augmented his legend (though perhaps some of his contributions were excised in this telling).

There were some obviously unintentional misspellings, but I was struck by the number of times Gyldayn referred to Aegon III as Rhaenyra's last son. Ran has said that this was written ~100 years after the Dance, so Gyldayn clearly knew that Viserys survived his capture by the Triarchy. Others in this thread have suggested that he was simply converying Rhaenyra's state of mind, but I'm not so sure: It seems like at other points in the text he makes note of inaccuracies, fables, etc.

Finally, (and this may not be the proper forum for this question - let me know! I don't post here often but would like to start, so I need to know these things), is there a place where I can see all the information that has been provided by the MUSH? I don't plan on participating, but it sounds like quite a bit of potentially canonical stuff has been revealed there. Is the policy with that similar to SSM stuff, where it's accepted as canon until proven otherwise by the literature itself or by later additions to the MUSH/things GRRM has said? It would be kind of nice if there was a listing of everything not explicitly in ASOIAF/D&E/TP&TQ but basically considered factual.

[The Sleeper]

Even if you believe that the dragonseeds were just some random people, rather than distant Targaryen/Valyrian descendants who won genetic lottery it is clearly horribly dangerous for a normal person to try to claim even a previosly ridden dragon.

I mean, scores died and even more were badly injured. Whereas we never heard about a Targaryen being killed in an attempt to claim a previously ridden dragon. Even somebody without a strong personality, such as Helaena, was able to do that. So, even though GRRM didn't confirm that blood is an absolute prequisite, it is clearly a huge help.

.

I thought that it was hinted that the Sheepstealer might be female and that she possibly mated with Caraxes?

Rhaenys_Targaryen:

Sure, Varys and Illyrio didn't count on the dragons hatching. But they were sending Aegon to join Dany and claim one of her dragons when they did hatch. Yet Westerosi history maintains that an attempt to bond with a dragon is horribly risky unless you have a lot of Targaryen blood. Like, 1: 10 odds or worse. Would they be willing to throw away all their investment in Aegon on such odds? Not IMHO.

Re: Varys wanting to stop a war, we now know that his pacifist talk is all bunk and that he is more than willing to cause or prolongue devastating wars for his own ends.

So, this doesn't float and Larys's example shows that it was certainly quite possible for a Master of Whisperers to spirit away 3 people on a very short notice. If Varys had been genuinely loyal to Targaryens he would have done so. Or, better yet, he wouldn't have torpedoed Rhaegar's move to try to secure the regency of which Harrenhal Tourney was supposed to be a first step.

Re: Varys's 20-year-long plan of molding a perfect heir, it is mad scientist grade crazy and I don't see somebody like Illyrio going along with it and investing in it so heavily if Aegon is genuinely Rhaegar's son. One needs emotional, visceral reasons to follow a plan so unlikely to succeed for decades.

And his reasons couldn't have been blind loyalty to Targaryens, as Varys did quite a bit to doom them/refrained from helping them during his tenure. While Illyrio has zero motive to begin with.

On one hand there are I blieve, two dragons with named previous owners, Vhagar and Dreamfyre, while there also Targaryens without named dragons, the most conspicuous one being Viserys, the king himself, without a named dragon. One could assume, he wasn't a dragonrider. Meanwhile Vermithor and Silverwing, the two most powerfull dragons after Vhagar roaming around without a rider and the three wild dragons who went for quite a long time unclaimed successfully or otherwise. Particularly Cannibal would be quite a large dragon as he was pretty old, yet none of the Targaryens went for him.

It seems to me that it wasn't the usual practice to try and claim older dragons, despite the obvious benefit of having an older, more experienced dragon at their command, but rather give the children eggs so they could grow them from hatchlings. If familiarity didn't play a role, this method should not have been more successfull than claiming an older dragon with a previous rider. Yet in the story we get a 100% success ratio for dragon riders who got their dragons as eggs.

Familiarity can also explain the differnces in casualties between Sheepstealer and the three unclaimed and tame dragons. It was mentioned that Sheepstealer killed more claimants than the three tame dragons combined. There is also the fact that all three tame dragons were eventually ridden, while only one of the wild dragons was successfuly claimed. If tame dragons were much more tolerant of people in general, it follows they would be even more tolerant of paritcular people they were familiar with, which they might not let ride them, but wouldn't outright attack and killed them for the attempt, as was the case with Syrax and Joffrey and as Tze previously posted a more thoughtful attempt to ride her might well have been successful.

It should also be noted that the notion that a dragon may have only one rider at a time or that a dragonrider may only ride one dragon would be very useful to discourage Targaryens from antagonizing eachother over who gets which dragons and stealing eachother's dragon. It may be true or not, but even if it is there is no need for a supernatural explanation for it either. It could be true in some cases and not true in others simply because the dragons exhibit varying levels of loyalty to their riders.

I feel the pattern that emerges based on the information we have can be adequately explained by familiarity and animal behaviour without the need of a supernatural blood bond. This is of course speculation and Martin may have had something else in mind. It should also be noted that what applies for the generations of Targaryens represeted in tPatQ doesn't neccessarily apply to either the old Valyrians or to Dany herself. For one thing in tPatQ there is no magic at all (well apart from the dragons, though they do behave like typical animals, much like the giants in ASoIaF could very well be a type of primate) whereas in ASoIaF we get explicit uses of magic concerning dragons starting with the birth of the dragons, itself and the mention by Dany of the Valyrians using spells and horns to control their dragons and the fact that there is an actual dragon horn. The Targaryens in tPatQ were two centuries apart from the Doom and would have lost most of the knowledge coming from Valyria, though I have to wonder: if Nettles accomplished with an offering of sheep what the Valyrians did with spells and magic horns, where does the blood bond fit in?

ETA on current (f)Aegon. The dragons were a last minute unforeseen detail. The main reason they want him to marry Dany is to cement his legitimacy. Dragons are a part of that but would they risk him trying to ride a dragon after all of the investment, regardless of whether he has Targaryen blood or not? Varys is a practical man, even if Aegon is descended form Targaryens or Blackfyre's he would need to trust in a notion that has been untested for a century and a half and even then it comes with no guarantee. No one ever said that any Targaryen can ride any dragon. Still, now that the dragons are in play they may not have choice in it. Real or not they are going to have to risk it; failure to ride a dragon will be a blow to his bid for legitimacy. My guess is that Varys is collecting what information he can (that is why he took Tyrion, among other things) and cross that bridge when he gets to it. We ahve to remember that Varys may well have less information on the subject than we do.

[Emilydayne]

All the typos...Kinda weird right?! And while I loved this story, it was clearly a last minute substitute for the Dunk and Egg Tale. It all feels a tad rushed. Hopefully it's not something to be concerned about!

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Vermi - thor. So the name means worm (think of "Dragons, Wyrms and Wyverns") of thunder, I guess.

Interesting. These kind of things should be asked in an SSM sometime, I think...

ETA on current (f)Aegon. The dragons were a last minute unforeseen detail. The main reason they want him to marry Dany is to cement his legitimacy. Dragons are a part of that but would they risk him trying to ride a dragon after all of the investment, regardless of whether he has Targaryen blood or not? Varys is a practical man, even if Aegon is descended form Targaryens or Blackfyre's he would need to trust in a notion that has been untested for a century and a half and even then it comes with no guarantee. No one ever said that any Targaryen can ride any dragon. Still, now that the dragons are in play they may not have choice in it. Real or not they are going to have to risk it; failure to ride a dragon will be a blow to his bid for legitimacy. My guess is that Varys is collecting what information he can (that is why he took Tyrion, among other things) and cross that bridge when he gets to it. We ahve to remember that Varys may well have less information on the subject than we do.

Perhaps this is an indication that fAegon could very well be real. The fact that he would risk Aegon shows that he believes Aegon can actually ride a dragon. And Illyrio also seems to be very calm regarding the situation they were planning to put Aegon in.

It could still go both ways though.

Question: I can't remember reading about the sword Blackfyre (I only read the story once until now). Is it known who holds it during the Dance? I'm guessing Aegon II in the beginning, as it should have been in Viserys' possession when he died, and perhaps even Aemond when Aegon II was in his milk of the poppy sleep? But Aemond doesn't have the sword when facing Daemon. And it isn't mentioned Rhaenyra has it after taking KL. Did Larys sneak out the sword as well as Aegon/Jaehaera/Maelor?

[Nictarion]

I would guess Aegon ll had Blackfyre the whole time.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I've not read the story yet, but there's something that just came to me...

Clash, Daenerys I

Rakharo was the first to return. Due south the red waste stretched on and on, he reported, until it ended on a bleak shore beside the poison water. Between here and there lay only swirling sand, wind-scoured rocks, and plants bristly with sharp thorns. He had passed the bones of a dragon, he swore, so immense that he had ridden his horse through its great black jaws. Other than that, he had seen nothing.

Could that have been Sheepstealer, was it?

[Nictarion]

I've not read the story yet, but there's something that just came to me...

Clash, Daenerys I

Could that have been Sheepstealer, was it?

Hmm, very interesting thought. Could have been a Valyrian dragon, or one from Asshai to though.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Question: I can't remember reading about the sword Blackfyre (I only read the story once until now). Is it known who holds it during the Dance?

Only one mention.

Every visible symbol of legitimacy belonged to Aegon. He sat the Iron Throne. He lived in the Red Keep. He wore the Conquerer’s crown, wielded the Conquerer’s sword, and had been anointed by a septon of the Faith before the eyes of tens of thousands.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I feel the pattern that emerges based on the information we have can be adequately explained by familiarity and animal behaviour without the need of a supernatural blood bond. This is of course speculation and Martin may have had something else in mind. It should also be noted that what applies for the generations of Targaryens represeted in tPatQ doesn't neccessarily apply to either the old Valyrians or to Dany herself. For one thing in tPatQ there is no magic at all (well apart from the dragons, though they do behave like typical animals, much like the giants in ASoIaF could very well be a type of primate) whereas in ASoIaF we get explicit uses of magic concerning dragons starting with the birth of the dragons, itself and the mention by Dany of the Valyrians using spells and horns to control their dragons and the fact that there is an actual dragon horn. The Targaryens in tPatQ were two centuries apart from the Doom and would have lost most of the knowledge coming from Valyria, though I have to wonder: if Nettles accomplished with an offering of sheep what the Valyrians did with spells and magic horns, where does the blood bond fit in?

This is where we have to take into consideration the motivations of GM Gyldayn. The Citadel's anti-magic bias may very well have led Gyldayn to omit all mentions of magic from his account. He is not to be trusted on these issues, IMO.

As I said back about page 25 of this thread, I find Nettles to be very suspicious. The way she "feeds" Sheepstealer before every flight by slitting the throat of a sheep/goat is unique. It sounds like a blood sacrifice. Remember how Mel was able to interfere with the Jon/Ghost bond in aDwD? This sounds similar to me. I crackpotted that Nettles may actually be Leaf, using a glamour. (No one else seemed to like the idea, but I haven't abandoned it.) We've seen the CotF take an active interest in Targ family affairs in another case, when Jenny of Oldstone's wood witch friend convinced Jaehaerys II to Wed Aerys to Rhaella. This could be another instance. The CotF may be trying to preserve dragons, or steal one, for use against the Others.

Anyway, I would take anything Gyldayn says (or omits) about magic with a grain (or more) of salt.

[The Sleeper]

Perhaps this is an indication that fAegon could very well be real. The fact that he would risk Aegon shows that he believes Aegon can actually ride a dragon. And Illyrio also seems to be very calm regarding the situation they were planning to put Aegon in.

It could still go both ways though.

How so? The question if fAegon can ride a dragon is bound to come up. People believe that Targaryens can ride dragons. What can Varys and Illyrio do if this comes up, look at each other and dry-cough? They've been palnning this for more than a decade, with no dragons about. Keeping up appearances may come down to this and failure to even try could prove to be a major blow to their claims. They coulcd not have foreseen it, but all their efforts may come down to this. There hasn't been any mention of the possibility in ASoIaF. My best guess is that they would avoid it if they could. Having Aegon marrying Dany is pretty much a one way street. They appropriat her legitimacy, army and dragons, while failure to do so makes her almost by default an enemy. And Dany turning up with armies and dragons most definitely had not factored in their plans.

Not that failure to ride a dragon would prove anything to the reader. Like I said before, nobody anywhere ever claimed that any Targaryen can ride any dragon. Failure to even attempt it could mean something, or it may just mean that Varys and Illyrio are cognizant of that fact. And if I and others are correct and there is no need for Targ blood to ride a dragon, then fAegon successfully riding one doesn't prove anything either.

This is where we have to take into consideration the motivations of GM Gyldayn. The Citadel's anti-magic bias may very well have led Gyldayn to omit all mentions of magic from his account. He is not to be trusted on these issues, IMO.

As I said back about page 25 of this thread, I find Nettles to be very suspicious. The way she "feeds" Sheepstealer before every flight by slitting the throat of a sheep/goat is unique. It sounds like a blood sacrifice. Remember how Mel was able to interfere with the Jon/Ghost bond in aDwD? This sounds similar to me. I crackpotted that Nettles may actually be Leaf, using a glamour. (No one else seemed to like the idea, but I haven't abandoned it.) We've seen the CotF take an active interest in Targ family affairs in another case, when Jenny of Oldstone's wood witch friend convinced Jaehaerys II to Wed Aerys to Rhaella. This could be another instance. The CotF may be trying to preserve dragons, or steal one, for use against the Others.

Anyway, I would take anything Gyldayn says (or omits) about magic with a grain (or more) of salt.

It would just the kind of ambiguity that Maritn likes to go for to leave it unclear whether there is magic involved in dragonriding or not.

In Nettles' case, however, I don't see how it would add to the story to attribute to magic when there is guts and ingenuity, unless he has something pretty extraordinary waiting in the wings. Regardless, this was an account of events and at least as far as the fact that a wild dragon was tamed by a girl named Nettles, I think we can be fairly sure off.

[Jaak]

There are several options how Aegon VI might fail to ride a dragon:

1. Aegon refuses to attempt to ride, in a situation where he has obvious opportunity
   
2. Aegon tries, fails and dies in the attempt like Quentyn
   
3. Aegon tries and fails, but survives - and the fact of his failure is obvious
   
4. Aegon does not get to attempt to ride a dragon, because Daenerys refuses to allow him any of her free dragons
   
5. Aegon does not get to attempt to ride a dragon, because Daenerys does not have a free dragon, having found riders for both her dragons in Meereen already
   

What could be the public reaction to these 5?

Also, Daenerys rides Drogon, as seen at the pits, but does not control it. The fact that she could ride is not yet public knowledge because no one knows Drogon did not throw her off to her death like Joffrey once out of sight.

[MRHD]

Speaking about that, I've a rather important question in that context: When Rhaenyra executes Ser Otto Hightower Gyldayn says that he 'served three kings as Hand'. Is that a mistake or was Ser Otto really Hand under Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, and Aegon II? This would mean that Ser Otto served most likely throughout the whole reign of Viserys I now - as well as during the last years of the Old King. I'd find it difficult to reconcile this with Maester Pylos's claim that Ser Otto was raised to Handship for his learning, but proved to be a disaster'. This seems to indicate that he served only for a short period of time rather than throughout the whole of Viserys's reign and throughout the last years of the Old King.

Well, a leader can be a disaster even if they served for a long time. Perhaps Pylos considers Otto Hightower to have been a terrible hand for being one of the key figures that caused the Dance to happen. A disaster as big as the Dance could certainly erase the historical goodwill for wise rule beforehand.

[Mrs.Grumpy]

I wonder if Syrax, Vermithor etc. named after the Valyrian gods/goddesses?

[Miley Targaryen]

Ugh after reading this story, i agree with others this is clearly the work of the maesters.

Yea right a prophet saying that dragons are demons and everyone going to the pit to kill them I don't believe that story one bit, probably a made up story from the maesters. Ugh the whole account was completely biased.