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

[Ran]

I have no answers for you on that score. ;)

[Isildur's Mane]

My favourite dragon... I can't pick one lol

I liked seeing Vhagar (and I liked the epic fight he had with Caraxes)

I also like Caraxes (or maybe I like Prince Daemon and that meant I liked his dragon)

I like seeing Silverwing and Vermithor and how the slept coiled up together. I also liked how, when he died, Silverwing tried to get him to fly again by nuzzling his wing with her nose (or so the fables say). Still sad :(

I like Moondancer and her fight against Sunfyre

Sunfyre sounded beautiful

[Maia]

Wait, so husbands didn't mind that their wives had slept with other men (aka Targaryens)?

Weird Dragonstone people... But then again, stranger things have happened in the story :p

Well, it has been mentioned that Targaryens would traditionally bestow gifts on mothers, if the children looked to be theirs. So, having a Targ bastard could become a basis for family's prosperity. Reason enough to accept it, particularly since due to the First Night and general superhuman status of Targaryens in their own domain it couldn't even be considered as cheating or wantonness on the part of the woman.

I still think that the fact that all the seeds were natives of Dragonstone and no mainlander succeeded in bonding to a dragon is a significant hint that there is a genetic link.

Great analysis re: attempted slaying of Syrax, Tze! It also occurs to me that we didn't see grandmaester Gerardys being fed to Sunfyre. Or mentioned at all for that matter. Hm...

Another interesting thing - Rhaenyra seemed to believe that Rhaena might be able to hatch dragon eggs and that she and her son Aegon might be able to do the same... But is there actually any example of something like this? Of a Targaryen haatching an egg that wasn't put in their cradle at birth and/or bonding to another dragon if they lost their first one? I have a feeling that like with the actual hatching process, Gyldain is missing something.

And are we supposed to think that Rhaenyra was an over-protective mother even before she lost 3 of her children ( well, Viserys was alive, but she didn't know it). Is that why all her sons got to hatch their own young dragons, which appears to be safer, while 3 of Alicents 4 kids seem to have bonded older, pre-owned ones?

And what about Daemon? Why didn't he encourage Rhaena to try to bond one of the 3 previously bonded dragons? After all, there seem to be no records of an actual Targaryen dying in such an attempt and other dragonriders could have stood by for the rescue, if needed.

Hm... Another hint that it is not usually a full-on warging - kill the rider and the dragon will retreat. If riders went to a "second life" within their dragons, they would have sought revenge, at least in the short term.

Ran - Baela didn't die and didn't become a septa?! Didn't expect that. Strange that Aegon II didn't kill her in revenge for Sunfyre when she didn't die on her own. Still, it must be pretty terrible to have tasted flight only to lose the ability forever, not to mention to live with the burns.

Oh, and there seems to be no lack of "gallant dragonslayers", interestingly enough, so Marwyn wasn't exactly truthful, eh?

P.S. And how was a poor girl like Nettle able to afford all the sheep? Somebody must have sponsored her, no?

[Grrrod]

Another vote for Sheepstealer. I liked how he was won over by the girl with fluffy bribes :)

[Isildur's Mane]

I loved reading about the Targaryen history and civil war. I liked that it was mock history too (I like history and I liked the Silmarillion too).

Though it still left me with a lot of questions (though this was to be expected of a novella I guess), particularly with regards to family trees and how characters stood in relation to other characters and what not.

Also, at the start, I was a bit confused with who was who. Partly,

I guess, because how fast I was reading, and partly because of the way it was written (I know

I said I liked mock history, but when you have so many characters some with similarly spelt names, it can get confusing). I felt like I needed a family tree or an appendix attached - but then I'm a vary visual person.

But other than that, I really liked it. The more I kept reading the more I couldn't put it down.

[Isildur's Mane]

Another vote for Sheepstealer. I liked how he was won over by the girl with fluffy bribes :)

I forgot Sheepstealer!

I also liked how Sheepstealer was won over by a girl with fluffy bribes :)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

No, that's hot!

Ah, I see what you did there :p :D

Well, it has been mentioned that Targaryens would traditionally bestow gifts on mothers, if the children looked to be theirs. So, having a Targ bastard could become a basis for family's prosperity. Reason enough to accept it, particularly since due to the First Night and general superhuman status of Targaryens in their own domain it couldn't even be considered as cheating or wantonness on the part of the woman.

Awesome!

P.S. And how was a poor girl like Nettle able to afford all the sheep? Somebody must have sponsored her, no?

Pehaps she stole the sheep?

[Daenyra]

Orys Baratheon being Aegon's bastard brother is not as interesting and important as them being friends. Aegon probably had many more brothers, sisters and cousins on Dragonstone.

[Anath]

I am in a bit of predicament right now: earlier this year, GRRM said Rhaenyra's first husband was the son of one of the most formidable people of the age. Now, if we take it to mean that Laenor was a Corlys and Rhaenys' descendant (I certainly do)... which one is this formidable person? They both fit the profile.

Any ideas?

[Ran]

Corlys. In terms of actual accomplishments, there's no comparison.

[Anath]

Corlys. In terms of actual accomplishments, there's no comparison.

Thanks, Ran. That leaves the question what might have happened if Rhaenys had been chosen to succeed Jaehaerys. Those two would have made a formidable royal couple, although I have to admit that Viserys did well in his own right.

[Ragnorak]

And on that note, after reading TPatQ, I really begin to look askance at Tyrion's claims about Ser Byron Swann/Syrax. Obviously, we don't get any recounting of that dragonslaying attempt in TPatQ. However, look at what Tyrion claims:

I was wondering about this same thing from a slightly different perspective. Munkun's book is called A True Telling which seems to imply either a false prior telling or that truth is only in the title and Munkun is trying to rewrite some part of history. The former seems more likely since Aegon II's decree seems very much like an attempt to control and propagandize the historical record:

“Rhaenyra was never a queen,” the king declared, insisting that henceforth, in all chronicles and court records, his half sister be referred to only as “princess,” the title of queen being reserved only for his mother Alicent and his late wife and sister Helaena, the “true queens.” And so it was decreed.

I'm not sure when Munkun actually wrote his account-- certainly before Archmaester Gyldayn's version since he references Munkun. I think we can assume that if there were a prior "false" telling that he wrote it at least after Aegon III ascended to the throne (apparently not that long of an interval after these events) so there may be elements of Rhaenyra's claim being vindicated creeping into popular sentiments. If Luke's death is viewed as kinslaying and the murder of an envoy there would be reason to want to associate oneself with killing the villain's dragon over the dragon of the regent with the redeemed claim.

We don't have the biased and unreliable POV perspective but we do have the distance of history and the importance of current events relative to the writing that create a similar effect. The tale tells us that:

At first, the prince refused to be a part of his mother’s plans. “My sister is the heir, not me,” he said. “What sort of brother steals his sister’s birthright?” Only when Ser Criston convinced him that the princess must surely execute him and his brothers should she don the crown did Aegon waver.

This Aegon II didn't seem like self-preservation was his primary motivator in seeking the crown outside of this singular reputation redeeming claim. The Blood and Cheese incident as well as Rhaenyra's sparing the two queens also don't point to her feeling any need to eliminate those she clearly views as having lesser claims than her own. Rhaenyra's only real desire to kill Aegon or his brother seem clearly born out of the deaths of her own sons for which she holds them responsible. This struck me as very much a whitewashing of a prior Targaryen regent's reputation.

There are other examples too.

Though this custom was greatly resented elsewhere in the Seven Kingdoms, by men of a jealous temperament who did not grasp the honor being conferred upon them, such feelings were muted upon Dragonstone, where Targaryens were rightly regarded as being closer to gods than the common run of men.

I find it hard to believe that a godly awe of Targaryen blood made people find their First Night practice just peachy. The real answer, assuming some degree of truth to the "muted feelings" regarding First Night, seems to be in the payment.

the Lords of Dragonstone oft celebrated the birth of such with lavish gifts of gold and silk and land to the mother

Reading between the lines, Archmaester Gyldayn seems to be paying his proper homage to the crown's propaganda line while weaving in the real truth.

So I saw Tyrion noting the discrepancy in Munkun's account as a hint as to the biases at play in rewriting history. House Swann showed up to the Whitewalls tournament but I can't think of anything noteworthy there. I think Eustace Osgrey mentions a Swann marriage in his House's past so that could theoretically be cause for rewriting House Swann's prior loyalty, but I can't see how that would matter as of A Dance with Dragons.

If Tyrion is in fact wrong about Meraxes and Vhagar that would make me more inclined to view the Munkun "error" as more about Tyrion. It is actually easier to find meaningful themes centered on Tyrion's misidentification of dragons than it is to figure out a meaningful implication of Munkun getting the dragon wrong.

In general I was struck by the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways we're clued into the fact that history succumbs to the influences of the currently reigning monarchs and how this closely mirrors the unreliable narrator POV we're used to from the series.

[Maia]

Another thing occured to me - there are going to be at least 2 more stunted, mishapen dragons with skulls the size of mastiff's that Tyrion mentions in, I think ACoK. So, does this mean that Morghil and Shrikos were bigger already?!

And one of these stunted dragons will be still alive around... 160 AL for Ser Arlan of Pennytree to see as a boy. Hm... what does this mean? Were these last dragons actually hatched by kids of Viserys? Given the normal rate of dragon growth it seems unlikely that dragons _that_ stunted could live for decades. Is that why Viserys married Aegon and Naerys so early (for her)? Hoping for more dragons, while Aegon IiI was poisoning them - and the eggs? Behind his back?

BTW, it is quite strange that no attempt was made for Aegon to bond late young Jahaerys's dragon. Surely, his escape on Stormdancer should have demonstrated that he would be safer with a dragon than without.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Another thing occured to me - there are going to be at least 2 more stunted, mishapen dragons with skulls the size of mastiff's that Tyrion mentions in, I think ACoK. So, does this mean that Morghil and Shrikos were bigger already?!

And one of these stunted dragons will be still alive around... 160 AL for Ser Arlan of Pennytree to see as a boy. Hm... what does this mean? Were these last dragons actually hatched by kids of Viserys? Given the normal rate of dragon growth it seems unlikely that dragons _that_ stunted could live for decades. Is that why Viserys married Aegon and Naerys so early (for her)? Hoping for more dragons, while Aegon IiI was poisoning them - and the eggs? Behind his back?

BTW, it is quite strange that no attempt was made for Aegon to bond late young Jahaerys's dragon. Surely, his escape on Stormdancer should have demonstrated that he would be safer with a dragon than without.

The last dragons died during the reign of Aegon III. That is fact. So they lived between 131 and 157 AL, IIRC. Time enough even for ser Arlan to see the animals, since he was born around 150 AL, being around 60 when he dies in 208 AL.

[Lykos]

Rag, tze, House Swann seems to traditionally hedge it´s loyalties. Eggs - baskets.

Tyrion in Clash.

The Swanns were Marcher lords, proud, powerful, and cautious. Pleading illness, Lord Gulian Swann had remained in his castle, taking no part in the war, but his eldest son had ridden with Renly and now Stannis, while Balon, the younger, served at King's Landing. If he'd had a third son, Tyrion suspected he'd be off with Robb Stark. It was not perhaps the most honorable course, but it showed good sense; whoever won the iron Throne, the Swanns intended to survive.

Jaime in Storm.

"There is only one question I would put to you. You served us loyally, it's true ... but Varys tells me that your brother rode with Renly and then Stannis, whilst your lord father chose not to call his banners at all and remained behind the walls of Stonehelm all through the fighting."

It wouldn´t be surprising that the official history was adapted according to the outcome. So this could pave the ground for Tyrion´s believe that targaryen blood helps to bond with dragons turns out to be not quite accurate. I think conviction and a reckless resolve are more essential for dragon bonding - of course believing to have the "blood of the dragon" will help here.

Tyrion in Dance

A younger son of Viserys Plumm, I’d wager. The queen’s dragons were fond of you, were they not?”
That seemed to amuse the sellsword. “Who told you that?”
“No one. Most of the stories you hear about dragons are fodder for fools. Talking dragons, dragons hoarding gold and gems, dragons with four legs and bellies big as elephants, dragons riddling with sphinxes … nonsense, all of it.

But there are truths in the old books as well. Not only do I know that the queen’s dragons took to you, but I know why.”

[Jaak]

Stupid question: just why should a dragon and rider flying off to sea and both drowning when the dragon tires be assumed to be intentional?

If an uneducated (poor geographical knowledge and ability to find exact direction in empty sea) commoner teenage girl intends to flee across the seas but gets lost unable to find either Ibben or Lorath, wouldn´d accident be plausible?

[David Selig]

As a story it was pretty mediocre I got to say. Mainly because of the way it is written as a historical report. The style is too distanced and detached, too much info is cramped into not enough pages, and the characterision isn't good. It would be more fitting in a "world book" than in a short story anthology.

The fact that both sides managed to shoot themselves in the foot with huge blunders was kind of annoying too. It was almost like none of them wanted to win. Aemond leaving the KL virtually undefended with the king and plenty of other royals still there when the opposition has dragons and Dragonstone is not that far was a major facepalm moment.

Plenty of interesting details on the history of Westeros though.

[Anath]

I quite liked the style. It reminds me of old legends - ever my passion. And while there isn't too much room for detailed characterisation, I thought some of the characters looked very real. Especially Rhaenyra's first two sons. Alicent, though, was quite bland. I wanted her to make a delightful villain, like Catherine de Medici in Dumas' novels. I didn't get that. Oh well...

[Jaak]

Another point: dragon fighting is remarkably unsurvivable. We see 4 dragon fights - and only 1 dragon flew away. And that was the most powerful dragon against the youngest dragon that could fly, barely, in rain. In the other 3 fights, out of the 4 "winners", 2 promptly died spontaneously, and the only survivor was flightless for months and never healthy again. The fourth was also grounded and might or might not have been capable of healing like the third but in its weakened state was killed by arrows out of dragonfire range.

[PrimeRhaegar]

Another point: dragon fighting is remarkably unsurvivable. We see 4 dragon fights - and only 1 dragon flew away. And that was the most powerful dragon against the youngest dragon that could fly, barely, in rain. In the other 3 fights, out of the 4 "winners", 2 promptly died spontaneously, and the only survivor was flightless for months and never healthy again. The fourth was also grounded and might or might not have been capable of healing like the third but in its weakened state was killed by arrows out of dragonfire range.

it would seem so my friend. Now i understand why the other 4 original dragons from valyria died during the bleeding years, since there was infighting if they do fight then i see them dying and then the winner dies from the injuries.