Why Targaryens have actual dragon blood.

[league of blooDraven]

I think you're working with a faulty premise in there somewhere. If the bonds from Valyria were magical solely because of the horns, and the horns are gone, then it follows that the modern bonds aren't magical and are just an approximation of the original Valyrian method. They don't have horns, so they use whips/imprinting/sheep/whatever. Dany says as much in the pit: The Valyrians used spells and horns, and she has only a whip to make do.

If you still think the bonds are magical even without the horns, then the onus is on you, I'm afraid, to explain the discrepancy, since you're the one arguing that both horn and non-horn bonds are magical. And yet again, if the bond is based on your inherent blood make-up, why did the Valyrians use horns?

The thing is I listed two premises. A premise has to be independent of the other premises or it's not really a premise. In your first paragraph you made it seem like I had extrapolated the second point from the first, this is not the case. We have proof that modern Targ bonds are magical, and you yourself agree that they don't have/use horns.

If you think modern bonds arent magic I can cite text and examples.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

What matters at the end is what the people from Westeros feel and believes. They do believe the Targaryen are superior, dragon lords who are above men and gods and blah.

And GRRGod loves his Dragon folk. So... they're special, whether we like it or not.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The thing is I listed two premises. A premise has to be independent of the other premises or it's not really a premise. In your first paragraph you made it seem like I had extrapolated the second point from the first, this is not the case. We have proof that modern Targ bonds are magical, and you yourself agree that they don't have/use horns.

If you think modern bonds arent magic I can cite text and examples.

If you think both the horn and non-horn bonds are magical, reconciling the differences is on you, not me.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What matters at the end is what the people from Westeros feel and believes. They do believe the Targaryen are superior, dragon lords who are above men and gods and blah.

I agree that that's what they believe, but I think the actual text bears out that they are in fact just flawed people, some of whom are great, some of whom suck, most of whom are in between. I think that's kind of the point: There's a gap between what people perceive and what is actually true, not that a bunch of Westerosi are on to something there. There's also the matter of the exotic, which the Targaryens are in Westeros. But go to Lys and the look is a lot less novel.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I agree that that's what they believe, but I think the actual text bears out that they are in fact just flawed people, some of whom are great, some of whom suck, most of whom are in between. I think that's kind of the point: There's a gap between what people perceive and what is actually true.

Well, they have dragons (Dany is the only one having them now but other Targaryen had them before). And dragons are magical. If Baratheons start to attack with winged stags or House Greyjoy is able to summon krakens into a battle, then people would think the same, that those families are also magical and with special blood. Yet, we have House Stark, who now have direwolves, beasts that aren't ordinary giant wolves. And legends like Robb being a weredirewolf started to appear. Is Stark blood magical? We might found out. Because Jon isn't the only one developing special skills, also are Arya and Bran (and probably also Robb and Rickon) and as far as we know, they aren't Targaryen. To me, that proves (or at least imply) that magic can be learned and passed through generations, or at least, awoken when it's already in the DNA. Starks could have had wargs before, and now, the current Stark children simply "awoke" that ability due to Bloodraven. In the Targs case, they just keep breeding each other so the "dragon gene" wouldn't fade away, which could have happened to house Stark, they didn't keep the "wolf blood" pure.

I think there are two main reasons why Targaryen are seen as special. One, the dragons, that's an obvious one. Two, the attitude: the fact that Aegon I one day said "damn, I wanna be the King of all of this" and he actually did it, he made the Seven Kingdoms bend the knee all while not only sleeping with one sister but two of them. And all of that come from the fact that they could control the dragons, either for external magic or because their blood is indeed special. That doesn't necessarily means that all Targaryen are better, either. Aerion was an ass and Aemon was the sweetest person ever, though.

[The Lady Lannister]

I always thought that them having dragon blood was referred to blood magic at best, PR at worst.

Is it Daerion in D&E who said Aerion is nuts for thinking he is a literal dragon. If only he was a Fossoway, he would want to be an apple, and they would all be a great deal happier.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I want soup now...

I always thought that them having dragon blood was referred to blood magic at best PR at worst.
Is it Daerion in D&E who said Aerion is nuts for thinking he is a literal dragon. If only he was a Fossoway, he would want to be an apple, and they would all be a great deal happier.

Yep, that's true. The only other Targaryen who thought it would be a literal dragon was Aerys II.

But again, the difference is that they actually had dragons and they used them, that's why the were called "blood of the dragon". Not other House, besides the Starks NOW, have been known to manage literal fantastic beasts of their sigils.

[Maester Pedant]

We all get your story dude. We're all really proud of you for being so clever but can you please let it go? I'm still telling you there IS some stone in the soup. The Valyrians put the stone in the soup when they used magic to make their blood, and thus the blood of their children, dragon-y.

You have no idea how any magic works. You think all branches should be entirely comparable because they're all magic? Yes, all examples so far were rooted in blood but they have also been wildly different in purpose.

He writes about people who use kings blood to obtain clear and obvious results. The fact that he never states it objectively is a pointless thing to say. He never states anything objectively. Everything is subject to unreliable POV's and so nothing is objective, ever.

The point of the story of the stone soup is that the stone doesn't do anything. All the other ingredients make the soup, the stone is just a way to convince people that there is something more to the soup than the normal ingredients.

In this point, I agree with Apple Martini. It seems to me more likely that what makes Targaryens and the other Valyrian dragonlords control their dragons was bonding, training, and some kind of magical lore.

I think "blood" plays a role, but a very different one: as a political tool. You limit access to the knowledge necessary to tame and ride dragons to those people who are "blood of the dragon", i.e., members of dragonlord families. Being part of a specific bloodline is only practically relevant so far as it puts you in a position to actually be the recipient of a dragon egg, and be allowed by others to try to tame a dragon. It makes sense to limit access to dragons to a specific number of families. Dragons were the basis of the dragonlords' power, after all, so it was absolutely essential to make sure that only they could ride dragons. And you don't need magical blood to assure that: you only need to convince others that magical blood is needed.

Look at TPatQ. They only others that were allowed to try to tame and ride to wild and feral dragons were the so called dragonseeds. Taken at face-value, this means that they allowed bastard Targaryen descendants to try to ride dragons. But look at it in a different way: what if calling them dragonseeds was just a way of getting new riders for the spare dragons without destroying the assumption that only those who descend from Valyrian dragonlords can ride dragons? In the end, the only "proof" you've got that the so-called dragonseeds were actually "blood of the dragon" is the fact that they succeeded in riding dragons. And the methods used, for the most part, were either just persistance, brute force, or using food to tame and condition the beasts.

[Jaehaerys Targaryen]

yeah Rhaenyra is almost the perfect example of being corrupted by the "road to the throne". She seemed pretty fair, maybe even lovable. However when her sons began dying it changed her. Same with Aegon II. In the beginning he didn't even WANT to take the throne from his sister, but his mother lied to him. This really put a black spot on the Hightowers honor for me.

No, i don't think it is corruption. The Throne was hers by blood and law. King Viserys I Targaryen named Rhaenyra Princess of Dragostone in the Throne Room of Red Keep and many lords of Westeros swore oaths of loyalty. As a brother Aegon II Targaryen shouldn't have disputed her claim. But the mistake was his father's. Rhaenyra never intended to kill her brothers and sister. Now tell me please all you Targaryen haters, how good and fair and very loyal are the rest of the Houses of Westeros???

[butterbumps!]

You're trying to argue semantics when Butter stated earlier and I agreed that there's really no point to doing that. It's magic, so I would imagine that the motives/mindset behind everything matter more than the actual actions. When she stepped on that pyre she was sacrificing herself IMO, the blood sacrifice is what's needed, nothing else. It could be why Targaryens burned their dead, the blood of kings (even dead ones) was enough to wake dragons. So all that burning at summerhall made Rhaegar what he was.... Now I'm on a tangent lol

If cremation started as a Valyrian custom, then "kingsblood" wouldn't make sense, because the Freehold wasn't a monarchy-- there weren't Valyrian kings.

That said, the concept of hatching quickened eggs on funeral pyres is a possibility. I think a major piece that's missing is information on dragon reproduction. Do dragons lay eggs that go dormant immediately? How much time does it take for an egg to go dormant? Will an egg go dormant if a live dragon is in the vicinity? If live dragons are around, is human intervention necessary at all to quicken and hatch the eggs? Does all a quickened egg require to hatch is fire?

but I don't do that at all lol. See what I mean? I don't blind worship any families, The Starks and Targryens are my favorite and I believe both of them have magical backgrounds. So therefore I would say that YEAH Targaryens probably DO have dragon blood and thats a good thing and a bad thing. Just like the Starks have the "wolf blood" among other things, and some have been good, some have been bad. We just have less info about the Starks.

I think both sides have magical backgrounds too, but I struggle with the idea that it's dragon blood running in the veins of the Targs. Martin's set up a pattern showing that continued use of magic over time can change an individual's nature; it might be the case that First Men and Valyrians ended up changing their lines through extended longterm magical dabbling.

Further, I really think it's more likely the twist is that dragons have human Valyrian blood rather than the reverse. The Rhaego-dragons swap show us a case where the dragons became infused with the life of a human Valyrian; it's probably fair to say that those dragons have Valyrian human blood in them given Rhaego's allegedly desiccated appearance. If anyone had ever performed a similar ritual to quicken a dragon (which sounds possible given the similarity to the Nissa story-- what if they were the first Valyrian dragon-riders waking dragons), then dragons and Valyrians would indeed share blood. Only that it's the dragons with human blood rather than vice versa.

Couldn't you just step back from your Targ hate for a sec and think that maaaaaybe, a guy who writes that "kings blood" has magic powers might have given SOME magic powers to the blood of a family that has ruled an empire (in part) and 7 kingdoms (entirely) for centuries? Why is that such a stretch?

My preferred "kingsblood" theory is that it's a mistranslation of "kinsblood." As in, the willing sacrifice of a family member to produce a magical outcome, and might be why the concept of kinslaying is so taboo and appalling. Maybe the magic of killing one's own kin makes the magical outcome stronger in some way. At any rate, I don't tend to believe "kingsblood" is a thing, but rather, what makes a blood ritual powerful is the amount of sacrifice by the person performing it.

[King Aegon The Conqueror]

Blood of the First Men is not just like blood of the dragon. First Men are humans, you know. Dragons aren't. It's like how wolf's blood doesn't mean way back in the day some Starks did the dirty with wolves in order to get high on canine blood.

I am curious about what sort of theory you have about the Rhoynar. Do you think the Rhoynar mated with fish in order to have 'blood of the water'?

No by the blood of the first men I meant how it's generally thought they require the blood to be a warg/skinchanger/greenseer

as for the Rhoynar we haven't seen anyone else do water magic so perhaps only they were capable of doing it?

[The Sleeper]

I think both sides have magical backgrounds too, but I struggle with the idea that it's dragon blood running in the veins of the Targs. Martin's set up a pattern showing that continued use of magic over time can change an individual's nature; it might be the case that First Men and Valyrians ended up changing their lines through extended longterm magical dabbling.

Further, I really think it's more likely the twist is that dragons have human Valyrian blood rather than the reverse. The Rhaego-dragons swap show us a case where the dragons became infused with the life of a human Valyrian; it's probably fair to say that those dragons have Valyrian human blood in them given Rhaego's allegedly desiccated appearance. If anyone had ever performed a similar ritual to quicken a dragon (which sounds possible given the similarity to the Nissa story-- what if they were the first Valyrian dragon-riders waking dragons), then dragons and Valyrians would indeed share blood. Only that it's the dragons with human blood rather than vice versa.

My preferred "kingsblood" theory is that it's a mistranslation of "kinsblood." As in, the willing sacrifice of a family member to produce a magical outcome, and might be why the concept of kinslaying is so taboo and appalling. Maybe the magic of killing one's own kin makes the magical outcome stronger in some way. At any rate, I don't tend to believe "kingsblood" is a thing, but rather, what makes a blood ritual powerful is the amount of sacrifice by the person performing it.

I agree the root of all magic is sacrifice and there is real merit to the idea of the dragons viewing Dany as their mother and potentially recognize some of those related to her as kin. It would also account for why it would not be enough to control them but make it considerably easier by establishing some familiarity. This of course leaves the possibility open that this bond is not the only way to ride a dragon and they can be tamed (sort off) by mundane means (Nettles and Sheepstealer). Dany, of course had to sacrifice her son. The part about each dragon tolerating only one rider at a time might be the result of the dragon's natural instinctual behavior. For instance dragons are not social animals but mate for life and so would develop a similar attitude to their riders. I think tPatQ supports this.

The horn might be a buffer for this sort of thing. It does not require a personal sacrifice, but binds the dragon to the horn rather than the owner. It could potentially also allow for a more complete control as it is a magical artifact specifically created for this purpose. This could also account for some kind of progression of how the Valyrians came to control dragons: at first through conventional means, then through blood sacrifice and as their knowledge grew they developed other techniques.

As for the Starks/skinchangers/greenseers. I think their abilities do stem from the children of the forest and the weirwoods. I think that after generations of sacrificing to the trees and burying under their dead under them they became bound to the trees as well and the natural abilities of the CotF (which if we see it more closely seems to be some sort of telepathy/astral projection) who raised the trees in the first place, leeched of to the families that lived around them and took care them. South of the Wall a particular house would stay around a particular tree for generations. The settlements of the wildlings are much less permanent. This could account for why south of the Wall the gift appears clustered in families (the current Starks have Blackwood blood in them). The abolition of the practice of blood sacrifice but the continuance of the burials, could account for why the gift went dormant but not faded.

Well, that more or less makes sense to me.

[LordImp]

And Jon will wake as a real dragon, setting the wall in fire with his breath and devour the Lannisters for breakfast..

That would been cool.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Targaryens actually having "blood of the dragon" doesn't need to mean that their ancestors fucked dragons.

We know that the Valyrians were very much into blood magic (Fire and blood were the two cornerstones of Valyrian sorcery, which is where the Targaryen motto comes from) so it is not at all hard to believe that the original Valyrians used this to give their people the ability to control dragons, and perhaps also their otherwordly and exotic looks.

Example

1. Cut a gash in a dragon, then cut a gash in your hand.

2. Put hand on the dragon's wound so that its blood seeps into your body.

3. Chant magical prayer to a Valyrian demon-god of your choice.

4. *Bam* You now have blood of the dragon. Have fun burning peasants, controlling dragons, and being paranoid.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The Targs were zoophiles? :ack:

[Targaryen_Fangirl]

I'd argue that Nettles tames Sheepstealer by giving him sheep and conditioning him to her presence, not because she's actually a Targaryen (and no, it's not just her looks; we are literally told exactly how she does it). Dany nearly gets burned by Drogon like everyone else, until she whips him. Call me crazy, but I think the causality here is the whip. Dany is obviously actually a Targaryen, but saying that she cowed Drogon with her magic blood as opposed to the whip is ... illogical.

Again, the stone soup fable. That is precisely what it is.

I can't recall anyone having to lure a wolf with meat or whip a wolf before they could warg it.

Excuse me, but how can someone possibly tame a giant predator whose skin is durable enough to be impenetrable for bolts and arrows using a mere whip?

In the last Dany's chapter we are told that dragons tend to fly to the side where whip strikes them, unlike horses, who move quite the opposite - away from the danger, not towards it.

If blood means nothing, it would be logical for Drogon to get angry and immediately eat Dany for whipping him in Meereen. Obviously, the whip meant nothing, it were Dany's blood and bravery that did the trick. Otherways Drogon would be tamed by that Ghiskari guy who attacked him with a spear, as spear > whip.

Sorry for mistakes, English is not my native language.

[Ser Creighton]

Pointing to Jon's combined Targaryen and Stark blood as markers based on a specific prophecy? Arguing that Jon was born legitimate because of the three Kingsguard at the Tower, in addition to numerous other clues? Suggesting that blood of the First Men and/or old god worship is a component in being a warg, because unlike the dragons, we have yet to see a person of unambiguously non-First Men descent be able to warg?

I'm sorry, what am I supposed to regret saying here? I'm pretty sure there's a difference between saying I think Jon was born legitimate (a political distinction based on legal parentage, not magic) based on evidence, and saying an entire family has magical blood. I've never argued that every Stark is a warg. My interest in Jon's blood make-up is based on how it could fulfill one precise prophecy, as any cursory glance of my writing on the subject will show. I've even said, on more than one occasion, that while I think Jon was born legitimate, I don't think he'll sit on the Iron Throne and that his blood make-up, such as it is, will matter for prophecy purposes more than anything. Again, a specific person and a specific prophecy, not a far-flung statement about an entire family.

Robb named Jon as his heir, yes. But it's up to Robb's bannermen to uphold the will or discard it. Jon screaming that he's blood of the wolf or a warg isn't exactly going to help him there, I don't think.

What legitimacy? Legitimacy for what and by whom? A legitimate what? A legitimate Targaryen right? So because he is a Targaryen and has Targaryen blood he has the right to be king and the right to rule over others. The Dragon stuff is BS I agree but saying hey your not special and your blood doesn't make you special and then saying you have the right to be king because of your blood is a fallacy, it's broken logic. Monarchs as a whole put themselves on pedestals and they use there blood to make there argument. Doesn't matter what there name is I am a lion of Lannister, I have blood of the wolf, I am blood of the Dragon, I have first man blood, I am the blood of old Valyria. It's all propaganda to create the illusion of power. None of them live like the small folk, the small folk bend the knee. Dragons give someone power no question, Warging gives someone power as well. Does that give Bran the right to take over Hodor's mind? Power is not a right it's a privilege, and an abuse of power is an abuse of others rights.

Jon's blood does not make him anything other than Jon, it's the allusion that blood gives him special privileges that is false. I except the fact that in this world people will try to take the throne and make claims of power because of what house they come from or their last name. But that does not mean I think it is right.

A handful of people made Robb King, I don't remember everyone getting a vote. The Starks like all the other houses have their own power base, their own propaganda and it's all BS. A prophecy now decides who is to be king? There is no prophecy of first men blood and Targaryen blood. It does not exist in the books. The throne the Kings and Lords, all of that is just an illusion of power. The author said it, power is an illusion. The throne is BS. If you tell people stuff long enough, if you write the history, if you create the illusion then people will believe it. A prophecy does not decide who you are, but you can let it, you can use it to take control, or power if enough people believe it. The Starks felt hey we have the right to take Theon from his family, Theon had never hurt nobody he was a little kid. One of the first things you see Ned do is cut a mans head off. His crime? He was terrified, he didn't hurt Ned he didn't kill anyone. Ned was just going to enforce the Kings justice, the irony being there was zero justice involved.

The Vows of the watch? They don't give anyone power, they simply exist to help keep the men of the watch in line. It's one of the ways they control them.

They all put themselves on a pedestal, they all abuse power. There is no prophecy that says go to war, kill anyone who gets in your way and take over the country because of your bloodline. All the big houses all the lords, rule over people. You bought into the stark propaganda that's all. Your pointing out first men blood is special because they can warg, a rare few can but hey that makes them special. It means they have a gift, how they use that gift is what makes them special, not the gift itself. But hey it's the blood, special blood. The Targs have prophets in their bloodline, so special blood. Those are gifts and what you do with those gifts defines if it is special or not. And you can call it special blood or tainted blood depending on perspective.

I am not saying you should like or hate any character or house. I am asking you to recognize the fact that the whole power and special blood thing is all bullshit. That they all use propaganda, that your blood or name or a prophecy don't make you special or give you special rights. That it's not about your race or skin color, or if you are a man or a woman or anything like that. That's a load a shit, the characters are special to the individual because of how you identify with them and how much they enjoy reading them.

Do you think you are special because of your blood, or where you born, or because of your last name? That those give you rights over other people? Do you like Jon because of his blood or his last name, or because you like him as a character and you look past that other stuff at his personality, his choices, his struggles, his mistakes, his heart and his efforts to try and do something good? I am guessing it is the later, and you are just associating him with the names and the blood. It's about the individual not the name, not the blood. That's the hypocrisy, and I am asking that you not make that mistake. It's not personal, I have had this stance for a very long time. I hope nobody makes that mistake, not just you.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I think you're working with a faulty premise in there somewhere. If the bonds from Valyria were magical solely because of the horns, and the horns are gone, then it follows that the modern bonds aren't magical and are just an approximation of the original Valyrian method. They don't have horns, so they use whips/imprinting/sheep/whatever. Dany says as much in the pit: The Valyrians used spells and horns, and she has only a whip to make do.

If you still think the bonds are magical even without the horns, then the onus is on you, I'm afraid, to explain the discrepancy, since you're the one arguing that both horn and non-horn bonds are magical. And yet again, if the bond is based on your inherent blood make-up, why did the Valyrians use horns?

I don't think there is evidence that the modern bonds aren't magical. The Targaryens may or may not have magical blood, but the bond between a rider and a dragon is definitely more than just imprinting even without a horn.

Also I dont have time to bring up things from the text but, there is enough evidence of the writer showing Drogon and Dany's bond in a different light then the other dragons, meaning there is a bond without her needing a horn or spell.

Dany IX in ADWD didn't show us that the whip was what helped Dany control Drogon, because a chapter later she states that it doesn't affect him, and it is also useless for Quentyn and then we have Tyrion an expert in dragonology stating that shooting dragons on their scales doesn't affect them.

Dany herself stated the whip is useless. and all it does is make Drogon angry, not scared.

When one reads Daznak's pit in steps and analyzes Drogon's behaviour it seems more like he was taunting Dany to show her courage, first when she stumbles then he roars, when she fell down he roars, when she starts thinking of death then he roars again, its only when she looks at herself and sees how weak she looks and starts roaring at him to show that she is in charge does he get down, in contrast to Quentyn who was described by his friends as "shaking like a leaf".

If you still think the bonds are magical even without the horns, then the onus is on you

Im afraid the onus is not on anyone because the text has shown several evidence of a mental/psychic bond between Drogon and Dany without her needing a horn or spell.

[Starspear]

No by the blood of the first men I meant how it's generally thought they require the blood to be a warg/skinchanger/greenseer

as for the Rhoynar we haven't seen anyone else do water magic so perhaps only they were capable of doing it?

Exactly.

Blood in ASOIAF is important and carries properties. Bloodraven for instance has both Targ and First Men blood. It's reflected in his destiny and skillset.

The dragon bond does not require horns. There are no horns in TPATQ. However, no doubt there is a bag of tools that make the process of imprinting and taming easier. Daenerys does not need a horn to ride Drogon.

Ben Brown Plumm claims a drop of Targ blood. Could be Nettles, could be anyone. There are a plethora of hints in the world that indicate that something in Valyrian blood (Targ/Velaryon) allows dragon bonding/riding.

Warging/Greenseers - blood of the First Men and CotF.

Dragon riding - Valyrian blood

[OberynBlackfyre]

If cremation started as a Valyrian custom, then "kingsblood" wouldn't make sense, because the Freehold wasn't a monarchy-- there weren't Valyrian kings.

That said, the concept of hatching quickened eggs on funeral pyres is a possibility. I think a major piece that's missing is information on dragon reproduction. Do dragons lay eggs that go dormant immediately? How much time does it take for an egg to go dormant? Will an egg go dormant if a live dragon is in the vicinity? If live dragons are around, is human intervention necessary at all to quicken and hatch the eggs? Does all a quickened egg require to hatch is fire?

I think both sides have magical backgrounds too, but I struggle with the idea that it's dragon blood running in the veins of the Targs. Martin's set up a pattern showing that continued use of magic over time can change an individual's nature; it might be the case that First Men and Valyrians ended up changing their lines through extended longterm magical dabbling.

Further, I really think it's more likely the twist is that dragons have human Valyrian blood rather than the reverse. The Rhaego-dragons swap show us a case where the dragons became infused with the life of a human Valyrian; it's probably fair to say that those dragons have Valyrian human blood in them given Rhaego's allegedly desiccated appearance. If anyone had ever performed a similar ritual to quicken a dragon (which sounds possible given the similarity to the Nissa story-- what if they were the first Valyrian dragon-riders waking dragons), then dragons and Valyrians would indeed share blood. Only that it's the dragons with human blood rather than vice versa.

My preferred "kingsblood" theory is that it's a mistranslation of "kinsblood." As in, the willing sacrifice of a family member to produce a magical outcome, and might be why the concept of kinslaying is so taboo and appalling. Maybe the magic of killing one's own kin makes the magical outcome stronger in some way. At any rate, I don't tend to believe "kingsblood" is a thing, but rather, what makes a blood ritual powerful is the amount of sacrifice by the person performing it.

I can definitely ship this as well, however it would still boil down to shared blood. And the only thing I question is why would a HUMAN of Valyrian descent have a dragon-like baby, rather than a Dragon hatching a mutated like human-bat wing-dragon? Rhaenyra also birthed something of the like as well. Therefore I think this shows that the Valyrians have something more within THEM than within the dragons.

This would also account for the real ups and downs of the Targaryen dynasty in some ways as well. Not also explain things like Targ dreams, and why in those dreams, all of them have been about dragons.