Side-Eyeing the "Dragonseeds"

[Ygrain]

So, let me get this right..

since we don´t know of any other biases, if any, in Gyldayn´s work, we should specifically doubt of this statement, even if we have no other piece of information to support the notion that he is decieving his peers, and future generation, or simply wrong about it, even if he sounds sure of what he says.. while we have other cases where he ponders about similar issues...

its thin.. and i don´t think i´m out of line if i believe him on Hugh´s origins. Even if i don´t even believe in absolute dragon monopoly.. i do believe in certain preference for valyrian blood but thats it...

Both me and AM have given you a very profound reason which makes Hugh different from the other dragonseeds - and BTW, if he doubts other dragonseeds and not Hugh, you should start paying attention because any deviation from the norm is suspicious, especially with a person whom you know to be biased.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Actually Ulf does claim the throne after Hugh..

Specifically after Hugh is dead, and only then. And without the nobles' teeth-gnashing that accompanied Hugh's claim, where your "undeniably" line pops up. Meaning, if you switched their places, with Ulf pressing the claim first, Ulf is the one that gets the "undeniably" line.

I sincerely hope you don't actually think you're making your case here. You still, after two-and-a-half pages, haven't actually explained the conclusion that Hugh has Targaryen blood, beyond, "The maester says so and I'm inclined to blindly agree without any critical analysis whatsoever."

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Both me and AM have given you a very profound reason which makes Hugh different from the other dragonseeds - and BTW, if he doubts other dragonseeds and not Hugh, you should start paying attention because any deviation from the norm is suspicious, especially with a person whom you know to be biased.

The previous profound reason being that he claimed the throne?? Ulf did so too..as i pointed out..yet, no remark..

Deviations from the norm? is the norm not having dragonblood? i think not..

Everyone is biased about somehting..that doesn´t mean i should believe the opposite thing of everything everyone says..

If i knew that Gyldlyn was biased about this... then yes..but it is not the case.. in his place i wouln´t even tell about non dragon-seed attempts to catch dragons.. much less bring so much doubt about nettles and Ulf.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The previous profound reason being that he claimed the throne?? Ulf did so too..as i pointed out..yet, no remark..

Different circumstance. By then everything was lost, and there was no actual chance of Ulf actually getting the throne. Whereas when they were weighing their option with Hugh (and we do see them actually weighing it; in Ulf's case, it goes immediately to his assassination), there is still the possibility that he could be successful, in which case, you'd want to discuss the pros and cons more in-depth.

If i knew that Gyldlyn was biased about this... then yes..but it is not the case.. in his place i wouln´t even tell about non dragon-seed attempts to catch dragons.. much less bring so much doubt about nettles and Ulf.

It's pretty goddamn well-known history at that point that a bunch of alleged Targaryen bastards rode dragons during the Dance. It's not exactly something you can eradicate from the history books. The best you can do is propagate the story that the dragonriders were Targaryen bastards and did have Targaryen blood. But to just leave them out entirely? Ridiculous.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Specifically after Hugh is dead, and only then. And without the nobles' teeth-gnashing that accompanied Hugh's claim, where your "undeniably" line pops up. Meaning, if you switched their places, with Ulf pressing the claim first, Ulf is the one that gets the "undeniably" line.

Thats completely speculative.. btw There is no reason to bring undeniably blood claims in certain order..The maester could have said that both of them were dragonseeds, since he was critizing both of their ambitions (Ulf at that point wanted highgarden as well)

I sincerely hope you don't actually think you're making your case here. You still, after two-and-a-half pages, haven't actually explained the conclusion that Hugh has Targaryen blood, beyond, "The maester says so and I'm inclined to blindly agree without any critical analysis whatsoever."

my critical analysis is clear.. i can, and i do challenge information from asoiaf all the time, but i must have a reason to do so.. Since i have seen no reason to doubt the maester on this issue, and haven´t seen any evidence that he could even be wrong.. i don´t even have to build a case.. YOU have..

Like i said.. you don´t like this particular line, you call it bullshit.. and therefore you are right..

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

my critical analysis is clear.. i can, and i do challenge information from asoiaf all the time, but i must have a reason to do so.. Since i have seen no reason to doubt the maester on this issue, and haven´t seen any evidence that he could even be wrong.. i don´t even have to build a case.. YOU have.

What evidence is there that the maester is right? For the nth time, why does the maester think Hugh is a Targaryen?

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Different circumstance. By then everything was lost, and there was no actual chance of Ulf actually getting the throne. Whereas when they were weighing their option with Hugh (and we do see them actually weighing it; in Ulf's case, it goes immediately to his assassination), there is still the possibility that he could be successful, in which case, you'd want to discuss the pros and cons more in-depth.

It's pretty goddamn well-known history at that point that a bunch of alleged Targaryen bastards rode dragons during the Dance. It's not exactly something you can eradicate from the history books. The best you can do is propagate the story that the dragonriders were Targaryen bastards and did have Targaryen blood. But to just leave them out entirely? Ridiculous.

not really.. he had his dragon.. one could say that was enough to take a city, the rest could follow as well.. besides the assasination plots were previous to the battle were they not?

No, my bad.. i meant of all the failed ones..of course its well known that Nettles and Co rided dragons.

I would agree (if i were a targaryen supporter, lets assume an outsider of that time in regards to the GCC) i would try to make sure everyone believed that the riders were trully dragonseeds... yet i don´t do that.. I only make it certain in Hugh´s case..

that is weird.

[Mithras]

Something I forgot to mention:

Though this custom [the law of first night] 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. Here, brides thus blessed upon their wedding nights were envied, and the children born of such unions were esteemed above all others, for the Lords of Dragonstone oft celebrated the birth of such with lavish gifts of gold and silk and land to the mother. These happy bastards were said to have been “born of dragonseed,” and in time became known simply as “seeds.” Even after the end of the right of the first night, certain Targaryens continued to dally with the daughters of innkeeps and the wives of fishermen, so seeds and the sons of seeds were plentiful on Dragonstone.

Are we supposed to believe that since the Targaryens were good looking and rich, the law of first night was perceived as an honor unlike the rest of the 7K? And why did the Targaryens practice this sowing in Dragonstone only? We never heard of seeds in KL. And who are those “certain Targaryens” that kept dallying with the daughters of innkeeps and the wives of fishermen after the Old King banned the first night?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I only make it certain in Hugh´s case..

Except that you don't, because you haven't actually provided any evidence for it. "The maester said so" is not evidence when you can't even articulate why the maester said so.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Except that you don't, because you haven't actually provided any evidence for it. "The maester said so" is not evidence when you can't even articulate why the maester said so.

i meant i (The maester) only make certain its clear Hugh is a dragonseed. In the rest of the cases i leave it quite uncertain (in Nettles case even doubtful)

What evidence is there that the maester is right? For the nth time, why does the maester think Hugh is a Targaryen?

uff.

:ohwell: -_-

maybe my english is not as good..i have done a very poor job explaining myself...but i´m done..we are not going anywher. you are not going to change your mind m and its fine.... i had fun (sort of) but i´m tired.. bye.t

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

but i´m done.

All that and you ended up saying absolutely nothing.

Would anyone else like to try answering my questions?

[Ygrain]

The previous profound reason being that he claimed the throne?? Ulf did so too..as i pointed out..yet, no remark..

Deviations from the norm? is the norm not having dragonblood? i think not..

Everyone is biased about somehting..that doesn´t mean i should believe the opposite thing of everything everyone says..

If i knew that Gyldlyn was biased about this... then yes..but it is not the case.. in his place i wouln´t even tell about non dragon-seed attempts to catch dragons.. much less bring so much doubt about nettles and Ulf.

Deviation from the way the other dragonseeds are described and their origin speculated - deviation in writing.

Ulf made his move only after Hugh showed to way, so to say. Hugh was so bold as to make the claim first, and he rode the dragon which was once ridden by the king. These two facts are sufficient basis for creating all kinds of preconceptions and misconceptions, and without Glydayn saying "Hugh was undeniably Targaryen because...", there is no way of knowing where he was coming from.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Deviation from the way the other dragonseeds are described and their origin speculated - deviation in writing.

Ulf made his move only after Hugh showed to way, so to say. Hugh was so bold as to make the claim first, and he rode the dragon which was once ridden by the king. These two facts are sufficient basis for creating all kinds of preconceptions and misconceptions, and without Glydayn saying "Hugh was undeniably Targaryen because...", there is no way of knowing where he was coming from.

I think it's interesting that Hugh's own justification for being king is merely possessing a dragon, not actually being a Targaryen. It's possible that he actually knew he wasn't a Targaryen, and he was just one of the stragglers who showed up for the lulz and got lucky, and it's the maester who misses the mark by just assuming that dragon possession means you're a Targ, full stop.

[TheReal_Rebel]

I think we must thank, Apple Martini, for pointing out and championing the idea, resulting from the Dance of the Dragons, that Targaryeans and Valaryians for centuries have been perpetrating a hoax which an internecine family feud finally reveals:

That dragons could be ridden by anyone with the intelligence to gain the confidence of and train the beasts.

Which gives me the hope that both Tyrion and Bran will get the opportunity to fly aback a Dragon-- regardless of parentage.

[Maester Pedant]

I think we must thank, Apple Martini, for pointing out and championing the idea, resulting from the Dance of the Dragons, that Targaryeans and Valaryians for centuries have been perpetrating a hoax which an internecine family feud finally reveals:

That dragons could be ridden by anyone with the intelligence to gain the confidence of and train the beasts.

Which gives me the hope that both Tyrion and Bran will get the opportunity to fly aback a Dragon-- regardless of parentage.

I agree it is a hoax, though perhaps one so good even the Targaryens themselves might believe it.

In any case, if Tyrion ends up riding a dragon, many people in this forum will see in that confirmation of the dreaded theory that he's Aerys' son.

Another thing that occurred to me regarding this whole dragonblood debate is how Daenerys thinks about the "dragon has three heads" business in ASoS. She knows she can only ride one of the dragons, and that she will eventually need to find riders for the other two. She is convinced she is the last of the Targaryens, and has no reason to believe otherwise. So when she considers possible riders for the two other dragons, she thinks about husbands. She doesn't seem to "remember" that one needs to be blood of the dragon to ride a dragon. Of course, she is particularly ignorant of many Westerosi matters, but I find it odd that that little piece of information has not been imparted to her by Viserys "You-don't-want-to-wake-the-dragon" Targaryen.

[Frey family reunion]

Fwiw, the wiki says "He [Maegor] died with no issue." - Link

ETA: Lol at the idea that Hugh's loveable personality might hint that he's a descendant of Maegor the Cruel. Seriously, wtf?

Please try to quote me accurately.

As for the argument in general, I think it's unwinnable either way, we just don't have enough info. The author either clearly believes (or wants the reader to believe)that Targaryen blood is required to ride a dragon, but the reader isn't given enough information to truly know the bloodlines of the eventual dragonriders. I think for some of them, we are clearly supposed to believe that they may indeed be Targaryen bastards. I assume (and no Starkgaryen I'm not myself saying this is a good argument please read my post carefully) that GRRM is at least trying to plant the idea in our head that Hugh could be a descendant of Maegor the cruel because of his size and disposition, but obviously it's nowhere near dispositive.

It makes sense if Addam is a Velaryon and has a bloodline relation to Laenor Velaryon then that fact helped in his ability to ride Seasmoke.

I think the purpose behind Nettles taming of Sheepstealer the only wild formerly unridden dragon tamed, may simply be to give us a clue as to how the Valyrians (who were ancient shepeherds) may have first accomplished the taming of their dragons.

Perhaps once a dragon is tamed, a bond develops between the dragon and the rider. The dragon then continues to recognize this bond with the blood relations of his first rider. So perhaps for the first taming of a dragon (like Sheepstealer) everyone, Targaryen or otherwise is on the same footing. Thereafter Sheepstealer will only allow himself to be ridden by Nettles or by a child of Nettles.

As for the existence of Maegor's byblows, once again we really don't have enough info to conclude that he had no offspring. And no I'm not going to take Wiki's line that he died without issue as anything dispositive. Since all of the info GRRM provides us comes from a subjective POV, and we have no idea where wiki produced that info, it really is worthless to quote it. Maegor is obviously at least partially based on Henry VIII, Henry VIII's wives had a large percentage of their children miscarried or born stillborn. Henry VIII was also known to have multiple bastards. So perhaps GRRM is providing us with a similar scenario taken to the extreme.

[RumHam]

I hate to bring the TV show into book discussions, but if the rumors are true and tonight's episode flat out confirms a certain theory regarding Tyrion it's gonna be a big blow to the "you don't need valyrian blood to ride a dragon" argument.

[Ygrain]

I hate to bring the TV show into book discussions, but if the rumors are true and tonight's episode flat out confirms a certain theory regarding Tyrion it's gonna be a big blow to the "you don't need valyrian blood to ride a dragon" argument.

You mean, something like "the Targaryens are not fireproof"?

[oursisthefury69]

Maybe include the comment that almost immediately precedes the only quote in the OP that speaks towards the frequency with which the Lords First Night right's were practiced on Dragonstone, and the resulting surplus of Targaryen bastards running around amongst the population. Would that not help explain?

"The Dragons could be ridden by anybody.... Targs perpetrating a hoax."

And anybody can skinchange into animals then? And its just a matter of the First Men and Starks withholding the necessary information from the public to allow everyone to be a warg? Or Ice and fire magic just don't parallel eachother at all in a series called a song of ice and fire

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I hate to bring the TV show into book discussions,

Then don't.

I'm also not sure what Tyrion, who has yet to actually ride a dragon, has to do with the dragonseeds, who did ride dragons.