Valyrian/Dragonlord blood is needed to tame/subdue dragons

[C.T. Phipps]

That and that she's not white, which I think does play in some people assuming she can't be a Targaryen relative.

It's not for me since Targ features would be recessive.

[The silver dragon]

The evidence Targaryen blood is somehow going to make you able to claim dragons and they're better than "lesser men" is the kind of claim which gets tossed about by them but the books, themselves, kind of indicate is nothing more than dragon****. Daenerys is able to avoid being burned to death by a pyre but Viserys is not and plenty of other Targaryens die in flames as well as get killed by their dragons or in accidents which illustrate they're kind of moronic for believing their own hype. Fans latch onto the idea the Targaryens are somehow better than mortal men when a persistent theme of Westeros is the Lords really are deluding themselves about their superiority. It turns out "rights" and "superiority" is measured purely in political skill and swords for the most part.

In Nettles case, she is a perfect example of this in action as the idea she's a dragonseed is unprovable but no one is able to give an idea of who might be her Targ ancestor (and it would be some nebulous Targaryen in the past anyway). She's recognized as a dragonseed solely because she's able to claim a dragon and we're given the reasons she's able to claim a dragon in the text, which rely on treating the dragons like an animal as opposed to some sort of mythical beast she's expected to have power over by virtue of magical superiority. Instead, she manages to claim it via basic common sense and animal husbandry.

It's a spectacularly good bit of writing because it calls into question a lot of the Targaryens claims right then and there. The idea she's a dragonseed is only because she's from Dragonstone and she's claimed a dragon. Fans who say she "must" be or she "likely is" are using the same logic as the Lords of Westeros to justify their superiority. Certainly, it makes a certain amount of sense a shepherdess has an idea of how to tame an animal more than a bunch of random lordlings with superior pedigrees.

The claim is further backed up by the fact we have the bastard "sons" of Laenor Velaryon, one of which whom claims a dragon. While it's possible they were sired by Laenor's father, or Laenor himself, it's another case to show the claims of the dragonseeds are specious at best.

tyrion believes it's required and he doubtlessly know's far more about dragon lore than you do. until we have absolute proof that it is true you don't need dragon blood then it's just bullshit speculation that they don't.

(nettles is not definite proof. the targs have been prating lord's right on that island for hundred's of year's it is quite possible she has targ blood.)

even if they were bastard's it does not mean shit they would still have targ blood from their mom.

[C.T. Phipps]

tyrion believes it's required and he doubtlessly know's far more about dragon lore than you do. until we have absolute proof that it is true you don't need dragon blood then it's just bullshit speculation that they don't.

(nettles is not definite proof. the targs have been prating lord's right on that island for hundred's of year's it is quite possible she has targ blood.)

even if they were bastard's it does not mean shit they would still have targ blood from their mom.

Tyrion has read books on dragon control.

...

Written by the Targaryens or their supporters.

Another piece of evidence that even the Targaryens know this isn't 100% accurate is the fact Viserys I freaks the **** out when Daemon presents his mistress with a dragon egg. If "regular" people can't tame dragons then giving one away isn't a big deal as all they've got is an elaborately caged zoo animal.

However, if normal people can tame dragons then it could mean the Doom of House Targaryen's military power. The fact so many other people want Daeny's dragons is also an indication they can be controlled.

tyrion believes it's required and he doubtlessly know's far more about dragon lore than you do. until we have absolute proof that it is true you don't need dragon blood then it's just bullshit speculation that they don't.

Until we have proof dragonblood is needed, it's just in-universe speculation with plenty of evidence against.

[The silver dragon]

Tyrion has read books on dragon control.

...

Written by the Targaryens or their supporters.

Another piece of evidence that even the Targaryens know this isn't 100% accurate is the fact Viserys I freaks the **** out when Daemon presents his mistress with a dragon egg. If "regular" people can't tame dragons then giving one away isn't a big deal as all they've got is an elaborately caged zoo animal.

However, if normal people can tame dragons then it could mean the Doom of House Targaryen's military power. The fact so many other people want Daeny's dragons is also an indication they can be controlled.

Until we have proof dragonblood is needed, it's just in-universe speculation with plenty of evidence against.

this was when said misstress had daemons baby in her someone with targ blood would soon come out of her womb. so that's why he freaked out.

Chance's are the dragon binder artifact's are still abound and a rich enough merchant could buy one. or at least something they think is one.

if by plenty you mean a illuminati conspiracy and one debatable case?

and another fact. targs did not tame their dragons they did not give them treat's and reward them for positive behavior like nettels. they jumped on their back's and told the fuckers to fly.

if they did not have any contention to dragons then how come when dany touches the egg's they feel warm but when jorah does the same thing they are cold?

how come in the old day's when their was more magic in the world the targs used to hatch dragon's their dragons by just being near them?

face it targs are magic, daenys the dreamer is proof of that. Daemon the second had magic visions. that is something that has a lot more proof in the story then your targ propaganda theory.

[C.T. Phipps]

I never said Targs are not magic.

I imagine there's countless blood magic rituals they've performed over the centuries, some of which might make them sympathetic to dragons.

I said taming dragons didn't require their blood.

Big difference.

It fits my idea of Westeros the Targaryens could do unimaginable strange and wonderous things to achieve what a clever peasant could.

You, obviously, disagree.

[Aemond's Eye]

Charles, how do the books indicate that the blood of old Valyria isn't required to rude a dragon? The only possible dragon rider without it is Nettles - and even then, the folk who insist she couldn't have been a dragonseed usually do so as part of the argument against Targaryens/Valyrians being the only ones able to ride dragons. Nothing else in the books indicates that it's not required.

The fact that Daenerys didn't die by fire was a one off magical event - that has nothing to do with disproving that only Targaryens can ride dragons. If anything it supports the theory that magic is involved between the Targaryens and dragons. The original Targaryen dragons died out, but to me this suggests that sorcery and blood magic may have bonded them in the first place. Just like blood magic led to Daenerys' being hatched.

Brown Ben is believed to be the great grandson of both Aegon IV and Elaena Targaryen; the great great grandson of both Aegon III and Viserys II; the great great great grandson of Daemon. The dragons respond to him in ways they never do with others that have been around them since birth. Sure, it's possible they just like him and his ancestry is coincidental - but that's reaching, in my opinion.

And Viserys II freaked out because Daemon gave his mistress a dragon egg for what would be a baseborn son or daughter. It had nothing to do with "uh oh, he's going to blow our cover" and everything to do with prestige.

Really, there isn't plenty of evidence against the notion that only Targaryens can tame dragons. The evidence you've mentioned in this thread only supports it because you're interpreting it in a way that will support it.

[C.T. Phipps]

Charles, how do the books indicate that the blood of old Valyria isn't required to rude a dragon? The only possible dragon rider without it is Nettles - and even then, the folk who insist she couldn't have been a dragonseed usually do so as part of the argument against Targaryens/Valyrians being the only ones able to ride dragons. Nothing else in the books indicates that it's not required.

I'm confused, what indicates its required other than Targaryens claim it?

Yes, a lot of lords and ladies get killed when they try and ride dragons.

So do Targaryens.

On a basic level, I remain unconvinced of the Targaryens claims the dragons are such complex creatures as they attest. I am a great fan of the deconstructive elements of A Song of Ice and Fire. Rhaegar Targaryen dying at the Trident with his doomed lover Lyanna perishing soon after, the Stallion Who Mounts the World perishing in its womb, Cersei's persistent claims she is a Lion only to be constantly exposed as nothing more than wind, the treatment of knights as hired killers, Melisandre being how Gandalf would appear to "normal" people, and the fact Oberyn Martell perishes in Tyrion's trial by combat.

I'm a fan of the Nettles story and the idea dragons are nothing more than magic-generating animals because it fits with so many other elements of the series as well as seems to be the author's intent for the scene. It takes some of the Targaryen's claims of superiority and deflates them, just like much of the book does the same for Aegon the Conqueror and so many other Targaryens. Aegon V, who we know and love, didn't rule over a Golden Age but kind of screwed up repeatedly. I like the idea dragons can be tamed by anyone and someone like Ser Jorah could ride a dragon like he speculates when he offers marriage to Daenerys. It won't happen but it'd be nice.

My enjoyment of the idea is why I post but not why i forward it, though.

I argue as I do because I believe dragons can be ridden by non-Targaryens and think George R.R. Martin more or less confirmed it. Whether by Blood Magic as Victarion and his magic horn will illustrate or through sheep feeding.

You're unconvinced and I could be dead wrong, I admit, but I hope you'll understand why I don't think the Targaryens are quite so intimately bonded as they attest.

[Aemond's Eye]

I'm confused, what indicates its required other than Targaryens claim it?

Yes, a lot of lords and ladies get killed when they try and ride dragons.

So do Targaryens.

On a basic level, I remain unconvinced of the Targaryens claims the dragons are such complex creatures as they attest. I am a great fan of the deconstructive elements of A Song of Ice and Fire. Rhaegar Targaryen dying at the Trident with his doomed lover Lyanna perishing soon after, the Stallion Who Mounts the World perishing in its womb, Cersei's persistent claims she is a Lion only to be constantly exposed as nothing more than wind, the treatment of knights as hired killers, Melisandre being how Gandalf would appear to "normal" people, and the fact Oberyn Martell perishes in Tyrion's trial by combat.

I'm a fan of the Nettles story and the idea dragons are nothing more than magic-generating animals because it fits with so many other elements of the series as well as seems to be the author's intent for the scene. It takes some of the Targaryen's claims of superiority and deflates them, just like much of the book does the same for Aegon the Conqueror and so many other Targaryens. Aegon V, who we know and love, didn't rule over a Golden Age but kind of screwed up repeatedly. I like the idea dragons can be tamed by anyone and someone like Ser Jorah could ride a dragon like he speculates when he offers marriage to Daenerys. It won't happen but it'd be nice.

My enjoyment of the idea is why I post but not why i forward it, though.

I argue as I do because I believe dragons can be ridden by non-Targaryens and think George R.R. Martin more or less confirmed it. Whether by Blood Magic as Victarion and his magic horn will illustrate or through sheep feeding.

You're unconvinced and I could be dead wrong, I admit, but I hope you'll understand why I don't think the Targaryens are quite so intimately bonded as they attest.

Nobody else ever tamed one of their dragons. That is a pretty big indication. And they were allowed to give it a shot during The Dance. So again, it comes down to whether you believe in the dragonseeds' being dragonseeds. Given that we know that Aenar brought kinsman with him to Dragonstone in the first place, along with the Targaryens practicing the first night, and some of them spawning bastards anyway, I don't see why it's unbelievable that Ulf, Hugh and Nettles are dragonseeds. (The text heavily implies that Addam and Alyn are Corlys' sons.)

So again, it comes down to whether you think the blood is a requirement. You've already stated that you don't want that to be the case. That's fine; I'm not telling you what you can and can't hope for. But it has not been heavily implied in the texts that the Targaryen blood isn't a requirement, which you stated in an earlier post. That's what I'm disagreeing with - not because you want other folk to tame me. (If the way that's worded makes sense.)

GRRM has not confirmed that Targaryen blood isn't a requirement. If he had then nobody would be having this discussion. He's confirmed that only dragonlords that survived The Doom are the Targaryens. He's been intentionally vague about anything else connected to dragon taming, as it's clearly central to the Meereenese arc developing. Again, why would he even bother with Brown Ben if the blood wasn't important?

Nettles and the horn are there to suggest there may be other ways. Meaning that the blood is required, but there's the possibility for exceptions to the rule. But even then it's intentionally vague as to whether Nettles is a seed, and whether the horn will actually work in the way Euron expects it to. It could be that the warlocks are setting Euron up for a fall; it could be the horn binds a dragon to them instead. Maybe it binds the dragons to a bloodline via blood magic and could end up in the hands of someone else entirely (including BBP). It's intentionally vague at the moment as the mystique of the dragons is still a big part of Daenerys' story, and that of the Targaryens in general.

I hope Fire And Blood is one day published and gives us a few hints at what the dragon lords actually did.

[C.T. Phipps]

Nobody else ever tamed one of their dragons. That is a pretty big indication. And they were allowed to give it a shot during The Dance. So again, it comes down to whether you believe in the dragonseeds' being dragonseeds. Given that we know that Aenar brought kinsman with him to Dragonstone in the first place, along with the Targaryens practicing the first night, and some of them spawning bastards anyway, I don't see why it's unbelievable that Ulf, Hugh and Nettles are dragonseeds. (The text heavily implies that Addam and Alyn are Corlys' sons.)

I understand your argument and appreciate it, I do.

I admit I could be wrong, too.

I will say, though, the above isn't quite as definitive as you might think, though. A dragon is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon in Westeros and the Targaryens, like any nuclear power, keep a good handle on their nuclear weapons. The numbers of dragons were never especially large and all of them were kept under the control over the Targaryens or their cadet branches. The only time they ever opened the dragons to be tamed by someone else was the incident at Dragonstone where they had a unique situation of more dragons than dragon-riders. An event which is unprecedented in the history of the Targaryens.

The situation is ambiguous because they don't open it to the general public but "Dragon Seeds" who are impossible to verify. While Nettles is the most likely non-Targaryen, I'm not all that convinced Adam of Hull, Ulf, or Hugh Hammer were seeds either. I think the ambiguity is a good thing, though, because it invites speculation. It's LIKELY the majority of them were seeds because three-hundred years of sex tends to produce some interconnectivity and ten percent of Asian men are related to Genghis Khan but I think the desperation to find dragon-riders opened them up to pretext and hypocrisy.

Were all the people eaten pretenders? Who knows.

I'd love a novel on the Dance by George.

Nettles and the horn are there to suggest there may be other ways. Meaning that the blood is required, but there's the possibility for exceptions to the rule. But even then it's intentionally vague as to whether Nettles is a seed, and whether the horn will actually work in the way Euron expects it to. It could be that the warlocks are setting Euron up for a fall; it could be the horn binds a dragon to them instead. Maybe it binds the dragons to a bloodline via blood magic and could end up in the hands of someone else entirely (including BBP). It's intentionally vague at the moment as the mystique of the dragons is still a big part of Daenerys' story, and that of the Targaryens in general.

That's actually what I believe. I'd have to be severely ignoring things to not pick up on the fact the Targaryens have SOME connection to dragons. I just think it's not an absolute one, as much as they'd like it to be.

[Mithras]

Nobody else ever tamed one of their dragons.

Did other people find enough chances to make a generalization?

[RumHam]

Yes, a lot of lords and ladies get killed when they try and ride dragons.

So do Targaryens.

Uhh, can you name one Targaryen who was killed trying to tame a dragon?

I'm aware that "even for a son of house Targaryen there are always dangers in approaching a strange dragon" but I'm not aware of any being killed, definitely not "lots."

[Aemond's Eye]

I will say, though, the above isn't quite as definitive as you might think, though. A dragon is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon in Westeros and the Targaryens, like any nuclear power, keep a good handle on their nuclear weapons. The numbers of dragons were never especially large and all of them were kept under the control over the Targaryens or their cadet branches. The only time they ever opened the dragons to be tamed by someone else was the incident at Dragonstone where they had a unique situation of more dragons than dragon-riders. An event which is unprecedented in the history of the Targaryens.

A dragon isn't the equivalent of a nuclear weapon though - nuclear weapons are in no way linked to sorcery, nor are they living creatures. What you're talking about is how they're deployed in battle. How they are deployed in battle and whether only Targaryens can tame their dragons are not mutually exclusive.

Now, you can argue that the Targaryens knew that they could be deployed as such and so spread propaganda that only they could tame their dragons, and that over the centuries they began to believe it. Personally, I don't see it. Until Aegon The Conqueror they had little to no interest in Westeros except for occasional visits to the mainland, and there's no hints that they had to keep folk from trying to get their hands on the dragons then.

I think there's a definite magic/sorcery link between the Valyrian dragonlords and their own specific 'line/family' of dragons, bonded by blood magic. How Nettles tamed Sheepstealer is, to me, interesting as she befriended it. But I don't see it as proof that there's no blood magic involved. It's ambiguous, and I think it's intentionally ambiguous as Martin had planned to set the stage up with various people trying to get to Dany and the dragons, and Dany herself needing other riders. (Even if Nettles has no Targaryen ancestry, which I don't think is a lock either, she can be the exception to the rule.)

The situation is ambiguous because they don't open it to the general public but "Dragon Seeds" who are impossible to verify. While Nettles is the most likely non-Targaryen, I'm not all that convinced Adam of Hull, Ulf, or Hugh Hammer were seeds either. I think the ambiguity is a good thing, though, because it invites speculation. It's LIKELY the majority of them were seeds because three-hundred years of sex tends to produce some interconnectivity and ten percent of Asian men are related to Genghis Khan but I think the desperation to find dragon-riders opened them up to pretext and hypocrisy.

Why would they open it up to the general public? They opened it up to dragonseeds as they needed those with the 'blood of the dragon' in them - those that we know definitely didn't have Targaryen ancestors failed. We do know that. Again, this comes down to how you interpret it. And I think we're going round in circles at this point - nothing that you've posted that supposedly hints that Targaryen blood being needed to tame dragons is "dragon ****" actually does so.

I have no idea why you doubt Addam's paternity though. Why do you think Corlys' would declare him a "true heir, worthy of Driftmark" if he knew him to be some random? He declared him and Alyn as Laenar's bastards - it's a case of reading between the lines to see that perhaps they are Corlys' and he feared the wrath of Rhaenys, so couldn't acknowledge them beforehand, much less legitmize them.

Were all the people eaten pretenders? Who knows.

I'd love a novel on the Dance by George.

I think it's entirely possible for a Targaryen to fail to tame one of their dragons. I believe there's some form of blood magic and sorcery that linked their specific 'line' of dragons to them, but it didn't mean that every single one of them was guaranteed a dragon. Perhaps it's something very specific in the blood, or perhaps it depends on which dragon you approach. (Quentyn failed, but I've read on the forum that some folk seen hints that Viserion wasn't going to burn him and Quentyn may have had a shot at taming him, but Rhaegal wasn't so responsive to him. Personally, I read that as Viserion knowing Rhaegal was there and what was about to happen - he didn't need to burn Quentyn as Rhaegal was just about to.)

I'd love a novel, but I think TPATQ and TRP were released to ensure we got something, as it's looking increasingly unlikely that any novella will be published about The Dance. Hopefully Blood And Fire is published and has more info. Personally, I'd like to see it being adapted into a TV series, mini-series or feature films by HBO.

Did other people find enough chances to make a generalization?

Depends on your point of view. I don't see any of the supposed hints that Targaryen dragons can be tamed by anyone else, so...I don't see it as a generalization so much as something that's part of the lore. It's something that needs to be disproved at this point, rather than something that has to be proven.

[C.T. Phipps]

Depends on your point of view. I don't see any of the supposed hints that Targaryen dragons can be tamed by anyone else, so...I don't see it as a generalization so much as something that's part of the lore. It's something that needs to be disproved at this point, rather than something that has to be proven.

And I'm the opposite.

To each their own.

[Lord Varys]

Charles,

you seem to be confusing a lot of stuff in most of your points. The fact that Daenerys was not burned in one instance - the pyre - has nothing to do with the fact that it is believed in Westeros and Essos that only people with dragonlord blood can become dragonriders. Nor do we have any textual evidence that the Targaryens came up with this whole story to make themselves more special, and used their (alleged) control over the scholarly community and the singers to spread this tale.

The reasons why it makes no sense to assume that dragontaming is as easy as taming other animals are the following:

1. Yandel tells us that no other culture (the ancient Asshai'i aside, but that's legends territory) besides the Valyrian tamed dragons and used them as weapons. If it was easy, other advanced cultures (Ghiscari, Yi Tish, Sarnori, Qaathi, Rhoynar, etc.) would have done the same thing, or at least tried to mimic the Valyrian techniques/steal some of their dragons and start their own dragon-breeding program to counter the Valyrian advantage in war. If this was ever tried (which we don't know) we can say that it failed, as we know that there was no other dragonriding culture. But we can only be sure that it could have failed if we assume that there was magic involved in this whole thing the other cultures and their sorcerers could not master or repeat.

2. No noble house/person in Westeros or Essos successfully claims a Targaryen besides a Targaryen until the Dance of the Dragons. Then all dragonseeds with uncertain/unknown heritage all happen to live either on Dragonstone or on Driftmark, the two places in Westeros where Targaryen blood should run the strongest. That is no evidence that people without dragonblood can 'somehow' repeat the whole magical link thing that obviously exists between Targaryen dragonriders and their dragons.

[Jaak]

The situation is ambiguous because they don't open it to the general public but "Dragon Seeds" who are impossible to verify.

Um, no. Several nobles who were verifiably not dragonseeds, including ser Steffon Darklyn and Lord Gormon Massey attempted to tame dragons as well. They failed - but if they were not forbidden to make the attempts on grounds that they were not dragonseeds, then commoners would not have been forbidden either.

[C.T. Phipps]

you seem to be confusing a lot of stuff in most of your points. The fact that Daenerys was not burned in one instance - the pyre - has nothing to do with the fact that it is believed in Westeros and Essos that only people with dragonlord blood can become dragonriders. Nor do we have any textual evidence that the Targaryens came up with this whole story to make themselves more special, and used their (alleged) control over the scholarly community and the singers to spread this tale.

You realize that's my example of where I point out, yes, the Targaryens are explicitly a magical lineage the same way as the Starks, right? I acknowledge they are.

It's the same reason they dream of the future.

I'm saying I recognize the Targaryens are supernatural and perhaps tied to dragons some way. I'm just saying that it would fit the world the Targaryens are the type to drink dragonblood or make supernatural bonds with dragons along with other ridiculously complicated stuff when it's possible dragons could be tamed by normal animal husbandry.

Because George is horribly cynical like that.

[Aemond's Eye]

And you don't think they would have tried such techniques first? Or that the Valyrians didn't use some form of blood magic to tie the dragons to them in order to prevent that? I think that fits the universe George has created more than the advanced civilisation of the Valyrians not trying basic animal husbandry before turning to the black arts.

Plus, there's the possibility that the Asshai'i were the first to tame dragons - and we've already seen their dark magic at work in A Clash of Kings. If they were the first to take dragons, it makes sense that something sinister like blood magic was involved.

And it fits in with the world of shadow babies, children of the forest, wargs and, well, dragons.

[SpaceChampion]

Thematically, it fits too. The requirement of Dragonblood to be able to ride a dragon is perfectly analogous to nepotism. It's just how power behaves. Nepotism always follows power, even in our democracies and democratic republics, though as hidden as possible.

[C.T. Phipps]

And you don't think they would have tried such techniques first? Or that the Valyrians didn't use some form of blood magic to tie the dragons to them in order to prevent that? I think that fits the universe George has created more than the advanced civilisation of the Valyrians not trying basic animal husbandry before turning to the black arts.

Plus, there's the possibility that the Asshai'i were the first to tame dragons - and we've already seen their dark magic at work in A Clash of Kings. If they were the first to take dragons, it makes sense that something sinister like blood magic was involved.

And it fits in with the world of shadow babies, children of the forest, wargs and, well, dragons.

I imagine the first dragons were probably tamed with animal husbandry before the Valayrians and others turned to magic to speed up the process or increase it. I think there's a persistent theme of "things being forgotten" in the world of Westeros and people losing context for a lot of their basic assumptions about the world.

Samwell doesn't so much make this as subtext as text in places.

You act like animal husbandry is a challenge to blood magic control over dragons and so on, when it seems like something Aegon and Visenya would be like, "Well OF COURSE you build a bond with your dragon first. What kind of moron just walks up to it and tries to claim it?"

[The silver dragon]

I imagine the first dragons were probably tamed with animal husbandry before the Valayrians and others turned to magic to speed up the process or increase it. I think there's a persistent theme of "things being forgotten" in the world of Westeros and people losing context for a lot of their basic assumptions about the world.

Samwell doesn't so much make this as subtext as text in places.

You act like animal husbandry is a challenge to blood magic control over dragons and so on, when it seems like something Aegon and Visenya would be like, "Well OF COURSE you build a bond with your dragon first. What kind of moron just walks up to it and tries to claim it?"

90% of targaryen dragon rider's apparently.