A+J=T v.6

[Lost Melnibonean]

 
True, there were 40 Dragonlord families in Valyria. However, the Targs are the only dragonlords to have survived the Doom.

You know that's from a SSM. Did that SSM predate TWOIAF? Cause we had that pne warlord later and the queen that was wed to one of those eastern kings, so I wonder...

[Consigliere]

You know that's from a SSM. Did that SSM predate TWOIAF? Cause we had that pne warlord later and the queen that was wed to one of those eastern kings, so I wonder...

The world book says that some accounts claim other dragonlords surived but not for long. Point is, based on the info we have, the Targs are the only remaining dragonlords.

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

 

I always felt like the backbone of the theory was:

 

- Tyrion is malformed, like many Targaryen babies

- Tyrion dreams about dragons

- "You are no son of mine.", "All dwarfs are bastards in their father's eyes" and other such quotes

- Aerys loved Joanna

 

None of this has to do with dragon-riding. That's just a consequence of the theory if it's true, not something to back it up.

Some Targ children were described as having completely ridiculous deformities and most of the deformities ascribed to Tyrion at birth are known to be complete fabrications, but the tail things is true?

Most of us who doubt ajt as being true use those same quotes as proof against the theory since (and I know supporters disagree) they are way to obvious and on the nose. Disagree all you want but Tywin saying "You are no son of mine," and that being true is the definition of obvious.

Can you quote something proving that Aerys loved Joanna? Again, I remember he made inappropriate contact during her bedding and an inappropriate comment about her boobs. That doesn't prove love, hell it doesn't even prove lust.

 

That leaves, Tyrion dreams of fire and is obsessed with dragons as a child. OK. So what? Again, you supporters want to claim that this theory is so hard to spot, but IMHO you have obvious "clues" that Tyrion may not be Tywin's son and then an obvious clue to direct you towards Targ heritage. Again, it's the definition of obvious.

 

Most of the RLJ "clues" are actual facts, not interpretations (I use that since so many have become enraged at assumptions). There are no hard facts behind this theory.

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

Suzanna,

 

oh, how could I forget Maelys. Damn Blackfyre name.

 

Yandel doesn't mention any deformities on Aerys' many children, yet that doesn't mean that those who died in the cradle were all healthy and well. They wouldn't have died if that had been the case. Gydayn mentions the deformities of Prince Jaehaerys in TRP, but Yandel doesn't mentions either them nor those of Jaehaerys II (we only get the crippled hand from the picture). Yandel is writing a history of the Targaryen reign, he doesn't give us physical descriptions of every prince that lived, not even of every king (which mean the frailer kings or even the great warrior types could have had some milder deformities - who knows how many toes Aerys I, Maekar, or Prince Rhaegel had?). Not to mention that dwelling on the deformities of royalty would be both distasteful to the readers as well as to the royals themselves. You don't want to be remembered that you are descended from a bunch of cripples - and Robert shares all of Aegon V's Targaryen ancestors - and you would not shower favors on people who describe your ancestors this way.

I would think a simple line like "Maelys was born with (fill in the blank deformity) which was common of Targaryen's" would work nicely to clue us in that this was a common issue without devoting a running commentary on everyone's issues. And I would guess that if Targ's had a propensity for deformations then they wouldn't so often be described as being gorgeous.

[Lord Varys]

BlackFyre > BlackFire,

 

confirmed Targaryen monstrosities include:

 

- all of Maegor's stillborn children (a child from Alys Harroway, one from Jeyne Westerling, one from Elinor Costayne)

 

- Visenya Targaryen, Rhaenyra's stillborn daughter

 

- Laena Velaryon's stillborn son by Prince Daemon

 

- Jaehaerys Targaryen, the eldest son of Aegon II (additional fingers and toes)

 

- Jaehaerys II Targaryen (the known deformity is the crippled left arm which seems to have shortened fingers and perhaps fewer than five)

 

- Rhaego, Daenerys' stillborn son by Khal Drogo

 

Those qualify as 'many' I'd think, especially if we consider the potentially deformed children:

 

- Vaella Targaryen, the youngest daughter of Aenys I by Alyssa Velaryon (she died in infancy possibly due to complications following from deformities).

 

- the four children of Jaehaerys and Alysanne that did not reach adulthood (Aegon, Aeryn, Valerion, and Gaemon Targaryen) - we have no idea how they died, but deformities could have played a role

 

- Aegon Targaryen, the younger brother of Viserys I and Prince Daemon about whom we know nothing whatsoever

 

- Baelon Targaryen, 'the heir for a day', Rhaenyra's younger brother, who died shortly after his birth (the fact that Queen Aemma died during that birth could be a hint that there were severe complications during the birth - which often happened if deformed children were involved)

 

- many or all of the children of Aerys and Rhaella - there are no deformities mentioned but that may be Yandel being tactful towards the royal family

 

In addition the Targaryen lackwits could also qualify as deformities:

 

- Princess Gael, the Winter Child of Queen Alysanne

 

- Jaehaera Targaryen, the only daughter of Aegon II (apparently an autistic child with development issues)

 

- Vaella the Simple, the only child of Prince Daeron

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

 

Sorry, but this one is just wrong...

 

Aside from that, of course there is no conclusive proof for the theory, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it. There's just certain things that hint to the theory. And no, the dragonriding is not part of why people came up with this theory, it's rather something that might or might not happen if the theory were to be true.

 

I could make the same list for R+L=J, we have no proof there either, for every clue we get for that theory we could just say "Oh, that's all speculation" or "That can be interpreted this other way" or "This doesn't necessarily mean it's true", but that's the easy way out.

No because rlj has several facts:

R and L were together for an extended period of time sexing. This is a fact. No such fact exists for A and J.

Ned departs KL and goes to TOJ and then Starfall, departs for WF and has his sister's remains and Jon. Could Jon have been picked up at Starfall, sure but it doesn't explain why Ned doesn't just say who the mother is and instead senselessly invites suspicion and danger.

L dies in a bed of blood which is an obvious metaphor for childbirth, indicating she had a baby which is never mentioned or thought of by Ned.

Lyanna makes Ned promise something. What that something was is an assumed to be about Jon, but the fact that she made him promise something is a fact from which that logical assumption progresses.

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

The side books also clarified that it is one person -- one dragon. As long as both live, the person cannot bond with another dragon and the dragon cannot have another rider. Basically, a life-long mental bond is formed that lasts until one dies -- and a person and dragon can only have one such bond at a time.

 

So the example in aWoIaF when one of the Targ's flies his mother's dragon to the dragonpit to try and save his dragon doesn't count? Using your own criteria why mention this event so specifically if it has no meaning?

[Lost Melnibonean]

BlackFyre > BlackFire,
 
confirmed Targaryen monstrosities include:
 
- all of Maegor's stillborn children (a child from Alys Harroway, one from Jeyne Westerling, one from Elinor Costayne)
 
- Visenya Targaryen, Rhaenyra's stillborn daughter
 
- Laena Velaryon's stillborn son by Prince Daemon
 
- Jaehaerys Targaryen, the eldest son of Aegon II (additional fingers and toes)
 
- Jaehaerys II Targaryen (the known deformity is the crippled left arm which seems to have shortened fingers and perhaps fewer than five)
 
- Rhaego, Daenerys' stillborn son by Khal Drogo
 
Those qualify as 'many' I'd think, especially if we consider the potentially deformed children:
 
- Vaella Targaryen, the youngest daughter of Aenys I by Alyssa Velaryon (she died in infancy possibly due to complications following from deformities).
 
- the four children of Jaehaerys and Alysanne that did not reach adulthood (Aegon, Aeryn, Valerion, and Gaemon Targaryen) - we have no idea how they died, but deformities could have played a role
 
- Aegon Targaryen, the younger brother of Viserys I and Prince Daemon about whom we know nothing whatsoever
 
- Baelon Targaryen, 'the heir for a day', Rhaenyra's younger brother, who died shortly after his birth (the fact that Queen Aemma died during that birth could be a hint that there were severe complications during the birth - which often happened if deformed children were involved)
 
- many or all of the children of Aerys and Rhaella - there are no deformities mentioned but that may be Yandel being tactful towards the royal family
 
In addition the Targaryen lackwits could also qualify as deformities:
 
- Princess Gael, the Winter Child of Queen Alysanne
 
- Jaehaera Targaryen, the only daughter of Aegon II (apparently an autistic child with development issues)
 
- Vaella the Simple, the only child of Prince Daeron

Man, if one one of my wee ones had autism I'd wanna have a word with for call her a monstrosity...

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

BlackFyre > BlackFire,

 

confirmed Targaryen monstrosities include:

 

- all of Maegor's stillborn children (a child from Alys Harroway, one from Jeyne Westerling, one from Elinor Costayne)

 

- Visenya Targaryen, Rhaenyra's stillborn daughter

 

- Laena Velaryon's stillborn son by Prince Daemon

 

- Jaehaerys Targaryen, the eldest son of Aegon II (additional fingers and toes)

 

- Jaehaerys II Targaryen (the known deformity is the crippled left arm which seems to have shortened fingers and perhaps fewer than five)

 

- Rhaego, Daenerys' stillborn son by Khal Drogo

 

Those qualify as 'many' I'd think, especially if we consider the potentially deformed children:

 

- Vaella Targaryen, the youngest daughter of Aenys I by Alyssa Velaryon (she died in infancy possibly due to complications following from deformities).

 

- the four children of Jaehaerys and Alysanne that did not reach adulthood (Aegon, Aeryn, Valerion, and Gaemon Targaryen) - we have no idea how they died, but deformities could have played a role

 

- Aegon Targaryen, the younger brother of Viserys I and Prince Daemon about whom we know nothing whatsoever

 

- Baelon Targaryen, 'the heir for a day', Rhaenyra's younger brother, who died shortly after his birth (the fact that Queen Aemma died during that birth could be a hint that there were severe complications during the birth - which often happened if deformed children were involved)

 

- many or all of the children of Aerys and Rhaella - there are no deformities mentioned but that may be Yandel being tactful towards the royal family

 

In addition the Targaryen lackwits could also qualify as deformities:

 

- Princess Gael, the Winter Child of Queen Alysanne

 

- Jaehaera Targaryen, the only daughter of Aegon II (apparently an autistic child with development issues)

 

- Vaella the Simple, the only child of Prince Daeron

I believe most of them are described as having pretty fantastical sounding deformities for which we have no basis to believe are even possible. Do we really believe that Targ's can be born with wings? Scales? So that's a genetic component of Targ's but one which results in the death at birth of everyone who has it? Do genetic traits work that way?

And again, Tyrion has some deformities, he is a dwarf, but in the scene which includes him having a tail we have multiple other features that we know are false. So to support your theory you pick the one from the list that supports your theory.

[Lord Varys]

LM,

 

I'd not do that in real life, of course, but I wanted to be thorough. Hodor aside, there aren't many mentally handicapped people in this world and we cannot rule out that Targaryens suffering from such afflictions are 'normal instances' of such ailments or specially impaired due to their special genetic traits.

 

BlackFyre > BlackFire,

 

to buy the Jon stuff you have to buy the idea that Lyanna gave birth to a living child. If she did not, then all bets would be off. We have lots and lots of clues but you can ignore every single one of them if you want to.

 

Considering the amount of reports we have on freak monstrosities - namely, all of Maegor's children, Laena's son, Rhaenyra's daughter, and Rhaego - I actually buy that this is real. There may be some exaggerations to it on occasion but there is clear trend there. It seems that George is going with the idea that 'the blood of the dragon' is quite literally 'the blood of the dragon' - meaning that the ancient Targaryens (and other dragonlord families) somehow merged their blood/genes/whatever with the blood of their dragons, and continue to be 'part dragon' on a magical level until this day. If they are part dragon, it is not surprising that some Targaryens look more like dragons than others, and it is also not surprising that some mad Targaryens (Aerion, Aerys II) developed the 'delusion' that they were dragons in human form or could transform themselves physically into dragons.

 

I've a theory that the Targaryens - and other pure-blooded dragonlord families, too - are only 'whole' or 'complete' if they bond with a dragon. That is based on the fact that Prince Aenys overcame his weakness and sickness up to a point after he bonded with his dragon Quicksilver at the age of three, and subsequently grew much stronger. It is also striking that 'Targaryen madness' is much more prominent after the dragons have died, and lots of those mad Targaryens suffer from delusions connected to dragons and fire which may not have manifested themselves had those Targaryens had dragons of their own. And finally, it seems quite clear that it was 'the dragon part' within in Daenerys that helped her hatch her dragon eggs. The eggs were dead and cold as stone to 'normal people' but for her they were warm and in her dreams she bonded with them, and was guided by some magical force to fulfill her destiny.

[UnmaskedLurker]

B>B

 

The argument that AJT is not correct because some of the clues are too good is so bizarre I don't even know how to respond. In each and every case there is an "innocent" alternative explanation (like Tywin was just being cruel when saying Tyrion is not his son) and the vast majority of people will just assume that alternative. The point is that after the big reveal -- on re-read people are expected to see all the clues that were hidden in plain sight but missed by most readers on first read. I really don't know how to reason with someone who says that the weak clues are too weak and the strong clues are too strong. Convenient for you -- but not a reasonable position to take.

 

LV--

 

I absolutely love your theory on Targs being whole only after bonding with dragons. Whatever blood magic was done by the dragonlords -- it was a whopper. Crazy side effects seems pretty clearly to have happened -- and emulating dragons in certain respects (like wing deformities) fits right in with unstable blood magic at play. Your explanation about how the madness gets worse after the dragons disappear and more Targs think they can become dragons makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the insight. It compliments theories about the Targs and dragons that I have put forth in the past but I never saw this particular connection. I really think you are on to something.

[DMC]

I'll just repost this interview:

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/29/secrets_of_game_of_thrones_george_r_r_martin_reveals_details_about_the_world_of_ice_and_fire/

 

Unlike the Lannisters, the Targaryens were incestuous for strategic reasons.

The practice of marrying brothers and sisters was common in the Targaryen homeland, Valyria, because the ability to tame dragons is inherited and they wanted to keep it in the family. But even those born with this aptitude didn’t have an easy time of it, as Dany’s own trouble controlling her dragons testifies

 

It is either inaccurate or disingenuous to attribute that quote to Martin and offering it as subsequent proof he has confirmed dragonblood is absolutely necessary to ride a dragon.  As Mithras pointed out, the article you linked is a write up from Laura Miller on her interpretations of what she learned from interviewing Martin - thus the quote you offered are her words, not his.

 

More importantly, if you actually watch the interview, which can be found here, she likely reaches this conclusion based on a particular statement Martin makes.  It's during a tangent in which he is describing how the Targaryens are 'interlopers' and don't fit into Westerosi culture.  At about the 27:25 mark, Martin states, "such as the traditional incest, ya know, which was part of keeping the bloodlines pure so that they could better control the dragons..."  I don't think anyone objects to that fact as it's been the reasoning offered for why Targaryens are hillbillies since the beginning of the story.  As such,  it's also Martin repeating what he's been saying all along, and does not provide confirmation for anything.

 

Moreover, once Martin finishes bringing the tangent, Miller makes clear the 'inherited' aspect is her interpretation.  At about the 28:30 mark, she states, "the ability to tame or control the dragons, to a certain extent, is inherited..." To which Martin responds, after a long pause, "well it's something that's not quite entirely understood," emphasizing TWOIAF and the GRRMarillion will "elucidate various attempts to tame dragons."  He goes on to emphasize it's a perilous process, relating how it's much more dangerous than breaking a horse or other animals, effectively punting on Miller's assertion.  Miller then moves on to ask a question about Daemon "or is it Demon" Targaryen and I stopped watching.

 

So, yeah, I wouldn't say that interview means much of anything.

 

Anyway, while I understand this is a heated debate and Mithras perhaps lacks tact, suggesting anyone that doesn't think dragonblood/dragonriding is 100% confirmed is laughable or lacks reading comprehension is offensively flippant (not to mention inaccurate, since it isn't 100% confirmed).  Do I think it's very likely? Sure.  But there are compelling arguments on the other side - namely the Targaryens would have every reason to perpetuate this myth, it is circular logic, if Martin wanted to confirm it he wouldn't have made Nettles so ambiguous, and none of us have any idea what's gonna happen with that dragonhorn.  I think RLJ is overwhelmingly likely, but I don't summarily call people that don't believe it laughable or lacking reading comprehension.

[Mithras]

Anyway, while I understand this is a heated debate and Mithras perhaps lacks tact, suggesting anyone that doesn't think dragonblood/dragonriding is 100% confirmed is laughable or lacks reading comprehension is offensively flippant (not to mention inaccurate, since it isn't 100% confirmed).  Do I think it's very likely? Sure.  But there are compelling arguments on the other side - namely the Targaryens would have every reason to perpetuate this myth, it is circular logic, if Martin wanted to confirm it he wouldn't have made Nettles so ambiguous, and none of us have any idea what's gonna happen with that dragonhorn.  I think RLJ is overwhelmingly likely, but I don't summarily call people that don't believe it laughable or lacking reading comprehension.

 

As I told before, this AJT theory works like

 

· First, you should believe Tyrion will ride a dragon.

· Second, you should believe that Targaryen blood is required to ride a dragon and Tyrion can only get that from Aerys.

· Third, three dragonriders are the three heads of the dragon.

 

If you scratch enough, you will see that this line of thought is embedded in every proponent of this theory. I've been there, done that. The first assumption is most probably true but the second one is where circular logic kicks in. It may very well turn out to be a red herring. And the third one is borderline red herring.

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

It is either inaccurate or disingenuous to attribute that quote to Martin and offering it as subsequent proof he has confirmed dragonblood is absolutely necessary to ride a dragon.  As Mithras pointed out, the article you linked is a write up from Laura Miller on her interpretations of what she learned from interviewing Martin - thus the quote you offered are her words, not his.

 

More importantly, if you actually watch the interview, which can be found here, she likely reaches this conclusion based on a particular statement Martin makes.  It's during a tangent in which he is describing how the Targaryens are 'interlopers' and don't fit into Westerosi culture.  At about the 27:25 mark, Martin states, "such as the traditional incest, ya know, which was part of keeping the bloodlines pure so that they could better control the dragons..."  I don't think anyone objects to that fact as it's been the reasoning offered for why Targaryens are hillbillies since the beginning of the story.  As such,  it's also Martin repeating what he's been saying all along, and does not provide confirmation for anything.

 

Moreover, once Martin finishes bringing the tangent, Miller makes clear the 'inherited' aspect is her interpretation.  At about the 28:30 mark, she states, "the ability to tame or control the dragons, to a certain extent, is inherited..." To which Martin responds, after a long pause, "well it's something that's not quite entirely understood," emphasizing TWOIAF and the GRRMarillion will "elucidate various attempts to tame dragons."  He goes on to emphasize it's a perilous process, relating how it's much more dangerous than breaking a horse or other animals, effectively punting on Miller's assertion.  Miller then moves on to ask a question about Daemon "or is it Demon" Targaryen and I stopped watching.

 

So, yeah, I wouldn't say that interview means much of anything.

 

Anyway, while I understand this is a heated debate and Mithras perhaps lacks tact, suggesting anyone that doesn't think dragonblood/dragonriding is 100% confirmed is laughable or lacks reading comprehension is offensively flippant (not to mention inaccurate, since it isn't 100% confirmed).  Do I think it's very likely? Sure.  But there are compelling arguments on the other side - namely the Targaryens would have every reason to perpetuate this myth, it is circular logic, if Martin wanted to confirm it he wouldn't have made Nettles so ambiguous, and none of us have any idea what's gonna happen with that dragonhorn.  I think RLJ is overwhelmingly likely, but I don't summarily call people that don't believe it laughable or lacking reading comprehension.

The language that you bolded sounds like a confirmation to me. GRRM states that incest allowed them to control dragons better. If Targ blood is not needed to control dragons, then why would they need incest to better control dragons? Or are you suggesting that Targ blood helps but is not needed? How does that work?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

 

So the example in aWoIaF when one of the Targ's flies his mother's dragon to the dragonpit to try and save his dragon doesn't count? Using your own criteria why mention this event so specifically if it has no meaning?

Once Syrax realised it was not Rhaenyra on her back, she tried to throw the Prince of her back. Because he was not her rider.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Some Targ children were described as having completely ridiculous deformities and most of the deformities ascribed to Tyrion at birth are known to be complete fabrications, but the tail things is true?

Most of us who doubt ajt as being true use those same quotes as proof against the theory since (and I know supporters disagree) they are way to obvious and on the nose. Disagree all you want but Tywin saying "You are no son of mine," and that being true is the definition of obvious.

Can you quote something proving that Aerys loved Joanna? Again, I remember he made inappropriate contact during her bedding and an inappropriate comment about her boobs. That doesn't prove love, hell it doesn't even prove lust.

 

That leaves, Tyrion dreams of fire and is obsessed with dragons as a child. OK. So what? Again, you supporters want to claim that this theory is so hard to spot, but IMHO you have obvious "clues" that Tyrion may not be Tywin's son and then an obvious clue to direct you towards Targ heritage. Again, it's the definition of obvious.

 

Most of the RLJ "clues" are actual facts, not interpretations (I use that since so many have become enraged at assumptions). There are no hard facts behind this theory.

I agree with you, it is all very obvious, and I have no idea why more people can't see it.  I have always thought it was hella obvious.  When I first read the books I did not pick up on RLJ, but I was sure of AJT by the end.  Tywin and Tyrion both mention several times that they both know Tywin doubts Tyrion's paternity. Tywin says it right to his face 3 different times.  Tyrion has dreams with dragons in them.  The only other people to do so in any of the books or short stories are people with confirmed dragon blood, there are many dragon dreams in D&E novellas, but in the 5 main books the only people are Maester Aemon, Dany, Shireen and Teora Toland and Tyrion. While we do not know the Toland family tree I would bet my car that there issome Targ blood there.  Now why would GRRM give Tyrion dreams about dragons when we all know it is Targ thing? Basically I am asking if AJT is not true, what kind of twisted game do you think GRRM is playing at here?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The language that you bolded sounds like a confirmation to me. GRRM states that incest allowed them to control dragons better. If Targ blood is not needed to control dragons, then why would they need incest to better control dragons? Or are you suggesting that Targ blood helps but is not needed? How does that work?

The way I understand it, is that the dragonlord families of Old Valyria used incest because they wanted to prevent chancing that other families would be able to claim dragons.

 

Akward wording of mine, perhaps, so I'll give an example. If the head of a dragonlord family had a daughter who he married to a son of a non-dragonlord family, her children might be able to claim a dragon, and as these children are thus members of another family, it would give another family entirely a claim to dragons, and chances to claim them.

 

Whether you need dragonlord-blood to ride a dragon or not, it does seem to me that the dragonlord-families believed it to be the case. Whether they were right or wrong, is, I think, impossible to say with certainty.. Or I'm forgetting a quote or something..

[Suzanna Stormborn]

nvmnd

[UnmaskedLurker]

The way I understand it, is that the dragonlord families of Old Valyria used incest because they wanted to prevent chancing that other families would be able to claim dragons.

 

Akward wording of mine, perhaps, so I'll give an example. If the head of a dragonlord family had a daughter who he married to a son of a non-dragonlord family, her children might be able to claim a dragon, and as these children are thus members of another family, it would give another family entirely a claim to dragons, and chances to claim them.

 

Whether you need dragonlord-blood to ride a dragon or not, it does seem to me that the dragonlord-families believed it to be the case. Whether they were right or wrong, is, I think, impossible to say with certainty.. Or I'm forgetting a quote or something..

As to your first point, it seems to support what I am saying. If dragonlord blood is not needed to claim/bond with a dragon, then the marriage to a non-dragonlord would be irrelevant, as at some point a non-dragonlord would get a hold of a dragon somehow. And the Targs were not always incestuous. So if that concern you describe were genuine, at some point it would have happened because dragonlord daughters did sometime marry non-dragonlord men (the marriage of Rhaenys, granddaughter of King Jaehaerys I, to Corlys Valaryon, for example). So GRRM's discussion only makes sense in the context of a world in which dragonlord blood is needed to bond with a dragon.

The real issue is that the dragonlords had dragons for a really long time. We hear of no examples -- not one -- in which a non-dragonlord blooded person bonded with a dragon. As some point in the entire history of Valyria, some non-dragonlord would have tried and succeeded if it were possible -- and the non-dragonlord Varyrians would have learned about it and spread the word. But as you acknowledge, at a minimum, it seems clear that the Targs believe that dragonlord blood is needed -- it is not just known-to-be-fake propaganda. You seem to suggest that maybe they are mistaken. But I think they would know. I think at some point it would have happened, and the Targs (and other Valyrians) would have realized that there are exceptions. But they don't know any such thing -- they seem to firmly believe that dragonlord blood is needed. I think that is pretty good confirmation of that fact. And GRRM's statement only makes sense in that context.

 

No one really has an argument to explain how a non-Targ can bond with a dragon. The so-called "Nettles" exception is not a reasonable theory. Even if Nettles got the dragon to trust her through feeding the dragon, Nettles was able to form a magical bond with the dragon. In this series, the idea that such a magical bond is possible with anyone who gets a dragon to trust him or her is inconsistent with all the other ways the readers have seen magic apply in the series. Random people are not just able to do magic that they have no reason to be able to perform.

 

And if a dragonhorn allowed someone to bond with a dragon -- again, some example of this happening in the past would be known -- no such example is ever even rumored. That horn does something -- but it does not allow a non-Targ to bond with a dragon. So I just don't see how a non-Targ blooded person is going to bond with a dragon in this series -- Tyrion or anyone else.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

As to your first point, it seems to support what I am saying. If dragonlord blood is not needed to claim/bond with a dragon, then the marriage to a non-dragonlord would be irrelevant, as at some point a non-dragonlord would get a hold of a dragon somehow. And the Targs were not always incestuous. So if that concern you describe were genuine, at some point it would have happened because dragonlord daughters did sometime marry non-dragonlord men (the marriage of Rhaenys, granddaughter of King Jaehaerys I, to Corlys Valaryon, for example). So GRRM's discussion only makes sense in the context of a world in which dragonlord blood is needed to bond with a dragon.

The real issue is that the dragonlords had dragons for a really long time. We hear of no examples -- not one -- in which a non-dragonlord blooded person bonded with a dragon. As some point in the entire history of Valyria, some non-dragonlord would have tried and succeeded if it were possible -- and the non-dragonlord Varyrians would have learned about it and spread the word. But as you acknowledge, at a minimum, it seems clear that the Targs believe that dragonlord blood is needed -- it is not just known-to-be-fake propaganda. You seem to suggest that maybe they are mistaken. But I think they would know. I think at some point it would have happened, and the Targs (and other Valyrians) would have realized that there are exceptions. But they don't know any such thing -- they seem to firmly believe that dragonlord blood is needed. I think that is pretty good confirmation of that fact. And GRRM's statement only makes sense in that context.

 

No one really has an argument to explain how a non-Targ can bond with a dragon. The so-called "Nettles" exception is not a reasonable theory. Even if Nettles got the dragon to trust her through feeding the dragon, Nettles was able to form a magical bond with the dragon. In this series, the idea that such a magical bond is possible with anyone who gets a dragon to trust him or her is inconsistent with all the other ways the readers have seen magic apply in the series. Random people are not just able to do magic that they have no reason to be able to perform.

 

And if a dragonhorn allowed someone to bond with a dragon -- again, some example of this happening in the past would be known -- no such example is ever even rumored. That horn does something -- but it does not allow a non-Targ to bond with a dragon. So I just don't see how a non-Targ blooded person is going to bond with a dragon in this series -- Tyrion or anyone else.

And we know that Nettles also bonded for life with her dragon, as they showed up decades later in a cave together in WOIAF. She was the fire witch or whatever.  Everything she did with Sheepstealer holds true to her being BOTD. Plus she lived on Dragonstone and she is referred to as 'dragonseed' and she was 'with' Daemon for a time(and we know Targs like to keep it in the family), all signs point to yes.  There is literally not one bit of literature that suggests she is anything else. Posters on this website (usually known Targ-haters) are the ones who say over and over that Nettles does not have BOTD, but that is their own personal preference, there is NOTHING in the text to back it up.