Jump to content
Lord Varys

Fire and Blood Vol 1, the second round

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

it would go completely against George's established naming practices if sibling or half-sibling would have been given the same name as a dead sibling.

Ned did named Bran after his dead brother Brandon, and his other son, Rickon, after his dead father - Rickard. So why not name "Jon", with the same name, as his dead half-brother, Elia's Aegon? If Lyanna was the one, who named "Jon", then what Targaryen name exactly would she have chosen? Not Aerys (who killed Lyanna's father and brother), not Rhaegar (same as Ned never named any of his children after Lyanna, because for him there will be always only one Lyanna, same for Lyanna, there was only one Rhaegar); there was already one Viserys, and one Aemon; Daeron and Daemon are not lucky names, same as Maegor; Jaehaerys was name of Rhaegar's grandfather, and one of Rhaegar's dead brothers also was named Jaehaerys. Aegon is the most known Targaryen name in Westeros. So if Lyanna, wished to give her son a Targaryen name, then it's likely, that it was Aegon.

And Rhaegar was, most likely, expecting a girl, so he didn't suggested to Lyanna any Targaryen name for a boy. So she had to chose a name for her son, without Rhaegar's advices. And it's likely, that not a lot of time passed between Lyanna finding out, that her child is a boy, and before her death. So it's likely, that she had a mere minutes, to chose a name for her newborn baby. And Aegon is the most known and prominent Targaryen name.

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon was Rhaegar's firstborn. He was supposed to be king and thus got 'the name of kings'. Lyanna's son wouldn't become king, and thus there is no reason to talk about 'the name of kings' with Lyanna. Not to mention that Lyanna was more than aware that her son by Rhaegar would never (and should never try to) be king. Else she would never have asked her brother to hide him.

That's the thing - Elia's Aegon was supposed to be king, but he died. Princess Rhaenys also died. So out of Rhaegar's children, only one survived thru Robert's Rebellion. And if Lyanna didn't asked her brother to hide "Jon", then he would have also died. If Lyanna and Rhaegar married, then Jon was first in line of succession, to be next King of 7K. As son of Crown Prince, Jon had more rights than Viserys. Didn't he?

Though if Jon is Rhaegar's bastard, then is he first in line, as child of Crown Prince, or is he next in line, after Viserys and Dany? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The issue here is that people end up asking themselves some variation of a trick question. Why would Rhaegar name both of his sons Aegon? I don't think he did. I think Lyanna named her son after the Trident and the Sack of KL. And, I think she definitely knew about those events since Ned was with her when she died. Although she might have already known before he arrived. This line of thinking is really the key to understanding how to overcome the otherwise awkward obstacle of two Aegons. I never thought to consider this until 2014, when someone posted this quote from AGoT, Jon IV:

“You can call him Lord Snow,” Pyp said as he came up to join them. “You don’t want to know what his mother calls him.”

This reads to me like a clue that his mother had called him something. If it was Lyanna who had named him, giving the timing, it definitely opens up the possibility she called her son Aegon.

The bolded part was clear to me before :)

As to the quote, sure, it might indicate that Lyanna gave her child a name before she died. It seems likely to me that she might have, if she lived long enough. 

 

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Aegon is the Targaryen name. It's really the Targaryen version of Brandon Stark. That reason alone makes it a very strong candidate to be Jon's real name. The most important male Targaryen in the story ought to be named what—Aemon, Jaehaerys, Viserys, Aenys, or Daemon? No, of course not. Aegon is the obvious choice. My guess is, were it not for the aforementioned issue of R+E=Aegon, people would take for granted that Jon's name is Aegon nearly as much as they do his parentage.

 

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Let's take a look back at the HotU, from ACoK, Daenerys IV:

“Aegon,” he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. “What better name for a king?”
“Will you make a song for him?” the woman asked.
“He has a song,” the man replied. “He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.” He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany’s, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. “There must be one more,” he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. “The dragon has three heads.”

We know that Dany is seeing Rhaegar, Elia, and their newborn son Aegon here. But, the scene also allows us to draw certain informative conclusions. Rhaegar thinks there is no better name for a king, so it's what he chooses to name his son and heir. Also, he thinks his son and heir, named Aegon, is destined to be the PtwP. Further, that this son and heir, named Aegon, has a song that Rhaegar calls the song of ice and fire.

Aegon is an important Targaryen name. A name of kings. But I doubt that Lyanna envisioned her son to one day be king. And if she did not believe he would one day be king, why insist of giving him a king's name?

 

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

One of the more common mistakes or misconceptions that I've seen in my time here is that this scene actually depicts Rhaegar, Lyanna and their newborn son. The reasons for this are obvious enough. Jon is a far better candidate than R+E=Aegon for the PtwP and the song of ice and fire. Maybe the scene is telling us the name of the PtwP and the song of ice and fire. If the name of the PtwP and SoIaF is Aegon, and Jon Snow is the PtwP and SoIaF, then Jon Snow's real name is Aegon. It's a pretty reasonable conclusion.

Then, Rhaegar appears to look up and see Dany and say, "There must be one more. The Dragon has three heads." Rhaegar has two of his three heads already, and he looks right at Daenerys while saying there needs to be one more. From Rhaegar's perspective, he's seeing, or envisioning, a girl as his third dragon head. I think it's one of the stronger hints that Rhaegar did, in fact, expect his third child to be a girl. Which provides a strong motive for Rhaegar to have only picked out a girl's name for Lyanna's child.

By the time Lyanna gives birth to a boy, Rhaegar, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys are all dead. If Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, this means that her child, her boy, was now Rhaegar's son and heir, so she named him Aegon, as per Rhaegar's intentions. What better name for a king?

---

"A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born.” The old man felt Jon’s face. “You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is a crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born.” – A Dance with Dragons, Jon II

Here's another nice hint. Maester Aemon is giving the same advice to Jon that he gave to his brother Egg. Egg and Jon Snow are boys. They must become men—Aegons—to rule.

It would be more convincing if Jon had been linked to eggs (or something similar)  :)

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The fact that GRRM promised us a second Dance is arguably another hint since the original had two Aegons. In fact, two Aegons who both became kings. So, if that pattern follows we could expect Young Griff to be crowned Aegon VI, and then Jon eventually as Aegon VII.

The two Aegon's became kings, but that parallel cannot exist in the situation as Martin has described  thusfar. In the first Dance, the legitimate female heir fought against the younger, but eldest, male, her brother. When the female died, her son (after imprisonment), ascended thw throne as Aegon III.

We do have the female heir chosen by the previous monarch (Daenerys, as the appointed heir of Viserys, who himself had been proclaimed heir of Aerys II and drowned on Dragonstone before his flight) and the male claimant who, it appears to be the case, is going to sir upon the throne first (Aegon). Although they are not siblings, as the claimants of the first Dance were, the parallels to their claims to the throne are a perfect match. Jon, on the other hand, unaware of his descent as he is, is not likely to be part of the struggle for the throne - at least not in the first part of the war.

The parallels will not be 100 %, to be sure. For example, her parallel to Rhaenyra will not necessarily mean that Daenerys will die before Aegon. But since the Dance - both first and second - was/will be about claiming the throne, I personally think that the importance as far as parallels are concerned are the origins of the claims of the participants, not their names.

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Seven and three have been such thematically important numbers throughout the series, and there's really starting to emerge the possibility that the story will have seven Aegons. It makes perfects sense to me that he'd want three Daeneryses and seven Aegons.

But that is not the case. Even if there are seven monarchs named Aegon in total, there are not three monarchs named Daenerys. That would just be one. So why would princesses called Daenerys count, but princes or lords named Aegon not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

But that is not the case. Even if there are seven monarchs named Aegon in total, there are not three monarchs named Daenerys. That would just be one. So why would princesses called Daenerys count, but princes or lords named Aegon not?

But all three Daeneryses were monarchs.

First - Daenys the Dreamer, she was wife of Dragonstone's second Lord, Gaemon. Second - Daenerys, wife of Maron Martell, who was prince of Dorne. Third - current Dany, that is already Queen of Meereen and etc.

Also on Targaryen family tree, there was 10 Aegons in total, or 7 and 3 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Megorova said:

But all three Daeneryses were monarchs.

First - Daenys the Dreamer, she was wife of Dragonstone's second Lord, Gaemon. Second - Daenerys, wife of Maron Martell, who was prince of Dorne. Third - current Dany, that is already Queen of Meereen and etc.

Also on Targaryen family tree, there was 10 Aegons in total, or 7 and 3 :)

Eleven Aegon's, not ten. And Daenys is not a Daenerys. The first Daenerys, per the previous version of this thread, was a daughter of Jaehaerys I (in earlier drafts in twoiaf shown as Prince Aeryn). Nor is Maron's Daenerys a monarch. With their marriage, Dorne became part of the 7K, falling officially under the Iron Throne, and thus the Targaryen monarch on the IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Eleven Aegon's, not ten.

Though Rhaella's Aegon lived less than a year. Wildlings don't even give names to children, until they are at least 1y.o. So that Aegon doesn't count.

And if we will count all Aegons, including Rhaella's, and Aegons from other Houses (why shouldn't they also be included?), then there's also two Aegons from House Frey. Thus there are 13 of them, and one more - Jon is (possibly) 14th Aegon. So out of 14 Aegons, 7 will be Kings, and 7 won't. Or something like that ^_^

7 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

And Daenys is not a Daenerys.

Though all three of them are Dany - Daenys, Daenerys. And now there's no additional Daenerys or Dany, on Targaryen family tree, not among children of Jaehaerys I, not anywhere else, not even in other Houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though Rhaella's Aegon lived less than a year. Wildlings don't even give names to children, until they are at least 1y.o. So that Aegon doesn't count.

Why on earth shouldn't he count? He was born. He lived. He counts.

Wildling customs have got nothing to do with that.

 

12 minutes ago, Megorova said:

And if we will count all Aegons, including Rhaella's, and Aegons from other Houses (why shouldn't they also be included?), then there's also two Aegons from House Frey. Thus there are 13 of them, and one more - Jon is (possibly) 14th Aegon. So out of 14 Aegons, 7 will be Kings, and 7 won't. Or something like that ^_^

Why do Aegon's from other houses not count? If you want to include them, include them all (you left out Aegon Blackfyre, for example, giving you fourteen without Jon Snow).

 

But if the comparison is regarding the name Aegon Targaryen, you should look at those characters actually called Aegon Targaryen. The full name, not simply the first name.

12 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though all three of them are Dany - Daenys, Daenerys. And now there's no additional Daenerys or Dany, on Targaryen family tree, not among children of Jaehaerys I, not anywhere else, not even in other Houses.

But there is. In the first version of this thread, the Targaryen family tree for Fire and Blood was released, showing that Jaehaerys I's son Aeryn was replaced with a daughter called Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Aegon is an important Targaryen name. A name of kings. But I doubt that Lyanna envisioned her son to one day be king. And if she did not believe he would one day be king, why insist of giving him a king's name?

That is where this idea breaks down. It only imagines Lyanna as a tool enacting the will of the late Rhaegar - and that isn't what Lyanna is likely to be. One can see Lyanna giving her son a Targaryen name she and Rhaegar had chosen before his departure, but not that she sees herself as accessory to implement mad/weird Targaryen prophetic beliefs. When Lyanna died, Robert Baratheon sat the Iron Throne, and House Targaryen was disgraced, deposed, and gone.

And Lyanna's child is not a future king but a little boy who has to be protected from such ambitions. Lyanna fears for the boy's life - in part likely because of Robert's wrath but not necessarily only because of that. Remember Illyrio and Tyrio - to crown Myrcella is to kill her. And it is the same with Lyanna's child.

2 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It would be more convincing if Jon had been linked to eggs (or something similar)  :)

The two Aegon's became kings, but that parallel cannot exist in the situation as Martin has described  thusfar. In the first Dance, the legitimate female heir fought against the younger, but eldest, male, her brother. When the female died, her son (after imprisonment), ascended thw throne as Aegon III.

We do have the female heir chosen by the previous monarch (Daenerys, as the appointed heir of Viserys, who himself had been proclaimed heir of Aerys II and drowned on Dragonstone before his flight) and the male claimant who, it appears to be the case, is going to sir upon the throne first (Aegon). Although they are not siblings, as the claimants of the first Dance were, the parallels to their claims to the throne are a perfect match. Jon, on the other hand, unaware of his descent as he is, is not likely to be part of the struggle for the throne - at least not in the first part of the war.

If the Aegon-Dany struggle is going to be this Second Dance, then the struggle will get its name because a female and a male Targaryen pretender will fight for the Iron Throne. That's all the parallels they need within the framework in the story to choose that name or make it stick.

It won't be as impressive or devastating a war as the First Dance, considering the numbers and size of the dragons involved, not to mention the fact that Westeros itself might be pretty weary of war/incapable to involve themselves to the degree they did the last time.

But this is really not the place to speculate about Jon Snow's hypothetical Targaryen name.

And everybody who desperately wants to believe in a King Aegon VII Targaryen can imagine a son of Daenerys and Jon bearing that name - or a son of Aegon and Arianne, etc. If any of the Targaryens end up having issue within the story, the name Aegon would be a pretty strong candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though Rhaella's Aegon lived less than a year. Wildlings don't even give names to children, until they are at least 1y.o. So that Aegon doesn't count.

Wildling customs are irrelevant to House Targaryen, among whom there were thus far at least eleven known Aegon Targaryens, and could have been more among the sons whose names are as of yet unknown.

17 minutes ago, Megorova said:

And if we will count all Aegons, including Rhaella's, and Aegons from other Houses (why shouldn't they also be included?), then there's also two Aegons from House Frey. Thus there are 13 of them, and one more - Jon is (possibly) 14th Aegon. So out of 14 Aegons, 7 will be Kings, and 7 won't. Or something like that ^_^

Why should they be included? They are not Targaryens. And you forgot Aegon Blackfyre.

21 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though all three of them are Dany - Daenys, Daenerys. And now there's no additional Daenerys or Dany, on Targaryen family tree, not among children of Jaehaerys I, not anywhere else, not even in other Houses.

Daenys =/= Daenerys, the first two Daenerys were not monarchs, and even the third Daenerys, the only one we know was actually called Dany, has yet to establish her claim as a monarch in Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

Do you know, whether there will be more information about the Triarchy, in F&B? Is this book going to be only about Targaryen family, or will it be about Westeros & Essos from Aegon's Conquest and until Aegon III?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Megorova said:

@Lord Varys

Do you know, whether there will be more information about the Triarchy, in F&B? Is this book going to be only about Targaryen family, or will it be about Westeros & Essos from Aegon's Conquest and until Aegon III?

What we know (and what's to be find out rather easy if you do a little research) it is a history of the Targaryen kings. It will cover other places, too, one assumes, but not in their own right but only insofar as they are relevant to the Targaryens.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to agree with @Lord Varys that this isn't the place to debate Jon Snow's real name. That said, I will address @Rhaenys_Targaryen below. First, a couple of things. I only wanted to point out that having three Daeneryses and seven Aegons would make perfect sense to me. I don't think that it matters at all that there are no monarchs named Daenerys, but that there are five officially numbered Aegons, as it currently stands. I don't think they both have to be officially numbered for that point to be relevant. In the same way that I don't believe the hypothetical parallels of the promised second Dance have to perfectly mirror the first. Nor do I believe that the roses Lyanna is clutching as she dies must be from the rose crown given to her by Rhaegar for that connection to be obvious.

5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Aegon is an important Targaryen name. A name of kings. But I doubt that Lyanna envisioned her son to one day be king. And if she did not believe he would one day be king, why insist of giving him a king's name?

 

It's the name Rhaegar had chosen for his son and heir. Which is exactly what Lyanna's child was following the Sack. It could certainly be more than that or even something else entirely. But if you're asking about her motivation for naming her child Aegon, that's an answer that fits the facts of the story.

5 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It would be more convincing if Jon had been linked to eggs (or something similar)  :)

 

It looks to me like a solve for X type of clue. We have Aemon telling Egg and Jon to kill the boy and the let the man be born. Aemon basically tells Egg that he needs to grow up and be an Aegon. Therefore, Egg = boy, Aegon = man/ruler. So, solve for X, Rhaenys. If Jon Snow = boy then, X = man/ruler.

I think I already addressed the rest of your response above. About the Dance briefly, an even-numbered Aegon and female claimant war over the throne. Both die and an odd-numbered Aegon is crowned. I don't see why it has to be any more specific than that, but that's just me.

I'd be willing to discuss further via PM or in a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Turns out George decided that he preferred Rogar after noodling over it and proceeding to write the Jaehaerys material. He wavered, had Robar a couple of times, but soon shifted to Rogar permanently.

….World book used Robar, Sons of the Dragon saw the same mixed notes and decided it was probably Rogar.

Gardner Dozois was proved correct from beyond the grave.

"This bean shames us all"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 1:15 AM, J. Stargaryen said:

I'd be willing to discuss further via PM or in a different thread.

If you come across the topic in a thread, give me a tag and I'll find you :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know what happened to Rhaena and her daughters in their later lives. I always wondered if they married and if those claimants at the Great Council were their descenders. 

Is it possible that they married but that their marriages were not stated in the family tree?

I could always see Rhaella being the grandmother to Queen Alicent and thus the reason Viserys married her. Plus, It would be satisfying if Rhaena married her Farman lad after all she's been through.

Edited by Blooddragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blooddragon said:

Is it possible that they married but that their marriages were not stated in the family tree?

That is possible. It was also the case in the old family tree where the husbands of Egg's sisters are missing (we know they were married), and perhaps even the children of Duncan and Jenny (who may have had children).

Also keep in mind that them deciding to use the design of the old family makes it very difficult to include a third or fourth spouse for Princess Rhaena or any of her children from a hypothetical third marriage.

However, considering the importance of any offspring Aerea might have had it is very odd that they did not include her hypothetical husband and descendants. She is of the elder branch of House Targaryen, after all.

27 minutes ago, Blooddragon said:

I could always see Rhaella being the grandmother to Queen Alicent and thus the reason Viserys married her. Plus, It would be satisfying if Rhaena married her Farman lad after all she's been through.

I agree with the latter, the former is not very likely since it would go against what TRP tells us about Alicent's lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blooddragon said:

I would like to know what happened to Rhaena and her daughters in their later lives. I always wondered if they married and if those claimants at the Great Council were their descenders. 

Is it possible that they married but that their marriages were not stated in the family tree?

I could always see Rhaella being the grandmother to Queen Alicent and thus the reason Viserys married her. Plus, It would be satisfying if Rhaena married her Farman lad after all she's been through.

As interesting as it might be if Alicent (and later Garmund) had Targaryen ancestry from someone such as Rhaella, I am not sure that can be reconciled with Lord Beesbury's statement that Rhaenyra had more Targaryen blood than Aegon II.

Beesbury's claim would be false if Alicent had a Targaryen mother. And would this statement be less false if Otto had a Targaryen mother? In such a case,  think Beesbury would have emphasized the difference in distance rather than the amount.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

As interesting as it might be if Alicent (and later Garmund) had Targaryen ancestry from someone such as Rhaella, I am not sure that can be reconciled with Lord Beesbury's statement that Rhaenyra had more Targaryen blood than Aegon II.

Beesbury's claim would be false if Alicent had a Targaryen mother. And would this statement be less false if Otto had a Targaryen mother? In such a case,  think Beesbury would have emphasized the difference in distance rather than the amount.

The bigger issue is that only Alicent's impeccable Hightower lineage is mentioned in TRP, and there is no reference to her Targaryen blood.

And her being descended from Aerea or Rhaella would be very problematic in any scenario because that would actually mean that Otto (then the Hand) or his older brother would actually have been one of the lesser claimants (or would have very likely to possibly put forth a claim). And does it make sense that Jaehaerys I and Viserys I name/keep a Hand who might have a better claim to the Iron Throne than they themselves? Or who could at least think they have such a claim and could thus become very dangerous?

I don't think so.

The Rhaena idea did make more sense, and would have been in accord with Beesbury's claims, since there is no indication there that Alicent's children have no Targaryen blood on their mother's side - only less than Rhaenyra has. And Rhaena's children by a third husband wouldn't have as strong a claim to the Iron Throne than Aerea or Rhaella's descendants - who are not also children of Rhaena's but also of Jaehaerys' eldest brother Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The bigger issue is that only Alicent's impeccable Hightower lineage is mentioned in TRP, and there is no reference to her Targaryen blood.

 And her being descended from Aerea or Rhaella would be very problematic in any scenario because that would actually mean that Otto (then the Hand) or his older brother would actually have been one of the lesser claimants (or would have very likely to possibly put forth a claim). And does it make sense that Jaehaerys I and Viserys I name/keep a Hand who might have a better claim to the Iron Throne than they themselves? Or who could at least think they have such a claim and could thus become very dangerous?

 I don't think so.

You are most likely right about everything.

I always thought that there is something we do not know about Otto's family. Certainly, we do not know a lot of things, but I feel there is something, which could've been a Targaryen ancestry even if it's not very likely considering the facts you've stated.

I've read novellas once and the fact that the Hightowers were thirsty for a Targaryan marriage was stuck in my head. First with Ceryse and later with Alicent, Martyn and Otto both did everything to marry their daughters into House Targaryen and I had the impression Martyn also wanted to befriend young Rhaella and possibly marry her into his house. Ceryse was 10 years older than Meagor, which doen't happen often in Westeros.

However, I am anticipating to see if the three ladies marriend and to whom, considering that Jaehaerys could've benefit with making alliances through marriage in early years of his reign and to see Queen Alyssa's opinion on gilrs' marriages.

--------

We are getting information on many new members of the Small Council and the Kingsguard and many new members of various houses which is very exciting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 8:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

The first thread:

@J. Stargaryen

Sure, Prince Aegon will ascend the throne as King Aegon VI Targaryen - if he ascends the throne. But I don't see why we should limit ourselves to official numbers if we talk about symbolic numbers in the books.

The number three in relation to Dany is significant.

But the number seven not so much.

@DanaKz

I prefer Rogar. Robar is a pretty common name, whereas the Baratheons are (supposedly) descended from a Targaryen bastard and thus of Valyrian descent. It makes sense that this is more reflected in their naming patterns in the first century than it is later on.

Still a pity that Orys Baratheon didn't turn out to have prototypical Valyrian looks. That would have been fun and made it (even more) clear that the 'dark looks' magic is in the 'divine' Durrandon blood.

For all we know, they are completely Westerosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blooddragon said:

I always thought that there is something we do not know about Otto's family. Certainly, we do not know a lot of things, but I feel there is something, which could've been a Targaryen ancestry even if it's not very likely considering the facts you've stated.

That is why I suggested such an ancestry very early on when we had yet no clue about Jaehaerys' daughters. One of them could have been Otto's mother back then, making Alicent the granddaughter of a Targaryen princess, whereas Aemma was the daughter of a princess.

But that's not how it went.

1 hour ago, Blooddragon said:

I've read novellas once and the fact that the Hightowers were thirsty for a Targaryan marriage was stuck in my head. First with Ceryse and later with Alicent, Martyn and Otto both did everything to marry their daughters into House Targaryen and I had the impression Martyn also wanted to befriend young Rhaella and possibly marry her into his house. Ceryse was 10 years older than Meagor, which doen't happen often in Westeros.

Oh, they finally got there with Alicent and Viserys I, and then later again with Garmund Hightower. His six daughters by Lady Rhaena should make for a very interesting story - I still think they and/or Velaryon daughters by Alyn/Baela are the ancestors of the some (or all) of the brides of the sons of Daeron II. That way those obscure marriage choices (aside from Rhaegel's Arryn bride) would make more sense than they do now and we would finally see the Targaryens indulge themselves in cousin marriages when there is no closer kin available.

This is effectively confirmed for Aelinor Penrose (a cousin of King Aerys I on the Targaryen side) but not yet for Jena Dondarrion, Alys Arryn, and Dyanna Dayne.

10 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

For all we know, they are completely Westerosi.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×