Does Nettles prove the Valaryians weren’t exceptional?

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

He's trying to convey that Daemon was in a tender romantic relationship for the first time in his life. He's had sex with lots of women, but it was all lust or ambition, so talking about having sex with her would just frame it as the same, torrid matter. Now he's acting differently, because his relationship with Nettle was on different terms than those. It was a romantic relationship, where he never had one before. Having him doing odd things like washing her hair or decorously having an adjoining chamber while  a shared one, it's all the same.

One can read it that way. But this tender thing also works for a father-daughter relationship - especially if he knew/believed she was his and he realized she had to lead a shitty, miserable life because he did not care before. I mean, it were even possible that her mother tried to acknowledge the child as his back then, and he rejected her.

Overall, it doesn't matter *really* whether a daughter or a lover helped Daemon to discover his human side. It is quite clear he did. But if she was truly his lover one really should assume they would have run away together. If she was his daughter part of the mad Harrenhal thing may have been an attempt to protect her. But if actually still had feelings for both Rhaenyra and Mysaria, this whole thing becomes a much crueler wound. Nettles the lover could have replaced all the other women in his life, but Nettles the daughter would be a new member of the family, one, since rejected, could also help explain why Daemon himself may have felt rejected, too. After all, what he does shows he no longer cared about his son(s) or daughters or wife. He had enough of all that. But that comes not really with Nettles as such, but with the letter.

And if you think about Mysaria's motivation to use Rhaenyra as the dagger to drive into his heart - which she does, it's Rhaenyra's words, but the whore's - Mysaria's - work then inevitably the child she lost thanks to Daemon forcing her to return by ship to Lys in the middle of her pregnancy. Daemon himself is wroth over that, too, but Mysaria was the mother and she was the one who suffered the miscarriage.

Daemon now giving all his love to a child which could - and should, in her mind, perhaps - Mysaria's child if things had gone differently might have been too much for her. I think that might be a better motivation than just petty jealousy. And it would make her words so much more poisonous if Mysaria got Rhaenyra to actually get a woman killed who wasn't, in fact, Daemon's lover but his daughter - and thus also Rhaenyra's stepdaughter.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Being a blacksmith's bastard is enough. What makes a prostitute's daughter any less likely? The Targaryen men slept around widely, it seems.

Perhaps. But being 'a brown girl' could very well mean Nettles mother and father, while living on Driftmark, did not really come from there. Hugh I think likely was also Dragonstonian by birth, but since his looks are not given there is no *real evidence* that he is actually descended from Targaryens. Ulf has the looks, as do Addam and Alyn, but if they are indeed Corlys' boys they are about as Targaryen as Quentyn Martell, considering Corlys most recent Targaryen ancestor would be his great-great-great-grandmother - if the first Daemon Velaryon were Valaena Velaryon's brother and they both had that Targaryen mother Valaena supposedly has.

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But being 'a brown girl' could very well mean Nettles mother and father, while living on Driftmark, did not really come from there.

Dragonstone and Driftmark have been visited by sailors from half a hundred places over centuries. We meet Summer Islander prostitutes in King's Landing, a Qohorik armorer on the Street of Steel, R'hllorian worshippers in the shadow city of Sunspear, etc., etc. Her mother was a dockside whore of indeterminate origin, all her father needed -- if the mother wasn't enough -- was just that drop of dragonlord blood, and there are likely thousands of men on the isles who satisfy that requirement.

The Valyrians knew what they were about. The blood is a requirement, not an option, under normal circumstances.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

The Valyrians knew what they were about. The blood is a requirement, not an option, under normal circumstances.

I know that, and that is more or less my opinion, too, but George does cast unexpected doubt on the idea with Rhaena talking about Androw mounting a dragon, and by not having anyone point out that only dragonlord descendants could claim dragons - like, when the Lannisters express interest in the dragon eggs.

Might be that was just not done, might be Rhaena saw Androw/Elissa to strongly as part of her family already, etc., but this casts considerable doubt on established lore.

And overall - Daemon just is the kind of Targaryen who would and did sleep around a lot.

[The Sleeper]

If Brown Ben Plum's blood from five or six generations back is enough to get a response from dragons, then the potential dragonriders would number in the hundreds though. At the time of the Dance it would mean that a random person from Dragonstone and possibly from Driftmark would have good odds of being capable of riding a dragon. 

This makes it virtually impossible to determine whether the blood of the dragon is in fact a prerequisite or not, but it also makes the blood of the dragon far less significant. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

If Brown Ben Plum's blood from five or six generations back is enough to get a response from dragons, then the potential dragonriders would number in the hundreds though. At the time of the Dance it would mean that a random person from Dragonstone and possibly from Driftmark would have good odds of being capable of riding a dragon. 

This makes it virtually impossible to determine whether the blood of the dragon is in fact a prerequisite or not, but it also makes the blood of the dragon far less significant. 

Brown Ben is actually not that far removed from the dragon tree. He is about fifty or older, which means he was born in the 240s. Elaena was married to Ossifer early in the reign of Aegon IV, meaning in the 170s. And Lord Viserys Plumm is very likely the son of Aegon IV, making him Targaryen on both sides. Ben could very well be a grandson of one of Viserys' younger sons (Tyrion definitely assumes he descends from one of those).

That makes Ben (and by extension the Westerosi Plumms as well) pretty pure-blooded Targaryen descendants.

Quentyn has less Targaryen blood, and while the blood of the Hull boys would be very diluted, too, we have no clear how often the Velaryons and the Targaryens intermarried before the Conquest (or before the Doom), so they could still have a literal army of (identical) dragonlord ancestors. And the same goes for the triarchs of Volantis and many other people in the Free Cities - which is why Jaehaerys is so afraid what might happen if the dragon eggs Elissa stole would hatch. Those dragons would find riders.

[Darth Sidious]

Sheepstealer was not a Targaryen dragon.  He was a wild dragon who was already at Dragonstone when the Targaryens arrived.  He was not the product of Valyrian genetic engineering.  And Nettles?  She probably had enough Valyrian blood.  So you have a non-Targaryen dragon who bonded to a non-Targaryen with Valyrian blood.  It makes sense to me.  The first Valyrians had to start somewhere.  The first one to successfully bond with a dragon must have had some special genetic gift that not every Valyrian possessed but some did.  Nettles must have come from those ancestors.  

[bent branch]

Jaime and Brienne bathed together.

I figured out at one time that Quentin and Ben probably have about the same amount of Targaryen blood, this is taking into account when and where the blood entered their families and the difference in their two ages.

It seems as though all the dragonlords had practiced incest to keep the bloodline pure. I think that the dragons were originally made with magic as a special sort of weapon. I think there were originally 40 dragons and 40 riders who were especially bonded to those dragons. I doubt that the different dragonlord families could ride each others dragons. I also see the ability to ride dragons as a dominent, but latent ability. In other words, in the first generation born to Targaryen/non-Targaryen match would be able to ride the dragons. Once this T/non-T had children with another non-T, then the trait could be passed or not passed in a random manner. If the child of this match didn't receive the ability then none of their descendents after would ever have the ability. In other words, a dominent latent ability is one that is there whether or not it is ever used. Once it has left a bloodline it is gone forever. This would mean that while there could be people out there with the ability, it probably isn't wide spread like a recessive ability can be. 

[Curled Finger]

It used to be fairly heavily implied that you had to have the blood of the dragon to ride a dragon.  Then we get a net cast over all the area surrounding Dragonstone and Driftmark, where Valyrians have been for 200 years or so, for dragon riders.   The Celitgars and Velaryons are not Targs, but they are Valyrian.    Nettles, Ulf and Hugh throw doubt at the idea that a dragon rider requires dragon blood.   I can't help but note that all 3 of these dragon riders are from the area most heavily concentrated with Valyrian descendants.  We are given a good view of a Targ who can ride 1 dragon but is thrown to his death from the back of another.   He clearly had the blood of the dragon, but the dragon appears to have some choice in the matter.   Confirmed non-Valyrians failed to ride dragons.  Nettles, Ulf and Hugh are not confirmed non-Valyrians.   Every 3rd generation on my mother's side pops up with this amazing beautiful red hair...even our Hispanic children (same red strands in their black hair).  Genes appear when they will.   

This is messy by design.  Nettles is a dragonseed.  

[bent branch]

28 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

It used to be fairly heavily implied that you had to have the blood of the dragon to ride a dragon.  Then we get a net cast over all the area surrounding Dragonstone and Driftmark, where Valyrians have been for 200 years or so, for dragon riders.   The Celitgars and Velaryons are not Targs, but they are Valyrian.    Nettles, Ulf and Hugh throw doubt at the idea that a dragon rider requires dragon blood.   I can't help but note that all 3 of these dragon riders are from the area most heavily concentrated with Valyrian descendants.  We are given a good view of a Targ who can ride 1 dragon but is thrown to his death from the back of another.   He clearly had the blood of the dragon, but the dragon appears to have some choice in the matter.   Confirmed non-Valyrians failed to ride dragons.  Nettles, Ulf and Hugh are not confirmed non-Valyrians.   Every 3rd generation on my mother's side pops up with this amazing beautiful red hair...even our Hispanic children (same red strands in their black hair).  Genes appear when they will.   

This is messy by design.  Nettles is a dragonseed.  

You are talking about a recessive trait that can reappear after several generations. For a recessive trait the carrier has to meet another carrier and their child get a copy from both parents for that trait to reappear. However, with a latent dominate the trait can reappear without having to meet someone who is also a carrier of that gene. Since Ben has the trait and hasn't had any additional Targaryen input to his heritage I speculate that this is a dominant trait. A latent dominant is a trait that is only revealed under the right environmental conditions (in this case exposure to dragons). All of this is, of course, picky minutiae on my part. I agree Nettles is a dragonseed.

I will say that it is one of the dragon-rider "rules" that a dragon can have only one rider at at time (the first rider must actually die before it will accept a new rider) and a rider will be accepted by only one dragon. Essentially, this means Dany has probably lost control of the remaining two dragons at this time.

[White Ravens]

 

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

You are talking about a recessive trait that can reappear after several generations. For a recessive trait the carrier has to meet another carrier and their child get a copy from both parents for that trait to reappear. However, with a latent dominate the trait can reappear without having to meet someone who is also a carrier of that gene. Since Ben has the trait and hasn't had any additional Targaryen input to his heritage I speculate that this is a dominant trait. A latent dominant is a trait that is only revealed under the right environmental conditions (in this case exposure to dragons). All of this is, of course, picky minutiae on my part. I agree Nettles is a dragonseed.

I will say that it is one of the dragon-rider "rules" that a dragon can have only one rider at at time (the first rider must actually die before it will accept a new rider) and a rider will be accepted by only one dragon. Essentially, this means Dany has probably lost control of the remaining two dragons at this time.

I also agree that Nettles is a dragonseed.  Discussions about Nettles often include enthusiastic speculation about what ever became of her and people seem even more interested in what happened to Sheepsteeler after they said goodbye to Daemon and vanished from history.  In light of Nettles being a dragonseed I'm now wondering who her offspring might be and where potential dragonriders might be hidden in the upcoming books.  There is a legend that the Burned Men worshipped a fire-witch in the Mountains of the Moon and that they would send their boys to present her with gifts and brave the flames of her dragon to prove their manhood.  Could it be that Nettles was that fire-witch and that Timett One-Eye is descended from her and Daemon Targaryen and that he may be revealed to also be a dragonseed?

[Curled Finger]

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

You are talking about a recessive trait that can reappear after several generations. For a recessive trait the carrier has to meet another carrier and their child get a copy from both parents for that trait to reappear. However, with a latent dominate the trait can reappear without having to meet someone who is also a carrier of that gene. Since Ben has the trait and hasn't had any additional Targaryen input to his heritage I speculate that this is a dominant trait. A latent dominant is a trait that is only revealed under the right environmental conditions (in this case exposure to dragons). All of this is, of course, picky minutiae on my part. I agree Nettles is a dragonseed.

I will say that it is one of the dragon-rider "rules" that a dragon can have only one rider at at time (the first rider must actually die before it will accept a new rider) and a rider will be accepted by only one dragon. Essentially, this means Dany has probably lost control of the remaining two dragons at this time.

No I only meant what I said.  I'm not a scientist and these are my simple observations.  Genetics lessons are way beyond the fold around this fantasy.  Despite your need to correct my observation as seen through my own lens in relation to this fantasy I'm glad you've got your own reasons for agreeing.  Thanks for the reminder about the dragons only allowing 1 rider that we know of.  I'm fairly sure everyone understands that.  I know I do since I just read it and mentioned Syrax tossing Joffrey.  My point wasn't about rules.  It was that dragons may have some choice in their riders.  Certainly Vhagar allowed a stranger a ride and I was left with the impression Rhaenyra's maester was also permitted a ride.  

[rotting sea cow]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I'm curious - you told us you think all the dragonriders have a drop of dragonlord blood. Do you assume being the child of a dockside whore on Driftmark is enough to have inherited dragonlord blood?

Did he? @Ran did you? What about Tyrion? ;-) 

You don't need to tell us...

 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Did he? @Ran did you? What about Tyrion? ;-) x

 

He's Tywin Lannister's son. The Lannisters never did get their bit of dragon blood.

[Jô Maltese]

From tWoIaF Index:

Quote

SHEEPSTEALER (Nettles): A wild dragon tamed by a dragonseed, vanished at war's end.

From tPatQ: 

Quote

The dragonseeds Ulf White and Hugh Hammer had gone over to the enemy … but were they the only traitors in their midst? What of Addam of Hull and the girl Nettles? They had been born of bastard stock as well. Could they be trusted? 

Bastard stock implies Targaryen storage!

Nettles is a dragonseed. And I have always thought that the main reason for tPatQ publishing was actually to establish the fact that Targaryen blood was a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition to ride a dragon.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Jo Maltese said:

From tWoIaF Index:

From tPatQ: 

Bastard stock implies Targaryen storage!

Nettles is a dragonseed. And I have always thought that the main reason for tPatQ publishing was actually to establish the fact that Targaryen blood was a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition to ride a dragon.

A person being of Bastard stock means them being a bastard. We know for sure, Nettles is a bastard; no one really disputes that. If she is one is still into, question. So far we can tell there is no actual claim, even by her of possibly even having a monicum of Valaryian blood. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Still don’t see the benefit of Daemon not acknowledging Nettles being his bastard.

[norwaywolf123]

On 11/23/2018 at 4:00 PM, Lord Varys said:

FaB very strongly implies Daemon and Nettles didn't have an affair but were father and daughter. 

how?

[Ran]

28 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Still don’t see the benefit of Daemon not acknowledging Nettles being his bastard.

Good point.

[norwaywolf123]

On 11/23/2018 at 5:11 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'm still pretty sure King Aenys was not Aegon's son but there will never be any proof for that, either. 

Is there any way to narrow the available candidates for Aenys biological father?

[Ran]

Visenya and Maegor would have been the first to impugn Aenys if there was any truth to it, so I rather doubt it. The rumors came from people who already saw their arrangements as salacious, I expect.