Jump to content
Euron III Greyjoy

Who will know about Jon Snow at the end?

Recommended Posts

Jon is not legitimate whatsoever, the Targaryen dynasty was built off a conquest/war, so was the Baratheon.

The throne shouldn't be his unless he takes it by force, Baratheons are no less legitimate than Targs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

If you go to Dragonriders you can find multiple non-Valyrian dragonriders. You can say oh they could have some Valyrian blood or you can realise the obvious that only Targaryens had the access to dragons for the most part. 

 

It's not so obvious to me, so it looks like we're speculating with different assumptions. I do think that that Targaryen blood is required to ride a dragon. And I do think that most folks in the corner of GRRM's mind known as ASOIAF believe that too. And I think that Jon will mount a dragon, Daenerys's actually, so I think most folks will then find it easy to believe that The Ned lied to protect his sister's son by Rhaegar. But I don't think the Jon being written by GRRM will press a claim to the throne. His business is to the North. Rather, I am guessing that Daenerys will wed Aegon and conceive a son before they dance and die. And I suspect that boy will sit the Iron Throne. Perhaps Jon will fly down on Drogon to ensure that the boy's regent is acceptable. Or not. 

Share this post


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

It's not so obvious to me, so it looks like we're speculating with different assumptions. I do think that that Targaryen blood is required to ride a dragon. And I do think that most folks in the corner of GRRM's mind known as ASOIAF believe that too. And I think that Jon will mount a dragon, Daenerys's actually, so I think most folks will then find it easy to believe that The Ned lied to protect his sister's son by Rhaegar. But I don't think the Jon being written by GRRM will press a claim to the throne. His business is to the North. Rather, I am guessing that Daenerys will wed Aegon and conceive a son before they dance and die. And I suspect that boy will sit the Iron Throne. Perhaps Jon will fly down on Drogon to ensure that the boy's regent is acceptable. Or not. 

You don't need Targaryen blood to ride a dragon, that's a fact. Claim is you need Valyrian noble blood, though it is not confirmed by anything. There is actually more failed attempts by Valyrians to ride a dragon then non-Valyrians. 

Give me one example where non-Valyrian attempted to ride a dragon? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PirateVergo said:

Jon is not legitimate whatsoever, the Targaryen dynasty was built off a conquest/war, so was the Baratheon.

The throne shouldn't be his unless he takes it by force, Baratheons are no less legitimate than Targs

By your logic, the throne shouldn't exist in the first place. After all, it was the Targaryens, who united Westeros under one rule. Personally, I would like it if the Iron Throne was destroyed and the Seven realms become kingdoms once more. There was more peace before the conquest and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the route GRRM is going for. He likens the Targaryens taking over Westeros to Imperialism and Colonization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

You don't need Targaryen blood to ride a dragon, that's a fact. Claim is you need Valyrian noble blood, though it is not confirmed by anything. There is actually more failed attempts by Valyrians to ride a dragon then non-Valyrians. 

Give me one example where non-Valyrian attempted to ride a dragon? 

If you are so sure, then I don't see the point in arguing about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Does he have to? if he just save the world from death will smallfolk care who he is? is the remaining noble lords have been massacred by Others will care about the parents of the guy who just save their asses? they will all bend in the end.

Edited by Gendarrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Tygett Lannister said:

If you go to Dragonriders you can find multiple non-Valyrian dragonriders. You can say oh they could have some Valyrian blood or you can realise the obvious that only Targaryens had the access to dragons for the most part. 

 

How about you start mentioning those non-valyrian dragonriders, then, mr smartass.

 

Everyone will know about it in the end, since Jon will end up on the IT.

19 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

You don't need Targaryen blood to ride a dragon, that's a fact.

 

Oh, indeed? Can you show me the source for this "fact" of yours, please?

 

Edited by Xemi

Share this post


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

How about you start mentioning those non-valyrian dragonriders, then, mr smartass.

 

Everyone will know about it in the end, since Jon will end up on the IT.

 

Oh, indeed? Can you show me the source for this "fact" of yours, please?

 

Nettles https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Nettles 

Hugh Hammer https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Hugh_Hammer (he has white hair on the picture but actual book description does not say anything about his hair, skin or eye colour, and yes he was a bastard on Dragonstone so he could have Valyrian blood). 

Quote

 It is generally believed that Valyrian heritage plays a part is being able to bond with a dragon; In the Valyrian Freehold, the dragonlord families frequently married brother to sister to keep the bloodline pure,

So clearly you don't need to be Targaryen, it is believed you need Valyrian heritage, so it is safe to say not having to be Targaryen to be a dragonrider is a fact (unless you don't believe that Valyrians used to ride dragon and that only Targaryens did). 

Need to get angry over such discussions. It's just a book series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Nettles https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Nettles 

Hugh Hammer https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Hugh_Hammer (he has white hair on the picture but actual book description does not say anything about his hair, skin or eye colour, and yes he was a bastard on Dragonstone so he could have Valyrian blood). 

So clearly you don't need to be Targaryen, it is believed you need Valyrian heritage, so it is safe to say not having to be Targaryen to be a dragonrider is a fact (unless you don't believe that Valyrians used to ride dragon and that only Targaryens did). 

Need to get angry over such discussions. It's just a book series. 

Nettles and Hugh Hammer are both dragonseeds, did you even bother reading the articles you linked?

All the other dragonlord families are dead, so yes, right now you need Targaryen heritage to ride a dragon. Every dragon rider in Westeros history has had it.

I don't get angry over such discussions, only about passive agressive assholes that act like they know better than other people and present opinions as "facts", when actually they don't have a clue.

You've said there are several non-valyrian dragonriders

On 5/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Tygett Lannister said:

If you go to Dragonriders you can find multiple non-Valyrian dragonriders. You can say oh they could have some Valyrian blood or you can realise the obvious that only Targaryens had the access to dragons for the most part. 

 

Well, start mentioning them, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Queen Sansa Stark said:

By your logic, the throne shouldn't exist in the first place. After all, it was the Targaryens, who united Westeros under one rule. Personally, I would like it if the Iron Throne was destroyed and the Seven realms become kingdoms once more. There was more peace before the conquest and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the route GRRM is going for. He likens the Targaryens taking over Westeros to Imperialism and Colonization. 

Saying Targaryens united Westeros under one rule is a bit decieving, they conquered it with brute force and killed 10s of thousands of people in the process. 

One of the main themes of the whole story is to show medieval society and politics and what we can see is Iron Throne can't exists (stay together) without dragons, because of the technology and feudalism, so if at the end of the story we have no more dragons Iron Throne should realistically be gone and new smaller kingdoms would emerge. 

I don't think it is fair to say that there was more peace when there was 7 Kingdoms. You had Dorne fighting Reach and Stormlands, Riverlands were ruled by Vale and later by nazi-like regime of Ironborn, civil wars were more often inside of each Kingdom ... Dragons brought peace to Westeros because as long as only one side had them no one would dare go against them, similar to nuclear weapons keeping peace now.

Targaryen conquest of Westeros doesn't links them to Imperialism and Colonialism. When they conquered Westeros they mostly become Westerosi, they accepted their faith ect. Unlike Imperialism/colonalism when you conquer someone you rule them and keep distance from them, they are often not even considered citizens. In medieval ages when a king conquered land from another king of same religion that was just new land to him, he didn't look at what language those people speak, concept of nations didn't exist, so imperialism isn't possible without a concept of a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Nettles and Hugh Hammer are both dragonseeds, did you even bother reading the articles you linked?

All the other dragonlord families are dead, so yes, right now you need Targaryen heritage to ride a dragon. Every dragon rider in Westeros history has had it.

I don't get angry over such discussions, only about passive agressive assholes that act like they know better than other people and present opinions as "facts", when actually they don't have a clue.

You've said there are several non-valyrian dragonriders

 

Well, start mentioning them, then.

Well if you are a Targaryen you will clearly claim that only Valyrians can ride dragons and say that Nettles and Hugh Hammer are both Targaryen bastards, it is just simple propaganda tool. Nettles clearly does not look anything like a Targaryen bastard. What happens when nobles of Westeros find out they can ride dragons as well? They steal them and fight for independence or the Throne itself. Do Targaryens want that? It is similar to lying about Earth flat by the Catholic Church.

Well it is pretty naive to think Targaryens are the only Valyrian blood that is left in this world. Did other dragonlord families not make bastards that could potentially leave Valyria before the Doom? Let me remind you that House Velaryon exist a Valyrian house that was in Westeros before Targaryens. So saying only Targaryens can ride and not using term Valyrian instead is just wrong. So 'you don't need to be a Targaryen to ride dragons' remains a fact.

Well I clearly explained why it is a fact not an opinion, so it seems like you are upset because you are wrong.

I just listed them in my previous post? They could still of course have Valyrian blood and if they do it could maybe not even matter. For Nettles it clearly says she gained trust of a dragon by feeding him ships every morning (Sheepstealer dragon), this kind of trust gaining is not mentioned with any other raiders, so there is a reason it is mentioned probably. 

Edited by Tygett Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Well if you are a Targaryen you will clearly claim that only Valyrians can ride dragons and say that Nettles and Hugh Hammer are both Targaryen bastards, it is just simple propaganda tool. Nettles clearly does not look anything like a Targaryen bastard. 

Well it is pretty naive to think Targaryens are the only Valyrian blood that is left in this world. Did other dragonlord families not make bastards that could potentially leave Valyria before the Doom? Let me remind you that House Velaryon exist a Valyrian house that was in Westeros before Targaryens. So saying only Targaryens can ride and not using term Valyrian instead is just wrong. So 'you don't need to be a Targaryen to ride dragons' remains a fact.

Well I clearly explained why it is a fact not an opinion, so it seems like you are upset because you are wrong.

I just listed them in my previous post? They could still of course have Valyrian blood and if they do it could maybe not even matter. For Nettles it clearly says she gained trust of a dragon by feeding him ships every morning (Sheepstealer dragon), this kind of trust gaining is not mentioned with any other raiders, so there is a reason it is mentioned probably. 

And Jon Snow doens't look like a targaryen either, what's your point? If the source material says she's a dragonseed, she is until some evidence contradicting it can be found.

Velaryons were never a dragonlord house as far as we know. They have Targaryen blood through marriages, but that's about it.

Oh, you're pretending you were referring to the dragonlord families which no longer exist and thus are iirelevant to the discussion about the current state of affaris in Westeros so that you can say you're technically right? How cute.

No, you didn't mention them. You can't because every dragonrider in Westeros has had Valyrian heritage, I've already shown why that is a fact and not an opinion, so it seems like you're upset because you are wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Xemi said:

And Jon Snow doens't look like a targaryen either, what's your point? If the source material says she's a dragonseed, she is until some evidence contradicting it can be found.

Velaryons were never a dragonlord house as far as we know. They have Targaryen blood through marriages, but that's about it.

Oh, you're pretending you were referring to the dragonlord families which no longer exist and thus are iirelevant to the discussion about the current state of affaris in Westeros so that you can say you're technically right? How cute.

No, you didn't mention them. You can't because every dragonrider in Westeros has had Valyrian heritage, I've already shown why that is a fact and not an opinion, so it seems like you're upset because you are wrong.

 

For one he is white skinned like Targaryens and remember R + L = J is not confirmed, so why would he look like one? That is not how things work. Source material states she is of unknown father and a docksite whore. Her looking nothing like a Valyrian indicates she is probably not a Valyrian bastard. You are basically saying: she has Targaryen blood because she can ride a dragon. You can't believe everyone and everything that is said in the source material, you have to use critical thinking and logic. I explained to you why Targaryens would categorize her as dragonseed, but you decided to ignore it.

Well Velaryons clearly rode dragons and them having Targaryen blood again doesn't proves you need it to ride a dragon. What indicates to a dragon who is a dragonlord house and who is not? It is just a human made abstract title, just like a concept of a noble house is.  I clearly informed you on why those families are relevant. They themselves had bastards that spread their blood that still exists today, but again you decided to ignore it. 

So every dragonrider having Valyrian heritage is a fact, that is your official statement or is this just some byproduct of your salt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

For one he is white skinned like Targaryens and remember R + L = J is not confirmed, so why would he look like one? That is not how things work. Source material states she is of unknown father and a docksite whore. Her looking nothing like a Valyrian indicates she is probably not a Valyrian bastard. You are basically saying: she has Targaryen blood because she can ride a dragon. You can't believe everyone and everything that is said in the source material, you have to use critical thinking and logic. I explained to you why Targaryens would categorize her as dragonseed, but you decided to ignore it.

Well Velaryons clearly rode dragons and them having Targaryen blood again doesn't proves you need it to ride a dragon. What indicates to a dragon who is a dragonlord house and who is not? It is just a human made abstract title, just like a concept of a noble house is.  I clearly informed you on why those families are relevant. They themselves had bastards that spread their blood that still exists today, but again you decided to ignore it. 

So every dragonrider having Valyrian heritage is a fact, that is your official statement or is this just some byproduct of your salt? 

Rhaenys was not white skinned either. Come on dude, surely you can make up something better than this.

Velaryons with Targaryen ancestors rode dragons. Not it is not an abstract title, the Valyrians had an eugenics program to get dragonriders and thus the marriages between close relatives to keep the bloodline pure. No, you haven't informed me. Your theory that they had bastards that spread their blood is just that, a theory. Where's your evidence in the source material?

My official statement? It's the official statement of the books. Now are you going to provide evidence to the contrary or are you just going to keep whining about being proven wrong?

Edited by Xemi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Xemi said:

Rhaenys was not white skinned either. Come on dude, surely you can make up something better than this.

Velaryons with Targaryen ancestors rode dragons. Not it is not an abstract title, the Valyrians had an eugenics program to get dragonriders and thus the marriages between close relatives to keep the bloodline pure. No, you haven't informed me. Your theory that they had bastards that spread their blood is just that, a theory. Where's your evidence in the source material?

My official statement? It's the official statement of the books. Now are you going to provide evidence to the contrary or are you just going to keep whining about being proven wrong?

As if my claim was that dark skinned people can't be Targaryen. You are again ignoring my main point that Targaryens could be lying. 

Let me tell you where my source material is. It is common sense deducted from the books. I guess I have to make it long for you. Targaryens and other dragonlord houses like to have sex as much as any other humans. Because they were not marrying for love they would have sex with women out of marriage. Usually that would be women they paid called prostitutes, because they would be good at sex unlike their wives. There has been many dragonlord houses that have done that through 400 years (I believe that is how long Valyrian existed). When people have unprotected sex women get pregnant and give birth to children. Some of these children might decide to move from Valyria and have children elsewhere. Those ancestors would not be killed in Doom of Valyrian so there should be quite some not Targaryen dragonlord blood in Essos and also Westeros arguably more then Targaryen.  People move around. So if this extremely likely (we are talking about around 99.99% possibility) turn of events doesn't seems rational to assume it is true, there is no point in discussing this further, you are simply too irrational. If you believe all the dragonseeds are Targaryen bastards I don't see why you would have problem believing there is a lot of bastards of other dragonlord houses out there. 

Well it is a very basic rule of life that if you want to claim something is a fact you need to prove it with evidence and not demands others to prove it that is not true. For example I can't say 'God exists, that is a fact unless you can prove God doesn't exists.' Which is precisely what you are doing. Prove me that you don't need Targaryen (Valyrian) Dragonlord blood to ride a dragon else it is true fact that you need it. Nettles is clearly an ambiguous example, we can't prove she has Targaryen blood and we can't prove she doesn't. 

 

Edited by Tygett Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

As if my claim was that dark skinned people can't be Targaryen. You are again ignoring my main point that Targaryens lied. 

Let me tell you where my source material is. It is common sense deducted from the books. I guess I have to make it long for you. Targaryens and other dragonlord houses like to have sex as much as any other humans. Because they were not marrying for love they would have sex with women out of marriage. Usually that would be women they paid called prostitutes, because they would be good at sex unlike their wives. There has been many dragonlord houses that have done that through 400 years (I believe that is how long Valyrian existed). When people have unprotected sex women get pregnant and give birth to children. Some of these children might decide to move from Valyria and have children elsewhere. Those ancestors would not be killed in Doom of Valyrian so there should be quite some not Targaryen dragonlord blood in Essos and also Westeros arguably more then Targaryen.  People move around. So if this extremely likely (we are talking about around 99.99% possibility) turn of events doesn't seems rational to assume it is true, there is no point in discussing this further, you are simply too irrational. If you believe all the dragonseeds are Targaryen bastards I don't see why you would have problem believing there is a lot of bastards of other dragonlord houses out there. 

Well it is a very basic rule of life that if you want to claim something is a fact you need to prove it with evidence and not demands others to prove it that is not true. For example I can't say 'God exists, that is a fact unless you can prove God doesn't exists.' Which is precisely what you are doing. Prove me that you don't need Targaryen (Valyrian) Dragonlord blood to ride a dragon else it is true fact that you need it. Nettles is clearly an ambiguous example, we can't prove she has Targaryen blood and we can't prove she doesn't. 

 

And you are ignoring that I don't give a fuck about your point if it's not supported by the books. Bring evidence that Nettles is not a dragonseed or GTFO.

So, in other words, you have no evidence, zero, zilch, nada. It would have been easier to just say that instead of writing that block of text, wouldn't it?

Indeed. So why don't you go ahead and prove it by mentioning those non-valyrian dragonriders? Oh wait, you can't. Because there aren't any, and thus you have no evidence. No, Nettles is not an ambiguous example, she's straight up called a dragonseed in AWOIAF. Thus, I have evidence that she's in fact, just that. Where's your evidence that she's not a dragonseed?

Edited by Xemi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Xemi said:

And you are ignoring that I don't give a fuck about your point if it's not supported by the books. Bring evidence that Nettles is not a dragonseed or GTFO.

So, in other words, you have no evidence, zero, zilch, nada. It would have been easier to just say that instead of writing that block of text, wouldn't it?

Indeed. So why don't you go ahead and prove it by mentioning those non-valyrian dragonriders? Oh wait, you can't. Because there aren't any, and thus you have no evidence. No, Nettles is not an ambiguous example, she's straight up called a dragonseed in AWOIAF. Thus, I have evidence that she's in fact, just that. Where's your evidence that she's not a dragonseed?

You got me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 12:55 AM, Queen Sansa Stark said:

By your logic, the throne shouldn't exist in the first place. After all, it was the Targaryens, who united Westeros under one rule. Personally, I would like it if the Iron Throne was destroyed and the Seven realms become kingdoms once more. There was more peace before the conquest and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the route GRRM is going for. He likens the Targaryens taking over Westeros to Imperialism and Colonization. 

The throne belongs to who is strong enough to take it.

The Baratheons are no less legitime rulers than the Targaryen, Robert also united the Kingdom after defeating the army of a mad King.

Actually the Baratheons are more legitimate than the Targs, they're native to Westeros while the Targs are Valyrian invaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 7:59 PM, PirateVergo said:

The throne belongs to who is strong enough to take it.

The Baratheons are no less legitime rulers than the Targaryen, Robert also united the Kingdom after defeating the army of a mad King.

Actually the Baratheons are more legitimate than the Targs, they're native to Westeros while the Targs are Valyrian invaders.

The Baratheons are as native as the Targaryens lol, Orys came with Aegon so he's a foreign invader too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 3:21 PM, Tygett Lannister said:

Well if you are a Targaryen you will clearly claim that only Valyrians can ride dragons and say that Nettles and Hugh Hammer are both Targaryen bastards, it is just simple propaganda tool. Nettles clearly does not look anything like a Targaryen bastard. What happens when nobles of Westeros find out they can ride dragons as well? They steal them and fight for independence or the Throne itself. Do Targaryens want that? It is similar to lying about Earth flat by the Catholic Church.

Well it is pretty naive to think Targaryens are the only Valyrian blood that is left in this world. Did other dragonlord families not make bastards that could potentially leave Valyria before the Doom? Let me remind you that House Velaryon exist a Valyrian house that was in Westeros before Targaryens. So saying only Targaryens can ride and not using term Valyrian instead is just wrong. So 'you don't need to be a Targaryen to ride dragons' remains a fact.

Well I clearly explained why it is a fact not an opinion, so it seems like you are upset because you are wrong.

I just listed them in my previous post? They could still of course have Valyrian blood and if they do it could maybe not even matter. For Nettles it clearly says she gained trust of a dragon by feeding him ships every morning (Sheepstealer dragon), this kind of trust gaining is not mentioned with any other raiders, so there is a reason it is mentioned probably. 

Neither does the Black Pearl. 

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

×