Why did Aegon the Conqueror didn't have more children?

[BlackLightning]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

She took a dragon she apparently couldn't handle and got herself killed. Not to mention the effect it had that a beast like Balerion wasn't under the control of a responsible person.

Afterwards, dragons were shut away.

The dragons were "shut away" before. That was the whole point (or part of it at least) of Maegor's Dragonpit. The only dragon that was truly shut away was Balerion.

But Balerion was Aerea's dragon just as he had been the dragon of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel. I don't believe that she got herself killed...I think she was attacked and died from her injuries. Whereas Balerion barely survived..

[BlackLightning]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

She took a dragon she apparently couldn't handle and got herself killed. Not to mention the effect it had that a beast like Balerion wasn't under the control of a responsible person.

Afterwards, dragons were shut away.

And it still doesn't explain why Jaehaerys passed over his own granddaughter Rhaenys (the heir of his heir) for a second son Baelon.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

The dragons were "shut away" before. That was the whole point (or part of it at least) of Maegor's Dragonpit. The only dragon that was truly shut away was Balerion.

Maegor just wanted to build a big stable for dragons. There is no indication he cared about anyone in his extended family or what not to claim a dragon (especially not since he was killing every Targaryen he could lay his hands on and considering he rode the largest dragon around himself).

Balerion is the first dragon to be housed in the Dragonpit, and the others quickly follow. Jaehaerys I is not suffering any large beast out and about on Dragonstone after the Aerea incident.

2 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

But Balerion was Aerea's dragon just as he had been the dragon of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel. I don't believe that she got herself killed...I think she was attacked and died from her injuries. Whereas Balerion barely survived..

What you believe isn't important in relation to what the story has Barth and Benifer and Jaehaerys I believe - and that is that Aerea was in way over her head and got herself killed. Not to mention how dangerous a renegade dragonrider was for others - and the reputation of House Targaryen.

I agree that it is utterly laughable to assume that Aerea was not able to control Balerion if he stayed with her for over year, carried her back to KL (which, one imagines, would have been her destination, not Balerion's, considering his previous lair had been on Dragonstone) and, most importantly, didn't kill or abandon her.

If ten-year-old Aemond and twelve-year-old Laena can master foul-tempered Vhagar and weak-willed Viserys can master Balerion after Aerea, then strong-willed, stubborn Aerea definitely also did master Balerion. Possibly even to a great degree than the other riders considering he may have come to her rescue when he got those dreadful wounds.

Unlike Dany/Drogon, Balerion couldn't have carried Aerea to Valyria without landing more than once along the way - meaning she could have left him had she wanted to.

But while there are subtle hints that Aerea didn't desire anything else but to leave Westeros and all the people who had failed and disappointed her behind - and those were all - her mother, Elissa who abandoned her, Alysanne, Jaehaerys I, etc. She had no connection to anyone when she ran away.

[dsjj251]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have it confirmed there were not Velaryon dragonriders prior to Laena and Laenor Velaryon, meaning that this kind of thing is exceedingly unlikely. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Targaryen mother of Valaena Velaryon was likely no dragonrider herself - not just because there was a shortage of dragons at that point, but also because the Targaryens may not have wanted the Velaryons to have any. Else they certainly could have had some by the time of the Conquest and thereafter. In fact, Alyssa Velaryon certainly could have been a dragonrider. She would have had the blood for the thing, but nobody ever gave her a dragon.

No, this wasn't the case. Argilac campagined in Essos two decades or more before the Conquest, at a time when Aegon wasn't involved there.

There were other young dragons large enough to be ridden by the time Aemon mounted his dragon.

Sure, there is no guarantee that all of them would still be around, but the impression one gets - actually the knowledge we have - implies that there were dragons enough for more than just three children of Jaehaerys I to become dragonriders.

This doesn't really matter much because we do know that dragons do not grow to equal size or even at the same speed. Meraxes died over a century before Vhagar yet her skull is still larger than Vhagar's. Vermithor is larger than Silverwing despite they being about the same age, Dreamfyre is effectively confirmed to have been older than Vermithor and Silverwing both, yet she is smaller than Vermithor at her death.

And we do know that allegedly the Dragonpit slowed the growth of the dragons, making the later generations somewhat smaller, which could very well mean that Tessarion suffered from that to no small degree, unlike the dragons which were kept on Dragonstone or Driftmark or in the Red Keep (like Silverwing and Vermithor).

I certainly can claim that Maegelle could have been given a dragon hatchling at a young age - as is the case for their own parents and King Aenys and Queen Rhaena and many other later Targaryens and Velaryons - and I certainly can also claim that Vaegon could have decided to emulate his older brothers a fortnight before his father decided to send him to the Citadel (or even thereafter).

It would be interesting to have a basis for there being an individual reason why those Targaryens did not become dragonriders - but we only have that for Daella - there is no explanation given for Maegelle, Vaegon, Saera, Viserra, and Gael.

In fact, George seems to have written himself into a corner, having so many young dragons during the reign of Viserys I making it difficult to add new ones hatching from cradle eggs during the reign of Jaehaerys I - which is likely why he dropped the cradle egg theme he tried to introduce with Jaehaerys/Alysanne (which is given only as a legend and is thus possibly not accurate) and then with Aemon (where the egg seems to lead nowhere, since it is never again mentioned). But the way to deal with that could certainly have been to have more dragons die of natural and unnatural causes during the reign of Jaehaerys I - or have even some simply disappear (like, say, having a prince or princess take his/her dragon across the Sunset Sea, down the Summer Sea, to Sothoryos or what not to never return).

Dreamfyre and even Balerion definitely could have had another rider between Rhaena-Helaena and Aerea-Viserys.

I'd say the Saera example implies that the king decided who would get a dragon and when - and character traits played into that. A little female Maegor (which is what Saera was) wouldn't get a dragon, and one could certainly also see Alysanne deciding that the beautiful siren that was Viserra was unfit to be a dragonrider as well. And, sure, for Maegelle they could have made a similar decision, deciding that as a septa she wouldn't need a dragon. Vaegon is somewhat different, though. Here it could have helped to have the boy crack a line that it is idiotic to waste any time in one's life to ride a bloody animal, or that nothing is more unpleasant to cling to a dragon's back or something of that sort.

It is quite clear that the Old King's children who became dragonriders did only do that with their father's permission. Had Jaehaerys I not wanted them to get in the Dragonpit the Dragonkeepers wouldn't have allowed them inside - just as they barred Saera from claiming a dragon.

I think it is a given that Viserys and Daemon claimed their dragons only with the king's persmission. Laenor had been given a young dragon by the time of the Great Council, implying but not confirming that this was not done by means of access to the Dragonpit but by means of an egg from Meleys that hatched on Driftmark. Access to such a dragon Jaehaerys I could not control.

1. Again, quote your source here.  There is a giant difference between House Velaryon not having dragons/dragonriders and the half Targaryen child of a male Velaryon never having a dragon/being a dragon rider.  Laenor and Laena were both allowed to be around and even claim dragons while Jaehaerys was alive. 

 

2. Aegon participated in at least one war involving Volantis, and we are told that men from Westeros fought in multiple wars during the century of blood, not just Argilac himself. My point is that there could have been people who saw tactics to take down dragons, Dorne had to learn it from somewhere right ? 

3. Dragons and Jaehaerys children - Yes, there could be more dragons, but there also could not be.  By name, we only know of the ones I already mentioned, the unnamed dragons could be the ones later claimed by his brother and sister, grandchildren and nieces and nephews. 

4. Age of Dragons, this is a circular argument because if size doesnt determine age, then you cant say which dragon is older just because someone rode it first. 

 

5. Vaegon and Maegelle, again, we are told the nature of these 2.  Is it possible they both wanted dragons and were forbidden to get them, sure, but its more likely neither cared about them. Again, the fact that Jaehearys allowed his great grandchildren to be around and even claim dragons makes your theory on those 2 less likely at least when it comes to Vaegon.  Jaehaerys trying to make a man out of him in multiple ways would actually make it more likely he was ask to attempt to bond with one and never did. 

6. Eggs on Dragonstone.  If controlling the dragon's and dragon eggs were that important, then there is no way he would leave them unguarded on Dragonstone for his grandchildren and great grandchildren to claim without his permission. Especially after Elissa Farman. 

 

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

1. Again, quote your source here.  There is a giant difference between House Velaryon not having dragons/dragonriders and the half Targaryen child of a male Velaryon never having a dragon/being a dragon rider.  Laenor and Laena were both allowed to be around and even claim dragons while Jaehaerys was alive. 

The Velaryons intermarried with the Targaryens before and after the Conquest yet the first Velaryon to receive a dragon was Laenor Velaryon (he had Seasmoke at the Great Council, Laena as Vhagar's rider is mentioned first later, during the reign of Viserys I).

It is made crystal clear during the detailed coverage of the Velaryons in FaB that they never were dragonriders:

Quote

Though never dragonriders, the Velaryons had for centuries remained the oldest and closest allies of the Targaryens. 

Considering the fact that they were not only close allies but also closely related due to multiple marriages between these two houses (which would have technically given the Velaryons the ability to claim dragons as Laenor and Laena and Addam prove) this simply never happened.

The idea that lesser houses which may or may not have been honored with a Targaryen marriage were given access to dragons if the Velaryons weren't is completely unsupported at this pointed.

As I said - I'm very convinced that Corlys Velaryon was the first Velaryon who got himself a Targaryen wife who rode a dragon. The previous Targaryens marrying into House Velaryon would have been younger daughters lacking a dragon.

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

2. Aegon participated in at least one war involving Volantis, and we are told that men from Westeros fought in multiple wars during the century of blood, not just Argilac himself. My point is that there could have been people who saw tactics to take down dragons, Dorne had to learn it from somewhere right ? 

The idea is that Meria learned from the examples of the fools who were conquered by Aegon during the Conquest.

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

4. Age of Dragons, this is a circular argument because if size doesnt determine age, then you cant say which dragon is older just because someone rode it first. 

I just pointed out possibilities.

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

5. Vaegon and Maegelle, again, we are told the nature of these 2.

That is not an argument since nature or not - Targaryens were given dragons regardless of their nature. And again - if Jaehaerys I hadn't decide to guard his dragons against his children and not give toddlers or preteens hatchlings (like was done before and after him) then Maegelle and Vaegon both would have had already bonded with dragons before their parents had decided what to do with them.

And it is quite clear that Vaegon was supposed to behave like the average prince - marry and have children. His father didn't care about his character or preferences until he was a mid-teen.

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Is it possible they both wanted dragons and were forbidden to get them, sure, but its more likely neither cared about them. Again, the fact that Jaehearys allowed his great grandchildren to be around and even claim dragons makes your theory on those 2 less likely at least when it comes to Vaegon.  Jaehaerys trying to make a man out of him in multiple ways would actually make it more likely he was ask to attempt to bond with one and never did.

If he didn't ask or encourage his older children to mount a dragon - or simply give them hatchlings to play and bond with - it makes no sense to assume he would have done something like that with Vaegon. Jaehaerys clearly did not want children or people he did not trust handle those weapons.

Vaegon joined the Citadel at the same age as Alyssa mounted her dragon, Viserra died at the same age, Gael died at the age of nineteen. They were all old enough to claim their own dragons.

13 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

6. Eggs on Dragonstone.  If controlling the dragon's and dragon eggs were that important, then there is no way he would leave them unguarded on Dragonstone for his grandchildren and great grandchildren to claim without his permission. Especially after Elissa Farman.

I already made it clear that chances are not that bad that Jaehaerys I had no way to prevent Laenor from getting a hatchling/egg if said egg came from the dragon Meleys, which was owned and kept at High Tide on Driftmark, not on Dragonstone or in KL where the king could prevent access to dragons and their eggs. We have no evidence that Rhaenys asked the king's permission to give her son a dragon.

In fact, this is part of the reason for my original point - Jaehaerys I would never throw dragons or dragon eggs on daughters he intended to a great lord of the Realm - because that would give them access to both dragons and dragon eggs, and that wa

[dsjj251]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Velaryons intermarried with the Targaryens before and after the Conquest yet the first Velaryon to receive a dragon was Laenor Velaryon (he had Seasmoke at the Great Council, Laena as Vhagar's rider is mentioned first later, during the reign of Viserys I).

It is made crystal clear during the detailed coverage of the Velaryons in FaB that they never were dragonriders:

Considering the fact that they were not only close allies but also closely related due to multiple marriages between these two houses (which would have technically given the Velaryons the ability to claim dragons as Laenor and Laena and Addam prove) this simply never happened.

The idea that lesser houses which may or may not have been honored with a Targaryen marriage were given access to dragons if the Velaryons weren't is completely unsupported at this pointed.

As I said - I'm very convinced that Corlys Velaryon was the first Velaryon who got himself a Targaryen wife who rode a dragon. The previous Targaryens marrying into House Velaryon would have been younger daughters lacking a dragon.

The idea is that Meria learned from the examples of the fools who were conquered by Aegon during the Conquest.

I just pointed out possibilities.

That is not an argument since nature or not - Targaryens were given dragons regardless of their nature. And again - if Jaehaerys I hadn't decide to guard his dragons against his children and not give toddlers or preteens hatchlings (like was done before and after him) then Maegelle and Vaegon both would have had already bonded with dragons before their parents had decided what to do with them.

And it is quite clear that Vaegon was supposed to behave like the average prince - marry and have children. His father didn't care about his character or preferences until he was a mid-teen.

If he didn't ask or encourage his older children to mount a dragon - or simply give them hatchlings to play and bond with - it makes no sense to assume he would have done something like that with Vaegon. Jaehaerys clearly did not want children or people he did not trust handle those weapons.

Vaegon joined the Citadel at the same age as Alyssa mounted her dragon, Viserra died at the same age, Gael died at the age of nineteen. They were all old enough to claim their own dragons.

I already made it clear that chances are not that bad that Jaehaerys I had no way to prevent Laenor from getting a hatchling/egg if said egg came from the dragon Meleys, which was owned and kept at High Tide on Driftmark, not on Dragonstone or in KL where the king could prevent access to dragons and their eggs. We have no evidence that Rhaenys asked the king's permission to give her son a dragon.

In fact, this is part of the reason for my original point - Jaehaerys I would never throw dragons or dragon eggs on daughters he intended to a great lord of the Realm - because that would give them access to both dragons and dragon eggs, and that wa

Again hitting the high notes

 

1. Your quote refers to the Velaryon blood itself, not the offspring or wives with Targaryen blood. This is clear because it is written in past present tense after the Dance. At that point, 6 members of House Velaryon had been dragonriders that we know of. 

So ether the line isnt true in and of itself OR it is poetic, and children with Targaryen blood are "blood of the dragon" , and wives are not considered part of the family on context. 

The only other option is it being meant in context of pre Doom. 

 

2. You cant argue "heavily implied" on other subjects, and then pretend Veagon or Maegelle were going to mount a dragon,but The Old King forbade it, because it fits your narrative.  While its possible, the opposite is more likely to be true. They were both shy and bookish. 

3. Rhaenys claimed Meleys  after Alyssa died  and then married Corlys, all while Jaehaerys was still alive. 

Your argument that he didnt want all these people to have dragons(specifically women) doesnt hold up unless no one cared what he thought and did it anyways, LOL

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Again hitting the high notes

 

1. Your quote refers to the Velaryon blood itself, not the offspring or wives with Targaryen blood. This is clear because it is written in past present tense after the Dance. At that point, 6 members of House Velaryon had been dragonriders that we know of. 

So ether the line isnt true in and of itself OR it is poetic, and children with Targaryen blood are "blood of the dragon" , and wives are not considered part of the family on context. 

The only other option is it being meant in context of pre Doom. 

No, in context this is meant for the Velaryons since they were allies of the Targaryens from Aenar to Corlys the Sea Snake. It comes when the Great Council of 101 AC when there have been exactly zero Velaryon dragonriders (Laenor has been given Seasmoke but he hadn't mounted him yet).

The idea that there were Velaryon dragonriders prior to Corlys' children is dead.

If it had been otherwise they would have given a dragon to Alyssa Velaryon after she married Aenys and eventually became queen.

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

2. You cant argue "heavily implied" on other subjects, and then pretend Veagon or Maegelle were going to mount a dragon,but The Old King forbade it, because it fits your narrative.  While its possible, the opposite is more likely to be true. They were both shy and bookish.

Neither of them is described as shy, and Maegelle definitely not as bookish in a bad connotation. Even if they were, that wouldn't have necessarily stopped them. Queen Rhaena was also shy as a child, if you recall, but that didn't stop her from claiming a dragon, did it? She was given one and she mounted her.

Neither Vaegon nor Maegelle are described as being afraid of dragons, are they? That's only Daella.

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

3. Rhaenys claimed Meleys  after Alyssa died  and then married Corlys, all while Jaehaerys was still alive. 

Your argument that he didnt want all these people to have dragons(specifically women) doesnt hold up unless no one cared what he thought and did it anyways, LOL

I didn't say he did not want those of his descendants to have dragons who had some - not even Laenor (I can imagine Rhaenys not asking the king for his permission to give her son a hatchling if she had access to one via eggs Meleys produced - but this is not a given, perhaps Jaehaerys I permitted that, we don't know). I just say he ensured that those of his children he didn't want to have dragons didn't get them. And those were actually the majority of his children.

And he did not all of his female daughters to have dragons - just the spare daughters that were of pretty much no importance for the dynastic plans. He had an heir and a spare in Aemon and Baelon, and they and their descendants were allowed dragons. One would assume Vaegon and Daella and their children would also have been given dragons if they had married each other. The idea to not give a dragon to the only child of your heir (Rhaenys) who might one day become queen if her father rules as king would also be rather weird. The Conqueror also gave his eldest grandchild Rhaena a dragon, but didn't bother to throw dragons at her younger brothers Aegon and Viserys.

[dsjj251]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, in context this is meant for the Velaryons since they were allies of the Targaryens from Aenar to Corlys the Sea Snake. It comes when the Great Council of 101 AC when there have been exactly zero Velaryon dragonriders (Laenor has been given Seasmoke but he hadn't mounted him yet).

.

Lets say you are right and the quote literally references 101 and before(again, not likely, but what ever).  Laenor had already claimed Seasmoke by the time of the great council and Rhaenys was already married to Corlys.  So by your own standard, the quote is wrong. 

 

Quote

 

Neither of them is described as shy, and Maegelle definitely not as bookish in a bad connotation. Even if they were, that wouldn't have necessarily stopped them. Queen Rhaena was also shy as a child, if you recall, but that didn't stop her from claiming a dragon, did it? She was given one and she mounted her.

Neither Vaegon nor Maegelle are described as being afraid of dragons, are they? That's only Daella.

I said they were bookish and likely didnt care for dragons, not that they were shy in and of itself. 

Quote

I didn't say he did not want those of his descendants to have dragons who had some - not even Laenor (I can imagine Rhaenys not asking the king for his permission to give her son a hatchling if she had access to one via eggs Meleys produced - but this is not a given, perhaps Jaehaerys I permitted that, we don't know). I just say he ensured that those of his children he didn't want to have dragons didn't get them. And those were actually the majority of his children.

And he did not all of his female daughters to have dragons - just the spare daughters that were of pretty much no importance for the dynastic plans. He had an heir and a spare in Aemon and Baelon, and they and their descendants were allowed dragons. One would assume Vaegon and Daella and their children would also have been given dragons if they had married each other. The idea to not give a dragon to the only child of your heir (Rhaenys) who might one day become queen if her father rules as king would also be rather weird. The Conqueror also gave his eldest grandchild Rhaena a dragon, but didn't bother to throw dragons at her younger brothers Aegon and Viserys.

 LOL ,you made like 50 assumptions in 2 paragraphs there. 

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Lets say you are right and the quote literally references 101 and before(again, not likely, but what ever).  Laenor had already claimed Seasmoke by the time of the great council and Rhaenys was already married to Corlys.  So by your own standard, the quote is wrong. 

You really should go back and reread things before you make such claims. The book makes perfectly clear that Laenor Velaryon merely had been given a dragon by 101 AC, he had yet to mount him - which means he wasn't a dragonrider in 101 AC.

Quote

A noble house with a storied Valyrian lineage, the Velaryons had come to Westeros even before the Targaryens, if their family histories can be believed, settling in the Gullet on the low-lying and fertile isle of Driftmark (so named for the driftwood that the tides brought daily to its shores) rather than its stony, smoking neighbor, Dragonstone. Though never dragonriders, the Velaryons had for centuries remained the oldest and closest allies of the Targaryens. The sea was their element, not the sky. During the Conquest, it was Velaryon ships that carried Aegon’s soldiers across Blackwater Bay, and later formed the greater part of the royal fleet. Throughout the first century of Targaryen rule, so many Lords of the Tides served on the small council as master of ships that the office was widely seen as almost hereditary.

The context here is quite clear, as it are those words:

Quote

The principle of primogeniture favored Laenor, the principle of proximity Viserys. Viserys had also been the last Targaryen to ride Balerion…though after the death of the Black Dread in 94 AC he never mounted another dragon, whereas the boy Laenor had yet to take his first flight upon his young dragon, a splendid grey-and-white beast he named Seasmoke.

 

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

I said they were bookish and likely didnt care for dragons, not that they were shy in and of itself. 

And on what do you base that 'likely'? There is no reason to believe an interest in books prevents you from claiming a dragon or affects your interest in them. Not to mention that neither Vaegon nor Maegelle were forced to ever give a damn about their dragons after their first (couple of) flights. Nobody could have forced them to take their dragons with them to the Citadel or the motherhouse they would serve. They could have left them in the Dragonpit, never to return to them for another flight.

Even if I were to grant your point there - which I don't - how on earth to you explain Saera's and Viserra's lack of a dragon - neither girl is timid, shy, or uninterested in dragons (Viserra hung out at the Dragonpit with her suitors).

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 LOL ,you made like 50 assumptions in 2 paragraphs there. 

Sure, I make assumptions, too. But the assumption that Jaehaerys I guarded his dragons and didn't allow his children access to them without permission is not something I pulled out of my ass - nor is the fact that he did not hand a single hatchling to any of his children (unlike Targaryens before and after him woud do).

If George had wanted to send the message that more than half of Jaehaerys I surviving children didn't want to become a dragonrider he should (and would) have included such sentences in the book). Instead he included quite a few passages indicating the king was not treating dragons as a resource he is going to share with everyone - his own children included.

This is not a particularly daring suggestion considering that Jaehaerys I had a lot of issues with dragons and their riders, starting with Maegor (who should have never been allowed to mount Balerion), followed by what Rhaena told him about the Lannister desire to acquire dragons, the Farman theft (which threatened to create new dragonlord houses in the Free Cities), and the Aerea incident.

[dsjj251]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You really should go back and reread things before you make such claims. The book makes perfectly clear that Laenor Velaryon merely had been given a dragon by 101 AC, he had yet to mount him - which means he wasn't a dragonrider in 101 AC.

The context here is quite clear, as it are those words:

 

And on what do you base that 'likely'? There is no reason to believe an interest in books prevents you from claiming a dragon or affects your interest in them. Not to mention that neither Vaegon nor Maegelle were forced to ever give a damn about their dragons after their first (couple of) flights. Nobody could have forced them to take their dragons with them to the Citadel or the motherhouse they would serve. They could have left them in the Dragonpit, never to return to them for another flight.

Even if I were to grant your point there - which I don't - how on earth to you explain Saera's and Viserra's lack of a dragon - neither girl is timid, shy, or uninterested in dragons (Viserra hung out at the Dragonpit with her suitors).

Sure, I make assumptions, too. But the assumption that Jaehaerys I guarded his dragons and didn't allow his children access to them without permission is not something I pulled out of my ass - nor is the fact that he did not hand a single hatchling to any of his children (unlike Targaryens before and after him woud do).

If George had wanted to send the message that more than half of Jaehaerys I surviving children didn't want to become a dragonrider he should (and would) have included such sentences in the book). Instead he included quite a few passages indicating the king was not treating dragons as a resource he is going to share with everyone - his own children included.

This is not a particularly daring suggestion considering that Jaehaerys I had a lot of issues with dragons and their riders, starting with Maegor (who should have never been allowed to mount Balerion), followed by what Rhaena told him about the Lannister desire to acquire dragons, the Farman theft (which threatened to create new dragonlord houses in the Free Cities), and the Aerea incident.

1, I already said I dont agree with your premise when it comes to the past present tense of the line in question. So no, i dont need to reread it (since I clearly already differentiated between "claiming" and riding). 

2. I already talked about Saera  and why she didnt get a dragon, we both agree there. VIserra as well. 

3. Your assumptions. Clearly you have every right to argue for your theory, but it just doesnt make sense with Jaehaeys letting atleast 4 grandchildren/great grandchildren claim dragons while he was alive. One who had already been a female dragon rider and married to another House. 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

1, I already said I dont agree with your premise when it comes to the past present tense of the line in question. So no, i dont need to reread it (since I clearly already differentiated between "claiming" and riding). 

You mean when you wrote that?

20 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Lets say you are right and the quote literally references 101 and before(again, not likely, but what ever).  Laenor had already claimed Seasmoke by the time of the great council and Rhaenys was already married to Corlys.  So by your own standard, the quote is wrong. 

Laenor hadn't ridden a dragon at this point yet, and may have never mounted his dragon throughout his life.

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

3. Your assumptions. Clearly you have every right to argue for your theory, but it just doesnt make sense with Jaehaeys letting atleast 4 grandchildren/great grandchildren claim dragons while he was alive. One who had already been a female dragon rider and married to another House.

Why not? When those grandchildren and the single great-grandchildren were all the children of those children of Jaehaerys I who were dragonriders? Aemma Arryn never got a dragon, not even as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

 

[dsjj251]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You mean when you wrote that?

I dont get what you mean.

My argument is past present tense starts when the book is written in universe, which is sometime after the Dance probably near 259 AC and that the line is purely poetic. 

Yours is that it is present tense in the context of each line. 

We simply disagree. 

 

 

Quote

Laenor hadn't ridden a dragon at this point yet, and may have never mounted his dragon throughout his life.

 

This is again you changing your logic and moving the goal post.  I dont believe we are ever told of a single character who had a dragon who was then not expected to become a dragonrider. We have had dragons die or eggs born broken, but never an argument of "im giving so and so a dragon, but they should never ride it. What "could" have happened has nothing to do with actual expectations based on the history within the books. 

We are both guilty of flipping back and forth between logical lines of reason. so im not innocent either. 

Quote

Why not? When those grandchildren and the single great-grandchildren were all the children of those children of Jaehaerys I who were dragonriders? Aemma Arryn never got a dragon, not even as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

Not sure how you think Aemma adds anything to this, by your own logic, she was Princess/Queen consort and should have been allowed a dragon right ?????

Remember, my argument has always been that there arent that many adult dragons. Yours is they were forbade based on birth order and status, meaning once Aemma married Viserys, she should have been given one as she leap frogged  Rhaenys, Laenor,Leana, and technically Daemon. 

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

I dont get what you mean.

My argument is past present tense starts when the book is written in universe, which is sometime after the Dance probably near 259 AC and that the line is purely poetic. 

Yours is that it is present tense in the context of each line. 

We simply disagree. 

 

So you mean despite the fact that there were plenty of Velaryon dragonriders after the Great Council you assume there must have been some before that despite the fact that there is no evidence for that and actual a line actually contradicting that?

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

This is again you changing your logic and moving the goal post.  I dont believe we are ever told of a single character who had a dragon who was then not expected to become a dragonrider. We have had dragons die or eggs born broken, but never an argument of "im giving so and so a dragon, but they should never ride it. What "could" have happened has nothing to do with actual expectations based on the history within the books.

Definitely not. I gave you the line. The context is that both Laenor Velaryon and Prince Viserys were not dragonriders at the Great Council. One might become a dragonrider in the future - assuming he did not, you know, die as a child or lost his dragon before he could mount it - and one was a dragonrider in the past.

It is clear the Velaryons expected Laenor to eventually ride his dragon, but he didn't ride it in 101 AC yet.

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

We are both guilty of flipping back and forth between logical lines of reason. so im not innocent either. 

I think I was pretty consistent. There were no non-Targaryen dragonriders in the Dragonstone era or in Westeros prior to the Conquest (and not afterwards until Laenor and Laena Velaryon).

And there were very good reasons why Jaehaerys I did not hand out dragons to anyone, especially not children and spare daughters he did not intend to keep in the family.

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Not sure how you think Aemma adds anything to this, by your own logic, she was Princess/Queen consort and should have been allowed a dragon right ?????

Would depend on the king. Don't see a dragonless king allowing his wife a dragon. But then - we don't know anything about Aemma Arryn. And I never once said that I think Jaehaerys I thought all the consorts of his sons and grandsons should have dragons, nor that every Targaryen king threw dragons at his children. King Aenys only gave Rhaena a dragon - Aegon and Viserys got none. And if the legend is true then Rhaena was the one giving Jaehaerys and Alysanne dragon eggs, not their father or grandfather.

8 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Remember, my argument has always been that there arent that many adult dragons. Yours is they were forbade based on birth order and status, meaning once Aemma married Viserys, she should have been given one as she leap frogged  Rhaenys, Laenor,Leana, and technically Daemon. 

There were sufficient dragons. Especially if you keep in mind that the grandchildren could and perhaps should have come after the children, i.e. Rhaenys, Viserys and Daemon only after the king's own children - if he intended them to have them. Most of his children were older than the grandchildren.

[DanaKz]

@Lord Varys Not only I absolutely support your theory that Aegon was sterile, I believe that was a reason of Aegon's marriage to Rhaenys and not this absurd "one for duty, one for love". 

Sure, Aegon probably loved his younger sister, but would Visenya be a doormat and allow Aegon to shame her so much? I don't think so. But if their marriage was childless after couple of years, Visenya would relent.

And that's why Argillac and Sharra Arryn believed Aegon will set aside his sisters and take his daughter/her to marriage - they knew his wives were barren and they believed he will do like Maegor did - try again with different woman.

[BlackLightning]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:43 PM, Lord Varys said:

Maegor just wanted to build a big stable for dragons. There is no indication he cared about anyone in his extended family or what not to claim a dragon (especially not since he was killing every Targaryen he could lay his hands on and considering he rode the largest dragon around himself).

Balerion is the first dragon to be housed in the Dragonpit, and the others quickly follow. Jaehaerys I is not suffering any large beast out and about on Dragonstone after the Aerea incident.

What you believe isn't important in relation to what the story has Barth and Benifer and Jaehaerys I believe - and that is that Aerea was in way over her head and got herself killed. Not to mention how dangerous a renegade dragonrider was for others - and the reputation of House Targaryen.

I agree that it is utterly laughable to assume that Aerea was not able to control Balerion if he stayed with her for over year, carried her back to KL (which, one imagines, would have been her destination, not Balerion's, considering his previous lair had been on Dragonstone) and, most importantly, didn't kill or abandon her.

If ten-year-old Aemond and twelve-year-old Laena can master foul-tempered Vhagar and weak-willed Viserys can master Balerion after Aerea, then strong-willed, stubborn Aerea definitely also did master Balerion. Possibly even to a great degree than the other riders considering he may have come to her rescue when he got those dreadful wounds.

Unlike Dany/Drogon, Balerion couldn't have carried Aerea to Valyria without landing more than once along the way - meaning she could have left him had she wanted to.

But while there are subtle hints that Aerea didn't desire anything else but to leave Westeros and all the people who had failed and disappointed her behind - and those were all - her mother, Elissa who abandoned her, Alysanne, Jaehaerys I, etc. She had no connection to anyone when she ran away.

A giant stable, to some, is a form of containment and housing. A shutting up so to speak.

Because dragons and horses alike don't need stables. Maegor seemed to be killing every male Targaryen he could get his hands on. He didn't seem that bothered by Rhaena or her children (particularly Aerea). Speaking of Maegor, I still don't get what his problem was. Like really...what bug crawled up his shorts. He was okay (even cool) for a long time and then he and his mother just broke bad and started terrorizing their own family. For no real reason...

If anything, I am looking forward to this Targaryen-centric House of the Dragon show to explain what went wrong with Maegor. Lots of mystery surrounding him.

I'm glad we agree on the whole Aerea matter. Jaehaerys was a good king but he was a miserly asshole when it came to his family. Like why did he feel the need to force his daughters to marry and have children when they weren't ready or were unwilling...

So much for his Doctrine of Exceptionalism

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, DanaKz said:

@Lord Varys Not only I absolutely support your theory that Aegon was sterile, I believe that was a reason of Aegon's marriage to Rhaenys and not this absurd "one for duty, one for love".

Sure, Aegon probably loved his younger sister, but would Visenya be a doormat and allow Aegon to shame her so much? I don't think so. But if their marriage was childless after couple of years, Visenya would relent.

This idea seems to be based on the idea/assumption we know Aegon the Dragon didn't marry his two sisters in just one ceremony - that's what I assume until proven otherwise because the fact that they were all siblings means that whatever feelings Aegon had for his sisters - especially Rhaenys - would have developed early (like they did with Jaehaerys-Alysanne or Jaehaerys-Shaera or Jaime-Cersei) and then Aegon would have insisted to marry both his sisters if he had to marry Visenya at all.

11 hours ago, DanaKz said:

And that's why Argillac and Sharra Arryn believed Aegon will set aside his sisters and take his daughter/her to marriage - they knew his wives were barren and they believed he will do like Maegor did - try again with different woman.

I don't think they expected Aegon to set aside anyone. I think they just thought a polygamous savage like Aegon who is marrying his sisters would also marry a third, fourth, or fifth wife. This is, to my understanding, the overall consensus of the matter. And it seems that Lord Manfred Hightower thought the same thing when he allegedly threw his maiden daughter at him when Aegon arrived at Oldtown.

But I think the fact that both Argilac and Sharra thought Aegon would go with that idea indicates that (1) Aegon already had had his two sister-wives for quite some time (years, possibly even a decade or more) by the time of the Conquest and (2) concluded that something fishy was going on in the fertility department there.

Sharra clearly thought that, else she would have never asked Aegon to acknowledge/name her son Ronnel as his heir after their marriage - she was not just throwing herself at him, she was also trying to help him get an heir without fathering one, sort of helping with this emarrassing situation there.

And to be clear - royal polygamy is not that different from the king keeping one wife and a bunch of mistresses and paramours. Aegon had a primary wife - Rhaenys - and a secondary wife - Visenya. Maegor only had multiple wives in a proper sense for a short period of time - first he effectively set Ceryse aside for Alys, then he had Alys and Tyanna together from late 42 AC to 44 AC, with Ceryse only joining them there for a short time there. By the time he took the black brides Tyanna no longer was his wife in the intimate sense.

Rhaegar would also not have two wives in a real sense if married Lyanna. He would have replaced his first wife with his second wife.

The difference just is that there was no divorce or annulment.

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

A giant stable, to some, is a form of containment and housing. A shutting up so to speak.

I'm more inclined to believe the Dragonpit was some kind of Red Keep-like prestige building for Maegor, not something he wanted to use to keep dragons away from anyone, especially not his subjects who could not ride dragons, anyway. And his sons and daughters Maegor likely would have wanted to mount dragons, of course. He would not have been afraid of another succession war the kind he had started. He would have likely relished at the thought that his strongest son would succeed him, no matter the birth order.

And Aenys's weak line Maegor would have eventually extinguished, of course. Rhaena wouldn't have long survived the birth of a son of the king, especially if she were the mother, and Aerea would no longer have had any purpose then, either.

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Because dragons and horses alike don't need stables. Maegor seemed to be killing every male Targaryen he could get his hands on. He didn't seem that bothered by Rhaena or her children (particularly Aerea). Speaking of Maegor, I still don't get what his problem was. Like really...what bug crawled up his shorts. He was okay (even cool) for a long time and then he and his mother just broke bad and started terrorizing their own family. For no real reason...

Sure there was a reason. Aenys was a weakling and a bastard besides, not to mention that Visenya was the loyal and the deserving wife of Aegon I, the one who should have been the one he loved more, etc.

Visenya wasn't that bad, I think. There is no proof she murdered her nephew, and we don't know whether advancing Maegor or saving Aegon's and her own legacy - the Conquest as such - was the reason that she brought her son back and made him king. Aenys was about to lose everything the Targaryens had gained.

They could have crushed the Faith Militant in the name of a King Aegon II - and should have done so, of course - but with the Heir Apparent half a continent away it is no that surprising that they did not. But then, dragons can fly, so Visenya and Maegor could have flown to Crakehall Castle to free Aegon and Rhaena and bring them to KL to ascend the Iron Throne. But they did not.

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

If anything, I am looking forward to this Targaryen-centric House of the Dragon show to explain what went wrong with Maegor. Lots of mystery surrounding him.

At this point it seems not that likely it will feature him, but I'd find that pretty interesting, too.

I think the way to portray Maegor would be have his as a brutal brooding guy, sort of like a somewhat reserved Gregor - a man whose sadistic tendencies are very clear, but whose overall ambitions do not come forth. I'd have him be not close to Aenys but always coming to his defense and the defense of his family in general (i.e. his father, and mother, not his nephews and nieces, of course) up to the point where he and Aenys have their falling-out over Alys Harroway. That could be a moment where he first has some kind of public explosion.

Once Aenys dies and his mother comes for him and tells him he is to be king now I'd just have him smile. He would be the kind of guy who would never explain any of his own actions, he would just command and do things - mostly kill other people, mostly in a casual manner, but in a few instances with an unnatural, almost inhuman glee, a trait he would hide and suppress for most of his life, but which would come really forth after he takes the throne and completely dominates him after the first monstrosity, the alleged betrayal of Alys, and his mother's death.

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

I'm glad we agree on the whole Aerea matter. Jaehaerys was a good king but he was a miserly asshole when it came to his family. Like why did he feel the need to force his daughters to marry and have children when they weren't ready or were unwilling...

So much for his Doctrine of Exceptionalism

Well, Daella is shitty, Viserra is Alysanne's doing, and they did not force Gael into a marriage. But keep in mind that he never forbid Alyssa anything, as far as we know, and she even trained in the practice yard with her brothers.

From what we hear about Alyssa Velaryon, Jaehaerys I's parents weren't all that unconventional, either. Alysanna and Rhaena weren't allowed that many freedoms, either.

As for the dragons, Rhaena also is sort of seen as a loose canon by her brother. He has this 'indicate, do not show' approach to dragon warfare - but Rhaena twice threatened lords to make their castles another Harrenhal and that sort of went against this royal policy. Giving too many dragons to his own children would not only increase the risk of a succession war or uprising (a Lannister or Arryn with a dragon certainly could have thought he could be king again now and secede) but also of some dragonrider running amok or using his dragon in a fashion against his own vassals, bannermen, etc. that would tarnish the reputation of House Targaryen.

Viserys I clearly was both too careless and far to generous and well-meaning to assume his children and grandchildren and other family would do such things.

As I said above - there wouldn't have been a Dance of the Dragons if Viserys I had only permitted Rhaenyra and her sons dragons. And, perhaps, Aegon the Elder, but not his younger siblings or their children or Daemon's daughters.

[dsjj251]

On 11/24/2019 at 6:50 PM, Lord Varys said:

So you mean despite the fact that there were plenty of Velaryon dragonriders after the Great Council you assume there must have been some before that despite the fact that there is no evidence for that and actual a line actually contradicting that?

In universe, the characters themselves who are Velaryon  dont call themselves Velaryon, They call themselves Targaryen. There is a clear distinction by the in universe author and the people he is writing about when the children of a female Targaryen/male Velaryon are compared to the children of a Male Velaryon/Female "insert House".

 

Quote

Definitely not. I gave you the line. The context is that both Laenor Velaryon and Prince Viserys were not dragonriders at the Great Council. One might become a dragonrider in the future - assuming he did not, you know, die as a child or lost his dragon before he could mount it - and one was a dragonrider in the past.

It is clear the Velaryons expected Laenor to eventually ride his dragon, but he didn't ride it in 101 AC yet.

Again, thats called moving the goal post.  

 

Quote

 

There were sufficient dragons. Especially if you keep in mind that the grandchildren could and perhaps should have come after the children, i.e. Rhaenys, Viserys and Daemon only after the king's own children - if he intended them to have them. Most of his children were older than the grandchildren.

As i Said. I disagree and have stated why.  We are both trying to find reason in something none of the books really address directly. 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

In universe, the characters themselves who are Velaryon  dont call themselves Velaryon, They call themselves Targaryen. There is a clear distinction by the in universe author and the people he is writing about when the children of a female Targaryen/male Velaryon are compared to the children of a Male Velaryon/Female "insert House".

LOL. Who is moving the goal posts here? The only Velaryon who, at one point, calls himself and his brothers 'Targaryen' is Jacaerys Velaryon - and he is corrected by his grandfather. As heirs to the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne they certainly could see themselves as Targaryens - but Laena, Laenor, and Addam Velaryon never call themselves Targaryens nor are they ever referenced as such.

5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Again, thats called moving the goal post.  

 

No, that's actually taking the text seriously (that House Velaryon was Valyrian house which never rode dragons until Laenor and Laena Velaryon).

5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

As i Said. I disagree and have stated why.  We are both trying to find reason in something none of the books really address directly. 

You are wrong. There were sufficient dragons for the children and the children were, for the most part, older than the grandchildren.

[dsjj251]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL. Who is moving the goal posts here? The only Velaryon who, at one point, calls himself and his brothers 'Targaryen' is Jacaerys Velaryon - and he is corrected by his grandfather. As heirs to the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne they certainly could see themselves as Targaryens - but Laena, Laenor, and Addam Velaryon never call themselves Targaryens nor are they ever referenced as such.

The fact that half the country ignores his grandfather if part of why you are wrong. 

 

Quote

No, that's actually taking the text seriously (that House Velaryon was Valyrian house which never rode dragons until Laenor and Laena Velaryon).

 

except the line doesnt say "until Laenor and Laena".

 

Quote

You are wrong. There were sufficient dragons for the children and the children were, for the most part, older than the grandchildren.

No, you are wrong. And I have already explained why. this is a circular argument when you have created your own head cannon for reasoning that is never once mentioned in any book. 

[Lord Varys]

On 11/26/2019 at 6:12 PM, dsjj251 said:

The fact that half the country ignores his grandfather if part of why you are wrong. 

Nobody ever calls Rhaenyra's sons 'Targaryens'. But even if they did - they could do that because they are the children of the Heir Apparent and then the Queen Regnant. But a mere dragon doesn't make you a Targaryen even if you have a Targaryen mother. Laena, Laenor, and Addam are most definitely not Targaryens.

On 11/26/2019 at 6:12 PM, dsjj251 said:

except the line doesnt say "until Laenor and Laena".

I'd agree that this is sloppy writing, but the context is still clear. George-Gyldayn gives the history of House Velaryon up to the point of the Great Council - and until then no member of House Velaryon Gyldayn knows about ever rode a dragon. And no member of that house we know of, either.

On 11/26/2019 at 6:12 PM, dsjj251 said:

No, you are wrong. And I have already explained why. this is a circular argument when you have created your own head cannon for reasoning that is never once mentioned in any book. 

There were sufficient dragons. Balerion, Dreamfyre, and Meleys were available for the younger children of Jaehaerys I at various points. There were also the wild dragons (Sheepstealer and the Cannibal are both confirmed to have been around in those days already). There also were multiple dragons in the Dragonpit and/or on Dragonstone, and there is a possibility that Seasmoke, Syrax, and Sunfyre were available to them, too.