Dragon-rider too old or ill to fly

[Anthony Appleyard]

If a prince had claimed a dragon, and later, through injury or illness he became permanently unable to ride his dragon, what happens? Could the prince "un-claim" the dragon (perhaps with help from a mage) and free it, so that someone else could claim it and ride it? It is recorded that King Jaehaerys I's wife Alysanne, who was very fond of flying, had to stop flying on her dragon Silverwing because she developed severe pain, which I suspect was arthritis.

 

[Lord Varys]

From what we understand, a dragon would remain bonded to a rider until that person died, even if he or she couldn't mount the dragon again. That would then also mean that nobody could claim such a dragon while the rider yet lived.

[TheLastWolf]

22 hours ago, Anthony Appleyard said:

If a prince had claimed a dragon, and later, through injury or illness he became permanently unable to ride his dragon, what happens? Could the prince "un-claim" the dragon (perhaps with help from a mage) and free it, so that someone else could claim it and ride it? It is recorded that King Jaehaerys I's wife Alysanne, who was very fond of flying, had to stop flying on her dragon Silverwing because she developed severe pain, which I suspect was arthritis.

 

This isn't Eragon

But Lord Varys is right 

[Donjearys]

I think the section on Dragonriders in the wiki gives a clear summary of this topic and might answer this question in detail.

[Jaenara Belarys]

Dragons are bonded to a rider for life, so only the death of the rider can allow a new rider to mount the dragon. Remember, Silverwing is not recorded to have any other rider before the Good Queen's death besides Alysanne herself. And after her death, to me it's kind of surprising that nobody claimed Silverwing after Alysanne's death. Until Ulf the Sot.

[Endymion I Targaryen]

It is strange Aemma Arryn did not claim a dragon or Viserys I did not claim a new dragon. Vermithor and Silverwing were good choices.

[Jaenara Belarys]

Agreed. Or Corlys Velaryon.

[Lord Varys]

On 3/21/2021 at 1:36 PM, Endymion I Targaryen said:

It is strange Aemma Arryn did not claim a dragon or Viserys I did not claim a new dragon. Vermithor and Silverwing were good choices.

We actually do not know that Aemma Arryn wasn't a dragonrider. She could have been, we know essentially nothing about her. Not her looks, not her character/temperament, we have no quote from her, no opinion about her, no nothing.

If you ask me, then she claimed Dreamfyre sometime after her marriage to Prince Viserys.

That Viserys I didn't claim another dragon eventually also makes pretty much no sense. Yes, he may have not been an avid flyer and yes, the Realm was at peace and stuff, but it is still practical to be a dragonrider, considering you can move around very fast when you have to. And with the Velaryons being pissed about the succession and Daemon later making trouble at every turn, and Laena Velaryon claiming Vhagar of all dragons the king should have thought 'Wait a minute, perhaps it would be good if I had a dragon, too, just in case.'

It is also kind of odd that a dragonless king would throw dragons and dragon eggs at basically everybody in his family ... but not take one himself. Why should anybody else have a dragon if he didn't? And why should he care about given dragons to others if he didn't take one himself? He clearly controlled the access to the dragons and was the one who decreed that dragon eggs be given to the children ... or folks be allowed to claim riderless dragons or hatchlings.

[The hairy bear]

If there's one thing we know about Viserys I is that he was careless, naive and completely blind to the dynamics that surrounded him. I'd say that poor decision making on his part is perfectly in character.

That said, we don't have examples of any dragon rider bonding with a new dragon after the old one dies. Perhaps it's a very hard thing to do, either from an emotional or a practical perspective.

 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

If there's one thing we know about Viserys I is that he was careless, naive and completely blind to the dynamics that surrounded him. I'd say that poor decision making on his part is perfectly in character.

I don't think that describes him well - the guy who is naive (or rather: careless) there is George, not Viserys I. George created a setting where the most powerful Targaryen king ever - the one keeping a dozen of dragonriders in their place and the Seven Kingdoms at peace - was an unimpressive fat man without a dragon.

I mean, if you go through his reign the man forced Rhaenyra to back down in the Laenor affair, he dismissed and banished his troublesome brother multiple times ... who then again and again humbled himself at Viserys' feet, and wasn't even able to get out of his first marriage on his own.

Even late in his reign neither the Blacks nor the Greens dared to do anything that might have triggered the wrath of this man - they pretended to get along in his presence, etc.

Supposedly, dragons are power ... but Viserys I clearly sends the message that you don't need a dragon to be the most powerful Targaryen king of all time. If George had bothered creating a realistic setting where dragons were power then Viserys I would have been a very weak king who was tossed around by the dragonriders in his family, would have been unable to put them in their place or to stop their political ambitions. In any realistic setting, this dragonless king would look weaker and more unimpressive the more (adult) dragonriders his family produced. Even if it was unthinkable to the folks that those princes and princesses would use those dragons to attack or defy the king - or break the King's Peace by running amok in the Realm in some private feud with this or that lord - then the dragonriders would still look much more impressive and commanding and powerful than the dragonless king whenever they showed up with/on their dragons. Especially if you think about a royal progress - the king travels by horse, wheelhouse, or ship, whereas his family fly around on their dragons ... what a ridiculous sight to imagine, especially after George's explanation why Aegon and Rhaena didn't take Dreamfyre on their progress back in 41 AC.

This image gets pretty concrete when we think about Laenor's funeral on Driftmark in 120 AC - we hear that a lot of gigantic dragons were there. But how does this work? Did the king travel by ship with Alicent, whereas Aegon and Helaena flew in with their dragons? Tessarion one could see being small enough at the time to be transported by ship. Or did the king and queen humble themselves to be travel as passengers on Sunfyre and Dreamfyre?

I mean, you can go to the imagery of Daemon's arrival at the 111 AC tourney - he flies in from above, circles the tourney grounds, makes a big show of himself and Caraxes ... whereas King Viserys I just sits there, dragonless and earthbound. In a very real sense there is an ironic, mocking undertone to Daemon's submission there on a symbolic level - the king conquering a crown hands it over to a man who never conquered anything. Who is the more powerful man in that relationship?

In a very real sense this is as realistic as Bran the Broken succeeding Eddard Stark and then Roose Bolton turning out to be the most leal and loyal servant of the broken cripple lord. That's unthinkable in ASoIaF ... but in FaB it makes sense that a man like Viserys I could rule the way he did.

In-universe, it also makes no sense that a man who threw dragons at literally everybody (royal bastards excluded) would not realize what it means to have a dragon - unlike, you know, Jaehaerys I, who only allowed three of his nine surviving children dragons. Which backs my point - dragons effectively weren't power in that era, since Viserys I actually ran the show. And he clearly knew that, because nobody ever challenged his authority and whenever he commanded something it did happen.

I mean, realistically, the Greens should have grabbed the old man and threatened to feed him to a dragon if he refused to change the succession in favor of Aegon in the last years of his reign. As Aemond matured, riding the monstrous Vhagar, whatever authority the fat man once had would have eroded completely.

If we want to accept things as they are we do have to ignore the power of the dragons and go with people being completely obsessed with the mundane trappings of power - the Iron Throne, the crown, the kingship as a concept, the loyalty to the head of your house/father/elder brother, the vows sworn to your liege lord, etc.

One could also make some more sense by focusing more on Viserys I's personal charisma - he was that really fun guy who was friends with everybody, etc. - so it is not that unlikely that very few/no people ever had any motivation to defy him in a meaningful way, especially since it was the most prosperous era ever, meaning most/all Westerosi would have been fine with how things were.

But, honestly, the only thing this kind of thing could have worked is if Viserys I rode a very large dragon throughout his reign - Vermithor, say, or better still - Vhagar. It would have worked much better if one of Alicent's children had claimed Vhagar after the king's death, thus greatly and surprisingly strengthening the dragon power of the Green faction. Or to give Viserys I just a pretty big dragon of his own which was then either not claimed by anyone - because all the other Targaryens already had their dragons - or some bastard pretender later tried it.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

That said, we don't have examples of any dragon rider bonding with a new dragon after the old one dies. Perhaps it's a very hard thing to do, either from an emotional or a practical perspective.

But we do know that people believed it was possible, so there couldn't have been that much of a problem. Both Rhaenyra and Aegon II wanted new dragons after the deaths of Sunfyre and Syrax, and it is stated that Viserys I chose not to claim another dragon after Balerion's death. Nobody ever indicates that this would have been difficult.

That part of Viserys' reason not to claim another dragon had to do with whatever emotional bond he had with Balerion is implied, but in light of the fact that he apparently just flew on him one time it's not that likely they were that close.

[Jaenara Belarys]

On 3/27/2021 at 9:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

It would have worked much better if one of Alicent's children had claimed Vhagar after the king's death, thus greatly and surprisingly strengthening the dragon power of the Green faction.

Vhagar during Viserys I's reign was ridden by Lady Laena and then Prince Aemond. Viserys would have had to claim Vhagar shortly after Prince Baelon's death. 

On 3/27/2021 at 9:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

I don't think that describes him well - the guy who is naive (or rather: careless) there is George, not Viserys I. George created a setting where the most powerful Targaryen king ever - the one keeping a dozen of dragonriders in their place and the Seven Kingdoms at peace - was an unimpressive fat man without a dragon.

 

Viserys might have done all the Laenor stuff, banishing his brother etc. But even though his reign was prosperous and it was the apex of Targaryen power, he's one of my least favorite kings. House Targaryen might've remained strong and in power if he had just changed the darn succession. Aegon II might have been a bad king, but not fixing the succession wrecked the realm, killed many of the last dragons........ 

 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Vhagar during Viserys I's reign was ridden by Lady Laena and then Prince Aemond. Viserys would have had to claim Vhagar shortly after Prince Baelon's death. 

Of course, I know how things are in the book. I just made the point that this was a wrong choice on the author's side. Viserys I should have had Vhagar or Dreamfyre, and Balerion should have been the dragon of one of Jaehaerys I's sons - Aemon or Baelon. And if things had to be the way they are, then Viserys could have taken Vhagar as a second dragon after his father's death in 101 AC.

I'm aware that this would mean that Laena would have a different dragon - Vermithor, say - and Aemond could only claim Vhagar after his father's death. But they could have made it so that Aemond waited for a big dragon, sort of like Maegor waited for Balerion.

3 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Viserys might have done all the Laenor stuff, banishing his brother etc. But even though his reign was prosperous and it was the apex of Targaryen power, he's one of my least favorite kings. House Targaryen might've remained strong and in power if he had just changed the darn succession. Aegon II might have been a bad king, but not fixing the succession wrecked the realm, killed many of the last dragons........

Your personal feelings don't have much to do with the basic facts - that Viserys I was the most powerful Targaryen king and the one who could maintain peace and prosperity throughout his entire reign - which is a huge feat considering that not even Jaehaerys I could do that.

I'm not positive that changing the succession in favor of Aegon would have prevented a succession/civil war. The royal family hated each other, and the Velaryons finally wanted a share in power. Rhaenyra and her allies had the bulk of the dragons, meaning they could have made more or less the same move if Aegon had been the heir.

They may have been forced to be more aggressive from the start, but they could have pulled it off. That so many dragons died is the responsibility of the people who fought the war, not the guy who didn't see the war coming.

[Jaenara Belarys]

King Viserys only reigned 26 years. Jaehaerys reigned 55 years and is noted to be peaceful, but even he had to fight two wars.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Your personal feelings don't have much to do with the basic facts - that Viserys I was the most powerful Targaryen king and the one who could maintain peace and prosperity throughout his entire reign - which is a huge feat considering that not even Jaehaerys I could do that.

 

Yes, he was the most powerful. But after that, Targaryen power just went down and down and down.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not positive that changing the succession in favor of Aegon would have prevented a succession/civil war. The royal family hated each other, and the Velaryons finally wanted a share in power. Rhaenyra and her allies had the bulk of the dragons, meaning they could have made more or less the same move if Aegon had been the heir.

 

Rhaenyra's grounds for rebellion was because her father had named her his heir. While, yes, she might've made a move for the throne even if she wasn't Princess of Dragonstone, she is presented as a special case.