Matt Smith, Olivia Cooke, Emma D’Arcy Cast in House of the Dragon

[The Grey Wolf]

@Annara Snow

I meant that Aegon III/Viserys II have way more in-breeding because their grandparents are cousins on top of their parents being uncle-niece whereas Viserys-Alicent is a clean break.

@Lord Varys

Just because GRRM writes something one way does not mean I can't criticize or dislike it. 

For example, I don't have to like that Rogar turned out to be an asshole Alyssa somehow fell for. I don't have to like that Jocelyn Baratheon and Aemma Arryn are literal non-entities. And so on.

Also, it doesn't matter how hot Rhaenyra was. A grown man with no prior or future relationships who has babysat/bodyguarded her since she was literally a child isn't going to develop the kinds of feelings you describe. Seriously, if Rhaenyra was as beautiful as you describe Viserys I would have gone full Ptolemy and married her himself.

Moreover, I find the idea of Cole being motivated by puritanical sexuality and, more importantly, hatred for the one who tried to turn him into an oathbreaker and false knight when he's the son of a steward yet rose to the place of Ryam Redwyne far more interesting, subversive, and in-line with GRRM's interrogation of oaths, honor, knighthood, and masculinity as well as his parallels with Jaime than him being a jilted lover or man scorned. 

Finally, since none of these sources are definitive, why can't I pick and choose what aspects to believe? Why can't I think Eustace and Mushroom both got some things right as well as some things wrong about the same subject?

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Annara Snow

I meant that Aegon III/Viserys II have way more in-breeding because their grandparents are cousins on top of their parents being uncle-niece whereas Viserys-Alicent is a clean break.

It would be a clean break if Aegon had not married Helaena.

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

Just because GRRM writes something one way does not mean I can't criticize or dislike it. 

Of course not, but the idea that those characters 'deserve better than the autor did them' is odd, and I think only the case because of the botched publication history here. Nobody reading FaB without having incomplete accounts from TWoIaF and the novellas would find most of the Greens particularly sympathetic ... something that was still possible with the incomplete accounts, though.

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, it doesn't matter how hot Rhaenyra was. A grown man with no prior or future relationships who has babysat/bodyguarded her since she was literally a child isn't going to develop the kinds of feelings you describe. Seriously, if Rhaenyra was as beautiful as you describe Viserys I would have gone full Ptolemy and married her himself.

You mean, like no uncle or father or teacher or guardian would ever start to hit on and abuse a gorgeous girl once she hits puberty? Like Sandor Clegane or Littlefinger would not possible start to lust after Sansa?

But as I already laid out - we have evidence now that HoD is not going with Cole being the bodyguard of a small child. This aspect of the story seems to be gone.

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Moreover, I find the idea of Cole being motivated by puritanical sexuality and, more importantly, hatred for the one who tried to turn him into an oathbreaker and false knight when he's the son of a steward yet rose to the place of Ryam Redwyne far more interesting, subversive, and in-line with GRRM's interrogation of oaths, honor, knighthood, and masculinity as well as his parallels with Jaime. 

Jaime fucks his sister, so if he and Cole had anything to do with each other conceptually, Cole should have some sex, too. Or at least want some.

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Finally, since none of these sources are definitive, why can't I pick and choose what aspects to believe? Why can't I think Eustace and Mushroom both got some things right as well as some things wrong?

You can, but you should prepare yourself for the fact that HoD is going to give us definitive scenarios. Some of their own making, others based of one or the other of scenarios the conflicting sources give us. And in a sense this is then going to be 'the real scenario' since HoD will a real televised narrative, much closer to a novel setting than the anecdotes from FaB ever could be.

[The Grey Wolf]

@Lord Varys

I never said they "deserved better", just that I am disappointed with certain choices GRRM made.

Anyway, since we'll never see eye-to-eye on this and the show is its own thing I'll stop derailing the thread.

[The Dragon Demands]

A lot of Fire & Blood is just outlines, so I don't know how much we can say these weren't "fleshed out" characters within the...persistent fictional universe.  I mean, there's room to expand there.  The outline itself doesn't say much, but I think Queen Alyssa Velaryon would be pretty interesting in a Conquest TV show.  We're dealing with outlines.

[The Dragon Demands]

Matt Smith made his first public reaction to being cast as Daemon Targaryen

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-12-13/house-of-the-dragon-matt-smith-game-of-thrones/

It was a virtual panel for Galaxy Con Live.  He doesn't really say anything of substance, but it's nice to see - makes it feel more "real":

[Eltharion21]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This show is not going to espouse your view that women should not rule and that only men are eligible to rule because a bunch of bigoted men said so. And thinking the degree of royal blood matters in a dynastic setting has nothing to do with the Doctrine of Exceptionalism - that is only about royal incest, not about the fact that only people with sufficient royal blood are eligible to inherit a throne - that is common sense in a hereditary monarchy. The guys who flaunt the Doctrine of Exceptionalism the most in the Dance era are the Greens, when Aegon the Elder marries his sister Helaena - which is the first brother-sister marriage since Baelon and Alyssa.

That women shouldn't rule is the opinion prevalent in this Fantasy realm that Great Council of 101 AC confirmed by gathering of ALL lords in the land with 20 :1 ratio, Jahaerys I shared that view, Corlys Velaryon and even Rhaenyra herself confirmed in Stokeworth/Rosby inheritance dispute ( unless it regards her own fat bottom on the throne - than it doesn't matter) and of course after the Dance it became unwritten rule in succession, as they extrapolated that women on throne bad -  greatest legacy of "realm's delight".

I don't personally care if Grumkins or Snarks rule if they offer stability, prosperity, protection and justice to all, something Rhaenyra obviously failed to do so , despite her training.

Doctrine of Exceptionalism is actually more seen in Black alliance of Targaryen/Velaryon and ramblings of their supporters on forums like these that Hightowers were overreaching themselves.

Quote

In their accounts, only Lord Beesbury spoke on behalf of Princess Rhaenyra. The ancient master of coin, who had served King Viserys for the majority of his reign, and his grandfather, Jaehaerys the Old King, before him, reminded the council that Rhaenyra was older than her brothers and had more Targaryen blood, that the late king had chosen her as his successor, that he had repeatedly refused to alter the succession despite the pleadings of Queen Alicent and her greens, that hundreds of lords and landed knights had done obeisance to the princess in 105 AC, and sworn solemn oaths to defend her rights. 

Rhaenyra also made second marriage (without consent of the King) with her uncle and had two children , they also betrothed their children Jacaerys with Baela, Lucerys with Rhaena.

VIserys -Alicent children are also all product of Targaryen/Hightower union, oddly all have Targaryen looks and are dragonriders, with only odd thing in Haelaena's children we could see some minor mutations.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is clearly not the scenario in this show, since Rhaenyra Targaryen is not going to be a child of seven when she first meets Ser Criston Cole as far as we know. The woman cast as Rhaenyra is an adult, and the casting sheet for Criston Cole specifies that he isn't a KG when this show starts, meaning Criston Cole will become the sworn shield of a young woman, not a seven-year-old girl - assuming they go with this plot line.

They might do whatever they want with show they are making - though it wouldn't make it more factual than Izembaro's theatre play in Braavos. 

It doesn't seem Martin cares anyway since he regards controversy about finale of his magnum opus as  silly. I daresay he is even less involved in development of this show, and unknown variables in the story would be left to the sensibility of showrunners/writers. 

Quote

How will it all end? I hear people asking.   The same ending as the show?  Different?

Well… yes.  And no.  And yes.   And no.   And yes.   And no.   And yes.

I am working in a very different medium than David and Dan, never forget.   They had six hours for this final season.   I expect these last two books of mine will fill 3000 manuscript pages between them before I’m done… and if more pages and chapters and scenes are needed, I’ll add them.   And of course the butterfly effect will be at work as well; those of you who follow this Not A Blog will know that I’ve been talking about that since season one.   There are characters who never made it onto the screen at all, and others who died in the show but still live in the books… so if nothing else, the readers will learn what happened to Jeyne Poole, Lady Stoneheart, Penny and her pig, Skahaz Shavepate, Arianne Martell, Darkstar, Victarion Greyjoy, Ser Garlan the Gallant, Aegon VI, and a myriad of other characters both great and small that viewers of the show never had the chance to meet.   And yes, there will be unicorns… of a sort…

Book or show, which will be the “real” ending?   It’s a silly question.   How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have?

 

[The Dragon Demands]

How many children did Scarlett O'Hara kill in the book versus that awful hentai cartoon adaptation? Are they both co-legitimate?

[The Dragon Demands]

Well we haven't heard more about Corlys Velaryon so I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Getting back to the official casting news for these three....

I actually think Emma D'Arcy has a great Rhaenyra look, but as I've seen others saying, she looks a lot more like older-Rhaenyra, with a haunted look after being betrayed, than the young "Realm's Delight".  Not sure how they're playing this.

[The Dragon Demands]

Screw it, I need to share this new idea:

I'm actually not opposed to race-swapping a Velaryon character here or there - given that they ARE far-flung sailors who would encounter people from across the world, and they're a lower house than the Targaryens.  As much as Aegon IV taking a black mistress, I wouldn't call it impossible.  

The specific issue here is that Corlys Velaryon - rather, his son - has a paternity subplot.  

So if you wanted to make Corlys, of all people, black, there have been TWO suggestions I've seen for potentially fitting that in:

• 1 - Make Harwin Strong a redhead, and all of Rhaenyra's sons redheads - as well as Rhaenyra's Arryn grandmother a redhead, to maintain the ambiguity about whether they're bastards or not.
• 2 - ....could this show bring back Valyrian purple eyes?  Because if they portray Corlys as a black man with purple eyes and silver hair....they could then have all of Rhaenyra's sons not have purple eyes....which is such a unique feature to Valyrians....and then have Alicent & Aegon II's faction specifically say "we think they're bastards because they don't have a hint of any Valyrian features"...WITHOUT saying "we hate them because they're foreigners".  

The second one is a bit more of a stretch, but over Twitter it was suggested to me "what if the paternity question hinges on that Laenor's sons don't have purple eyes?"  

So long as they DON'T play it as an anti-black thing, but something so specific as eye color....I'd be so happy about bringing back purple eyes in general, that I could live with that.  What I really don't want is them to portray the Greens as moustache-twirling racists, but that both sides are morally grey.  

Much depends on whether the HotD writers actually care about explaining and justifying changes to us, instead of ignoring any plot logic with "we kinda forgot"....or the dreaded "creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen". 

[The Grey Wolf]

@The Dragon Demands

Yes, F & B is mostly a bunch of outlines but there are times you get the feeling GRRM was struggling not to write a POV chapter (Maelor's death at Bitterbridge, the entire Hour of the Wolf with its reams of dialogue and no sourcing, the standoff between Viserys II and Amaury Peake, etc.)

Btw, am the only one annoyed by the introduction of such obviously non-English names as Amaury, Henrietta, and Bernard?

[Annara Snow]

On 12/14/2020 at 1:17 PM, Eltharion21 said:

That women shouldn't rule is the opinion prevalent in this Fantasy realm that Great Council of 101 AC confirmed by gathering of ALL lords in the land with 20 :1 ratio, Jahaerys I shared that view, Corlys Velaryon and even Rhaenyra herself confirmed in Stokeworth/Rosby inheritance dispute ( unless it regards her own fat bottom on the throne - than it doesn't matter) and of course after the Dance it became unwritten rule in succession, as they extrapolated that women on throne bad -  greatest legacy of "realm's delight".

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that "after Dance it became an unwritten rule" and there is only evidence that it did not. The only two times it came up, 1) Daena the Defiant was was passed over because she didn't have as much support as her uncle Viserys, since she had been locked up for a decade while he had been the Hand of the King for many years. plus she would've been controversial due to having an illegitimate child and it could be held against her. 2) Vaella, a mentally challenged 11 year old girl was considered at the Great Council and easily dismissed - what a surprise. If there had been a rule, written or unwritten, that women do not inherit, there would have been no reason whatsoever to even mention let alone consider her claim at the Great Council. Her claim would not have existed.

The only place where the "unwritten rule after Dance that women do not inherit the Iron Throne" exists is the long tradition of fanon created by the anti-Dany portion of the ASOAIF fandom.

[Annara Snow]

On 12/13/2020 at 3:46 PM, Dragon in the North said:

I said they were faithful until they ran out of useable material. Feast and Dance had way too much filler to be faithfully adapted into a television series.

That's a strange claim, since most of season 5 was made of filler, only it was really badly written filler created by D&D, and had no meaning. It wasn't about showing the consequences of war/cost of war, as Feast did, or the cost of peace and the compromises you have to make, as Dance did. It didn't show the suffering of smallfolk. It didn't mean anything. 

What was the purpose of show!Dorne, again?

Why did Jaime go to Dorne?

Why did Sansa get a filler rape storyline (?!) that didn't fit with her arc at all and derailed it?

Why did Brienne spend a whole season looking at a window?

Same with season 6 - what was the purpose of Euron in the show?

What was the purpose of Jon's death and resurrection?

And really, what was the purpose of Bran's magical storyline when it just made him a home-video-player and had no role in the story? Unless we're to think that's why they made him King, but that makes no sense. 

They cut so many big storylines - fAegon and Arianne/Doran's plans, Euron's apocalyptic plans, most of the magic in the show involving Bran's story, so most of their storylines ended up having no purpose and being filler. 

[The Dragon Demands]

Quick show of hands:

Who here suspects that they might actually take MORE THAN ONE TV SEASON to adapt "The Rogue Prince"?

Because my initial assumption was one year for Rogue Prince, than about 4 seasons for the Dance itself (the war lasted 2 years, so roughly six months of story per season).  Because my mental breakdown was something like:

• Season 1 - Rogue Prince
• Season 2 - Death of Viserys, introducing different allies, Storm's End, war starts in riverlands, culminating in Battle of Rook's Rest as a good stopping point.
• Season 3 - The full scale war in earnest. Reach and riverlands campaigns, Battle by the Lakeshore and Battle of the Gullet, culminating in the fall of King's Landing.  The entire season is "the rise of Rhaenyra".  They MIGHT even need to split this into two seasons to cover it all but reach the same stopping point, as they'd also have to introduce all the Dragonseeds.
• Season 4 - the fall of Rhaenyra. First Tumbleton, Storming of the Dragonpit, Rhaenyra's death, Battle Above the Gods Eye, Second Tumbleton.
• Season 5 - the fall of Aegon II.  Possibly move Second Tumbleton to this season as a big premiere event. Then the Battle of the Kingsroad and Hour of the Wolf.
• Direct lead-in to a Regency spinoff.

Because AT&T's NEW HBO is desperate for content, and even the casuals have seen "dear god was Game of Thrones rushed".  

They're trying to pad it out to MORE seasons not less, because instead of condensing a book series they're expanding a comparatively thin outline.

Reinforcing this idea for me is that there's this direct statement in the Valyria prequel story bible that it was pitched to last "at least five, but preferably seven seasons".....think of the contrast of that, between how Benioff and Weiss were constantly trying to "rush to the cool stuff", which turns out to not be very cool if you don't set it up coherently.  

So...I think it's at least PLAUSIBLE that HBO wants another seven season show out of this, by dividing Rogue Prince into two seasons, and also (much like GoT Season 3/ ASOS) splitting two seasons from "Search for the Dragonseeds in aftermath of Rook's rest to Battle of the Gullet" and then "Lakeshore and fall of King's Landing".  That's how I'd do it at least.

[The Dragon Demands]

I've heard no further Corlys Velaryon news as of today, Saturday December 19th.  A few youtube channels have reacted to it.  My own reaction video will be coming this week - I'm wrapping up my work project today.

One piece of interesting news was that a costume concept artist has been listed for House of the Dragon on IMDB, the guy who did Maleficent. 

****An interesting question though, is why he's only listed as working on episodes 2 through 10?

Is that just how IMDB formatting works?  Or does this actually mean he isn't working on the first episode - because there's a time skip of 10 to 15 years between episode 1 (Great Council of Harrenhal) and the bulk of Season 1?  This ties into the question about casting "Young Alicent" and "Young Rhaenyra".

[The Grey Wolf]

@Annara Snow

In TWOIAF and F & B V1 it says that in the eyes of many the GC of 101 AC set an "iron precedent". Later, when Daena is passed over, TWOIAF cites the Dance as well as the GC of 101 AC as justifying precedents. As for female succession post-Dance, the issue has come up exactly thrice. 1) Daena being passed over in favor of Viserys II because she gave birth to a bastard whilst refusing to name the father and having few allies after a decade in forced isolation, 2) Aelora being made Aerys I's heir after Aelor's death but not Daenora when Aelora died, 3) Vaella's claim being dismissed at the GC of 233 AC due to her being female as well as feeble-minded.

[Eltharion21]

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that "after Dance it became an unwritten rule" and there is only evidence that it did not. The only two times it came up, 1) Daena the Defiant was was passed over because she didn't have as much support as her uncle Viserys, since she had been locked up for a decade while he had been the Hand of the King for many years. plus she would've been controversial due to having an illegitimate child and it could be held against her. 2) Vaella, a mentally challenged 11 year old girl was considered at the Great Council and easily dismissed - what a surprise. If there had been a rule, written or unwritten, that women do not inherit, there would have been no reason whatsoever to even mention let alone consider her claim at the Great Council. Her claim would not have existed.

The only place where the "unwritten rule after Dance that women do not inherit the Iron Throne" exists is the long tradition of fanon created by the anti-Dany portion of the ASOAIF fandom.

Currently I am watching the Crown - I have a feeling House of the Dragon may try to emulate some of the things that made it critically acclaimed.

In the first season big reason for stopping individuality or change in acts of Royal Family was the abdication of King Edward VIII. Fear created by bad experience in the past would shape future behavior of the dynasty and it's supporters.

In the Westeros scholars and administrators articulated bad experience of Civil war as failure to abide by decision of Great Council of 101AC. Without Dragons as source of power, Targaryen dynasty would have to rely on alliances  with Great Houses and they would to take more care in their decisions, including succession. I feel the same would be prevalent theme in F&B II, which would likely be more detailed than current material from "TWOIAF" when it is comes to matter of succession. 

From F&B vol I. three events mostly make me think so:

Quote

 By a lopsided margin, the lords assembled chose Viserys Targaryen as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Though the maesters who tallied the votes never revealed the actual numbers, it was said afterward that the vote had been more than twenty to one...

...In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendant

Second was Stokeworth/Rosby dispute that confirms that laws in Westeros excluding Dorne prefer male primogeniture.

Quote

 

Lords Rosby and Stokeworth, blacks who had gone green to avoid the dungeons, attempted to turn black again, but the queen declared that faithless friends were worse than foes and ordered their “lying tongues” be removed before their executions. Their deaths left her with a nettlesome problem of succession, however. As it happened, each of the “faithless friends” left a daughter; Rosby’s was a maid of twelve, Stokeworth’s a girl of six. Prince Daemon proposed that the former be wed to Hard Hugh the blacksmith’s son (who had taken to calling himself Hugh Hammer), the latter to Ulf the Sot (now simply Ulf White), keeping their lands black whilst suitably rewarding the seeds for their valor in battle.

But the Queen’s Hand argued against this, for both girls had younger brothers. Rhaenyra’s own claim to the Iron Throne was a special case, the Sea Snake insisted; her father had named her as his heir. Lords Rosby and Stokeworth had done no such thing. Disinheriting their sons in favor of their daughters would overturn centuries of law and precedent, and call into question the rights of scores of other lords throughout Westeros whose own claims might be seen as inferior to those of elder sisters.

It was fear of losing the support of such lords, Munkun asserts in True Telling, that led the queen to decide in favor of Lord Corlys rather than Prince Daemon. The lands, castles, and coin of Houses Rosby and Stokeworth were awarded to the sons of the two executed lords, whilst Hugh Hammer and Ulf White were knighted and granted small holdings on the isle of Driftmark.

 

After the carnage in Dance - that opinion became likely more firmly settled:

Quote

Yet it was Grand Maester Munkun who put an end to the debate when he said, “My lords, it makes no matter. They are both girls. Have we learned so little from the slaughter? We must abide by primogeniture, as the Great Council ruled in 101. The male claim comes before the female.” Yet when Ser Tyland said, “And who is this male claimant, my lord? We seem to have killed them all,” Munkun had no answer but to say he would research the issue. Thus the crucial question of succession remained unsettled.

In short Targaryens have much less power then they had before than Dance, and to have control over the populace they must abide by some of the widely accepted rules ( wear floppy ears).

[Annara Snow]

On 12/19/2020 at 8:22 PM, Eltharion21 said:

Currently I am watching the Crown - I have a feeling House of the Dragon may try to emulate some of the things that made it critically acclaimed.

In the first season big reason for stopping individuality or change in acts of Royal Family was the abdication of King Edward VIII. Fear created by bad experience in the past would shape future behavior of the dynasty and it's supporters.

In the Westeros scholars and administrators articulated bad experience of Civil war as failure to abide by decision of Great Council of 101AC. Without Dragons as source of power, Targaryen dynasty would have to rely on alliances  with Great Houses and they would to take more care in their decisions, including succession. I feel the same would be prevalent theme in F&B II, which would likely be more detailed than current material from "TWOIAF" when it is comes to matter of succession. 

From F&B vol I. three events mostly make me think so:

Second was Stokeworth/Rosby dispute that confirms that laws in Westeros excluding Dorne prefer male primogeniture.

After the carnage in Dance - that opinion became likely more firmly settled:

In short Targaryens have much less power then they had before than Dance, and to have control over the populace they must abide by some of the widely accepted rules ( wear floppy ears).

  

On 12/19/2020 at 7:46 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

@Annara Snow

In TWOIAF and F & B V1 it says that in the eyes of many the GC of 101 AC set an "iron precedent". Later, when Daena is passed over, TWOIAF cites the Dance as well as the GC of 101 AC as justifying precedents. As for female succession post-Dance, the issue has come up exactly thrice. 1) Daena being passed over in favor of Viserys II because she gave birth to a bastard whilst refusing to name the father and having few allies after a decade in forced isolation, 2) Aelora being made Aerys I's heir after Aelor's death but not Daenora when Aelora died, 3) Vaella's claim being dismissed at the GC of 233 AC due to her being female as well as feeble-minded.

 

 

No one is disputing that the lords of Westeros by and large prefer having a male monarch to a female one. But there's a big difference between that and a rule of succession - and if the only indication of such a rule is a Maester claiming that "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority" (where not even he claims that it was in the eyes of all), when Grand Maesters need to give speeches to convince others that females should not be heirs. when an 11 year old mentally challenged girl's claim to the Iron Throne is considered something that needs to be officially rejected at a Great Council before you can proceed to the more serious claimant... this means there is no such rule, only people's preference.

Quote

In short Targaryens have much less power then they had before than Dance, and to have control over the populace they must abide by some of the widely accepted rules ( wear floppy ears).

Abiding by widely accepted rules of succession in Westeros would mean preferring younger brothers to older sisters, but also preferring Lord's daughters to Lord's brothers (said girls' uncles), not preferring all male claimants. Rhaenyra wouldn't have been the heir after Aegon was born even if they were going by the generally accepted Westerosi rules, but Rhaenys would have been Queen Regnant by those same rules, and Viserys would have never become king in the first place. The  'bad precedent' that led to the Dance was the the idea that both kings and Great Councils can change the rules of succession and make them even murkier (thanks, the Old King!). But many in Westeros, especially the Maesters, would love to instead blame it all in the womenz, of course.

[The Dragon Demands]

I'm working on a formal writeup about the Velaryon rumors, but I've been researching the Velaryons in general. A few interesting points to jot down: 

• The Velaryons were officially never dragonlords
• The Velaryons' family history says they settled Driftmark before the Targaryens settled Dragonstone (the exact order of how Dragonstone got settled before Aerion the Exile was always vague to me)
• The Velaryons intermarried with the Targaryens at several points during the Century of Blood: Aegon I's mother was Velaena Velaryon, who herself had an unspecified Targaryen mother.
• There isn't a single recorded instance of a Velaryon being in an incest marriage like the Targaryens did.  Most of their wives are simply listed as "unknown". None of them even confirmed to marry a cousin. The only exception is Alyn of Hull, who married Baela Targaryen daughter of Laena Velaryon...though that may be more due to her being Targaryen. He also had an affair with Aegon III's daughter Elaena, whose mother was Daenara Velaryon (again, more in line with Targaryen incest)
• There are multiple instances of Velaryons marrying Stormlanders: Massey, Tarth, Estermont, Harte (well, Harte is Crownlands, once Stormlands).

I actually don't have a specific problem with "a Velaryon" being mixed race - the Targaryens would consider Alyssa Velaryon "Mixed Race", in terms of "Valyrians vs everyone else". 

But the specific plot complications with Corlys are another matter.

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

4 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I'm working on a formal writeup about the Velaryon rumors, but I've been researching the Velaryons in general. A few interesting points to jot down: 

• The Velaryons were officially never dragonlords
• The Velaryons' family history says they settled Driftmark before the Targaryens settled Dragonstone (the exact order of how Dragonstone got settled before Aerion the Exile was always vague to me)
• The Velaryons intermarried with the Targaryens at several points during the Century of Blood: Aegon I's mother was Velaena Velaryon, who herself had an unspecified Targaryen mother.
• There isn't a single recorded instance of a Velaryon being in an incest marriage like the Targaryens did.  Most of their wives are simply listed as "unknown". None of them even confirmed to marry a cousin. The only exception is Alyn of Hull, who married Baela Targaryen daughter of Laena Velaryon...though that may be more due to her being Targaryen. He also had an affair with Aegon III's daughter Elaena, whose mother was Daenara Velaryon (again, more in line with Targaryen incest)
• There are multiple instances of Velaryons marrying Stormlanders: Massey, Tarth, Estermont, Harte (well, Harte is Crownlands, once Stormlands).

I actually don't have a specific problem with "a Velaryon" being mixed race - the Targaryens would consider Alyssa Velaryon "Mixed Race", in terms of "Valyrians vs everyone else". 

But the specific plot complications with Corlys are another matter.

 

It would be neat if GRRM drew up a Velaryon family tree one day.

It's striking how families such as the Velaryons, Peakes, and Hightowers are so insignificant in the main series compared to previous generations. The Hightowers are still rich and powerful, but as far as we know, they have been excluded from the Red Keep (with the exception of Gerold Hightower) since the Dance. And now house Velaryon has been reduced to a single member. How the mighty have fallen. . . 

[The Dragon Demands]

It actually kind of made sense to me that "the people powerful now weren't always the only powerful ones".   Families get wiped out in major wars - "oh no the Dance of the Dragons was devastating - but every major family lived!"  So down to the level of minor lords and stuff, it made sense to me that the Dance prequel novellas introduced a lot of minor names we'd never heard of before - because they got wiped out later.

but the Dance was the one time the Hightowers made a power play. While important before that, in the Conquest/Sons of the Dragon era they were more of the "play it safe" types.