Dragon taming: Blood of the dragon or sorcery?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Replace dragon riding with traits like intelligence, criminality, or overall "improvement" and you're talking like a 19th century eugenicist. Obsessing over what traits are/aren't inherited and treating blood as "thick" and "thin" is just not something the author would be encouraging his modern readers to do. All of those traits that eugenists thought were inherited, actually weren't. All of those concepts of thin/thick blood were wrong. 

Wait till they start speaking about the racial souls of the Aryans Valyrians and how to milk them in accordance to the teachings of the race pope. (and yes all I just said was actual nazi racial theory, it's hilarious, TIK has a great video on it and the SS volunteer legions)

[The Sleeper]

17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

If it's a case study in showing how people come to follow tyrants, it's actually too successful. I'm scared now.

It is not a case study, it is a novel, but not only is that particular point iterated by numerous characters on various occasions, it is engrained in the social pracitises of the society in the way they are meant to celebrate and perpetuate power. Which is a thing IRL.

Examples range from Varys little moto about shadows on the wall, to Dany's bunny ears, to the way they are seated at tables etc. it is practically ubiquitus.

17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes but he's putting in a ton of misdirects and traps before he gets there. There are a lot of fans who root for Targaryen restoration and believe dragonriders will be the saviors of humanity. Plus he's taking forever to depict that collapse, and its very easy for people to blame the side they dislike, rather than everyone collectively. 

There is a injustice, poverty, sexism, oppression, endemic and rampant corruption at the highest levels of government and that is actually when there is peace. That society falls quite easily into a state of war, which many of them don't actually think it is morallly wrong. The Valyrians enslaved a continent, conducted genocides and peformed human experiments. If some people don't get those things, no explicit denouncement will help.

I don't believe this applies only to Valyrians, though they do take it up a notch. Westeros itself is founded on the belief that a minority of people have the right to rule over other people basically because their ancestors could swing an axe better than the next guy, or was charismatic or had magic.

Still the parallels between Valyrians and racist ideology apply due to the incest and the genetic experiments and the whole "exceptionalism" angle taken up by the Targaryen's latter on. It is also evident that they grew powerful enough to become completely amoral as a society. So I don't think it out of context in this story that they genetically engineered their weapons of mass destruction to respond to them and their kin in some way and that they fucked with their own DNA in the process. 

Did they though? I think Varamyr is good case in the sense of his power allowed him to become completely corrupt but also in the sense that his offspring did not inherit it. On the other hand, there are many Targaryens who seem to experience prophetic dreams and we also have a hudred percent Stark skinchangers in a single generation with a greenseer to boot among them. Talent for magic is not that big a deal in itself as many characters have it and it is said that it was more widespread in the past. Being transmited across the generations though probably is not a natural process. I think a good analogy would be to see the Valyrians as a society of Varamyrs who managed to pass on their abilities, through whatever means. I also think there are hints that many houses in Westeros were lineages of sorcerers who tried and had success in the same thing on a smaller scale. I am almost certain about the Starks, Dustins, Boltons, Reeds, Blackwoods, Hightowers as well as the Gardeners and most houses in the Reach for that matter.

As for actual dragon riding it is true that Martin has left it open enough to go either way. Everything about it can be explained by myth, social practice and the dragons' own instics. After all when one examines facts with a foregone conclusion in mind, one can explain away anything.

@Lord Varys The majority of what you wrote is your own speculation and I am not really interested in debating the logic and validity of your headcanon. It is plausible that being a dragonlord was socially enforced; that would render though a hereditary trait largely moot.

 

[LynnS]

What does this mean? How does Victarion claim the horn without winding it himself?

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Victarion I

Bitterly Victarion brooded on the treachery of brothers. Euron's gifts are always poisoned. "The Crow's Eye swore this horn would bind dragons to my will. But how will that serve me if the price is death?"

"Your brother did not sound the horn himself. Nor must you." Moqorro pointed to the band of steel. "Here. 'Blood for fire, fire for blood.' Who blows the hellhorn matters not. The dragons will come to the horn's master. You must claim the horn. With blood."

 Does he have to take the horn once it's been winded, 

Quote

 

A Dance with Dragons - Victarion I

But he would feed the red god too, Moqorro's fire god. The arm the priest had healed was hideous to look upon, pork crackling from elbow to fingertips. Sometimes when Victarion closed his hand the skin would split and smoke, yet the arm was stronger than it had ever been. "Two gods are with me now," he told the dusky woman. "No foe can stand before two gods." Then he rolled her on her back and took her once again.

 

 

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

Just to be clear, I can only speak for myself but when I use the term ‘blood’ I am obviously talking about genes. Personally I think there is plenty of evidence in the series that dragon riding is a genetic trait. Two other key magical abilities in Asoiaf, warging and greensight are also strongly implied to be genetic. Are the Targaryens practicing eugenics to preserve this ability? Yes abolsutely, wouldn’t anyone?

One thing about Rhaenyra’s quote I didn’t mention was what it tells us about the general lack of understanding regarding genetics. ‘One need only look at her’. Rhaenyra is a product of her world where genes aren’t yet discovered and understood, and is assuming that because Nettles doesn’t look Valyrian, she can’t be a dragonrider. But genetics are complicated and even the Targaryen incest doesn’t always guarantee their desired traits of purple eyes and silver hair. We know that it’s perfectly possible for Nettles to be a dragonseed, especially if Targaryen traits and dragonriding are recessive and her other traits are from dominant genes.

The reason so many in the fandom use the term ‘blood’ is because that’s what all the characters in the story say, ‘dragon’s blood’ or ‘blood of the dragon’. The characters don’t understand that it’s actually genetics, but it’s just a simpler, and also canon, term to use. I disagree with terms such as ‘lucky drop’ and ‘diluted’ because those are just nonsensical terms that just mean the complexity of genetics. Recessive genes can spring up many generations down the line and because they are recessive it takes more effort to maintain them, but even that’s not always guaranteed. Who knows, maybe Jaehaerys and Alysanne’s other children didn’t tame dragons because they couldn’t. They didn’t inherit the ability.

(Btw I know and saw Preston Jacobs series on the genetics of dragonriding, unfortunately now outdated due to F&B. Whilst it was interesting and entertaining, I do not believe George sat down and mapped out the XY genes of every family in Westeros. It’s fun to speculate but if he did make dragon riding genetic he probably just decided it was a recessive gene and left it at that).

I believe dragon bonding is magical because it’s strongly implied to be. Dragons reacting to their riders deaths and emotions from miles away pretty much proves this isn’t just a horse and it’s rider kind of relationship. But maybe the magical bond comes from the dragons and not the riders. If George confirms, possibly in F&B2 (implies or it’s mentioned and there’s a Targaryen coverup due to their need to preserve the lie), that the Targaryens could ride dragons only because they had pretty much domesticated them through breeding, and Nettles had no Targaryen ancestry and tamed Sheepstealer with wit and patience, and therefore dragonriding isn’t anything to do with blood and everything to do with the dragons personality and the riders care and caution, that would be fine by me. After all, many in the fandom believe it requires having Targaryen blood to even hatch dragons, which is ludicrous because dragons existed around the world and in the fourteen flames before they were tamed and therefore must be able to reproduce themselves. F&B even tells us that dragon eggs incubate in volcanic environments. Anyway, The Targaryens were either mistaken about blood and dragon riding or they were well aware that blood had nothing to do with it but lied to justify a rather disgusting cultural practice they liked.

One final clarification on my part, do I think the Valyrians and Targaryens are cool? Sure. They have a history, a culture, and dragons. As an irl historian I really enjoyed fire and blood for the history and lore aspects of it. Do I think the Targaryens are amazing and deserve the iron throne? No more than anyone else. Dragons are useful against the others but I don’t think the Targaryens are ‘better’ than everyone else, in fact I think their behaviour, greed and clearly dodgy genes that cause monstrous stillbirths prove they are a worse option than most. I’d be happy if either Jon or Dany ended up on the iron throne, but as long as it’s explained well and not rushed I’d also be ok if it was Bran, or Tyrion, or Sansa etc. I don’t think the Targaryens appearance or abilities gives them the right to rule. It just makes them look unique and dragons are always useful to have.

summary: Yes I think dragon riding is genetic. No I don’t think this gives the Targaryens any right to rule over someone else. ‘Blood of the dragon’ is just a recessive gene that is hard to predict/ control. I’m willing to be proven wrong by George. 

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

No, I'm telling you that you're sounding like a moronic 19th century scientist trying to figure out why Alyn couldn't ride a dragon.

I don't have to figure that out, I'm happy with the idea that he didn't approach Sheepstealer the correct way, not realizing that a wild dragon would be more resistant to advances than one of the castle dragons.

The thing confirming that there is 'magic in the blood' involved in the dragonrider bond thing is not looks or incest or all that stuff ... but the simple and obvious fact that dragon and dragonrider bond for life. Riding a dragon isn't the same as riding any other animal.

In addition, there is the evidence that, for Westeros, only the Targaryens or people who are descended from some of them ever did it. Since dragons are power, we would have seen dozens of servants and grooms and peasants steal dragons if that were possible. But it apparently isn't.

That only Targaryens can bond with dragons isn't some fiction that could only be maintained with propaganda. Somebody with no Targaryen blood would try one day - and he or she would then establish that it was a lie. And then the Targaryens would have lost their dragons to 'the people'.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The people in the story think that. They believe in the "magical sperm theory" of dragon riding. We don't have to think that. We should question the idea of "inheritable traits" especially when it becomes part of marriage practices. Because that's eugenics. 

Why should we question it if this is the direction the story points us towards? Just because you don't like the concept?

It is like saying you cannot except that Tolkien's Númenóreans are long-lived by birth and blood because that would be eugenics, too. They are, and that's a world-building detail in that world.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's a dumb argument. I'm not a character in a quasi-mediveal fantasy novel. In fact a lot of them accepted it because they were coerced by the threat of dragons or inundated with religious b.s. to justify their superiority. People in Westeros would accept it but we don't have to.

You do have to accept it as the likeliest explanation if you discuss this story. And as I said - this is a minor thing that's actually dealt with by the author himself if you look closely at things.

If blood and dragons were that important to the Targaryens and the society at large, then Nettles and Ulf and Hugh wouldn't have been vilified to the degree that they were. They are looked down upon by enemies and allies alike because they are jumped-up rabble, people who acquired royal dragons (in the case of Ulf and Hugh) to which they have no right as per the political ideology in Westeros - which is that only kings and princes should ride dragons, not mongrel whore girls, humble men-at-arms, or the bastards of blacksmiths.

Vermithor and Silverwing cannot make Ulf and Hugh into royalty, no matter what they do. And that makes it clear that the overwhelming ideology is not 'special blood tells who you are' but rather mundane aristocratic snobism - if you are a born lordling or prince you have certain rights (including the right to ride dragons) but if you are born in a hovel as a servant you don't have any such rights ... no matter what you actually can do.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The theory is that "Tyrion is a Targ." So under your scenario, he would be saying, yes, he is a Targaryen, but he's not really! Ho ho! Gotcha! What a complicated mess that would be. "The third will not necessarily BE a Targaryen" implies that the other two...ARE.

It implies that two definitely are and that the third might also be a Targaryen ... or not. But then - is Jon Snow a Targaryen? Will he ever be seen as such? Would George give away that Jon was a Targaryen in that quote? We don't know.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Well, first it's illogical to revere people just because they ride nukes, like many in the fandom do. Second, it's not a good idea to have so much power. Third, the magical sperm theory of dragon riding is archaic and based on eugenics. So if Tyrion and Nettles can hit home the third point, I'm all for it. Dany and Jon can touch on the first and second.

Basically, the author is the one writing a history book on the Targaryens. He likes them to the point of doing that, and he flat-out said that he would never do a history book on the mundane, dragonless houses because that would be boring. I don't agree there, I'd think a history of the Lannisters and Stark kings could be very interesting, especially since the dragons don't feature all that much in FaB, anyway, but it is quite clear that the Targaryens are George's favorite family in ASoIaF.

Nettles doesn't hit home this point ... and to be sure, there are other ways of acquiring dragons if Dragonbinder can also do the trick. That would be an alternative to magical blood. But it would not establish that magical blood wasn't what was doing it for all the dragonriders from Aegon I to Daenerys, dragonseeds included. Because they had no dragon horns.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

You're collapsing everything into relativism. Targaryens married because they thought that positive inheritable traits could be acquired, while the normal nobles thought that positive social benefits could be acquired. There is a difference between the two, and the former has its basis in racist eugenic thought, and the other does not. To use a modern analogy, it's like women wanting to marry a guy who can keep down a job - this is not the same as marrying a guy to keep whiteness in the family or make her offspring more white. 

No, you don't understand the concept of aristocracy and their marriage practices. The idea such a system is that the better people rule - better in the sense that they are better suited to rule, more intelligent, stronger, more competent, etc. - and that they preserve themselves as a better race by marrying only among their peers. I mean, you must know that real world royalty only married other royalty or at least high nobility. It is a very recent phenomenon that they intermarry with rich commoners ... and they didn't do that because regardless of wealth a crucial aspect was to not pollute the noble bloodline.

It is a common misconception that racism is a modern thing - it was already prevalent in aristocratic thinking throughout the middle ages, with the in-group there being the noble class which had to be protected from intermingling with the rabble they ruled over. You can even find that kind of thinking in Rome where 'new men', i.e. plebeians who had acquired wealth, had a lot of difficulty to be accepted by the noble families who viewed themselves as the rightful rulers of the city.

And again, to be clear - the Targaryen marriage policy is not to acquire positive trait but to preserve a trait the family already have. Incest doesn't help them become dragonriders it allows their children to remain dragonriders - or at least that's what they hope. They already have that trait, they just want to preserve it. You can say that this is selfish of them - it definitely is - but everybody in their position would do it in this setting.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

The majority of what you wrote is your own speculation and I am not really interested in debating the logic and validity of your headcanon. It is plausible that being a dragonlord was socially enforced; that would render though a hereditary trait largely moot.

The one using baseless speculation disguised as fact was you when you claimed (1) that the dragonlords do fear spreading out their genes to the rabble, and (2) that the dragons must live at the Fourteen Flames and that there must be wild dragons available for everybody, and (3) that they would have no legal means in place to punish dragon thieves.

I'm not making head canon here, I'm putting forth ideas. You seem to fixed on things in a head canon way. And I'm basings on analogies like 'the success' the dragonseeds had in convincing the Targaryens and their subjects that they were proper dragonriders. Nettles ended in obscurity, and Hugh and Ulf were murdered by their own people and allies.

That's how the working social order of Westeros - aristocratic feudalism - puts upjumped rabble in their place. They don't get away with their aspirations. Valyria was a much more complex and civilized society. They would have had a proper bureaucracy, a proper police, a proper justice system. The idea that people there would just handwave dragon theft is pretty much ridiculous.

And the other thing is that you seem to be completely ignoring that any dragonlord family would have a vital interest to increase the number of dragonlords they have ... meaning illegtimate children and their descendants inheriting the gift would more likely be cherished and adopted into the family because they would be useful instead of being feared as rivals.

Especially since having a dragon doesn't make you a landowner/rich person all of a sudden. And political power in the Freehold was in the hands of people with land, not in the hands of people who just had a dragon and an empty pocket. So one guy acquiring a dragon would only be accepted in Valyria's upper class if they allowed him to have land, too.

Also, basic thinking shows that the Valyrians must have been very effective in controlling access to dragons. The city stood for 5,000 years but nobody in the Free Cities, the other colonies or anywhere else in Essos ever permanently acquired dragons from the Valyrians ... despite the fact that they spread out their genes to Volantis and Lys, the other Free Cities and even Yi Ti (where the wife of the emperor apparently was allowed to take one dragon).

If there were unguarded dragons around in the lands surrounding Valyria then all an enemy of the city needed to do was to hire a dragonlord descendant (or produce a child with him) and then send those people to steal some dragons and bring them to a foreign country. If that ever tried it never worked.

Basically, there are no good reasons to assume the Valyrians married in the family to prevent other people from acquiring their traits ... because they were both very fertile and they slept around with other people a lot, not to mention some of them even practiced polygamy.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Still the parallels between Valyrians and racist ideology apply due to the incest and the genetic experiments and the whole "exceptionalism" angle taken up by the Targaryen's latter on. It is also evident that they grew powerful enough to become completely amoral as a society. So I don't think it out of context in this story that they genetically engineered their weapons of mass destruction to respond to them and their kin in some way and that they fucked with their own DNA in the process. 

Targaryen exceptionalism is just what any royal dynasty in history did. We wear crowns, that's why we are special, we wear crowns and can ride dragons isn't different from the ridiculous concept of the English kings who thought being a king meant you could heal people by touching them.

There are aspects of the exceptionalism thing that are clearly wrong - Targaryens can get sick, after all - but they are not wrong that they are special in the dragonrider department. Although it is of course wrong to take a genetic trait and then say that this entitles you to rule over a group. But then - that's the Westerosi way, the way the kings before the Conquest and all their lords stayed in power, too. Jaehaerys I just found a way to use that ideology to dominate both Westerosi majority religion and the former kings and their lords themselves.

4 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Did they though? I think Varamyr is good case in the sense of his power allowed him to become completely corrupt but also in the sense that his offspring did not inherit it. On the other hand, there are many Targaryens who seem to experience prophetic dreams and we also have a hudred percent Stark skinchangers in a single generation with a greenseer to boot among them. Talent for magic is not that big a deal in itself as many characters have it and it is said that it was more widespread in the past. Being transmited across the generations though probably is not a natural process. I think a good analogy would be to see the Valyrians as a society of Varamyrs who managed to pass on their abilities, through whatever means. I also think there are hints that many houses in Westeros were lineages of sorcerers who tried and had success in the same thing on a smaller scale. I am almost certain about the Starks, Dustins, Boltons, Reeds, Blackwoods, Hightowers as well as the Gardeners and most houses in the Reach for that matter.

This idea to parallel the Valyrian thing and other magical talents really isn't in the story. The dragonrider talent is genetic and perhaps the green dreams of Jojen also have something to do with them being biologically and culturally still close to the Children ... but there is no indication that there were ever any sorcerer lineages among any other noble house.

The most magical fellows would be the Durrandons if their origin story is correct ... but there is not single sorcerer mentioned for them, is there?

Bloodraven makes it clear that statistics and not gifted bloodlines rule the skinchanger/greenseer talent. Meaning the Stark blood has nothing to do with the prevalence of the skinchangers in the recent generation ... but rather a trick of destiny or the gods. Because, frankly, our Starks are the first confirmed Stark skinchangers ever ... and it would have been so easy to hint or flat-out confirm that there were wargs and other skinchangers among the ancient Stark kings. But there is nothing of that sort - instead we get Starks waging wars against wargs and skinchangers and Children of the Forest.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

They possibly could have although I doubt many tried it, except perhaps Elissa, who was so close to Rhaenys Dreamfyre probably would have let her do that. As for your second point, this could be the case, although Addam being on Seasmoke didn’t seem to stop Vermithor and Tessarion wanting to kill him, and I dare say Vhagar and Caraxes had no qualms about killing each other’s riders, and Vhagar and Sunfyre were fine to kill Rhaenys and Vhagar knew full well Lucerys would die when she fought Arrax. I know all of these examples are with Targaryens riding their dragons but still I’d be hesitant to suggest dragons have many hang ups about killing Targaryens. More likely Sunfyre was just tired, dying and didn’t feel like doing anything much at all until he saw/smelled blood.

Oh, the case with the dragons at Second Tumbleton is somewhat weird. Only Seasmoke had a rider there, Daeron and Hugh were already dead when they clashed, and it strongly seems that Tessarion and Seasmoke were doing some kind of mating ritual, while Vermithor just ran amok and Addam attacked him to prevent more bloodshed.

When riders push dragons to do something they do it. They might even reflect the emotional state of their riders to a point, if you think about how Dreamfyre behaved whenever Rhaena was furious - when she showed up at Storm's End, when she came to KL after Aerea flew away, etc.

Also, Caraxes and Vhagar turning against each other after they were once very close ... when Laena still rode Vhagar.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Ok I see your point, and indeed if Jaehaerys was clever enough to centralise control of the dragons to just himself, and he personally oversaw the distribution of eggs and dragons amongst his family, he was a very wise man indeed. Viserys I seems to have also decided who got dragons and when but was perhaps too liberal, given how he was foolish enough not to see the brewing civil war that would occur on his death and didn’t see the obvious danger in giving both sides dragons. Given how the Targaryen monarchy works more like feudal kings of the Middle Ages and less like the ancien regime of the early modern period, it’s impressive Jaehaerys decided to centralise his family’s power in this way.

Jaehaerys I remembered Maegor's usurpation and reign.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I need to re read F&B, but if it states that there were several unclaimed dragons living in the dragonpit at this time then I stand corrected. I knew about Dragonstone being full of young dragons at this time and that surprised me when I read it. After all, why didn’t Jaehaerys and Alysanne’s other children claim them? I assumed the same as you, The Cannibal became Targaryen dragon population control until by the time if the dance almost all dragons alive are bonded with only 2 other wild ones left alive beside himself. But yes this does leave the fate of the other dragons in the dragonpit a mystery. Maybe they were eventually moved back to Dragonstone, and met an unfortunate end at the hands of The Cannibal there?

Could be, although we also have this talk that the Dragonpit didn't help the health of the dragons so much. So perhaps some of those younger dragons died there later during the reign of Jaehaerys I or Viserys I.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Ah yes Jaehaerys’ fears do disprove this idea. And be careful here, they might not be. Drogon Rhaegal and Viserion are *probably* from Dreamfyre’s stolen eggs and I personally believe this is the case, and if George wanted it to be vague then the marketing team for fire and blood screwed him over when they sold the book as ‘revealing the origin of Daenaerys’ dragon eggs’. However, the possibility remains that they are from Asshai.

Oh, yes, technically the eggs could not be Targaryen dragon eggs - although that's very likely - but they would still be Targaryen dragons now in any meaningful sense since Dany hatched them, raised the dragons, and now bonded with Drogon.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

You make a good point about keeping the dragons secure, I imagine there were probably no truly ‘wild’ dragons in Valyria as they probably all belonged to one of the 40 dragonlord families, even the unclaimed ones. And who knows, maybe these raids you suggest actually happened. We know there were civil wars between dragonlords so maybe stealing each other’s dragons or destroying each other’s towers/ stables was a common occurrence or at least not unheard of. And not to introduce the confusing idea of dragon growth rate into this discussion but Drogon has reached a barely rideable size within about a year and a half. True this is a bit long to wait if there’s a civil war happening now and all your dragons are either eggs or recently born but clearly dragons are capable of being battle ready quite soon. Morning was born in either 129ac or 130ac and was large enough to ride in 135ac, at the age of either 5 or 6 versus Drogon’s 1 and a half, so perhaps Drogon Rhaegal and Viserion are a best case scenario and growth rates very between dragons. This would explain how Vermithor was larger than Dreamfyre despite her being older than him.

Yes, we have to go with different dragons growing differently. But in a scenario of unrest in Valyria you would not just want little dragons but fully grown monsters you could use to intimidate or crush your enemies. Dragons might grow differently, but it still takes them years and decades to grow very big.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

The Cannibal almost certainly was a Targaryen dragon gone wild, I never bought the theory he wasn’t. If he was on Dragonstone before the Targaryens moved there he’d be much bigger and would’ve died by the time if the dance probably as he’d be older than Balerion. The fact nobody notes his size and Balerion was always referred to as the oldest/ largest dragon is very telling and disproves this theory IMO.

Yes, although the Cannibal seems to be the largest of the wild dragons as well as the oldest.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Ok so thank you for going into so much detail here, this is the one thing I am DYING to find out more about in F&B volume 2. We have Sheepstealer alive in the Vale, Silverwing alive in the reach, Morning tamed by Rhaena (the only dragon controlled by the Targaryens) and The Cannibal is doing his own thing. Plus the rumour of Alys and her son having a dragon in Harrenhal. I’m more inclined to believe this since Alys seems to be a real, powerful witch/sorceress. The man she apparently cursed to due if anyone laughed at him choked to death the moment someone did. I’d be astounded if that were a coincidence.

Yes, Alys definitely has powers, but she may have tricked the guy into believing her son had a dragon ... or not. I mean, Vhagar could have produced an egg while Alys and Aemond were in the Riverlands, and Aemond may have given such an egg to Alys for their unborn child.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I said he disappeared after the funeral because I thought I remembered F&B saying that’s what he did, but he could still return for the next volume. The only issue I see with another final dragon conflict is that it would be a little odd to have another ‘dance of the dragons’ so close to the previous one that people don’t seem to know/ talk about. That being said, Morning is healthy and growing so she has to die a sudden  and unnatural death unfortunately, Silverwing is a wild card who could be claimed by someone and meet a similar fate or fly off to god knows where, if The Cannibal returns he will have to die or go missing and Nettles and Sheepstealer could reappear but who knows. It would be cool/ interesting if Nettles did return and play a role.

All the dragons have to die before 153 AC or else people would not view the death of the last dragon as the death of the last dragon.

I don't expect Nettles to return to society but it is certainly possible. But what I think must happen is that the Arryns or other Vale people discover Sheepstealer's carcass somewhere in the mountains before 153 AC so that it is definitely confirmed he is dead. And the same has to be done for the other dragons - Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal. They cannot just *disappear* or else people won't really consider the last dragon to be the last dragon.

Nobody knew about Aemond-Alys' child prior to FaB. That is a completely new plot and one that will play out somehow. The conflict around him could be some kind of ugly, late epilogue or coda to the Dance of the Dragons. After all, as Aemond's son this boy would be the rightful king in the eyes of the Greens if Alys and Aemond were married. And chances are pretty good that she didn't lie there.

19 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

We know the last dragon dies in 153ac so there must be some cataclysmic event within a few short years at the start of volume 2 that explains what happened to the surviving dragons, whether or not Alys and her son have a dragon and why the dragons stopped hatching, although the awful white monster born from an egg placed in the cradle and Alyn and Baela’s daughter proves something was already amiss by this point. Maester poison? Something else? Hurry up George.

For hatchlings and eggs and the like we can expect freaks and stunted dragons and stuff as part of a poisoning plot, but I'd not expect the healthy dragons to die in this way.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the case with the dragons at Second Tumbleton is somewhat weird. Only Seasmoke had a rider there, Daeron and Hugh were already dead when they clashed, and it strongly seems that Tessarion and Seasmoke were doing some kind of mating ritual, while Vermithor just ran amok and Addam attacked him to prevent more bloodshed.

When riders push dragons to do something they do it. They might even reflect the emotional state of their riders to a point, if you think about how Dreamfyre behaved whenever Rhaena was furious - when she showed up at Storm's End, when she came to KL after Aerea flew away, etc.

Also, Caraxes and Vhagar turning against each other after they were once very close ... when Laena still rode Vhagar.

I quite agree, this all contradicts your theory that dragons are generally reluctant to kill or harm Targaryens. I was arguing that in all these battles, the dragons were probably fine with killing the other dragons riders. I agree 100% that the dragons will do what their rider wants them to, with the only exception being flying over the wall apparently.

And yes, the fight between Seasmoke, Tessarion and Vermithor was certainly unique. It’s possible Seasmoke and Tessarion were performing a mating dance which would be interesting but it could just be flowery romanticisation of the battle after it had happened to glorify it and add drama/ tragedy.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, although the Cannibal seems to be the largest of the wild dragons as well as the oldest.

Yes, Alys definitely has powers, but she may have tricked the guy into believing her son had a dragon ... or not. I mean, Vhagar could have produced an egg while Alys and Aemond were in the Riverlands, and Aemond may have given such an egg to Alys for their unborn child.

All the dragons have to die before 153 AC or else people would not view the death of the last dragon as the death of the last dragon.

I don't expect Nettles to return to society but it is certainly possible. But what I think must happen is that the Arryns or other Vale people discover Sheepstealer's carcass somewhere in the mountains before 153 AC so that it is definitely confirmed he is dead. And the same has to be done for the other dragons - Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal. They cannot just *disappear* or else people won't really consider the last dragon to be the last dragon.

Nobody knew about Aemond-Alys' child prior to FaB. That is a completely new plot and one that will play out somehow. The conflict around him could be some kind of ugly, late epilogue or coda to the Dance of the Dragons. After all, as Aemond's son this boy would be the rightful king in the eyes of the Greens if Alys and Aemond were married. And chances are pretty good that she didn't lie there.

For hatchlings and eggs and the like we can expect freaks and stunted dragons and stuff as part of a poisoning plot, but I'd not expect the healthy dragons to die in this way.

The Cannibal was indeed the oldest and largest, it’s not impossible he was on Dragonstone before the Targaryens but if he was such a threat to their dragons and hatcheries why didn’t they kill him using their own dragons? It just seems more likely he was a Targaryen dragon, possibly meant to be Maegor’s but was rejected by him and that’s why he’s so aggressive? This is a theory by Preston Jacobs that I quite like. Maegor having one last source of longlasting vengeance on his family.

I agree, it’s very possible Alys does have a dragon.

I agree that Alys and Aemond’s son is a completely new plotline, probably introduced by George to create a conflict to kill of the remaining dragons. Its not impossible that one or two of the dragons could go missing and people would still consider the last dragons death to be the death of the last dragon. But yes it’s more likely, and also more satisfying in tying up plot threads, if we get a proper ending for all 4(5?) dragons alive at this point before the last dragon is born.

I agree that if the masters are poisoning them then it’s only affecting the eggs and hatchlings, I never bought the theory that the maesters poisoned Balerion and that why he died. Even if they did, which with the dragonkeepers present would’ve been impressive, I doubt it would have had any effect.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Could be, although we also have this talk that the Dragonpit didn't help the health of the dragons so much. So perhaps some of those younger dragons died there later during the reign of Jaehaerys I or Viserys I.

Yes this talk confuses me a bit because it’s always mentioned in the fandom but hardly appears in F&B apart from it being stated by someone in the dance that dragons thrive better on Dragonstone than in the dragonpit. Maybe if I keep reading the main series it’ll be brought up more, but I feel like if the dragonpit was really so detrimental to the dragons health the Targaryens would have stopped using it. After all, we know there were dragon stables of a kind or at least large horse stables at the red keep that could house dragons because that’s where Vermithor, Silverwing and Syrax were usually kept. Plus I think it would have been mentioned in F&B if a bunch of healthy young dragons died off one by one inside the dragonpit and would DEFINITELY have convinced Jaehaerys to stop using the dragonpit as a stable.

Even in the main series, Rhaegal and Viserion are now free and yes they’re smaller than Drogon but they always were. They don’t seem to have suffered in the pit quite as much as they did in GoT. We know the dragons in the dragonpit were also chained but again this seems to have had little to no effect. Tyraxes, Shrykos and Morghul were in the dragonpit as young dragons during the dance and it’s never stated that any of them were ill, suffering or dying, just that because they were inside a building and restricted by chains they couldn’t move as freely so were at a disadvantage when the mob attacked.

[Muffin King]

On 1/5/2021 at 12:50 PM, Mithras said:

He is writing the Valyrians, especially the Targaryens, as the cool guys. No doubt about that.

I think someone definitely needs to tell GRRM that the so-called Drogo-Dany "romance" is actually creepy AF. In that vein, maybe someone also needs to tell GRRM that all this blood of the dragon crap is racist AF. An old dude who started writing the books in the early 90s; who can't escape the pitfalls of orientalist tropes and racist stereotypes. What could possibly go wrong!..

Spot on, the reason why Targs have a divine right to rule Westeros, can fuck their Sisters to maintain "Purity" while nobody bats an eye, are the only ones to ride Dragons, and why people in the books constantly remark that Valyrians are closer to Gods then Men in ASOIAF is that GRRM simply has an unhealthy obsession with "otherworldly" looking characters, and thinks Violet eyes and White/Silver hair are really, really, really cool, it's that simple. 

And no matter how he dresses it up with the odd "mad" Targ, it's clear that he wrote Valyrians to be above the rest of the other races in Westeros. I don't expect this notion to be challenged anytime in the series. As a result, I highly doubt any of the 3 Dragon riders in TWOW will be of non Targ descent, which sucks

[Lord Varys]

Actually, this talk of eugenics really makes no sense in this context. Marrying only within your circle as a family is elitist and exclusionary, but eugenics are applied to an actual population not to a bunch of royals ... nor a few hundred or thousand dragonlords back in Valyria.

Eugenics also categorizes individuals/traits into desirable and undesirable ... and the problem is with removing or dehumanizing people that are already around, not with wanting the best child for yourself.

The Valyrians or Targaryens would do eugenics if they actively killed or sterilized members of their family because they had 'undesirable traits' or if they extended such practices to the population at large. But there is nothing of this sort there. In fact, there are quite a few disabled/disadvantaged Targaryens out there, and as far as we know the family always did their best to take care of them. We do have Daella and Vaegon (a mild autist), Gael, Jaehaerys & Jaehaera, Aegon III to a point, Aerys I, Rhaegel, Vaella, and Jaehaerys II.

Overall, it strikes me that most of this discussion goes back to a very old issue in the fandom. There have always been people who didn't like the idea that this dragonriding thing was rooted in 'magical blood'. Back before the history books cast some light on the dragonriders there were even people who theorized the dragons were just responding to Valyrian looks and stuff.

And when we got the garbled version of the dragonseeds story in TPatQ people jumped on Nettles and wanted to view her as a secret Child of the Forest or a sorcerer girl or whatnot ... when the complete picture of her in FaB paints a completely different picture. She was just a young (although perhaps no so innocent) girl who had one great idea how to claim a dragon. But even she must have suspected or known that she was a Targaryen descendant or else she wouldn't have tried. The way she did it shows very much she was smart enough to realize as much.

Now we are at the point that the idea of the 'magical blood' is rejected just because people don't like it. Well, I also don't like feudalism and monarchy, but I still like those books and do not go on long rants how it sucks that I have to read about noble pricks and presumptuous buffoons who thinks crowns gave them any right to give orders to their fellow citizens.

10 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Just to be clear, I can only speak for myself but when I use the term ‘blood’ I am obviously talking about genes. Personally I think there is plenty of evidence in the series that dragon riding is a genetic trait. Two other key magical abilities in Asoiaf, warging and greensight are also strongly implied to be genetic. Are the Targaryens practicing eugenics to preserve this ability? Yes abolsutely, wouldn’t anyone?

Actually, the skinchanging/greenseeing thing doesn't seem a genetic trait. Roughly there is a chance that certain traits are more prevalent (or more understood, perhaps) among certain populations - like the crannogmen or the wildlings - but it is quite clear that there are no skinchanger dynasties out there. Bloodraven explains to us and Bran that his talent - as well as the skinchanger talent in general - is very rare and just occasionally shows up like a divine gift. There is nothing about it being genetic trait.

And we even have tentative confirmation of that with there being no known Stark wargs prior to our gang, nor any skinchangers beyond the Wall who have skinchanger parents, children, or other relations.

Instead, we learn that skinchangers are handed to their own kind - if your child is a skinchanger you cut ties with them and hand them to another, like Varamyr's parents did with him.

10 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

One thing about Rhaenyra’s quote I didn’t mention was what it tells us about the general lack of understanding regarding genetics. ‘One need only look at her’. Rhaenyra is a product of her world where genes aren’t yet discovered and understood, and is assuming that because Nettles doesn’t look Valyrian, she can’t be a dragonrider. But genetics are complicated and even the Targaryen incest doesn’t always guarantee their desired traits of purple eyes and silver hair. We know that it’s perfectly possible for Nettles to be a dragonseed, especially if Targaryen traits and dragonriding are recessive and her other traits are from dominant genes.

Yes, that shows what I original meant with Rhaenyra being mean there. Her elder sons also don't look like her or Laenor, yet they are dragonriders, too, and definitely her children. So why does Nettles have to look Valyrian?

But one also has to consider that the comment might also refer to her humble looks. She supposedly stank when she was first brought to court (Daemon later had to teach her how to properly wash herself), and her nose was allegedly slit meaning she looked like a filthy criminal in addition to not looking Valyrian.

10 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

The reason so many in the fandom use the term ‘blood’ is because that’s what all the characters in the story say, ‘dragon’s blood’ or ‘blood of the dragon’. The characters don’t understand that it’s actually genetics, but it’s just a simpler, and also canon, term to use. I disagree with terms such as ‘lucky drop’ and ‘diluted’ because those are just nonsensical terms that just mean the complexity of genetics. Recessive genes can spring up many generations down the line and because they are recessive it takes more effort to maintain them, but even that’s not always guaranteed. Who knows, maybe Jaehaerys and Alysanne’s other children didn’t tame dragons because they couldn’t. They didn’t inherit the ability.

Well, as far as we know they didn't try, so no reason to believe they were rejected by a dragon. As for genetics - George doesn't understand them, so things don't work there like they do in the real world. You can see that easily enough with the Lannisters always having blond hair (that works somewhat if we assume that they often married cousins or other close relations, but not all that well) and the Conningtons always having red hair (which we get an example for in FaB). However, it is quite clear that an inherited trait like the dragonrider thing could make itself known multiple generations down the line under the right circumstances. We see that happening with the dragonseeds where nobody can identify the Targaryen prince(s) from whom Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles are descended.

10 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

After all, many in the fandom believe it requires having Targaryen blood to even hatch dragons, which is ludicrous because dragons existed around the world and in the fourteen flames before they were tamed and therefore must be able to reproduce themselves.

That idea was always nonsense. However, it seems clear to me that it is Dany's destiny/special ability/part of the prophecy thing that she could hatch living dragons from petrified dragon eggs. Because we learned in FaB and TWoIaF that fresh dragon eggs apparently do not feel and look like stone, but are different - most likely warm or hot to the touch, I'd imagine - and hatch naturally. It is when dragon eggs are removed from a volcanic/hot environment that they eventually turn to stone and are then, apparently, no longer viable.

10 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

One final clarification on my part, do I think the Valyrians and Targaryens are cool? Sure. They have a history, a culture, and dragons. As an irl historian I really enjoyed fire and blood for the history and lore aspects of it. Do I think the Targaryens are amazing and deserve the iron throne? No more than anyone else. Dragons are useful against the others but I don’t think the Targaryens are ‘better’ than everyone else, in fact I think their behaviour, greed and clearly dodgy genes that cause monstrous stillbirths prove they are a worse option than most. I’d be happy if either Jon or Dany ended up on the iron throne, but as long as it’s explained well and not rushed I’d also be ok if it was Bran, or Tyrion, or Sansa etc. I don’t think the Targaryens appearance or abilities gives them the right to rule. It just makes them look unique and dragons are always useful to have.

Who sits on the Iron Throne was always an irrelevant question to me. I vividly recall asking myself when I was about half way through AGoT 'Why I'm supposed to read this boring shit, I don't care which of those noble pricks ends up sitting on that ugly chair?' I thought I was reading a fantasy series. That changed somewhat when Robert and Ned died and the dragons entered the game, but I still don't really care who rules and stuff.

Insofar as the world view of the author is concerned, we can say that his 'ideal' in this fucked-up world is a strong and authoritan king trying to do the best for the common people - sort of like Egg aspired to do, and in a sense how Jaehaerys I and Alysanne actually did.

If dragons are used for that kind of thing - or if they are used in war as effective as they were by Aegon the Conqueror (whose dragons really didn't kill all that many people during the original Conquest war) - then this is fine. But they are, of course, a double-edged sword. Dragons - like any super weapon - might be great in the hands of a good guy ... but less so in the hands of a madman or cruel person.

And that is basically one of the messages we get again and again in this series - that individuals are important, not dynasties. The Targaryens are both Jaehaerys II and Maegor, just as the Lannisters are Tywin and Tytos. Things go to hell if the king sucks ... and depicting this realistically also sends the message that monarchy pretty much sucks, too. But there is no alternative to it.

And a strong monarch is much better for the people than a weak one - especially since half or more of the lords or the Realm are corrupt, overly ambitious little would-be kings. That is the entire point of the War of the Five Kings - how a weak king (Robert) and his incompetent government can set up an entire continent to explode upon his death. And the common people are paying the price for this shit.

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I quite agree, this all contradicts your theory that dragons are generally reluctant to kill or harm Targaryens. I was arguing that in all these battles, the dragons were probably fine with killing the other dragons riders. I agree 100% that the dragons will do what their rider wants them to, with the only exception being flying over the wall apparently.

I meant in peaceful scenarios - like Rhaenyra's execution - when it is clear that two dragonriders do not hate each other to the point that they want to unleash their dragons to kill each other.

Overall, the Targaryen dragons seem to be very well-behaved for gigantic top predators who naturally would view humans as prey. There are no talks about stableboys and grooms and servants being regularly killed and eaten by dragons, for instance.

But my idea would be that if you want to make a list what kind of people a dragon were most likely to attack, then he is less likely to attack a dragonlord/Targaryen blood fellow than the average guy. This is what I think is established by Dany's dragons liking Brown Ben (for pretty much no other reason than his Targaryen blood) while they are snapping at Irri and Jhiqui as they grow older.

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

And yes, the fight between Seasmoke, Tessarion and Vermithor was certainly unique. It’s possible Seasmoke and Tessarion were performing a mating dance which would be interesting but it could just be flowery romanticisation of the battle after it had happened to glorify it and add drama/ tragedy.

Well, it is very odd since a riderless Tessarion would have little to no reason to attack Seasmoke, and vice versa Addam would have no reason to have his dragon try to attack a riderless dragon who so far hadn't attacked any of his men. In that sense my interpretation there would be that Tessarion triggered some unique mating behavior in Seasmoke, causing this weirdo Dance.

And that also fits rather well with Tessarion later coming Seasmoke's aid in the fight against Vermithor.

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

The Cannibal was indeed the oldest and largest, it’s not impossible he was on Dragonstone before the Targaryens but if he was such a threat to their dragons and hatcheries why didn’t they kill him using their own dragons? It just seems more likely he was a Targaryen dragon, possibly meant to be Maegor’s but was rejected by him and that’s why he’s so aggressive? This is a theory by Preston Jacobs that I quite like. Maegor having one last source of longlasting vengeance on his family.

The Cannibal certainly could be one of the hatchlings offered to Maegor. They gave him quite a few over the years, apparently. But I'm not sure why any dragon should want to be ridden by Maegor ;-).

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I agree that Alys and Aemond’s son is a completely new plotline, probably introduced by George to create a conflict to kill of the remaining dragons. Its not impossible that one or two of the dragons could go missing and people would still consider the last dragons death to be the death of the last dragon. But yes it’s more likely, and also more satisfying in tying up plot threads, if we get a proper ending for all 4(5?) dragons alive at this point before the last dragon is born.

There is also the dragon skull thing to be considered. They have to collect them all - or most of them, at least - to eventually put them on display in the throne room. Vhagar was nearly lost, and they definitely are going to move the Tumbleton dragon remains to KL eventually, meaning we should also expect them to go on a search for Sheepstealer's and Silverwing's and the Cannibal's remains if they were to die in the mountains, at Red Lake, and on Dragonstone.

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I agree that if the masters are poisoning them then it’s only affecting the eggs and hatchlings, I never bought the theory that the maesters poisoned Balerion and that why he died. Even if they did, which with the dragonkeepers present would’ve been impressive, I doubt it would have had any effect.

I guess they could have done it, but there is actually no indication that they would have contemplated something like that before the Dance. It would have been the Dance what showed them how destructive those dragons can be if the royal family turns against each other. It was one thing when it was Targaryens against 'the people' during the Conquest and the Faith Militant Uprising - back then you could at least yield. But with two dragonrider factions it must have become clear that KL or Oldtown or Lannisport, etc. could easily burn just because they bent the knee to this or that pretender. That must have been a horrible realization ... it is what triggers this outburst of violence in KL that leads to the storming of the Dragonpit.

Thus the conclusion in the Citadel after the Dance would have been that the dragons had to go for the good of all - including the Targaryens themselves. Or, perhaps, they only wanted to reduce the numbers of dragons to a more managable number - have only the king and his heir have a dragon, say. If there was another small violent Dance-like clash with Aemond's son too many dragons may have died, leading to their complete extinction.

If such a thing started, then Grand Maester Munkun most likely laid the groundwork for it during the Regency era. At the end another maester, Rowley, is made Lord Confessor at court, an office were he could easily have access to the dragons at court, and he is said to have been studied with Archmaester Sandeman, the greatest healer of Westeros. We already know that people who know how to heal also know their way around poisons, so Maester Rowley would be my main suspect for poisoning the dragons in KL (if there are any there in the future).

Another key suspect would be the replacement of Gerardys on Dragonstone Aegon II calls upon to sent him dragon eggs when he determines he must have a new dragon. The maester chooses the eggs and they happen to not hatch ... coincidence or foul play? We will never know.

Chances are also not bad that the same maester messed with the egg from Dragonstone that was put in the cradle of the second Laena Velaryon ... which spawned the monstrous dragon thing. That could have been an early attempt/experiment at 'dragon poisoning'.

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Yes this talk confuses me a bit because it’s always mentioned in the fandom but hardly appears in F&B apart from it being stated by someone in the dance that dragons thrive better on Dragonstone than in the dragonpit. Maybe if I keep reading the main series it’ll be brought up more, but I feel like if the dragonpit was really so detrimental to the dragons health the Targaryens would have stopped using it. After all, we know there were dragon stables of a kind or at least large horse stables at the red keep that could house dragons because that’s where Vermithor, Silverwing and Syrax were usually kept. Plus I think it would have been mentioned in F&B if a bunch of healthy young dragons died off one by one inside the dragonpit and would DEFINITELY have convinced Jaehaerys to stop using the dragonpit as a stable.

It seems that this was one of many explanations that were put forth after the death of the dragons ... to explain why they died out. I expect to hear more about this in FaB II when Gyldayn has to talk about the death of the dragons and give the various theories about why this happened ... without ever stating what really went on, assuming he knew what went on (which he may not have).

40 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Even in the main series, Rhaegal and Viserion are now free and yes they’re smaller than Drogon but they always were. They don’t seem to have suffered in the pit quite as much as they did in GoT. We know the dragons in the dragonpit were also chained but again this seems to have had little to no effect. Tyraxes, Shrykos and Morghul were in the dragonpit as young dragons during the dance and it’s never stated that any of them were ill, suffering or dying, just that because they were inside a building and restricted by chains they couldn’t move as freely so were at a disadvantage when the mob attacked.

Yes, I'm not sure if that makes much sense. Just tossed it around as a potential explanation for what may have happened to the missing dragons.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, this talk of eugenics really makes no sense in this context. Marrying only within your circle as a family is elitist and exclusionary, but eugenics are applied to an actual population not to a bunch of royals ... nor a few hundred or thousand dragonlords back in Valyria.

Eugenics also categorizes individuals/traits into desirable and undesirable ... and the problem is with removing or dehumanizing people that are already around, not with wanting the best child for yourself.

The Valyrians or Targaryens would do eugenics if they actively killed or sterilized members of their family because they had 'undesirable traits' or if they extended such practices to the population at large. But there is nothing of this sort there. In fact, there are quite a few disabled/disadvantaged Targaryens out there, and as far as we know the family always did their best to take care of them. We do have Daella and Vaegon (a mild autist), Gael, Jaehaerys & Jaehaera, Aegon III to a point, Aerys I, Rhaegel, Vaella, and Jaehaerys II.

Overall, it strikes me that most of this discussion goes back to a very old issue in the fandom. There have always been people who didn't like the idea that this dragonriding thing was rooted in 'magical blood'. Back before the history books cast some light on the dragonriders there were even people who theorized the dragons were just responding to Valyrian looks and stuff.

And when we got the garbled version of the dragonseeds story in TPatQ people jumped on Nettles and wanted to view her as a secret Child of the Forest or a sorcerer girl or whatnot ... when the complete picture of her in FaB paints a completely different picture. She was just a young (although perhaps no so innocent) girl who had one great idea how to claim a dragon. But even she must have suspected or known that she was a Targaryen descendant or else she wouldn't have tried. The way she did it shows very much she was smart enough to realize as much.

Now we are at the point that the idea of the 'magical blood' is rejected just because people don't like it. Well, I also don't like feudalism and monarchy, but I still like those books and do not go on long rants how it sucks that I have to read about noble pricks and presumptuous buffoons who thinks crowns gave them any right to give orders to their fellow citizens.

Literally agree with all of this. Personally I was using the term eugenics because others were and didn’t stop to consider its accuracy in the Asoiaf context, an error on my part as we don’t see population wide breeding programmes in George’s world, thank god.

And as for your point about being fine with characters and ideologies in the story that would be wrong or abhorrent irl, as a historian who specialises in early modern monarchy, mainly in England and France, I have read and written extensively so far about absolutist kings and queens who I find fascinating to study and satisfying to try and understand within their contexts. I also know for a fact I’d likely despise the lot of them if I met them.

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, the skinchanging/greenseeing thing doesn't seem a genetic trait. Roughly there is a chance that certain traits are more prevalent (or more understood, perhaps) among certain populations - like the crannogmen or the wildlings - but it is quite clear that there are no skinchanger dynasties out there. Bloodraven explains to us and Bran that his talent - as well as the skinchanger talent in general - is very rare and just occasionally shows up like a divine gift. There is nothing about it being genetic trait.

And we even have tentative confirmation of that with there being no known Stark wargs prior to our gang, nor any skinchangers beyond the Wall who have skinchanger parents, children, or other relations.

Instead, we learn that skinchangers are handed to their own kind - if your child is a skinchanger you cut ties with them and hand them to another, like Varamyr's parents did with him.

Hmm, in that case I’m willing to amend my statement to skinchanging* and greensight are extremely recessive traits for first men in general that take many many generations to emerge, but I guess my only question would be that if not genetic then how do people have these abilities? It certainly isn’t something anyone can do because otherwise every would be trained as skinchangers.

*I made the error of calling skinchanging warging. Correct me if I’m wrong but warging is I believe specifically skinchanging a wolf or direwolf.

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, that shows what I original meant with Rhaenyra being mean there. Her elder sons also don't look like her or Laenor, yet they are dragonriders, too, and definitely her children. So why does Nettles have to look Valyrian?

But one also has to consider that the comment might also refer to her humble looks. She supposedly stank when she was first brought to court (Daemon later had to teach her how to properly wash herself), and her nose was allegedly slit meaning she looked like a filthy criminal in addition to not looking Valyrian.

I actually meant to mention her hypocrisy here, given the appearance of her and Laenor/ Harwin’s three sons. And you’re right but Rhaenyra said this well not the dance and she said it in the present tense, meaning she was probably talking about Nettles’ appearance in general not being very Valyrian.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, as far as we know they didn't try, so no reason to believe they were rejected by a dragon. As for genetics - George doesn't understand them, so things don't work there like they do in the real world. You can see that easily enough with the Lannisters always having blond hair (that works somewhat if we assume that they often married cousins or other close relations, but not all that well) and the Conningtons always having red hair (which we get an example for in FaB). However, it is quite clear that an inherited trait like the dragonrider thing could make itself known multiple generations down the line under the right circumstances. We see that happening with the dragonseeds where nobody can identify the Targaryen prince(s) from whom Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles are descended.

Fair enough with regard to your point about the other children not trying. I was trying to make the point that genetics are tricky even if you practice incest to maintain traits. And with the dragonseeds I agree, it seems Quentyn was just very unlucky then.

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That idea was always nonsense. However, it seems clear to me that it is Dany's destiny/special ability/part of the prophecy thing that she could hatch living dragons from petrified dragon eggs. Because we learned in FaB and TWoIaF that fresh dragon eggs apparently do not feel and look like stone, but are different - most likely warm or hot to the touch, I'd imagine - and hatch naturally. It is when dragon eggs are removed from a volcanic/hot environment that they eventually turn to stone and are then, apparently, no longer viable.

Indeed. Many assumed that because Dany hatched her eggs using magic in AGoT that means all dragon eggs have to be hatched this way when, as proven by F&B, dragons lay eggs which incubate in volcanic environments and hatch themselves when ready. It is unclear whether they are moved to baby Targaryen’s cradles during this process and hatch as they would have done or if they just need warmth to hatch so being bundled up in cradles with a sleeping baby achieves the same effect as volcanic environments. The whole point of what Dany did is that it was a miracle, she literally brought Drogon, Rhaegal and Viserion back from the dead. Their eggs were long dead by that point but she used an ancient ritual even she didn’t fully understand, possibly guided by greater powers, to bring dragons back from extinction.

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who sits on the Iron Throne was always an irrelevant question to me. I vividly recall asking myself when I was about half way through AGoT 'Why I'm supposed to read this boring shit, I don't care which of those noble pricks ends up sitting on that ugly chair?' I thought I was reading a fantasy series. That changed somewhat when Robert and Ned died and the dragons entered the game, but I still don't really care who rules and stuff.

Insofar as the world view of the author is concerned, we can say that his 'ideal' in this fucked-up world is a strong and authoritan king trying to do the best for the common people - sort of like Egg aspired to do, and in a sense how Jaehaerys I and Alysanne actually did.

If dragons are used for that kind of thing - or if they are used in war as effective as they were by Aegon the Conqueror (whose dragons really didn't kill all that many people during the original Conquest war) - then this is fine. But they are, of course, a double-edged sword. Dragons - like any super weapon - might be great in the hands of a good guy ... but less so in the hands of a madman or cruel person.

And that is basically one of the messages we get again and again in this series - that individuals are important, not dynasties. The Targaryens are both Jaehaerys II and Maegor, just as the Lannisters are Tywin and Tytos. Things go to hell if the king sucks ... and depicting this realistically also sends the message that monarchy pretty much sucks, too. But there is no alternative to it.

And a strong monarch is much better for the people than a weak one - especially since half or more of the lords or the Realm are corrupt, overly ambitious little would-be kings. That is the entire point of the War of the Five Kings - how a weak king (Robert) and his incompetent government can set up an entire continent to explode upon his death. And the common people are paying the price for this shit.

It is very true that we are looking for a good individual, not a dynasty. History, both in Asoiaf and our world has proven that a great ruler will not necessarily produce another great ruler. I agree feudal monarchy in Asoiaf is not shown in a good light which is accurate, especially in the Middle Ages. But this is a medieval fantasy world with magic, dragons and kings and queens, and that’s fine because that’s the setting. The key is George shows how it’s the common people who suffer unnecessarily as a result, as you say.

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant in peaceful scenarios - like Rhaenyra's execution - when it is clear that two dragonriders do not hate each other to the point that they want to unleash their dragons to kill each other.

Overall, the Targaryen dragons seem to be very well-behaved for gigantic top predators who naturally would view humans as prey. There are no talks about stableboys and grooms and servants being regularly killed and eaten by dragons, for instance.

But my idea would be that if you want to make a list what kind of people a dragon were most likely to attack, then he is less likely to attack a dragonlord/Targaryen blood fellow than the average guy. This is what I think is established by Dany's dragons liking Brown Ben (for pretty much no other reason than his Targaryen blood) while they are snapping at Irri and Jhiqui as they grow older.

Well, it is very odd since a riderless Tessarion would have little to no reason to attack Seasmoke, and vice versa Addam would have no reason to have his dragon try to attack a riderless dragon who so far hadn't attacked any of his men. In that sense my interpretation there would be that Tessarion triggered some unique mating behavior in Seasmoke, causing this weirdo Dance.

And that also fits rather well with Tessarion later coming Seasmoke's aid in the fight against Vermithor.

As ok I see your point. Also I was thinking about how weirdly docile and well behaved the dragons are. Presumably the dragonkeepers must’ve kept them all well fed everyday. Drogon Rhaegal and Viserion are probably acting out because Dany never properly regulated their diet once they got bigger, and of course she’s only just bonded to Drogon so he may start to behave more but the other two will still act wild until they are bonded. Any control Dany had over them before was because they viewed her as their mother, now it’ll take riders to bring them to heel.

Youve convinced me about Brown Ben Plum and Tessarion and Seasmoke, a mating dance rudely interrupted by Vermithor would make sense. This actually makes that particular battle all the more tragic. If only Vermithor had stayed out of it, Seasmoke or Tessarion could’ve laid more eggs soon after and the dragons may not have gone extinct. Unles of course the maesters got to them first.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is also the dragon skull thing to be considered. They have to collect them all - or most of them, at least - to eventually put them on display in the throne room. Vhagar was nearly lost, and they definitely are going to move the Tumbleton dragon remains to KL eventually, meaning we should also expect them to go on a search for Sheepstealer's and Silverwing's and the Cannibal's remains if they were to die in the mountains, at Red Lake, and on Dragonstone.

That’s true actually, I wonder if they marked the skulls to tell whose was whose. Weren’t there 19 in total? I can’t remember, but depending on how many of the skulls were from dragons that died before the Targaryens moved to Dragonstone we could narrow down which dragons skulls are missing and which are accounted for. Plus there’s always the one in the red waste that Dany’s scout sees that was large enough to ride through.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I guess they could have done it, but there is actually no indication that they would have contemplated something like that before the Dance. It would have been the Dance what showed them how destructive those dragons can be if the royal family turns against each other. It was one thing when it was Targaryens against 'the people' during the Conquest and the Faith Militant Uprising - back then you could at least yield. But with two dragonrider factions it must have become clear that KL or Oldtown or Lannisport, etc. could easily burn just because they bent the knee to this or that pretender. That must have been a horrible realization ... it is what triggers this outburst of violence in KL that leads to the storming of the Dragonpit.

Thus the conclusion in the Citadel after the Dance would have been that the dragons had to go for the good of all - including the Targaryens themselves. Or, perhaps, they only wanted to reduce the numbers of dragons to a more managable number - have only the king and his heir have a dragon, say. If there was another small violent Dance-like clash with Aemond's son too many dragons may have died, leading to their complete extinction.

If such a thing started, then Grand Maester Munkun most likely laid the groundwork for it during the Regency era. At the end another maester, Rowley, is made Lord Confessor at court, an office were he could easily have access to the dragons at court, and he is said to have been studied with Archmaester Sandeman, the greatest healer of Westeros. We already know that people who know how to heal also know their way around poisons, so Maester Rowley would be my main suspect for poisoning the dragons in KL (if there are any there in the future).

Another key suspect would be the replacement of Gerardys on Dragonstone Aegon II calls upon to sent him dragon eggs when he determines he must have a new dragon. The maester chooses the eggs and they happen to not hatch ... coincidence or foul play? We will never know.

Chances are also not bad that the same maester messed with the egg from Dragonstone that was put in the cradle of the second Laena Velaryon ... which spawned the monstrous dragon thing. That could have been an early attempt/experiment at 'dragon poisoning'.

I think it’s highly suspect that eggs just stop hatching apparently during and after the dance with the exception of morning, who hatched in the Vale far away from any maesters or the war, and the deformed white monster born from little Laena’s egg. This would suggest the conspiracy to assist in the dragons extinction if it existed was started during the dance at the latest. Any later would be pointless, the eggs had apparently stopped hatching by themselves before the maesters decided to do anything and most of the dragons had already killed one another. But yes F&B II should shed some light on this issue and introduce competing ideas for us to either dismiss or run with.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It seems that this was one of many explanations that were put forth after the death of the dragons ... to explain why they died out. I expect to hear more about this in FaB II when Gyldayn has to talk about the death of the dragons and give the various theories about why this happened ... without ever stating what really went on, assuming he knew what went on (which he may not have).

Yes, I'm not sure if that makes much sense. Just tossed it around as a potential explanation for what may have happened to the missing dragons.

Well if Gyldane was an archmaester, and there was a conspiracy to kill off the dragons, he likely won’t mention that theory at all. It’d be interesting it he mentioned it but dismissed it as baseless rumour or preposterous allegations made by in his opinion ‘failed scholars’ (referencing Marwin). 

And no worries I understand why you did, it’s constantly talked about in the other forums on dragons and the history and lore videos for GoT bring it up REPEATEDLY implying that it was the main reason for the decline of the dragons and Targaryen power. They’re non canon but it always annoyed and confused me anyway. I still believe the dragonpit’s only negative impact on dragons was making them an easier target for would be dragontamers and would be dragonslayers. It didn’t ‘stunt their growth’.

And yes the missing young ‘drakes’ that apparently existed in great numbers during Jaehaerys reign are an addition by George for the new Jaehaerys chapters, and he never addresses what happened to them. We can only guess but in my opinion the best theory is that The Cannibal devoured them all. Not ideal but also kind of helped the Targaryens. Dragon population control, to stop them potentially flying off and producing more clutches on other islands and getting stolen by foreign powers, I.e. Volantis or Lys, is actually very handy. If all these dragons lived and had their own clutches then the Targaryens may have had a crisis with Dragonstone and Driftmark being infested by the time of the dance with more eggs being at risk of being stolen. So I’m pinning this one on The Cannibal.

[Rose of Red Lake]

18 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

It is not a case study, it is a novel, but not only is that particular point iterated by numerous characters on various occasions, it is engrained in the social pracitises of the society in the way they are meant to celebrate and perpetuate power. Which is a thing IRL.

Examples range from Varys little moto about shadows on the wall, to Dany's bunny ears, to the way they are seated at tables etc. it is practically ubiquitus.

Yes, all politicians use political theater, but it is not always the same in outcome or method. Some people in power become so afraid of their subjects - or so afraid of losing power - or sick of the opposition - that they retaliate by using various shortcuts. One shortcut is the cult of personality, which Daenerys has, and that she won, relatively easily. Sansa may have that too... or she could gain allies with hard-won efforts and minimal short-cuts. Cersei doesn't have that so she has to exert even more effort to keep up the farce through Joffrey or Tommen. A shortcut can also involve how to handle the opposition. You can either run over opponents or you can win over opponents. Daenerys tried to win over opponents for a time, and it's looking like now, she's going to run them over. Cersei just doesn't want to have any opponents at all. Sansa is learning how to win them over and luckily, it seems like she enjoys the challenge. All have to deal with courtly subjects who go through the motions of the farce and self-censor, but the difference is the degree to which how farcical it is allowed to get. How far does the ruler go to crush the dignity of their flatterers? Is there a limit on flattery, or does the leader cultivate an environment where individuals are one-upping each other in devotion/adoration of the leader? Is reasonble dissent tolerated, welcomed, respected? Is the cult of personality allowed to bleed into secular worship, with the leader seen as a messiah with otherworldly powers? Does a leader have something to offer, other than him/herself? And does the theater become so removed from reality, that the leader wraps him/herself in their own world, convinced of their own genius or righteousness? 

My concern with all of this is that some people are willing to put no personal limitations on how much of the farce/cult/theater they will tolerate. Which basically gives carte blanche to the ruler to do whatever they want. That's why I mentioned the fear that the story is acting as a mirror to our own reality. It's showing us how people come to support tyrants. 

[The Sleeper]

On 1/6/2021 at 3:22 PM, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

summary: Yes I think dragon riding is genetic. No I don’t think this gives the Targaryens any right to rule over someone else. ‘Blood of the dragon’ is just a recessive gene that is hard to predict/ control. I’m willing to be proven wrong by George. 

The idea of trying to apply actual genetics is kind of iffy, particularly after the Baratheon supergene. Nor do they make much sense for Dany herself as she is eight generations apart from the last dragonriders in her with four non-Targaryen marriages in between. She is not that closely related to them.

The issue is with the Dance and the dragonseeds. It is strongly impied that in world they used the outcome to deduce the cause, meaning that they considered someone to have Targaryen ancestry because they were succesful in claiming a dragon without establishing an actual corelation independantly. It seems based on unproven assumption. This allows for an entirely different set of interpretations where a hereditary trait plays no part. We can't know one way or another with what Martin has written so far. We lack a reliable control sample.

9 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

My concern with all of this is that some people are willing to put no personal limitations on how much of the farce/cult/theater they will tolerate. Which basically gives carte blanche to the ruler to do whatever they want. That's why I mentioned the fear that the story is acting as a mirror to our own reality. It's showing us how people come to support tyrants. 

Among other things, yes. I don't see why that would be a problem in the context of a novel.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Literally agree with all of this. Personally I was using the term eugenics because others were and didn’t stop to consider its accuracy in the Asoiaf context, an error on my part as we don’t see population wide breeding programmes in George’s world, thank god.

I'd say that what would could call 'positive eugenics', i.e. doing your best to handle heriditary diseases, extend life expectancy, etc. isn't really bad. The problem is when you do not just encourage to go for such positive traits but dehumanize people who do not fit that bill.

But that's a completely separate question that has nothing to do with the books we talk about.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

And as for your point about being fine with characters and ideologies in the story that would be wrong or abhorrent irl, as a historian who specialises in early modern monarchy, mainly in England and France, I have read and written extensively so far about absolutist kings and queens who I find fascinating to study and satisfying to try and understand within their contexts. I also know for a fact I’d likely despise the lot of them if I met them.

Of course, those folks all would live in settings that are completely removed from our modern day thinking. George drew a lot of his 'kings can be good and bad thing' from the Plantagenet and late Capet kings (Philip the Fair and his sons, basically), but I think you can also do that with the late Bourbon kings, e.g. Louis XIV vs. Louis XVI, say - and Louis XV also seems to have been at best adequate, not exactly in the league of his great-grandfather.

But you also can draw some concepts from such settings for a discussion of those novels, most notably when people make the mistake of looking for patriotism or nationalism as political ideas when we should mostly view things as people being loyal to a specific dynasty or noble house, much less to a state, especially in those territories were a proper state was only developing very slowly, for instance in the Hapsburg lands.

Westeros basically has a very underdeveloped state, and loyalties are tribal - to your local lord, your regional great lord, etc. The Targaryen monarchy is a sort of unifying symbol, but the Realm they built is no proper state, although it seems that the king as such became a symbol for justice for all, against the whimsical and petty 'justice' the people can expect from their local lords.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Hmm, in that case I’m willing to amend my statement to skinchanging* and greensight are extremely recessive traits for first men in general that take many many generations to emerge, but I guess my only question would be that if not genetic then how do people have these abilities? It certainly isn’t something anyone can do because otherwise every would be trained as skinchangers.

Oh, the impression Bloodraven gives us in ADwD that it is just statistical fiat who inherits that gift. It might be a talent that just pops up arbitrarily. There is no need to construct a narrative of special bloodlines there.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

*I made the error of calling skinchanging warging. Correct me if I’m wrong but warging is I believe specifically skinchanging a wolf or direwolf.

Yes, but it is not that big of a mistake ;-).

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I actually meant to mention her hypocrisy here, given the appearance of her and Laenor/ Harwin’s three sons. And you’re right but Rhaenyra said this well not the dance and she said it in the present tense, meaning she was probably talking about Nettles’ appearance in general not being very Valyrian.

Yes, but the part of her nose being slit wouldn't go away after she washed or got some new clothes. The girl really didn't look the way a proper lady at court should like.

And if we discuss this, then Rhaenyra actually is less biased there than her own court. She is the one who wants 'proof' that the other bastard dragonriders are also 'evil'. Her 'great' advisers, those Manderlys among them, push her to make such preemptive arrests.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Fair enough with regard to your point about the other children not trying. I was trying to make the point that genetics are tricky even if you practice incest to maintain traits. And with the dragonseeds I agree, it seems Quentyn was just very unlucky then.

Oh, he may have had success with Viserion. It is not the dragon he tries to claim who moves against him, it is Rhaegal who he originally distracted with food ... and then forgot and ignored.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

That’s true actually, I wonder if they marked the skulls to tell whose was whose. Weren’t there 19 in total? I can’t remember, but depending on how many of the skulls were from dragons that died before the Targaryens moved to Dragonstone we could narrow down which dragons skulls are missing and which are accounted for. Plus there’s always the one in the red waste that Dany’s scout sees that was large enough to ride through.

I Vermax's remains are likely lost for good, Arrax's remains washed up on the shore. The other dragon remains all seem to be accounted for, so perhaps Sheepstealer's remains can be lost for good. But the others should eventually find their way to KL.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I think it’s highly suspect that eggs just stop hatching apparently during and after the dance with the exception of morning, who hatched in the Vale far away from any maesters or the war, and the deformed white monster born from little Laena’s egg. This would suggest the conspiracy to assist in the dragons extinction if it existed was started during the dance at the latest. Any later would be pointless, the eggs had apparently stopped hatching by themselves before the maesters decided to do anything and most of the dragons had already killed one another. But yes F&B II should shed some light on this issue and introduce competing ideas for us to either dismiss or run with.

During the Dance very few people tried to hatch eggs since they weren't all that keen on young new dragons. Their stupidity shows by them giving Rhaena eggs rather than encouraging her to mount Silverwing or Vermithor at the beginning of the war.

At the end, when Aegon II wanted those eggs, and then later there is some evidence. Rhaena's original dragon egg producing a broken dragon I'd not view as a sign that something was fishy there already, especially since the maester at that point would have been Gerardys who seems to have been very loyal to Rhaenyra.

12 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Well if Gyldane was an archmaester, and there was a conspiracy to kill off the dragons, he likely won’t mention that theory at all. It’d be interesting it he mentioned it but dismissed it as baseless rumour or preposterous allegations made by in his opinion ‘failed scholars’ (referencing Marwin).

I'd expect that if there was a conspiracy it had very few conspirators. Perhaps only Munkun and whatever maesters executed the design, i.e. then Maester Rowley and his teacher, Archmaester Sandeman, who would have researched ways to poison dragons back at the Citadel.

The bulk of the maesters may not have been informed ... out of fear that somebody would talk. Keep in mind that Vaegon Targaryen was an archmaester at the Citadel during the reign of Viserys I and we don't know when he died. He would have had friends and students among the new generation of maesters, and some of them may not have approved of a conspiracy to murder the dragons.

Also, keep in mind that the Hightowers run Oldtown, and while any of Alicent's children and grandchildren still were dragonrider or could become dragonriders they would be very, very pissed if their realized their own Citadel was plotting to take that power away from the Hightower-Targaryen cadet branch.

In that sense, this must have been a rather secret conspiracy they most likely only started to entertain after Lord Ormund Hightower was dead.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course, those folks all would live in settings that are completely removed from our modern day thinking. George drew a lot of his 'kings can be good and bad thing' from the Plantagenet and late Capet kings (Philip the Fair and his sons, basically), but I think you can also do that with the late Bourbon kings, e.g. Louis XIV vs. Louis XVI, say - and Louis XV also seems to have been at best adequate, not exactly in the league of his great-grandfather.

But you also can draw some concepts from such settings for a discussion of those novels, most notably when people make the mistake of looking for patriotism or nationalism as political ideas when we should mostly view things as people being loyal to a specific dynasty or noble house, much less to a state, especially in those territories were a proper state was only developing very slowly, for instance in the Hapsburg lands.

Westeros basically has a very underdeveloped state, and loyalties are tribal - to your local lord, your regional great lord, etc. The Targaryen monarchy is a sort of unifying symbol, but the Realm they built is no proper state, although it seems that the king as such became a symbol for justice for all, against the whimsical and petty 'justice' the people can expect from their local lords.

The Bourbon kings were exactly the example I was thinking of. But the Targaryen and Westeros kings of Westeros in general are more fraudulent like the Merovingian kings. They never centralise power and directly oversee the running of all seven kingdoms as a single realm. Louis XIV was an absolutist king because he really did pull all channels of power to himself in Versailles, but the Targaryen kings don’t do this because they arguably don’t need to. They can have a laid back, less direct rule because they have dragons so can win any wars and put down any rebellions regardless. 

I agree, Westeros is not a centralised state. The key for Louis XIV and to some extent Louis XV and Louis XVI was that they had control over the nobility at Versailles. France was made up of estates run by these nobles. If the king was the source of all wealth and good fortune for the nobles then all of France depended on him too. We never see any Westeros kings exercise this level of control or power.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the impression Bloodraven gives us in ADwD that it is just statistical fiat who inherits that gift. It might be a talent that just pops up arbitrarily. There is no need to construct a narrative of special bloodlines there.

Yes, but the part of her nose being slit wouldn't go away after she washed or got some new clothes. The girl really didn't look the way a proper lady at court should like.

And if we discuss this, then Rhaenyra actually is less biased there than her own court. She is the one who wants 'proof' that the other bastard dragonriders are also 'evil'. Her 'great' advisers, those Manderlys among them, push her to make such preemptive arrests.

Oh, he may have had success with Viserion. It is not the dragon he tries to claim who moves against him, it is Rhaegal who he originally distracted with food ... and then forgot and ignored.

I Vermax's remains are likely lost for good, Arrax's remains washed up on the shore. The other dragon remains all seem to be accounted for, so perhaps Sheepstealer's remains can be lost for good. But the others should eventually find their way to KL.

Fair enough, I haven’t really read enough about skinchanging and greensight in the series yet anyway so I concede.

And ah ok interesting, either way it’s a shame Addam wasn’t commended for his loyalty. Nettles hadn’t betrayed Rhaenyra in terms of joining the greens, she’d just started sleeping with Daemon, which was possibly worse for Rhaenyra hence her spiteful reaction and accusations.

Oh yes you’re right there, it’s a shame really, Quentyn taming Viserion would have been useful for Dany as long as he’d remained loyal. But indeed he could have succeeded, although Rhaegal killing him does again possibly disprove that he had any success with Viserion because if he inherited the ability to tame dragons, as you argue Brown Ben has, wouldn’t the dragons like him?

And agreed. Maybe the red waste skeleton and skull were Sheepstealer? Who knows.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

During the Dance very few people tried to hatch eggs since they weren't all that keen on young new dragons. Their stupidity shows by them giving Rhaena eggs rather than encouraging her to mount Silverwing or Vermithor at the beginning of the war.

At the end, when Aegon II wanted those eggs, and then later there is some evidence. Rhaena's original dragon egg producing a broken dragon I'd not view as a sign that something was fishy there already, especially since the maester at that point would have been Gerardys who seems to have been very loyal to Rhaenyra.

I'd expect that if there was a conspiracy it had very few conspirators. Perhaps only Munkun and whatever maesters executed the design, i.e. then Maester Rowley and his teacher, Archmaester Sandeman, who would have researched ways to poison dragons back at the Citadel.

The bulk of the maesters may not have been informed ... out of fear that somebody would talk. Keep in mind that Vaegon Targaryen was an archmaester at the Citadel during the reign of Viserys I and we don't know when he died. He would have had friends and students among the new generation of maesters, and some of them may not have approved of a conspiracy to murder the dragons.

Also, keep in mind that the Hightowers run Oldtown, and while any of Alicent's children and grandchildren still were dragonrider or could become dragonriders they would be very, very pissed if their realized their own Citadel was plotting to take that power away from the Hightower-Targaryen cadet branch.

In that sense, this must have been a rather secret conspiracy they most likely only started to entertain after Lord Ormund Hightower was dead.

Yes, it’s weird Rhaena seems determined to have a hatchling as opposed to a grown dragon that will still be accustomed to people and therefore easier to tame, like Vermithor or Silverwing. Not to mention the symbolism of riding one of the dragons of the two most beloved Targaryen rulers in Westeros.

I agree that it must have been a tight- knit conspiracy. Too risky if not.

And if your theory that Rhaena’s first broken dragon wasnt poisoning, which I’m ready to accept, we could explore the idea that something ELSE was happening to the eggs and hatchlings. Maybe the Targaryen dragons themselves were suffering from the side effects of excessive inbreeding? Maybe Rhaena’s first dragon and little Laena’s white wyrm were results of a genetic crisis the dragons were experiencing due to a very small gene pool. It’s not impossible this was the case and the characters in the story who blame the maesters do so because they don’t understand dragon biology (I mean do any of us) and never considered the negative impact of dragon inbreeding. 

I posit that if having Targaryen or dragonlord blood allows you to tame any dragon, then it’s possible that in old Valyria dragons actually mixed and reproduced with other dragons belonging to riders from loads of different families with lots of genetic variation. Maybe allied dragonlord families even encouraged this to keep the gene pool varied and get more preferable results, larger dragons, more impressive colours etc. But because all dragons died in the doom or shortly after barring only the 5 belonging to house Targaryen, the Targaryens just kept breeding their dragons with each other with no other option, and this would have disastrous consequences that no one considered or foresaw until it happened during and after the dance.

[Lord Varys]

17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

My concern with all of this is that some people are willing to put no personal limitations on how much of the farce/cult/theater they will tolerate. Which basically gives carte blanche to the ruler to do whatever they want. That's why I mentioned the fear that the story is acting as a mirror to our own reality. It's showing us how people come to support tyrants. 

That is just stuff in your own head. I mean, if you look at who has some kind of cult of personality it is Robb Stark whose sycophants put a crown on his stupid head and declared him their 'Young Wolf' super guy ... leading to him to make one lofty, solitary, stupid decision after another until he got himself. Or take Stannis who has his sorceress-mistress declare him some prophesied savior to exploit religious devotion for his own petty ends.

If you would actually look at the text in Daenerys' example then the people who actually are devoted to her are actually people who owe her a lot. They were freed from slavery by her. They don't follow her because honor or the law or the dragons or greed or religion demand it - but because they want to. Because they are grateful for what she did to them.

And once she tries to make peace with the Meereenese slaver scum they actually do not like that all that much.

But, in any case, monarchies do allow the monarchs to pretty much do whatever the hell they want without little to no oversight. If you want a different political system, I'm sure there are such systems depicted in other novels ... although not all that many fantasy novels.

7 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

The idea of trying to apply actual genetics is kind of iffy, particularly after the Baratheon supergene. Nor do they make much sense for Dany herself as she is eight generations apart from the last dragonriders in her with four non-Targaryen marriages in between. She is not that closely related to them.

That doesn't really work all that well, although there is actually no reason to make construct Dany a particularly 'pure-blooded' Targaryen. She proved who and what she is when she hatched the eggs. Obviously she did have what it took to pull this off - something no other Targaryen could do and quite a few tried to hatch dragon eggs in the past.

And it also makes no sense to assume that the Targaryens of the dragon days were particularly 'pure-blooded' compared to the Valyrians of old, etc. These people do prefer sibling incest when possible, but it is not always possible, and there may have been about as many or more marriages outside the (immediate) family on Dragonstone and back in Valyria then there were during the Targaryen reign after the Conquest.

7 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

The issue is with the Dance and the dragonseeds. It is strongly impied that in world they used the outcome to deduce the cause, meaning that they considered someone to have Targaryen ancestry because they were succesful in claiming a dragon without establishing an actual corelation independantly. It seems based on unproven assumption. This allows for an entirely different set of interpretations where a hereditary trait plays no part. We can't know one way or another with what Martin has written so far. We lack a reliable control sample.

No, this is just not the case. We do have traditional Valyrian knowledge that the bloodline has to be kept pure. We do know that this goes back to the dragonlords and is something they started to do after they had their dragons. There are reasons why they came up with this, and while we don't know those reasons, questioning them is about the same as questioning other information about magic and stuff in Martinworld. This people built the greatest civilization in this world and could do a lot of crazy shit. They would have known why the hell they started banging their sisters. They are not primitive, superstitious savages - like most Westerosiare - but rather cultured and educated fellows who brought what counts as magical science to its peak.

Dismissing the idea that the traditional explanation/rationale for the Valyrian incest is nonsense is about in the same ballpark as doubting the gist of Old Nan's take on the Others.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

The Bourbon kings were exactly the example I was thinking of. But the Targaryen and Westeros kings of Westeros in general are more fraudulent like the Merovingian kings. They never centralise power and directly oversee the running of all seven kingdoms as a single realm. Louis XIV was an absolutist king because he really did pull all channels of power to himself in Versailles, but the Targaryen kings don’t do this because they arguably don’t need to. They can have a laid back, less direct rule because they have dragons so can win any wars and put down any rebellions regardless. 

I agree, Westeros is not a centralised state. The key for Louis XIV and to some extent Louis XV and Louis XVI was that they had control over the nobility at Versailles. France was made up of estates run by these nobles. If the king was the source of all wealth and good fortune for the nobles then all of France depended on him too. We never see any Westeros kings exercise this level of control or power.

How exactly one can classify the political system of Westeros is pretty difficult. The lack of a proper royal bureaucracy to really challenge the powers of the lords or supervise them (like sheriffs or justices) should make the system - especially due to the vast size of the continent - more like the Holy Roman Empire with the various great lords pretty much being (pretty much) independent petty kings in their own domains.

But that clearly isn't the case when we get Ned and Cat actually fear Robert's wrath in AGoT, causing him to accept his offer to become Hand, etc.

Thus Westeros is more like an absolutist monarchy in the sense that there are no limits to the powers of the king - there is no parliament-like institution, no guaranteed rights to the nobility and smallfolk, no traditional rights of the most powerful lords of the Realm to a mandatory seat on the council, etc. At the same time, the lords of Westeros seem to be fine with their king commanding them. They do not behave like real world medieval nobilities who did everything in their power to weaken the power of the monarch whenever they could.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

And ah ok interesting, either way it’s a shame Addam wasn’t commended for his loyalty. Nettles hadn’t betrayed Rhaenyra in terms of joining the greens, she’d just started sleeping with Daemon, which was possibly worse for Rhaenyra hence her spiteful reaction and accusations.

Oh, I'm not sure Nettles ever slept with Daemon, I read the whole thing as him belatedly realizing that he is her father and he tries to make up for the time he missed ... and the shit she had to go through on the street. There is a tenderness there that doesn't have anything to do with romantic love and sexual desire, and the gifts he apparently gave her also seem more likely clumsy gifts to apologize to a daughter you (knowingly/unknowlingly) through into the gutter than like attempts to woo her.

But Rhaenyra certainly is led to believe that they have an affair. And she cannot have that. Why Mysaria does that also is sort of implied ... when we look back at Mysaria losing her child by Daemon when he sends her back to Lys early during the reign of Viserys I. If she realized that Daemon had fathered a living bastard on some other whore and was now preferring this girl to her ... she may not have taken well to that.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Oh yes you’re right there, it’s a shame really, Quentyn taming Viserion would have been useful for Dany as long as he’d remained loyal. But indeed he could have succeeded, although Rhaegal killing him does again possibly disprove that he had any success with Viserion because if he inherited the ability to tame dragons, as you argue Brown Ben has, wouldn’t the dragons like him?

The dragons just saw him like two times. And both in settings where they were both somewhat pissed considering they had been imprisoned. Ben visited Dany and the dragons when they were still free, thriving and not yet as big and wild.

And we don't should fool ourselves into believing that dragons want to acquire riders. They do accept them, but there is a test involved there.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

And agreed. Maybe the red waste skeleton and skull were Sheepstealer? Who knows.

Oh, that's most likely a Valyrian dragon from ages past.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Yes, it’s weird Rhaena seems determined to have a hatchling as opposed to a grown dragon that will still be accustomed to people and therefore easier to tame, like Vermithor or Silverwing. Not to mention the symbolism of riding one of the dragons of the two most beloved Targaryen rulers in Westeros.

Yes, they are somewhat stupid there.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

And if your theory that Rhaena’s first broken dragon wasnt poisoning, which I’m ready to accept, we could explore the idea that something ELSE was happening to the eggs and hatchlings. Maybe the Targaryen dragons themselves were suffering from the side effects of excessive inbreeding? Maybe Rhaena’s first dragon and little Laena’s white wyrm were results of a genetic crisis the dragons were experiencing due to a very small gene pool. It’s not impossible this was the case and the characters in the story who blame the maesters do so because they don’t understand dragon biology (I mean do any of us) and never considered the negative impact of dragon inbreeding. 

Oh, I don't know. I think one just can with the assumption that dragons can get sick like everybody else. There is some symbolism there that Rhaena originally doesn't get a dragon and Viserys' egg never hatches, but Aegon II's children all get their dragons, so clearly there was no coordinated effort there to kill the dragons yet.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

How exactly one can classify the political system of Westeros is pretty difficult. The lack of a proper royal bureaucracy to really challenge the powers of the lords or supervise them (like sheriffs or justices) should make the system - especially due to the vast size of the continent - more like the Holy Roman Empire with the various great lords pretty much being (pretty much) independent petty kings in their own domains.

But that clearly isn't the case when we get Ned and Cat actually fear Robert's wrath in AGoT, causing him to accept his offer to become Hand, etc.

Thus Westeros is more like an absolutist monarchy in the sense that there are no limits to the powers of the king - there is no parliament-like institution, no guaranteed rights to the nobility and smallfolk, no traditional rights of the most powerful lords of the Realm to a mandatory seat on the council, etc. At the same time, the lords of Westeros seem to be fine with their king commanding them. They do not behave like real world medieval nobilities who did everything in their power to weaken the power of the monarch whenever they could.

This is why proof reading is important, I typed ‘Feudal’ and it changed to ‘fraudulent’, which makes it sound like I’m calling the Targaryens and Merovingians frauds XD. I agree the Targaryens could be considered more powerful because there is no parliament but the point I was making is that they aren’t absolutist because as long as they sit on a throne in kings landing they are happy for each other the seven (or in this period, 6) kingdoms to self govern. F&B suggests Aegon letting each kingdom keep its laws, customs and culture was a wise move in terms of public relations and this may be true but it certainly prevented him from being absolutist. The Targaryens are feudal kings because the common folk owe loyalty and money to their lords, and the lords owe loyalty and pay tribute to the king. Other than this, the 7 kingdoms are basically independent. If Aegon had introduced a single religion, a single culture and a single set of laws for the whole realm and then made all the current lords and ministerial staff move to kings landing for most of the year to pay homage and seek favour and reward, he would have centralised his power and created a state. The Targaryens would be an absolutist regime. Instead they are feudal, but this really works better in the story and medieval tone anyway as absolutism was more early modern Europe and Westeros and Essos aren't at that point in their chronology yet. They’re more late medieval in setting.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I'm not sure Nettles ever slept with Daemon, I read the whole thing as him belatedly realizing that he is her father and he tries to make up for the time he missed ... and the shit she had to go through on the street. There is a tenderness there that doesn't have anything to do with romantic love and sexual desire, and the gifts he apparently gave her also seem more likely clumsy gifts to apologize to a daughter you (knowingly/unknowlingly) through into the gutter than like attempts to woo her.

But Rhaenyra certainly is led to believe that they have an affair. And she cannot have that. Why Mysaria does that also is sort of implied ... when we look back at Mysaria losing her child by Daemon when he sends her back to Lys early during the reign of Viserys I. If she realized that Daemon had fathered a living bastard on some other whore and was now preferring this girl to her ... she may not have taken well to that.

This is why I need to re read. I vaguely remember Daemon and Nettles’ relationship being odd in that respect so yes it’s perfectly possible shes his daughter. I also remember Mysaria was the mistress he gave an egg to but had to take back. Other than that I don’t remember, did she tell Rhaenyra about Daemon and Nettles? Sorry that just seems to be what you’re implying.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The dragons just saw him like two times. And both in settings where they were both somewhat pissed considering they had been imprisoned. Ben visited Dany and the dragons when they were still free, thriving and not yet as big and wild.

And we don't should fool ourselves into believing that dragons want to acquire riders. They do accept them, but there is a test involved there.

Ah ok true, the dragons own personality and view of people should be considered too. If you have Targaryen blood they may be more likely to like you, but if they’re more wild or unhappy then you’re still at risk. I always forget George said he intended for dragon taming to be a ‘perilous process’ so there is room for circumstances to work against even people with Targaryen blood.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I don't know. I think one just can with the assumption that dragons can get sick like everybody else. There is some symbolism there that Rhaena originally doesn't get a dragon and Viserys' egg never hatches, but Aegon II's children all get their dragons, so clearly there was no coordinated effort there to kill the dragons yet.

Maybe they can but the fact that maester Gyldane in F&B goes into such detail about little Laena’s monstrosity is odd if such a thing was unknown to happen before. It’s also a hell of a coincidence if Viserys’ egg didn’t hatch AND Rhaena’s first dragon was born sickly and broken all around the same time. I feel like if this was just illness that dragons were prone to it wouldn’t have been mentioned or made such a big deal of. Viserys egg not hatching was odd enough that many thought it a bad omen. And true Jaehaerys and Jaehaera’s eggs hatched and so did Aegon III’s but maybe the conspiracy was already in place and they just hadn’t got around to poisoning many eggs or hatchlings yet, so Rhaena Viserys and Laena were all just unlucky that they got poisoned eggs.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

This is why proof reading is important, I typed ‘Feudal’ and it changed to ‘fraudulent’, which makes it sound like I’m calling the Targaryens and Merovingians frauds XD. I agree the Targaryens could be considered more powerful because there is no parliament but the point I was making is that they aren’t absolutist because as long as they sit on a throne in kings landing they are happy for each other the seven (or in this period, 6) kingdoms to self govern. F&B suggests Aegon letting each kingdom keep its laws, customs and culture was a wise move in terms of public relations and this may be true but it certainly prevented him from being absolutist. The Targaryens are feudal kings because the common folk owe loyalty and money to their lords, and the lords owe loyalty and pay tribute to the king. Other than this, the 7 kingdoms are basically independent. If Aegon had introduced a single religion, a single culture and a single set of laws for the whole realm and then made all the current lords and ministerial staff move to kings landing for most of the year to pay homage and seek favour and reward, he would have centralised his power and created a state. The Targaryens would be an absolutist regime. Instead they are feudal, but this really works better in the story and medieval tone anyway as absolutism was more early modern Europe and Westeros and Essos aren't at that point in their chronology yet. They’re more late medieval in setting.

It took some time to build the Targaryen Realm since it fell to Jaehaerys I to unify the laws - afterwards we can say that even if anyone ever split from the Realm they would never go back to how things once were because they would continue to go with established and codified Targaryen law. (Dorne aside which always kept its own laws and thus is more like state under the dominion of the Iron Throne than part of the Realm proper.)

The reason why I think Westeros isn't really all that much a feudal monarchy as we know them from history is that the kings really don't have to fear the lords as a collective power bloc. There never were any rebellions by the lords to curtail or weaken the authority of the king (even the lords challenging Aegon V fought back against his reforms which were taking away privileges from them, not to weaken the monarchy as an institution) unless some royal pretender was leading the rebellion.

Even as weak and ineffective a king as Robert can just take the Wardenship of the East from Robert Arryn and hand it to Jaime Lannister.

And as we learn more about the wars in the Targaryen era the lords usually do answer when the king demands them to raise armies. They are not dependent on the great lords for this, but can and do successfully call upon local lords directly. Maegor raised large armies without ever bothering with the great houses, Bloodraven crushed Daemon II without a great house participating, and even during the Dance the lords of the Reach and the Riverlands didn't need the Tullys or Tyrells to declare for Rhaenyra or Aegon II. Even the Mad King could rely on Vale lords and Stormlords to raise their banners in his name to try and stop Robert's Rebellion.

22 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

This is why I need to re read. I vaguely remember Daemon and Nettles’ relationship being odd in that respect so yes it’s perfectly possible shes his daughter. I also remember Mysaria was the mistress he gave an egg to but had to take back. Other than that I don’t remember, did she tell Rhaenyra about Daemon and Nettles? Sorry that just seems to be what you’re implying.

Rhaenyra calls upon Mysaria to inform her about Nettles before she makes her final decision, and Mysaria then claims that she has proof that Nettles has betrayed Rhaenyra already by seducing Daemon. We also later have Daemon imply that he knows Mysaria is the one behind Rhaenyra's order.

22 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Ah ok true, the dragons own personality and view of people should be considered too. If you have Targaryen blood they may be more likely to like you, but if they’re more wild or unhappy then you’re still at risk. I always forget George said he intended for dragon taming to be a ‘perilous process’ so there is room for circumstances to work against even people with Targaryen blood.

Yes, that kind of thing is very much established in the books now, too. But we also know it is much more easier if you bond with your future dragon when it is still a hatchling. And apparently the whole 'dragon from an egg in the cradle' thing ensured that there would be no problems. But things like Maegor and Aerea claiming Balerion, Aemond claiming Vhagar, dragonseeds claiming wild dragons, etc. certainly were dangerous to a point.

22 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Maybe they can but the fact that maester Gyldane in F&B goes into such detail about little Laena’s monstrosity is odd if such a thing was unknown to happen before. It’s also a hell of a coincidence if Viserys’ egg didn’t hatch AND Rhaena’s first dragon was born sickly and broken all around the same time. I feel like if this was just illness that dragons were prone to it wouldn’t have been mentioned or made such a big deal of. Viserys egg not hatching was odd enough that many thought it a bad omen. And true Jaehaerys and Jaehaera’s eggs hatched and so did Aegon III’s but maybe the conspiracy was already in place and they just hadn’t got around to poisoning many eggs or hatchlings yet, so Rhaena Viserys and Laena were all just unlucky that they got poisoned eggs.

Oh, but it wouldn't have happened at the same time, one imagines. We don't know when the twins were given their eggs, but if they got some when their parents returned from Pentos then it would have been before Daemon's sons by Rhaenyra were even born. Viserys II would have gotten his egg in the 120s, shortly before Aegon II's twins got theirs ... and the latter eggs hatched, while the former didn't.

[Daeron the Daring]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, that kind of thing is very much established in the books now, too. But we also know it is much more easier if you bond with your future dragon when it is still a hatchling. And apparently the whole 'dragon from an egg in the cradle' thing ensured that there would be no problems. But things like Maegor and Aerea claiming Balerion, Aemond claiming Vhagar, dragonseeds claiming wild dragons, etc. certainly were dangerous to a point.

Also, you can't really imagine a 6-7 or even 10-11 year old kid approaching a massive beast. Getting hatchlings instead was a very comfortable choice compared to bonding with a grown dragon.

At the age of 10, Aemond (who was willfull and pretty bold) was already forced to get himself a dragon by his father. He also knew that he wasn't even allowed to approach such big dragons as Vhagar. Probably neither Silverwing and Vermithor, even if these two were seen as more peaceful than the old Vhagar. 

But if once he decided to go big, he might have taught to go for the biggest.

Laena, who rode Vhagar first at the age of 12, was also described as willful and brave. His brother, however, chose to get a hatchling instead, Seasmoke.

Considering that Vhagar accepted Laena and Aemond at a young age, shows us that he wasn't as dangerous as some taught, or that accepting a third or a fourth rider also comes easier than even a second one (which would be the case with Vermithor or Silverwing). 

Then, since Baelon bonded with Vhagar in 73AC, Vhagar mostly always had a rider since then. Vermithor and Silverwing weren't touched since the death of Alysanne and Jaehaerys.

And at last, Vhagar was at an old age, 172 years old the time Aemond began to rode him/her, and probably started to turn into Balerion2, becoming a sleepy, lazy dragon, just as Balerion did before.