Jump to content
Daeron the Daring

Why I think (f)Aegon has the blood to ride a Targaryen dragon.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

fine, he could have. But Daemon was different from the girls. He behaved as if Daemon was his heir and took quite a bit of interest. There is no indication he was similarly involved with the girls. You are simply speculating on this.

I'm not really speculating, I'm pointing out possibilities you overlooked. And I'm not really even convinced that Bloodraven's sisters were married. Them being bastards could have meant that no nobleman - own family included - wanted them.

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Bastards are not the same. Even legitimized ones. But having the blood of the dragon as part of the main Blackwood family line was priceless given how rare the Targaryens made it, and only would have happened via an actual marriage transforming a bastard girl into the lady of their House. Which is why Mya and Gwenys were more valuable as marriage candidates to some families than others. Baratheons did not need this kind of boost having already deep ties to the royal House, and would have seen such a match as beneath them. But for the Blackwoods it was key to getting a leg up over the Brackens. After all, these girls did not come with lands of their own. They had no seat to offer a second Baratheon son or similar.

A second son cannot really expect to marry an heiress. They are exceedingly rare, anyway. And, actually, the Baratheons were not exactly in high standing with the Iron Throne since the role of Borros Baratheon in the Dance of the Dragons. Keep in mind that Viserys II and Aegon IV are the son and grandson of Rhaenyra Targaryen. Viserys II wouldn't have forgotten how the Baratheons treated his half-brother Lucerys and how Borros Baratheon tried to defeat the Blacks on the Kingsroad in the last battle of the war. TWoIaF even mentions that it took the Baratheons quite a while to regain the position they had before the Dance.

A Blackwood-Targaryen bastard marrying into House Baratheon could have helped reestablish ties between the Iron Throne and Storm's End as well as establish ties between the Riverlands and Storm's End - the Blackwoods fought against the Baratheons back on the Kingsroad, after all.

And I'm not sure why you are arguing against me here - we do have two Blackwood-Targaryen girls here. Mya could have married the Baratheon fellow I'm suggesting and Gwenys could have married somebody else. I find it unlikely she would have married a Blackwood cousin but I never said it would be impossible. I just explained why I think this is unlikely.

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Without reintegration into the family the girls were a link, yes, but that link would have ended with them. House Blackwood only got future benefit from it with reintegration.

They would have gotten the blood with that ... but not further ties. If, for instance, the Mya and Gwenys didn't really have any close ties with the Iron Throne (because Daeron II and his sons didn't care about them as they cared about Bloodraven) then children from such a union wouldn't have had any special ties, either.

Overall, Bloodraven alone is more than enough to ensure sufficient patronage for the Blackwoods.

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

We can even speculate that a great bastard marrying into House Blackwood and her sister making another advantageous match for House Blackwood was a motivating factor (of course not the only factor) in Aegor Rivers getting involved with the Blackfyres. He had no sisters and could not himself help House Bracken much via marriage, but if he was a primary supporter of a rival king and that King won, the rewards would have been spectacular and given them the advantage once again over the Blackwoods. It was the only way basically for him to get a similarly advantageous marriage - with Shiera of course clearly not making herself a candidate.

That would add another unnecessary layer to Bittersteel's motivations. Bittersteel had problems with how he and his family were treated by Aegon IV and Daeron II, Bittersteel had problems with Bloodraven due to the Bracken-Blackwood feud, Bittersteel was vying with Bloodraven for the attention and affection of Shiera Seastar and he lost. He really doesn't need another reason to loathe Bloodraven and the Blackwoods.

Daemon Blackfyre offered Bittersteel his daughter Calla, so he had a rather prestigious marriage prospect - which he may or may not have gone through with - one that was much more prestigious technically than a fellow royal bastard. Calla Blackfyre was not born on the wrong side of the blanket, after all.

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Lannisters may have become more Andal than First Men over time but they do trace back. There is no indication that the Stark or Lannister cousin marriages were a problem. Baratheons married cousins as well. You have no grounds at all for saying cousin marriages were frowned upon.

I'm not saying that cousin marriages were frowned upon. I'm saying cousin marriages make more sense when you are a family protecting assets and keeping the family together - defending what they have, basically - than it would be if you are in an eternal feud with your neighbors and have to keep ahead of them in the marriage alliances game.

I'm not saying the Blackwoods would not marry cousins, I'm saying they are more likely to marry cousins through the female line who are actually part of another house because that way they would not only be Blackwoods but also bring in ties to another house.

For instance, I also like the idea that one of Lyonel Hightower's sons or grandsons ended up marrying one of Rhaena and Garmund's girls - because the Hightowers are a very large family who might marry their own cousins often enough - and that specific cousin there would also give introduce the blood of the dragon into the main branch of the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A second son cannot really expect to marry an heiress. They are exceedingly rare, anyway. And, actually, the Baratheons were not exactly in high standing with the Iron Throne since the role of Borros Baratheon in the Dance of the Dragons. Keep in mind that Viserys II and Aegon IV are the son and grandson of Rhaenyra Targaryen. Viserys II wouldn't have forgotten how the Baratheons treated his half-brother Lucerys and how Borros Baratheon tried to defeat the Blacks on the Kingsroad in the last battle of the war. TWoIaF even mentions that it took the Baratheons quite a while to regain the position they had before the Dance.

A Blackwood-Targaryen bastard marrying into House Baratheon could have helped reestablish ties between the Iron Throne and Storm's End as well as establish ties between the Riverlands and Storm's End - the Blackwoods fought against the Baratheons back on the Kingsroad, after all.

I do understand what you are saying, I just think the House Velaryon, House Penrose route is the more likely one for the Baratheons. As we have agreed, Laena may not have been the only child of Alyn and Baela and even if she was, Elaena's daughters were the right age to be factors vis a vis the Baratheons. So given that Elaena appears to have remained loyal to the crown during her years as a Penrose, one of her daughters being betrothed to a Baratheon would have been good insurance for keeping the Baratheons loyal, and of higher value to the Baratheons as a match than legitimized bastards would have been.

As for heiresses and second sons - certainly while they are rare they are the goal. It helps both ways: It gives the house of the lady in question better ties to their liege lord and it gives the second sons a more modest but respectable base of their own. I am not talking of course about heiresses of major houses. It is the minor houses within the territory of the older brother that are the most desireable.

Share this post


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

I do understand what you are saying, I just think the House Velaryon, House Penrose route is the more likely one for the Baratheons. As we have agreed, Laena may not have been the only child of Alyn and Baela and even if she was, Elaena's daughters were the right age to be factors vis a vis the Baratheons. So given that Elaena appears to have remained loyal to the crown during her years as a Penrose, one of her daughters being betrothed to a Baratheon would have been good insurance for keeping the Baratheons loyal, and of higher value to the Baratheons as a match than legitimized bastards would have been.

Of course, I might not have been clear. I also like the idea of one of Elaena's girls marrying into House Baratheon. This is definitely possible and not exactly unlikely. I was coming from the point of definitely trying to make sense of Renly's talk about 'elder daughters and second sons'.

While Laena and Jocelyn Penrose would both qualify as 'elder daughters', they are, technically, not Targaryens. Mya Rivers technically became a Targaryen when she was legitimized, even if she - like Bloodraven - never went by that name. And in that sense she works better in that context than Laena or Jocelyn Penrose would.

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

As for heiresses and second sons - certainly while they are rare they are the goal. It helps both ways: It gives the house of the lady in question better ties to their liege lord and it gives the second sons a more modest but respectable base of their own. I am not talking of course about heiresses of major houses. It is the minor houses within the territory of the older brother that are the most desireable.

No objection there. My point just were that a second son of House Baratheon would easily be good enough for a legitimized Targaryen bastard of high birth. Especially at a time when the Baratheons were still trying to regain their influence with the Iron Throne.

It is noteworthy in all that that so far we have no indication that the Baratheons played a big role during Daeron's Conquest. Could turn out that Royce Baratheon played a big role there ... but so far there is nothing about that. Might very well be that the Young Dragon and his Hand deliberately sidelined the Baratheons there and worked directly with the Marcher Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was coming from the point of definitely trying to make sense of Renly's talk about 'elder daughters and second sons'.

It is a bit of a puzzle, yes. Laena would fit it seems. I also wonder if there is any place for Daena in that - she was not the oldest child but was the eldest daughter of Aegon III and we don't know where she ended up.

I don't know how literal the female line thing needs to be. Chains of mothers are hard to track and maybe it doesn't need to be so strict - sometimes males, sometimes females. But if we assume that Dany is the real deal for dragon bloo, which is hard to dispute, then either a bit of dilution here or there was not important, or Betha had some dragon blood to pass on, or Dany is not who she and we believes herself to be.

Share this post


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

It is a bit of a puzzle, yes. Laena would fit it seems. I also wonder if there is any place for Daena in that - she was not the oldest child but was the eldest daughter of Aegon III and we don't know where she ended up.

We know she died early, so she may have never married again after Baelor set her aside ... but if she lived a couple of years after she got out of the Maidenvault she should have married somebody.

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I don't know how literal the female line thing needs to be. Chains of mothers are hard to track and maybe it doesn't need to be so strict - sometimes males, sometimes females. But if we assume that Dany is the real deal for dragon bloo, which is hard to dispute, then either a bit of dilution here or there was not important, or Betha had some dragon blood to pass on, or Dany is not who she and we believes herself to be.

Oh, I don't think the female line matters in that at all. If it did, George would have cared more about the female line in the books - which he rarely does, even with key characters. Remember that Ned's mother is nowhere in the crypts despite the fact that she was a born Stark. She should be right there next to Lya and Brandon and Rickard (although without her likeness) but Ned doesn't even think of her when he visits the crypts.

With the Targaryens the best guess is that Jaehaerys II and Shaera inherited a very undiluted strain of the blood of the dragon - which might be hinted at by Jaehaerys II's illnesses and crippled hand - which was then passed on to their children and grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know she died early, so she may have never married again after Baelor set her aside ... but if she lived a couple of years after she got out of the Maidenvault she should have married somebody.

She was probably called the "defiant" for a reason.  It's very possible that she had no interest in entering into a marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

She was probably called the "defiant" for a reason.  It's very possible that she had no interest in entering into a marriage.

She got that nickname because she refused to reveal the name of the father of her bastard ... not because she refused to marry.

Remember, she did not want her brother-husband King Baelor to set her aside, in fact, she even tried to shame him into consummating his marriage.

And thinking about it right now, there is even a chance she might be the mother of one of the brides of the sons of Daeron II. Daemon Blackfyre was born in the same year as Baelor Breakspear, meaning the brides of Baelor's younger brothers were likely also born in the early 170s.

The idea that as unchaste a woman as Daena would be allowed to remain unwed is also pretty far-fetched. Getting her a husband would mean a firm male hand could control her lust and prevent her from further embarrassing the royal family. If they allowed her to remain unwed she could basically do whatever she wanted. Not to mention that not picking a husband for her would mean she could pick one herself ... like her aunt Baela did. Considering the strength of her claim her doing something like that could cause considerable problems for the Iron Throne.

My guess is that a good first take on Daena's marriage prospects after she got out of the Maidenvault would be King Viserys II himself. That way he could ensure neither she nor her children become a problem later. It would also provide him with a queen. Something like that may have fallen through because Viserys II didn't live that long.

Afterwards her fate would have been decided by Aegon IV - and since he found a husband for his cousin Elaena he should also have been able to find a husband for Daena.

Share this post


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

Oh, I don't think the female line matters in that at all. If it did, George would have cared more about the female line in the books - which he rarely does, even with key characters.

It's hard enough to make family trees for every major house, without having to follow every branch that does not matter for purposes of succession.  But I'm sure GRRM is aware that matrilinear descent is just as capable of passing "dragon blood" as patrilinear lines, and it is quite possible that this will matter in some cases.  Theorists, at any rate, need not rule out the possibility.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Remember that Ned's mother is nowhere in the crypts despite the fact that she was a born Stark. She should be right there next to Lya and Brandon and Rickard (although without her likeness) but Ned doesn't even think of her when he visits the crypts.

Well, you can't mention everybody.  But Lady Stark being Family by blood as well as marriage might matter; just as it matters with Joanna Lannister.  Aerys like to fool around with wives of nobles; and in this context, having the family look does not guarantee that it came from Dad.

 

Share this post


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

It's hard enough to make family trees for every major house, without having to follow every branch that does not matter for purposes of succession.  But I'm sure GRRM is aware that matrilinear descent is just as capable of passing "dragon blood" as patrilinear lines, and it is quite possible that this will matter in some cases.  Theorists, at any rate, need not rule out the possibility.

Oh, of course, the dragon blood goes down the female line as well. I just don't think the author thinks it crucial for Daenerys, say, that she inherited Targaryen blood both through the male and the female line.

If that were the case the Targaryen women would have featured much more prominently in the main series. Remember, even the female link between the Baratheons and the Targaryens was only revealed in AFfC when we learned about Rhaelle Targaryen being Stannis' grandmother.

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well, you can't mention everybody.  But Lady Stark being Family by blood as well as marriage might matter; just as it matters with Joanna Lannister.  Aerys like to fool around with wives of nobles; and in this context, having the family look does not guarantee that it came from Dad.

Oh, George does have his important female characters. Joanna and Tywin marrying a cousin was there from the start. Ned's mother wasn't that important ... and aside from the names we don't know anything about Cassana Estermont or Minisa Whent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, of course, the dragon blood goes down the female line as well. I just don't think the author thinks it crucial for Daenerys, say, that she inherited Targaryen blood both through the male and the female line.

It is hard, though, to be sure what is or is not important when we don't know the author's secrets.

And this example is curious, because of the woods witch prophesy that requires TPTWP to descend from both Aerys and Rhaella.   This prophesy is probably being misinterpreted, of course, because nobody ever gets these prophesies right on the first try.  My guess is their direct union was never gonna work out because of the damage from 2 successive generations of full-sibling incest.

We know that Rhaegar is descended from Rhaella.  What is less certain is that he is descended from Aerys.

We know that Tyrion is descended from Joanna.  What is less certain is that he is descended from Tywin.

We know that Lyanna is descended from Lady Stark.  What is less certain is that she is descended from Rickard Stark.

We know that Elia was descended from the Princess of Dorne.  What is less certain is that she descends from her mother's husband.  Especially as she was born "early" after her mother rushed home from King's Landing.

We know that Daeron the Good descends from Queen Naerys.  What is less clear is that he descends from Aegon the Unworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I don't think the female line matters in that at all. If it did, George would have cared more about the female line in the books - which he rarely does, even with key characters. Remember that Ned's mother is nowhere in the crypts despite the fact that she was a born Stark. She should be right there next to Lya and Brandon and Rickard (although without her likeness) but Ned doesn't even think of her when he visits the crypts.

Well, to me that does not necessarily mean that GRRM doesn't care about it. It is just historical realism. Yes, Westeros is not the real world, but it does mimic in many ways which is why the story feels so real in spite of dragons and zombies. The point is that real world history (and books) has always ignored the women and I find it fascinating that who the women were could well turn our to be key, and a very feminist and clever thing to do with these novels. He makes the history feel like real history texts which ignore the women, while the whole time plotting to turn it on its end and make who the women were key. The history may be patrilinieal but the magic is not. I don't know if that is what GRRM is up to, but he is probably clever and sneaky enough to pull that off. It would be brilliant.

Edited by Hippocras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Well, to me that does not necessarily mean that GRRM doesn't care about it. It is just historical realism. Yes, Westeros is not the real world, but it does mimic in many ways which is why the story feels so real in spite of dragons and zombies. The point is that real world history (and books) has always ignored the women and I find it fascinating that who the women were could well turn our to be key, and a very feminist and clever thing to do with these novels. He makes the history feel like real history texts which ignore the women, while the whole time plotting to turn it on its end and make who the women were key. The history may be patrilinieal but the magic is not. I don't know if that is what GRRM is up to, but he is probably clever and sneaky enough to pull that off. It would be brilliant.

 

I agree with you.
But I think it's a good idea not to include too many ĺes women in the family tree.
The most important thing is the image that each house sends back to the people and to the reader, and this is done through the name that is transmitted by a man.

No one cares that Tywin's grandmother was a Webber or that Walder's children have Royce, Blackwood etc. blood.
Tywin is a lannister, and walder's children and grandchildren are freys no matter who their mother or grandmother is.

Edited by Carrotecuite
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Well, to me that does not necessarily mean that GRRM doesn't care about it. It is just historical realism. Yes, Westeros is not the real world, but it does mimic in many ways which is why the story feels so real in spite of dragons and zombies. The point is that real world history (and books) has always ignored the women ....

It's not just that.  There is a real practical problem of the difficulties of constructing a family tree chart over multiple generations without finding some arbitrary criteria for trimming the tree.  You either follow patrilinear lines, and have the women marry out of the family; or follow matrilinear lines or have the men marry out of the family.

Normally, each one of us will have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.    Go back 9 generations and you could potentially have as many as 512 ancestors of that generation.  Also, by focusing on the women, who tend to reproduce at younger ages, one will tend to get more generations over the course of 300 years, which will only accelerate the ballooning of the family chart.

Lots of cousin-marriage can simplify things a bit.  Thanks to cousin marriage, many nobles in ASOIAF have only 3 grandparents.    Lots of sibling incest can simply things further.  Many among the Targaryens have only 2 grandparents, and even 2 great grandparents as well.  But this in the end will not be sufficient to prevent family-trees from ballooning beyond manageable proportions.

7 hours ago, Hippocras said:

and I find it fascinating that who the women were could well turn our to be key, and a very feminist and clever thing to do with these novels. He makes the history feel like real history texts which ignore the women, while the whole time plotting to turn it on its end and make who the women were key. The history may be patrilinieal but the magic is not. I don't know if that is what GRRM is up to, but he is probably clever and sneaky enough to pull that off. It would be brilliant.

Well, yes.  Also, I do not think GRRM has any particular reverence for the sanctity of the marriage bond.  I don't think the magic cares whether or not a wife cheats on her husband, or gets pregnant just before marriage, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Well, to me that does not necessarily mean that GRRM doesn't care about it. It is just historical realism. Yes, Westeros is not the real world, but it does mimic in many ways which is why the story feels so real in spite of dragons and zombies. The point is that real world history (and books) has always ignored the women and I find it fascinating that who the women were could well turn our to be key, and a very feminist and clever thing to do with these novels.

I definitely agree with you on this.  We must also keep in mind that GRRM loves subtext.  In fact, he's taken it into a whole new level IMO.  The story hidden between the lines.  Made especially important because of the limitations created by his POV narrators.  

So I do think that GRRM is creating hidden maternal lines throughout the story.  Lines that criss cross the formal paternal Houses created in story.  Probably the most important are the maternal lines that have led to Arya and Sansa.  Lines that have probably passed through Harrenhal.  

Remember Arya and Jon's conversation early on in AGOT?  When Arya asked why women don't get coats of arms?  

And then we have Tyrion's little ditty:

Quote

He rode through the streets of the city,

down from his hill on high,

O'er the wynds and the steps and the cobbles,

He rode to a woman's sigh.

For she was his secret treasure,

she was his shame and his bliss.

And a chain and a keep are nothing, 

compared to a woman's kiss.

So what exactly is a wynd?  GRRM uses it a lot.  A wynd is a narrow lane between houses.  Perhaps it's a sly wink and nod to the idea of maternal lines running between the paternal Houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

It is hard, though, to be sure what is or is not important when we don't know the author's secrets.

And this example is curious, because of the woods witch prophesy that requires TPTWP to descend from both Aerys and Rhaella.

This prophecy isn't a recipe how to make a promised prince cake.

It just stated that the promised prince would be born from the union of Aerys and Rhaella.

8 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Well, to me that does not necessarily mean that GRRM doesn't care about it. It is just historical realism. Yes, Westeros is not the real world, but it does mimic in many ways which is why the story feels so real in spite of dragons and zombies. The point is that real world history (and books) has always ignored the women and I find it fascinating that who the women were could well turn our to be key, and a very feminist and clever thing to do with these novels. He makes the history feel like real history texts which ignore the women, while the whole time plotting to turn it on its end and make who the women were key. The history may be patrilinieal but the magic is not. I don't know if that is what GRRM is up to, but he is probably clever and sneaky enough to pull that off. It would be brilliant.

If that were the case then we should assume that the female lines were given more spotlight in the family trees we got in TWoIaF. But they didn't, no?

Quite a few husbands for Targaryen and Stark women are missing - for instance, the husbands of Maekar's daughters or the husbands of Aly Blackwood's daughters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This prophecy isn't a recipe how to make a promised prince cake.

Did I say that it was?  Those who act on prophesies are usually wrong.  However, the story is not over yet, and I'm not sure we can rule out the possibility that some people who acted on prophesies (such as, maybe, Rhaegar) were not entirely wrong.  That Rhaegar's reasoning is still being withheld from readers may be a clue that it will not ultimately be shown to be mistaken.

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It just stated that the promised prince would be born from the union of Aerys and Rhaella.

I'm not sure it said that exactly.  But that was one interpretation, and based on that interpretation, Aerys and Rhaella were forced to marry.  I guess their parents thought they had a recipe for a "promised prince cake".

Share this post


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

If that were the case then we should assume that the female lines were given more spotlight in the family trees we got in TWoIaF. But they didn't, no?

No, I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. If he wants to turn everything on its head it doesn't work if he shouts out "hey you hoo! Look here!".

Again, I don't know if this is where he is headed, but if he WERE headed there, and knowing what we know about his way of working: planting seeds and letting them grow - then to me it makes perfect sense that he has left himself wiggle room to figure out this key stuff as he goes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Did I say that it was?  Those who act on prophesies are usually wrong.  However, the story is not over yet, and I'm not sure we can rule out the possibility that some people who acted on prophesies (such as, maybe, Rhaegar) were not entirely wrong.  That Rhaegar's reasoning is still being withheld from readers may be a clue that it will not ultimately be shown to be mistaken.

My point was that the woods witch didn't say 'If you want the promised prince to be born, you have to marry your son to your daughter.' She simply foretold that the promised prince would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. Like Maggy foretold a lot of stuff about Cersei's future.

46 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I'm not sure it said that exactly.  But that was one interpretation, and based on that interpretation, Aerys and Rhaella were forced to marry.  I guess their parents thought they had a recipe for a "promised prince cake".

What Jaehaerys and Shaera and Aerys and Rhaella thought about what the prophecy meant for them we don't yet know at this point. What they were mistaken about is the idea that Rhaegar was the promised prince since the woods witch didn't say Aerys and Rhaella would be the parents of the promised prince.

7 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

No, I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. If he wants to turn everything on its head it doesn't work if he shouts out "hey you hoo! Look here!".

Again, I don't know if this is where he is headed, but if he WERE headed there, and knowing what we know about his way of working: planting seeds and letting them grow - then to me it makes perfect sense that he has left himself wiggle room to figure out this key stuff as he goes along.

The one seed he may have planted about a Targaryen through the female line is Brown Ben Plumm. He is the one character were we get talk repeatedly that he is descended from a daughter of a Targaryen king named Aegon. And in his case this dragon blood also seems to have effects on Dany's dragons who like Ben better than Irri and Jhiqui who fed and cared for the dragons since their birth more or less the same way Daenerys did.

Aside from that, there is nothing.

And including the spouses of Targaryen women in the family tree wouldn't be spoilers or give anything away. Just because Egg's sisters married this or that lord wouldn't mean they have descendants still living at the time of the main series.

The only Targaryen cadet branches that are still out there are the Baratheons, the Plumms, and the Martells. The Targaryen-Penroses may have died out, the present-day Tarths also are not confirmed to have Targaryen ancestors, none of the Targaryen-Hightowers or Elaena's Penrose girls may have had issue. And so on and so forth.

If you look at things then George actually went to considerable lengths to ensure that no main noble house actually acquired Targaryen blood aside from the one that already had it - the Martells. Rhaena and Androw didn't have children who could have married Lannisters. Aerea and Rhaella died without issue, Daella gave Rodrik Arryn only one child and that was married back into House Targaryen.

And in later years the Targaryens marrying outside of the family only means they acquired their blood ... it doesn't mean they married their daughters to outsiders in the same manner. And if Daeron II's sons married Targaryen cousins as we assume then this also means that they absorbed cadet branches back into the main line like they did with Aemma Arryn (although not necessarily to the same degree since Aelinor Penrose, Jena Dondarrion, Alys Arryn, and Dyanna Dayne all could have had siblings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My point was that the woods witch didn't say 'If you want the promised prince to be born, you have to marry your son to your daughter.' She simply foretold that the promised prince would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. 

That interpretation is consistent with the brief paraphrase we have, sure.  

Quote

What Jaehaerys and Shaera and Aerys and Rhaella thought about what the prophecy meant for them we don't yet know at this point. What they were mistaken about is the idea that Rhaegar was the promised prince since the woods witch didn't say Aerys and Rhaella would be the parents of the promised prince.

There may be details lacking, whether from the woods witch or from other prophets.   It seems all were confident that Rhaegar, at his birth, would be the Promised Prince; and Rhaegar thought so too for a while, before changing his mind and redirecting his attention to his own children.  It seems neither expected a Promised Prince at some indefinite time during the next 10,000 years.

But if Aerys and the Princess of Dorne get together and produce Elia; and then Bonifer and Rhaella get together and produce Rhaegar; and then Rhaegar and Elia get together and produce Baby Aegon, then Baby Aegon might be said to come from 'their line".   And in this case, assumptions based on legitimacy and patrilinear descent need not have anything to do with it.

Edited by Mister Smikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2021 at 5:02 PM, Mister Smikes said:

Also, from now on I don't want to hear any "burden of proof" nonsense.   I don't owe you anything, you don't owe me anything, each of us can believe as we please, and each of us can explain ourselves as much or as little as we like, and neither one of us is under any obligation whatsoever to convince or be convinced by the other.

I don't want to get into this childish squabble, but if you're going to prate a theory you have an obligation to provide proof. Or else people will look at all your theories and see "crackpot". And stop with the arrogant tone, for the love of God. 

Edited by Jaenara Belarys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...