Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kolx

Isn’t it curious how there never was a dark haired targ king?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There were many chances of it happening, but there has  always been something that made a silver hair ruler take over instead. Is it supposed to mean something?

Edited by Kolx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kolx said:

There were many chances of it happening, but there has  always been something that made a silver hair ruler take over instead. Is it supposed to mean something?

It absolutely is significant.  Silver hair is the mark of a Targaryen.  So, unless the claimant has been under the unbroken gaze of the public since birth, yes, he will always be doubted.  There will never be a dark-haired Targaryen ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Kolx said:

There were many chances of it happening, but there has  always been something that made a silver hair ruler take over instead. Is it supposed to mean something?

It means the time has come!  Contrary to expectations, the fair haired Baby Aegon grew to be a brown haired 18-year old.  And, though he hides in plain sight, nobody suspects this brown-haired 18-year old of being the rightful king, while plots move forward to put his baby-swapped cousin on the Iron Throne..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. This is Westeros, where distinctive physical traits in families - even going back hundred of years - is a trope. Robert and Cersei's children being blonde haired and green eyed instead of black haired and blue eyed is enough to make people in-universe suspect something is amiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Not really. This is Westeros, where distinctive physical traits in families - even going back hundred of years - is a trope. Robert and Cersei's children being blonde haired and green eyed instead of black haired and blue eyed is enough to make people in-universe suspect something is amiss.

The suspicions here are reasonably in line with what we know about genetic science.  Black hair is often a dominant trait, and there is evidence (in the form of his many bastards) that this is particularly the case for Robert Baratheon, who we must suppose has no blond genes - not even recessive ones.  This is contrasted, not merely with a single blond offspring by Cersei, but with 3 blond offspring by Cersei.

Anyhow, we know Targs can have dark hair.  The odd pattern noted is that we have never seen a dark-haired Targ king.  But even that is somewhat arbitrary, since Robert Baratheon has Targ heritage, and claimed the kingship in part on that basis.  So the real pattern is that we have never seen a dark-haired Targ king whose last name is "Targaryen".

Edited by Mister Smikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you subscribe to the idea that Baelor was either intentionally murdered by his brother or set up to be murdered by some machinations of Bloodraven, then that particular dark haired king to be was certainly intentioally removed.

Baelor's son, Valarr, was also mostly dark haired but we don't have any reason to believe that he was intentionally killed and thus removed from the line of succession.  (Even though the peasants do seem to think that Bloodraven had something to do with the Spring Sickness).

I guess Aegon's sandy haired brother kind of removed himself from the line of succession, even though that may be an interesting story.

The next dark haired potential king, seemed to remove himself from the line of succession through his choice of brides.  

So at this time, I would argue happenstance moreso than any intentional meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

If anything this has made me more certain Jon's hair will grow back white when he is revived in his funeral pyre.

Old man white hair, or silver gold white hair ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Travis said:

"Edd! Fetch me my cane. Oh, and also bring me Longclaw and the chopping block. I shall need them."

Old Man Snow :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, I didn’t mean this to be a Dany vs Jon vs Aegon race for the throne. But, it is quite interesting now that you think about it, perhaps it is meaningful that no black haired Targ was ever crowned, perhaps this will foreshadow who BR will support in the future :dunno:

Share this post


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

Hair as white as snow

Bah. Silver gold hair is much better. 

3 hours ago, Kolx said:

Wait, I didn’t mean this to be a Dany vs Jon vs Aegon race for the throne. But, it is quite interesting now that you think about it, perhaps it is meaningful that no black haired Targ was ever crowned, perhaps this will foreshadow who BR will support in the future :dunno:

What the hell does hair color have to do with who sits the Iron Throne? 

 

Edited by Jaenara Belarys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2021 at 10:04 AM, Frey family reunion said:

Well if you subscribe to the idea that Baelor was either intentionally murdered by his brother or set up to be murdered by some machinations of Bloodraven, then that particular dark haired king to be was certainly intentioally removed.

Baelor's son, Valarr, was also mostly dark haired but we don't have any reason to believe that he was intentionally killed and thus removed from the line of succession.  (Even though the peasants do seem to think that Bloodraven had something to do with the Spring Sickness).

I guess Aegon's sandy haired brother kind of removed himself from the line of succession, even though that may be an interesting story.

The next dark haired potential king, seemed to remove himself from the line of succession through his choice of brides.  

So at this time, I would argue happenstance moreso than any intentional meaning.

That's what I see too, but the consistency seems noteworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2021 at 9:23 PM, Kolx said:

There were many chances of it happening, but there has  always been something that made a silver hair ruler take over instead. Is it supposed to mean something?

It means the silver haired royals have the right to rule.  The silver hair and the purple eyes are the physical traits associated with the authority to rule.

On 5/17/2021 at 10:05 PM, Rondo said:

It absolutely is significant.  Silver hair is the mark of a Targaryen.  So, unless the claimant has been under the unbroken gaze of the public since birth, yes, he will always be doubted.  There will never be a dark-haired Targaryen ruler.

A Targaryen crossed with a mere dark-haired noble will have the streak that Baelor and Darkstar have.  That streak in his hair is a clue that Darkstar is part Targaryen. 

A lad with pure dark hair will never be accepted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably doesn't count but technically Robert Baratheon was a dark haired Targaryen King. 

He may not have had the name but he had the blood and was a legitimate descendant. 

Share this post


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

This probably doesn't count but technically Robert Baratheon was a dark haired Targaryen King. 

He may not have had the name but he had the blood and was a legitimate descendant. 

Robert who becomes a king.
It is because martin does not consider the baratheons as targaryen.

Edited by Hug-hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hug-hammer said:

Robert who becomes a king.
It is because martin does not consider the baratheons as targaryen.

It's more than just Martin not considering them Targaryen, it's an objective fact that they are not Targaryens.  The Targaryens became defined as a patriarchal lineage which was confirmed at the Great Council preceding the Dance of Dragons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It's more than just Martin not considering them Targaryen, it's an objective fact that they are not Targaryens.  The Targaryens became defined as a patriarchal lineage which was confirmed at the Great Council preceding the Dance of Dragons.  

Was the Great Council about who gets to use the last name "Targaryen"?  Or was it just about who gets to be king?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Was the Great Council about who gets to use the last name "Targaryen"?  Or was it just about who gets to be king?

It was about who gets to sit on that horribly uncomfortable iron chair. 

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

It's more than just Martin not considering them Targaryen, it's an objective fact that they are not Targaryens.  The Targaryens became defined as a patriarchal lineage which was confirmed at the Great Council preceding the Dance of Dragons.  

Baratheons are an entirely separate house from the Targaryens. They share some blood, but not much, thank God. It's a family of drunkards. And one usurper. 

 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...