Why didn't Jahaerys make all his kids dragonriders?

[Lord Varys]

In addition, if we look at the later reign of Jaehaerys I the man clearly didn't do much to keep things straight with his children. He had forced Daella to marry outside the family, he had similar plans for Vaegon and Saera, and he arranged the Manderly match for Viserra. If all those matches had happened and resulted in trueborn children the pool of potential dragonriders would have greatly increased.

Also, his dynastic plans to reduce tension and strife among his grandchildren are pretty much non-existent. As we discussed ages ago, the fact that the possibility of a marriage between Viserys and Rhaenys is never even discussed is very odd. Such a union would have ensured there would be no succession issues at all.

Insofar as dragonriders are concerned the fact that Laena and Laenor were allowed dragons and Daemon was allowed to mount Caraxes when his elder brother Viserys was dragonless/stuck with a dying dragon who could no longer fly to Dragonstone also indicates that there is no consistent plan to limit access to dragons there.

The idea that Baelon should not marry Viserra after Alyssa's death is also very odd. The man had only given Jaehaerys two living grandsons ... while Jaehaerys himself fathered thirteen children on his sister-wife - indicating the man wanted a great family. Baelon should have remarried ... and why not a younger sister? Even if that wasn't something they wanted to do, Viserra could have been married to her nephew Viserys. He was six years younger than Viserra, true, but he himself married a cousin who was five years younger than he was.

In addition, Princess Gael was an ideal match for either Viserys or Daemon - Viserys was three years older than Gael while Daemon was a year younger than his aunt.

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There's one factor that we should always have present when discussing about this topic. Jaehaerys surely always had at the forefront of his mind the dangers of a civil war between branches of his family, since his two elder brothers had been killed by an uncle just because he had the bigger dragon.

This makes sense.  I don't know what the exact cutoff point would or should be, but at some point an intelligent man is going to start worrying about the potential consequences and dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is basically what is happening when dragon-eggs and dragon-riders are being handed out willy-nilly.

And Jahaerys was an intelligent man.  I don't think we need specific proof that he gave thought to such questions, to presume that he probably did.  If it were Viserys I, it might be a bit less likely.

Jahaerys decided, after consulting with an Archmaester, to call a Council to decide the succession, and to abide by the result.   I don't recall if it is anywhere specifically stated that he did so because of concerns about the potential for civil war.  But surely that is implied.

[Springwatch]

On 6/12/2021 at 11:32 PM, Mister Smikes said:

But sure, it could be part of the explanation that the Targs have run out of dragons ... or have run out of easily tractable dragons.  And since bonding with a dragon is not guaranteed, it may be that one has more chance of bonding when there are more potential dragons to choose from.  Like falling in love, or something.

Compatibility - there might be something in that, because we see it big in other places: the direwolf pups that are so very sympathetic to their particular child, and the many, many horses that resemble their rider. (It's more of a style thing than realistic.)

Could this be true of dragons also? Not old Vhagar obviously, but it might be true for eggs and hatchlings. I seem to remember Aerion had an especially fiery-looking egg. And from something @Lord Varys was saying a while back, I think maybe Silverwing was very much in harmony with good queen Alysanne.

 

[StarksInTheNorth]

On 6/14/2021 at 1:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

As we discussed ages ago, the fact that the possibility of a marriage between Viserys and Rhaenys is never even discussed is very odd. Such a union would have ensured there would be no succession issues at all.

Insofar as dragonriders are concerned the fact that Laena and Laenor were allowed dragons and Daemon was allowed to mount Caraxes when his elder brother Viserys was dragonless/stuck with a dying dragon who could no longer fly to Dragonstone also indicates that there is no consistent plan to limit access to dragons there.

The idea that Baelon should not marry Viserra after Alyssa's death is also very odd. The man had only given Jaehaerys two living grandsons ... while Jaehaerys himself fathered thirteen children on his sister-wife - indicating the man wanted a great family. Baelon should have remarried ... and why not a younger sister? Even if that wasn't something they wanted to do, Viserra could have been married to her nephew Viserys. He was six years younger than Viserra, true, but he himself married a cousin who was five years younger than he was.

The Viserra issue bothers me to no end. We know that she had access to the dragon pit because she would dare boys to put their hands in dragon's mouths, and she theoretically wanted to be queen. At this point, all the Targaryen queens had dragons so I imagine she would have claimed one. We also have it said that it's family tradition to put an egg in a child's cradle, and yet never have mention of Viserra (or Saera, or Gael, or Daella . . .) having an egg in their cradle. Daella it makes some sense, since she was scared of Silverwing and cats and bees and . . . everything (how did she get to the Vale? I imagine she was scared of mules, too). It would have taken three sentences in the mega-tome of F&B to say "Jaehaerys was determined to keep dragons amongst his family and close Valyrian allies so he refused to place eggs or allow his younger daughters to claim mounts. As there were no brothers for them to wed, there would be no dragons to give to their husbands." Could even tie it into the First Quarrel if Alysanne thinks that her daughters would have survived if they had dragons.

Back to the queen thing, if they didn't want to marry Viserra to Baelon, I feel like a Lord Paramount would have done well for her. We know Lord Lannister's heir was considered for Daella, that Rodrik Arryn had a son who was younger than Daella, so might have only been a few years older than Viserra, we never find out who Boremund Baratheon wed, and based on Viserra's earlier fascination she would have potentially been a good match for a Dornish Prince Regnant. Or at least a grandson or Theomore's heir. There is absolutely NO DYNASTIC ADVANTAGE to marrying their daughter to a four-times widower who married off his own daughter in 72 AC, when Viserra was barely a year old. When you have a daughter with an expressed desire for power and prestige, meeting her at least halfway would make sense.

If Baelon has no interest in her, it's a waste of a daughter to not marry them to each other, but it would have been good to get more elaboration on that point.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

The Viserra issue bothers me to no end. We know that she had access to the dragon pit because she would dare boys to put their hands in dragon's mouths, and she theoretically wanted to be queen. At this point, all the Targaryen queens had dragons so I imagine she would have claimed one. We also have it said that it's family tradition to put an egg in a child's cradle, and yet never have mention of Viserra (or Saera, or Gael, or Daella . . .) having an egg in their cradle. Daella it makes some sense, since she was scared of Silverwing and cats and bees and . . . everything (how did she get to the Vale? I imagine she was scared of mules, too). It would have taken three sentences in the mega-tome of F&B to say "Jaehaerys was determined to keep dragons amongst his family and close Valyrian allies so he refused to place eggs or allow his younger daughters to claim mounts. As there were no brothers for them to wed, there would be no dragons to give to their husbands." Could even tie it into the First Quarrel if Alysanne thinks that her daughters would have survived if they had dragons.

The Viserra thing is, perhaps, the stupidest plotline in the entire book. Viserra is the fifth daughter Alysanne loses. She had already lost Daenerys, Daella, Alyssa, and Saera (in a sense) at that point ... and both Daella and Alyssa had died in childbirth and she was blaming Jaehaerys especially for Daella's death since he had forced her to marry. Why on earth should then Alysanne insist that Viserra marry? And, more to the point, why would she force her to marry a man four or five times her age who lived thousands of leagues away? Saera was also still alive but lost to her because she was in Lys and eventually Volantis. Wouldn't a marriage to Lord Manderly also cause Alysanne to lose Viserra in a very real sense?

Even if we assume, for some reason, that Alysanne still thought her daughters should marry after Daella and Alyssa had already died in childbirth then she should have preferred matches within the family for those daughters because that would have ensured they continued to live at court. But I don't think it makes much sense to assume that Alysanne would insist Viserra must marry after she had lost so many daughters already.

Also, the narrative that Viserra wanted to be queen by marrying Baelon at a time when Aemon was still alive and kicking also makes little sense. Yes, Baelon was widowed, but Aemon was the Heir Apparent, and before Aemon's death Aemon's daughter and her children would have been the ones people - especially Queen Alysanne herself - expected to succeed to the Iron Throne, not Baelon and his sons. Even more so since in the 80s Aemon and Jocelyn could still produce a son. Alysanne would have never thought that Viserra's interest in Baelon indicated that she wanted to be queen. She could have concluded that she was ambitious because she wanted to marry her elder brother ... but so what? She was a Targaryen princess, after all, and Alysanne also married her elder brother and became queen.

The whole story about 'ambitious Viserra' could have worked much better if Viserra had targeted Aemon rather than Baelon, trying to seduce him so he would set aside Jocelyn or make Viserra his second wife, one who could give him sons. That would have been real ambition. And it would have been an ambition that could have rocked the boat. Jaehaerys I did not approve of polygamy and neither did Alysanne (as their treatment of Lucamore Strong and Jaehaerys' outburst when Saera suggested she could follow the example of Maegor and Aegon I show) but even if they did the Baratheons wouldn't have been happy if Aemon had taken a second wife while Jocelyn was still around.

Back when we discussed this thing in detail I and others suggested that the best reading of this whole episode is that Alysanne was jealous of her daughter's beauty and wanted to punish her with the ridiculous marriage she had arranged for her. Viserra is very much vilified for her beauty in the story we get, she is this evil, unnatural femme fatale who basically uses her beauty to control men. Alysanne isn't known for misogyny but she herself didn't have Valyrian looks, so chances are not that bad that she may have had issue with her very beautiful daughter, especially at a time when she was visibly aging.

And when you look at the events without Gyldayn's framing you have a young and somewhat confused woman who wasn't particularly smart or calculating. Instead, she seems to have been genuinely in love with her brother. A cold and calculating woman wouldn't have been drunk when she was found in Baelon's bed. And what we know about her death also shows she was more a young woman who tried to enjoy herself rather than this calculating seductress.

But even with all that the Viserra story is still stupid.

As for the dragons:

As I said, we do know why Daella and perhaps why Maegelle didn't get/claim any dragons. For the other dragonless children there is really no explanation given. Saera and Vaegon are the only ones who are confirmed to have been dragonless ... but the way their stories are presented there is no explanation given why they didn't claim dragons. And that is the main problem. Not that there can be reasons or explanations the reader can invent or come up with ... but that the author didn't bother to explain this.

And we also have that problem with King Aenys' elder sons. As I said one can, perhaps, explain why Aegon the Uncrowned never mounted a dragon before his father's death - he may have wanted to claim Vhagar after Visenya's death. But it is still odd that King Aenys actually notes that his son isn't a dragonrider when he sends Rhaena and Aegon on their progress but doesn't rectify that by telling his son to claim a dragon before they start their progress. With Aegon's younger brother Viserys there is really no explanation at all. If the younger children Jaehaerys and Alysanne get dragons then the elder children should get dragons, too, because they are the important ones, not the spares.

This is why technically the fact that only the three eldest children of Jaehaerys I are dragonriders makes sense. They are the important ones who are expected to continue the bloodline of House Targaryen. The problem there is that there are enough dragons around so that the younger children could have been dragonriders, too.

Vaegon was nearly a man grown when the sudden decision was made that he go to the Citadel, so Jaehaerys shouldn't have stopped his son from claiming a dragon a day a week or a couple of years before that fateful day. The same with Saera who is seventeen at the time of her disgrace. A person of her strength of will and ambition should have claimed a dragon as a toddler or a preteen girl - like so many other Targaryens did. All explanation we would have needed is Gyldayn telling us that Vaegon didn't want a dragon for this or that reason, say, and that Saera definitely wanted a dragon but her royal father staved her off again and again, telling her she would get one on her wedding day or something along those lines. But still - her being seventeen when she is sent to Oldtown makes it very hard to swallow that this particular princess didn't get a dragon.

And for Viserra and Gael we have no reason at all. Viserra definitely hang out at the Dragonpit so she had opportunity to claim a dragon and considering her inhumane beauty it would have been proper that such a fine Targaryen princess would also be a dragonrider. And Gael lived with her mother her entire life. The fact that she may have been simple wouldn't have played much of a role since Jaehaera also got a dragon. We can expect that Gael wouldn't have been encouraged to pick a dragon at the Dragonpit like the elder children did. But the Targaryens also gave hatchlings to some of their children, so Gael could definitely have gotten one.

8 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Back to the queen thing, if they didn't want to marry Viserra to Baelon, I feel like a Lord Paramount would have done well for her. We know Lord Lannister's heir was considered for Daella, that Rodrik Arryn had a son who was younger than Daella, so might have only been a few years older than Viserra, we never find out who Boremund Baratheon wed, and based on Viserra's earlier fascination she would have potentially been a good match for a Dornish Prince Regnant. Or at least a grandson or Theomore's heir. There is absolutely NO DYNASTIC ADVANTAGE to marrying their daughter to a four-times widower who married off his own daughter in 72 AC, when Viserra was barely a year old. When you have a daughter with an expressed desire for power and prestige, meeting her at least halfway would make sense.

Yes, the entire wedding arrangement makes no sense at all. It is pretty much a joke. It doesn't even make sense dynastically, because Viserra is not that likely to actually give birth to a child of Theomore's in light of his age ... but even if she did, such children were not likely to succeed to White Harbor since Theomore must have a literal army of descendants at that time. Also, in light of Theomore's age such a marriage wouldn't have lasted long, and then Viserra would have been free to marry a man of her own choosing, possibly choosing a man neither her mother or her father would approve.

If you think about it, something like the Manderly match would have made sense as a punishment for Saera after her transgressions. Say, we have her imprisoned for a time with the silent sisters and their parents then making this match for her to get her completely out of the way. But for a beautiful young princess whose worst 'crime' was to drunkenly and clumsily try to seduce her elder brother this is a completely unfit punishment. It is just overkill.

8 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

If Baelon has no interest in her, it's a waste of a daughter to not marry them to each other, but it would have been good to get more elaboration on that point.

It is actually kind of odd that Jaehaerys I actually allows Baelon to remain unwed after Alyssa's death. He has only two grandsons by him and Aemon just produced a single daughter. With the daughters dying like flies and Vaegon at the Citadel House Targaryen was down to just two branches. If Rhaenys, Viserys and Daemon died early things could get very hairy in the future.

The king and queen should have allowed Baelon to mourn Alyssa for some time but then they should have arranged another match for him.

And if you think about it ... the marriage of Aemon and Jocelyn should have also been under attack. She failed to give Aemon a son and produced only one daughter, so there should have been people fearing that the Aemon's bloodline would not continue.

[StarksInTheNorth]

I believe the original family tree had Saera being one of the youngest two children, which makes more sense for the quick need to marry Daella and Viserra off. If your young daughter scandalizes the entire court by running off with someone or doing whatever, you'd want to remove the taint from your others by seeing them betrothed and married off very, very quickly. 

Re: Viserra being queen, I'm surprised she didn't try to set herself up with Viserys — or that Jaehaerys and Alysanne never even thought to suggest it. There are canonical uncle/niece couples out the wazoo, so why not pair the two children who are close in age and likely grew up together in the King's Landing nursery and took lessons together? They're only six years apart, their names are alliterative (which GRRM seems to like), and it sort of sounds like their personalities would go well together - as his father's oldest son, Vieserys will inherit any title or whatnot that would be granted, he's affable and likes to make people happy, which might suit her vanity well enough. And it could've lended an interesting take to the plot of the Dance if you have a double-Targaryen versus a half-Targaryen.

That's an interesting take on a jealous Alysanne. I'm not quite sure I can picture it with her other actions, but would work better than some of what's presented F&B. 

Re, dragons: it would've been a fun plot line if Saera took a dragon to escape Westeros and then popped up again during the dance, with one of her bastards fighting amongst the dragonseed or whatnot.

re: Saera that would actually make a lot more sense, especially since we've seen something happen like that at least twice in canon - Lord Estermont marrying Spotted Sylva and one of the Four Storms (Cassandra?) after she helped poison Queen Daenaera. Even Edric Storm's mother married a household knight. Even if she's a bit of a ho, surely there's some knight or petty lord who would be willing to marry a Targaryen princess for the ~prestige~.

I can understand letting Baelon remain unwed for at least a while, since Alyssa's death he had five grandchildren (then four . . .), Jocelyn would be able to have more, and he had two daughters who were of marrying age to strengthen the dynasty, if necessary (although Saera's mishaps were in the same year of Alyssa's death). At least in the first few years after Alyssa's death, there was nothing to suggest that there wouldn't be more male heirs for Aemon. But after a while, it would have been prudent, especially after Aemon died. AND for the whole idea of "sister to sister" since there were no sister marriages for Baelon's boys.

I really do wish we knew more about the Aemon/Jocelyn situation. It's much more interesting to me than the sexual exploits of Coryanne Wilde. Jocelyn was ready to fight for her daughter's rights and if I recall, Aemon was as well, but I'm assuming she had a mess of sadness similar to what Rhaella would later. Someone wrote a re-write on tumblr that delved into the situation (I want to say GoodQueenAly?) and explored how the infertility was viewed by the couple and the court, but alas it isn't canon.

[Ser Ilyn's Tongue]

Serdarr's thread about Aerea made me think, Jaehaerys has seen first hand the worst that could happen when a dragon is claimed.

Might be he didn't want to see this happen to his own children, thus didn't force those who didn't want to claim a dragon to do so

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I believe the original family tree had Saera being one of the youngest two children, which makes more sense for the quick need to marry Daella and Viserra off. If your young daughter scandalizes the entire court by running off with someone or doing whatever, you'd want to remove the taint from your others by seeing them betrothed and married off very, very quickly. 

Saera was the second youngest child in the original family tree but her original story as given by TWoIaF didn't include a scandal at all. It just had her as the second daughter Jaehaerys gave to the Faith. She was unhappy/unsuited for such a life and ran away across the Narrow Sea. The implication back then was that Saera's parents made a mistake in giving her to the Faith in the first place, not that her being with the Faith was a disciplinatory measure.

The marriages of Daella and Viserra would have had nothing to do with Saera in that context.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Re: Viserra being queen, I'm surprised she didn't try to set herself up with Viserys — or that Jaehaerys and Alysanne never even thought to suggest it. There are canonical uncle/niece couples out the wazoo, so why not pair the two children who are close in age and likely grew up together in the King's Landing nursery and took lessons together? They're only six years apart, their names are alliterative (which GRRM seems to like), and it sort of sounds like their personalities would go well together - as his father's oldest son, Vieserys will inherit any title or whatnot that would be granted, he's affable and likes to make people happy, which might suit her vanity well enough. And it could've lended an interesting take to the plot of the Dance if you have a double-Targaryen versus a half-Targaryen.

Yes, the fact that neither of the younger daughters were considered as potential brides for Viserys and Daemon (Gael is actually younger than Viserys I and only a year younger than Daemon) as well as the fact that a marriage between Rhaenys and Viserys was never considered is very weird.

George just dropped the ball there. He put much thought into the marriages of the elder children and even explained why it came that Vaegon didn't marry and Daella ended up with Rodrik Arryn ... but there is no explanation at all for the Viserys-Aemma match nor Daemon-Rhea. Aemma is two years younger than Gael, so the latter would have actually been more suited to marry Viserys in 93 AC. And even the Corlys-Rhaenys match isn't really covered. There are some hints that Rhaenys herself arranged that match but we don't get any details at all.

Since Rhaenys was Aemon's only child her Jaehaerys and Alysanne should have thought about her future husband basically from the day of her birth ... but even more as it became less and less likely that Aemon and Jocelyn would give Rhaenys a brother she could marry. Thus one should have expected that they would have intended to marry her to Viserys since they were both preteen children.

The idea that Rhaenys should marry a man who was more than twenty years her senior would have raised more than just a few eyebrows. Sure, after his return Corlys would have been the most desirable bachelor in Westeros ... but it just doesn't make any sense that Aemon and the king and queen hadn't their own ideas as to who Rhaenys should marry before Corlys became available.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

That's an interesting take on a jealous Alysanne. I'm not quite sure I can picture it with her other actions, but would work better than some of what's presented F&B. 

It must not really be a jealous Alysanne, but rather that the narrative we get in FaB is kind of distorted by misogyny. Viserra is vilified for her beauty and if that was truly what happened then the queen may have not been immune to that herself. Meaning the idea is that Alysanne's weird conclusion that Viserra wanted to be queen is one she reached because she couldn't help but see her daughter as a seductress/femme fatale rather than a normal adolsecent girl.

But as I said, even that interpretation doesn't undo the weirdness of Alysanne believing Viserra wanted to be queen by trying to marry her father's second son.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Re, dragons: it would've been a fun plot line if Saera took a dragon to escape Westeros and then popped up again during the dance, with one of her bastards fighting amongst the dragonseed or whatnot.

That could have been interesting, but Saera is the one daughter where it makes sense that she is dragonless. We learn she hadn't yet become a dragonrider when she was sent to Oldtown ... and even if she did they wouldn't have allowed her to take her dragon with her to Oldtown so they would have been permanently separated.

But, of course, it is a pity that we don't really know what happened to her nor to any of her children.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

re: Saera that would actually make a lot more sense, especially since we've seen something happen like that at least twice in canon - Lord Estermont marrying Spotted Sylva and one of the Four Storms (Cassandra?) after she helped poison Queen Daenaera. Even Edric Storm's mother married a household knight. Even if she's a bit of a ho, surely there's some knight or petty lord who would be willing to marry a Targaryen princess for the ~prestige~.

Yes, Viserra's marriage just looks like a punishment, not a proper marriage ... and the problem is that she never committed a serious enough crime to be punished in this manner.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I can understand letting Baelon remain unwed for at least a while, since Alyssa's death he had five grandchildren (then four . . .), Jocelyn would be able to have more, and he had two daughters who were of marrying age to strengthen the dynasty, if necessary (although Saera's mishaps were in the same year of Alyssa's death). At least in the first few years after Alyssa's death, there was nothing to suggest that there wouldn't be more male heirs for Aemon. But after a while, it would have been prudent, especially after Aemon died. AND for the whole idea of "sister to sister" since there were no sister marriages for Baelon's boys.

Baelon should have remarried once he was named Heir Apparent in 92 AC. It was clear he would succeed the king then, and by the time he died in 101 AC it was also clear that neither of his sons had much success in the marriage department. All Viserys was able to produce was a daughter and Daemon had no issue at all.

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I really do wish we knew more about the Aemon/Jocelyn situation. It's much more interesting to me than the sexual exploits of Coryanne Wilde. Jocelyn was ready to fight for her daughter's rights and if I recall, Aemon was as well, but I'm assuming she had a mess of sadness similar to what Rhaella would later. Someone wrote a re-write on tumblr that delved into the situation (I want to say GoodQueenAly?) and explored how the infertility was viewed by the couple and the court, but alas it isn't canon.

The problem is that we don't even know whether there were fertility issues. Did they try to have more children than one and Jocelyn just never got pregnant? Were there miscarriages and stillbirths and deaths in the cradle? We have no idea. Regardless what happened, it is very odd that this whole thing wasn't viewed as a problem.

And from a dynastic point of view the fact that Rhaenys was allowed to marry outside the family - and although Corlys was a Velaryon he wasn't close kin, no brother, uncle, or first cousin - is very odd, too. A peaceful succession would hinge on the question whether there was peace between Aemon's and Baelon's branches or not. The way they set things up one could expect that Aemon would have succeeded his father like Aenys succeeded Aegon I but once Aemon died Baelon or his sons may have decided to challenge Rhaenys claim to the throne. And that wouldn't have happened if Rhaenys had been married to Viserys.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

On 6/20/2021 at 9:53 PM, Ser Ilyn's Tongue said:

Serdarr's thread about Aerea made me think, Jaehaerys has seen first hand the worst that could happen when a dragon is claimed.

Might be he didn't want to see this happen to his own children, thus didn't force those who didn't want to claim a dragon to do so

This is true, and in fact whilst I agree with @Lord Varys that for most Targaryens bonding with and riding dragons is a relatively painless process, the Aerea/Balerion episode is a complete anomaly IF Aerea didn’t mean to fly Balerion to Valyria. If she did then that introduces other questions, but shows that even a young girl can climb onto a huge old dragon quite easily and with little to no risk.

Of course, Dany successfully mounts Drogon in Adwd but doesn’t have complete control over him instantly, she uses vocal commands and a whip but admits he was taking her where he wanted (unless it’s where she subconsciously wanted to go, maybe Drogon and Balerion were reacting to their riders subconscious needs or desires).

As for the topic, it is odd that more children weren’t riders. I don’t have my copy of F&B to hand, but if it’s true that the cradle egg tradition wasn’t started until the time of the dance then that explains the lack of dragonriders to a degree. It’s possible Jaehaerys was just an unusual Targaryen king in that he centralised power by only allowing his family members to claim dragons with his permission, perhaps to limit the dragon population and make sure there weren’t too many hot headed Targaryens with dragons running around (Viserys can be seen as doing the opposite in granting dragons and eggs left right and centre, and we all saw how well that went.)

George’s quote as has been shared by another in this forum and does explain a bit, as certain dragons may not be very accepting, certain riders may put the dragons off etc. Perhaps the reason there were so few riders is a combination of Jaehaerys’ strictness and a lack of aptitude amongst his children.

The lack of dragonriders in Jaehaerys time only looks odd compared to the time of Viserys and the dance, maybe the question should be why were so many of Viserys descendants allowed to become dragonriders. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

This is true, and in fact whilst I agree with @Lord Varys that for most Targaryens bonding with and riding dragons is a relatively painless process, the Aerea/Balerion episode is a complete anomaly IF Aerea didn’t mean to fly Balerion to Valyria. If she did then that introduces other questions, but shows that even a young girl can climb onto a huge old dragon quite easily and with little to no risk.

I think the best way to make sense of the Aerea thing is that she didn't really cared much where Balerion took her. She wanted to be gone, wanted to have adventures far away from her mother, her aunt, her uncle, and all of Westeros, basically. So she left it to Balerion to decide where he wanted to fly. George actually subtly hints at that by having Aerea basically cut ties with all her mentor figures - Elissa abandons her, she has big quarrels with her mother, and she even resents her aunt Alysanne after her last visit. There is nothing left for her in Westeros after all that ... at least in her mind.

In addition, she was also no experienced dragonrider and seemed to lack the proper equipment in light of the fact that she basically stole Balerion. In that sense, her situation may be akin to that of Dany without a proper saddle and proper whip in ADwD. But they definitely had a proper bond considering Balerion apparently saved her from some monsters, they stuck together the entire, and she convinced him to fly to KL in the end. They journey started on Dragonstone, so if we assumed that Balerion had had enough of Valyria then he should have flown back to Dragonstone not so much KL.

2 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

As for the topic, it is odd that more children weren’t riders. I don’t have my copy of F&B to hand, but if it’s true that the cradle egg tradition wasn’t started until the time of the dance then that explains the lack of dragonriders to a degree. It’s possible Jaehaerys was just an unusual Targaryen king in that he centralised power by only allowing his family members to claim dragons with his permission, perhaps to limit the dragon population and make sure there weren’t too many hot headed Targaryens with dragons running around (Viserys can be seen as doing the opposite in granting dragons and eggs left right and centre, and we all saw how well that went.)

That certainly could make sense - but then it would have been nice if we had known about that.

2 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

The lack of dragonriders in Jaehaerys time only looks odd compared to the time of Viserys and the dance, maybe the question should be why were so many of Viserys descendants allowed to become dragonriders. 

Not really, we also have three of Jaehaerys I's grandchildren and all his great-grandchildren claim dragons. Rhaenys, Viserys, and Daemon get dragons while the king is still around, as do Laenor and Rhaenyra (and possibly Laena as well).

And it is the cradle egg thing which ensured there were so many dragonriders during the reign of Viserys I - Rhaenyra's sons, Daemon's daughters, and the children of Aegon II all got cradle eggs.

If that tradition went back to Rhaena putting eggs into the cradles of Jaehaerys and Alysanne then it is indeed very odd that Jaehaerys and Alysanne didn't put eggs into the cradles of their children - which they apparently did not, with the exception of Aemon. If they had all gotten cradle eggs then they all should have had dragons, too, unless some of the eggs didn't hatch. But even then there were riderless dragons they could have claimed.

And as I said repeatedly - that Maegelle and Daella weren't dragonriders kind of make sense. With Vaegon it is more difficult since the decision to dump him at the Citadel was made pretty late. But Saera and Viserra both had the character and the opportunity to claim dragons. And there is also no good reason why Gael was never given a dragon.

It is also quite clear that politically it was very weird to allow Rhaenys' children dragons when they were actually potential rivals of both Baelon and later Viserys.

[Hug-hammer]

I think that Jaehaerys considers the velaryons as an exception among the other houses of westeros. 
After all the velaryons are a noble valyrian family extremely close to the targaryens. And her mother was a velaryon. 
I think if rhaenys had married a lannister, manderly, or tyrell.
I doubt that jaehaerys would have let his children be dragonriders.
He considers the Velaryons to be his family.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Hug-hammer said:

I think that Jaehaerys considers the velaryons as an exception among the other houses of westeros. 
After all the velaryons are a noble valyrian family extremely close to the targaryens. And her mother was a velaryon. 
I think if rhaenys had married a lannister, manderly, or tyrell.
I doubt that jaehaerys would have let his children be dragonriders.
He considers the Velaryons to be his family.

That certainly makes sense ... but the Velaryons ceased to be family he could trust implicitly after he made Baelon Heir Apparent. It is thus rather odd if we assume he had political reasons to not allow his younger children dragons but then allowed Laenor and Laena dragons.

[Impbread]

On 6/12/2021 at 11:11 AM, Mister Smikes said:

I don't think dragon-riding is something you can force on people.  You have to have it in you.  

 

This is the correct answer. If you could just make dragons bend to anyone it would ruin the story. Only a few share a bond significant enough to ride. Its really no different than warging and skin changing. Very few have the gift it skips generations. Just look at the Stark children. Only Bran and Arya seem to have the gift. I guess you can't really say if Sansa did or not because she lost her wolf so soon. Jon also has the gift which is another reason I think he will ride a dragon 

[Impbread]

On 6/12/2021 at 12:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

The problem there is that George didn't have enough dragons left for all of them to get some. Or rather: he apparently didn't want to invent more dragons and then explain why they weren't around during the Dance. Although that would have been pretty easily doable. In addition, there were riderless dragons in that era that could have been claimed: Dreamfyre was riderless, apparently, from the death of Queen Rhaena to whenever Helaena claimed her, Balerion was riderless between Aerea and Viserys 

I think George didn't create more or give all the dragons riders is because he wanted it to remain a special gift. Too many dragons and riders and you lose the novelty of it. Same with skin changing and other magic. If everyone could do it just because they are Targs it would be lame. Just like if all the Starks could warg and skin change. It would really water down the significance of having magical abilities. Just my two cents. 

[Impbread]

On 6/12/2021 at 1:35 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

wow I've never read that before. do you have a source or is this more your own theory?

No she doesn't have a source. That is complete tin foil. I love her passion but many of her theories are way too convoluted to happen with only two books left. She also believes Rhaego is still alive. 

[Impbread]

On 6/13/2021 at 12:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

You don't need the illusion of depth for that - such dragons are there, in FaB. There are dozens of nameless and riderless dragons in the books starting with the dozen that hatched in the later reign of the Conqueror, followed by the two hatchlings of 37 AC, the three eggs of Dreamfyre that hatch after her return to Dragonstone, all the dragons and drakes that are on Dragonstone when Aerea is there in addition to Vhagar and Balerion, and the dragons that are in the Dragonpit in addition to those young dragons Aemon and Alyssa claim.

But this doesn't change the fact that George obviously didn't want to invent another named dragon when he wrote the chapters about the reign of Jaehaerys I. Because he didn't do that. The three children of Jaehaerys I who became dragonriders were given dragons which had already been introduced in the already published material.

And as I laid out both Balerion and, especially, Dreamfyre could have had had more riders since they were riderless for decades.

There you are obviously mistaken. Claiming a dragon isn't 'suicidal' for a Targaryen ... since, to our knowledge, no Targaryen was ever killed or even injured when he tried to claim a dragon. That only happened to the obscure dragonseed dragonriders during the Dance.

All we hear is that it is risky to mount a large and foul-tempered dragon like old Vhagar. But even she was claimed successfully by ten-year-old Aemond and before that by a Laena Velaryon who was twelve when she is first mentioned as Vhagar's rider - which indicates she may have been still younger when she claimed her. Also, the Targaryens were throwing hatchlings at toddlers and preteen children, basically, if you consider how old Aenys, Rhaena, Jaehaerys, Alysanne, Laenor, Rhaenyra, and all her children were when they got their dragons.

In that sense, the Targaryens are as weird as Eddard Stark who also thinks it is a great idea that preteen children (the youngest being three at the time) can and should train direwolf pups all by themselves. And unlike the Targaryens - who know they are the magical blood of the dragon - Ned had no clue all his children were skinchangers who would magically bond and master their pups.

Also, Jaehaerys' children become dragonriders at a rather old age - Rhaena, Jaehaerys, Alysanne, Laena, Rhaenyra, Rhaenyra's sons, Daeron the Daring, Baela, etc. all became dragonriders at a younger age than Aemon, Baelon, and Alyssa.

Your argument that the children of Jaehaerys who didn't become dragonriders were too young to be dragonriders when they died or left court for good is thus not convincing. It doesn't explain anything.

As I said, it could explain why no one bothered giving Maegelle a dragon. She was given to the Faith at the age of ten. But Vaegon, Saera, Viserra, and Gael were old enough to claim dragons of their own ... and there is no reason given why they didn't do this. Daella is the only child of Jaehaerys I where there is real explanation why she didn't claim a dragon - she was afraid of them.

In a similar sense it is also quite weird that Aegon the Uncrowned and his brother Viserys didn't claim any dragons during the reign of their father. They were the elder sons of King Aenys, after all. One can, perhaps, assume that Aegon was waiting to claim Vhagar after Visenya's eventual death, but if Rhaena and Jaehaerys and Alysanne were given eggs or hatchlings it's quite odd that nobody ever gave a dragon to Viserys.

I like how you noticed the parallel between the Targs giving kids dragons and the Starks giving their kids dire wolves. Life was also very short back then. People didn't take precautions because death was a part of every day life and Targs are known for their affinity to bond with dragons. Its not like they didn't know what they were doing. Like you stated we aren't told of any dragons killing Targ children. Same with Starks and their wolves 

[Impbread]

On 6/13/2021 at 1:57 PM, Mister Smikes said:

Matter of taste.  

No matter how many dragons he makes, there will always be blank spaces at the borders of his maps and accounts.

I can still be open to the idea that such creatures existed, and maybe even had names.

I did not say it was 'suicidal".  You are ignoring what I actually did say in your overeagerness to tell me I a wrong.  It may be perfectly safe to approach a dragon, depending on the magical psychic affinity the human and the dragon have for each other.  All I am saying is that the oddness lies in the safety, not in the danger.

I never made took such a position or made such an argument.  I merely pointed out that dying young deprives one of opportuntities to bond with dragons later in life, just as dying young deprives one of opportunities of falling in love later in life.

I see nothing odd about it, and am challenging your assumption that this sort of thing can be ordered on demand.  That it happens semi-regularly does not prove it should happen more regularly.

I honestly think George didn't create more dragons or riders is because he wants it to remain a precious gift. If every Targ was guaranteed to be able to ride and hatch eggs it would completely diminish what Dany did in the first book. Same with the Starks. If they were all wargs and skin changers it would trivialize Brans gift. Bran and Dany even Jon to some extent are meant to be viewed as extremely extraordinary. They said a skin changer is one in a thousand and that green seers are one skin changer in a thousand. EXTREMELY rare. Same with Dany. If hatching eggs were easy to do dragons never would have gone extinct  

[Impbread]

On 6/13/2021 at 3:26 PM, Mister Smikes said:

 

Many of the dragonseeds ran into difficulties and dangers.  Adam Velaryon succeeded with Seasmoke, but his brother Alyn failed with Sheepstealer, suffered life-long burn scars, and I guess would have died had Seasmoke not driven Sheepstealer off.  And I am reluctant to assume that legitimacy of birth, or the Targaryen name, has some magical power.

Why wouldn't we believe that the Targ name isn't synonymous with magical powers? Its overtly stated that non Targs could not bond and ride dragons. Look what happened to prince Martell. This mirrors the Starks. We are told that they have been warging for millennia. We don't hear of other Northern houses who have the gift to skin change besides the warg king who's daughter the starks end up marrying. Blood definitely plays a huge role in determining who will be granted magical abilities  just my opinion 

[Impbread]

On 6/14/2021 at 7:45 AM, The hairy bear said:

There's one factor that we should always have present when discussing about this topic. Jaehaerys surely always had at the forefront of his mind the dangers of a civil war between branches of his family, since his two elder brothers had been killed by an uncle just because he had the bigger dragon.

As the Conquest or the Fourth Dornish War proved, three dragonriders is enough for an uncontested rule of the realm. You don't really need more. Meanwhile, marrying Vaella to Rodrik Arryn or Viserra to Theomore Manderly would have converted those families in rival dragonriders if the girls had owned dragons at the time.

So, even if there are plenty of eggs available, Jaehaerys would want to avoid that there were too many Targaryen branches with dragons. And most of all, he'd go to any lengths to prevent any other family to obtain dragons through marriage.

Daenerys is born year 53 AC, but Jaehaerys doesn't consider her his heir and she isn't given an egg. Aemon is born at 55 AC, and he's given an egg because he was the heir that Jaehaerys wanted. None of the children born afterwards (starting with Baelon at 57 AC) had eggs placed at their cradles.

The maesters at court would surely agree with Jaehaerys on that matter, and would help him with his goal when educating the royal children. Only two lines with dragons could be allowed (a heir and a spare), so after Aemon+Jocelyn and Baelon+Alyssa, no one else could have dragons. Maegelle, Vaegon and Daella all had different personalities, but they all had in common that they were completely uninterested in dragons. They also tried to bring up Saera and Viserra that way, but they rebelled against that. (Saera tried to steal the dragon herself, Viserra tried to marry Baelon).

I like the way you put this. Not having all your kids ride dragons makes sense considering what Jahaerys has seen his family do to eachother. Also like you said if you marry off female riders you create rivals who now have dragons at their disposal. That was what separated the Targs from the rest of men in Westeros. Dragons are the only reason the North bent the knee. Giving a Northern house like the Manderleys is basically suicidal. You would be giving the North the hardest realm to subdue by force an almost even playing field. God forbid the dragon spawns. 

[Impbread]

On 6/14/2021 at 11:50 AM, Lord Varys said:

That is a nice speculation, but Jaehaerys doesn't seem to be concerned much with civil war, especially not with a civil war which might be started by a woman. After all, he doesn't really care about Rhaenys having a dragon when he passes her over in the succession. And later still he allows Rhaenys and her son Laenor dragons. Laenor has a dragon already in 101 AC. If the king had been wary of civil war - which he should have been after 92 AC - then he should have not permitted Rhaenys' children dragons. We don't know when Laena claimed Vhagar, but it could have happened before the death of the Old King, too.

The only civil war scenario that is considered at court is considered by the Grand Maester and not the king and it involves the fear that Aemon and Baelon might rip the Realm to pieces just like Aenys' sons and Maegor did.

And, no, female dragonriders marrying outsiders would not make those families dragonriders in their own right. That would only happen if the king allowed them to (1) take their dragons with them when they moved to the castles of their husbands (not a given), and (2) if he allowed the children of those Targaryen women access to dragons (not a given, either). After all, the daughters we are talking about were Targaryens who weren't dragonriders ... meaning that it is possible that the children of a dragonrider - Jaehaerys I, in this case - are not given dragons themselves.

If you look at things it makes no sense that Jaehaerys would not want Vaegon to ride a dragon. He is his son and there is no indication he wasn't interested in dragons. The plan Jaehaerys had for his third son was to marry his sister Daella (and another woman after it became clear Vaegon and Daella didn't get along) and continue the Targaryen bloodline ... meaning he had exactly the same plan for him he had for Aemon and Baelon. The idea to send Vaegon to the Citadel wasn't an idea of either the king or the queen. It is a very late solution to the problem he posed ... and it is basically dependent on Vaegon becoming an Archmaester. Because it is quite clear from the start he isn't suited to become a maester. If Vaegon had been sent to the Citadel as a preteen boy - like Maester Aemon was and we assumed prior to the publication of FaB - then the question why he doesn't have a dragon wouldn't come up. But it comes up for a boy raised to be the same kind of prince his brothers were - and his father expecting the same of him as he expected of Aemon and Baelon.

As I said, for Maegelle and Daella it is clear why they wouldn't have dragons - the former was given to the Faith before she was old enough to claim a dragon and the latter was afraid of dragons. But the other children are neither confirmed to be afraid of dragons nor do their personalities suggest they are uninterested in dragons.

In fact, it makes no sense that anyone who is a Targaryen and has access to dragons would not claim one. Not every Targaryen has to like dragons or animals in general ... but being a dragonrider is just practical. It allows you to fly and means you don't have to drag through the countryside on horseback or take a ship if you go to Dragonstone. That alone should be enough to claim a dragon. And to want one. Some dragonriders really like their dragons and they also like to fly ... but others use them just as the tools they are.

I don't remember but was Laenor raised at court? Perhaps he was fine with him and his mother having dragons because he assumed they were staunchly loyal. Giving Northern houses dragons is an entirely different proposal. Everyone knows the North only bent the knee because they couldn't defeat the dragons. So I do tend to think that played some role in having less female riders. The thought of rival houses had to of crossed the Kings mind. Dragons are what separates them from every other house in Westeros and dragons are what turned 7 kingdoms into 1.