House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

5 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

adding another question to that ... why were Maekar's children prince and princesses but Daemon's weren't? they were both brothers to the kings...and I always confuse these things

Maybe Daemon forgot to check the correct box on his children's birth certificate?

[Lord Varys]

The line about Targaryen blood on two sides of the family is from the FaB manuscript version of 'Heirs of the Dragon' that was the basis for TWoIaF, and as such it was also part of TRP. George removed it during the writing process of FaB, presumably because nothing in the fleshing out of Alyssa Velaryon, etc. indicated that Corlys had more recent Targaryen ancestors.

However, I don't think that it was ever wrong, just that Corlys never was a very recent cousin on the Targaryen side of the family, so it made sense to remove the line to avoid confusion. That Corlys does have the blood of the dragon to some degree is kind of proved by Addam of Hull becoming a dragonrider ... if we go with the idea that he is Corlys' son.

Where Ran/Linda introduced a mistake in TWoIaF was the line about Alyssa Velaryon having recent Targaryen ancestry. The manuscript of FaB never established that in any version, merely pointing out that they were cousins on the Velaryon side of the family, through Valaena Velaryon, Aenys' grandmother.

The only hint that Alyssa and Corlys much further down the family tree might have Targaryen blood is the claim from the Conquest chapter that Valaena Velaryon's mother was a Targaryen herself - but we have no clue where exactly she fits in the family tree.

In context to the styling problem - I think it is kind of clear now that folks that great-grandchildren of a king no longer get the prince/princess styling unless they are the main branch of the family. Baela and Rhaena's dad is the brother of a king, but only the grandson of a king himself, so his daughters by Laena aren't princesses, either.

More importantly, though, Daemon and Laena married without royal permission and may thus not have been fully accepted into the royal family never mind that they were eventually presented to King Viserys.

Although in context it is kind of odd that their titles didn't change when their half-brother became king and they were his immediate heirs.

2 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Any chance on getting a House Velaryon family tree ?

Wanted one for FaB. Or rather - I wanted them to include all the non-Targaryen ancestors of the various kings and queens we knew. It would have been not that difficult to include the Baratheons from Orys to Rogar as a cadet branch since the tree started with his alleged father Aerion.

And on the Velaryon side one could also connect include lines from the first Daemon (if he was Valaena's brother) right down to Alyssa and then to Corlys and the ancestors of Queen Daenaera. It would acquire George to come up with a few more names, but not really that many.

10 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

What are you talking about? Syrax didn't "happen" to do anything, she clearly went mad and desperate for revenge (and maybe almost suicidal) after seeing what had been done to the other dragons in the Dragonpit. Her Catelyn-at-the-Red Wedding moment was one of my favorite in The Princess and the Queen.  One of those moments when dragons are the ones having a big emotional dramatic moment and the maester writing it is like: "But who can know the heart of a dragon? She was acting so weird... No one understood why she didn't simply blast them all with fire from the sky, but got down to start killing them one by one with her teeth and talons, and got herself killed".

Which also paralleled Rhaenyra's own situation of losing her children one by one and losing almost everyone though death or (perceived) betrayal.

I don't think that scene makes much sense, actually. And while Rhaenyra being weak and stupid is no bad plot as such, it really turns her into an incompetent and very bad ruler.

Thinking about it - if George ever needs a reason why Viserys II and his descendants never celebrated the short queenship, then Rhaenyra's failure to protect the dragons might be a good pretext for that (although for Aegon III this wouldn't be a good reason, considering how close he was to his mother until the end).

9 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Well, magic.

Kings blood + Fire = hatched eggs.

Which is one of the funnier jokes that Melisandre so utterly misreads the prophecy.

Point being there that apparently usually dragon eggs which turn to stone no longer hatch. It needed a big spell to do this, whereas normal dragon eggs just hatch all by themselves in a hot environment like Dragonstone.

5 hours ago, Vaith said:

On the contrary, reading Fire & Blood solidified my opinion that a conspiracy likely happened (due to what is omitted or seems outright strange with the explanation the Citadel gives us via Gyldayn) and that Vaegon was a part of it when described as a sour, rude, dragonless man who seemed to have no love for his family. (I don't think that Vaegon was an active participant in the conspiracy. He was likely kept in the dark about the true nature of what the maesters were doing, but a dragonless Targaryen archmaester would certainly be a useful tool for the Citadel to influence the dragonriders in a more direct and personal way).

I don't think this can make sense. Marwyn claims that Maester Aemon couldn't be trusted because of his blood, so this would also go for Vaegon ... more, one imagines, since Vaegon did become an archmaester and was thus better included in the leadership of the Citadel than Aemon ever was.

5 hours ago, Vaith said:

Moreover, I believe the maesters would consider the Hightowers their puppets. In Jaehaerys's old age, a Hightower is appointed as Hand just after a Targaryen archmaester proposes a Great Council overseen by the maesters... it's all a little too tidy for my liking. Otto and Alicent likely believed they would have a mutually beneficial relationship due to Oldtown's patronage, but the maesters likely saw them as puppets -- or at least at first, got the Hightowers in to be an easier vessel for their own political ambitions. I don't think they'd catch onto the conspiracy because their goal was gently nudging the course of history into a prolonged dragon war between two fairly large and balanced sides. As Barbrey Dustin says, how often is it that other people call into question 'who are the masters, and who are the servants'?

The guys running the show here would be the people who finance the Citadel - and those are the Hightowers of Oldtown. The Citadel would also be very stupid to arrange or fuel a succession war where the Hightowers and Oldtown are a major faction. Because that could very well result in a bunch of dragonriders destroying Oldtown.

To me, it seems the best take at the Citadel plot there is that the Dance both convinced them to kill the dragons as well as gave them the opportunity because very few dragons survived and the reign of a young king who was afraid of dragons allowed them or their patsies to get close enough to the dragons to poison them or the eggs.

Prior to the Dance the dragons thrived, so there is no indication that anyone even tried to mess with them.

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Speaking of which, why were Bran and Rickon princes but Stannis and Renly weren’t?

That is a very old debate and I still think it doesn't make much sense. George didn't think about that when writing AGoT, would be my explanation, only realizing that the status of Shireen and Robb's siblings changed when their father/brother proclaimed himself king.

Robert would have been kind of stupid to not make his younger brothers princes, too, while they were his presumptive heirs.

 

[Ran]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

he line about Targaryen blood on two sides of the family is from the FaB manuscript version of 'Heirs of the Dragon' that was the basis for TWoIaF, and as such it was also part of TRP.

Good recollection there. I had been skimming through "Heirs of the Dragon" and then managed to stop just before that part.

But yes, George dropped it. I mean, it's almost certainly true that there's some Targaryen blood further back in the Velaryons. But the specific thing that was an error on our part was that in the course of adapting the text it somehow became inserted that Aethan's wife was the source of the more recent Targaryen blood, which was not stated by George even though it wasn't a terrible assumption given the line.

It probably goes further back to that less well documented period.

[Annara Snow]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I don't think that scene makes much sense, actually. And while Rhaenyra being weak and stupid is no bad plot as such, it really turns her into an incompetent and very bad ruler.

Thinking about it - if George ever needs a reason why Viserys II and his descendants never celebrated the short queenship, then Rhaenyra's failure to protect the dragons might be a good pretext for that 

 

What doesn't make sense about that scene? Are you saying my reading of that scene (which I thought was super obvious) is wrong? Why? You've provided no counterguments whatsoever. "I don't think it makes sense, actually" is not a counter argument.

And what does Syrax's behaviour have to do with Rhaenyra being "weak and stupid"? Targaryens may have a special bond with their dragons, but they are not wargs. It's not like she would have been able to control Syrax from a distance.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

Good recollection there. I had been skimming through "Heirs of the Dragon" and then managed to stop just before that part.

Well, the earliest version of HotD also has fine interesting gems, like Jocelyn Baratheon being the cousin rather than aunt of Prince Aemon, and having the blood of the dragon on the female side (something George then changed to Alyssa Velaryon) and six children of Jaehaerys and Alysanne (two sons and four daughters) marrying and having children of their own, apparently a total number of nine grandchildren (which would have been so much better than the four we have - seven if you count the later invented bastard sons of Saera).

Alyssa Velaryon taking another husband in the Lord of Storm's End was a great idea ... as was the idea to give Jaehaerys and Alysanne two half-siblings that way. But it wouldn't have hurt to have *some other* Targaryen marry into Houses Velaryon and Baratheon in that era. Aegon I could have had some first or second cousins, and there could have been legitimized royal bastards being honored in such a fashion. I think the best way to go there would have been for little Princess Vaella to live to marry a nephew of Rogar whose daughter then could end up marrying Boremund Baratheon. That he didn't end up with a Targaryen princess as half-brother of the king is really beyond my understanding...

The way it is now the Targaryen-Velaryon link is almost almost closer on the Velaryon side of the family than the Targaryen side. Rather weird for an inbred family ;-).

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

But yes, George dropped it. I mean, it's almost certainly true that there's some Targaryen blood further back in the Velaryons. But the specific thing that was an error on our part was that in the course of adapting the text it somehow became inserted that Aethan's wife was the source of the more recent Targaryen blood, which was not stated by George even though it wasn't a terrible assumption given the line.

Yes, of course, I hadn't thought about that at this point. It would have been the conclusion we would have drawn prior to the revelation of Alarra Massey. Although, technically, Alyssa's mother wouldn't have to be Corlys' direct ancestor ... her father Aethan could have had multiple wives, etc. But we certainly would (and likely did) jump on this link there.

Although the most common theory was that Rhaena may or Aerea/Rhaella may have ended up marrying into House Velaryon prior to the publication of 'The Sons of the Dragon' - which then indicated that Rhaena ended up with Androw Farman and set the way for Rhaella joining the Faith. Aerea was always too young to make a convincing mother for Corlys Velaryon.

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

It probably goes further back to that less well documented period.

The easiest scenario would be Valaena and the first Daemon Velaryon being siblings, then Corlys does have a Targaryen great-great-great-grandmother. No surprise that George doesn't want this degree of kinship indicated by the phrase 'blood of the dragon on both sides'.

But since we have literally no clue where that woman would fit in the Targaryen family tree - she could be a sister or niece (through Aelyx or Baelon) of Lord Daemion but also merely a cousin of the three brothers, a descendant of Lord Maegon or some other so far not mentioned cadet branch - that link might not exactly establish a very close kinship between the current Targaryen and Velaryon bloodlines. It wouldn't be surprising if the closest common ancestors on the Targaryen side of the family for Rhaenys/Corlys were Lord Aegon and Lady Elaena - or only Lord Gaemon or Lord Aenar.

[dsjj251]

On 7/20/2022 at 12:31 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Huh. I’m surprised they didn’t wait for Comic Con.

I’m also surprised by all the characters they’re not showing: Aegon II, the elder Strongs, Mysaria, Laena. None of Rhaenyra’s boys either, although I can understand that one more. If anything, the focus is almost entirely on Aemond among the younger generation. (I think that may have been Halaena that Alicent was talking to about

Laena is in the trailers , she just doesnt have a speaking role. One of the breakdowns i saw said that she and Laenor die before the half way point in the season, maybe as early as episode 3. 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Annara Snow said:

What doesn't make sense about that scene? Are you saying my reading of that scene (which I thought was super obvious) is wrong? Why? You've provided no counterguments whatsoever. "I don't think it makes sense, actually" is not a counter argument.

I meant that it makes no sense, in my opinion, that Syrax would be particularly hurt over the treatment of the dragons in the Dragonpit since they were mostly Green dragons. And we do know that the dragons emulate the emotions of their riders ... or their peers.

It also strikes me as very odd that the dragon wouldn't attack from above if she felt like attacking. Or that, in context, the attacks continued after Syrax's arrival since a free and flying dragon should have broken the resolve of most in the crowd.

We get the narrative that most folks actually confronting Dreamfyre in the Dragonpit were trying to flee but couldn't because of the people behind them. Once the crowds outside saw that Syrax was there most of them should have panicked ... even more so in light of the fact that at night they wouldn't have been able to know that the beast was riderless and not directly by the queen riding her.

If you ask me, then the best way to account for Syrax's death there is still the story of Septon Eustace about the Warrior himself taking form to help the Shepherd. It is the kind of thing where magic/miracle might actually be a good explanation.

Just now, Annara Snow said:

And what does Syrax's behaviour have to do with Rhaenyra being "weak and stupid"? Targaryens may have a special bond with their dragons, but they are not wargs. It's not like she would have been able to control Syrax from a distance.

Oh, there I just meant that Rhaenyra was weak and stupid for downplaying the very real danger the mob posed to the dragons in the Dragonpit. That is the kind of silly overconfidence certain entitled people have that the rabble wouldn't dare to do something.

I think I also pondered the idea once that Rhaenyra was starting to hate Syrax with all her heart the moment she realized that the beast had killed her son Joffrey, that she may have driven her into suicide. While the dragon bond certainly isn't of the same nature as the skinchanger bond, there are hints that dragons can feel and do mimic the emotions of their riders.

It is the most obvious in Sunfyre's story but also in Vhagar/Caraxes first loving each other like their riders ... only to hate each other after Aemond has claimed Vhagar or in Dreamfyre's alleged reaction to Queen Helaena's suicide. An even better example might be Drogon and Daenerys. I don't think he actually disobeys her in ADwD - she has successfully mounted him, after all - it is just that he senses that she doesn't truly want to go back to Meereen.

If Syrax had felt how much she had hurt Rhaenyra that certainly could explain her weirdo behavior.

[C.T. Phipps]

https://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-im-watching-house-of-dragon.html

I'm already trying to spread the word about why I want to watch this show and hopefully will get some naysayers to give it a try.

I want Westeros back to where it was.

[Annara Snow]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant that it makes no sense, in my opinion, that Syrax would be particularly hurt over the treatment of the dragons in the Dragonpit since they were mostly Green dragons. And we do know that the dragons emulate the emotions of their riders ... or their peers.

It also strikes me as very odd that the dragon wouldn't attack from above if she felt like attacking. Or that, in context, the attacks continued after Syrax's arrival since a free and flying dragon should have broken the resolve of most in the crowd.

We get the narrative that most folks actually confronting Dreamfyre in the Dragonpit were trying to flee but couldn't because of the people behind them. Once the crowds outside saw that Syrax was there most of them should have panicked ... even more so in light of the fact that at night they wouldn't have been able to know that the beast was riderless and not directly by the queen riding her.

If you ask me, then the best way to account for Syrax's death there is still the story of Septon Eustace about the Warrior himself taking form to help the Shepherd. It is the kind of thing where magic/miracle might actually be a good explanation.

Oh, there I just meant that Rhaenyra was weak and stupid for downplaying the very real danger the mob posed to the dragons in the Dragonpit. That is the kind of silly overconfidence certain entitled people have that the rabble wouldn't dare to do something.

I think I also pondered the idea once that Rhaenyra was starting to hate Syrax with all her heart the moment she realized that the beast had killed her son Joffrey, that she may have driven her into suicide. While the dragon bond certainly isn't of the same nature as the skinchanger bond, there are hints that dragons can feel and do mimic the emotions of their riders.

It is the most obvious in Sunfyre's story but also in Vhagar/Caraxes first loving each other like their riders ... only to hate each other after Aemond has claimed Vhagar or in Dreamfyre's alleged reaction to Queen Helaena's suicide. An even better example might be Drogon and Daenerys. I don't think he actually disobeys her in ADwD - she has successfully mounted him, after all - it is just that he senses that she doesn't truly want to go back to Meereen.

If Syrax had felt how much she had hurt Rhaenyra that certainly could explain her weirdo behavior.

It's made clear multiple times (even as a recurring theme) that maesters - and humans in general- don't fully understand dragons, and are only speculating and making assumptions- which are then questioned and undernined. "Who can know the heart of a dragon?"

We're told there are male and female dragons... or maybe there are not, and dragons are hermaphrodites and can change their sex.

We're told you need to have Targaryen blood to be a dragon rider... but maybe you don't. Maybe you can just domesticate a wild dragon and become its rider the way you would another animal.

We're told that dragons emulate their riders' emotions...and they do....up to a point. We see dragons having a connection because their riders were a couple, even former and long dead riders (Silverwing and Vermithor), or the dragon and the rider behaving similarly (Sunfyre and Aegon II...though in that case, Sunfyre is not just emulating Aegon, he was mutilated and disfigured himself, too). But then we also see dragons having minds of their own and doing things that have absolutely nothing to do with their riders. Such as the "mating dance" between Tessarion and Seasmoke, who were also dragons from the two different sides of the war. I very much doubt that the (at that point dead) Daeron Targaryen was in love with Adam of Hull, or vice versa. The behavior of the dragons in this case was strongly implied not to have anything to do with their riders.

The idea that Syrax couldn't have been upset by deaths of her fellow dragons at the hand of a human mob just because most of them were ridden by Greens is based on the assumption that dragons are nothing but meat puppets of their riders, which is not supported by the text. Furthermore, not all of them were - young Tyraxes was the dragon of Prince Joffrey. We don't know who his mother was, but we know Syrax had laid multiple clutches of eggs. For all we know, Tyraxes may have been her child.

It's also possible that Syrax was also influenced by Rhaenyra's feelings; and, like I said, both of them had suffered great losses. GRRM made the behavior of dragons (including Dany's three) complex and not always easily understood by humans.

[The Bard of Banefort]

41 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

https://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-im-watching-house-of-dragon.html

I'm already trying to spread the word about why I want to watch this show and hopefully will get some naysayers to give it a try.

I want Westeros back to where it was.

I’m definitely going to watch it, I just have some reservations. But I’ve been surprised before, and I certainly could be again.

I actually think that a smaller audience could make the show more enjoyable (i.e. better discourse), although I don’t know how that would affect the show financially.

[BlackLightning]

12 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I admit to having found great humor in the fact that fans generally view autocratic secular kings, even mad ones, like Maegor as preferable to the Faith having more influence.

Yes

It would be deeply depressing if it wasn't so hilarious.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Although, of course, during the reign of Aegon III no dragon should have permanently resided at the Red Keep, and the Dragonpit should have been empty for a most of the time as well. The crucial place to mess with dragon eggs would be Dragonstone. That's the place where they hatched ... and some eggs did hatch and even produced more eggs during the reign of Aegon III. Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal most likely won't die of poisoning. Also not the dragon of Alys River's son ... if he actually has a hatchling of his own (if not, then he might claim one of the riderless dragons in the future).

That makes sense.

Because were there any Targaryen holding Dragonstone at the time?

If all the remaining Targaryens were in King's Landing or on Driftmark and if the regents were more concerned with bringing peace and unity back to the realm and rearing the underaged king (which they were), then Dragonstone (particularly the local dragonpit) was essentially being managed by the maester therein...with no oversight whatsoever.

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

We're told you need to have Targaryen blood to be a dragon rider... but maybe you don't. Maybe you can just domesticate a wild dragon and become its rider the way you would another animal.

Well, that seems to be kind of refuted by the fact that there were non-Targaryen dragonriders in Westeros, most especially no Dragonkeeper or dragon grooms dragonriders ... who would have been the best suspects for dragon thieves there are.

Not to mention that nobody ever rode multiple dragons at the same time, etc.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

We're told that dragons emulate their riders' emotions...and they do....up to a point. We see dragons having a connection because their riders were a couple, even former and long dead riders (Silverwing and Vermithor), or the dragon and the rider behaving similarly (Sunfyre and Aegon II...though in that case, Sunfyre is not just emulating Aegon, he was mutilated and disfigured himself, too). But then we also see dragons having minds of their own and doing things that have absolutely nothing to do with their riders. Such as the "mating dance" between Tessarion and Seasmoke, who were also dragons from the two different sides of the war. I very much doubt that the (at that point dead) Daeron Targaryen was in love with Adam of Hull, or vice versa. The behavior of the dragons in this case was strongly implied not to have anything to do with their riders.

Daeron the Daring was already dead by the time of this 'mating dance'. Tessarion may have been a riderless she-dragon in heat ... if that's a thing with dragons. One could further speculate that a male dragon encountering a she-dragon in that state would be more interesting in mating than following his riders commands.

Silverwing ignores what happens during the battle while Ulf is asleep in Tumbleton ... and only seems to care about Vermithor after Ulf is dead, too, and she is free of that bond. Vermithor also only seems to run amok after Hugh has been slain, possibly motivated both by his loss as well as the fact that a smaller male dragon wanted to mate with Tessarion directly in front of him.

There is speculation in ADwD about what the dragons might do when Meereen is attacked. I don't think unclaimed dragons would care about human affairs. But I don't think it is out of the question that a bonded dragon might intervene on behalf of his or her rider even if the dragon in questioned is not ridden at the time.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

The idea that Syrax couldn't have been upset by deaths of her fellow dragons at the hand of a human mob just because most of them were ridden by Greens is based on the assumption that dragons are nothing but meat puppets of their riders, which is not supported by the text. Furthermore, not all of them were - young Tyraxes was the dragon of Prince Joffrey. We don't know who his mother was, but we know Syrax had laid multiple clutches of eggs. For all we know, Tyraxes may have been her child.

Well, it doesn't have to be that drastic, but Syrax came as a hatchling or egg to Rhaenyra, so the strongest bond there should be with her, not any other dragons she rarely spend time with, presumably.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

It's also possible that Syrax was also influenced by Rhaenyra's feelings; and, like I said, both of them had suffered great losses. GRRM made the behavior of dragons (including Dany's three) complex and not always easily understood by humans.

My biggest issue with the Syrax thing is that it would be very odd for the dragon not to use her natural instincts to kill, i.e. strike from above. We see how Dany's dragons hunt and kill, and nothing indicates they would behave in as stupid a way as Syrax. Unless something was very wrong with them.

[Ran]

As we see with Stannis, castellans are appointed for citadels like Dragonstone. A maester would not have free run of the place, some trusted knight or lordling would hold it. In the time of Aegon III, the obvious choice would be Viserys, if there was a point that he had someone else to serve as Hand. If not him... well, I'm sure someone would come to mind. Maybe he'd send a trusted Kingsguard to do it, or someone who Viserys or Alyn vouched for, etc.

[Annara Snow]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

My biggest issue with the Syrax thing is that it would be very odd for the dragon not to use her natural instincts to kill, i.e. strike from above. We see how Dany's dragons hunt and kill, and nothing indicates they would behave in as stupid a way as Syrax. Unless something was very wrong with them.

Something was very wrong with Syrax in that scene,. for one reason or another, which is deliberately left vague.

[StarksInTheNorth]

Assuming Lord Daemon Velaryon was brother to Valaena, then Aethan was 1/4 Targaryen, Lord Daemon 2 was 1/8, his children were 1/16, and his grandchild/heir Corlys was 1/32.

 

In comparison, consider Daenerys the Second as a full Targaryen. Her Martell son was 1/2 Targaryen. His heir was 1/4 Targaryen. They are the most recent parent of the Unnamed Princess and Lewyn Martell, who would then be 1/8. Mathematically, there’s room for at least one generation between Dany’s grandkid and Unnamed Princess, which would make Elia Martell either 1/16 or 1/32. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

That makes sense.

Because were there any Targaryen holding Dragonstone at the time?

If all the remaining Targaryens were in King's Landing or on Driftmark and if the regents were more concerned with bringing peace and unity back to the realm and rearing the underaged king (which they were), then Dragonstone (particularly the local dragonpit) was essentially being managed by the maester therein...with no oversight whatsoever.

We know a little bit about that. Aegon II left a garrison there which was eventually overthrown by Black loyalists in the wake of Aegon II's murder. Earlier a maester whose name we do not know (Gerardys' successor) sent seven 'promising' dragon eggs to Aegon II in KL for hatching ... which led nowhere.

The Regency government must have appointed some castellan but we don't know his name ... but have reason to believe that he didn't exactly wield much power.

During the early Regency era Dragonstone was kind of the domain of Baela and Alyn ... who married in the sept of Dragonstone after Baela fled the capital to avoid her marriage to Thaddeus Rowan - which is certainly a symbol that they viewed themselves as members of the royal family and in line to the throne. But they subsequently resided at Castle Driftmark, it seems. When Morning grew to size and was finally mounted by Lady Rhaena, she famously left court to reside on Dragonstone where 'dragons and those who ride them are more welcome.'

By the time the book ends Rhaena Targaryen seems to be effectively the Lady of Dragonstone. How that is going to last we don't know, but it might actually continue since Garmund Hightower is only a third son and not likely to be able to provide his bride with a great castle of his own, fitting for the king's half-sister and her dragon.

I'm not sure Lord Lyonel Hightower and Lady Sam are *that keen* to house both a Targaryen lady and her dragon at the Hightower ... but I could be wrong there.

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

As we see with Stannis, castellans are appointed for citadels like Dragonstone. A maester would not have free run of the place, some trusted knight or lordling would hold it. In the time of Aegon III, the obvious choice would be Viserys, if there was a point that he had someone else to serve as Hand. If not him... well, I'm sure someone would come to mind. Maybe he'd send a trusted Kingsguard to do it, or someone who Viserys or Alyn vouched for, etc.

If Rhaena and Garmund are not going to rule the place in the king's name, then Viserys is indeed the best candidate to be the nominal ruler. After all, the brothers are so close that one can expect Aegon III to revive the old practice to grant Dragonstone as a seat to a (younger) sibling (e.g. Maegor, originally, later Rhaena).

It could also make sense to name Viserys Prince of Dragonstone while he is Aegon III's only heir - and stick with it after the birth of Daeron and Baelor. These two are close enough for that. And it feels just weird to assume that Aegon III wouldn't want to have his brother a castle and home of his own. And Dragonstone would never be to his liking, anyway, with the dragons there and all that.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that seems to be kind of refuted by the fact that there were non-Targaryen dragonriders in Westeros, most especially no Dragonkeeper or dragon grooms dragonriders ... who would have been the best suspects for dragon thieves there are.

That's not actually an impossibility.

There's never more than a handful of dragons in all of Westeros and while it's very likely the Targaryens have magic in their blood to make taming dragons easier, it's also possible that it could be possible they are tamable by sufficiently talented animal trainers.

It's just there's never been anyone close enough to try it or a Targaryen who would support it.

After all, the only evidence Nettles is a Targaryen is that she can tame a dragon.

Also, Rhaenyra flat out SAYS she's not of Targaryen blood.

As Jurassic World showed, it's possible Nettles is just someone who understands there's a difference between "trained" and "tame." Let alone "domesticated."

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

That's not actually an impossibility.

There's never more than a handful of dragons in all of Westeros and while it's very likely the Targaryens have magic in their blood to make taming dragons easier, it's also possible that it could be possible they are tamable by sufficiently talented animal trainers.

It's just there's never been anyone close enough to try it or a Targaryen who would support it.

After all, the only evidence Nettles is a Targaryen is that she can tame a dragon.

Also, Rhaenyra flat out SAYS she's not of Targaryen blood.

As Jurassic World showed, it's possible Nettles is just someone who understands there's a difference between "trained" and "tame." Let alone "domesticated."

It is pretty clear in-universe that the dragon bond is 'magical' because it is exclusive. You can only ride one dragon at a time, not bond with multiple dragons at the same time, and vice versa.

That wouldn't be possible if it were just domestication. Not to mention that domestication should be pretty much impossible with such large top predators. Even with 'magical blood' playing a role it is kind of a stretch that monsters like Balerion and Vhagar should be directed by people riding them like horses.

And keep in mind that Jace promised rewards to anyone who could mount a dragon ... but none of the folks who actually worked with and cared for the dragons on Dragonstone everyday - feeding them, cleaning them, guarding them, etc. - did mount a dragon. Instead we get a Velaryon relation, a Dragonstonian man-at-arms, a blacksmith's bastard, and the child of dockside whore from Driftmark.

Not to mention that there were riderless and wild dragons on Dragonstone for decades. Somebody would have mounted those dragons in the meantime if it was easy.

And of course it is not just 'Targaryen' - it is Valyrian dragonlords. And while their blood is rare in Westeros, it isn't in the Free Cities. Which is why Jaehaerys is afraid that the triarchs of Volantis or the Braavosi might become dragonlords, too, if the stolen eggs had hatched.

[C.T. Phipps]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is pretty clear in-universe that the dragon bond is 'magical' because it is exclusive. You can only ride one dragon at a time, not bond with multiple dragons at the same time, and vice versa.

That wouldn't be possible if it were just domestication. Not to mention that domestication should be pretty much impossible with such large top predators. Even with 'magical blood' playing a role it is kind of a stretch that monsters like Balerion and Vhagar should be directed by people riding them like horses.

And keep in mind that Jace promised rewards to anyone who could mount a dragon ... but none of the folks who actually worked with and cared for the dragons on Dragonstone everyday - feeding them, cleaning them, guarding them, etc. - did mount a dragon. Instead we get a Velaryon relation, a Dragonstonian man-at-arms, a blacksmith's bastard, and the child of dockside whore from Driftmark.

Not to mention that there were riderless and wild dragons on Dragonstone for decades. Somebody would have mounted those dragons in the meantime if it was easy.

And of course it is not just 'Targaryen' - it is Valyrian dragonlords. And while their blood is rare in Westeros, it isn't in the Free Cities. Which is why Jaehaerys is afraid that the triarchs of Volantis or the Braavosi might become dragonlords, too, if the stolen eggs had hatched.

The problem is your argument actually doesn't address any of the other possibilities.

1. Nothing precludes a magical bond with the Targaryens and dragons. It's just saying that a sufficiently skilled animal trainer could do it.

2. The only person we know who TRIED to use animal husbandry on a dragon over a long period of time was Nettles.

3. Jace made that promise and people just tried to ride the dragon without taking a long period of earning its trust. Which is what happened to Quentyn.

4. Only three people, all knights, also tried to ride a dragon with the first two being maimed and the third person not trying at all.

5. There's no indication those people tried or would be allowed to try in the first place outside of that specialized circumstance.

6. The argument is not that dragons would take any rider. The argument is that someone would spend weeks attempting to  arn its trust and THEN try. Which we only have one example of and it working. In real life if you try to mount a wild horse, which is a domesticated animal, you will get thrown.

7. The bigger issue is there's not that many dragons to begin with so we don't have much testing data.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I only started watching Rawrist’s videos recently, but so far I really like them. There are surprisingly few female ASOIAF YouTubers, and she’s fun and doesn’t overly politicize things the way a lot of other content creators feel the need to. She posted this video today about the controversy surrounding how sex and sexual violence is portrayed on GOT/HOTD (link below), and the quote from George at the end got me thinking about how he has a certain duality in this this regard.

On the one hand, GRRM has always defended the depiction of sexual violence, saying that it’s part of the realism. At the same time, we learned from FCKAD that George was also very upset about the show adding rape subplots for Dany and Sansa, and he wrote a blog post after Cersei and Jaime’s sex scene in the sept about how he had not intentionally written it as a rape scene. So even George clearly has some mixed feelings about all this.

I think this is also something that pertains to written vs. visual depictions. We’re constantly told that people are getting raped in ASOIAF, but I don’t think we’re ever shown it. I we were, I doubt as many people would have read the books. That’s harder to pull off onscreen.

https://youtu.be/xG6Rz9uW98A