the next House of the Dragon thread

[The Bard of Banefort]

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Nothing about Sansa’s book story (let alone the show) suggests that she will be a mould-breaking leader.  In the show, she got her throne, ruling a bankrupt depopulated realm, because her brother and a handful of oligarchs gave it to her.

There seems no place in this world for a figure like Elizabeth I, Maria Theresa, Caterina Sforza, St. Olga of Kiev, or Empress Theodora.  It’s presented as being an eternal truth that a woman can’t rule successfully.

That’s one of the weird things about Sansa and the Starks in general. The fact that there has never been a Stark queen regnant would suggest that this is something that we’ll see change by the end of the story. But Sansa’s individual story seems to be less about becoming a ruler than desperately trying to escape the people who want to put a crown on her head (first the Lannisters, now Littlefinger). Her great desire in life is to marry for love. And LF isn’t really teaching her policy so much as deception (although GRRM doesn’t really write about policy, so that might not mean much). I’m not sure what this means for her endgame. I’m guessing Bran will be the Lord of Winterfell before becoming king, so perhaps she acts as his regent? If so, then there’s a lot of ground to cover in TWOW, since she’s still a good 2.5 years away from turning 16.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

10 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

HBO wanted a show about northern mythology, but Martin was opposed and refocused the company on Valyrian mythology and the Dance of Dragons.

Again, that's not true. HBO felt that they needed to win a lot of people back after the divisive reaction to GoT season 8. They thought that a show about the Long Night was too risky for this and that HotD, which has Targaryens and dragons, would be a safer bet. Especially for the general audience.

[The Bard of Banefort]

The rumor for why Bloodmoon was cancelled is a lot different than HBO’s official story. There’s a reason the pilot is under lock and key. Allegedly, the show tried to include POC by having the Children of the Forest all be black. In order to reconcile this with the main show, the Children had the option to become immortal, but doing so had certain side effects. . . such as turning their skin white. Yeah.

[butterweedstrover]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nothing about Sansa’s book story (let alone the show) suggests that she will be a mould-breaking leader.  In the show, she got her throne, ruling a bankrupt depopulated realm, because her brother and a handful of oligarchs gave it to her.

There seems no place in this world for a figure like Elizabeth I, Maria Theresa, Caterina Sforza, St. Olga of Kiev, or Empress Theodora.  It’s presented as being an eternal truth that a woman can’t rule successfully.

Wishful thinking on my part. 

But if she does end up ruling and doesn't go insane and keeps her head screwed on properly that would send her above the mold.  

[butterweedstrover]

2 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Again, that's not true. HBO felt that they needed to win a lot of people back after the divisive reaction to GoT season 8. They thought that a show about the Long Night was too risky for this and that HotD, which has Targaryens and dragons, would be a safer bet. Especially for the general audience.

I hate the be the bearer of false information but that isn't all together clear. 

The Bloodmoon show was supposedly unique which was why HBO ended up pushing for it. Martin meanwhile was all but campaigning against it and that very well might have played a role in its cancelation.  

[Ran]

George was not campaigning against it, though he had doubts about a number of the "bake off" projects, including this one. He happened to be right, which HBO realized $30 million later.

He went and visited the Bloodmoon set when he was in Belfast, which I don't think many people know. Doesn't seem like something he'd have done if he wanted nothing to do with it or was rooting for it to fail.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

30 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The rumor for why Bloodmoon was cancelled is a lot different than HBO’s official story. There’s a reason the pilot is under lock and key. Allegedly, the show tried to include POC by having the Children of the Forest all be black. In order to reconcile this with the main show, the Children had the option to become immortal, but doing so had certain side effects. . . such as turning their skin white. Yeah.

Hm... I have not heard anything about this myself. But either way, I don't think it's likely that GRRM was behind HBO canceling Bloodmoon and going forward with HotD because he wanted more Targaryen stories.

[Angel Eyes]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

That’s one of the weird things about Sansa and the Starks in general. The fact that there has never been a Stark queen regnant would suggest that this is something that we’ll see change by the end of the story. But Sansa’s individual story seems to be less about becoming a ruler than desperately trying to escape the people who want to put a crown on her head (first the Lannisters, now Littlefinger). Her great desire in life is to marry for love. And LF isn’t really teaching her policy so much as deception (although GRRM doesn’t really write about policy, so that might not mean much). I’m not sure what this means for her endgame. I’m guessing Bran will be the Lord of Winterfell before becoming king, so perhaps she acts as his regent? If so, then there’s a lot of ground to cover in TWOW, since she’s still a good 2.5 years away from turning 16.

Well, the main Stark daughter we hear about outside of Sansa, Arya, and Lyanna is the mother of Brandon son of Bael, and she was probably deemed untrustworthy, something like that.

[SeanF]

51 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The rumor for why Bloodmoon was cancelled is a lot different than HBO’s official story. There’s a reason the pilot is under lock and key. Allegedly, the show tried to include POC by having the Children of the Forest all be black. In order to reconcile this with the main show, the Children had the option to become immortal, but doing so had certain side effects. . . such as turning their skin white. Yeah.

That would have been unintentionally hilarious. 

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Plus, it creates continuity problems in the show canon.

Given that Aegon the Conqueror and several other Targaryens are part-Velaryon, shouldn't the entire Targaryen dynasty in the show canon look a bit different? Including Viserys and Dany?

Of course, that being the reason why I speculated above how a show take could 'fix' this problem if there were ever an adaptation of the Conquest or the reigns of Aenys and Maegor. Alyssa Velaryon can most definitely not be black, and since all Velaryons are magically black, apparently, so she would likely not be a Velaryon at all. Hence my idea that one could reimagine her as a cousin on the Targaryen side of the family, descended from a younger brother of Lord Aerion, say. Alyssa cannot be Aenys' sister-wife because the whole Faith thing means the first sibling incest marriage only takes place among Aegon's grandchildren.

Valaena Velaryon could be reimagined as Valaena Targaryen, Lord Aerion's sister-wife.

13 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I personally don’t think we’ll ever see a Targ show that predates HOTD. The Conquest is good mostly for the lore; as a story it’s absurdly one-sided, with almost no challenges for the Targaryens. It would be like watching a slaughter. Jaehaerys has a lot of interesting pieces, but it doesn’t have a greater arc—there’s no climax. Even Maegor the Cruel would be kind of dull and would be the third show to end with the realm being saved by crowning a boy king. That said, if they did adapt any of these shows, they would most likely just retcon the Velaryon parts. Alyssa would be a Massey now, or maybe even Aenys and Maegor’s sister.

I guess that would depend how popular HotD is going to be. But such issues might become reasonably relevant even if there is no proper adaptation of the earlier material - it could still be referenced, etc.

13 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

A lot of the hardcore ASOIAF fans on Quora use to say the series was about the Starks. 

The Starks were the core of Martin's moral vision. They were the core of the mysticism of the world, and the reason so little is written about their history is because it would reveal the end of ASOIAF. Targaryens in comparison were late stage addons. 

It is clear however the Targaryens have taken up the majority of the new content. AWOIAF, F&B, and Dunk & Egg are all based on the dragon family, meanwhile the wolves are left out in the cold. 

HBO wanted a show about northern mythology, but Martin was opposed and refocused the company on Valyrian mythology and the Dance of Dragons. I suspect any future content will also be Targ centric for many years to come as they hold more interest for the author than snow monsters. 

Poor White-Walkers. The future is Dragon Fire.   

That seems to be a kind of weirdo fantasy of certain parts of the fandom. The Starks are our first POVs in this story/world ... but they are not the only heroes, nor are they (necessarily) the destined saviors of mankind or the people who actually preserved the knowledge about the Others, etc.

I, personally, would be quite intrigued by a detailed history of the Starks or any of the other great houses of the Seven Kingdoms ... but George seemed to think that without the dragons such histories would be quite too common and mundane to be told. And he isn't all *that wrong* there. The history of the Starks will be mostly a story of mundane bloody conquests, backstabbing, succession wars, etc.

[Lord Varys]

I take it, that interview means the gist of my interpretation about Targaryen prophecy stuff was right - the idea that Viserys I dreamed about a son wearing the crown of Aegon I, etc. and that Rhaenyra was thinking about the Others, etc. may be inventions for HotD ... but that Aegon I and his sisters were motivated by prophecy, etc. when they conquered Westeros to unify and prepare the continent for the Others is effectively confirmed as being something that came from George.

Quote

The show’s primary characters are the fifth king of Westeros, Viserys I (Paddy Considine), and his daughter, Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen (Milly Alcock), who would inherit the throne without question if only she were a man. Something passes between them that is stirring discussion. Can you explain?

Condal: I think the Game of Thrones nerds were very interested and intrigued and compelled by the secret that Viserys tells Rhaenyra, connecting Aegon [the first king of the family and the original Westeros conqueror] with the prophecies that we know about the Long Night and the Others [a.k.a. the White Walkers] and the Night King coming out of the North—and how maybe the Targaryen dynasty was aware of it long before we think they were.

These are prophecies that ultimately played out as the climax of the original series. This show suggests that not only are they known by the Targaryens 200 years before, but they’ve been known for about a century.

 

Condal: I think they were very intrigued by that. A lot of them said I committed A Song of Ice and Fire heresy, but I did tell them: “That came from George.” I reassured everybody.

What is the significance of these prophecies, George? Unless I’ve missed it, is this something you wrote in one of the books, or is that an invention of the show?

Martin: It’s mentioned here and there—in connection with Prince Rhaegar, for example [the brother of Daenerys, played on Game of Thrones by Wilf Scolding]. I mean, it’s such a sprawling thing now. In the Dunk and Egg stories [about a future king, “Egg,” a.k.a. Aegon V], there’s one of Egg’s brothers who has these prophetic dreams, which of course he can’t handle. He had become a drunkard because they freaked him out. If you go all the way back to Daenys the Dreamer, why did she leave? She saw the Doom of Valyria coming. All of this is part of it, but I’m still two books away from the ending, so I haven’t fully explained it all yet.

[Note: The Doom of Valyria was an Atlantis-like cataclysm that demolished the old world roughly a century before Aegon I, the first king of Westeros. Martin has previously noted that “the Targaryens were the only nobles with dragons who escaped the destruction of Valyria.” Having advance notice of history is one of the keys to their power.]

Is one of the implications of this series that the Targaryens might’ve been better prepared for the doomsday prophecy if not for this Dance of Dragons civil war that decimated their family and stripped them of these powerful beasts?

Martin: I don’t want to give too much away, because some of this is going to be in the later books, but this is 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones. There was no sell-by date on that prophecy. That’s the issue. The Targaryens that know about it are all thinking, Okay, this is going to happen in my lifetime, I have to be prepared! Or, It’s going to happen in my son’s lifetime. Nobody said it’s going to happen 200 years from now. If the Dance of the Dragons had not happened, what would’ve happened to the next generation? What would’ve happened in the generation after that? Yeah, there’s a lot to be unwound there.

What George does give away here is that we don't have all the information yet to actually properly assess and judge the prophecy pieces we got so far. Pretty sure George is going to spin things so certain Targaryens - especially Aegon and his sisters - believed in certain things and tried to prepare for them ... while others were less fervent believers, had different priorities/interests, or were simply not up to the task.

In that context I'd also like to point out the fact that the Dance winter ends up being a six-year-winter, including the dreadful Winter Fever, just as a hard winter and the Shivers followed Alysanne's visit to the Wall. Those might be subtle things, but they are there ... like the throwaway line in THK that the death of the last dragon caused summers to be shorter and winters to be longer and crueler.

[Ran]

I really strongly think that Aegon and his sisters believed that establishing the Iron Throne's rule over (most of Westeros) fulfilled the prophecy of the three-headed dragon and the prince who was promised. I doubt they believed, specifically, that there was a danger from beyond the Wall, and they certainly did not seem to believe that unifying Westeros was paramount given that they in fact failed to do so.

In my mind, after they succeed and believe the prophecy is done, it's much later -- like Aerys I later, or Bloodraven later -- that the prophecy starts getting dug up again and maybe new pieces are understood to be a part of it that means it's still in active force. I could see Egg picking it up from Aerys and Bloodraven and that maybe one of the reasons he was desperate for dragons was because he believed in the prophecy. Jaehaerys II clearly seems to have picked up some of that notion from his father. Aerys II in his madness might well have been consumed by the idea of an approaching apocalypse for man, read it as the death of his house, and went out of his way to try and snuff out the danger (and thus fulfilling his own mad prophecy). And Rhaegar... I strongly suspect that Rhaegar, the singer, was the one who came up with the idea of calling this "the song of ice and fire", which strongly implies to me that he's probably the first Targaryen (since Bloodraven and maybe Egg?) to recognize a threat exists beyond the Wall.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

I really strongly think that Aegon and his sisters believed that establishing the Iron Throne's rule over (most of Westeros) fulfilled the prophecy of the three-headed dragon and the prince who was promised. I doubt they believed, specifically, that there was a danger from beyond the Wall, and they certainly did not seem to believe that unifying Westeros was paramount given that they in fact failed to do so.

IIRC, Aegon the Conqueror didn't even visit the Wall during his reign.

[Ran]

47 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

IIRC, Aegon the Conqueror didn't even visit the Wall during his reign.

Indeed. Not even Jaehaerys visited -- Alysanne did, but he didn't. So through the first 134 years of Targaryen history, not a single king seems to give a particular care about the Wall as if it's part of some important policy. It's sheer coincidence that Alysanne decided to visit when she did and decided to help out, for that matter. 

It's safe to say that Aegon III, Viserys II, and Daeron I didn't visit either. So 161 years. The King's tower at Castle Black is named for a visit "100 years ago" (which could be anywhere from 70 to 130 years, given the way people grossly round numbers in Westeros) by a king, a visit that is outside of "living memory". Daeron II maybe made a visit? Aerys I? Who knows.

So, I still very much think the "we're here to stop the Others in the far North" is pretty much entirely a HotD thing to connect it to GoT. And the "secret knowledge passed from king to king" is there to add greater pathos to Viserys moreso than it being supported by the text. The text doesn't at all make it sound like this is the right era for people to be seeing things these ways, while the currently-sketchier period from Aerys I onward does sound more likely to see this becoming increasingly central to the Targaryen dynasty.

[C.T. Phipps]

I wonder how many people complaining about the Targaryen having possibly black ancestry in their veins know mixed race families because there's plenty of them that can have white passing or more black looking members than their parents. Hell, there's a decent chance that Rhaenyra's children are in fact Laenor's children. After all, they have a white mother and a white grandmother.

Which is to say I wouldn't actually think it would be a bad idea to add more mixed race black and white haired folk to the Targaryens. We could use more diversity in that respect, especially with a family that is explicitly of a different bloodline than the majority of the populace.

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

I really strongly think that Aegon and his sisters believed that establishing the Iron Throne's rule over (most of Westeros) fulfilled the prophecy of the three-headed dragon and the prince who was promised. I doubt they believed, specifically, that there was a danger from beyond the Wall, and they certainly did not seem to believe that unifying Westeros was paramount given that they in fact failed to do so.

George definitely added subtle 'promised prince' symbolism in that regard to Aegon in FaB, with the whole talk about Dragonstone being his favorite place, because of how it smelled (smoke and salt, etc.) ... but that may just be a hint that he and his sisters knew about the prophecy, not so much that he actually thought he fulfilled it. That would be presumption on his part, and Aegon (just as Rhaegar) doesn't really strike one as the guy who basked in the light of providence and destiny.

Not to mention that, so far, nothing we know about this prophecy so far implies that the promised prince is going to conquer the continent of Westeros. Instead, though, we do know that the Valyrians had certain prophetic lore about Westeros being a dangerous place, where the doom of mankind would come from, etc. The idea that the place would just be some backwater continent the Targaryens could conquer and exploit fells very wrong ... especially since their own cultural background should have caused them to conquer, say, Volantis and rebuild the Valyrian empire. Aegon's interest in Westeros is completely irrational.

The three-headed dragon banner might be another hint to prophetic knowledge, since Rhaegar's talk about 'the dragon has three heads' cannot really be a reference to a stupid and contingent heraldic animal but rather to something that's (also) represented by that banner (unless we assume Rhaegar had prophetic dreams of his, of course). Hell, one could even ask if there is a hidden meaning to Aegon's early royal styling as 'Shield of His People' ... what's the danger King Aegon has to shield his people from? Pirates from the Stepstones? Generic injustice? Or something else?

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

In my mind, after they succeed and believe the prophecy is done, it's much later -- like Aerys I later, or Bloodraven later -- that the prophecy starts getting dug up again and maybe new pieces are understood to be a part of it that means it's still in active force.

I think there you ignore the fact that we definitely don't have all the pieces yet. I mean, we all expect that Bloodraven/Bran will give us crucial insights via visions of the past, right? Just as crucial characters are going to share some of their most important memories with us to fill other gaps in our knowledge.

If our remaining Targaryens were all familiar with prophetic shenanigans then this kind of thing might be enough. But Daenerys has no clue about any of this - and Jon Snow even less so. They must be told about those things in terms that reach them, that pique their interest. Especially Daenerys must be convinced that Westeros truly matters to her and her family. And for that there must be a line to go direct back to Aegon the Conqueror, not just to some more obscure Targaryens in-between.

It is pretty clear that Dany is set up to emulate Aegon and his sister-wives with her three dragons in some capacity ... but why would she do this if there is no good internal reason for her to do this?

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

I could see Egg picking it up from Aerys and Bloodraven and that maybe one of the reasons he was desperate for dragons was because he believed in the prophecy. Jaehaerys II clearly seems to have picked up some of that notion from his father.

But Egg didn't seem to believe or care much for the promised prince, no? He thought he could hatch the dragons eggs, that he didn't need to wait for some prophesied savior dude. His son Jaehaerys was the one who believed in the prophecy for some reason - and Egg and Jaehaerys were even at odds about the marriage of Aerys and Rhaella. Jaehaerys insisted on that, apparently against his father's will.

It might be that this is an example of different interpretations of the same/similar prophecies and that everything goes back to the same interest, but considering that Jaehaerys also had that weird obsession with incest I imagine that the guy had his own motivations, possibly going back to his own dreams, interests, and research.

I'd also imagine that for Egg the Others/Wall were a very low priority considering his focus on his reforms.

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

Aerys II in his madness might well have been consumed by the idea of an approaching apocalypse for man, read it as the death of his house, and went out of his way to try and snuff out the danger (and thus fulfilling his own mad prophecy). And Rhaegar... I strongly suspect that Rhaegar, the singer, was the one who came up with the idea of calling this "the song of ice and fire", which strongly implies to me that he's probably the first Targaryen (since Bloodraven and maybe Egg?) to recognize a threat exists beyond the Wall.

Those interpretations certainly make sense. Although that doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that Aegon and his sisters may have had a more concrete picture of what was to come ... without them understanding the exact nature of the danger/enemy. When I write 'they knew/prepared for the Others' I mean more for some kind of opaque/unclear doom from the far north whose exact nature is unclear, not that they actually believed in the existence of the ice demons and their undead hordes.

If we imagine that Aegon and his sisters prepared for something like that ... then Aenys and Maegor already make such an endeavor hard. Aenys was not warrior and more concerned with the good life, and Maegor nobody who cared much about the well-being of his people. Aenys' youngest soon succeeding Maegor further ensured that the ties to Aegon's time were and goals were undermined or cut off ... not to mention the weirdo kings after the Dance - Daeron I, Baelor, Aegon IV, etc.

42 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

IIRC, Aegon the Conqueror didn't even visit the Wall during his reign.

To our knowledge. It strikes me as rather unbelievable that there is a gigantic ice wall in Aegon's Realm which he never wanted to see with his own eyes. He journeyed through his entire Realm repeatedly and he did have a dragon to fly around.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Indeed. Not even Jaehaerys visited -- Alysanne did, but he didn't.

According to the incomplete account by Gyldayn - according to ASoS the Old King also visited the Wall. Now, that could be a wrong account, but considering Jaehaerys and Alysanne would have made progresses up north even after their first visit to Winterfell ... it stands to reason that they visited the Wall (again) at a later date.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

So through the first 134 years of Targaryen history, not a single king seems to give a particular care about the Wall as if it's part of some important policy. It's sheer coincidence that Alysanne decided to visit when she did and decided to help out, for that matter. 

As I wrote earlier already ... we don't have to assume that Targaryens believing in a threat from the north must have also believed the Wall/Watch were best equipped to deal with that. Aegon may have thought that his Conquest basically replaced the NW with a proper strike force - namely, the military power of all the lords of Westeros united under the command of the Targaryen king. That's much better than a couple of thousand men shivering on a wall of ice. Or at least in his mind.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's safe to say that Aegon III, Viserys II, and Daeron I didn't visit either. So 161 years. The King's tower at Castle Black is named for a visit "100 years ago" (which could be anywhere from 70 to 130 years, given the way people grossly round numbers in Westeros) by a king, a visit that is outside of "living memory". Daeron II maybe made a visit? Aerys I? Who knows.

Aerys I most definitely not. I'd be surprised if that guy ever visited Rosby or Stokeworth...

If the date is to be taken seriously, Daeron II would be the guy, perhaps during a big progress in the wake of the Blackfyre Rebellion.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

So, I still very much think the "we're here to stop the Others in the far North" is pretty much entirely a HotD thing to connect it to GoT. And the "secret knowledge passed from king to king" is there to add greater pathos to Viserys moreso than it being supported by the text. The text doesn't at all make it sound like this is the right era for people to be seeing things these ways, while the currently-sketchier period from Aerys I onward does sound more likely to see this becoming increasingly central to the Targaryen dynasty.

I don't think this helps much with the issue - despite Aerys I, Bloodraven, Aemon, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, and Rhaegar all being concerned with prophecy (and some of those dudes even living at the Wall having firsthand contact with the people who lived beyond it) we have no change in policy towards the Watch, the Wall, or the northern reaches of Westeros in general.

If we assume that folks being concerned with prophecy would have had certain effects on their policies then we also don't see those among the later Targaryens ... meaning there is no fundamental problem with Aegon I and Jaehaerys I not doing much compared to Maekar or Aegon V or Aerys II ignoring the needs of the Watch.

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I wonder how many people complaining about the Targaryen having possibly black ancestry in their veins know mixed race families because there's plenty of them that can have white passing or more black looking members than their parents. Hell, there's a decent chance that Rhaenyra's children are in fact Laenor's children. After all, they have a white mother and a white grandmother.

Oh, I certainly know about that ... but the Targaryens are inbred as hell. If Valaena and Alyssa were both black, then Viserys I and Daemon would be, too, there is no way around that. Their parents and grandparents were both siblings.

Up to Daeron II the Targaryens should all be visibly darkskinned ... but one certainly could make a case that by the time of Aerys II they could have been 'white passing' due to Myriah Martell, Dyanna Dayne, and Betha Blackwood. But it would be still somewhat of a stretch.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I certainly know about that ... but the Targaryens are inbred as hell. If Valaena and Alyssa were both black, then Viserys I and Daemon would be, too, there is no way around that. Their parents and grandparents were both siblings.

Up to Daeron II the Targaryens should all be visibly darkskinned ... but one certainly could make a case that by the time of Aerys II they could have been 'white passing' due to Myriah Martell, Dyanna Dayne, and Betha Blackwood. But it would be still somewhat of a stretch.

Perhaps but I'm also willing to make a certain level of casting exceptions and issues as well that can be rectified later. We could certainly add some Velayron elements to the Targaryen family that get specifically picked up on. Mind you, we also need to address the elephant in the room of whether Targaryens generally have "magical albinism" which is sadly a real life trope just like magical white hair (and bad for those who suffer from the skin condition).

But generally, my inclination is to treat skin color a bit like the books treat hair color. It's VITALLY IMPORTANT until it isn't.

As otherwise, Aegon II and Aemond would have black hair to fit with Robert and Jon.

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

e have no change in policy towards the Watch, the Wall, or the northern reaches of Westeros in general.

Egg sent Bloodraven to the Wall with great pomp and circumstance. Bloodraven became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, the first Targaryen-related person to do so. That seems like a change of policy to me!

Aerys II wanted to build a second Wall, north of the original, for that matter. PArt of his flighty madness, certainly, but...

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I really strongly think that Aegon and his sisters believed that establishing the Iron Throne's rule over (most of Westeros) fulfilled the prophecy of the three-headed dragon and the prince who was promised.

You know, I'm not so sure about that. GRRM said years ago (accidentally?) that The Prince that was Promised and Azor Ahai Reborn are one entity, and Maester Aemon's conversation with Melisandre in ASoS seems to suggest that as well. Azor Ahai/AAR are definitely connected to the Long Night, so maybe TPTWP is too.

[Ran]

Just now, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

You know, I'm not so sure about that. GRRM said years ago (accidentally?) that The Prince that was Promised and Azor Ahai Reborn are one entity, and Maester Aemon's conversation with Melisandre in ASoS seems to suggest that as well. Azor Ahai/AAR are definitely connected to the Long Night, so maybe TPTWP is too.

Yes, but I don't think the Targaryens knew this at the time. I think that's the result of later Targaryens like Rhaegar and Bloodraven. Aemon, as we know, was in contact with Rhaegar who shared his theories and beliefs with him.