Jump to content

Westeros.org on Episode 2: The Rogue Prince


Recommended Posts

Quote

That’s my point, though. They've given an explanation and it is something that they are standing by.

"Yeah, there's black Valyrians. There's always been them."

Which is the thing they've said from the beginning.

 

But that isn’t “an explanation”. 
 

we asked “how does this fit within the story verse” and the response was “yes”

tangible questions like “okay, does Alyssa Velaryon exist in the show universe or not?” are not addressed by this. And it would be ok if she was cut. But they need to clarify that.

Edited by The Dragon Demands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

But that isn’t “an explanation”. 
 

we asked “how does this fit within the story verse” and the response was “yes”

tangible questions like “okay, does Alyssa Velaryon exist in the show universe or not?” are not addressed by this. And it would be ok if she was cut. But they need to clarify that.

I feel like the problem is that people want an explanation versus a defacto, though.

"There's black Valyrians because there's always been black Valyrians."

And people go, "yes, but how."

And I don't even think that they're retconning them out, it's just...you know, we have to accept TV conventions. Old King Joe has a black mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

And I don't even think that they're retconning them out, it's just...you know, we have to accept TV conventions. Old King Joe has a black mother.

Yeah, it needs an an “explanation” not a defacto “because”.

and yes, that is a specific question: is Jaehaerys’s mother in the tv canon still Alyssa Velaryon? Was she black? I’d be fine if she was, but they need to “confirm” that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dragon Demands said:

tangible questions like “okay, does Alyssa Velaryon exist in the show universe or not?” are not addressed by this. And it would be ok if she was cut. But they need to clarify that.

Do they really need? In fact, if they gave an honest answer to your questions, I guess it would probably something like: "we don't need to settle on that at this point. If HBO ever produces a show about the previous generation of Targaryens, whoever showruns that one will decide what suits better for the story they want to tell."

Edited by The hairy bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

Which has been discussed. Until the show actually says something, or the showrunners, it remains HBO marketing material of unknown provenance, and we're not actually even sure what it's saying about her relationship to Aenys's children.

Mind you, I think you could also just take it at face value because the only people insisting there has to be a change are the people who insist that there has to be a change.

Versus, "Yes, the Velaryons have married with the Targaryens and procreated. Nothing is different in this much-more faithful to Martin adaptation that includes King Joe II because he demanded we put him back in."

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ran said:

Other than the lines in the show suggesting the Velaryons have not married into the Targaryen line since before the Doom, sure.

Funny, I remember someone presenting those lines as direct evidence and my response was, "I don't think anything she's stated remotely suggests what people are believing she's stating." Furthermore, I said that the show itself presents contradictory evidence to the interpretation.

Laena: Let us join our houses like in Old Valyria!

What She Meant: Because we're both Valyrian houses!

What Fans Act Like She Said: No Targaryen or Velaryon has ever married.

Why its nonsense: Because her mother is Targaryen and their houses are already joined.

What Some Fans Try to Say: But she only means Targaryen rulers! Not Targaryen offspring!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I said, there's a line in Ep 5 that makes it clear that "join our houses" in the context of the show is about future Targaryen kings having Velaryon blood.

Maybe it's dumb, but that's what they're saying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, if the show could 'make sense' of Shireen Baratheon popping up out of nowhere in season 3 of GoT when they had Mel repeatedly stress the fact that Selyse failed give Stannis' sons ... then one could also kind of retcon Laena's talk and presumably also that later line from episode 5.

It is quite clear that Laena and Corlys are more likely to stress the more recent matches with the royal Targaryens in Westeros - meaning especially Alyssa Velaryon and King Aenys, but also Valaena Velaryon and Lord Aerion. That's what they should be doing.

But that they are not doing that is hardly conclusive or anything. Lots of people do a lot of mental gymnastics to make sense of aspects of this story which don't really much sense, so this could work, too.

This Corlys could very well be more obsessed with whatever matches there were between the Velaryons and the Targaryens back in Old Valyria, especially when dealing with a king who clearly seems to care more about Valyria than the Seven Kingdoms.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

And as I said, there's a line in Ep 5 that makes it clear that "join our houses" in the context of the show is about future Targaryen kings having Velaryon blood.

Maybe it's dumb, but that's what they're saying.

I guess even that line you can understand as the descendants of Laenor and Rhaenyra having the blood of Corlys and his father and grandfather. If it is specifically about 'Velaryon blood' in a very general sense then it is indeed very dumb, since if there were matches back in Valyria then the Targaryens should already have that blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, if the show could 'make sense' of Shireen Baratheon popping up out of nowhere in season 3 of GoT when they had Mel repeatedly stress the fact that Selyse failed give Stannis' sons

Shireen is very obviously not a son. Nothing needs to be made "sense" of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

And as I said, there's a line in Ep 5 that makes it clear that "join our houses" in the context of the show is about future Targaryen kings having Velaryon blood.

Maybe it's dumb, but that's what they're saying.

I mean, I absolutely don't believe that it's clear or what they mean.

Plus there's no matches of the Velaryon and Targaryens back in Valyria because they're not a dragonriding noble house.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Plus there's no matches of the Velaryon and Targaryens back in Valyria because they're not a dragonriding noble house.

I don't even know that that is true in the book canon, but it clearly is not true in the show canon, re: Laena's rehearsed speech from Corlys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

Shireen is very obviously not a son. Nothing needs to be made "sense" of.

Doesn't Mel get lines that push it nearly beyond the finish line when she says something along the lines of 'She gave you nothing, no son, etc.'? That's how I recall this.

If you want to establish that this guy does have a child and heir after all, this is not the way to lay the groundwork for this. Rather you would say that the guy has a wife and daughter and then you would eventually show them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't even know that that is true in the book canon, but it clearly is not true in the show canon, re: Laena's rehearsed speech from Corlys. 

Unless she means joining two Valyrian houses, which seems much-much more likely.

Basically, I believe what she says means nothing about the Velaryon/Targaryen marriages that still took place in this timeline and certainy doesn't imply they married in Old Valyria.

But I look forward to them clarifying this in the show.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Unless she means joining two Valyrian houses, which seems much-much more likely.

Which, as you have argued, has already happened in this era because she's the daughter of that joining. But then thisf means she means something else when she has to refer back to Old Valyria.

I really don't quite see why you're stuck on this point. Why is their changing the family tree so objectionable when they've changed a bunch of other details, great and small, for the show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I don't even know that that is true in the book canon, but it clearly is not true in the show canon, re: Laena's rehearsed speech from Corlys. 

We don't know anything about that. Could very well be that there were such matches in Valyria. Or not. Depends on how close the Targaryens were to the Velaryons in Valyria. Them going to Driftmark before the Targaryens doesn't exactly indicate a close relationship in that era. We don't even know if Targaryens were involved in the original establishment of the Valyrian outpost on Dragonstone, the building of the citadel, etc.

Could be, since Aenar and Daenys knew about the place. Or not, and they just read up on in when trying to figure out where they should go to avoid the Doom.

If Targaryens were among the dragonlords/sorcerers building the Dragonstone citadel then one imagines they could have made matches with Velaryons who were around at that time, too. But back in Valyria one imagines that dragonlords intermarrying with non-dragonlords was a rather rare occasion. The blood spreading out might have happened more often - a spare child lacking a dragon, etc. ending up marrying some lesser noble to make his way in the world outside the topless towers. But an actual dragonlord taking a bride from a non-dragonlord house to strengthen his own bloodline, increasing his power and prestige, etc. wouldn't have happened that often. If they couldn't find a suitable spouse in their own family they would have turned to other dragonlord families.

Folks have to keep in mind that the reason why Valaena Alyssa and Corlys and Laena and Laenor are suitable matches for the Targaryens is because they already have Targaryen blood from an earlier marriage of (a) Targaryen(s) into House Velaryon. That's why they turn to them again and again and again.

Not because they are also Valyrian. That is not enough. The Celtigars and the Qoherys are Valyrian, too, but they don't seem to have the blood of the dragon to the same degree as the Velaryons and are thus never truly considered as matches.

Ditto with Lys and Volantis being the places the Targaryens look for suitable brides. The blood of the dragon still runs strong in those cities, but not so much in the other Free Cities.

(I imagine that it is possible that Rohanne and Kiera of Tyrosh also turn out to have a strong Valyrian lineage, but this doesn't have to be the case.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Mind you, I think you could also just take it at face value because the only people insisting there has to be a change are the people who insist that there has to be a change.

At face value it shows Jaehaerys being descended from Aenys, but not necessarily from Alyssa.

Edited by Bael's Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...