[Spoilers] Episode 107 Discussion

[Sotan]

6 minutes ago, RumHam said:

That and all the Targaryen princes who ask about taking multiple wives and are denied leads me to suspect that when unifying and codifying the laws Jaehaerys sided with the kingdoms that considered it illegal. 

That's an interesting interpretation, I always took it as the King allowing polygamy in his family would cause unnecessary political headaches, and since members of the royal family couldn't marry without the King's permission, that door was closed. 

[RumHam]

1 minute ago, Sotan said:

That's an interesting interpretation, I always took it as the King allowing polygamy in his family would cause unnecessary political headaches, and since members of the royal family couldn't marry without the King's permission, that door was closed. 

We used to debate this quite a bit but it's been so long I can't remember all the details. You may well be right. I wonder does the king control family marriages other than his children? 

This is from the worldbook:

Quote

This seems plausible enough, but a different tale claims that Daemon was not so much opposed to wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh as he was convinced that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel and have more than one bride. Aegon might even have promised to indulge him in this (some of Blackfyre’s partisans later claimed this was the case) but Daeron was of a different mind entirely. Not only did Daeron refuse to permit his brother more than one wife...

It seems like odd phrasing if anyone can have more than one wife. Or even if it's standard that Targaryens can. Why say "he was convinced he could" if it should be clear that polygamy isn't an issue? 

[Red_star99]

1 hour ago, Sotan said:

Can anyone confirm if The Doctrine of Exceptionalism covered polygamy? I always thought it prohibited incest for everyone except the Targaryens, but it never touched on polygamy. I ask this because to me it looks like Daemon and Rhaenyra's marriage is legal since they married in a Valyrian ceremony and the Faith of the Seven has no standing to invalidate it. Unless the DoE specifically prohibits polygamy. 

 jaehearys was anti polygamy  after all his sister was one of the women that maegor married (raped) when his daughter brought it up he became even more angry  with her

[C.T. Phipps]

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

It concerned itself solely with the practice of incest.

It actually said that it was the gods making the Targaryens different. Not just about incest.

[Sotan]

10 minutes ago, RumHam said:

We used to debate this quite a bit but it's been so long I can't remember all the details. You may well be right. I wonder does the king control family marriages other than his children? 

This is from the worldbook:

It seems like odd phrasing if anyone can have more than one wife. Or even if it's standard that Targaryens can. Why say "he was convinced he could" if it should be clear that polygamy isn't an issue? 

I always thought members of the royal family required the monarch's permission to marry, which is why Daemon and Laena ran off to Essos because they married without Viserys' leave. I think the same rule would apply to Daemon Blackfyre.

It's unfortunate there isn't an example in the books like Show Daemon/Rhaenyra. I'm really curious to see what the reaction is if Laenor comes back.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It actually said that it was the gods making the Targaryens different. Not just about incest.

It couches the way that the Targaryens are different as meaning they are allowed to commit incest, not that they are allowed to have polygamous marriages:

Quote

Its basic tenet was simple. The Faith of the Seven had been born in the hills of Andalos of old, and had crossed the narrow sea with the Andals. The laws of the Seven, as laid down in sacred text and taught by the septas and septons in obedience to the Father of the Faithful, decreed that brother might not lie with sister, nor father with daughter, nor mother with son, that the fruits of such unions were abominations, loathsome in the eyes of the gods. All this the Exceptionalists affirmed, but with this caveat: the Targaryens were different.

There are two anecdotal examples directly after the passage which is entirely about incest. Nothing about polygamy.

The argument can be made that the Doctrine of Exceptionalism must mean the Targaryens are exempt from other tenets of the Faith, but it is not inherent to the Doctrine, which (as I said) is solely concerned with Targaryen incest practices.

[C.T. Phipps]

Quote

t couches the way that the Targaryens are different as meaning they are allowed to commit incest, not that they are allowed to have polygamous marriages:

The issue remained unsettled as Saera says she certainly can.

Also, the Targaryens polyamorous children have never been declared bastards.

[Ran]

8 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

he issue remained unsettled as Saera says she certainly can.

Surely you can't be serious. Saera said a whooooooole lot of self-serving bullshit.

12 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Also, the Targaryens polyamorous children have never been declared bastards.

Because no one wanted to rouse the Dragon. The current Targaryen line are all descended from the Conqueror's eldest born son, so the Faith can certainly just pretend Visenya and Maegor didn't really count and not much reason to make a point of it since it's ancient history.

[Lord Varys]

Dragon issues:

My earlier criticism only deepens as the show progresses. Folks went out of the way here to argue that it was unnecessary for 'budget reasons' that practical and day-to-day habitual uses of the dragons be addressed or depicted ... and now, after another pointless joy ride scene with Vhagar and Caraxes in episode 6 (including the most silly 'I'm cool because I fly through a dragon fireball like a madman' stunt), we get a dragged out and quite pointless 'Aemond flies around on Vhagar for no reason' scene.

Sure enough - we needed the scene where Aemond mounts Vhagar, and it is great - his approach, him calming her down, him climbling on her back, etc. But then it quickly becomes a waste of screentime and the (apparently oh so limited) CGI budget. It would have been enough for him to fly half a minute or so, take a quick flight around the castle. Instead they waste time with stunts of Aemond dangling on the ropes, Vhagar flying across the ocean surface, etc.

That was just not-so-cool imagery they could have omitted to instead include meaningful dragon scenes.

For instance, you know, actually show Sunfyre who was previously namedropped and, more importantly, establish that Dreamfyre, the dragon intimidating Aemond in the last episode, had actually already been claimed by Princess Helaena.

It is also unintentionally funny that they don't really develop dragonlore and dragon logistics and dragon politics much ... only to then make Otto a huge thing out of the fact that Aemond just claimed Vhagar. That Daemon had Caraxes and Otto no dragon at all was not relevant in episode 2, though, right? Nobody bothered to bring up the two dragons the Velaryons controlled when the Laena match was discussed, either.

As by the logic of the show so far it should literally make no difference at all who controlled which dragon (or if they had no dragon at all, like Viserys) because nobody ever acts as if that is a potentially important issue that can influence and shape political or military decisions should push come to shove.

Viserys and Rhaenyra kind of touch on it, but only in the context of House Targaryen vs. the world.

It is quite sad to see how little effort they made into making those people acts as if they truly lived in a world where the royal family have their own super weapons.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Sotan said:

Can anyone confirm if The Doctrine of Exceptionalism covered polygamy? I always thought it prohibited incest for everyone except the Targaryens, but it never touched on polygamy. I ask this because to me it looks like Daemon and Rhaenyra's marriage is legal since they married in a Valyrian ceremony and the Faith of the Seven has no standing to invalidate it. Unless the DoE specifically prohibits polygamy. 

It is up in the air why they chose a Valyrian ceremony there. The book does not describe their marriage rites, so it is possible they did it there this way, too, although it is certainly not implied.

The better way to go with the polygamy thing there would have actually have been to show or reference that Rhaenyra and Harwin had clandestinely married so that at least in their own eyes any children they might conceive would not be born out of wedlock. Clandestine morganatic marriages are not uncommon in the real world, and neither is secret bigamy. This could have also helped to make Rhaenyra's outrage over the bastard insinuations more sincere.

It would be easily imaginable that they could enter into a secret polygamous marriage while not (yet) being able to make it public. But Rhaenyra could have easily enough promised Harwin that she would publicly reveal that both Laenor Velaryon and Harwin Strong were her consorts after she had ascended the throne.

The Westerosi Targaryen precedents for working polygamy are monarchs, not princes. It worked for King Aegon I and King Maegor the Cruel, not for Prince Maegor. He was exiled for bigamy. Thus one could argue that Princess Rhaenyra never dared to make something like that public ... assuming she would have done something like that.

Regarding Daemon-Rhaenyra one could argue that they went with the Valyrian rite because they knew Laenor yet lived, so should he ever come back or should it be revealed that he was still alive, they better marry in a rite in which polygamy is a thing - which apparently is in the Valyrian rite.

In the Faith you cannot really take more than one wife, and when Maegor did it he must have forced the septon and later the High Septon to alter the marriage vows.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

It seems like odd phrasing if anyone can have more than one wife. Or even if it's standard that Targaryens can. Why say "he was convinced he could" if it should be clear that polygamy isn't an issue? 

Unlike I'm mistaken, this was an idea that Elio and Linda put to George to explain away the timeline discrepancy in Eustace's narrative (Daenerys being in love with Daemon when the guy was already married and father of multiple children).

I'd be surprised if George were flying with that in FaB II. It is too, well, weird to assume that a guy who was viewed as the embodiment of the Warrior would (publicly) entertain such barbaric practices ... not to mention the fact that he was a mere legitimized bastard, meaning he wouldn't have been brought up with the arrogance that's common for your average dragon prince. Up until the age of 12 the lad was a fatherless bastard. And two years later he married.

It is also hard to swallow that Aegon IV - who apparently never took a second wife - was actually entertaining the notion to allow his bastard (who wasn't even legitimized at the time since that only happened on his deathbed) more than one wife. In light of the fact that post-Maegor none of the Targaryen dragonriders ever even contemplated polygamy (in the book) makes it exceedingly unlikely that Daemon Blackfyre did. The guy may have never even read a history book considering his background and main interests.

51 minutes ago, Ran said:

Because no one wanted to rouse the Dragon. The current Targaryen line are all descended from the Conqueror's eldest born son, so the Faith can certainly just pretend Visenya and Maegor didn't really count and not much reason to make a point of it since it's ancient history.

That's what I've been saying for quite some time. If you want to pretend and view to paint a most favorable picture of the mighty Conqueror you suck up to then you point out that Aegon's second son, Maegor, was only born after Queen Rhaenys had already died. So you can pretend that, perhaps, the marriage to Visenya was only properly consummated after Rhaenys' death, and thus the Conqueror was never actually a proper polygamist. This kind of reasoning certainly might be what the High Septon and some of the Most Devout entertained to make their peace with Aegon's two wives.

And Aegon certainly had only one wife for the majority of his reign (10-37 AC). That Aegon didn't take another wife after Rhaenys' death - or a third and a fourth and a fifth - certainly sends the message that he didn't want to establish polygamy as a royal Targaryen tradition. If that were the case, both Aenys and Maegor could have been offered additional wives during the reign of their father, and Maegor's childless marriage may have been reason enough. But it didn't happen, and when Maegor and Visenya finally made the Alys match it was a huge scandal and nothing King Aenys was willing to support or even accept.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

@Lord Varys

You might not care about the battles but me and plenty of other people do seeing as the Dance is supposed to be a civil war and if the strategies + tactics don't make sense (on top of being just plain boring) then what we're watching isn't a gripping family drama or a historical tragedy but a comedic farce bordering on the parodic.

Furthermore, characters like Tywin, Balon, and Joffrey don't need arcs because they're 1) not main characters and 2) dynamic as well as idiosyncratic, with more details being revealed as the series progresses.

As for Criston Cole, the problem is he isn't presented as a great knight in addition to being a monster, traitor, insert whatever negative word you want. He doesn't perform any great chivalric deeds, win major battles that cripple or frighten the Blacks, his death doesn't really affect the outcome of the war nor does it affect any major characters or their plans, etc. In short, he has the sobriquet of Warwick and the controversial reputation of Jaime but nothing to actually back it up beyond turning Breakbones into Brokenbones at one tourney and knocking Dark Sister out of Daemon's hands at another, which hardly means anything in the grand scheme of things. As you once said, if he'd rescued Viserys or Rhaenyra from drowning when a pontoon bridge collapsed or hunted down outlaws like Arthur Dayne or won a truly great victory during the Dance, then his reputation and death would hold weight. Another idea I personally like is that he saw Aemond as the son he'd never have and that Aemond in turn saw him as a surrogate father (because I can't imagine Viserys was ever close to his sons due to his favoritism as well as how said sons turned out) due to personally training the one-eyed prince.

Edited October 5, 2022 by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

18 hours ago, RumHam said:

Huh, you think? I always assumed someone must have reached out to them with an offer. 

Hugh and Ulf were both illiterate and we have no idea how far Larys' network reached (though we do know he stayed in and mainly focused on destabilizing KL) so I'm inclined to believe the Two Betrayers switched sides entirely of their own volition.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

14 hours ago, Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe said:

I haven’t played any of the number games in F&B but are the outcomes equivalent to the victories? 

The Blacks only ever 1) suffer minimal casualties or 2) inflict such heavy casualties on the Greens when they happen to loss that the scales even out more or less. For example, at the Gullet, the Velaryons do lose a third of their fleet in addition to Driftmark getting sacked but the Triarchy loses two-thirds of its ships and thus ends up being a one-scene wonder. Another example would be the Honeywine, where the Greens win but both sides take "heavy losses".

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

@Lord Varys

You might not care about the battles but me and plenty of other people do seeing as the Dance is supposed to be a civil war and if the strategies + tactics don't make sense (on top of being just plain boring) then what we're watching isn't a gripping family drama or a historical tragedy but a comedic farce bordering on the parodic.

I agree that the battles suck ... I just don't feel the need to go through the minutiae because the entire setting does suck there.

But I definitely don't agree that the Greens always have the worst of it. They butcher they way quite successfully through the Crownlands, for instance. No big battles there, but they win all of the smaller ones, culminating in Rook's Rest (which is also a victory, although one of the pointless/Pyrrhic ones.

16 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Furthermore, characters like Tywin, Balon, and Joffrey don't need arcs because they're 1) not main characters and 2) dynamic as well as idiosyncratic, with more details being revealed as the series progresses.

They were kind of main characters. Joffrey certainly was a main antagonist from book 1 onwards, and Tywin is one of the most important characters in ASoS. Ask yourself - are they not main characters because they died suddenly and unexpectedly ... or because the general plot indicated they were unimportant? What would Joff and Tywin be in AFfC/ADwD if not two of the most important characters?

16 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

As for Criston Cole, the problem is he isn't presented as a great knight in addition to being a monster, traitor, insert whatever negative word you want. He doesn't perform any great chivalric deeds, win major battles that cripple or frighten the Blacks, his death doesn't really affect the outcome of the war nor does it affect any major characters or their plans, etc. In short, he has the sobriquet of Warwick and the controversial reputation of Jaime but nothing to actually back it up beyond turning Breakbones into Brokenbones at one tourney and knocking Dark Sister out of Daemon's hands at another, which hardly means anything in the grand scheme of things. As you once said, if he'd rescued Viserys or Rhaenyra from drowning when a pontoon bridge collapsed or hunted down outlaws like Arthur Dayne or won a truly great victory during the Dance, then his reputation and death would hold weight. Another idea I personally like is that he saw Aemond as the son he'd never have and that Aemond in turn saw him as a surrogate father (because I can't imagine Viserys was ever close to his sons due to his favoritism as well as how said sons turned out) due to personally training the one-eyed prince.

Sure enough, but guess what - the book isn't supposed to be a biography of Criston Cole. I agree that he should have been fleshed out more, just as Ryam Redwyne should have - but this is a Targaryen history and not a Kingsguard history.

Criston Cole is not entitled to a frontseat in the narrative just because you feel like he deserved it.

14 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Hugh and Ulf were both illiterate and we have no idea how far Larys' network reached (though we do know he stayed in and mainly focused on destabilizing KL) so I'm inclined to believe the Two Betrayers switched sides entirely of their own volition.

It doesn't have to have been Larys Strong's network - we know there were Green agents in Tumbleton and it stands to reason that they approached and convinced them to turn their cloaks. That's the conclusion of all of our historians. The traitors all knew what to do when the signal came, after all.

The fact that they were illiterate only explains why we don't get their side of the story - and that shows because these two are more vilified than everybody else.

11 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

The Blacks only ever 1) suffer minimal casualties or 2) inflict such heavy casualties on the Greens when they happen to loss that the scales even out more or less. For example, at the Gullet, the Velaryons do lose a third of their fleet in addition to Driftmark getting sacked but the Triarchy loses two-thirds of its ships and thus ends up being a one-scene wonder. Another example would be the Honeywine, where the Greens win but both sides take "heavy losses".

That is just wrong. The Greens eventually crush all the Blacks in the Reach, and they decisively win at First Tumbleton. And the Triarchy - stop pretending they were 'Greens', will you? They entered into the war for their own reasons, presumably to do what they did - namely sack Driftmark and put that unsufferable Sea Snake back in his place (messing with Daemon would have been also part of it, but they must have known he wasn't there at the time). They ensured that the Velaryons would not remain a powerful rival of the Free Cities in the region.

There is no indication they cared who the hell sat the Iron Throne. Why should they?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite sad to see how little effort they made into making those people acts as if they truly lived in a world where the royal family have their own super weapons.

The post sounds a lot more like you're pissed certain characters aren't talking more about their dragons rather than their depiction on screen.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

The post sounds a lot more like you're pissed certain characters aren't talking more about their dragons rather than their depiction on screen.

I'd prefer to a reaction to what I've written, not how something I wrote 'sounds'. I cannot really react to opaque interpretations.

But, yes, they should also talk more about the dragons if they are supposed to matter in any meaningful way. But the bigger issue is that they are basically just shown off in scenes that have little to no plot relevance.

It is almost comical to see (or rather: infer) that Aegon and Helaena flew back to KL on those two dragons were saw there in addition to Vhagar when we earlier saw the dragonrider Rhaenyra travel around by ship. What's the difference now? Alicent and Viserys and Aemond would have travelled together to Driftmark by ship, like Viserys and Rhaenyra also did earlier. Why were Aegon and Helaena allowed to fly? Why did they want to fly?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd prefer to a reaction to what I've written, not how something I wrote 'sounds'. I cannot really react to opaque interpretations.

No need to get snippy.  What you wrote "sounds" to me like what I said - whether I quote your whole post or just "at" you.  The only thing you complained about specifically in what they haven't shown is Sunfyre and Helaena claiming Dreamfyre.  I don't think a bunch of "claiming" scenes would be particularly useful - and would certainly get repetitive.  Indeed, only showing Aemond's makes it special.  They introduced Vhagar in episode 6 to set up Aemond claiming her in episode 7.  This is still very frugal use of the dragons on screen.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But, yes, they should also talk more about the dragons if they are supposed to matter in any meaningful way. But the bigger issue is that they are basically just shown off in scenes that have little to no plot relevance.

Fair enough, but what exactly is a scene with plot relevance?  Them traveling to Driftmark on their dragons or not constitutes plot relevance?

[dsjj251]

11 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

You're shooting from the hip right now and need to stop with the "I have no idea". 

Reading your reply it seems obvious we are talking passed one another, maybe you need to slow down and go back to my original post. The only point I was making was that F&B never depicted Alicent as being jealous of Rhaenyra. 

As for Rhaenyra, when the book openly provides passages that imply a certain dynamic, it is not just fake information since Martin is writing a drama, not an actual history. For what we have we know Alicent, her stepmother, outshines her step-daughter in court, surpassing her in beauty, as the princess loses her moniker the "realms delight" and retreats from the public eye. 

Having possession of Dragonstone doesn't require one to live there, no more than Stannis disappearing from public eye was deemed suspicious. There are multiple passages where Rhaenyra is described as unlikable and choosing to ignore them doesn't play well to this idea that there is a definitive source material. 

But really, this is getting a little out of hand seeing as you think I'm trying to make out Alicent from the book into hero which I'm not.  

We don't have to be this combative, since especially Alicent and Rhaenyra were feuding in the books and not just over one being skinny and the other not.  

But it doesn't really matter because this is not really what we're talking about.

 

Yes they are. 

Ok, ok. I am not making that argument. I don't think it's true and it's obvious from reading this you think I'm arguing something that I'm not. 

I said IF Alicent had reason to believe this or if Rhaenyra showed herself capable of doing it that might give the Greens some real moral fidelity that as of now doesn't exist. As in the first five episodes the more multifaceted version of Alicent was shown to have no ambition for the throne and would only desire it if the lives of her children were at risk. 

But then in the time jump she shows neither concern for children's well being but just pure ambition for power which contradicts the first five episodes and makes for a less compelling story with a more generic villain. 

I was taking you are argument to it's logical conclusion. If it doesn't matter why Alicent did what she did what are we discussing? I mean do you even know what my position is? Can you recite because elsewise I think we are arguing about different things. 

Incidentally, I think if you understood what my point was you'd be a lot less combative. My point isn't that Rhaenyra is actually evil, my point is the show excised her potential flaws from both the book and the first five episodes to make a character against which Alicent loses all credibility and becomes a generic unlikable villain. 

Which is bad for a story trying to get us to sympathize with two perspective sides and argue among ourselves. 

I'm not saying that, like slow it down from a sec. I'm saying that making someone do an evil think for evil reasons does not leave said character with a lot of nuance nor does it all viewers to sympathize with their faction. 

I'm agreeing that is what the show as of the last two episodes is depicting, and I'm saying it is making the story worst. F&B was vague enough to give the showrunners room to invent their own motivations and dynamics in the characters, which they did. 

Now it is even worse because Rhaenyra has been made more upright and heroic than in the books dilluting not just her faction but removing any depth to Alicent. Now the greens are just power hungry usurpers while the Blacks are narratively speaking the heroes. 

All the Black characters will be consequence be framed under the supervision of this heroic goal that whitewashes them and dilutes the emotional conflict into a one sided affair. 

I'm not saying she does. Are you certain you read my post?

And they shouldn't be. Which is my point. F&B gave enough room for the Blacks to be characterized as villains and the Greens. It was the shows prerogative to ad nuance to both sides (as Martin so wishes) and make for a compelling duel perspective narrative but instead after five episodes of set up drops the ball and turns the Greens into generic villains when they didn't have to. 

But like it doesn't have to. Hereditary rule is not the be all end of all of leadership. Alicent could have been given real reason to not want to see Rhaenyra in power. Instead she is willing to put her children in harms way for a throne we are given no explicit motivation for why she should want. 

Which dilutes the character depth on both sides.

Incidentally I agree, which is what makes this show suck so hard post time skip. 

I have no clue how your post got two likes when you didn't read my reply or understand what I was saying. I feel like I just wasted 7 minutes writing this up right, please don't make that so. 

Yea, im not multi-quoting all that. 

You seem to want a TV show based on your head canon, and thats fine, but your head canon isnt fact, and you getting angry about that is weird. 

Also, when you get proven wrong, stop trying to back track and saying "well , i only said if, so i technically didnt say that".

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

No need to get snippy.  What you wrote "sounds" to me like what I said - whether I quote your whole post or just "at" you.  The only thing you complained about specifically in what they haven't shown is Sunfyre and Helaena claiming Dreamfyre.  I don't think a bunch of "claiming" scenes would be particularly useful - and would certainly get repetitive.  Indeed, only showing Aemond's makes it special.  They introduced Vhagar in episode 6 to set up Aemond claiming her in episode 7.  This is still very frugal use of the dragons on screen.

Didn't talk about claiming scenes. But having another joy ride scene in episode 6 with Caraxes/Vhagar was pointless. Although I'd have forgiven it if Daemon had jumped dragons there, establishing that this was a thing he could do.

Not said Helaena should have been seen claiming Dreamfyre, but rather it should have been established that she did. Either in dialogue or by including a scene of Alicent's children mounting their dragons when they left Driftmark (or perhaps only by enlarging the flying scene so we saw who was riding which dragon). The readers know, but the audience has literally no clue.

That could have been done easily by not dragging out that Aemond-Vhagar scene for so long.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough, but what exactly is a scene with plot relevance?  Them traveling to Driftmark on their dragons or not constitutes plot relevance?

Plot relevance means they establish what those dragons do and what they are for in this world. Meaning means to quick travel (which they botched for Rhaenyra both in episode 4 and 5), and a weapon of intimidation and war. That they did in in episodes 2 & 3 but kind of ignore when they actually discuss policy and dynastic marriages.

Hell, now that we have our first and only sibling incest match from that era referenced, it may have also been kind of convenient to brush the subject of Targaryen incest and why they are doing it. Corlys and Viserys went on and on about Valyrian and Valyrian houses and the royal bloodline ... but that this boils down 'to keep the blood of the dragon pure' because they fear or know they might lose control of the dragons if they were to dilute it too much is something they have yet to mention.

In fact, this should have been an issue somebody may have mentioned both with the Laena-Viserys match and the Rhaenyra-Laenor match ... and also as a counter argument against the Viserys-Alicent match. It could also have come up when they referenced the Viserys-Aemma match or Corlys-Rhaenys marrying. And, of course, Rhaenyra-Daemon could have also mentioned that when they were talking their marriage.

Thinking about that Helaena-Dreamfyre - they could have had Aemond overseeing Helaena/Dreamfyre in the beach before he got to Vhagar. We didn't see her going to bed, so they could have had going out, too, talking to her dragon as well as her spiders and insects.