Fire Eater Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I know that having Valyrian blood doesn't guarantee not getting harmed by a dragon, Rhaenyra proved that when she was eaten by a dragon even though she was a dragonrider as stated above. Quentyn also proved that.I do think dragons will be used for Jon to prove his heritage like pulling the sword from the stone proved Arthur's heritage. Jon will come with possibly Howland Reed and/or Wylla and Septon Meribald to reveal his heritage and press his claim after Dany's side has won or all but won. After Aegon, she will think Jon is just another false pretender with no claim to the Iron Throne. She will probably sneer and laugh at him with her court laughing with her, and tell him that to prove that he is who he says he is, a Targaryen, he has to mount one of her dragons, thinking either 1) he'll back down and admit that he doesn't have a claim or 2) die in an attempt to mount one of her dragons.Jon knows the risk, but with the Others he has no choice and agrees. He then actually manages to mount and/or warg one of Dany's dragons, possibly Drogon, to Dany's surprise. She then gets a dose of embarrassment and a lesson in humility when she realizes Jon and his companions were telling the truth, and she isn't the heir to her family's throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (And I've long believed Arya to be a secret Stark). :eek: I've read some truly outrageous stuff from you, but this takes the cake. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeswop Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Question: Where does the idea, amongst Westerosi, that having Targ blood allows you to ride/control dragons come from? Is it just an inference based on the fact (if it is a fact) that only Targs were ever dragon riders back in the day, or is there more to it than that? Did the Targs produce propaganda to this effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayard Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Yeah, dragons have killed Targaryens before, so if Aegon is gobbled up, nothing is proven. But, if Aegon gets to drive a dragon, plenty of people will say that he is surely a Targaryen/Blackfyre. Until we have an example of a non-Valyrian riding a dragon, this will keep popping up. I am sure that until the end of asoif we will have this example :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Oh I agree that she'll "know" that he's fake. My issue is the idea that the dragons themselves can used to "prove" his identity one way or the other.Apple, is there anyone here who can disagree with your extensive knowledge and profound analysis of ASOIAF. You`re certainly right about the readers but it can be a wager for Dany. I don`t think it`s some proof, but I can see Dany interpret it that way.And as for the title, it`s brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverin Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I know that having Valyrian blood doesn't guarantee not getting harmed by a dragon, Rhaenyra proved that when she was eaten by a dragon even though she was a dragonrider as stated above. Quentyn also proved that.I do think dragons will be used for Jon to prove his heritage like pulling the sword from the stone proved Arthur's heritage. Jon will come with possibly Howland Reed and/or Wylla and Septon Meribald to reveal his heritage and press his claim after Dany's side has won or all but won. After Aegon, she will think Jon is just another false pretender with no claim to the Iron Throne. She will probably sneer and laugh at him with her court laughing with her, and tell him that to prove that he is who he says he is, a Targaryen, he has to mount one of her dragons, thinking either 1) he'll back down and admit that he doesn't have a claim or 2) die in an attempt to mount one of her dragons.Jon knows the risk, but with the Others he has no choice and agrees. He then actually manages to mount and/or warg one of Dany's dragons, possibly Drogon, to Dany's surprise. She then gets a dose of embarrassment and a lesson in humility when she realizes Jon and his companions were telling the truth, and she isn't the heir to her family's throne.1. Even if dragons (maybe) show affinity towards people with Targ blood doesn't mean they let them mount them. Dragons choose their riders, and one rider only belongs to one dragon, and one dragon only has one rider at the same time. Dany said to Quentyn, that Aegon didn't dare to go near his sister's dragons as well. Even Drogon was fighting against Dany at some degrre in the pit, and she is his mother, whom gave llife to him.2. So that is not a paternity test either, since if they already have a rider they won't let Jon mount them.3. Many people assume that Bran will be a dragonrider as well, and as far as we know he has no Targ blood. That again means even if Jon successeds such test it doesn't proove he has Targ blood.4. I don't know who said it, but someone did that there were dragons before the targs came to Westeros, and they were used to defeat the others during the Long Night, which was thousands of years before the Targs even showed up.That again means that non Valiryans might have the affinity towards dragons as well, so even if that is true, Jon getting close to a dragon again won't prove that he has Targ blood. And this too is a reason why many people has theories that there will be other dragon as well, somewhere in the North besie Dany's.5. If I remember correctly GRRM said not all dragonriders are neccesserily Targs. So if one of the dragons have a rider who we know that is not a Targ, before Jon comes to such a test, that would again mean his success is no proof.6. I actually think Jon won't end up as King of Westeros. At the end of the book he "died", and because of Mels vision (man wolf man), I believe for a while he will live in Ghost, then he will came back. He definietly won't be like before, not to mention in one of his dreams he was wearing an armour made of black ice. I am very sure that it won't be an Arthur pulls the sword from the stone for him. The only two type of king I can see him is King in the North, and King beyond the Wall (I actually think the wildlings already see him as one...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Oh I agree that she'll "know" that he's fake. My issue is the idea that the dragons themselves can used to "prove" his identity one way or the other.It is not about "knowing" or dragons-as-DNA-proof. Dany is likely to hear first from Tyrion about Aegon, and we know that Tyrion is already convinced that Aegon is not who Illyrio claims he is. Moreoever, through the Tattered Prince (and the double promise from Quentyn and Barristan, the latter made in her name) Dany may have a motive to go to Pentos and confront Illyrio about quite a few things. If Illyrio were to confess exactly what his entire plan was/is about (presumably involving Blackfyre somewhere), that would count as proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Dragons are not a paternity test, yes, but the dragons seem to be meek with men who have Valyrian blood, as Brown Ben Plum, and Aegon is probabl a Blackfyre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Dragons are not a paternity test, yes, but the dragons seem to be meek with men who have Valyrian blood, as Brown Ben Plum, and Aegon is probabl a Blackfyre.Like Quentyn? Or Grazdahr graargh Groing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Dragons are not a paternity test, yes, but the dragons seem to be meek with men who have Valyrian blood, as Brown Ben Plum, and Aegon is probabl a Blackfyre.If I'm not mistaken, the dragons show people like Irri and Jhiqui affection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Like Quentyn? Or Grazdahr graargh Groing?If I'm not mistaken, the dragons show people like Irri and Jhiqui affection.Well, Quentyn is especial. And I'm sure that Ben has a bigger Valyrian blood proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Well, Quentyn is especial. And I'm sure that Ben has a bigger Valyrian blood proportion.Not from the Targaryen side. The Plumms separated one generation earlier from the Targs then the Martells. Of course there may be some Lyseni whore in Ben's ancestry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivergirl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 No such thing as magical sparkling superpowered dragon blood? Targaryens aren't a superior race to everyone else? Daenerys isn't fireproof and/or literally a dragon, complete with wings and claws? Blasphemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Full-Faced Braavosi Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If I'm not mistaken, the dragons show people like Irri and Jhiqui affection.Well they did raise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 Question: Where does the idea, amongst Westerosi, that having Targ blood allows you to ride/control dragons come from? Is it just an inference based on the fact (if it is a fact) that only Targs were ever dragon riders back in the day, or is there more to it than that? Did the Targs produce propaganda to this effect?This is a really interesting question, and I have to wonder too where the idea came from. I think a lot of it does have to do with only Targs riding dragons, and of course they'd never let anyone else "take a turn." Visenya bribed the boy Arryn king with a "ride" on Vhagar, but I'm not sure she ever followed through on it (what a bitch, huh?). I also think that the Targs would certainly prefer it if people think that only those with magical dragon blood could ride the dragons.Apple, is there anyone here who can disagree with your extensive knowledge and profound analysis of ASOIAF. You`re certainly right about the readers but it can be a wager for Dany. I don`t think it`s some proof, but I can see Dany interpret it that way.And as for the title, it`s brilliant...Probably not, no. They can't disagree with my modesty, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 This is a really interesting question, and I have to wonder too where the idea came from. I think a lot of it does have to do with only Targs riding dragons, and of course they'd never let anyone else "take a turn." Visenya bribed the boy Arryn king with a "ride" on Vhagar, but I'm not sure she ever followed through on it (what a bitch, huh?). I also think that the Targs would certainly prefer it if people think that only those with magical dragon blood could ride the dragons.She did. But it was the backseat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomiller Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Oh I agree that she'll "know" that he's fake. My issue is the idea that the dragons themselves can used to "prove" his identity one way or the other.Given that no one other than a Targaryan has ever rode a Dragon in Westeros, they do prove someone is Targaryan in every way that matters. The Dragons were the means and symbol of Targaryan rule, so being able to control them or not is going to be critical to whether people believe you are Targaryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 Given that no one other than a Targaryan has ever rode a Dragon in Westeros, they do prove someone is Targaryan in every way that matters. The Dragons were the means and symbol of Targaryan rule, so being able to control them or not is going to be critical to whether people believe you are Targaryan.But you don't think that might have more to do with the dragons just being in their possession and them working hard to avoid "outsiders" trying to acquire them? It's a correlation-causation fallacy waiting to happen, I guess is what I'm saying.The point is, too, even if what you say is true, Aegon riding a dragon still doesn't prove that he's "Aegon," given that a Blackfyre would also have this "magic dragon blood," if in fact it empirically exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Did the Targs produce propaganda to this effect?The Dragonkin book (Dragonkin, Being a History of House Targaryen from Exile to Apotheosis, with a Consideration of the Life and Death of Dragons) may have been the propaganda that produced the Targ super blood belief. Or perhaps even earlier with Barth's book, Unnatural History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 The Dragonkin book (Dragonkin, Being a History of House Targaryen from Exile to Apotheosis, with a Consideration of the Life and Death of Dragons) may have been the propaganda that produced the Targ super blood belief. Or perhaps even earlier with Barth's book, Unnatural History.Barth's book is also where we get the nugget that dragons can only be killed through the eye. Now if your power relied on super-weapons like these, wouldn't you WANT to spread the idea that 1. they were almost impossible to kill conventionally and 2. only you could ride them? Barth was also Jaehaerys I's Hand, so he had a professional stake in parroting the party line.Think of it this way: It is "The Death of Dragons" that's under lock and key in the Citadel, not Barth's book. Now why would that be? Could it possibly be that one has legitimate information (the former), while one is a harmless propaganda text (the latter)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.