King's Blood - The Power of the Targaryens

[Tewks44]

Lineage is an important aspect in ASoIaF. Not only in terms of who has the best claim to the throne, but also in terms of the magic of Rh'llor. Melisandre often says there is power in King's blood, but she doesn't mean just any king. Only those with lineal ties to the Targaryens are considered to have King's blood. The Baratheons are an offshoot of house Targaryen, which explains why Melisandre sees Stannis as Azor Ahai, and also why Melisandre seeks the blood of Baratheons in performing rituals. The question is, why is Targaryen blood divine in the religion of the fire god? Does this power somehow relate to the ongoing "Song of Ice and Fire"? Targaryen blood is powerful, but why? Is there anything that could tie the Targaryens to the god Rh'llor?

[Mladen]

There is nothing powerful in their blood, only in what they have - dragons. They are just descendents of very old powerful family, nothing more. Their history shows us how much ill blood, insanity and stupidity are among them.

[Yukle]

Melisandre is (at least in part) a loony. A lot of what she says happens but it doesn't make her less deranged. There's no way that the spells she casts are any more or less effective depending on whether she uses the blood of a king or the blood of a sparrow on the steps of Baelor's sept. Really, she just believes that the blood of kings is stronger. She's never actually had the chance to test her theory yet anyway, so it's not like she's talking from experience.

The Iron Islands say every Captain is a King on his or her own ship. That doesn't make them all kings. A king is just how others perceive people and Varys points out that power resides where people believe it resides. There are no true kings and everyone's blood runs the same (especially after Gregor Clegane pays a visit).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Lineage is an important aspect in ASoIaF. Not only in terms of who has the best claim to the throne, but also in terms of the magic of Rh'llor. Melisandre often says there is power in King's blood, but she doesn't mean just any king. Only those with lineal ties to the Targaryens are considered to have King's blood. The Baratheons are an offshoot of house Targaryen, which explains why Melisandre sees Stannis as Azor Ahai, and also why Melisandre seeks the blood of Baratheons in performing rituals. The question is, why is Targaryen blood divine in the religion of the fire god? Does this power somehow relate to the ongoing "Song of Ice and Fire"? Targaryen blood is powerful, but why? Is there anything that could tie the Targaryens to the god Rh'llor?

I think this is a huge stretch and an assumption and doesn't mesh with what we see in the books — namely that, for instance, burning Mance and his son "so that both die kings" is considered acceptable (even though Melisandre burns a fake), and neither of them have Targaryen blood. Robert's blood is important not because it's Targaryen blood, but because Robert was, you know, a king. To base this question on the assumption that only Targaryen blood is "kingly" is a major misstep, in my opinion. Hell, the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns and so on were kings for thousands of years before the Targaryens ever set foot on Westeros. So whose blood is more "royal," really? It's all about perception.

But mostly though the bolded part isn't really supported in the text.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

Melisandre often says there is power in King's blood, but she doesn't mean just any king. Only those with lineal ties to the Targaryens are considered to have King's blood. The Baratheons are an offshoot of house Targaryen...(this is) why Melisandre seeks the blood of Baratheons in performing rituals. The question is, why is Targaryen blood divine in the religion of the fire god?

(Bolded paranthetical is my addition, for clarity)

I personally suspect that this is the case, although it has yet to be proven. Others have theorized that the magic gets into the blood once a people believe that it is the blood of kings, meaning Robert's taking the Iron Throne is what makes Baratheon blood useful to Mel. As far as the idea, expressed by others above, that there is nothing special about the blood, and if Mel weren't blinkered by her dogmas, she could just be using/sacrificing any old person she wants to work her magicks - I'm not sure I believe it, but there is certainly nothing to definitively disprove it. She has seemingly approached plain old Davos with a proposition to birth a shadowbaby, and reportedly burned a Florent in sacrifice to the winds; both of these would support the, "no such thing as special blood," theory.

Nevertheless, I am, personally, in agreement with the idea that when Mel says, "king's blood," she means either "Targaryen blood," or "Valyrian blood." I believe that she is euphemizing an idea that might, otherwise, give Stannis pause. As to why a Red Priestess would need Targaryen/Valyrian blood to work her magic, my theory is that the fire-gazing, blood-magicking R'hlorr-ians practice a tradition derived from the original glass candle-gazing, blood-magicking Valyrian tradition that we have yet to hear much about.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She has seemingly approached plain old Davos with a proposition to birth a shadowbaby, and reportedly burned a Florent in sacrifice to the winds; both of these would support the, "no such thing as special blood," theory.

It is interesting though that — correlation/causation aside — burning the "nobody" Florent achieved what Melisandre wanted it to — they did apparently get favorable winds to head North — whereas we know that the "royal" blood leeches didn't actually do a damn thing.

And I still don't get where the "Targaryen only" thing comes from. Like I said, Melisandre's followers in Stannis's camp thought burning Mance and his son would do something because they were "kings," and they sure as hell don't have Targ blood.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

But mostly though the bolded part isn't really supported in the text.

It is not definitively proven by the text, but it is supported (unless you count things like burning that Florent for favorable winds, in which case, those claiming that there is no special blood at all are probably correct).

The fact that Mel did not burn Mance is very suggestive. At the very least, it casts doubt on the popular, "It becomes king's blood when people think he's a king," theory. She also never actually made any attempt to burn the child. And she has yet to voice any interest in burning Jon, who carries (at the very least) blood of the Kings in the North, both old and new.

So, either Robert Baratheon's one-generation "dynasty" is the source of the magic, or the Baratheon family's ties to the Targaryens/Valyrians are. These seem to be the only possibilities allowed by the text, so far.

That doesn't mean that this can't change; there's very little we know for sure about Mel's plans (here's hoping for more POVs). We may crack open TWoW only to find that Mel was simply waiting for a moment of weakness to throw Jon's King of the North blood into the flames.

[Lord Damian]

I look at it this way. the Targaryens have been, well, amplified, engrandized, exagerated. They had a super weapon, 3 of them and under threat of total inhialiation, 6 kingdoms gave up their multi-millenium kingdoms and crowns in exchange for their lives, fealty etc.. Because this is mostly an honor based society, they lasted (The Targs) far longer than they should have. the Dragons died after 180 or so years of rule and 100 years after that they were gone(The Targs). The Starks, Baratheons, Arryns, Lannisters, Gardners were kings families for thousands of years. The Targs did not make it to an even 300. I would say that the other houses have just as much (royal blood) in them as the Targs supposedly do.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

It is interesting though that — correlation/causation aside — burning the "nobody" Florent achieved what Melisandre wanted it to — they did apparently get favorable winds to head North — whereas we know that the "royal" blood leeches didn't actually do a damn thing.

And I still don't get where the "Targaryen only" thing comes from. Like I said, Melisandre's followers in Stannis's camp thought burning Mance and his son would do something because they were "kings," and they sure as hell don't have Targ blood.

We don't "know" that, although it is almost certainly a very safe assumption. As far as explaining that likely truth, well, "only death can pay for life." A leechful of blood probably doesn't make the cut, whether it's a king's or a fool's.

Mel's current followers are Westerosi whose knowledge of R'hllor extends only as far as Mel wishes. The idea behind the theory is that Melisandre is keeping information to herself, even when it comes to Stannis. From her POV, we know that she practices this titration of information. As far as I'm concerned, it is reasonable to theorize that Mel renders the phrase "Targaryen/Valyrian" blood as "King's blood" when talking to Stannis and his followers in order to avoid offending people who fought a war to rid themselves of the Targs.

And again, Mel's actual behavior (rather than her propaganda) suggests that she did not, in fact, see any value in Mance's blood, much less his son's.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It is not definitively proven by the text, but it is supported (unless you count things like burning that Florent for favorable winds, in which case, those claiming that there is no special blood at all are probably correct).

The fact that Mel did not burn Mance is very suggestive. At the very least, it casts doubt on the popular, "It becomes king's blood when people think he's a king," theory. She also never actually made any attempt to burn the child. And she has yet to voice any interest in burning Jon, who carries (at the very least) blood of the Kings in the North, both old and new.

So, either Robert Baratheon's one-generation "dynasty" is the source of the magic, or the Baratheon family's ties to the Targaryens/Valyrians are. These seem to be the only possibilities allowed by the text, so far.

That doesn't mean that this can't change; there's very little we know for sure about Mel's plans (here's hoping for more POVs). We may crack open TWoW only to find that Mel was simply waiting for a moment of weakness to throw Jon's King of the North blood into the flames.

Actually her not burning the real Mance seems to support, to me, that it really is all about perception. They didn't burn a "real king" (because they didn't burn the real Mance, not because they didn't burn a Targaryen), but if her followers believed that they did, they can attribute whatever happens after to them "burning a king." The point is, people in her camp believed that burning Mance and his son "qualified," even though they had no Targaryen blood. Certainly Jon was worried enough that Mance's son would be burned that he bothered to do the baby switch and send him away — he doesn't think, "Kid has no Targ blood, he's probably safe." It's very clear that for all intents and purposes, the southerners think of Mance and his family (including Val) as "royal."

It's possible that with "newer" dynasties and an as-yet-still-available "source" of "royal" blood, it hasn't occurred to Melisandre to seek out the older Westerosi royalty from the pre-Targ era. My point stands though that those families were royalty for in some cases 10-20 times as long as the Targaryens were. In the grand scheme of Westeros, the Targaryens are a chronological blip.

I again point to the Florent — she burned him, they got their favorable winds. And even if it's a correlation-causation thing, that doesn't make it any different from the leeches, where royal blood correlated with a desirable outcome but obviously didn't cause it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

I think the primary question should be, has royal blood actually caused anything to actually happen? Has anything at all happened in this series to support the argument there is actually "power" in king's blood, let alone Targaryen blood?

[Tumnas the Torpid]

It's possible that with "newer" dynasties and an as-yet-still-available "source" of "royal" blood, it hasn't occurred to Melisandre to seek out the older Westerosi royalty from the pre-Targ era. My point stands though that those families were royalty for in some cases 10-20 times as long as the Targaryens were. In the grand scheme of Westeros, the Targaryens are a chronological blip.

I think, to an extent, we are talking at cross-purposes...

I am not suggesting that Targaryen blood is somehow more "kingly" than everyone else's. I am suggesting that Mel, who is a proven liar, is really after blood from people with either Targaryen or Valyrian heritage, and she is calling it "king's blood" in order to disguise that fact.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think, to an extent, we are talking at cross-purposes...

I am not suggesting that Targaryen blood is somehow more "kingly" than everyone else's. I am suggesting that Mel, who is a proven liar, is really after blood from people with either Targaryen or Valyrian heritage, and she is calling it "king's blood" in order to disguise that fact.

Based on ... what? It can't possibly be that she's hunting up blood from Robert's relatives because Robert was, you know, a king?

[Yukle]

It is interesting though that — correlation/causation aside — burning the "nobody" Florent achieved what Melisandre wanted it to ...

Yeah, this is what makes me think that it makes no difference whether it's "king's blood" or just "human blood." She's a lunatic either way but seems to have convinced herself that somehow her spells actually know whose blood has been used. I agree with you, there's almost certainly no difference.

[The Mother of The Others]

This sacrificing 2 generations at once thing is creepy. Like Fire demands proof that the one death wasn't a fluke. Then, it's like 'Oh, so you're serious! Okay, let's rouse that dragon for ya then, by gum! '

[Mladen]

I again point to the Florent — she burned him, they got their favorable winds. And even if it's a correlation-causation thing, that doesn't make it any different from the leeches, where royal blood correlated with a desirable outcome but obviously didn't cause it.

I think the primary question should be, has royal blood actually caused anything to actually happen? Has anything at all happened in this series to support the argument there is actually "power" in king's blood, let alone Targaryen blood?

I was worried for a second with that wind thing. This entire story is foolish. People believe there is something in royal blood, even in our world. That`s why half the world in 21st century is obsessed with William and Kate. Some of the cultures believed in sanctity of royal blood. Look at Romanovs whom Russian Orthodox Church made martyrs. It`s just belief, empty superstition, nothing more. We haven`t seen the power of royal blood, we haven`t seen the power of any blood as for that matter. The only powerful thing about blood we have seen is `blood sacrifice`, and even that isn`t about blood, as it is about life itself.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

I think the primary question should be, has royal blood actually caused anything to actually happen? Has anything at all happened in this series to support the argument there is actually "power" in king's blood, let along Targaryen blood?

That we can definitively prove? Absolutely not.

The closest Mel-related situation, so far, are the Stannis-fathered shadowbabies; this is potentially countered by the proposition made to Davos, but with Mel, who knows what she was really after.

The best example of the possible magicky-ness of Targaryen/Valyrian blood (I render the idea that way because I'm not sure whether it is the Targs themselves, or the whole race) is one you are not predisposed to accept, but I will reiterate my conviction, aired elsewhere, that it seems far more likely that it was the Valyrian present, and not the random shepherd's priestess, whose presence was essential for the birth of dragons.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

Based on ... what? It can't possibly be that she's hunting up blood from Robert's relatives because Robert was, you know, a king?

I never said it was not possible. I in fact listed that as one of two possibilities, the other being the Targaryen connection. I suspect the latter because A)Mel is a liar, who has kept Stannis in the dark about many things, including, seemingly, his fake Lightbringer, and B ) there are other suggestions that there is something special in Valyrian blood.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That we can definitively prove? Absolutely not.

So why should I accept the position that king's blood is magical?

The closest Mel-related situation, so far, are the Stannis-fathered shadowbabies; this is potentially countered by the proposition made to Davos, but with Mel, who knows what she was really after.

So if it could work for Davos — and you admit yourself that Melisandre seemingly made the same proposition to him — then that suggests that it wasn't necessarily Stannis's royal mojo that did it.

The best example of the possible magicky-ness of Targaryen/Valyrian blood (I render the idea that way because I'm not sure whether it is the Targs themselves, or the whole race) is one you are not predisposed to accept, but I will reiterate my conviction, aired elsewhere, that it seems far more likely that it was the Valyrian present, and not the random shepherd's priestess, whose presence was essential for the birth of dragons.

Oh you mean the event where the actual magical person was present when dragons hatched, an event that people for whatever reason attribute to a non-magical Valyrian (see point 1 — no definitive proof)? You're right, I'm not predisposed to accept this. Considering that it was, for one thing, Mirri's "blood" that was spilled, certainly not Dany's.

You're not exactly blowing my skirt up with the magic king/Targ blood thing.

And again ... fire + non-royal Florent = successful outcome. The elephant in the room.

If it is Valyrian blood that's magical, why doesn't Mel go rooting through House Velaryon? Or why doesn't she use her fires to find all eleventy gazillion descendants of Aegon IV that must be roaming around? Why didn't she just stay in Essos and burn her way through the Free Cities, which are full of Valyrian-descended people?

[Mladen]

I never said it was not possible. I in fact listed that as one of two possibilities, the other being the Targaryen connection. I suspect the latter because A)Mel is a liar, who has kept Stannis in the dark about many things, including, seemingly, his fake Lightbringer, and B ) there are other suggestions that there is something special in Valyrian blood.

And there is road between A and B. She is a liar, but there is something in royal blood, regardless of Valyrian descent.