Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[SimoneS]

13 hours ago, anamika said:

So, a dragon's sex can only be determined if they lay or not lay eggs.  I think there is a chance that one of Drogon or Rhaegal will turn out to be a girl and possible lay an egg.

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/9hriat/spoilers_main_newly_released_grrm_interview_from/

I have always expected that the dragons would lay eggs and that Jon and Dany would find them after her current dragons are killed. What else was there for the dragons to do flying around Dragonstone? I have never believed the opinion that "magic would leave the land." This isn't the Lord of the Rings. Magic isn't limited to specific creatures, there is magic everywhere in Westeros.

[screamin]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I have always expected that the dragons would lay eggs and that Jon and Dany would find them after her current dragons are killed. What else was there for the dragons to do flying around Dragonstone? I have never believed the opinion that "magic would leave the land." This isn't the Lord of the Rings. Magic isn't limited to specific creatures, there is magic everywhere in Westeros.

Yes, there's magic in spells and objects and people. The Wall has stood for centuries because it's been spelled powerfully when an ice wall should have worn away. But the spells people make do seem to be linked to perishable things. Magic was described as being at low ebb and with little power ever since dragons apparently went extinct. They're back now, but with only three examples in the world (now two in the showverse) they're still a critically endangered species. The power of the Three-Eyed-Raven is specifically linked to weirtrees (which have also been endangered) and the Children of the Forest (also endangered and prophesying their own extinction and the extinction of other magical creatures). The Wall was made for an explicit purpose which is about to reach its conclusion. I think with the prophecied extinction of the Children and the magical creatures, there really won't be much left for magic to work with.

[Lemuria]

Quote

So your theory is that Jon rejoins the NW at the end after Dany dies?

I've seen this raised in more than a few places and it always leaves me scratching my head.  I know, there could be unexpected twists and turns but, IMO, not wiping out the NK, WW and the AOTD would be a pretty stupid one.  And if the NK and crew are all gone, and the wildings are now past the Wall, what need is there for the NW?  To keep the snow at bay?

There's been some mention that the NK and the WW have more depth than we've seen so far and have a goal in mind we don't know about as yet.  You know what?  I don't care.  And since achieving their as yet unknown goal involves wiping out every person in Westeros (and maybe later, Essos) I firmly believe that no human in Westeros should care, either.  It's now entered "us against them" territory and I'm on the "us" side. 

I've also seen posts that suggest that "_________________________" (Fill in the Blank) will become the new NK.  I don't get that one, either.  This is not a situation where the NK existed before any sentient beings of any species, or where he/it was created by the Land itself, or some god as a protector or destroyer.  We saw how the NK was created and by whom and for what purpose.  The Children of the Forest are gone, ultimately wiped out by their own creation (karma is a you-know-what), and the war the NK was created to fight in is long over.  Why would there need to be another NK?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Lemuria

[SimoneS]

3 hours ago, screamin said:

Yes, there's magic in spells and objects and people. The Wall has stood for centuries because it's been spelled powerfully when an ice wall should have worn away. But the spells people make do seem to be linked to perishable things. Magic was described as being at low ebb and with little power ever since dragons apparently went extinct. They're back now, but with only three examples in the world (now two in the showverse) they're still a critically endangered species. The power of the Three-Eyed-Raven is specifically linked to weirtrees (which have also been endangered) and the Children of the Forest (also endangered and prophesying their own extinction and the extinction of other magical creatures). The Wall was made for an explicit purpose which is about to reach its conclusion. I think with the prophecied extinction of the Children and the magical creatures, there really won't be much left for magic to work with.

But R'hllor, the Lord of Light, isn't going extinction. What is to stop someone from praying to him and resurrecting someone? 

 

2 hours ago, Lemuria said:

I've seen this raised in more than a few places and it always leaves me scratching my head.  I know, there could be unexpected twists and turns but, IMO, not wiping out the NK, WW and the AOTD would be a pretty stupid one.  And if the NK and crew are all gone, and the wildings are now past the Wall, what need is there for the NW?  To keep the snow at bay?

Ha. I have never gotten that one either. The Wall is gone and even if there was enough magic to rebuild it, there would be no the point with the NK defeated. Even the Wildings have moved south. The Night Watch is done. There is no more Watch to keep.

[WindyNights]

5 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

But R'hllor, the Lord of Light, isn't going extinction. What is to stop someone from praying to him and resurrecting someone? 

 

Ha. I have never gotten that one either. The Wall is gone and even if there was enough magic to rebuild it, there would be no the point with the NK defeated. Even the Wildings have moved south. The Night Watch is done. There is no more Watch to keep.

Would the NK be completely defeated though? He might not be.

[Colorful Mess]

What Jon+Dany+heirs would mean at the end of the story:

- Jon was created to help Dany fulfill her wish to seek vengeance against Jon's own father.

- Jon was created so that his children can marry each other and breed more mad kings/queens to kill Starks. 

- Ned lied to his wife for the entirety of their married life so Jon could ride dragons with Dany and execute people with dragonfire.

- Westeros can look forward to more fire obsession, beliefs that Targaryens are a superior race of human beings, and Targaryen civil wars between family members.

- Nuclear weapons are cool and can solve Jon and Dany's stubborn political problems.

- GRRM ends the story with with a crypto-Nazi manifesto on blood purity, where Jon learns the importance of keeping the bloodline "clean" and "hygienic" 

Even if Jon and Dany "aren't like that," their dynasty would be because nothing changes. Two Targaryens marrying involves all of this ^ baggage. 

So House Targaryen is either killed off/renamed/diluted. 

[LadyChaos]

If there is a kid in the mix,  Jon won't go back to the NW.....he always said he would never leave a bastard behind.  He would stick around to raise his child.

[GraceK]

5 minutes ago, LadyChaos said:

If there is a kid in the mix,  Jon won't go back to the NW.....he always said he would never leave a bastard behind.  He would stick around to raise his child.

You mean his evil bastard child of incest???? Heavens no!!!!! That tainted child of Targaryen madness he will surely sacrifice to a weirwood tree! Or give to Sansa and tell her to name him Ned Brandon Starkity Stark just to be safe and then disappear into the wilderness to hunt with Direwolves just to be extra ??

Edited September 24, 2018 by GraceK

[anamika]

42 minutes ago, GraceK said:

You mean his evil bastard child of incest???? Heavens no!!!!! That tainted child of Targaryen madness he will surely sacrifice to a weirwood tree! Or give to Sansa and tell her to name him Ned Brandon Starkity Stark just to be safe and then disappear into the wilderness to hunt with Direwolves just to be extra ??

LOL! The hate for this unborn baby is so much it's wild. Like really. Tumblr is fervently hoping that this baby either does not exist or dies.

 

Of course there is also the theory that Dany dies and Ned clone Jon brings his bastard son to WF for Cat clone Sansa to rise and she does so lovingly - unlike Cat. And what makes it bittersweet is that boatsexbaby may grow up to be mad! Boatsexbaby just cannot escape the madness!

Over in FF, u/stevezissou7 points out Dinklage's Kimmel interview where Kimmel calls Tyrion one of the good guys and Peter immediately cuts in with 'Maybe'.

Considering how very white washed Tyrion is on the show, they are going to have a very hard time justifying his betraying the actual good guys. Like Kimmel, the general audience sees Tyrion as one of the good guys.

6 hours ago, Lemuria said:

I've seen this raised in more than a few places and it always leaves me scratching my head.  I know, there could be unexpected twists and turns but, IMO, not wiping out the NK, WW and the AOTD would be a pretty stupid one.  And if the NK and crew are all gone, and the wildings are now past the Wall, what need is there for the NW?  To keep the snow at bay?

Even though the Others were defeated six or eight thousand years ago, they are still a threat currently. The wall was build in case they came again and they did despite there being a last hero then as well. So maybe they rebuild the wall, incase of any future threat. It depends on the reason for the Others existing and from what people are saying, I think we will see that in the books and show.

So either the wall still stands manned by the NW or they fully destroy the Others after knowing the reason for their existence and there is no more Lands of Always Winter.

Edited September 24, 2018 by anamika

[screamin]

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

But R'hllor, the Lord of Light, isn't going extinction. What is to stop someone from praying to him and resurrecting someone? 

 

IIRC, R'hllor wasn't regularly resurrecting people throughout history. When Thoros of Myr resurrected Beric Dondarrion, his success came as a shock to him and revived his flagging faith. It seems likely that R'hllor's resurgence of power may be connected to the rebirth of the dragons as well.

[YaddaYadda]

27 minutes ago, screamin said:

IIRC, R'hllor wasn't regularly resurrecting people throughout history. When Thoros of Myr resurrected Beric Dondarrion, his success came as a shock to him and revived his flagging faith. It seems likely that R'hllor's resurgence of power may be connected to the rebirth of the dragons as well.

The Mummer's Ford happens before Dany hatched her dragons, though. That's when Beric was resurrected the first time. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by YaddaYadda

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, anamika said:

Over in FF, u/stevezissou7 points out Dinklage's Kimmel interview where Kimmel calls Tyrion one of the good guys and Peter immediately cuts in with 'Maybe'.

 

Peter deliberately throws in that "maybe." This along with his comments about pretending to be dead on the set make me lean to thinking that leak about Tyrion's betrayal and execution has some credibility.

1 hour ago, anamika said:

Even though the Others were defeated six or eight thousand years ago, they are still a threat currently. The wall was build in case they came again and they did despite there being a last hero then as well. So maybe they rebuild the wall, incase of any future threat. It depends on the reason for the Others existing and from what people are saying, I think we will see that in the books and show.

So either the wall still stands manned by the NW or they fully destroy the Others after knowing the reason for their existence and there is no more Lands of Always Winter.

 

But they can't rebuild the wall without magic which is supposed to leave the land at the end of the story. And how could a devastate Westeros find the man power to rebuild a 700 ft wall anyway? Either the NK and the Others are defeated for good or they remain vulnerable to them.

Edited September 24, 2018 by SimoneS

[anamika]

10 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

Peter deliberately throws in that "maybe." This along with his comments about pretending to be dead on the set makes me lean to thinking that leak about Tyrion's betrayal and execution has some credibility.

And it's not just those comments. We have:

-   Peter talking about Tyrion falling for Dany and there being some jealousy wrapped up in there

-  Peter on some of his most challenging scenes next season -  "There are some moments that my character has this past season where he has to face some things about himself that he probably didn't want to"

- Bryan Cogman talking about how Tyrion's love for his family will be explored lots in the next season and confirming that he still loves Jaime and has a bond with Cersei despite everything

 - Kimmel - Tyrion's one of the Good guys. Peter - Maybe

Then we have the books - Bitter Tyrion becoming darker, Quaithe's warning for Dany. The original outline indicating that Tyrion falling for Arya would lead to a deadly rivalry with Jon. In this case he is falling for Dany.

And finally, Tyrion is one of the central, important characters in the series. GRRM is telling his story along with Jon, Dany, Arya etc. So what is his story going to be in the final season? Is he just going to continue what he has been doing for two seasons now and play Dany's adviser finishing as endgame Hand, regent, king etc? That's basically what Davos has been to Jon. Is Tyrion only as important as Davos in the series? No.

"The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself" seems to be GRRM's motto. And Tyrion has a lot to be conflicted about next season the seeds of which was already planted last season - with Dany and him clashing, him feeling sad for Jaime on the field of fire, him telling Cersei that he is the only reason they are still holding power in KL, Dany listening to Jon over him etc.  So, I am pretty sure we are going to see Tyrion do something that he will end up regretting either for the love of his family or because of his feelings for Dany.

[bubble sparkly]

Last season at the dragon pit Jon was practically giddy at the throught of impregnating Dany. I think it speaks for his thoughts on fatherhood when his idea of flirting is to tell his crush she’s not barren and imply he’d be happy to put a baby in her if she’s willing lol. Unless Jon suddenly turns into a cowardly deadbeat in s8, I don’t see anything other than death preventing him from raising his kid.

[Lemuria]

1 hour ago, anamika said:

Even though the Others were defeated six or eight thousand years ago, they are still a threat currently. The wall was build in case they came again and they did despite there being a last hero then as well. So maybe they rebuild the wall, incase of any future threat. It depends on the reason for the Others existing and from what people are saying, I think we will see that in the books and show.

So either the wall still stands manned by the NW or they fully destroy the Others after knowing the reason for their existence and there is no more Lands of Always Winter.

The NK may have been defeated the first time around but he wasn't killed.  If they don't finally kill him this time around--assuming they can--then they're idiots.  The "last hero" was not Azor Ahai (who arose in Essos during the first Long Night to fight the Blood Emperor and the demons of the Lion of Night).  According to the lore I've seen, he was the only survivor of a group of 13 who went to seek out the Children of the Forest to convince them to fight the NK.  He succeeded at that and the combined forces drove the NK and his minions back, and the Wall was built to keep them back.  (Besides, the Wall now has a huge gap and the magic that kept the NK at bay no longer exists.  Who would rebuild it and, more importantly, be able to re-magic it?)

Unless Westeros moves to the tropics, there will always be the Lands of Always Winter.

[anamika]

Tyrion betraying Jon/Dany and the Starks does not necessarily make him bad per se. Even GRRM calls him a 'good' villain

Quote

Interviewer: Do you have a favorite character?

Martin: I've got to admit I kind of like Tyrion Lannister. He's the villain of course, but hey, there's nothing like a good villain.

Him doing something impulsively for love (whether for family or Dany) could end up having unintended consequences.

Look at Jon in ADwD - his desire to go save Arya has finished the NW as an institution. There's mutiny, assassinations, giants and wildlings running loose. He put love over duty and that has dire, unintended consequences. In the words of Maester Aemon:

Quote

"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms... or the memory of a brothers smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy."

The irony here being that even Ned forsake honor for the love of his family.

In which case, it may be a both sides is right scenario where Dany possibly having to execute Tyrion is going to come off as highly divisive and unpopular.

I am just glad that Tyrion is played by Peter Dinklage. I am sure he will give it his best however badly D&D may write his final arc in the series.

Edited September 24, 2018 by anamika

[Colorful Mess]

1 hour ago, bubble sparkly said:

Unless Jon suddenly turns into a cowardly deadbeat in s8, I don’t see anything other than death preventing him from raising his kid

Oh, just a hole in the chest of the fetus might do it, like the last offspring of avuncular Targaryens. Another cost for magical incest is stillbirths, deformities, and miscarriages, so if Dany already had such a child with Drogo I see no reason why Jon's Fertility Clinic would fix the issue because of how closely related they are.

And for all the women out there struggling with infertility, just let that offensiveness sink in: a relative can help you with your fertility problem. Jon will fix her right up! 

"Giddiness" is a very imaginative word, because he seemed like he could barely even flash a smile with his teeth around her.

If he doesnt WANT to father a bastard she's the perfect candidate because she's basically telling him she's on birth control and he asks for confirmation. He might have done it with Ros way back in the day if she told him he didn't have to risk anything. Doesnt Dany find this a bit odd? Maybe not - she has no idea about his bastard fear since all their conversations revolve around her.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[GreyBunny]

2 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

The Mummer's Ford happens before Dany hatched her dragons, thouh. That's when Beric was resurrected the first time. 

 

The process of hatching Dany's dragons began before the pyre. Dany was having dreams and visions and imagining her eggs giving off light and feeling warm in the months leading up to the pyre.

Edited September 24, 2018 by GreyBunny

[nikma]

5 hours ago, anamika said:

m just glad that Tyrion is played by Peter Dinklage. I am sure he will give it his best however badly D&D may write his final arc in the series

Or maybe it won't be badly written? Why constant negativity?

[anamika]

2 hours ago, nikma said:

Or maybe it won't be badly written? Why constant negativity?

My rants on this show's writing are well known at this point. I don't want to retread old ground. If you think the writing on this show is good enough to explore character motivations and inner conflicts then good for you. I personally don't. The plot drives the show these days making characters behave in ways that throws two seasons of character development down the drain. It's why I think that if there is a 'Tyrion betrayal' plot on the show, no one is going to come out of this looking good and we would probably have to figure out what happened from the behind the scenes interviews with the cast, directors, writers and scripts.

Edited September 24, 2018 by anamika

[YaddaYadda]

7 hours ago, GreyBunny said:

The process of hatching Dany's dragons began before the pyre. Dany was having dreams and visions and imagining her eggs giving off light and feeling warm in the months leading up to the pyre.

The dreams are one thing and a separate thing. We know of at least one of Dany's ancestors who had dragon dreams (Daeron the Drunkard) even though there were no dragons in the land. It was a while between Beric's first death and the dragons. At the very least we know that Thoros performed one of his resurrections in hollow hill, surrounded with weirwood roots and very reminiscent of Bloodraven's cave, and we have Melisandre telling us that her magic is much stronger since she arrived at the Wall and that she can do things she couldn't do before. It's possible that R'hllor's magic is being powered by the magic of the old gods.

[Eyes High]

17 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

What Jon+Dany+heirs would mean at the end of the story:

- Jon was created to help Dany fulfill her wish to seek vengeance against Jon's own father.

Wait, Dany is seeking vengeance against Rhaegar?

Quote

- Jon was created so that his children can marry each other and breed more mad kings/queens to kill Starks.

And bona fide Targs Jon and Dany haven't killed any Starks, so why would their kids?

Also, most Targs reigned without killing Starks, or indeed having any particular animus toward Starks. And any Jon/Dany offspring would be related to the Starks, having a half-Stark father, so going after the Starks would mean going after their own family. 

Quote

- Ned lied to his wife for the entirety of their married life so Jon could ride dragons with Dany and execute people with dragonfire.

Ned did all that so Jon would live. Jon did live! Mission accomplished.

Quote

- Westeros can look forward to more fire obsession, beliefs that Targaryens are a superior race of human beings, and Targaryen civil wars between family members.

As opposed to constant civil wars between kingdoms? 

Quote

- Nuclear weapons are cool and can solve Jon and Dany's stubborn political problems.

Well, in this case, nuclear weapons are cool in that they are the only thing that can solve the non-political problem Jon and Dany are facing: the WWs. Whether the dragons survive beyond that is anyone's guess: Dany is already down one dragon.

Quote

- GRRM ends the story with with a crypto-Nazi manifesto on blood purity, where Jon learns the importance of keeping the bloodline "clean" and "hygienic" 

The Targaryens' practice of inbreeding, which according to GRRM exaggerates flaws and virtues, is a nod to the Ptolemys of Egypt. I'm not sure what Nazis have to do with anything. It's really closer to the practice of close intermarriage in the royal families of Europe (cousin/cousin, uncle/niece, etc.), which over time led to a lot of genetic health issues. Even today you see similar practices in insular communities, where successive generations of cousin/cousin marriage have produced many genetic health problems. Those are real world genetics, of course, not ASOIAF genetics, where inbreeding produces impossibly hot, very healthy Targs like Jon and Dany and not, you know, Charles II of Spain.

And even the Targs, monarchs or otherwise, didn't intermarry all that much. Aenys I's wife was a Velaryon,. Maegor married five non-Targs, and he married three non-Targ women before agreeing to marry a Targ. Viserys I was married to an Arryn (his first cousin) and then to a Hightower. Aegon III's wife was a Velaryon. Daeron II married a Martell. Aegon V's mom was a Dayne and his wife was a Blackwood, and his sisters married non-Targs. Baelor Breakspear married a non-Targ (who would have been his queen if he had lived long enough to ascend the throne). Elaena Targaryen married three non-Targs and the love of her life was also a non-Targ. The first Daenerys Targaryen married a non-Targ, as did the Targ bastard who supposedly started a rebellion out of love for her (Daemon Blackfyre). Viserys II married Larra Rogare. Jaehaerys II and Shaera married each other, but their brother Duncan fell in love with and married a non-Targ. And so on. The Targ interbreeding/blood purity thing is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. 

Also, there are several characters running around in ASOIAF who are descended from Targ/non-Targ unions: Doran, Oberyn, Quentyn, Arianne, the Sand Snakes, Brown Ben Plumm, Stannis, Renly, Robert, Gendry, Mya, Rennifer Longwaters, Bloodraven, etc. (There's even a theory that one of Aegon V's sisters got knocked up by Dunk and then married a Tarth lord, resulting eventually in Brienne.) They are all proof that the Targs aren't all that obsessed with blood purity.

And if we're talking about generation after generation of intermarriage, the Starks have plenty of intermarriage in their own family tree: Ned's parents were cousins themselves.

15 hours ago, GraceK said:

You mean his evil bastard child of incest???? Heavens no!!!!! That tainted child of Targaryen madness he will surely sacrifice to a weirwood tree! Or give to Sansa and tell her to name him Ned Brandon Starkity Stark just to be safe and then disappear into the wilderness to hunt with Direwolves just to be extra ??

Brandon is the Starkiest name ever, so he'd need to name the kid Brandon Brandon Brandon (Ned) Brandon Brandon Starkity Stark. Just to be sure.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Eyes High

[bubble sparkly]

7 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Also, most Targs reigned without killing Starks, or indeed having any particular animus toward Starks. And any Jon/Dany offspring would be related to the Starks, having a half-Stark father, so going after the Starks would mean going after their own family. 

Also, I’d guess the chances of a DJ child marrying a child of Sansa, Arya or Bran would be pretty high, thus tying the Starks and Targs even closer together.

[WindyNights]

12 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Wait, Dany is seeking vengeance against Rhaegar?

And bona fide Targs Jon and Dany haven't killed any Starks, so why would their kids?

Also, most Targs reigned without killing Starks, or indeed having any particular animus toward Starks. And any Jon/Dany offspring would be related to the Starks, having a half-Stark father, so going after the Starks would mean going after their own family. 

Ned did all that so Jon would live. Jon did live! Mission accomplished.

As opposed to constant civil wars between kingdoms? 

Well, in this case, nuclear weapons are cool in that they are the only thing that can solve the non-political problem Jon and Dany are facing: the WWs. Whether the dragons survive beyond that is anyone's guess: Dany is already down one dragon.

The Targaryens' practice of inbreeding, which according to GRRM exaggerates flaws and virtues, is a nod to the Ptolemys of Egypt. I'm not sure what Nazis have to do with anything. It's really closer to the practice of close intermarriage in the royal families of Europe (cousin/cousin, uncle/niece, etc.), which over time led to a lot of genetic health issues. Even today you see similar practices in insular communities, where successive generations of cousin/cousin marriage have produced many genetic health problems. Those are real world genetics, of course, not ASOIAF genetics, where inbreeding produces impossibly hot, very healthy Targs like Jon and Dany and not, you know, Charles II of Spain.

And even the Targs, monarchs or otherwise, didn't intermarry all that much. Aenys I's wife was a Velaryon,. Maegor married five non-Targs, and he married three non-Targ women before agreeing to marry a Targ. Viserys I was married to an Arryn (his first cousin) and then to a Hightower. Aegon III's wife was a Velaryon. Daeron II married a Martell. Aegon V's mom was a Dayne and his wife was a Blackwood, and his sisters married non-Targs. Baelor Breakspear married a non-Targ (who would have been his queen if he had lived long enough to ascend the throne). Elaena Targaryen married three non-Targs and the love of her life was also a non-Targ. The first Daenerys Targaryen married a non-Targ, as did the Targ bastard who supposedly started a rebellion out of love for her (Daemon Blackfyre). Viserys II married Larra Rogare. Jaehaerys II and Shaera married each other, but their brother Duncan fell in love with and married a non-Targ. And so on. The Targ interbreeding/blood purity thing is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. 

Also, there are several characters running around in ASOIAF who are descended from Targ/non-Targ unions: Doran, Oberyn, Quentyn, Arianne, the Sand Snakes, Brown Ben Plumm, Stannis, Renly, Robert, Gendry, Mya, Rennifer Longwaters, Bloodraven, etc. (There's even a theory that one of Aegon V's sisters got knocked up by Dunk and then married a Tarth lord, resulting eventually in Brienne.) They are all proof that the Targs aren't all that obsessed with blood purity.

And if we're talking about generation after generation of intermarriage, the Starks have plenty of intermarriage in their own family tree: Ned's parents were cousins themselves.

Brandon is the Starkiest name ever, so he'd need to name the kid Brandon Brandon Brandon (Ned) Brandon Brandon Starkity Stark. Just to be sure.

 

Ned's parents were first cousins once removed which is pretty tame.

 

The Targaryen main line are 50 % a collection of brother-sister unions.

Brother-sister:

Aegon-Rhaenys

Jaeharys I-Alysanne

Baelon-Alyssa

Aegon IV-Naerys

Jahaerys II-Shaera

Aerys II-Rhaella

 

Cousin: 

Aenys I-Alyssa Velaryon

Viserys I-Aemma Arryn

 

Uncle-niece:

Daemon-Rhaenrya

 

Non-related unions:

 

Viserys II-Lara Rogare

Daeron the Good-Mariah Martell 

Aegon V-Betha Blackwood

5 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Also, I’d guess the chances of a DJ child marrying a child of Sansa, Arya or Bran would be pretty high, thus tying the Starks and Targs even closer together.

Potentially. If Jon-Dany only have one kid then chances are House Stark and Targaryen just become one house in the near future.

Edited September 25, 2018 by WindyNights

[Colorful Mess]

16 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Wait, Dany is seeking vengeance against Rhaegar?

"Justice" for Rhaegar, and vengeance against Ned/Robert. She dreams about being Rhaegar and destroying the Usurper's host. And she thinks about how the Usurper's dogs will learn that women don't forget or forgive. She collapses Stark/Lannister into the guilty party. So Jon is going to help Dany take up a cause that his father fought to prevent? Jon is going to agree that Ned is guilty in Dany's eyes? Ned's memory isn't trampled on just a little bit, by this? 

Quote

And bona fide Targs Jon and Dany haven't killed any Starks, so why would their kids?

Also, most Targs reigned without killing Starks, or indeed having any particular animus toward Starks. And any Jon/Dany offspring would be related to the Starks, having a half-Stark father, so going after the Starks would mean going after their own family. 

Because madness doesn't really listen to logic or reason or family relation?

If you havent noticed, almost the entire saga is populated with family members killing each other or trying to. And they weren't even certifiably "insane."

Quote

Ned did all that so Jon would live. Jon did live! Mission accomplished.

Well his cover is about to be blown - don't speak too soon. Anyone who is an heir in this series is hunted down because they threaten the succession. Jon may have to play the game of survival just like his Stark siblings did. Just like Dany did when Robert was alive.

Quote

As opposed to constant civil wars between kingdoms? 

Well, you can still have a united Westeros, without Targaryens ruling it. That could be the new era that closes out the series--not more of the same, headed by Targ-Targ incest. GRRM is very interested in the Accursed Kings series, and notes how the series forms the basis Game of Thrones. It documents the doomed dynasty of House Capet that ruled for approximately 300 years. So there is probably a doomed dynasty happening in some form.

Quote

Well, in this case, nuclear weapons are cool in that they are the only thing that can solve the non-political problem Jon and Dany are facing: the WWs. Whether the dragons survive beyond that is anyone's guess: Dany is already down one dragon.

Maybe. Dragons didn't save them the first time. GRRM calls them "engines of destruction" so I don't think he's using them in a particularly noble fashion. Think of the message that would send if dragons saved the day, end of story. Because Tolkien wrote about how the ring of power was SOOOOO cool? If they're only a threat to zombies or used by zombies - who cares. Why bother writing this at all? 

Quote

I'm not sure what Nazis have to do with anything. It's really closer to the practice of close intermarriage in the royal families of Europe (cousin/cousin, uncle/niece, etc.), which over time led to a lot of genetic health issues. Even today you see similar practices in insular communities, where successive generations of cousin/cousin marriage have produced many genetic health problems. 

Yes, but why were they intermarrying. It's about maintaining separation from the "dirty/muddy/unclean/ungodly/average" people so they could be seen as gods or nobles or people worthy of ruling over others. Incest sets the monarchy above society and solves the problem of too many family members to threaten it. Look up limpieza de sangre. Religious populations were reduced to the idea of purity of blood which scholars believe formed the modern conceptions of race in our history. Read any Nazi treatise on blood purity and notice the similarities between their ideology and the Targaryens'. The Targaryens attempt to maintain their superiority to other groups. They want to be seen as superhumans. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure." Dany thinks Targaryens are untroubled by the pestilences that afflicted common men. Dany worries about being small and ordinary without dragons. 

Quote

Those are real world genetics, of course, not ASOIAF genetics, where inbreeding produces impossibly hot, very healthy Targs like Jon and Dany and not, you know, Charles II of Spain.

"Impossibly hot" is really not a credit in their favor of being the winners, though - you know GRRM is inverting that beauty=good trope?

Since they have no physical defects he's written in his own fantasy "cost" to incest: madness and infertility.

There could be other costs to incest since magic is involved too. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[anamika]

8 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Also, I’d guess the chances of a DJ child marrying a child of Sansa, Arya or Bran would be pretty high, thus tying the Starks and Targs even closer together.

Starks and Targs are already already tied through Jon. Better to make marriage alliances for boatbaby with the other houses. Like Dorne for example - to make up for what Rhaegar did.

I am thinking that Doran Martell is not going to be too happy with how things are going for his house. Elia-Rhaegar ended in tragedy. He sends Quentyn to Dany which ends with tragedy. I don't see Arianne's mission with fAegon ending well either if he and Dany are going to clash in another Dance of Dragons. And then Dany gets together with another Stark? And it's Rhaegar's son with Lyanna at that? He's not going to be pleased.

[Colorful Mess]

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Potentially. If Jon-Dany only have one kid then chances are House Stark and Targaryen just become one house in the near future.

The question is, could that kid procreate and not loose his/her marbles like Aerys and Viserys. 50/50 chance. 

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Aegon V-Betha Blackwood

This is an interesting one. The author bothered to write an entire backstory where Egg realizes that the Targaryens should move away from marrying each other. Why write this in at all if the story just ends with the opposite of his conclusion. 

A few instances of cousin marriage like the other Houses, this is not.

[Happy Harpy]

Looking forward to Game Of Thrones: The Next Generation, starring king Jonerys Stargaryen and his queen Gendrya Barastark. What do you want, I love sandwiches. GRRM loves them, too (it's food). In bread brood confirmed!

[SeanC]

4 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

The question is, could that kid procreate and not loose his/her marbles like Aerys and Viserys. 50/50 chance. 

Except, no.  Most Targaryens are not mad or dangerous.  Aerys and Viserys are outliers.  The “gods flip a coin” line is hyperbole (in more ways than one, since there are plenty of mediocre Targaryens in history).

[SeanC]

Moreover, a number of the canonical mad Targaryens have external causes for it (most obviously Baelor, but possibly also Maegor).

[Eyes High]

11 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Ned's parents were first cousins once removed which is pretty tame.

The Targaryen main line are 50 % a collection of brother-sister unions.

Sure, but there's 50% who aren't, and cousin marriage and even uncle/niece marriage appears common enough in ASOIAF, so invoking them as a supposed example of the Targ obsession with blood purity is ill-advised:

1. Tywin and Joanna were first cousins, and no one had any problem with it.

2. Sansa didn't care about Sweetrobin being her cousin when she was supposed to marry him.

3. Alys Karstark didn't want to marry a man she considered her uncle (technically a cousin), but not because he was her uncle.

4. There are at least two uncle/niece marriages in the Stark family tree.

5. Arianne fantasized about her uncle and doesn't lose any sleep over it.

If you're going to wring your hands about the horrors of Ned's descendants practising cousin/cousin or uncle/niece marriage, it's worth pointing out that the other great houses in Westeros and the Starks in particular are no stranger to these practices. And if we confine it to brother/sister marriages, it's worth pointing out that there are many marriages and pairings in the Targ family tree that are not brother/sister marriages or pairings. 

8 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

"Justice" for Rhaegar, and vengeance against Ned/Robert. She dreams about being Rhaegar and destroying the Usurper's host. And she thinks about how the Usurper's dogs will learn that women don't forget or forgive. She collapses Stark/Lannister into the guilty party. So Jon is going to help Dany take up a cause that his father fought to prevent? Jon is going to agree that Ned is guilty in Dany's eyes? Ned's memory isn't trampled on just a little bit, by this? 

You're judging Dany of seeking revenge against the Starks, something she hasn't even done yet in the books, and which we can reasonably predict based on the developments in the TV show she will never do, unless falling in love with Jon and joining forces with him against the WWs constitutes "vengeance against the Starks," and that would be a peculiar sort of vengeance indeed. "I'm going to get revenge on you and your wretched family...by giving you the love you thought you would never have and helping you save your family from certain death! SUCK ON THAT!"

Quote

If you havent noticed, almost the entire saga is populated with family members killing each other or trying to. And they weren't even certifiably "insane."

The whole rationale for political marriage alliances is to forge bonds between potential or actual rivals by tying families together, ultimately with children. 

Quote

Well his cover is about to be blown - don't speak too soon. Anyone who is an heir in this series is hunted down because they threaten the succession. Jon may have to play the game of survival just like his Stark siblings did. Just like Dany did when Robert was alive.

Jon successfully survived Robert's wrath, which was Ned's main objective. Jon also secured Dany's affections with no knowledge of his parentage, so he's sitting pretty as of Season 8.

Quote

Well, you can still have a united Westeros, without Targaryens ruling it. That could be the new era that closes out the series--not more of the same, headed by Targ-Targ incest. GRRM is very interested in the Accursed Kings series, and notes how the series forms the basis Game of Thrones. It documents the doomed dynasty of House Capet that ruled for approximately 300 years. 

He's also very interested in the War of the Roses, where two claimants married to unite their claims and founded a new dynasty which lasted not for a thousand years, but for quite some time: Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Henry VII through his daughter, Margaret Tudor. If Tyrion is Richard III, Jon and Dany are the most likely candidates for Henry Tudor (Henry VII) and Elizabeth of York, although we can argue over which of Jon and Dany is supposed to be Henry Tudor and which is supposed to be Elizabeth of York.

Quote

Read any Nazi treatise on blood purity and notice the similarities between their ideology and the Targaryens'.

Again, GRRM wasn't referencing the Nazis, he was referencing the Ptolemys of Egypt, and again, the practice of intermarriage occurs across several cultural groups at various points in history with no reference to Nazi ideology. I agree that in the real world, it leads to a lot of problems--there's a reason rare genetic disease researchers tend to zero in on communities like the Hutterites, and there's a reason why a large percentage of children with rare genetic diseases in England are born to families within immigrant communities that practice first cousin marriage--but GRRM is not bound by real world genetics.

If you're going to call the Targs Nazis for preferring to marry each other rather than marry out of the circle of their family, you may as well call Western European nobility over the past 500 years Nazis as well, and call Hasidic Jews and similar communities Nazis too for good measure. Good luck with that.

Quote

"Impossibly hot" is really not a credit in their favor of being the winners, though - you know GRRM is inverting that beauty=good trope?

GRRM doesn't always invert the trope. There are plenty of good-looking or outright beautiful people in ASOIAF who are either good people or at least not terrible: Dany, Rhaegar, Renly, Gendry, Catelyn, Sansa, Margaery, Robb, Jeyne Westerling, Lyanna Stark, Roslin Frey, Asha, Tristifer Botley, Arianne, Arys Oakheart, Edmure, Val, Beric Dondarrion (before his death, anyway), Garlan Tyrell, Myrcella, Elia Martell, etc. And of course there are plenty of people in ASOIAF who are ugly and evil: Rorge, Biter, Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon he ain't), Lysa, Walder Frey, etc.

8 hours ago, anamika said:

I am thinking that Doran Martell is not going to be too happy with how things are going for his house. 

I think the books have telegraphed that all of Doran's schemes will end in hideous failure. His track record as of TWOW--Oberyn dead, Quentyn dead, Myrcella maimed, Arianne headed to Aegon with the throne on her mind, etc.--is certainly not promising.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Eyes High

[onyxrose81]

Quote

Again, GRRM wasn't referencing the Nazis, he was referencing the Ptolemys of Egypt, and again, the practice of intermarriage occurs across several cultural groups at various points in history with no reference to Nazi ideology. I agree that in the real world, it leads to a lot of problems--there's a reason rare genetic disease researchers tend to zero in on communities like the Hutterites, and there's a reason why a large percentage of children with rare genetic diseases in England are born to families within immigrant communities that practice first cousin marriage--but GRRM is not bound by real world genetics.

If you're going to call the Targs Nazis for preferring to marry each other rather than marry out of the circle of their family, you may as well call Western European nobility over the past 500 years Nazis as well, and call Hasidic Jews and similar communities Nazis too for good measure. Good luck with that.

ITA.  The constant references of Targaryens as a metaphor for Nazism is bothering me.  And they originally intermarried to keep their dragon riding ability, not for any outright sense of superiority (even if some may have thought it).  

[anamika]

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

"Justice" for Rhaegar, and vengeance against Ned/Robert. She dreams about being Rhaegar and destroying the Usurper's host. And she thinks about how the Usurper's dogs will learn that women don't forget or forgive. She collapses Stark/Lannister into the guilty party. So Jon is going to help Dany take up a cause that his father fought to prevent? Jon is going to agree that Ned is guilty in Dany's eyes? Ned's memory isn't trampled on just a little bit, by this?

When did Dany say that she wants vengeance against Ned/Robert on the show? She has come to Westeros with her army and dragons to take back what she considers is her birthright. Just like Stannis, Robb, Balon, Renly and Joffrey all fought wars for what they considered their birthright. Just like Sansa and Jon fought against the Boltons for what they consider theirs.

And if she wants vengeance and justice is she wrong? Her sister-in-law was raped and murdered. Her baby nephew had his brains bashed out against the wall. Her niece Rhaenys was dragged out from under the bed where she hid and stabbed to death. Tywin was rewarded for these murders by nice Lannister-Baratheon alliances arranged by Jon Arryn. Had Rhaella not fled when she did, she, Dany and Viserys would all be dead. And all Ned did was scold Robert and go North - all the while continuing to support Robert's rule over the 7K. The Baratheon-Stark-Lannister alliance destroyed Dany's family, left her without a home and made her a beggar. And Robert sends assassins to murder a pregnant Dany the minute he learns she is pregnant.

Are only the Starks allowed revenge where they poison entire families and feed people to hungry dogs?

And if Dany is such a mad, evil bitch for wanting to rule over the 7K, what does that make Robert and Ned? All this talk about Dany not respecting the North's right to independence, why did Ned not respect the Iron Islands right to independence?  Many of Balon's sons died when Ned, Robert and Stannis crushed that rebellion.  Ned took Theon as a child hostage so that Balon Greyjoy would behave and not rebel against Robert's rule. Theon Greyjoy grew up without his family because his father dared to rebel. Ned even thinks that he did not dare get close to Theon because he may have to kill a child if Balon rebelled. Has Dany done anything half as bad yet against the North?

When Dany meets Jon she actually apologizes to him for what her father did to Jon's family. She only asks Jon if Ned knew that his best friend had send assassins to murder her. And well Dany does not know that Ned tried to stop Robert does she? There is only one person that knows this right now and that's Varys. And instead of letting Dany know all this, he's busy having secret conversations with Tyrion about how Dany is the mad queen.

Ned lived by a strict set of rules that governed Westeros and that's why he was an honorable man. But he was not a saint. Let's remember that Ned would have killed Theon had it come down to it.  But Dany was horrified at the thought of harming her child hostages.

The problem with all these kind of comments is that they place the Starks/North on some kind of a pedestal while Dany/Targaryens are the bad guys. This is categorically not true in the books. Or on the show. So far Dany has been written as one of the good guys. What differentiates a good ruler from a bad one is the ability to recognize that the WW are the greater threat and unite with one's enemies to defeat them. GRRM clearly points this out with Stannis:

Quote

And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

And this is pretty much what Dany does at the end of last season. She sees the threat, recognizes the threat and puts aside her life's mission to focus on this threat. And that's why, in spite of everything, she's a righteous woman.

And that's why evil villain Dany narratives for next season makes no sense. She's one of the good guys along with Jon. We already have the ruler who selfishly puts her own interests over the greater threat - Cersei. And next season is going to be about taking her down.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anamika

[WindyNights]

4 hours ago, SeanC said:

Except, no.  Most Targaryens are not mad or dangerous.  Aerys and Viserys are outliers.  The “gods flip a coin” line is hyperbole (in more ways than one, since there are plenty of mediocre Targaryens in history).

GRRM has already given his opinion on it. Incest leads to extremes good or bad.

[Eyes High]

6 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

GRRM has already given his opinion on it. Incest leads to extremes good or bad.

As @SeanC pointed out, in GRRM's own Targ histories, there are plenty of Targs who are neither great nor mad and seem like pretty average, unremarkable human beings, apart from their above-average looks (and many of the Targs are not beautiful, either). I'd say most of the Targs are average and unremarkable, showing neither greatness nor madness, just as most people are average and unremarkable. Just like the "mad" Targs, the "great" Targs are in pretty short supply, and there don't seem to be any more mad or great Targs than there are in the general Westeros noble population, which has a few people with remarkable greatness (like Arthur Dayne) or remarkable madness (Lysa, Cersei, Ramsay, etc.) amidst a sea of normalcy. 

[SeanC]

22 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

GRRM has already given his opinion on it. Incest leads to extremes good or bad.

Yes, he said it has produced those extremes, but the quotes post claims that it’s a 50/50 proposition, and that isn’t the case, because most Targaryens are neither great nor mad.

[Colorful Mess]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

Yes, he said it has produced those extremes, but the quotes post claims that it’s a 50/50 proposition, and that isn’t the case, because most Targaryens are neither great nor mad.

It's not a convincing argument to point to past generations of Targaryens to disprove this, because they were less inbred than future ones. The longer the inbreeding happens with each successive generation, the more the odds increase for extremes. After 300 years, they could be at a point where it's 50/50.

The Targaryens weren't just "average folk" with a few "bad apples" distributed just like everyone else in the population. Moreover, that special brand of Targaryen madness isn't something you're born with; they developed it later during times of stress. So the Targaryens who died earlier could be misleading the statistics anyway. 

Targaryens gotta go. I dont know why people keep wanting the inbred crazy people to rule Westeros.

[SeanC]

4 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

It's not a convincing argument to point to past generations of Targaryens to disprove this, because they were less inbred than future ones. The longer the inbreeding happens with each successive generation, the more the odds increase for extremes. After 300 years, they could be at a point where it's 50/50.

The Targaryens don't exclusively inbreed, though.

Quote

The Targaryens weren't just "average folk" with a few "bad apples" distributed just like everyone else in the population. Moreover, that special brand of Targaryen madness isn't something you're born with; they developed it later during times of stress. So the Targaryens who died earlier could be misleading the statistics anyway.

That also doesn't compute.  The notably mad Targaryens mostly did not live to be especially old, precisely because they were mad.  There are far more ordinary Targaryens who lived into adulthood or old age than went mad.

To define our terms here, mad Targaryens that we know of would be:
- Maegor I; he's an odd one because he has both a hinted-at supernatural origin story and this weird near-death before his prime madness phase.

- Baelor I; even moreso than Maegor, he seems to have been fine (if zealous) until the near-death by poisoning.

- Rhaegel; mentally ill, but seemingly of the harmless variety.

- Aerion; mad in the harmful variety.

- Aerys II; see above.

- Viserys; TWOIAF includes various details that seem to be hinting that his upbringing was part of the problem, but in any event, he was definitely heading in the madness direction.

Six is not an especially large number compared to the total number of historical Targaryens.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

The Targaryens don't exclusively inbreed, though.

That also doesn't compute.  The notably mad Targaryens mostly did not live to be especially old, precisely because they were mad.  There are far more ordinary Targaryens who lived into adulthood or old age than went mad.

To define our terms here, mad Targaryens that we know of would be:
- Maegor I; he's an odd one because he has both a hinted-at supernatural origin story and this weird near-death before his prime madness phase.

- Baelor I; even moreso than Maegor, he seems to have been fine (if zealous) until the near-death by poisoning.

- Rhaegel; mentally ill, but seemingly of the harmless variety.

- Aerion; mad in the harmful variety.

- Aerys II; see above.

- Viserys; TWOIAF includes various details that seem to be hinting that his upbringing was part of the problem, but in any event, he was definitely heading in the madness direction.

Six is not an especially large number compared to the total number of historical Targaryens.

I assume Maegor’s coma was a nod on GRRM’s part to Henry VIII, who was rendered unconscious after a jousting accident for several hours and whose behaviour after waking up was more cruel and severe.

[Colorful Mess]

15 hours ago, onyxrose81 said:

ITA.  The constant references of Targaryens as a metaphor for Nazism is bothering me.  And they originally intermarried to keep their dragon riding ability, not for any outright sense of superiority (even if some may have thought it).  

The Valyrians/Targaryens make me uncomfortable. Not the fandom discourse around them. 

If the Targaryens used their dragons as flying ponies, only practiced incest as part of their religion, never wanted to rule, and kept mostly to themselves - you might have a point. But your view is power-neutral and that's a disservice to the story. It's an overly-pleasant version of what the Valyrians actually used dragons for, which is to enslave people in Old Valyria, then assert their hegemony in Westeros. The Targaryens could have been perfectly content living out their lives on Dragonstone, but they wanted more. They escaped Valyria 12 years before it collapsed and settled on Dragonstone. They conquered Westeros because they could, not because they actually needed to find a home.

The Valyrians claimed they were descended from actual dragons and there are hints that they bred with animals to achieve their unique characteristics. Their features are used as proof that the Valyrians are not entirely of the same blood as other men. Their pure blood is used to assert their superiority over others through dragons and to justify their right to rule. Dany believes that the bigger the dragons, the more extraordinary they are as people. "They wasted away. They grew small. And we grew small as well. We weren't extraordinary without them. We were just like everyone else." But Targaryens are not actual dragons, or gods, or even another race - they are ordinary people. They die, get sick, and are flawed just like everyone else, whether they have dragons or not. 

Coming from a bloodline that is obsessed with blood purity, considers itself to be a superior race of human beings, and being one of the biggest conquerors in the story - all of this is coding for white supremacy. Coding does not mean Targaryens=Nazis, or Valyrian=white, it's about using recognizable concepts. Whether it's consciously done by GRRM or just something that subconsciously affected his writing, it still exists and makes me uncomfortable, especially when Dany invades other cultures that are brown-coded and she looks down on them like she did in Meereen. Even though she uses the dragons to free slaves unlike her predecessors, she's still subjugating people through fear, telling them "I will save you and teach you to be better...through fear." It's just a kinder, gentler paternalism this time. She has no respect for the people she wants to rule.

The pharaohs wanted to show their divinity by their incest - but Westeros needs to move away from the pharoah/noble/peasant structure if it wants to make any progress. And then the Ptolemies were Greek-Macedonian. One of the reasons they married their own family was because they didn't want to mix with the "brown" Egyptian population. It has white supremacy undertones. Again, the Targaryens aren't just a family that practices incest for religious or cultural reasons. They are doing it for hegemony over others and their own power.

On the madness issue - this is perhaps the most sinister thing Dany has ever done on the show. It is something Caligula would do:

Quote

"They will eat you if I tell them to. They may eat you even if I don't. Children. Some say I should give up on them. But a good mother never gives up on her children. She disciplines them if she must. But she does not give up on them.  Who is innocent? Maybe all of you are, maybe none of you are. Maybe, I should let the dragons decide."

She does exactly what Barristan cautioned her not to do. He wanted her to provide a fair trial so that she would avoid becoming like her father. And what's worse, she's doing this in Barristan's name.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Katsullivan]

19 hours ago, anamika said:

And if she wants vengeance and justice is she wrong? Her sister-in-law was raped and murdered. Her baby nephew had his brains bashed out against the wall. Her niece Rhaenys was dragged out from under the bed where she hid and stabbed to death. Tywin was rewarded for these murders by nice Lannister-Baratheon alliances arranged by Jon Arryn. Had Rhaella not fled when she did, she, Dany and Viserys would all be dead. And all Ned did was scold Robert and go North - all the while continuing to support Robert's rule over the 7K. The Baratheon-Stark-Lannister alliance destroyed Dany's family, left her without a home and made her a beggar. And Robert sends assassins to murder a pregnant Dany the minute he learns she is pregnant.

Are only the Starks allowed revenge where they poison entire families and feed people to hungry dogs?

And if Dany is such a mad, evil bitch for wanting to rule over the 7K, what does that make Robert and Ned? All this talk about Dany not respecting the North's right to independence, why did Ned not respect the Iron Islands right to independence?  Many of Balon's sons died when Ned, Robert and Stannis crushed that rebellion.  Ned took Theon as a child hostage so that Balon Greyjoy would behave and not rebel against Robert's rule. Theon Greyjoy grew up without his family because his father dared to rebel. Ned even thinks that he did not dare get close to Theon because he may have to kill a child if Balon rebelled. Has Dany done anything half as bad yet against the North?

I think this is one of those narrative tricks that the writing/showrunning does that people are so conditioned to accept blindly that they don't accept. It also doesn't help that Dany is a woman with power, with her own agency --- which people have a kneejerk distrust/hatred of. If Dany was "Danny", we'd be having a different discussion. 

 

19 hours ago, onyxrose81 said:

ITA.  The constant references of Targaryens as a metaphor for Nazism is bothering me.  And they originally intermarried to keep their dragon riding ability, not for any outright sense of superiority (even if some may have thought it).  

Well it does the two-fold job of invoking instant-outrage without reflection ---- and trivializing real Nazism analogies, managing to be ridiculous and offensive at the same time.

[SimoneS]

4 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

 

Well it does the two-fold job of invoking instant-outrage without reflection ---- and trivializing real Nazism analogies, managing to be ridiculous and offensive at the same time.

You nailed it. 

[anamika]

6 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

I think this is one of those narrative tricks that the writing/showrunning does that people are so conditioned to accept blindly that they don't accept. It also doesn't help that Dany is a woman with power, with her own agency --- which people have a kneejerk distrust/hatred of. If Dany was "Danny", we'd be having a different discussion.

Planetos is a cruel, violent, medieval place. We were introduced to the show with honorable Ned beheading a scared NW brother running away from WW and having his seven year old son witness that beheading because 'Winter is coming'. But often it's only Dany's actions that are scrutinized through the lens of 21st century morals.

On 9/23/2018 at 8:44 PM, SimoneS said:

I have always expected that the dragons would lay eggs and that Jon and Dany would find them after her current dragons are killed.

On 9/25/2018 at 7:27 PM, onyxrose81 said:

 And they originally intermarried to keep their dragon riding ability, not for any outright sense of superiority (even if some may have thought it).  

GRRM's comments here about Targaryens, blood and dragons come to mind:

Quote

Targaryens were interlopers from another culture and they had some unique factors that didn't necessarily fit into the mainstream of the other Westerosi lords such as their traditional incest which was part of keeping the bloodlines pure so that they could better control dragons, brother marrying sister, and nephews and aunts, and so forth

Since we are getting nephew and aunt marrying and possibly having a kid, could be they also get some dragon eggs.

Quote

“Call it dragonglass.” Archmaester Marwyn glanced at the candle for a moment. “It burns but is not consumed.” “What feeds the flame?” asked Sam. “What feeds a dragon’s fire?” Marwyn seated himself upon a stool. “All Valyrian sorcery was rooted in blood or fire. The sorcerers of the Freehold could see across mountains, seas, and deserts with one of these glass candles. They could enter a man’s dreams and give him visions, and speak to one another half a world apart, seated before their candles. Do you think that might be useful, Slayer?”

Quote

Dragons again. For a moment Jon could almost see them too, coiling in the night, their dark wings outlined against a sea of flame.

Quote

Q: What can you tell us about a warg dragon rider?

A: There is no history/precedent for someone warging a dragon. There is a rich history of the mythical bond between dragon and rider. There have been instances of dragons responding to their riders even from very far away  which shows it is a true and very strong bond. We will learn more about this. Keep reading.

I guess that's why the Targaryen house words are Fire and Blood.  Plus, Dragonglass and Valyrian steel being used to kill the Others is interesting. Did dragons exist during the Long Night?

I wonder if Dany will continue to remain the only dragon rider on the show. The leaked script for last season did have Jon bonding with Rhaegal instead of Drogon so that could be indicative of Jon and Rhaegal pairing up next season. BoatsexBaby did talk up some amazing dragon stunt scenes for Dany

Edited September 26, 2018 by anamika

[Stella]

Funnily enough I agree completely but probably for the opposite reason as you.

If Dany were Danny the character's acts would be questioned and rejected far more frequently IMO. 

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, anamika said:

I guess that's why the Targaryen house words are Fire and Blood.  Plus, Dragonglass and Valyrian steel being used to kill the Others is interesting. Did dragons exist during the Long Night?

I wonder if Dany will continue to remain the only dragon rider on the show. The leaked script for last season did have Jon bonding with Rhaegal instead of Drogon so that could be indicative of Jon and Rhaegal pairing up next season. BoatsexBaby did talk up some amazing dragon stunt scenes for Dany

I have been wondering about Jon riding Rhaegal this upcoming season. I first I thought it was unlikely, but if Daenerys and Drogon are under attack by the NK on Viserion, I could see Jon calling Rhaegal and climbing on out of desperation. 

[WindyNights]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I have been wondering about Jon riding Rhaegal this upcoming season. I first I thought it was unlikely, but if Daenerys and Drogon are under attack by the NK on Viserion, I could see Jon calling Rhaegal and climbing on out of desperation. 

It doesn't seem like it's going to happen at all at this point. 

Like Bran, they might want to keep Daenerys special by making her the only dragon rider. The show even eliminated the need for Daenerys to have dragon riders when they do what she wants

[domina89]

19 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

It doesn't seem like it's going to happen at all at this point. 

Like Bran, they might want to keep Daenerys special by making her the only dragon rider. The show even eliminated the need for Daenerys to have dragon riders when they do what she wants

I think the only hope Rhaegal has to survive is if he has a rider.  Dragons are intelligent, but I'm not sure he can evade the NK's attacks without assistance.

[bubble sparkly]

3 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I have been wondering about Jon riding Rhaegal this upcoming season. I first I thought it was unlikely, but if Daenerys and Drogon are under attack by the NK on Viserion, I could see Jon calling Rhaegal and climbing on out of desperation. 

Yeah, if Jon does ride a dragon I could see it being a spur of the moment thing that happens because Dany is in trouble. This is probably the easiest way for them to hand wave dragons needing to bond with someone before accepting a rider, because I doubt there is going to be time next season for Jon and Rhaegal to be shown extensively bonding. One assumes Rhaegal would be willing to just go with it to save his family.

[nikma]

34 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

because I doubt there is going to be time next season for Jon and Rhaegal to be shown extensively bonding.

I agree. Maybe just one short scene before he rides him. If he rides him. 

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, domina89 said:

I think the only hope Rhaegal has to survive is if he has a rider.  Dragons are intelligent, but I'm not sure he can evade the NK's attacks without assistance.

Honestly, I think the odds aren't good that either Rhaegal or Drogon survive to the end.

Edited September 26, 2018 by SimoneS