House of the Dragon just made the rules around dragon riders MUCH more confusing

The world of A Song of Ice and Fire is incredibly complex, with detailed feudal systems, massive terrain, and a great many fantastical creatures; it's one of the biggest fantasy series in decades. Despite that, some elements of the series' lore have been relatively straightforward, including the concept of dragon-riding.

Before the Doom of Valyria, there were many families of dragonlords, who used different methods to claim and control their dragons. However, almost all of Westerosi history shows dragons as companions who only form bonds with the Targaryen family. By the time of Game of Thrones, many of the details of that connection have been lost, as dragons have died out by that time.

The prequel series House of the Dragon, on the other hand, begins during the height of Targaryen power in Westeros. There are still family secrets being passed from parent to child, and young members of the family are given the opportunity to bond with dragons in largely the same way Daenerys did on Game of Thrones, from the moment of the dragon's birth. When House of the Dragon season 2 began to blur the lines on who can claim dragons and how, it threatened the stability of the magic system fans have known for years.

Here, we discuss the established lore of dragon-riding from Game of Thrones and the Song of Ice and Fire books, how the new season of House of the Dragon breaks those rules, and what that might mean for the franchise as a whole moving forward.

The rules of dragon-riding

There have been many theories in the Game of Thrones fandom concerning why the Targaryens are able to command dragons. However, the few Targaryens in the original series were detached from their heritage, unable to learn from their ancestors about the family's gifts. Because of this, the specific question of what compels a dragon to accept a rider is uncertain.

"I used to think I knew what it was to claim a dragon, but I understand now that what I thought I knew is ash in the wind. Perhaps it is blood. Or worth. Or perhaps it's something else."

- Rhaenyra Targaryen

What we do know is that the dragons almost always select riders who have close ties to House Targaryen. Royal children were often given a dragon egg in their cradles, creating a bond between them and the young dragon as they grew. Others tried to claim dragons whose previous riders had died, which required the dragon to accept them as a new rider.

Based on information from the original series and from author George R.R. Martin's book Fire & Blood, the bond between dragon and rider was effectively monogamous. The dragon will not accept another rider until theirs last one dies, and the rider cannot ride another dragon while theirs lives. There may be some magic involved in that connection, as Targaryens have been known to feel the pain of their dragons, and dragons have sensed the death of their original rider.

With these basic rules in place, fans know what to expect from dragons they encounter across the different books and shows. If dragons already have riders, then they will stay loyal to them. Unclaimed dragons might follow commands, but they are still open to being claimed in the future. But what happens when those rules don't prove as solid as fans were led to believe, as happens in season 2 of House of the Dragon?

Can non-Targaryens claim dragons?

Because there were many dragon-riding families in Old Valyria, there is always a chance that some of their genetics survives in other families. After all, other Valyrian families besides the Targaryen made their way to Westeros, like the Velaryons. However, the predominant source of dragonlord genetics in Westeros is the Targaryens. This is why, generally, dragons are only claimed by members of that family.

That holds true even if the dragon-riders only had one Targaryen parent. For example, Rhaenys Targaryen's children Laenor and Laena are both dragon riders, despite being Velaryons. Likewise, Rhaenyra's children are dragon-riders, despite being Velaryon in name and despite their actual father being Robert Strong.

There isn't much of a problem here, because they are still the children of Targaryens, and specifically the children of dragon-riding Targaryens. But the new dragon riders in season 2 are another matter. Other than Hugh Hammer, they all seem to have distant, if any, Targaryen relations.

In Fire & Blood, Addam of Hull is claimed to be Laenor's illegitimate son, making him the grandson of a Targaryen and the son of a dragon rider. However, rumors say that he's actually the son of Laenor's father Corlys, which the show confirmed. This is a much more confusing situation, since the Velaryons were not dragon riders and Corlys doesn't seem to have any Targaryen ancestry.

In the show, Corlys says that Addam's mother might have had Targaryen blood, but that seems doubtful, particularly since his brother Alyn hides his silver-white hair. If his mother had Valyrian features, then he wouldn't feel the need to hide his own. That would suggest that, if she has any Targaryen heritage, it's likely from her grandparents or even further back.

Neither Hugh Hammer nor Ulf White knew their ancestry in the book, though both had traditionally Valyrian features. That might have meant they were illegitimate children of Targaryen parents, as Hugh Hammer and Ulf White both claim to be on House of the Dragon. However, it's just as likely that their Targaryen ancestry goes much farther back.

Notably, there is a character in Fire & Blood who claims a dragon but has no known Targaryen heritage and no Valyrian features: the peasant girl Nettles manages to bond with the wild dragon Sheepstealer by bringing it food. However, she was removed from the series, and her role was merged with Daemon Targaryen's daughter Rhaena, who has both a Targaryen father and grandmother. By taking away the one character who had no Targaryen ties, the show seems to be reinforcing the need for people to have Targaryen genetics to bond with a dragon, or at least, they avoid providing a counter-example.

We see in the show that Ser Steffon Darklyn, whose great-great-grandmother was a Targaryen princess, was unable to claim a dragon. While this could have just been because he didn't have a good connection with the dragon in question, it's suggested that the reason Seasmoke rejects him is because his Targaryen heritage is too weak. This would indicate that dragon riding requires a Targaryen ancestor somewhere between a parent and a great-great grandparent.

How exclusive is the bond between dragon and rider?

The traditional understanding of the dragon-dragon rider bond is that it is exclusive to one dragon and one rider. In the Song of Ice and Fire books, Daenerys hatches three dragons. However, she only ever rides Drogon. In the TV adaptation Game of Thrones, Rhaegal is ridden by Jon Snow, while Viserion (well-zombie Viserion) is bonded with the Night King.

The second season of House of the Dragon calls these rules into question. Since Laenor's death was staged, his dragon Seasmoke should not be willing to take another rider. Yet he accepts Addam of Hull, which means that either Laenor died offscreen (which is what we think happened), or the established rules are wrong.

With that in mind, can the non-exclusive bond work the other way around? When Rhaenyra was attempting to find new dragon riders, the dragon Vermithor seemed willing to respond to her commands. Could she have claimed another dragon? Or, if riding Vermithor is out of the question, could she not command him, as Daenerys commands Viserion and Rhaegal, in battle?

By breaking this rule, it becomes a lot harder for audiences to establish suspension of disbelief. In House of the Dragon, control over dragons is the predominant magical element. A lack of consistency hurts the show's stakes, and it makes it harder to believe in future rules about dragons, because they could be broken just as easily.

What does the new precedent do to the canon of Game of Thrones?

Ultimately, breaking rules and suggesting that there are many things that the Targaryens don't know about dragon riding (despite growing up with other dragon riders) makes all plot points involving the dragons more difficult to enjoy.

How does the audience know what the actual rules are? Are they being broken because of the characters' justified ignorance, or just as a way to move the plot forward? It's a dangerous precedent because it can unravel the strength of all the stories within George R. R. Martin's world.

For example, it seems perfectly reasonable that multiple characters from Game of Thrones should have been able to claim dragons, not just Daenerys and the many possible secret Targaryens. The family trees are imperfect, but there are several characters that can be definitively tied back to Targaryen ancestors.

House Baratheon is the best example. The founder of the house, Orys Baratheon, was believed to be the child of Aerion Targaryen. Later in their history, Lord Ormund Baratheon married Rhaelle Targaryen. Their grandchildren included Robert, Stannis, and Renly Baratheon, who should have just as good of a claim to dragons genetically as the dragonseeds. Shireen Baratheon even has nightmares of dragons, which might hint at her being a dragon dreamer.

Similarly, Maron Martell married Daenerys Targaryen (a different one) in 187 AC, and, as far as we know, all of the Martells in the original series descend from them. How different might the story have gone if Oberyn Martell had claimed one of Daenerys's dragons to get his revenge on the Lannisters?

These are simple hypotheticals, but they have a big impact when considering that Jon Snow riding Rhaegal was seen as proof that he was the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna. As Jace argued, riding dragons gives a person legitimacy as a Targaryen. However, the lineage shows that at least two of the other Great Houses of Westeros have decent claims to dragons through distant Targaryen ancestors.

This should be a way to explain away Jon's dragon riding, but it wasn't used because, when the original books and show were written, it wasn't considered possible. In future seasons of House of the Dragon, fans have reason to doubt if the dragons will stay loyal to their riders, because clearly Seasmoke didn't.

Ultimately, these changes were likely just made for the ease of the story. It's a good thing to not kill off one of the first season's only LGBT+ characters, but Addam of Hull still needed to claim a dragon. Laenor having illegitimate children makes less sense than Corlys having them, because he was shown to be exclusively homosexual. However, minor changes can have major ripple effects.

In the next two seasons, the ways that different riders interact with their dragons will be incredibly important. Will they largely follow the rules, making Addam an unusual exception, or will we learn that everything that was previously accepted as fact should now be doubted? We can only hope that, whatever the writers do, it doesn't make things even more confusing than they already are.

To stay up to date on everything fantasy, science fiction, and WiC, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and Twitter account, sign up for our exclusive newsletter and check out our YouTube channel.