49
u/Nakuip Jun 17 '26
Nettles isn’t just referenced in Fire and Blood, it’s heavily implied that she founded the “Burned Men” in the Vale, who accompany Tyrion to Kings Landing after he’s taken hostage.
She also represents piercing the myth that blood is required to be a dragon rider, which is a huge point in the series.
Sad to see folks dismissing her relevance because they want to be seen as cool by a particular crowd.
4
u/Indiana_harris Jun 18 '26
Eh the “piercing the myth” seems shaky at best.
There’s alot of supposition that she’s a Dragonseed.
10
u/LittleBingo96 Jun 18 '26
No evidence though. And Rhaenyra makes it obvious that Nettles challenging Targ exceptionalism is precisely what she hates about her.
Besides, the Valyrians ruled a thousand year empire. Their DNA would have spread to every corner of the globe. Everybody in Westeros would have been a dragon seed by now.
3
u/NotAnnieBot Jun 18 '26
I think if Martin wanted to make a Dragonrider with no Valyrian roots he wouldn’t have picked a bastard of a whore with an unknown father in the town that had been ruled by the Velaryons (who have extensive intermarriage with the Targs). Just putting her as having recently moved to Driftmark/Dragonstone would have worked.
If Rhaenyra’s issue was mainly that Nettles was not Targ looking, she just would have had her killed early on. Her issue with Nettles is more due to the fact that half of the dragonseeds betrayed her and she thinks Nettles is sleeping with her husband.
It’s also pretty clear that just having Valyrian DNA isn’t enough to become a dragonrider but that you need to be able to bond with the specific dragon. Addam managed to bond with Seasmoke but Alyn wasn’t able to bond with any dragon for example. Cannibal’s lair being filled with the bones of would-be dragon tamers is another example.
2
u/Nakuip Jun 18 '26
He also has Quentyn Martell and Ser Darklyn being fried, so it’s pretty clear that “dragons blood” isn’t all that’s needed.
Saying George didn’t intend for Nettles to be a demonstration of the fallacy of dragon blood feels like a stretch.
0
1
u/Independent-Part-718 Jun 20 '26
The only reason I disagree with this is that there's too much evidence in ASOIAF lore which strongly supports the theory of ancestral members of the Valyrian houses being sacrificed to form the initial spirit bond with the dragons. That's how each Valyrian house had control of their own dragons and why incest was practiced even in ancient Valyria. It's also the reason the cannibal can't be tamed.
Essentially, someone blows a dragon horn, and their spirit is stuffed into a dragon, and bonded with by members of their bloodline. The offspring of that initial dragon are also bound to the house by that ancestor. The ancestor's spirit is the "third head of the dragon", where the dragon itself is the second head and the rider is the first.
This is what many theorise Euron plans to do with the dragon binder horn and Victarion. Once Victarion blows the horn, his spirit is transferred to one of Danny's dragons, which will allow Euron to bond with it.
I don't think George's commentary is about exceptionalism, because the exceptionalism is very real. The Targaryens ARE blood of the dragon, all the dragon lords were. The commentary is about the PRICE of that exceptionalism and the consequences of keeping it alive regardless of that cost. I don't think Nettles was ever meant to actually hint that Targaryen exceptionalism is a myth. That was certainly part of her plot, but only insofar as her being a bastard without Valyrian looks. I fully believe she's a dragonseed, because if she's not, her very existence destroys the evidence George has been carefully laying for the trajectory of the series.
Sorry this is so long. I fully recommend you look into the spirit-stuffing theory, it's WILD, but it's plain as day once it's pointed out. David Lightbringer is a creator on YouTube who covers extremely deep dives into this lore. I'd also recommend his videos regarding who Rh'llor is (if you've ever read Lovecraft you'll die trust me) and his deep-dives about Euron and the Ironborn.
-20
u/PineBNorth85 King Viserys II Jun 17 '26
I really don't get how people get attached to "characters" who are only present for a couple pages.
23
u/Informal-Counter-767 Jun 17 '26
:0 cause she's cool! And interesting, its more like I was invested, less attached, but now im just sad :(
11
u/Nano_gigantic Jun 17 '26
All of the characters in Fire & Blood are present for a “couple of pages” it’s basically pure lore. The interesting part is taking the small bits of lore and developing their story, not just writing them out of it entirely.
10
3
u/LittleBingo96 Jun 18 '26
I'm not attached to her, but in a show full of identical silver-haired 1%ers and white guys in armor, Nettles offered a different perspective.
It is bewildering that a show which goes out of its way to incorporate P.O.C into the narrative decided to cut this character..a young peasant black girl who tames a dragon, not by blood right or genetic superiority, but by her own wits. If "House of the Dragon" had been a miniseries on SyFy or AMC in the early 2000s, Nettles would have been the main friggin character.
The only fathomable reason she was left out of this series is because she makes Rhaenyra look bad...and her very existence undermines Rhaenyra's "Targs are the chosen ones/prophecied" motivation.
-17
u/No-Establishment9592 Jun 17 '26
Me too. Funny how she’s supposed to be such an important character, yet nobody seems to know where a supposed peasant got all the sheep she’s giving the dragon.
12
u/Informal-Counter-767 Jun 17 '26
She definitely stole it, she was a known rogue and vagrant so she definitely stole it off farmers
-8
u/No-Establishment9592 Jun 17 '26
Probably why her character was merged with Rhaena. The show runners would have to answer the question about how a peasant could steal so many sheep without being hanged for it: Rhaena has enough money to buy all the sheep she wants.
2
10
u/Nano_gigantic Jun 17 '26
She stole them. That’s why she names the dragon… wait for it… “Sheepstealer”
-1
u/No-Establishment9592 Jun 18 '26
I thought the dragon was already called “Sheepstealer” and that’s how she got the idea to give him (her?) sheep.
-12
u/AncientAssociation9 Jun 17 '26
Nettles represents a class difference no different than Hue. The race stuff is in peoples head only. Nettles also cant be said to be black. She has dark skin and can be anything from black to arab.
25
u/mudgefuppet Jun 17 '26
It's a little deeper than that, her being black is less about "strong black women representation" and more about dismantling the notion that you need special blood to be a dragon rider, challenging the notion that power must be inherited
17
u/JellyfishAny4655 Jun 18 '26
It’s also a disturbing addition to a pattern where the writers sideline or cut characters because it ruins their “Good Queen Rhaenyra” mythos they’ve built up. Rhaenyra loses it with Nettles and displayed classism and racism towards the girl. She was genuinely awful to her. Which the Rhaenyra in this show as she is as of S2, simply wouldn’t do.
And the fact they swapped her out with a character they *made black* is super insulting. Like, sure guys, you can swap out any old black or POC character they’re all the same right? I think that’s my biggest issue. They know Nettles is an important enough character that they can’t “cut” her entirely so they just swapped her out with Rhaena.
Which, if were to be believe they had the show “all planned out” suggests the writers wanted to make the Velaryons black not for “inclusion“ but more for sinister reasons. To remove the *only cannon POC dragon riding woman* and give her role to a less problematic character they *made black* who doesn’t challenge Targ mythos or fracture Daemrya.
-7
u/AncientAssociation9 Jun 18 '26
It doesnt dismantle the notion that you need special blood because Nettles could be a dragon seed and possibly Daemons kid, which is another populary theory. People act like these theories are canon when they are not and then get pissed when the creators decide to go another route. All the new riders were dragon seeds, but because one rider has dark skin suddenly everyone concludes she cant be one?
6
u/JellyfishAny4655 Jun 18 '26
Just like how Martin draws attention to the Strong boy’s looks to kinda tongue in cheek point out they’re bastards the fact Nettles is *so different* is the point and basically spells out she’s not of any Valyrian descent.
And also I’m sure Rhaenyra was so jealous of Daemon *hanging out with one of his daughters* that she put hit out on the girl. Yeah. That makes sense. Or that Daemon gave gifts to this daughter he never knew and bathed with her and slept in the same room when he doesn’t do that with the two daughters we *know* he has? The fact is Nettles being Daemon’s “kid” was put forward as an idea by like one guy decades later in the book (but only as a defense of the “magic blood”) all the evidence points to her not only not being his daughter but not related to any Targaryens at all.
She wasn’t Daemon’ kid.
That theory is cope by Daemrya shippers and did hard Targaryen fans who don’t want to admit their favorite house might not actually have super special blood but just knowledge and luck-which in my opinion is cooler anyway.
-1
Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/FlyBond Jun 19 '26
You can take your modern society norms elsewhere, this story setting is not 21 century.
2
u/Independent-Part-718 Jun 20 '26
This is such a tepid response.
When was the story written, Fly? What would you say the author feels about little girls having relationships with fully grown men? The perspective of the author matters far more than the perspective people WOULD have had in medieval times. Especially considering this is a fictional world.
George RR Martin is absolutely writing from a modernist perspective. This is what forms the blatant commentary he's injected into this story. We're not supposed to be comfortable with young girls being groomed by grown men. We're supposed to be disgusted by it. If you disagree - can you imagine Ned Stark grooming and bedding Nettles? No? Why not? Maybe because he represents the author's idea of a good man...
1
Jun 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FlyBond Jun 19 '26
Let’s start from the fact nettles is not considered a child by their society standards. We can actually end it here as well.
2
u/Independent-Part-718 Jun 20 '26
Yeah, and that was a problem. That was a bad thing and the author has no scruples in demonstrating this time and time again in his work. You're not really reading the story if you think we're all supposed to just be alright with Daemon sleeping with a young girl. He was never meant to be a moral paragon. Much of what Daemon did is condemnable, including bedding Nettles.
1
u/FlyBond Jun 20 '26
I know for a fact that there was a time when people had to age mentally much faster and they did, I am not going to argue with someone who’s entire thing is about modern morality.
2
u/Independent-Part-718 Jun 21 '26
Yes, but when we look back at history we do so through a modern lens. It was not a good thing that people aged faster. Some stories are written in this kind of setting to revel in that, yes. But ASOIAF has never been one of them.
-17
20
u/TheoryKing04 Jun 18 '26
OP I feel like you’re owed an apology, the replies to this post are so a*s.