Didn’t Olenna Tyrell say the Targaryen she was supposed to marry (before snagging her sister’s intended, IIRC) had silver hair?
Those are all incest babies. There’s is literally nothing to suggest that half Targaryens should have the same hair as full blooded Targaryens. There are examples in the book of the opposite. This is silly.
Don’t forget the whole “seed is strong” thing. It might just be that the supersperm-color-perm thing is an offshoot from their normal distributed genetic characteristics, and they were tracing Robert’s lineage to see if he had it. But yeah, circumstantial as hell.
The books, and GRRM’s personal testimony, are already proven unreliable as to the show world, not just on plot points but on fantasy mechanics. If you look to the books as a guide to the show, you will be misled. (I assume this was a deliberate overall decision by the producers, and I think a good one, but that doesn’t really matter to my argument.)
No, the show is a distinct work, and the show world a distinct set of (fictional) facts. Only what appears in the show is properly relevant to understanding it. Of course, interpretations may still vary.
Ok, well in the show 100% of the half-Targaryens shown do not have blonde hair.
You mean Jon, only? Yes, that may be. But if it is, it should be addressed, explained somehow. And it damn sure better be addressed if Jon is to have fantasy Targaryen powers that even Viserys lacked.
There’s no reason to explain it. The only way someone should think he should be blonde is by making a faulty, baseless assumption. There’s no reason to believe that the Targaryen blondeness is a dominant trait.
Jon has already been burned in the show.
Resistance to burning isn’t all that Viserys lacked. But look, I’m not going to keep at this. It was a fairly offhand comment in another thread, about an element of the show that the people I know who watch closely had all picked up on. I’ve seen it discussed elsewhere, as TruCelt here does–I thought it was pretty widespread. Perhaps not; interpretations vary, and that’s fine. Perhaps everything will be revealed without explanation as you say. My estimation of the show would be taken down a notch, that’s all. I imagine other people have other expectations for how various matters will be resolved; the show cannot be everything to everybody.
I’m not sure - but Robert Baratheon was the grandson of a Targaryen princess, hence his claiming the throne in the rebellion. So apparently Baratheon black at least is dominant over Targaryen platinum blond, just as much as it supposedly is over Lannister golden blond. However for the life of me I can’t recall if they’ve referenced that connection in the show.
I’m pretty sure that in the show Robert’s claim is purely by conquest. I would be interested if anyone could cite an episode to the contrary.
So your estimation of the show is decreased because it doesn’t take time to address your completely baseless pet theory? That’s reasonable.
The thread title stated ASoIaF and the OP was asking questions from the show - it can be reasonable inferred that the OP was asking about evidence from both the books and the show (it mentioned “Martin’s world”) that can shed light on the question being asked. Therefore, I think both are fine to be used.
And regardless of your opinion on the divergence of the show and books as to the story they are telling, there is nothing indicating that there is that much of divergence between the show and the books on events that happened PRIOR to Episode 1 / Chapter 1 - the only difference has been that Aemon Targaryen is Aerys II’s uncle in one and granduncle in the other.