The merits of Tyrion as a dragonrider

[Lion of Lorath]

I'm deeply bothered by this idea, and only lately I was able to understand why. Tyrion is a character who never had physical power to force people to do what he wants. He has to rely on his intelligence, ability with politics and manipulation etc. Someone like him suddenly getting the power to burn an army on his own feels a bit... Not exactly cheap, but it would lose some of the subtley of his arc. It would be as if Varys was revealed as a great swordsman in hiding and became a war leader or something.

I strongly agree. His story arc would be poorly served by becoming a dragonrider. If anything, I think his story arc is pointing towards the Lannister family Valyrian steel blade (whose name I don't recall.)

Also... While I think that there's plenty of evidence behind Jaime and Cersei being Aerys' bastards, Tyrion isn't one. At any rate, Jaime and Cersei aren't going to get a "secret Targs" storyline, they're going to get a "bastards" storyline.

[Lord Varys]

Becoming a dragonrider doesn't make you invincible. You are still having to sleep, eat, and interact with other people, and you can't drag your dragon along with you everywhere. In that sense, Tyrion wouldn't be an overly powerful person with a dragon - just as Dany isn't suddenly untouchable or invincible just because she is riding Drogon now.

And Tyrion's intelligence wasn't what made him powerful or influential in this story and world. It was his name and the wealth and power he derived from the fact that he was Tywin Lannister's son. That's gone now. George would greatly stress the credibility of his own fictional world if an outcast and murderer on the run would be able talk himself into a position of power again. It is already stretching credibility that Tyrion would be able to talk himself into the ranks of the Second Sons. That is plausible because Tyrion is valuable (he can be sold to Cersei or Daenerys) and because Brown Ben is already thinking about rejoining the Meereenese allies, but to base Tyrion's future story simply on him knowing stuff about dragons and the politics in Westeros would do him any good. Dany or the men actually fighting for her/commanding her troops could also get his knowledge if they make him their fool. Tyrion has no leverage which he can demand that he become somebody important at Dany's court and council.

But if he is her half-brother and a dragonrider she'll have a pretty good reason to be interested in him.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Yes, but the Targaryens are NOT the only Valyrian family.

Read your Westerosi history: Nettles tamed a dragon by feeding it sheep; it was never established that she had any Valyrian blood.

The idea that only Targs can ride dragons post-doom is something put out BY the Targs, likely to keep attempts at dragon stealing to a minimum.

[Were the Targaryens the only Valyrians who rode dragons?]

They were the only dragonriders to survive the Doom.

SSM, http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Category/C90

[Fire Eater]

It is George who has set up this whole special dragonlord blood thing. Sure, there could be random dragonriders being descended from some Targaryen bastard, but that is not very likely in a story in which there is a lot of prophetic stuff going on foreshadowing three special dragonriders. Whatever else those three dragon heads are going to do, they have been set up to mirror Aegon and his sisters in a way. It is not very likely they are going to be Daenerys and some random dudes. Brown Ben could become a dragonrider according to the dragonbonding rules. But is this a very likely development story-wise? No, because Brown Ben isn't a major character nor described as a man who would actually be daring enough to try to claim a dragon.

If Targaryens have dragon blood then Targaryens are literally part dragon, which would easily explain why prophetic dreams occasionally symbolize Targaryens as dragons. But not always. Daenerys dreamed of a literal dragon, no? Back in AGoT? We have also no idea that the promised prince prophecy is based on a dragon dream symbolizing people as dragons - it could have been some other form of prophecy not involving a dream at all (say, how Maggy tells the future or how the Undying prophesied stuff - not the vision-showing but the actual prophecies they gave in words).

But the three heads of the dragon (or the three-headed dragon) is exactly my point, too. It refers to a savior or hero trinity, three persons closely related (with the same blood, dragon blood) who have to work as one or in unison to fulfill their destiny. Not sure where you get the three aspects thing. That seems to my like an obvious attempt to project everything on one person rather than to keep an open mind. There have been Targaryens who had literally two heads, you know. Perhaps the savior will be an actual three-headed guy - have you ever thought of that...?

There is nothing to suggest the the three heads are to mirror Aegon and his sisters given they have nothing to do with the prophecy. BBP could contribute to the story as a dragonrider by being a parallel to the Twp Betrayers of the first Dance., and through him the greens get a dragon. Tyrion isn't a random dude.

Prophecies deal extensively with metaphor. Quaithe's visions weren't the result of dreams I think, and her prophecy involved metaphor.

It is still dragon not dragons. There is the god Trios to consider who is mentioned twice in ADwD. Trios is depicted with three heads just as the "dragon has three heads." It is not three separate individuals, but three parts/aspects of a whole. Think of the Trinity where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are regarded as three parts of the same thing. There were no Targaryens with two heads. If you're referring to Maelys, he wasn't a Targaryen but a Blackfyre.

Tyrion is a survivor. I don't know who is going to survive the story but if I were George I'd not kill my favorite character. Whatever hints there are for Jon Snow sitting the Iron Throne usually are only hints to his true heritage. Stannis is 'the rightful king', too, but he'll also never sit on the Iron Throne. If Jon Snow is (one of) the prophesied heroes there is a pretty good chance that he is not going to survive the final battle - simply because the main heroes have to sacrifice themselves in stories that aren't fairy-tales. And Jon is an ideal position to develop a sense of responsibility that will lead him to sacrifice himself to save others.

Right now Tyrion wants Casterly Rock. When he realizes he can have the Iron Throne because he is Aerys' son and a dragonrider, he may change his mind. I would in a heartbeat. Not to mention that his position as a dragonrider could lead to him becoming one of Dany's consorts - in which capacity he could claim the throne as her half-brother should she die without issue. And he could, of course, also be legitimized as a Targaryen by Daenerys. Nobody is going to asks the lords back for their opinion after Dany's armies have taken the Iron Throne - and Tyrion should be one of the leaders of those armies.

I really don't see how George toys with expectations all that much. I wasn't particularly surprised by much in those novels, to be sure. Especially not by the stuff that had been built up. Jon Snow's role as sole savior of mankind has not been built up. All we got from him was stuff about his heritage and possible legal repercussions from that if we ignore the fact that he has given up any legal claim he may have once had.

Well, you aren't GRRM, remember. GRRM likes all his characters yet he kills them off regardless. As to the second sentence that is not true:

Kevan Lannister could feel it [the Iron Throne] at his back, an itch between the shoulder blades.

When the third dagger took him [Jon] between the shoulder blades

That is a likely hint to Jon sitting the IT. What is the point of all the King Arthur references for Jon and the secret royal heritage that is supposed to be the biggest shocker of the series if it isn't going to impact the storyline? I doubt it given GRRM doesn't give real deaths to characters who had fake deaths. What is the point of all the king hints if Jon isn't going to wear a crown? I see nothing pointing to Jon being sacrificed to save the realm.

No, he wouldn't get the IT without Dany opposing him, and I doubt he is going to turn on her. He couldn't claim the IT as Aerys's bastard ahead of Rhaegar's trueborn son, even if he is legitimized. On top of that, Tyrion considers Jon a friend, and he would be stealing his friend's throne. He isn't Aerys's bastard as Joanna would have likely just aborted him with moon tea had she been raped by Aerys.

Baelor Breakspear's looks actually helped Daemon Blackfyre's cause and destabilized the rule of his father. The man may have been a great guy and knight, but many people preferred the dragon who looked like a dragon. The same goes for Rhaenyra's sons. If they are any indicating Jon may not even be considered a true Targaryen if he rides a dragon.

You didn't come up with that stupid Viserys Plumm as Viserys Targaryen idea. But Mithras did, and I was not addressing you specifically, or was I? Also note that Elaena and Ossifer had only one child, Lord Viserys Plumm. Viserys, in turn, had at least three sons (Brown Ben being descended from one of the younger sons of Lord Viserys). Nowhere is there any indication that the Plumms had any daughters in the time we discuss here.

Aegon took the Plumm wealth - which would have left Viserys Plumm impoverished. Having lands doesn't make you rich, especially not in the Westerlands were everybody is rich because he is actually rich. Any families the Plumms would want to intermarry with would want the dowry one can reasonably expect in the Westerlands. Impoverished houses usually can't pay that. The Westerlings first lost their gold and then they had to sell their lands to pay their debts.

No, that is an exaggeration. The rebellion had nothing to do with Baelor's looks, but with Daeron's lopsided peace deal, Dornish influence at his court and lacking the warrior ethos the lords prefer. Baelor was actually quite popular if you read THK. Besides, I don't think I ever heard of anyone having prejudice against people with Stark looks. The issue with Rhaenyra's sons was their legitimacy, and there is huge difference that you missed. They knew the three sons were Rhaenyra's and were dragonriders through her side while the Starks have no dragonblood or Targaryen ancestry, and no one knows who Jon's mother is, so the only explanation for Jon being able to mount a dragon would be he has Targaryen blood, which could only have come Rhaegar.

My mistake, it helps to actually have quote or @Poster to make it clear who you are addressing.

How do you think the Plumms got their wealth in the first place, selling socks? Their incomes from their lands were still intact, and that was what built their wealth in the first place. The fact that nearly every landed lord is wealthy speaks for itself. Lords' revenue comes from their lands. The Plumms still had their incomes and the kids would have been married in their teens, and over a decade of income from the Plumm lands would likely provide the funds needed for a dowry. Dowries are only given by the bride's family, and how do we know it wasn't a boy? The Westerlings lost their primary source of revenue when the gold mine depleted, and likely didn't make cuts to their expenses and living now beyond their means.

[Lord Varys]

Fire Eather,

well, you are the guy who cites itching shoulder blades as proof, and I cannot cite Aegon and his sisters, the three-headed Targaryen dragon banner, and the three heads of the dragon as intentional clues/parallels put in their by the author? If that's the case then we are not only not on the same pages but we don't even speak the same language...

The Targaryen banner - the three-headed dragon - is a symbolic depiction of Aegon and his sisters. Even if we ignore its allusion to the three dragon heads from prophecy (which Aegon and his sisters may have known since it is quite old and was apparently made by a Targaryen - else they could never have concluded that this 'promised prince' was promised to come forth from their bloodline) then it is still quite clear that Aegon and his sisters aren't depicted there as three red dragons on a black field - which would have been possible - but as a three-headed dragon. One will, one metaphoric body, three people/minds working in unison with three actually dragons the three people were riding (or so the peoples of Westeros should believe). That is exactly what the three dragon heads are going to do. It isn't that difficult. Any fringe reinterpretation of this whole thing would ruin a lot of story elements that have been build up. If I wanted to have only one savior I'd have cut the Daenerys story completely and have Jon Snow find a dragon egg beyond the Wall. I'd have kept Aegon and Stannis as false saviors, but I'd certainly not wasted pages on other major characters who seemed to be connected to the final conflict in a major fashion. Wouldn't it be strange to have Dany and Tyrion as dragonriders in this story if their purpose would effectively only be to fail at whatever they were going to do politically, merely delivering the/a surviving dragon(s) to Jon Snow? Not to mention that we already have Stannis and Aegon as savior red herrings - what the hell would be the purpose of Tyrion and Daenerys?

By the way, how to you see this 'the blood of the dragon' phrase. Is it also necessarily referring to one specific dragon or could it be a more figurative speech indicating that the Targaryens have dragon blood, dragon genes, dragon aspects - whatever the hell the Valyrians did to themselves to become dragonlords? It doesn't have to be from one specific dragon, surely. Perhaps they had mingle/mate with quite a lot of dragons before the trick worked.

There is no inherent difference between Blackfyres and Targaryens which is why I counted Maelys deliberately among the latter. Daemon was legitimized and thus a Targaryen regardless of how he presumed to name himself and his house.

I assume you don't know how this story is going to end, no? We don't know what kind of threat the Others will pose, when/if Daenerys and Tyrion will arrive in Westeros, and who has died by then. Considering that this is written as a realistic series some things should actually work out differently than they are supposed to. Part of that could include Jon Snow dying before he can sit the Iron Throne even if he wants to do that after he has found out who he is. Another part could be that Tyrion learns that he is Aerys' son long before Jon Snow learns his little heritage secret (and can tell anyone who cares about that), and has long married Daenerys Targaryen and is leading her armies/ruling the Seven Kingdoms at her side. Do you think Tyrion would then step down in favor of some bastard turned prince he met years ago for a brief time? Not very likely. What if he is already King on the Iron Throne - because Daenerys died prematurely after she had legitimized him and named him her successor - when he learns about Jon's true heritage? There is no way he would give up his crown. Not to mention that it would be insane for him or Daenrys to even considering installing Jon Snow as their heir/co-consort simply because he'll always remain a former Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and a guy who was raised a bastard who looks nothing like a Targaryen and who considers Eddard Stark his father, the man who clearly was one of the greatest enemies the Targaryen dynasty had in the last centuries. Unless, of course, the gang isn't in the game for the throne anymore at this point. If they are fighting the Others all this bickering about the Iron Throne is pointless - and it should be especially pointless for the guys destined to fight against the Others.

I agree that Tyrion and Jon's friendship is a set-up for something but not necessarily for a 'we'll make Jon Snow king' storyline. Rather a 'we are the prophesied savior guys, and we have to work together to save the world, and possibly die in the process' story. I'm pretty sure there will be Targaryen restoration at the end of the story (or rather in the middle of the story which then will also survive the climax) but I cannot say (and don't want to know) who will be the one who is left standing. It could be Daenerys, Tyrion, or Jon Snow. Perhaps even somebody else, or only their children (with somebody like Davos serving as regent until the maturity). Considering that Daenerys and Jon Snow clearly are the two focal points of the overall story I'd not be surprised if both actually died - leaving Tyrion to continue the dynasty or raising their children.

What is that thing about characters being safe who have fake deaths? Nobody will be save in the end, and Stannis - who is right now faking his death - won't survive the series.

Baelor Breakspear was quite popular and powerful in 209 AC. We have not seen him yet in 196 AC. Daemon Blackfyre surely was more popular - at least in certain circles which made up half the Realm. Baelor and Rhaenyra's sons were raised as princes, though, despite the fact that they didn't look Targaryen there were living at court. Jon Snow doesn't have this advantage at all. He was raised as a non-royal bastard at the far end of the world, joined the Night's Watch, has no political connections to the truly powerful people, and doesn't even look like a Targaryen. Sure, if he had a dragon he could probably find some people who cheer him as their king but so can Tyrion - which is exactly my point. But Jon Snow certainly will become the last dragonrider in this series if he rides a dragon at all (unless other dragons are going to show up in the story). Dany and Tyrion may already rule the Seven Kingdoms by then, and it may actually be they who give Jon Snow his dragon.

Come to think of it - couldn't Jon Snow theoretically be the son of some commoner who is descended from Aegon the Unworthy? I mean, if I wanted to dismiss Jon's claim to the Iron Throne (which I'd not need to do since he has given up all his claims, anyway, but hypothetically speaking).

The Plumm lands may simply not suffice for whatever lifestyle/regular expenses they had while they were still rich. And it have to be daughters, of course. The only viable candidate for a Plumm heritage for Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion is through Joanna's mother Marla Prester - and she wasn't named Plumm. If you want to go with the Elaena theory why the hell not go with the Penrose girls. She had three daughters with Lord Ronnel Penrose - Laena, Jocelyn, and Joy. They at least existed - whereas there is no proof whatsoever that Viserys Plumm even had daughters or granddaughters. And the existing legitimate daughters of a princess are much better matches for any noble houses than the hypothetical daughters or granddaughters of a impoverished reputed bastard.

[Fire Eater]

Lord Varys, on 04 Jul 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

Fire Eather,

well, you are the guy who cites itching shoulder blades as proof, and I cannot cite Aegon and his sisters, the three-headed Targaryen dragon banner, and the three heads of the dragon as intentional clues/parallels put in their by the author? If that's the case then we are not only not on the same pages but we don't even speak the same language...

The Targaryen banner - the three-headed dragon - is a symbolic depiction of Aegon and his sisters. Even if we ignore its allusion to the three dragon heads from prophecy (which Aegon and his sisters may have known since it is quite old and was apparently made by a Targaryen - else they could never have concluded that this 'promised prince' was promised to come forth from their bloodline) then it is still quite clear that Aegon and his sisters aren't depicted there as three red dragons on a black field - which would have been possible - but as a three-headed dragon. One will, one metaphoric body, three people/minds working in unison with three actually dragons the three people were riding (or so the peoples of Westeros should believe). That is exactly what the three dragon heads are going to do. It isn't that difficult. Any fringe reinterpretation of this whole thing would ruin a lot of story elements that have been build up. If I wanted to have only one savior I'd have cut the Daenerys story completely and have Jon Snow find a dragon egg beyond the Wall. I'd have kept Aegon and Stannis as false saviors, but I'd certainly not wasted pages on other major characters who seemed to be connected to the final conflict in a major fashion. Wouldn't it be strange to have Dany and Tyrion as dragonriders in this story if their purpose would effectively only be to fail at whatever they were going to do politically, merely delivering the/a surviving dragon(s) to Jon Snow? Not to mention that we already have Stannis and Aegon as savior red herrings - what the hell would be the purpose of Tyrion and Daenerys?

By the way, how to you see this 'the blood of the dragon' phrase. Is it also necessarily referring to one specific dragon or could it be a more figurative speech indicating that the Targaryens have dragon blood, dragon genes, dragon aspects - whatever the hell the Valyrians did to themselves to become dragonlords? It doesn't have to be from one specific dragon, surely. Perhaps they had mingle/mate with quite a lot of dragons before the trick worked.

There is no inherent difference between Blackfyres and Targaryens which is why I counted Maelys deliberately among the latter. Daemon was legitimized and thus a Targaryen regardless of how he presumed to name himself and his house.

Because the shoulder blades is subtle while the three dragons=three heads is pretty blatant which goes against GRRM's modus operandi with prophecy "Prophecy shouldn't be too literal or too easy." Those are the author's own words, and three dragons/dragonriders is too literal and too easy when prophecy deals greatly in metaphor in ASOIAF. Moqorro sees hares with many legs instead of ships, Daemon II and Daeron see dragons instead of Targaryens and the GoHH sees a fish instead of Catelyn and a drowned crow instead of Euron. In fact, whenever there is a dragon in a prophecy it refers to a Targaryen. Aegon and his sisters have nothing to do with the prophecy. How do we know Aegon didn't choose the sigil for the prophecy and not for the three Targaryen siblings?

I'm never said Dany and Tyrion would lose politically, don't jump to conclusions. To say bringing dragons to Jon is their purpose would by completely ignoring their journeys up to that point. The story is never about the destination, but the journey.

My guess is the Valyrians, with their magic rooted in blood and fire, performed a spell/ceremony that involved inserting dragon blood into their bodies as a form of magical gene splicing.

There is a difference, Targaryens have the name and the Blackfyres are no more Targaryens than Karstarks are Starks. No, you got the legitimization wrong, or Aegor, BR Shiera and all Aegon's bastards would be Targaryens in stead of Rivers, etc. GRRM explicitly said the legitimized bastards weren't given the surname Targaryen given the house would be overwhelmed with baseborn children.

Lord Varys, on 04 Jul 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

I assume you don't know how this story is going to end, no? We don't know what kind of threat the Others will pose, when/if Daenerys and Tyrion will arrive in Westeros, and who has died by then. Considering that this is written as a realistic series some things should actually work out differently than they are supposed to. Part of that could include Jon Snow dying before he can sit the Iron Throne even if he wants to do that after he has found out who he is. Another part could be that Tyrion learns that he is Aerys' son long before Jon Snow learns his little heritage secret (and can tell anyone who cares about that), and has long married Daenerys Targaryen and is leading her armies/ruling the Seven Kingdoms at her side. Do you think Tyrion would then step down in favor of some bastard turned prince he met years ago for a brief time? Not very likely. What if he is already King on the Iron Throne - because Daenerys died prematurely after she had legitimized him and named him her successor - when he learns about Jon's true heritage? There is no way he would give up his crown. Not to mention that it would be insane for him or Daenrys to even considering installing Jon Snow as their heir/co-consort simply because he'll always remain a former Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and a guy who was raised a bastard who looks nothing like a Targaryen and who considers

Eddard Stark his father, the man who clearly was one of the greatest enemies the Targaryen dynasty had in the last centuries

. Unless, of course, the gang isn't in the game for the throne anymore at this point. If they are fighting the Others all this bickering about the Iron Throne is pointless - and it should be especially pointless for the guys destined to fight against the Others.

I agree that Tyrion and Jon's friendship is a set-up for something but not necessarily for a 'we'll make Jon Snow king' storyline. Rather a 'we are the prophesied savior guys, and we have to work together to save the world, and possibly die in the process' story. I'm pretty sure there will be Targaryen restoration at the end of the story (or rather in the middle of the story which then will also survive the climax) but I cannot say (and don't want to know) who will be the one who is left standing. It could be Daenerys, Tyrion, or Jon Snow. Perhaps even somebody else, or only their children (with somebody like Davos serving as regent until the maturity). Considering that Daenerys and Jon Snow clearly are the two focal points of the overall story I'd not be surprised if both actually died - leaving Tyrion to continue the dynasty or raising their children.

What is that thing about characters being safe who have fake deaths? Nobody will be save in the end, and Stannis - who is right now faking his death - won't survive the series.

No, because Jon was never a bastard to begin with. Also, you are forgetting in that instance that Tyrion is a bastard while Jon is trueborn. How would Tyrion ever find out he is Aerys's son? Especially with no Westerosi in Meereen besides Jorah while Jon at least has HR. Tyrion never desired the crown, and he desired CR more than the crown. Not Dany's heir, given Jon's claim supersedes Dany's and even legitimized bastards come behind trueborn heirs. Rather Dany is Jon's heir. Dany would have to accept if his heritage is proven, or she is no better than the Usurper as she knows. Also, that is only if Tyrion sits the IT which is highly unlikely IMO. As to the bolded, you're saying Dany wouldn't overlook Jon for being raised by Ned Stark while she would overlook that Tyrion is the son of the man who ordered the Sack of KL and the deaths of Elia and her children and brother to the man who killed her father, and Tyrion wouldn't either despite being Jon's friend and what I just stated? What's with the double standard?

I doubt Jon will died after already having a "fake" death. Jon is more likely to sit the IT IMO given he is the only claimant not involved in the Wo5K, making him the last person one would suspect of becoming king. Rather he was defending the whole realm against the Others. I don't think Tyrion will be alive when R+L=J is publicly revealed.

POV characters, to clarify, who faked their deaths aren't going anywhere.

Lord Varys, on 04 Jul 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

Baelor Breakspear was quite popular and powerful in 209 AC. We have not seen him yet in 196 AC. Daemon Blackfyre surely was more popular - at least in certain circles which made up half the Realm. Baelor and Rhaenyra's sons were raised as princes, though, despite the fact that they didn't look Targaryen there were living at court. Jon Snow doesn't have this advantage at all. He was raised as a non-royal bastard at the far end of the world, joined the Night's Watch, has no political connections to the truly powerful people, and doesn't even look like a Targaryen. Sure, if he had a dragon he could probably find some people who cheer him as their king but so can Tyrion - which is exactly my point. But Jon Snow certainly will become the last dragonrider in this series if he rides a dragon at all (unless other dragons are going to show up in the story). Dany and Tyrion may already rule the Seven Kingdoms by then, and it may actually be they who give Jon Snow his dragon.

Come to think of it - couldn't Jon Snow theoretically be the son of some commoner who is descended from Aegon the Unworthy? I mean, if I wanted to dismiss Jon's claim to the Iron Throne (which I'd not need to do since he has given up all his claims, anyway, but hypothetically speaking).

The Plumm lands may simply not suffice for whatever lifestyle/regular expenses they had while they were still rich. And it have to be daughters, of course. The only viable candidate for a Plumm heritage for Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion is through Joanna's mother Marla Prester - and she wasn't named Plumm. If you want to go with the Elaena theory why the hell not go with the Penrose girls. She had three daughters with Lord Ronnel Penrose - Laena, Jocelyn, and Joy. They at least existed - whereas there is no proof whatsoever that Viserys Plumm even had daughters or granddaughters. And the existing legitimate daughters of a princess are much better matches for any noble houses than the hypothetical daughters or granddaughters of a impoverished reputed bastard.

There is no evidence to say who won a popularity contest betwene Daemon and Baelor. Jon doesn't have any enemies besides the Boltons, Freys and Lannisters whom everyone hates anyway, and he will definitely have the North at his back. Except Tyrion has nothing to go on being Aerys's son, and looks less like a Targaryen than Jon. There are number of Targaryens who didn't have Targaryen features. Jon will likely have HR, and there is also Wylla and potentially Ashara Dayne (HR's wife) to back him.

Then why would HR corroborate Jon's story? With no ravens at GW and Jon having never ventured south further than WF, they never met, and there was no way for them to have communicate a plan like coming up with this story. Also, Jon has a reputation as an honorable man. Who would even bring up a convoluted idea as Jon being a distant descendant of the Unworthy? Where would they get the family tree for that?

Except unlike the Westerlings, they didn't lose any revenue streams, so they weren't entirely impoverished. Your analogy to the Westerlings is lacking. How do you know it wasn't Jeyne Marbrand instead of Marla Prester through whom they would have Plumm descent? A Plumm boy can have a daughter that could have married into any house, don't forget. Tyrion clearly mentions Viserys Plumm had descendants. The children of the Targaryen girl aren't even mentioned as bastards. They all say they're Plumms.

[oursisthefury69]

I'd even suspect the show will cut A+J story even if it's to be revealed in books, so their Tyrion may appear even more saintly, taming dragons with just his legendary cock.

Think so too, they already ruined it just with his appearance honestly.. I genuinely wouldnt be surprised if 1. the show discludes it 2. Way down the road hopefully revealed, as I'd suspect they straight up didn't know about it/still don't know about it. Its crazy how little George actually told them past the first 5 books and the broad end game

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

While you're probably right, this vision may also be related to people dancing for Daenerys, if hints are more indirect and spread in several chapters.

"in yellow silk" is used many times for yunkai tokars, and yellow their color in general.

And fire and spinning are associated when Daenerys watch XXD erotic dancers.

The dancers shimmered, their sleek shaved bodies covered with a fine sheen of oil. Blazing torches whirled from hand to hand to the beat of drums and the trilling of a flute. Whenever two torches crossed in the air, a naked girl leapt between them, spinning. (...)

As the drums reached a crescendo, three of the girls leapt above the flames, spinning in the air.

Dancers who are only seen naked but come from Yunkaii (Your Radiance enjoyed my dancers. Would it surprise you to know that they are slaves, bred and trained in Yunkai)

(Then there are new dances of yunkaii slaves for her wedding, but she doesn't describe them.)

Red and orange and yellow are colors associated with the ghiscari nobility in the pits.

The Great Masters of Meereen occupied the red and orange benches. (...) The envoys from Yunkai were all in yellow and filled the box beside the king's,

Then spinning and dancing also appear in a Daenerys dream in her visions chapter :

She was flying once again, spinning, laughing, dancing, as the stars wheeled around her and whispered secrets in her ear. "To go north, you must journey south. To reach the west, you must go east. To go forward, you must go back. To touch the light you must pass beneath the shadow."

It's possible both Axell and Jon had same vision in the flames, related to Daenerys. As none of them is expert in fire reading, their vision is confuse mixing elements of several scenes related to her, with Axell describing her as a (male) king as he expects the king to be male.

it works better for jon.. more words in common with the original vision.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse,

well, if check George's usual metaphoric description of fire the whole stuff about something being red, yellow, and orange is prevalent every time when he describes a fire in detail. I don't think that this any hint that someone will become king, though. After all, we would have to accept Melisandre's interpretation that this is referring to royal glory etc. first to even be able to make the connection.

I feel most hints about Jon Snow being 'king' - the raven's talk, for instance - are hints to his heritage not necessarily to him ever sitting on the Iron Throne. Maybe he is 'the rightful king' according to Bloodraven - who may actually no nothing about Dany's existence considering that she was born on Dragonstone (where there are no weirwoods) and spent her whole life up to this point in Essos (where there are no weirwoods, either) - but this doesn't mean he will sit the Iron Throne. Just as Stannis - who also thinks he is the rightful king - will most likely never sit the Iron Throne.

1) does any other character have the same description of fire in one of his chapters? dany has a similar one, as quoted before, but it doesn´t work as well as with jon..

No, we shouldn´t accept any of melisandre´s interpretation as facts.. she is wrong every time. But we should take for granted the vision itself. in Asoaif every vision/ green dream/dragon dream/ prophecy will come to pass.. some way or another.

2) there are a lot of hints of Jon being king..

ToJ, both Rhaegar/lyana´s personalities, the second life worthy of aking, and so on..

Bloodraven might not be able to see Dany´s existance, but he shoudl be able to know of it.. he just has to listen to one conversation about her, with one of his thousand eyes.