Whats with the theory about Tyrion being a targ?

[Ihab]

:bang:

Why and how did this theory "start"?

[JKeats]

Blame Ser Barristan. He blabbed something to Dany about Aerys and Joanna.

Also Tyrion has heterochromia, a trait that so far only one other character is mentioned as having: Shiera Seastar, one of Aegon V's children.

Also fascination with dragons, apparently immune to STIs and other diseases (such as grey scale), hair even paler that the other Lannisters, and a few snippets of conversation between Tyrion and Tywin suggesting that Tywin is not 100% sure Tyrion is his son at all.

And more tenuously, a thematic link between Dany, Jon (very likely Rhaegar's son), and Tyrion (perhaps Aerys' son, but very uncertain so far). That is, the mothers to all three died birthing them.

[Jamie Lannister]

Well, it turns out King Batshit Targaryen had a thing for Tywin's wife, Lady Joanna. We know that Aerys wasn't adverse to rape, that Tyrion is the unfavourite, that there's something up with his eyes, and that his hair is "so blonde it looks almost white," so...

I agree that it's dumb as hell and that the mere idea is detrimental to one of the series' best dynamics, but it can be construed like that if you want to grasp a few straws. Thanks Barristan.

[JKeats]

...the mere idea is detrimental to one of the series' best dynamics...

Exactly. I hate the Tyrion a secret Targ theory because it robs the Tyrion-Tywin relationship of its emotional punch. Let's hope GRRM is just trolling us.

[Faint]

It actually started way before Ser Barristan's commentary. This is something that has been thrown around since the very first book and, I have to say, the evidence has only gotten stronger since then. The hair color, the 'black' eye, the dreams, Aery's attraction to his mother, his bizarre relationship with Tywin, his invulnerability to disease so far, etc.

Also, why shouldn't we suspect Tyrion of having a secret identity? Quite obviously the author loves the concept given how many characters are posing as someone they are not, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It has become one of the more prominent running motifs in the series.

I remember some months ago a poster took the time to list out every single instance of one character posing as someone else or having a hidden identity, and the list was very, very long.

[Ihab]

I never make theories or follow them. They lead to disappointment. I didn't make or follow theories for Lost, and I kinda liked the finale, though a bit underwhelmed. I will follow the same principal for ASOIAF.

I read somewhere Martin claimed he would never visit the forum since certain theories could influence him. I wish he never does visit this forum... Some bizarre theories goes around here which I hope never come true. :ack:

[OnionAhaiReborn]

One small point: Targaryens are not immune to disease. Aegon the Unlikely ends up on the throne in part because some Targs further up in the line than him get sick and die in the 'Great Spring Sickness.'

[Serie]

someone should set him on fire and wait for the results....

oh wait, Targs are NOT fire proof :P

seriously now, although this theory doesn't strike me as completely insane or odd (rather believable actually) I would prefer it if it's not the case but instead all the evident pointing out Tyrion as the third, non-Targ, dragonrider (even if this is not one of my favs as well....)

[Faint]

One small point: Targaryens are not immune to disease. Aegon the Unlikely ends up on the throne in part because some Targs further up in the line than him get sick and die in the 'Great Spring Sickness.'

I agree, although, to clarify:

I think this might simply be one of those mystical issues, as in the case with the immunity to fire.

That is to say: No, Targaryens are neither immune to fire or disease all or even most of the time, but, under certain rare circumstances, those traits might actually manifest.

someone should set him on fire and wait for the results....

oh wait, Targs are NOT fire proof :P

seriously now, although this theory doesn't strike me as completely insane or odd (rather believable actually) I would prefer it if it's not the case but instead all the evident pointing out Tyrion as the third, non-Targ, dragonrider (even if this is not one of my favs as well....)

For the record, even though I'm a believer in the theory, I'm not fond of it at all. But neither am I one of those readers that just believes in theories I'd like to see happen. That manner of thinking only leads to extreme disappointment.

And if turns out that Tyrion is a not a Targaryen bastard?

All the more pleasant the development and a very welcome surprise.

[Solmyr]

Exactly. I hate the Tyrion a secret Targ theory because it robs the Tyrion-Tywin relationship of its emotional punch. Let's hope GRRM is just trolling us.

It's also one of the only conceivable paths of redemption for him. If Tyrion is a Targ he wouldn't have murdered his father, instead he would've avenged his murdered family.

If Tyrion is not a targ the character is beyond redemption. He will remain witty and perhaps enjoyable to read, because of the information dumbs he serves us with, but he will remain a kinslayer.

One small point: Targaryens are not immune to disease. Aegon the Unlikely ends up on the throne in part because some Targs further up in the line than him get sick and die in the 'Great Spring Sickness.'

Viserys never claimed Targs are immune to ALL diseases, just to the common ones. We have plenty of accounts of Targs and would-be-targs in conditions that would lead to infection, yet nothing happens. To counterbalance all that we have the account of one Targ, long ago, who died of some undefined illness.

[Know Face Man]

I'm not sure where but I believe Tyrion had dreams of Dragons when he was young.

I believe only Targs have dreams about Dragons. I'm not saying other people cant dream about Dragons but as I recall we only hear about Targs having Dragon Dream's.

Dany has them, Princess Shireen has them. Tyrion has them, and a few people from Dunk And Egg books have them.

[Hempen Dan the Ropemaker]

I think this theory makes sense. It also explains the scenes where Jon and Tyrion become friends. In the chapter in Storm where Jon escapes the wildlings, he starts to tell Yrgritte "i used to have a friend that was a dwarf...". Even after the war between Starks and Lannisters, he still kind of thinks of Tyrion as his friend. This could be the result of some kind of unconscious connection they have.

I think it will be more of a shock to readers if this is true than R+L=J because Tyrion is so identitified as a Lannister whereas Jon is Snow and kind of has his own interactions in story.

But Dany-Tyrion-Jon as the three heads of the dragon could pull alot of storylines together in a short time, which is necessary since theres only two books left.

[Sevumar]

I think this theory makes sense. It also explains the scenes where Jon and Tyrion become friends. In the chapter in Storm where Jon escapes the wildlings, he starts to tell Yrgritte "i used to have a friend that was a dwarf...". Even after the war between Starks and Lannisters, he still kind of thinks of Tyrion as his friend. This could be the result of some kind of unconscious connection they have.

I don't think a blood connection is necessary for them to become friends. They're both outcasts in their own families and Tyrion goes so far as to tell Jon that all dwarves are bastards to their fathers. As far as children with noble parents go, they've both been dealt a fairly crappy hand in life. That's more than enough to foster a feeling of kinship. Blood is not required.

I don't think that the story gains anything from Tyrion being part Targaryen. It doesn't really change the dynamics of the story in the same way that the revelation of Jon as a Targaryen would. The mystery of his parentage has been on the page since the very beginning of the story and it has ties to events that shaped the future of the realm. Tyrion's, not so much.

[Faint]

Do you guys remember how in the first book Tyrion mocking calls Jon a bastard? Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if it turns out that Tyrion is the bastard and Jon is actually the rightful king of Westeros?

I think Tyrion being a Targaryen also leads to some very nifty parallels, which GRRM is very fond of. For one, Jaime and Tyrion will have killed the father of the other.

[Serie]

Do you guys remember how in the first book Tyrion mocking calls Jon a bastard? Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if it turns out that Tyrion is the bastard and Jon is actually the rightful king of Westeros?

I think Tyrion being a Targaryen also leads to some very nifty parallels, which GRRM is very fond of. For one, Jaime and Tyrion will have killed the father of the other.

Yes! and both of these points are really interesting! but Tyrion is already "devastated" because he's an imp, being a mad king's bastard would killed him :wacko:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I can see where it came from, but I don't believe it. As someone else said, it ruins the fitting father-son dynamic between Tywin and Tyrion, and it absolves Tyrion of killing his own father and it vindicates Tywin's spiteful, hateful desire to believe that Tyrion isn't his son. It gives both of them an "out" that frankly I think would be ridiculously cheap if it came to pass.

I think some of it too comes from the (erroneous) idea that only Targaryens can ever ride dragon, so if Tyrion's going to be a dragonrider, he "must" be a Targ. Not true, but I think that's where some of the theory comes from.

[Faint]

I think some of it too comes from the (erroneous) idea that only Targaryens can ever ride dragon, so if Tyrion's going to be a dragonrider, he "must" be a Targ. Not true, but I think that's where some of the theory comes from.

Actually, no, I think that actually argues against the theory. GRRM already implied somewhat that one of the dragon riders would not be a Targaryen. So Tyrion being a Targaryen, if you believe that Jon is one as well and a dragon rider, would in fact decrease the likelihood of Tyrion riding a dragon.

Then again, GRRM could be playing games with us, since Tyrion wouldn't technically be a Targaryen, he would be a Hill.

As for giving Tyrion an "out" . . . I have to say, I've always thought GRRM liked Tyrion too much for the story's own good. He gets nothing but outs. I'm actually more inclined to believe the theory for that very reason than seeing it as evidence against it.

To be clear though, I don't think Tyrion being a Targaryen is a sure thing, whereas with Jon, I do. If I had to put percentages on it . . .

Jon . . . 99%

Tyrion . . . 60% or so

[Woman of War]

It's also one of the only conceivable paths of redemption for him. If Tyrion is a Targ he wouldn't have murdered his father, instead he would've avenged his murdered family.

If Tyrion is not a targ the character is beyond redemption. He will remain witty and perhaps enjoyable to read, because of the information dumbs he serves us with, but he will remain a kinslayer.

This may be a little off topic here but what does it mean for a character, being "beyond redemption"? What does it mean for his personal storyline and his future in the books? Do you mean "redemption" in the eyes of westerosi society or the readers' eyes?

[Long Night Survivor]

Then again, GRRM could be playing games with us, since Tyrion wouldn't technically be a Targaryen, he would be a Hill.

But then by that logic wouldn't Jon technically be a Sand instead of a Targ (Remember if R+L=J, then he was born in the ToJ which is in Dorne).

And I don't think bastards really mean anything in symbolism.

[Serie]

But then by that logic wouldn't Jon technically be a Sand instead of a Targ (Remember if R+L=J, then he was born in the ToJ which is in Dorne).

And I don't think bastards really mean anything in symbolism.

Not really, because people argue that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married so that Jon was Rhaegar's legal heir.