Is the foreshadowing of A+J=C+J a red herring to distract us from R+L=J?

[valtolin]

Recently I have been thinking about the theory about Cersei and Jaime being Targaryen bastards, and I have been noticing something. My feeling, that I haven't had the opportunity to check in the books yet, and that I would like to discuss with you in this thread, is that all the foreshadowing of the possible Targaryen parentage of the twins comes from the two latest books, AFfC and ADwD.

Cersei burning the Red Keep in some sort of fire-loving ecstasy, the rumors about Aerys claiming first night right on Joanna, Jaime's dream, etc.

I don't remember any possible foreshadowing of A+J=C+J in AGoT, ACoK and ASoS, while we have started seeing hints of R+L=J since the very beginning of the book.

So, here's my theory: after ASoS, GRRM realised two things: 1) the series would have taken much more time than he expected in the beginning; 2) this meant that, as the years (and the books) went by, more and more people would have guessed R+L=J, that he probably considered one of the big suprises of the book. Therefore, he started putting there hints of these other possible hidden Targaryens, in order to distract us and confuse us: if everyone could be a hidden Targaryen, that why should the readers bother thinking about hidden Targaryens at all?

My point is that if A+J=C+J was true, we would have seen some hints from the beginning. Since, IIRC (please correct me), this isn't the case, and we know that GRRM had stated he won't change the core secrets of the story only because someone guessed them on the Internet, then, the most logical solution is that A+J=C+J is only a red herring, or at least that is a lot likely to be true than R+L=J.

What do you think? Am I making any sense?

[C0bR]

And it is actually the other way around. L+R=J with all its hints and foreshadowing serves as a distraction from A+J=(C+J)/T :bowdown:

[Father of Hosts]

And it is actually the other way around. L+R=J with all its hints and foreshadowing serves as a distraction from A+J=(C+J)/T :bowdown:

Well played, Sir.

[Mladen]

If the red herring means wild goose theory some fans have cooked in their brains, then yes it is. But, since that is not red herring, all I can say, that nothing, and I repeat nothing I have read in ASOIAF, you know the books written by GRRM, suggests that any of Tywin's children is actually Aerys'.

[valtolin]

If the red herring means wild goose theory some fans have cooked in their brains, then yes it is. But, since that is not red herring, all I can say, that nothing, and I repeat nothing I have read in ASOIAF, you know the books written by GRRM, suggests that any of Tywin's children is actually Aerys'.

Actually, a couple of friends of mine, who have never participated in any online discussion on ASoIaF and that have just finished ADwD, spontaneously told me that they think the twins might be Aerys' daughter and son, because Cersei is looking more and more like the Mad King, because of the incest, because of the fire, etc.

Don't get me wrong: I don't believe A+J=C+J to be true. But I believe that there are some hints in the text that might suggest this possibility. And I think that the fact that they started appearing only in AFfC and ADwD, while in the first three books we have only hints towards R+L=J, makes the latter being true and the former being a red herring the most likely scenario.

[MRHD]

If the red herring means wild goose theory some fans have cooked in their brains, then yes it is. But, since that is not red herring, all I can say, that nothing, and I repeat nothing I have read in ASOIAF, you know the books written by GRRM, suggests that any of Tywin's children is actually Aerys'.

I wouldn't say nothing, at least not anymore. Barristan mentioning Aerys' lust for Joanna plus the joke he made at Tywin's wedding about first night is something. But I do think the notion of A+J=anyone is absurd. Before the most recent book though I would have agreed that there was no evidence of it, which makes me believe the additional detail of Aerys' lust is a red herring, perhaps added after one too many people inexplicably asked GRRM about the Lannister children being secret Targs as a way to mess with our heads.

[Mladen]

I wouldn't say nothing, at least not anymore. Barristan mentioning Aerys' lust for Joanna plus the joke he made at Tywin's wedding about first night is something. But I do think the notion of A+J=anyone is absurd. Before the most recent book though I would have agreed that there was no evidence of it, which makes me believe the additional detail of Aerys' lust is a red herring, perhaps added after one too many people inexplicably asked GRRM about the Lannister children being secret Targs as a way to mess with our heads.

The thing with lust or affection is that for the child to be born it needs to be mutual. We know Aerys lusted for Joanna, but we know nothing about her. You need two for tango. It's just a not well-thought theory...

[Tommens Cat]

I haven't done this much algebra since highschool

[MRHD]

The thing with lust or affection is that for the child to be born it needs to be mutual. We know Aerys lusted for Joanna, but we know nothing about her. You need two for tango. It's just a not well-thought theory...

Oh, I definitely agree with this. It's not a well thought out theory and not too much better than something dreamed up out of thin air. I just don't think it is quite as baseless as some other bad theories like, say, Mance Rayder is Rhaegar. But certainly, that's very faint "praise".

[Mladen]

Oh, I definitely agree with this. It's not a well thought out theory and not too much better than something dreamed up out of thin air. I just don't think it is quite as baseless as some other bad theories like, say, Mance Rayder is Rhaegar. But certainly, that's very faint "praise".

Well there are baseless theories like this one, and there is of course crackpot theories like the one about Rhaegar and Mance...

[N/A]

I haven't done this much algebra since highschool

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Mulled Wino]

There is no foreshadowing of J+C=T or whatever

[oursisthefury69]

If we're gona talk about A+J and at the same time say that legitimacy is added by foreshadowing being placed in the first books then the choice would be Tyrion for A+J considering all of the foreshadowing concerning him in the first few chapters of Game of Thrones. Jamie and Cersei are pure lannisters with pure lannister traits because Tywin married his FIRST COUSIN which still doesn't make particular sense; outside of GRRM using it as a plot device to be able to conceal tyrions identity while still calling him a lannister and still make him look like a lannister in some respects

[valtolin]

If we're gona talk about A+J and at the same time say that legitimacy is added by foreshadowing being placed in the first books then the choice would be Tyrion for A+J considering all of the foreshadowing concerning him in the first few chapters of Game of Thrones. Jamie and Cersei are pure lannisters with pure lannister traits because Tywin married his FIRST COUSIN which still doesn't make particular sense; outside of GRRM using it as a plot device to be able to conceal tyrions identity while still calling him a lannister and still make him look like a lannister in some respects

In fact, I consider A+J=T considerably more credible than A+J= C+J, even if I don't think it is true either, because it would weaken the character, whose plot arc is mostly based on him being his father's son.

[Breastplate Stretcha]

What foreshadowing?

[J. Stargaryen]

The thing with lust or affection is that for the child to be born it needs to be mutual. We know Aerys lusted for Joanna, but we know nothing about her. You need two for tango. It's just a not well-thought theory...

A really good example of something that is "not well thought out" would be saying that "The thing with lust or affection is that for the child to be born it needs to be mutual." Because, you know, sex can never happen unless both parties want it to.

[Mladen]

A really good example of something that is "not well thought out" would be saying that "The thing with lust or affection is that for the child to be born it needs to be mutual." Because, you know, sex can never happen unless both parties want it to.

Well, if he did rape her, and we have nothing to prove that, do you think Tywin would sit and serve him for years?

And, btw, my idea of sexual relationships is that they have to be mutual... That's my mistake.

[Imp Riker]

Well, if he did rape her, and we have nothing to prove that, do you think Tywin would sit and serve him for years?

"Are the Lannisters secret Targs" theories are fun, but this right here is all the evidence I need to keep them as simply "fun theories" and not something to be taken seriously.

As to the OP, I think you are right and that they may be a red herring.

[J. Stargaryen]

Well, if he did rape her, and we have nothing to prove that, do you think Tywin would sit and serve him for years?

And, btw, my idea of sexual relationships is that they have to be mutual... That's my mistake.

Who says Joanna would tell Tywin if Aerys raped her? Imagine the repercussions if Tywin found out. I don't think war would be out of the question.

[JungWheats]

Quote Mladen: "Well, if he did rape her, and we have nothing to prove that, do you think Tywin would sit and serve him for years?

And, btw, my idea of sexual relationships is that they have to be mutual... That's my mistake."

Unless Aerys said: "Have sex with me or I'll kill your husband and everyone else you love," then probably she would have gone along with it. Thats why we have Sexual Harassment laws and shit now--people in positions of authority almost always abuse it.