• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About SFDanny

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

8,144 profile views
  1. I'm aware of the scene, but again I note the absence of the phrase "bed of blood" to be used in this scene. The phrase is associated with childbirth, not menstruation. Not even the first menstruation. You speculate how Lyanna's first menstruation may have happened in the Year of the False Spring, but that is later than Sansa's experience. Not that it is impossible by any means, but is there something other than speculation that makes you think this is the case? If we are to speculate how Lyanna might have a special connection with the Old Gods, and something in her life broke open old barriers of magic, don't you think it makes more sense to suggest this might have happened during childbirth? A childbirth in which she dies giving birth to her only child? Only death can pay for life - and the rebirth of magical creatures lost to the world. If I remember correctly.
  2. I don't either. Which tells me Lord Godric's tale has been told before and likely reported back to the small council. I don't think Stannis traveled himself to trace Ned's movements at the start of the rebellion, but someone has. Someone employed by Lord Varys, most likely.
  3. Ahh ... my mistake. The phrase "between the ears" usually, in my experience, is associated with attributes like intelligence. Attributes like "substance" maybe should be the first thing one thinks of associated with the functioning of the brain, but too often it is not. I'm going to assume you mean moral substance, and not wealth, property, or status. If so, then I agree Daario has little moral substance anywhere in his body. It's part of killing people for money. Goes with the job description of sellsword. However, I would argue Daario's lack of moral substance isn't what attracts Dany to Daario. Rather, I think it is his openess with his feelings of lust and attraction towards Dany. It's very uncomplicated in someways. Something that Dany needs on a very human level, as opposed to all the men with their lusts for power through using her and her dragons for their own ends. Everyone has their schemes, and Dany needs some simple things in her life. Sex with Daario is one of those things. That's how I read it anyway. I would also argue, that is not the same as what attracted her to Khal Drogo. To begin with she is frightened by him and his strangeness, but what she finds with Drogo is, in the context of a arranged marriage, someone who unexpectedly shows kindness towards her, and someone who becomes her protector. This is not the simple sex attraction of Daario. Both Khal Drogo and Daario are warriors. They kill their enemies, whether those are colleagues or not. But that isn't the feature of either that attracts her to them. You seem to think there is some other attractions in Dany's life, am I missing someone? I think you're omitting some of Jon's history. Jon is willing to kill. Not only to follow orders or to defend himself, but also to maintain his own authority. Janos Slynt tells us that. Jon also is willing to send men out to their likely deaths to do as he commands, as he sees fit. The days in which he always puts himself in harm's way instead of others are over. It's part of growing into being the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. So, while I agree that Jon is a different sort of man than either Drogo or Daario, he also shares some of the same warrior attributes. I just don't think you are right about these traits are what attracts Dany. I also think you judge Quentyn wrongly as well. Martell is sent on a long and hazardous journey and he does his best to do his duty. He shows some courage in doing so, but Dany witnesses none of this. She only knows him as another suitor for her hand. A suitor who arrives too late, and whose offer doesn't help her in her immediate circumstances. That she sees him a plain and unexciting only makes it easier for her to choose another plain and unexciting man - Hizdahr - over him. Dany's attraction is to neither, but she decides she has to marry Hizdahr despite that lack. Well, we don't know what Jon will be like when Dany meets him, assuming she does, but I really don't see how she would not be attracted to him. He is, after all, a seemingly attractive young man who has proven his courage and his commitment in fighting the central threat to Dany's kingdom and to the people of their world. The boy has lots of things going for him, including, I'm assuming, coming back from the dead. Mysterious. Brooding. And a hero. Whats not to like? Seriously, we will have to wait, but I don't think it is a stretch to see the two attracted to each other. Of course, by then, maybe Jon is leading the zombie army instead of the Night's Watch. Which would be a mark against him. Since when is a "bed of blood" a phrase used to describe menstruation? Childbirth, possibly, but menstruation, no. Surely you are not saying Lyanna gave birth in the Year of the False Spring? Do all images of flowers, in your view, point to menstruation? It is quite a jump to go from noting the phrase "woman flowered" is related to post pubescent women to your equation of "flowers=womanhood" or the idea all flower images are a reference to post pubescent women. How then is Rhaegar's presentation of blue roses a symbol of Lyanna's menstruation? Or her dying holding dead blue roses a symbol of the same? This is stretching a phrase far too far, it seems to me. I'm prepared to believe a lot of amazing things about Lyanna, but pardon me if I'm not yet sold on the idea her "flowering" caused a crack in Winter. I think the quote actually says that Rhaegar did not trust him as he trusted Ser Arthur. Selmy knows that Rhaegar kept secrets from him, but that is not the same as saying he did not know Rhaegar very well. As a knight of the Kingsguard, Ser Barristan watched Rhaegar grow up. He was hardly a stranger to the prince. It would seem likely that in the months they spent together after Rhaegar returns from the Tower of Joy to take up command of the new loyalist army, that he just might say something about Lyanna and his feelings toward her in Selmy's presence. At that point it isn't quite a state secret that he has been in hiding with her. It should be harder to demonstrate, or Martin isn't doing his job. Yet we have clues like Lyanna being moved by Rhaegar's singing, and, much more important the fact Lyanna dies holding onto roses that sound very much like the ones Rhaegar presents to her at Harrenhal. I agree it is hard to reconcile the idea of abduction with Lyanna falling in love with Rhaegar. I think the quotes of Dany about how she needed Daario to rescue her from the wedding to Hizdahr just as Rhaegar had done with his "northern girl" shows the way to resolve the difference. He doesn't abduct her. She goes willingly to avoid her marriage to Robert. Lyanna may have even asked for help from Rhaegar in avoiding the marriage. Robert names it a kidnapping and rape because Lyanna is his. His by all the rights granted in the marriage pact between House Stark and House Baratheon. But that is not the same as winning Lyanna's consent or her love. As with all of your ideas, Voice, this idea has interesting aspects to it. If there is anything to it, I would think we will find out from Bran's POV. Look forward to finding out.
  4. Really? Is that how you see Daario? He has survived in the cutthroat company of sellswords, and come out on top. I doubt he is really stupid. Extremely clever and manipulative would be closer to the mark, I think. I would also think we have more than enough information to point to Dany knowing just who Daario really is, and her need for the open and honest greed and lust he represents. It is not just his good looks Dany is attracted to, or so it seems to me. What Jon will be like when they meet is anyone's guess. "Selflessness?" Maybe. But all we have to go on is a blue rose growing out of a wall of ice. That seems to indicate doomed and impossible love. Much like Rhaegar and Lyanns. Of course, it is probably a reference to Dany and Dolorous Ed. No one can resist Eeyore.
  5. I wanted to say a few things about what narrowing down the time means concerning when the marriage pact takes place, and, in particular, the contributions of @Rhaenys_Targaryen to the discussion. First, I've been pushing the idea for some time that the existence of the Lemon Tree in Braavos, and the marriage pact with the Sealord's signature as witness to it, are both strong pieces of evidence of support for the Targaryens in exile. Among the other bits and pieces that point in that direction are two seemingly minor clues, one very early on and one later in the series. The first is a very old mention in A Game of Thrones in Daenerys's first chapter: This is the first time we meet Ser Jorah, and the Archon's brother's attendance seems, on the surface, to have no real meaning for the story other than background. We never meet him and he is never mentioned again. The importance, or lack thereof, of this tidbit has been debated since I joined this board back in 2007 and I'm sure it goes back further than that. It appears as if a minor dignitary from one of the other Free Cities shows up in Pentos and attends the gathering in which Dany is presented to Khal Drogo. So what? We can only speculate on if there is anything deeper in this attendance. That is until A Feast for Crows. There we learn the Archon's daughter is sent to the Water Gardens as ward of Prince Doran. As shown in RT's quote above ... let me paste it again below: This then is the second time a relative of the Archon of Tyrosh comes into our story. And the connection I hadn't made - that is as clear as day in RT's quote - is that it is far beyond just another casual and incidental connection to the Archon. Bringing the Archon's daughter to the Water Gardens was intended, not just to further the ties between Dorne and Tyrosh, but, as the bolded portion of the quote shows, as cover to sending Arianne to the Free Cities in order to facilitate a secret meeting with Viserys. It implies the Archon was in on the game. Some knowledge and participation of the Archon would be necessary to keep such a meeting secret. Otherwise, we have to fantasize about Dornish assets within the Tyroshi court secreting Arianne out without the Archon's knowledge. Nothing shows this, and the fact a decade plus later the Archon's brother ends up attending a dinner to arrange a marriage between Dany and Khal Drogo makes this seems an extremely unlikely option. This is not coincidence. It is planning. We are told Viserys is the "Beggar King" going from city to city, with his young sister, begging for shelter. Now, we have strong evidence this was not the case, at least in the beginning. We have stone-cold evidence that ties Dorne to a secret plan to marry Arianne to Viserys, and also evidence both the Sealord of Braavos and the Archon of Tyroshi supported this plan. That is not a history of the two wandering Targaryen children cast adrift by the world. It is one of secret support, but support from powerful supporters. What then is the significance of the timing of the pact? It places it in the early years of the Targaryen exile in Braavos. And for the purposes of this discussion it is important to note than none of these deductions contradict Dany's own memories of her days in Braavos, and her memories of Ser Willem and his death. In fact, all of these points are arrived at without assumption of Dany's memories being correct, but all based on independent evidence support her memories being true. Nothing contradicts them. Is it proof that Dany's memories are true? No. But it is strong evidence supporting the likelihood they are.
  6. All of this is brilliant! Thank you, RT, thank you! I had not even gotten to the app (it isn't my source of first resort - contrary to what some here may think) and I had not thought to link the presence of the Archon of Tyrosh's daughter to the timing of the pact. Great stuff, RT! This is a primer on how one builds a theory on evidence, not just speculation pulled out of thin air. Even when RT works the angle of the cupbearers she does so by showing the evidence that would support her thesis. I think some posters would do well to study the methods used here.
  7. The short answer is they didn't. While the Trident appears to turn into a collapse of Rhaegar's army after his death, we really don't know if any loyalist troops retreated in good order. We just know the rebels won the day, and Ned quickly leads his troops to King's Landing to stop retreating forces or forces from elsewhere from reinforcing their numbers there. But King's Landing, and Aerys, did not surrender after the Trident. Aerys's lets the Lannister troops into the city thinking they will save him, only to have them turn on him. Even after the sack and Aerys's death, all loyalists don't bend the knee. It takes Ned's army traveling to Storm's End to lift the siege there and accept the surrender of the Tyrells. It takes more than nine months for the rebels on Dragonstone to surrender, and longer than that for Jon Arryn to travel to Sunspear and negotiate a peace with Dorne.
  8. I'm aware of Syrio speaking to Arya about the death of the First Blade of Braavos before him. It talks about it in his story about "true seeing." But I don't see anything that connects that death to a useful timeline. Syrio in nine years the First Sword, so we know that the death is at least that long ago 289 or before, but if it ties in with the Sealord who signed the pact I can't tell. Nor can we be sure when Syrio left the service of the Sealord. I'm trying to go over Arya's chapter's in Braavos for any clues. Thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps, @Rhaenys_Targaryen might have a suggestion? Know of any other way to narrow down the timeline of when the secret marriage pact was signed, and Ser Willem died?
  9. Reference guide The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark. The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory: Jon Snow's Parents And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary: Jon Snow's Parents A Wiki of Ice and Fire: Jon Snow Theories Radio Westeros podcast: A Dragon, a Wolf and a Rose Kingmonkey's essay: R+L=J Frequently Asked Questions: How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand? Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity. Don't all Targaryens have hallmark Valryian silver-golden hair and purple eyes? Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons all had brown hair and brown eyes even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair. Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark. If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him? Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar. Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be? Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son. How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf? He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves. Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother? Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother. There's a hidden hint at who Jon's mother might be: In chapter 4, Eddard's internal monologue goes "Lyanna ... Ned had loved her with all his heart." and in chapter 6, Catelyn thinks "Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely". Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn? We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side. Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons in the very first chapter? In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers. Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard? He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate. Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal? Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell. George R.R. Martin says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is alsothis SSM predating the worldbook. On Polygamy essay by Ygrain with additions by Rhaenys_Targaryen Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage? If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir. Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though? The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else." We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order. "Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J. Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir? No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsightby maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer. Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here? Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking. Ned is dead. Who's going to tell anyone about it? Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's CrannogmanHowland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and George R.R. Martin has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned. Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story? The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown. This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true? It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight. George R.R. Martin is a "breaker of tropes, there can be no hidden prince, it's simply too cliché. In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope. Is there a list of all R+L=J clues that have been found? There is a list of R+L=J hints, clues and foreshadowing compiled by sj4iy. Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans? He has stated that he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle. A thread for discussing strengths and weaknesses of the theory that Jon Snow's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna. Previous editions: Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread
  10. On the topic of the pact signed by Ser Willem Darry, Prince Oberyn Martell, and witnessed by the Sealord of Braavos. I wanted to post some information about the range of time we can say this took place. First, we know from A Feast for Crows, that Arianne was fourteen years old when she read her father's letter to her brother, Quentyn, showing his plans for his son to follow him to the lordship of Dorne. This then is the latest possible date by which the pact was made. Because we know Arianne was born in the year 276 we know that means the year 290 to her name day in 291 is the one end of the range for when this takes place. We also know Dany is born in 284, and that is the year with the events on Dragonstone with the escape of the Targaryens from the island and the arrival of Stannis's rebel navy. Thus we know the arrival of the Targaryens with Darry in Braavos in the year 284 is the the other end of the range for this event. A span of six or seven years. That is a maximum range that doesn't take into account other things. Darry's death takes place when Dany is barely able to remember him. This would argue that the pact was signed either right around this time or before that. With Dany at the age of three to four likely as the time period in which Darry dies. That would put the most likely time for the pact to be in 284 to 288. I hope that helps in ordering some of these events. If I can figure out any better way to narrow down the range, I will post it.
  11. I can only quote this part of the text that says this: I can only think that at some point the only Septon at Castle Black would have been included in those meals and bouts of drinking. Perhaps not, but I would think it likely.
  12. I agree we can't answer this with what information we have, but I doubt Tyrion would not have recognized him during his stay at Castle Black, if he was the same septon.
  13. None of your clues are necessary for your theory. All that is necessary is for you to believe it is so. And that should tell you all you need to know about the paucity of evidence that supports this idea. Where are the parts of the text that are vital to your theory? The quotes that show Dany could not be who she says she is? The quotes that show the involvement of forces in a conspiracy to pass her off as Daenerys Stormborn? And most importantly, why they should do such a stupid thing? It is about the same distance as the Wall is long. Or about 300 miles. Not the distance a real world sailing ship can travel in one day. It is highly likely a morning departure from King's Landing would entail some midnight sailing on its way to Dragonstone. I'd be interested if you have any sailing times between the two places that puts this at less than a day's voyage. I can't find any, but perhaps you have a quote or two to validate your idea? Because we have, as yet, no eyewitness accounts other than Viserys's own does that mean we should discount anything Viserys has to say? in the quote in my previous post, Dany clearly tells us Viserys blames her for Rhaella's death. Not some other secret real sister, but her. Not only does his account provide a first hand account of the voyage to Dragonstone, the fact of Rhaella's pregnancy, the death of Rhaella in childbirth, the birth of Dany there on Dragonstone, and the way Ser Willem smuggles both children to safety, but it also shows Viserys believes the Dany we know is the sister who was born on Dragonstone. All of which is agreed to by everyone else in the story. Perhaps, we will someday get another eyewitness that contradicts Viserys, but until then we have no reason to not believe his story. There is this huge mountain of textual evidence showing Dany is Dany, and all I'm seeing is mountains of wild conjecture forming the basis of your theory. It shows that Stannis believes there was such a babe. He was in the place to do such an investigation about what happened on Dragonstone and he had the responsibility to do so and report back to his brother. What makes you think he was wrong in his conclusion? It can't be all the other sources that agree with him. And, once again, Viserys was with his sister when she came aboard the ship to Braavos along with her wet nurse. Yet she remembers the "they" who were forced out of the big house with the red door after Ser Willem's death. She remembers that it was her brother who kept them running from one place to another to avoid the usurper's spies and knives. I don't know how much clearer you want it that she remembers just what you say she doesn't. Robert himself says he can't get to Daenerys and Viserys when Ned asks him if he can. He blames Illyrio and his eunuch guards for making it too hard to get to them. The point of the quote, however, is that Robert confirms that early on Viserys and Dany were together in exile, and he blames himself for listening to Jon Arryn for not trying to kill them both when he could. Do we know this is in the days they were in Braavos? Not for sure, but we know Robert's spies place them together, and that is just one more piece of evidence from a different source doing just that. It is just another piece of history giving us Dany's background. I'm really not sure why you think they made up the title or what the relevance of such a change is for your theory. It certainly isn't necessary for your version of this idea that the title is a lie. I can only see an attempt to cast doubt on any of Dany's memories or Viserys's stories as the reason for questioning the storm during her birth. You, unlike others who spin this theory, agree Rhaella died in childbirth on Dragonstone. What is the importance for your version that the monster storm Viserys's reports didn't happen? The citadel's teaching is just another party heard from that supports Viserys's story. One that has no reason to support a lie made to hide a false Dany. And happy Friday as well to you.
  14. Ok, let's go over the quote again, but this time let me add a little more of it. Up to this point all of this narrative obviously relies on stories told to Dany by her brother Viserys, and her memory of those oft told stories. Everything here is either before Dany was born, or when she was only a newborn babe incapable of knowing the full scope of the events around her. That doesn't mean there isn't support for these events happening. Jaime's tale of seeing Rhaella going to the ship to King's Landing is evidence Flight from King's Landing happened. So too with Ned's dream account of his question to the Kingsguard about why they didn't go with Darry, Rhaella, and Viserys to Dragonstone. It is further verification the three of them are on Dragonstone. Stannis's account of being unable to prevent Darry escaping with Viserys and the babe just prior to his arrival supports this part of Dany's account and that of her mother's death. The teachings of the Citadel about Daenerys "Stormborn" support the account of the storm when Dany is born. And on and on there are reasons and evidence to believe all of this is credible. We can debate any of this if you want, but here is where Dany's story takes on a new character. After the above, Daenerys is talking about things she remembers, not just things she has been told. Here all of this is based upon Dany's own memories of Ser Willem and the events after his death. Because she remembers Ser Willem and his death, we can be sure she is capable of having memories of these other events taking place after his death, unlike the events in the stories Viserys tells her of the time before her birth or the time in which she was a newborn babe at her wet nurse's breast. The one thing that is a constant in all those memories is another person being with her as exhibited by the pronoun "they." Dany tells us who that person is when she says, "Her brother would not allow it."There are really no other candidates for her "they" after the servants are dismissed and they are forced out of the big house with the red door. When Robert tells Ned he can't get to Dany to kill her because of Illyrio's guards, he also says the following: This tells us that Robert had reports on how well guarded Viserys and Dany were early on in their exile. Clearly, Viserys had some reasons to believe there were spies watching them. Or, perhaps more correctly, he guessed right that Robert's spies were following them. And moreover, this verifies Viserys and Dany being together, just as she says in her memory. So, summing up this part, it is clear that, contrary to your assertion, Dany has memories of Viserys from this time period. Those memories and Viserys's stories are corroborated by others including Robert, Stannis, Ned, the citadel's teaching, Jaime's accounts of the leaving of Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone, etc. This is as opposed to fan's fanciful theories of Dany being born elsewhere and then brought in later to be raised in exile by Viserys. All of which has no textual evidence to support it. Most of what we know in the series comes from hearsay evidence. That does not mean it isn't strong evidence that allows us to reach various conclusions. For instance, Catelyn tells us of the rumors Winterfell's soldiers bring back concerning Ned and the Lady Ashara. Not only is this evidence that should make one consider if Ashara is Jon's mother, but it also tells us something about when Jon appears with Ned. If Ned met a pregnant Ashara, or Ashara as a new mother with infant Jon, at King's Landing or Storm's End in the presence of Ned's army, there wouldn't be any discussion of whether she was or was not Jon's mother. The fact the men of the North bring home tales about Jon associated with the time in which Ned and his small party leave the Northern army and when Ned is said to have killed Ser Arthur and returns this sword to Starfall, tells us Jon first appears to the Northern troops following these events. Likely, when Ned comes back to Storm's End to meet his troops for the long march back to King's Landing and on to Winterfell. When we look at hearsay evidence, we have to weigh it for what it tells us, and what bias is involved, but that doesn't mean it doesn't tell us a lot. So, when we look at Stannis statement about his taking of Dragonstone, we have to weigh the hearsay evidence he gathers from the formerly loyalist troops and servants we are told were ready to turn Viserys and Dany over to the rebels. We don't know the names or the positions of any of these individuals. We don't know if there was a maester among them. What we do know is that Robert is angry because the Targaryens are not captured. And, from his point of view, this is likely a even more important objective than the taking of Dragonstone itself. These are the people with the strongest claim to Robert's newly won throne. If Stannis tried to do his duty on Dragonstone, and the Stannis we know puts duty before all else, then he had to find out and report back to Robert what happened to each of the Targaryens. That means questioning of the people who would know their fate. The servants at the birth of Daenerys. The servants dealing with Rhaella's body. The troops who let Ser Willem escape with Viserys and Dany. It likely also includes knowledge presented to the small council from Robert's spies in Braavos confirming that is where Targaryens and Ser Willem end up. All hearsay, but powerful evidence in support of Viserys's story. That is true as well with the Citadel's teaching of Dany's birth. That the students know her as Daenerys Stormborn tells us this is not just a fabrication of Viserys or Dany's fertile imaginations. Viserys didn't just make up a tall tale to tell his sister as they sat in exile. Of interest is whether or not this teaching is based on the reports of a maester in service at Dragonstone, and who that maester might be. It's further evidence supporting that Viserys and Rhaella really go to Dragonstone. Others supporting variants of the theory Dany really isn't Dany call this into question. The idea is also that there is something wrong with the history Dany learns from Viserys, and things like Jaime's account talking of a morning departure from King's Landing and Viserys's tale of a midnight sail to Dragonstone - a more than one day journey - are somehow in contradiction and therefore his whole story is somehow suspect. It is a silly attempt, in my opinion, to throw up dust and create doubt where there isn't any. The pregnant Rhaella and Viserys set sail from King's Landing in the aftermath of the news of the defeat at the Trident and Rhaegar's death. Ned's dream shows he, at least, believes this to be simple fact. Yet you clearly suggest the Darry Dany knew was someone else. Yet we know that she also remembers Viserys from the same time. Has the great Dany impersonation begun before Ser Willem dies or after? No, I understand the basics of the theory, although I note some variants of it. It's a pity about the lemon tree, because it is really the only hard clue associated with this theory, and it very, very likely means something entirely different from what the proponents of this idea think it does. Are you claiming this is your theory in that you thought of it first, or that you read it elsewhere and have adopted it as your working theory for some years? Regardless, please let me know if I have your ideas on this theory right, or if I'm mixed up in my understanding of what you propose in any way.
  15. I learned long ago that it doesn't matter if other people agree, it matters that if one thinks differently, one speaks out. Group think and accepting it is not beneficial in any endeavor. So, yes, if people want to discuss R+L=D they have every right to do so. And I have the right to say where and why I disagree. That has nothing to do with some "fanon" I believe. I don't think there is a single right answer, even in fantasy novels, or perhaps, most especially in fantasy novels. I think being silent about your ideas is the only really wrong thing. Speak up if you think something is wrong, and say why you think it is wrong. Making mistakes and correcting them through testing ideas is how we learn. This isn't a question of R+L=D vs some variant of R+L=J, and what team wins a debate. I could care less than nothing about such things. I have no "teams" here. I consistently argue that there are other theories that are certainly possible. Just don't tell me something is true when it's based on nothing but rank conjecture. I won't nod and say "oh, that's just like theories that are supported by sound evidence and logical thinking." There is no equivalence. Now, there is a place for rank conjecture as well. Because something is crackpot does not mean it is not possible. We all have our favorite crackpot theories, and I've supported more than my share of them. But I don't say they have evidence to support them when they don't. I have no problem with @LiveFirstDieLater or anyone else who is willing to engage in the debate and support their ideas. That is how it should be. I just don't have to either agree or remain silent.