So if popular theories are true... there were technically 7 Targaryns still alive at the start of book 1!

[Ser Creighton]

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I don't understand your analogies. For Robert and Robb you are referencing their mother's maiden names. Brynden Rivers is the son of Aegon IV -- his mother was not a Targaryen. He is known as Rivers because he is a noble bastard who was raised in the riverlands. But after being legitimized, arguably, he had the right to take his father's last name (same as Ramsey Snow becoming Ramsey Bolton), which would make him Brynden Targaryen. I don't think he ever went by that name -- but after being legitimized, he had the right to do so.

Yep, pretty much that, he is in the Targaryen family tree, his father was a Targaryen King and he was legitimized. Same for Bittersteel. This is supportive by the way. Just to be clear.

12 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Your flaw is in including Viserys in the mix. Viserys is dead by the time Moqorro is stating the vision -- and more important -- Tyrion never met Viserys. The vision is of the dragons with whom Tyrion interacted -- Viserys is not part of that group. The vision is about Tyrion meeting and having been among the other Targs -- his kin. And for that -- the ones who "count" as dragons -- I believe -- are Aemon (old), Jon (young), Dany (true), fAegon (false), Varys (dark or bright, depending on which of him or Illyrio is the Blackfyre descendant and which the Brightflame descendant) and Illyrio (whichever of dark or bright that Varys is not). Tyrion also never meets Bloodraven, so he also is not part of the vision -- even though he clearly is a "dragon" for other purposes.

You sure about that. Who said their was a number, people count 6 and Tyrion usually but I don't see a number, I see polarities, opposites. 3 Sets of 2. Viserys is Dead, Aemon may be dead and probably is, Bloodraven is undead, we have a mummers Dragon.

But that prophecy. Says nothing about numbers, it speaks to opposites.

Dragons old and young,

true and false,

bright and dark.

Each one has an opposite, an inverse if you will. A false Dragon isn't a dragon, or else it would not be a false Dragon. More than likely FAegon, given early visions. But what defines false here, would a Blackfyre spreading lies be considered false? What defines old here? Or young? Jon is Young, Dany is younger. True? Dany is a true dragon. Bright? Dark? This speaks to opposites, I would not put a number on it. There can be more than one true dragon, or old, or young, or false, etc... This addresses Tyrion being in the center of a cyclical nature. It is the Ouroboros, the Yin Yang, the Rosey Cross.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/ff8f27b36bb7850cd6afef909b18d269/tumblr_n091wnbXLq1rrj3pro1_500.jpg

 

That's all the man keeps showing people. Suns and moons, it always comes back to it.

[UnmaskedLurker]

2 minutes ago, Ser Creighton said:

Yep, pretty much that, he is in the Targaryen family tree, his father was a Targaryen King and he was legitimized. Same for Bittersteel. This is supportive by the way. Just to be clear.

[snip]

As to the bold -- touche and well done. The rest got too metaphysical for me to follow.

[Ser Creighton]

17 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

As to the bold -- touche and well done. The rest got too metaphysical for me to follow.

That's okay, look at the cover of Dance. Tyrion is in the middle of the dragons right, you ever wonder why his eyes were made black and green? Two sides, he sits between two sides that are opposites. Like a Targaryen and a Blackfyre, the sigils are opposites.

Note that Tyrion split Dany and FAegon, probably actually worked out for the better. It's really not that complex, it's like looking at a half moon, half light and half dark. That's why to touch the light you have to pass beneath the shadow. You go clockwise around the half moon or the yin yang, at some point you got to go through the Darkness and come out the other end into the light. You go counter clockwise it's the same thing, it's a cycle, or a circle. Which is why cycles are often depicted circles. Opposites that are one or the same.

The cycle was forged a long time ago, and now for the first time it can be undone, it is coming to an end.

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

There are only three, unless Rhaegar did actually wed Lyanna, which I think is a safe bet, so four. Bloodraven is a Rivers, Aegon is a Blackfyre, and Tyrion is a Lannister, or maybe a Hill. If you're gonna count those three, you might as well count the Baratheons and Plumm, etc.

[bent branch]

4 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I don't follow your logic -- I think you are the one who has made a flaw in logic. Here is the full quote:

Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all.

In the end of the quote, Moqorro states that Tyrion is "snarling in the midst of it all." In other words, Tyrion is part of each of these dragon's impact on the eventual battles. Aemon may be dead -- by Tyrion interacted with Aemon and Aemon made comments about Tyrion having a large impact. Perhaps Tyrion eventually will meet Bloodraven and he is the old dragon -- but I doubt it. What is clear is that Tyrion never met Viserys and never will. Why would Viserys be referenced at all? Tyrion was never in the midst of Viserys. Including Viserys is the logical flaw.

Is including Viserys a logical flaw? Consider what we know about Viserys. Viserys was no true dragon or in other words a false dragon. So there in one thing in favor of Viserys being the false dragon. Also, Aemon and Jon were two dragons who were together and the old and young dragon were paired. The only dragon that Dany has personally known up to this time is Viserys. This is another argument in favor of Viserys being the false dragon since Dany is paired with the false dragon. Now we know that Aemon was dead when Moqorro saw his vision, so obviously he was not strictly seeing the future or even the present, but also seeing the past. So there is a third argument in Viserys being the false dragon. But say that it is not Viserys as the false dragon, then we are already up to a minimum eight dragons in the story.

You and I have discussed before what is logical and what is not logical. At one point you told me that you believed Aegon was a fake because you believed in the wisdom of the masses. At the same time I know you are a big supporter of A+J=T, an extremely unpopular theory. This leads me to believe that your logic is whatever you need it to be to get whatever answer you want.

 

[UnmaskedLurker]

5 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Is including Viserys a logical flaw? Consider what we know about Viserys. Viserys was no true dragon or in other words a false dragon. So there in one thing in favor of Viserys being the false dragon. Also, Aemon and Jon were two dragons who were together and the old and young dragon were paired. The only dragon that Dany has personally known up to this time is Viserys. This is another argument in favor of Viserys being the false dragon since Dany is paired with the false dragon. Now we know that Aemon was dead when Moqorro saw his vision, so obviously he was not strictly seeing the future or even the present, but also seeing the past. So there is a third argument in Viserys being the false dragon. But say that it is not Viserys as the false dragon, then we are already up to a minimum eight dragons in the story.

You and I have discussed before what is logical and what is not logical. At one point you told me that you believed Aegon was a fake because you believed in the wisdom of the masses. At the same time I know you are a big supporter of A+J=T, an extremely unpopular theory. This leads me to believe that your logic is whatever you need it to be to get whatever answer you want.

 

Please point me to a time when I stated the bolded. I believe that there is some wisdom in the masses but clearly the masses get things wrong -- especially when GRRM is working so hard to throw people off the trail. The popularity of the fAegon theory is of minimal influence in my belief that fAegon is not who he believes he is. I read the analysis of different people and decide which theories I find most persuasive -- not by a majority vote method but by the power of the logic behind the arguments. I usually agree with the majority -- but not always. AJT is the most obvious example of where I disagree with the majority.

But believe me when I say that being in the minority has made me analyze and re-analyze my thought process with excessive rigor to make sure I am not engaging in flawed logic or wishful thinking. After much time working through the evidence and arguments, I have become convinced that AJT is correct -- but its minority popularity does give me pause. I hold my analysis to an even higher standard due to its minority position. But I have NEVER believed that whatever the majority concludes automatically is the most logical and the correct solution.

Viserys is irrelevant to the story at this point -- and will have no impact on Tyrion's story or any of the coming battles. I think the pairing idea is useful. Jon and Aemon on the Wall -- young and old working together to keep the NW on track to defend against the Others. Varys and Illyrio -- bright and dark (one a Brightflame and one a Blackfyre descendant) working together to put their nephew/son on the throne. Dany and fAegon -- true and false (not false in the sense of not being a dragon -- even Viserys obviously is really a Targ and thus really a dragon in that sense) with Dany representing the "true" Targ heir (given that Jon's heritage is not yet known) and fAegon presenting a "false" identity as the son of Rhaegar, when he actually is not (whether he knows it or not) -- and their battle (DoD 2.0) will have significance for Westeros. So the pairing idea works under my version of the identities.

I don't see why you think that Viserys has to be included? I find your evidence unpersuasive. I also think there can be more dragons -- just not dragons that are paired and that interact with Tyrion that have an impact on the future of Westeros.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

In general I agree with you in what constitutes a "dragon" (Targaryens, their bastards and Blackfyres). However, in placing Aegon in the false dragon slot, it would mean that there are more than seven dragons in the story. I have explained in the past, in detail, why this is. However, the bull-headed insistence that Aegon is fAegon means people can't see the flaw in placing Aegon in the false position. Logic demands that if Aegon is placed in the false position there are more Targaryens in the story, but people will always throw logic out the window if it threatens one of their cherished theories.

A false Dragon does not necessarily mean NOT A DRAGON, it can mean a Dragon that is false... as in a lie or fake.

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Your flaw is in including Viserys in the mix. Viserys is dead by the time Moqorro is stating the vision -- and more important -- Tyrion never met Viserys. The vision is of the dragons with whom Tyrion interacted -- Viserys is not part of that group. The vision is about Tyrion meeting and having been among the other Targs -- his kin. And for that -- the ones who "count" as dragons -- I believe -- are Aemon (old), Jon (young), Dany (true), fAegon (false), Varys (dark or bright, depending on which of him or Illyrio is the Blackfyre descendant and which the Brightflame descendant) and Illyrio (whichever of dark or bright that Varys is not). Tyrion also never meets Bloodraven, so he also is not part of the vision -- even though he clearly is a "dragon" for other purposes.

While I agree about Viserys being dead already and Tyrion being amongst the other Dragons, the series is not over. We can not discount an interaction with Bloodraven. Especially since Bloodraven has the ability to interact with characters out side of his physical form.

[UnmaskedLurker]

3 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

A false Dragon does not necessarily mean NOT A DRAGON, it can mean a Dragon that is false... as in a lie or fake.

While I agree about Viserys being dead already and Tyrion being amongst the other Dragons, the series is not over. We can not discount an interaction with Bloodraven. Especially since Bloodraven has the ability to interact with characters out side of his physical form.

I acknowledged above that maybe Bloodraven and not Aemon is the old dragon. The problem is that how is Bloodraven going to be paired with Jon? Bloodraven is working with Bran and Bran might contact Jon. But I am not sure how BR and Jon would end up working together (or against each other). And how will Tyrion ever interact or be in the midst of BR? But maybe BR is the old dragon -- I cannot be sure yet. 

But the bottom line is that there certainly are more "dragons" in the story than simply the ones that Moqorro references. So this rule that bb seems to be suggesting that this list is the ENTIRE list of all dragons that will be seen in the series makes no sense to me.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

1 minute ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I acknowledged above that maybe Bloodraven and not Aemon is the old dragon. The problem is that how is Bloodraven going to be paired with Jon? Bloodraven is working with Bran and Bran might contact Jon. But I am not sure how BR and Jon would end up working together (or against each other). And how will Tyrion ever interact or be in the midst of BR? But maybe BR is the old dragon -- I cannot be sure yet. 

But the bottom line is that there certainly are more "dragons" in the story than simply the ones that Moqorro references. So this rule that bb seems to be suggesting that this list is the ENTIRE list of all dragons that will be seen in the series makes no sense to me.

I did not mean Bloodraven instead of Aemon as the old Dragon. I meant Bloodraven as the dark Dragon instead Illyrio.

I think there are pairs, the Jon and Aemon one is easy to see. Daenerys and fAegon together at first and then as enemies (Dance 2.0) and then Varys and Bloodraven as opposing forces, one for the Blackfyres/ Brightflames and one for the Targaryens (which is also by default the side against the Others, even if the Targaryens don not know it)

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 minute ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

I did not mean Bloodraven instead of Aemon as the old Dragon. I meant Bloodraven as the dark Dragon instead Illyrio.

I think there are pairs, the Jon and Aemon one is easy to see. Daenerys and fAegon together at first and then as enemies (Dance 2.0) and then Varys and Bloodraven as opposing forces, one for the Blackfyres/ Brightflames and one for the Targaryens (which is also by default the side against the Others, even if the Targaryens don not know it)

Sorry, I had forgotten that was your theory. I am not sure I understand how Varys and Bloodraven are paired -- a lot of dragons are working for the Targs -- Dany obviously first and foremost and eventually presumably Jon. But Varys and BR never interact -- BR does not care about the IT, so while he may support the Targs due to the 3HD prophecy, he is no longer concerned with the Blackfyre/Brightflame distraction. He is not going to be part of the DoD 2.0.

And in what sense is BR dark or light (not sure which you think he is). The Blackfyre/Brightflame pairing gives light and dark by those designations. But BR is not identified specifically as light or dark. I am just not sure I see how that pairing really works.

[Tommy Lannister]

Tyrion is not a Targaryen ... neither Bloodraven (he is a rivers). If you consider that Brynden is a targ, so you have to consider that Ben is also a targ because he has targ blood as well, through viserys plumm, and every of his descendants.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 minute ago, Tommy Lannister said:

Tyrion is not a Targaryen ... neither Bloodraven (he is a rivers). If you consider that Brynden is a targ, so you have to consider that Ben is also a targ because he has targ blood as well, through viserys plumm, and every of his descendants.

You are right -- Tryion is a Hill (a noble bastard raised in the westerlands). But for convenience, anyone who has a parent (especially a father) who was a Targ is sometimes referenced as a Targ -- but not that person's child as that person's child is not the child of a Targ. So Ben may have Targ blood, but he is the not the child of a Targ, so he is not referenced as a Targ. But that referencing "rule" is only for convenience and it not a real "rule" in any sense. So technically, you are correct. Tyrion is not a Targaryen even if Aerys is Tyrion's biological father. But because Tyrion would have a Targ for a father, sometimes people will loosely refer to Tryion as the son of Aerys as being a "hidden Targ."

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

2 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Sorry, I had forgotten that was your theory. I am not sure I understand how Varys and Bloodraven are paired -- a lot of dragons are working for the Targs -- Dany obviously first and foremost and eventually presumably Jon. But Varys and BR never interact -- BR does not care about the IT, so while he may support the Targs due to the 3HD prophecy, he is no longer concerned with the Blackfyre/Brightflame distraction. He is not going to be part of the DoD 2.0.

And in what sense is BR dark or light (not sure which you think he is). The Blackfyre/Brightflame pairing gives light and dark by those designations. But BR is not identified specifically as light or dark. I am just not sure I see how that pairing really works.

Bloodraven would be Dark (a black brother, in a dark cave, a so called wizard using the dark arts).

I am not saying that Varys and Bloodraven will interact but that they will oppose.

Look at the pairings:

The first two are Old and Young- Aemon and Jon. These two are (were) working together, they are benefiting of each other

The second two are True and False- Daenerys and fAegon. These two will start out friendly but will end in the Dance of the Dragons 2.0

The third pair are Bright and Dark- Varys and Bloodraven. These two are odds with each other. And have been since the start, even if we didn't know it.

If we are to believe that Daenerys and the other two heads are the force that fights the Others, that Jon or Daenerys is the AAR and will defeat the Long Night 2.0, then the Targaryens must be the ones who prevail right? Varys is actively working against the Targaryens (or at least the Targaryens best interests) all the way back to him working against Rhaegar. He is trying to crown the False Dragon (the Dragon who is a lie).

So between the three pairings you have three different types of attraction, positive, positive that becomes negative and then negative.

 

And because the books are not over, it is very possible that Tyrion will interact with all of them. He has already interacted with Jon, Aemon, fAegon & Varys. On his way to meet Daenerys and by the end of the series either Tyrion will mentally (dreams/ Weirwood...ect) interact with Bloodraven or physically (riding a Dragon with Jon and Daenerys North to face the Others) interact with him.

[bent branch]

15 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Please point me to a time when I stated the bolded. I believe that there is some wisdom in the masses but clearly the masses get things wrong -- especially when GRRM is working so hard to throw people off the trail. The popularity of the fAegon theory is of minimal influence in my belief that fAegon is not who he believes he is. I read the analysis of different people and decide which theories I find most persuasive -- not by a majority vote method but by the power of the logic behind the arguments. I usually agree with the majority -- but not always. AJT is the most obvious example of where I disagree with the majority.

But believe me when I say that being in the minority has made me analyze and re-analyze my thought process with excessive rigor to make sure I am not engaging in flawed logic or wishful thinking. After much time working through the evidence and arguments, I have become convinced that AJT is correct -- but its minority popularity does give me pause. I hold my analysis to an even higher standard due to its minority position. But I have NEVER believed that whatever the majority concludes automatically is the most logical and the correct solution.

Viserys is irrelevant to the story at this point -- and will have no impact on Tyrion's story or any of the coming battles. I think the pairing idea is useful. Jon and Aemon on the Wall -- young and old working together to keep the NW on track to defend against the Others. Varys and Illyrio -- bright and dark (one a Brightflame and one a Blackfyre descendant) working together to put their nephew/son on the throne. Dany and fAegon -- true and false (not false in the sense of not being a dragon -- even Viserys obviously is really a Targ and thus really a dragon in that sense) with Dany representing the "true" Targ heir (given that Jon's heritage is not yet known) and fAegon presenting a "false" identity as the son of Rhaegar, when he actually is not (whether he knows it or not) -- and their battle (DoD 2.0) will have significance for Westeros. So the pairing idea works under my version of the identities.

I don't see why you think that Viserys has to be included? I find your evidence unpersuasive. I also think there can be more dragons -- just not dragons that are paired and that interact with Tyrion that have an impact on the future of Westeros.

 

10 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

A false Dragon does not necessarily mean NOT A DRAGON, it can mean a Dragon that is false... as in a lie or fake.

While I agree about Viserys being dead already and Tyrion being amongst the other Dragons, the series is not over. We can not discount an interaction with Bloodraven. Especially since Bloodraven has the ability to interact with characters out side of his physical form.

The question I have for both of you is why do place Aegon in the false position? Is it because you think if you place him in any other position he has to be the son of Rhaegar and Elia? I assure you that Aegon being placed in one of the other positions in the matrix doesn't automatically mean he is or is not the son of Rhaegar and Elia. At this point the only Targ in the story that has been called a false dragon is Viserys.

As far as Viserys in relation to Tyrion, Moqorro's vision was NOT about Tyrion. At no point are we told that it was. Moqorro was looking into the fire and Tyrion asks him what he sees. Moqorro responds dragons. He then mentions six paired dragons and Tyrion. One way Tyrion be amongst these dragons is by meeting them all (although we know these dragons cannot be together at the same time since Aemon is dead). Another way that Tyrion can be amongst these dragons is by being one of them. It is an assumption that the visions are about the future (they cannot be because Aemon is dead). It is also an assumption that Tyrion will interact with each of these dragons.

[Thuckey]

That prophecy with Tryion clarifies even further just how Tyrion is the "middle" most character in the series, if you know what I mean.

 

At the start, he was the only Lannister to be on somewhat good terms with the Starks and was a pragmatist until Cat had something to say about that. And now in fact he seems to be in the middle again between Lannister and Targaryn.. or more acurately is changing sides or in a transitional phase.

 

Either way, he's a grey as it gets and there is no other character that is in the middle of it all as much as him. Some would say he's the closest thing to a main character, an all time favourite on the show anyways that's for sure.

 

When it comes to the big 3 Tyrion for me takes the cake. Don't kill him off George.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

1 minute ago, bent branch said:

 

The question I have for both of you is why do place Aegon in the false position? Is it because you think if you place him in any other position he has to be the son of Rhaegar and Elia? I assure you that Aegon being placed in one of the other positions in the matrix doesn't automatically mean he is or is not the son of Rhaegar and Elia. At this point the only Targ in the story that has been called a false dragon is Viserys.

As far as Viserys in relation to Tyrion, Moqorro's vision was NOT about Tyrion. At no point are we told that it was. Moqorro was looking into the fire and Tyrion asks him what he sees. Moqorro responds dragons. He then mentions six paired dragons and Tyrion. One way Tyrion be amongst these dragons is by meeting them all (although we know these dragons cannot be together at the same time since Aemon is dead). Another way that Tyrion can be amongst these dragons is by being one of them. It is an assumption that the visions are about the future (they cannot be because Aemon is dead). It is also an assumption that Tyrion will interact with each of these dragons.

Because it fits him the most. He is the Mummer's dragon. He is the lie, the false dragon.

If Tyrion just being one of them, and they could have included more dragons from the past. Why not Aerys or Rhaella? Why not Rhaeneys?

The point is these are all dragons (Tyrion included) that Tyrion will/ has interacted with.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 minute ago, bent branch said:

 

The question I have for both of you is why do place Aegon in the false position? Is it because you think if you place him in any other position he has to be the son of Rhaegar and Elia? I assure you that Aegon being placed in one of the other positions in the matrix doesn't automatically mean he is or is not the son of Rhaegar and Elia. At this point the only Targ in the story that has been called a false dragon is Viserys.

As far as Viserys in relation to Tyrion, Moqorro's vision was NOT about Tyrion. At no point are we told that it was. Moqorro was looking into the fire and Tyrion asks him what he sees. Moqorro responds dragons. He then mentions six paired dragons and Tyrion. One way Tyrion be amongst these dragons is by meeting them all (although we know these dragons cannot be together at the same time since Aemon is dead). Another way that Tyrion can be amongst these dragons is by being one of them. It is an assumption that the visions are about the future (they cannot be because Aemon is dead). It is also an assumption that Tyrion will interact with each of these dragons.

I place fAegon in the false position because I think his interaction with Dany will be significant, and his identity as a "false" dragon (in the sense of putting himself forward as the son of Rhaegar when fAegon really is not) is central to his identity. Tyrion also has had some impact on that ultimate encounter between Dany and fAegon (DoD 2.0). I think you are too caught up in the prior reference to Viserys as a false dragon. fAeon is the real false dragon -- the "mummer's" dragon.

I just don't think Viserys really matters -- and while I think Tyrion is the son of Aerys and thus a dragon -- I don't think that is enough to be in the "midst" of it all -- Tyrion has to be part of the action with each paring in some sense. And it just does not work for Viserys. Tyrion simply does not affect at all or interact at all in the relationship between Dany and Viserys.

[Thuckey]

Could Tyrion be Azor Ahai??

[UnmaskedLurker]

Just now, Thuckey said:

Could Tyrion be Azor Ahai??

There actually is a theory that all three heads -- Jon, Dany and Tyrion -- are combined both AAR and TPTWP -- that these monikers are not to one person but to all 3 as a combined "entity" battling the Others as a team. So maybe?

[bent branch]

6 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Because it fits him the most. He is the Mummer's dragon. He is the lie, the false dragon.

If Tyrion just being one of them, and they could have included more dragons from the past. Why not Aerys or Rhaella? Why not Rhaeneys?

The point is these are all dragons (Tyrion included) that Tyrion will/ has interacted with.

So basically, your answer is yes. You think that to put in Aegon is any other position in the matrix is to conclude he is real.

The answer as to Tyrion being one of them is that the "dragons" mentioned all have something to do with how these event will play out. Viserys was important to this series of events because he was one of the things that pushed Dany into hatching the dragons. Hell, even his death was one of a series of events that led up to the hatching of the dragons. So, Viserys was a dragon that had a direct effect on current events.

How does Tyrion meeting Aemon effect future events. Unless you are one of those people that think Aemon's pickled body is going to be taken to Dany and Moqorro will revive it (wow, when I say it like that it sounds pretty cool), then what importance is Tyrion just meeting Aemon? How does that change the course of events?