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

[bent branch]

22 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

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.

You place Aegon in the false position because you believe that it will be a future event that makes Aegon false. You believe this even though we know that any important event involving Aemon must have occurred in the past. Despite the evidence within the vision itself that the importance of these dragons can come from the past or the future, you continue to insist that the false dragon cannot be Viserys because he is dead. Viserys' actions in past helped lead to the birth of the dragons. I will ask you the same thing I asked King Viserys. How does Tyrion just meeting Aemon effect the course of future events?

You are interpreting Moqorro's vision as if it was about Tyrion and there is no evidence it was.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

8 minutes ago, bent branch said:

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?

Viserys did not lead to to the Dragons being hatched. You can say Illyrio, Drogo, the witch that betrayed Daenerys, or Daenerys child but Viserys had zero role in that outcome.

One of the reasons you put fAegon in that is the pairing with Daenerys. It also is his best description as well as the descriptions that best fit the other dragons.

Aemon is included because he met with Tyrion, and saw good in Tyrion. He was impressed with Tyrion.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

2 minutes ago, bent branch said:

You are interpreting Moqorro's vision as if it was about Tyrion and there is no evidence it was.

You mean other than he is speaking directly TO TYRION and TYRION WAS IN THE VISION?

you are right, no evidence at all. I was hoping he would say something along the lines of "Pay attention Tyrion, this is completely about you"

[bent branch]

9 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Viserys did not lead to to the Dragons being hatched. You can say Illyrio, Drogo, the witch that betrayed Daenerys, or Daenerys child but Viserys had zero role in that outcome.

One of the reasons you put fAegon in that is the pairing with Daenerys. It also is his best description as well as the descriptions that best fit the other dragons.

Aemon is included because he met with Tyrion, and saw good in Tyrion. He was impressed with Tyrion.

So, Viserys was the one who needed to agree to the marriage between Dany and Drogo, but he had nothing to do with it. Okay.

 

7 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

You mean other than he is speaking directly TO TYRION and TYRION WAS IN THE VISION?

you are right, no evidence at all. I was hoping he would say something along the lines of "Pay attention Tyrion, this is completely about you"

Go back and read the scene again. Moqorro is looking into the flames and Tyrion goes up and asks him what he sees. Moqorro answers dragons, not "why you, dude!"

[Kienn]

Don't forget Daario and Tatters

[Dorian Martell]

5 hours ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

Or... he totally is.

No, he isn't. some people have a namsturbatory fantasy about him being a secret targ, even though Morroqo mentions all the other dragons and not him, and his relatives even say he is the true son of Tywin (as in smarts and ruthlessness). Tyrion being a targ basically invalidates whole swaths of his story line, diminishes his father's murder into a cinderella level of banal and lastly, it would make the inevitable meeting between Dany and the blood of those  who killed her father even less. Tyrion getting to show up and say, "I killed the man who sacked your fathers capitol, the Usurper, his son, his ally stark and all his trueborn sons are dead" would be pretty awesome. If he is a secret targ all he gets is,"BTW you're my sis, we should be all good now." 

Unfortunately, stuff like this is rampant.  People also think Eruon is Dario as in a guy would fight for and kill for a woman and then after sleeping with her, sail to the other side of the world to have his brother killed, then take his throne and then send his other brother with a giant fleet back to get said woman while beating his brother back to her to go be a hostage for her enemies.  

[Thuckey]

Once again as a very new member to this site I am very happy that again my topic has generated such interest and discussion, and I got to say some of you guys are very passionate about your views and I'm astonished at how this series can be looked at so differently from different points of view and from different people. GRRM, I cannot praise you enough I honestly think this website and the threads I have made has made me enjoy this series far more than I did before.

 

Glad to be a part of this site anyways, and very happy that so many of my topics create such interest! I will continue to think up more interesting things to talk about as I can't get enough of this!  

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, Dorian Martell said:

No, he isn't. some people have a namsturbatory fantasy about him being a secret targ, even though Morroqo mentions all the other dragons and not him, and his relatives even say he is the true son of Tywin (as in smarts and ruthlessness). Tyrion being a targ basically invalidates whole swaths of his story line, diminishes his father's murder into a cinderella level of banal and lastly, it would make the inevitable meeting between Dany and the blood of those  who killed her father even less. Tyrion getting to show up and say, "I killed the man who sacked your fathers capitol, the Usurper, his son, his ally stark and all his trueborn sons are dead" would be pretty awesome. If he is a secret targ all he gets is,"BTW you're my sis, we should be all good now." 

Unfortunately, stuff like this is rampant.  People also think Eruon is Dario as in a guy would fight for and kill for a woman and then after sleeping with her, sail to the other side of the world to have his brother killed, then take his throne and then send his other brother with a giant fleet back to get said woman while beating his brother back to her to go be a hostage for her enemies.  

Come on. The Tyrion is Aerys's son theory is not remotely on the same level as bullshit like Euron is Darrio. Even if you don't believe it, you should at least be able to acknowledge the clues actually exist, unlike with the Euron theory. 

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go "namsturbate" to the idea of Tyrion being a Targaryen bastard. 

[purple-eyes]

one little, two little, three little targs............

four little, five little, six little targs.........

seven little, eight little, nine little targs....

Ten little hidden Targs................

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, Dorian Martell said:

No, he isn't. some people have a namsturbatory fantasy about him being a secret targ, even though Morroqo mentions all the other dragons and not him, and his relatives even say he is the true son of Tywin (as in smarts and ruthlessness). Tyrion being a targ basically invalidates whole swaths of his story line, diminishes his father's murder into a cinderella level of banal and lastly, it would make the inevitable meeting between Dany and the blood of those  who killed her father even less. Tyrion getting to show up and say, "I killed the man who sacked your fathers capitol, the Usurper, his son, his ally stark and all his trueborn sons are dead" would be pretty awesome. If he is a secret targ all he gets is,"BTW you're my sis, we should be all good now." 

Unfortunately, stuff like this is rampant.  People also think Eruon is Dario as in a guy would fight for and kill for a woman and then after sleeping with her, sail to the other side of the world to have his brother killed, then take his throne and then send his other brother with a giant fleet back to get said woman while beating his brother back to her to go be a hostage for her enemies.  

I'm sad to say that I think it's very possible that Tyrion is going to turn out to be a Targ, why else put the hints of same in the world book?  I agree it destroys huge elements of the story's tragedy.

[Prince of the North]

8 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And that is my point: maybe he would, maybe he could, but he never did. His last name isn't Targaryen == he isn't a Targaryen. He isn't "known" as Rivers, that is his real surname, the only one he actually has (not "could have").

Ah, ok.  You're just talking about the fact that even though he was legitimized he never actually took the name Targaryen.  

[Lost Melnibonean]

2 hours ago, RumHam said:

Come on. The Tyrion is Aerys's son theory is not remotely on the same level as bullshit like Euron is Darrio. Even if you don't believe it, you should at least be able to acknowledge the clues actually exist, unlike with the Euron theory. 

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go "namsturbate" to the idea of Tyrion being a Targaryen bastard. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

5 hours ago, bent branch said:

You place Aegon in the false position because you believe that it will be a future event that makes Aegon false. You believe this even though we know that any important event involving Aemon must have occurred in the past. Despite the evidence within the vision itself that the importance of these dragons can come from the past or the future, you continue to insist that the false dragon cannot be Viserys because he is dead. Viserys' actions in past helped lead to the birth of the dragons. I will ask you the same thing I asked King Viserys. How does Tyrion just meeting Aemon effect the course of future events?

You are interpreting Moqorro's vision as if it was about Tyrion and there is no evidence it was.

I don't think it is Viserys because Tyrion never met Viserys before Viserys died. Moqorro stated that Tyrion is "snarling in the midst of it all" (or something to that effect) -- so YES, I think the vision is about Tyrion having interactions with the other 6 Targs. That is how I read the words that Moqorro spoke. Sorry that you disagree. That is what I think the words clearly mean.

I see the difference of opinion that the words are not clear whether Tyrion is one of the dragons -- I think he is and others do not -- and I see the words potentially consistent with either interpretation. But I don't see your interpretation. It is clear to me that the vision is about Tyrion interacting with those Targs. He never interacted with Viserys -- and never will as Viserys is dead. So I don't think Viserys can be one of the 6 being described in the vision.

I acknowledge alternatives that I view as plausible -- even if not my personal interpretation. For example, as noted above, I see how the vision could be of Tyrion being separate from the dragons and not one himself -- even though I think the vision indicates Tyrion is one of the dragons. But I am not persuaded to this point that your interpretation is plausible -- I think the only reasonable view is that the vision is about Tyrion being in the "midst" -- i.e., interacting with -- the other 6 dragons.

I am willing to change my view if I see persuasive arguments, but to this point you have not persuaded me that a dragon who has not interacted with Tyrion can be someone with whom Tyrion has ever been in the "midst" of (not that you are obligated to -- I am just trying to be clear with you on where I stand on the issue and why). And yes, I get that you think the reference to "midst" is just a reference to Tyrion being related to them. I simply don't find that interpretation plausible. That simply is not what "midst" means.

[Lord Wraith]

Little love for the Darkstar is a secret Targ here... at least he looks the part.

[Lost Melnibonean]

6 minutes ago, Lord Wraith said:

Little love for the Darkstar is a secret Targ here... at least he looks the part.

He's a Brightflame! 

[Lord Wraith]

1 minute ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

He's a Brightflame! 

That's a new one to me. I had him pegged as Jaeherys son of Aerys and Rhaelle. Well provided he isn't just a Dayne anyway. 

[dornishdame]

12 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

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 find this to be the best explanation I have come across for the description of the Targaryens in Moqorro's vision. It makes so much sense when you consider the pairings of young/old, bright/dark and true/false rather than trying to assign individual dragons to confirmed/suspected/claimant Targaryens, or going with those suspected of being dragon riders. The two things are completely separate and should be considered as such. 

[bent branch]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I don't think it is Viserys because Tyrion never met Viserys before Viserys died. Moqorro stated that Tyrion is "snarling in the midst of it all" (or something to that effect) -- so YES, I think the vision is about Tyrion having interactions with the other 6 Targs. That is how I read the words that Moqorro spoke. Sorry that you disagree. That is what I think the words clearly mean.

I see the difference of opinion that the words are not clear whether Tyrion is one of the dragons -- I think he is and others do not -- and I see the words potentially consistent with either interpretation. But I don't see your interpretation. It is clear to me that the vision is about Tyrion interacting with those Targs. He never interacted with Viserys -- and never will as Viserys is dead. So I don't think Viserys can be one of the 6 being described in the vision.

I acknowledge alternatives that I view as plausible -- even if not my personal interpretation. For example, as noted above, I see how the vision could be of Tyrion being separate from the dragons and not one himself -- even though I think the vision indicates Tyrion is one of the dragons. But I am not persuaded to this point that your interpretation is plausible -- I think the only reasonable view is that the vision is about Tyrion being in the "midst" -- i.e., interacting with -- the other 6 dragons.

I am willing to change my view if I see persuasive arguments, but to this point you have not persuaded me that a dragon who has not interacted with Tyrion can be someone with whom Tyrion has ever been in the "midst" of (not that you are obligated to -- I am just trying to be clear with you on where I stand on the issue and why). And yes, I get that you think the reference to "midst" is just a reference to Tyrion being related to them. I simply don't find that interpretation plausible. That simply is not what "midst" means.

I ended up in the conversation because I noticed that the OP came up with seven Targs from the beginning of the story. I found this interesting because Moqorro's vision would suggest that there are seven Targs in the story. You think there are eight or more. Okay.

The exact quote is, "A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all." I think it means Tyrion will be in the thick of the action. You think it means Tyrion will meet all of the dragons mentioned. Gotcha. Once upon a time I too believed that.

My problem with that is that I have thrown every combination of "dragon" into the matrix and the one that came out making the most sense was: Aemon/Old-Jon/Young; Dany/True-Viserys/False-Aegon/Bright-?/Dark. Does it bother me that I have failed to persuade someone who uses the term fAegon? No.

 

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

2 hours ago, bent branch said:

I ended up in the conversation because I noticed that the OP came up with seven Targs from the beginning of the story. I found this interesting because Moqorro's vision would suggest that there are seven Targs in the story. You think there are eight or more. Okay.

The exact quote is, "A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all." I think it means Tyrion will be in the thick of the action. You think it means Tyrion will meet all of the dragons mentioned. Gotcha. Once upon a time I too believed that.

My problem with that is that I have thrown every combination of "dragon" into the matrix and the one that came out making the most sense was: Aemon/Old-Jon/Young; Dany/True-Viserys/False-Aegon/Bright-?/Dark. Does it bother me that I have failed to persuade someone who uses the term fAegon? No.

 

There are plenty of characters with Targ blood. Way more than seven. But there aren't nearly enough trueborn members of House Targaryen to fill out the List of Dragons. Clearly there's another criteria for making the list. I think it's Targ-blooded characters who play central roles in the Song of Ice and Fire.

Old-Young refers to the Known Targaryens: Aemon and Dany

True-False refers to the sons of Rhaegar: Jon and fAegon

Bright-Dark is where it gets a little tricky. If Varys is a Brightflame then he certainly fits, but the case for that is far from solid. I actually think the S+B=Mel theory is stronger, and Mel certainly identifies with brightness. Bloodraven has his whole darkness speech:

Quote

"Never fear the darkness, Bran." The lord's words were accompanied by a faint rustling of wood and leaf, a slight twisting of his head. "The strongest trees are rooted in the dark places of the earth. Darkness will be your cloak, your shield, your mother's milk. Darkness will make you strong."

But then again there are plenty of characters with possible Targ blood who could turn dark. I think the jury will still have to be out for bright and dark. (Though personally, I think Mel and BR would be the best foils)

[UnmaskedLurker]

3 hours ago, bent branch said:

I ended up in the conversation because I noticed that the OP came up with seven Targs from the beginning of the story. I found this interesting because Moqorro's vision would suggest that there are seven Targs in the story. You think there are eight or more. Okay.

The exact quote is, "A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all." I think it means Tyrion will be in the thick of the action. You think it means Tyrion will meet all of the dragons mentioned. Gotcha. Once upon a time I too believed that.

My problem with that is that I have thrown every combination of "dragon" into the matrix and the one that came out making the most sense was: Aemon/Old-Jon/Young; Dany/True-Viserys/False-Aegon/Bright-?/Dark. Does it bother me that I have failed to persuade someone who uses the term fAegon? No.

 

To put the quote in context, I think one needs to consider the entire quote, including the words before the description of Tyrion that you site. So here is the complete quote from Moqorro: " 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. "

The question that I think we are grappling with is what "all" means in this context. You think it just means in the thick of the action. What action? The characters don't know that are in a book -- do they? So what action is Tyrion being told his is in the midst of?

Logically -- the action is regarding the six dragons being discussed in the prior sentence. Moqorro first describes the six dragons. Then he say "And you," indicating that Moqorro is continuing the thought -- not starting a brand new thought (i.e., the use of the conjunctive "and" indicates a connection between what what said before and after the word "and"). So it just does not make sense to suggest that GRRM is leading the readers to believe that Tyrion simply will be in the middle of the "action" in some general sense. No, the action of which Tyrion will be part is the action driven by these six dragons.

So for Tyrion to be in the middle of that action -- he has to have had some meaningful interaction with the six dragons. Otherwise he really is not in the middle of their action. Oh, and just because you used to share my view but now have a different view does not mean that you were incorrect then and correct now. Sometimes people hit on the correct solution initially but then talk themselves out of it.

As to my reference to fAegon, well that is based on independent analysis of the clues regarding YG and the speech that Varys gives to Kevan (the fact that is also makes the Moqorro vision make more sense is just a bonus). All of that information makes it highly likely, in my view, that YG is not the son of Rhaegar. If I am wrong, then of course he is not the false dragon.

But I don't see how he is the "bright" dragon even if he is the son of Rhaegar. In what sense does YG qualify as "bright" within the context of the series. And it should bother you that you don't have a pairing with YG for who could be the dark dragon. I don't know who YG could be pair with in terms of another dragon other than Dany -- assuming DoD 2.0 is their ultimate encounter (and Dany is already paired with Viserys in your list so she would not be two different dragons on the list).

I am not trying to "bother" you (as you put it). I am just trying to have a discussion and explain why I don't follow your logic or find it plausible. I don't take any of this personal, and I hope you don't either.