RumHam Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 42 minutes ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said: Rhaegar married Lyanna in the tradition of the Free Folk. Quite a few living people remember when he abducted her. ...and you really think this would be held as a valid marriage by anyone? Why did Ramsey bother marrying Lady Hornwood in two separate ceremonies if just "stealing" her was sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 2 hours ago, RumHam said: ...and you really think this would be held as a valid marriage by anyone? Why did Ramsey bother marrying Lady Hornwood in two separate ceremonies if just "stealing" her was sufficient? Ramsey was concerned about his marriage being legally binding in the 7K. Rhaegar evidently wasn't. Doesn't change the fact that it was obviously a Wilding wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Obviously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonsmurf Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 4 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said: Rhaegar married Lyanna in the tradition of the Free Folk. Quite a few living people remember when he abducted her. Why would a valyrian man and a northern girl marry in the tradition of the free folk? None of them had ever even met a wildling or been north of the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bent branch Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 13 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said: 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. Actually, you need to move forward in the quote to understand "all". Here is the paragraph that follows the word all: Quote "Snarling? An amiable fellow like me?" Tyrion was almost flattered. And no doubt that is just what he intends. Every fool loves to hear that he's important. "Perhaps it was Penny you saw. We're almost of a size." So Tyrion interprets the vision to mean that he will be in the thick of things, that he will be important. So GRRM thinks this is a reasonable conclusion to draw, so I don't think I'm off base even if we disagree. Also, I had gone back even further in the quote the first time I quoted it so it was perfectly acceptable for me to provide only the portion of the quote we were discussing. (As an aside, does your version of the book show "it all."? Because my version just shows all-this is just a curious question.) As for Aegon being the bright dragon we already see that happening. Aegon is going to be hailed as the savior of Westeros. The vision from the HotU reveals this. And this will happen whether Aegon is Rhaegar's son or not. It doesn't bother me at all that I can't place a name in that vacant spot. To be bothered by that would be the same as being bothered by an unknown variable in an algebra equation. In algebra you solve the equation to figure out the unknown value. Similarly I am using the known variables to help me figure out the unknown variable. And I should thank you, because in this discussion I have realized something about the matrix. In the first two pairings, Aemon/Jon and Dany/Viserys there are two dragons where one dragon is nurturing and teaching the other. Also in both pairings the "teacher" has died and the "student" continues on. I know at this point someone will say Viserys was terrible to Dany (and that is true), but he was also the one who kept her alive between the ages of 5 and 13. And we also know he had to be the one to teach Dany to read and write (because of their peripatetic lifestyle). This means the missing dragon probably also provided nurturing and guidance to Aegon (be he real or fake). This is most probably Illyrio since we know Aegon lived in Illyrio's manse, that Illyrio funded Aegon's life and lessons, and there is about a 90% chance that Illyrio is the descendent of Aegor Rivers and Calla Blackfyre, thus a Blackfyre of female line. This would also make Illyrio the "owner" of the GC, thus his comment about some contracts being written in blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, Dragonsmurf said: Why would a valyrian man and a northern girl marry in the tradition of the free folk? None of them had ever even met a wildling or been north of the wall. Good. These are the questions we need to be asking. I suspect it has something to do with prophecy. Perhaps we'll find out from Howland, who was there at the beginning and end of R+L. Maybe JonCon will share some insights about Rhaegar's intentions. I think there are hints in the parallels with Mance (Black&red royalty stealing a wife with a weirwood face sigil, and whose son assumes a false identity to escape mortal danger.) But regardless of why, Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna was clearly a Wilding wedding. BTW, nice tortoiseshell. I've also got a little bundle of naughtiness. (She's hiding in the corner of my Lemongate sig.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 21 hours ago, bent branch said: Does it bother me that I have failed to persuade someone who uses the term fAegon? No. To be fair, the term fAegon originated to show uncertainty between Faegon (fake Aegon) and Aegon (real Aegon). But Faegon fell out of use and most (not all) people now use fAegon to show their belief he is fake. Frankly I can't see how anyone can be certain confident either way. So I still use fAegon to indicate uncertainty. 13 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said: And, in the real world, their focus tends more towards the women than the men. As a girl who went to Catholic school, you will NOT convince me otherwise. I've listened to enough sermons and lessons and I've read enough history to know that the clergy didn't give a rat's ass about the men sleeping around behind their wives back, but would pounce on even the rumour that a woman was doing the same. Yes, but is that the fault of doctrine, or of the very fallible men that enforced it? (And the culture they created for themselves - or even the culture they came out of?.) Its symptomatic of why I don't have a lot of respect for organised religion in fact, though I do for what it is based on. I think doctrinally its all equal. It certainly is if you go back to the base material. And I think you do a disservice to some of the clergy too. Perhaps a small proportion, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There are too many fucking Targaryens. They are like hydra, for each Targaryen you kill, two secret ones pop in their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 7 hours ago, bent branch said: Actually, you need to move forward in the quote to understand "all". Here is the paragraph that follows the word all: So Tyrion interprets the vision to mean that he will be in the thick of things, that he will be important. So GRRM thinks this is a reasonable conclusion to draw, so I don't think I'm off base even if we disagree. Also, I had gone back even further in the quote the first time I quoted it so it was perfectly acceptable for me to provide only the portion of the quote we were discussing. (As an aside, does your version of the book show "it all."? Because my version just shows all-this is just a curious question.) Of course Tyrion is going to focus on the aspect of him being important -- and he will be important -- and the vision verifies that. But the reader needs to go back to the original quote to make true sense of it. Tyrion's focus should not necessarily be the reader's sole focus. GRRM tends not to hand these things to the readers on a "silver platter" but in any event in no way does Tyrion suggest that his importance is not in connection to the dragons -- he does not say one way or the other. I just don't think Tyrion's thoughts bolster your argument one way or the other. His thoughts are exactly what I would have expected him to think under the circumstances. But the vision from Moqorro is still the vision. As to my version of the book -- I pull the quotes on-line either from the wiki or from the searchoficeandfire website. 4 hours ago, corbon said: To be fair, the term fAegon originated to show uncertainty between Faegon (fake Aegon) and Aegon (real Aegon). But Faegon fell out of use and most (not all) people now use fAegon to show their belief he is fake. Frankly I can't see how anyone can be certain confident either way. So I still use fAegon to indicate uncertainty. Certain -- of course not. There are very few theories that anyone should be certain about. I am not even sure I am "certain" about RLJ (although probably about as close to certain as one can be without knowing absolutely). Confidence, on the other hand, is a bit slippery of a term. There are levels of confidence. To suggest that one cannot be "confident either way" seems to suggest that you think the evidence is more or less 50/50 on whether fAegon is the son of Rhaegar. If that is your position, then we disagree. I think the evidence is fairly strong that fAegon is not the son of Rhaegar. Whether he actually is just a Valyrian-looking kid from Essos, a Blackfyre descendant or a Brightflame descendant (or both), son of Illyrio or nephew of Varys (or both) -- well I have my leanings on those sub-issues, but with a lower degree of "confidence" than the basic proposition that fAegon likely is not the son of Rhaegar. If you truly think that the evidence on that base question is roughly 50/50, then I am surprised (given other analysis I have seen from you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jak Scaletongue Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 4 hours ago, corbon said: Yes, but is that the fault of doctrine, or of the very fallible men that enforced it? (And the culture they created for themselves - or even the culture they came out of?.) Its symptomatic of why I don't have a lot of respect for organised religion in fact, though I do for what it is based on. I think doctrinally its all equal. It certainly is if you go back to the base material. And I think you do a disservice to some of the clergy too. Perhaps a small proportion, Well, a lot of the doctrine came to Christianity via Judaism and the Old Testament and a lot of that doctrine was biased against women (likely because of the men writing the damn thing!) and in the New Testament, Paul especially, there's a lot of hatred towards and biases against women in his doctrine. The 4 gospel books aren't too bad - the biases there are rather "normal" for their time period, but nothing drastic. Paul's pretty drastic...Paul's actually a large chunk of the reason I don't consider myself Catholic anymore! But I disagree that doctrinally they're equal - they can't be, when both Testaments were written women were chattel, literally. Bought and sold by husbands and fathers - the doctrine can't be equal when the people aren't equal. But this isn't the thread for this discussion - thanks for the chat! 13 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said: Rhaegar married Lyanna in the tradition of the Free Folk. Quite a few living people remember when he abducted her. So, to our knowledge neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna knew anything about wildling customs but you think they'd still count it as a marriage themselves? Littlefinger abducted Sansa, are they "married" now too? That's not the best example, cause she's already "married" but it's early and my brain isn't coming up with any better ones! Anyways, the point - IF Rhaegar has no idea and Lyanna has no idea that abduction is how wildlings marry, how would *they* know they're married? If they don't know they're married by wildling customs neither of them are aware of, then they're not really married.... It's like the opposite of a schoolyard wedding - you know the words, you do it all proper like, you kiss the bride, but you're not really married. To the best of our knowledge, they may have done the wildling wedding thing proper like, but if they don't know it's a wildling wedding custom then they aren't married. If they don't know they're married, then they aren't really married...Jon certainly didn't consider himself married, even with Ygritte telling him otherwise! If neither of the parties understand the wildling custom, then the wildling marriage is irrelevant (...for now, I'll give you that - if we find out that either Lyanna or Rhaegar were knowledgeable of wildling wedding customs, then I might buy it. If it's a "wildling marriage" simply by default, with no consideration by Lyanna or Rhaegar of wildling customs it's not a "real" wildling wedding, just like Jon doesn't consider his a "marriage" real because he had no idea about wildling customs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 As to Moqorro's vision, I think it refers to the upcoming Second Dance of the Dragons, the principal plot line of the second act of ASOIAF, which will be fought between Aegon and Daenerys. Spoiler Referring to Aegon's host in the Stormlands... Quote "Once we know beyond a doubt whether these be friends or foes, my father will know what to do," the princess said. It was then that pasty, pudgy Teora raised her eyes from the creamcakes on her plate. "It is dragons." "Dragons?" said her mother. "Teora, don't be mad." "I'm not. They're coming." "How could you possibly know that?" her sister asked, with a note of scorn in her voice. "One of your little dreams?" Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. "They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died." Arianne I, Winds Apparently, Moqorro saw a similar vision... Quote What do you see in those flames?" "Dragons," Moqorro said in the Common Tongue of Westeros. He spoke it very well, with hardly a trace of accent. No doubt that was one reason the high priest Benerro had chosen him to bring the faith of R'hllor to Daenerys Targaryen. "Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all." Tyrion VIII, Dance 33 Tyrion is like the deuteragonist of a classical play. The deuteragonist would bounce back and forth between the protagonist, Daenerys in this second Dance, and the antagonist, Aegon. So, old and young are House Targaryen and House Blackfyre. True and false are Daenerys Daughter of Aerys and Aegon presumed son of Rhaegar. And bright and dark are the red dragon and the black dragon. And Tyrion, in the midst of all, who has already left Aegon's camp, albeit against his will, is looking to go over to Daenerys's camp. As many of us suspect he will either ride Daenerys's white dragon dragon or exert influence over it's rider (Brown Ben), and I got a golden dragon says he'll betray the queen regnant, just like Ulf the White did, for all the gold of Casterly Rock. (Although Ulf betrayed Rhaenyra for Highgarden, he got a poisoned bottle of Arbor gold instead). three treasons will you know . . . once for blood and once for gold and once for love . . . Daenerys IV, Clash 48 We pretty much know Illyrio is betraying her for blood, don't we? And since when it rains it pours, I think it's a safe bet that Aegon will betray her for love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 13 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said: As to Moqorro's vision, I think it refers to the upcoming Second Dance of the Dragons, the principal plot line of the second act of ASOIAF, which will be fought between Aegon and Daenerys. Hidden Content Apparently, Moqorro saw a similar vision... Tyrion VIII, Dance 33 Tyrion is like the deuteragonist of a classical play. The deuteragonist would bounce back and forth between the protagonist, Daenerys in this second Dance, and the antagonist, Aegon. So, old and young are House Targaryen and House Blackfyre. True and false are Daenerys Daughter of Aerys and Aegon presumed son of Rhaegar. And bright and dark are the red dragon and the black dragon. LM-- Wow -- a new interpretation that I don't think I ever saw before -- and I admit it might be right. What I think you are suggesting -- and correct me if I am wrong -- is that the vision is not about 6 dragons -- but only 2 dragons -- Dany and fAegon. Dany is the "old" (House Targ is an old House going back to Valayia) the "true" (she is who she says she is and is really from House Targ) and the "bright" (she is a "red" dragon as the Targ sigil is a red dragon on a black background); fAegon is the "new" (House Blackfyre is a relatively young House -- only a little over 100 years old) the "false" (he is not who he says he is, he is not the son of Rhaegar) and the "dark" (he is a "black" dragon as the Blackfyre sigil is a black dragon on a red background). And I think you also are suggesting that Tyrion will be a big part of the battle between Dany and fAegon (DoD 2.0) -- playing both sides at certain points. That makes some sense -- although in the end I think Tyrion must end up siding definitely with Dany -- as I believe they likely are two of the three heads -- and thus must become part of a team at some point. Please let me know if I have understood your theory correctly. I actually think this interpretation may be the right one -- I am not certain that the 6 dragon interpretation is wrong -- but I have less confidence now and this this alternative just might be the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weirwoods Eyes Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I like your idea of Illyrio being the betrayal for Blood. And I agree Tyrion is likely the betrayal for Gold. But if she and fAegon are fighting how will he betray her for love? Sorry if I am missing something obvious. Are you suggesting she and he wed after they war? but he betrays her for a woman he loves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 20 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said: LM-- Wow -- a new interpretation that I don't think I ever saw before -- and I admit it might be right. What I think you are suggesting -- and correct me if I am wrong -- is that the vision is not about 6 dragons -- but only 2 dragons -- Dany and fAegon. Dany is the "old" (House Targ is an old House going back to Valayia) the "true" (she is who she says she is and is really from House Targ) and the "bright" (she is a "red" dragon as the Targ sigil is a red dragon on a black background); fAegon is the "new" (House Blackfyre is a relatively young House -- only a little over 100 years old) the "false" (he is not who he says he is, he is not the son of Rhaegar) and the "dark" (he is a "black" dragon as the Blackfyre sigil is a black dragon on a red background). And I think you also are suggesting that Tyrion will be a big part of the battle between Dany and fAegon (DoD 2.0) -- playing both sides at certain points. That makes some sense -- although in the end I think Tyrion must end up siding definitely with Dany -- as I believe they likely are two of the three heads -- and thus must become part of a team at some point. Please let me know if I have understood your theory correctly. I actually think this interpretation may be the right one -- I am not certain that the 6 dragon interpretation is wrong -- but I have less confidence now and this this alternative just might be the right one. Yes! Please don't feel obligated to follow my logic. Nobody else does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said: Yes! Please don't feel obligated to follow my logic. Nobody else does Hey. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 20 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said: I like your idea of Illyrio being the betrayal for Blood. And I agree Tyrion is likely the betrayal for Gold. But if she and fAegon are fighting how will he betray her for love? Sorry if I am missing something obvious. Are you suggesting she and he wed after they war? but he betrays her for a woman he loves? The way it could work is sultry Arianne, with her ripe round breasts, huge dark nipples, and lush curves at waist and hip, seduces our boy Aegon. But, at Jon Connington's insistence, Aegon remains free to wed Daenerys. Then Daenerys shows up as Tyrion suggested and delivers her own brother's son in his hour of peril, meeting as equals, and perhaps negotiating a political marriage, that is upset by Blackfyre extremists and Arianne. Ivm not saying it will happen that way. But we can develop such scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weirwoods Eyes Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 hmmm, I can sorta see it I don't know why though I just kinda had in mind that the blood betrayal being Illyrio, he betrayed Daenerys for his own blood, by abandoning her to the red waste, yes? would rule out any chance of her hooking up with fAegon but I guess she is as unaware of fAegon being Illyrio's son as anyone else and has no real knowledge that he planned on her and Viserys never emerging from the Dothraki sea. We don't really understand fully yet what on earth his and Varys's plans for her at that time were though do we. I mean. It seems contradictory and vague and we only really have guess work to go on as to his full intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 15 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said: I got a golden dragon says he'll betray the queen regnant, just like Ulf the White did, for all the gold of Casterly Rock. (Although Ulf betrayed Rhaenyra for Highgarden, he got a poisoned bottle of Arbor gold instead). We pretty much know Illyrio is betraying her for blood, don't we? And since when it rains it pours, I think it's a safe bet that Aegon will betray her for love. I'll take you up on that golden dragon. Tyrion should be the betrayal for love. Dany will want Jaime's head and Tyrion will switch sides to save him. Considering that the happiest time of Tyrion's life was when he was living as a peasant (plus the fact that he's signed away half the gold of CR to the Second Sons,) I don't think gold is his priority; saving the one family member who loves him is. 15 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said: If they don't know they're married by wildling customs neither of them are aware of, then they're not really married.If they don't know they're married, then they aren't really married...Jon certainly didn't consider himself married, even with Ygritte telling him otherwise! I agree. If Rhaegar specifically hooked up with Lyanna in a way that would enrage two great houses, setting off a civil war that would result in his own death and the fall of his House just for shits and giggles, then you make a very good point. And it's so very good of you to bring Jon into the discussion. Do you suppose there's a reason George decided to make abduction-weddings a big part of his POV? And no, Jon did not consider himself married, but I believe George made it clear just how knowledgeable Jon is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jak Scaletongue Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 7 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said: I agree. If Rhaegar specifically hooked up with Lyanna in a way that would enrage two great houses, setting off a civil war that would result in his own death and the fall of his House just for shits and giggles, then you make a very good point. And it's so very good of you to bring Jon into the discussion. Do you suppose there's a reason George decided to make abduction-weddings a big part of his POV? And no, Jon did not consider himself married, but I believe George made it clear just how knowledgeable Jon is. It's definitely in there for some reason - but while we know Jon is aware of this custom, with nothing pointing to either Rhaegar or Lyanna knowing about this custom (so far...I'll grant that, there's lots of book yet to come), but with no inkling that *they* had an inkling of this custom then I don't see how it would count as a "real" marriage if the two who are involved aren't aware it's a marriage custom. Did that make sense? I haven't finished my coffee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thuckey Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 On 1/28/2016 at 6:38 AM, Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren said: There are too many fucking Targaryens. They are like hydra, for each Targaryen you kill, two secret ones pop in their place. Haha. Made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.