Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, it does not. The memory of a lemon tree by the house with the red door points to it's existence anywhere lemon trees can be grown. Not to Dorne only. Dorne and Lys and other places in Martin's world have climates where lemon trees are native. Other places the lemon tree can be grown with special attention and the resources to do so. Braavos is among the many places that fall into the latter category. You make a jump in logic to eliminate the entire latter category, and even other places where lemon trees are native. You do so without any evidence to eliminate these other places, and, in fact, against evidence that places the house with the Red Door and its lemon tree in Braavos. That's a fact. No straw man.

Hmmm... There may be a "jump in logic" as you call it (I think dismissing possibilities is more accurate)... But the point is to seek an explanation as to why Martin continues to repeat a very specific point.

Fundamentally, it boils down to how many repetitions are enough to make you believe they are clues to a hidden mystery. If you don't think there is something to be sought, you will see "jumps in logic" everywhere. In reality, they're not "jumps in logic": they're ideas, theories, assumptions... Whether one finds them reasonable or not depends on one's perspective. But faulting the logic itself is a bit unfair methinks...

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Ah. That was related to the first part of my post, the garrison of Dragonstone who wanted to give away the Targlings (lol, a nice nick)

But why assume the whole garrison would have to be involved or tricked for a swap to take place? This makes absolutely no sense. Baby swaps happen behind closed doors with a very limited number of people involved, regardless of where and when they take place. Jon swapping two babies didn't involve the entire Nightwatch needing to be involved or fooled, did it? Varys (or one his agents) possibly swapping Aegon before the Sack doesn't mean he would have had to fool the entire population of King's Landing or even all the soldiers in the Keep...
So why would you bring the entire garrison of Dragonstone into this?
Sorry but from my perspective every one of your objections rests on debatable assumptions. Like, why assume that the other baby was there for the purpose of swapping from the first? Why assume that an entire garrison would need to see a baby to believe there is one? Why assume that Robert and his spies always knew exactly where the Targlings where and what they were up to?
Sorry, I hate these kinds of exchanges...

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... There may be a "jump in logic" as you call it (I think dismissing possibilities is more accurate)... But the point is to seek an explanation as to why Martin continues to repeat a very specific point.

Fundamentally, it boils down to how many repetitions are enough to make you believe they are clues to a hidden mystery. If you don't think there is something to be sought, you will see "jumps in logic" everywhere. In reality, they're not "jumps in logic": they're ideas, theories, assumptions... Whether one finds them reasonable or not depends on one's perspective. But faulting the logic itself is a bit unfair methinks...

I thought I made it clear relative to the highlighted portion that it only takes one if it is the right one. I think the existence of a lemon tree next to the Targaryen house in Dany's memories is a clue and an important one. It is a question of what does that clue tell us.I think it is the first clue that tells us that there are rich and powerful people besides Illyrio who support Viserys's clam to the throne. Furthermore, the close tie of the symbol of the lemon tree links that support to Dorne. This is at odds with Dany's memories of her and Viserys against the world. Something that makes sense with the very young Dany's lack of knowledge around the politics of their exile.

Now, the simplest explanation is just the Sealord of Braavos gives them a house to stay in that has the lemon tree already planted there, or he has it planted as a symbol of Westeros to make them feel comfortable in their exile. One should not rule this possibility out because often the simplest explanation is the best. However, as we travel through our story there comes the story of the Red Viper's trip to Braavos and the signing of the marriage compact. With this new information at hand we need to reevaluate the lemon tree, I think.

In Westeros, the lemon tree is tied to Dorne, not to the rest of Westeros. So, with the Red Viper's visit combined with the new knowledge of the marriage pact, I think it makes more sense to see the lemon tree coming from Oberyn's own hands and his silent expression of support from his brother Doran. Only a close read of the text reveals this possibility before A Storm of Swords, so I think it is a great catch to look at the lemon tree existence in Braavos as a clue. The problem is when we get away from what the evidence tells us and create theories out of thin air.

[Voice]

On December 30, 2016 at 4:18 AM, SFDanny said:

Oh, please, Voice, No! You are not still promoting that old nonsense. It's so full of holes and disinformation that it is embarrassing!

If one need to look at it, for historical sake as an early, not so good, attempt to build wild crackpot ideas out of nothing, then one should at least look at the rebuttal arguments in this thread. Note that all the argumentation for a faked birth at Dragonstone and against the escape to Braavos is omitted by most people in this thread who are trying to construct a way for a baby swap to work. I'd say that is good advice because it weighs the theory you link to down like a lead balloon.

 

I've seen your thread. No offense, but I would leave you to it, my friend.

I'd be happy to join in an honest debate in the original thread, but it just seems strange and rude to do so without the original poster. It is not my theory to  balloon. 

[Voice]

On December 31, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Greywater-Watch said:

 

@SFDanny I feel that your wording is disrespectful towards other members of this forum posting a different theory than yours (e.g. @Voice, @Victarion Chainbreaker).

 

 

Why thank you, kind ser or lady. 

@SFDanny is one of the good ones on this forum though. SFD's tone may grow less than magnaminous or concilatory at times, but those times are quite rare. In fact, SFD is a member at our very (some would say, "too") open-minded forum. 

 

But nonetheless, you, like many of us, are noticing that tensions seem to run quite high around the topic of parentage. People flock to their preferred equations like bannermen to their lords. 

 

On December 31, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Greywater-Watch said:

This forum lives from exchanging different theories, as long as they are based on good arguments. And I think there are good arguments for questioning that the house with the red door and the lemon tree actually were located at Braavos, with all its possible implications for Daenerys' identity or at least the travel route she followed.

 

Words I have oft-spoke. The conversation is the reward. 

And given the lack of resolution for this series, certainty is the realm of the foolhardy. 

 

On December 31, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Greywater-Watch said:

Why do you take GRRM's SSM (http://i.imgur.com/EXN26tk.png) so lightly?

 

LOL! Careful my friend. You might draw some wrath speaking such things. (And that is but one inconvenient SSM that tends to be given little weight in deliberations here.)

 

On December 31, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Greywater-Watch said:

Have you ever considered that from the point of view of others, YOU yourself follow your wishes and (wild) fantasies? Your argumentation of southern trees growing in San Francisco (today, 2016 AD) where they should not, does not convince me at all.

 

Well, it could well be that Braavos is GRRM's homage to the city by the bay. A dark cloud hangs over my Niners, and our Sealord exiled the coach that was promised. 

 

On December 31, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Greywater-Watch said:

One more thing that makes me wonder: as wood is scarce in Braavos, I would not have expected this in the house with the red door: "One of its rooms had great wooden beams with carved animal faces adorning them."

 

An excellent observation. 

I must ask, given your username, have you read GRRM's The Men of Greywater Station?

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

In Westeros, the lemon tree is tied to Dorne, not to the rest of Westeros. So, with the Red Viper's visit combined with the new knowledge of the marriage pact, I think it makes more sense to see the lemon tree coming from Oberyn's own hands and his silent expression of support from his brother Doran. Only a close read of the text reveals this possibility before A Storm of Swords, so I think it is a great catch to look at the lemon tree existence in Braavos as a clue. The problem is when we get away from what the evidence tells us and create theories out of thin air.

Well I can't fault the logic , this was one of the explanations I considered more than a year ago.

To quote:

Quote

 

1b) The "Link with Dorne" theory.

Explanation: The lemon tree is an early hint that the Dornish seek a Targaryen restoration.
Pros: Oberyn Martell traveled to Braavos and could have brought a small lemon tree as a gift.
Implications: None, since we now know of the marriage pact.
Cons: The hints about the lemon trees have continued way after the reader learned that the Dornish were Targaryen loyalists.

 

I guess in this case, we would have to assume the passage in the Mercy chapter is indeed incidental. A bit surprising, given that the best clue about the lemon tree comes after the reveal that the Dornish are Targ' loyalists, but it's not a possibility that can be ruled out.

Yet... I think this doesn't address the real issue, which is that Dany sees the house with the red door as home. This is central to her identity without necessarily being central to her parentage: though we often confuse the two, it is a fact that Dany's identity is a plot point (will she remain a compassionate idealist, or embrace a more wrathful style of power), while her parentage is not.

In the last discussion I'd moved away from the moe fantastic theories and focused more on the question of identity, which is a recurrent theme throughout the books for many POV characters:

Quote

I've been thinking for a while now that the House with the Red Door is central to Dany's identity. By that I mean how she defines herself, sees herself, and possibly what she truly wishes for and what her personal values are.

We don't have to go into parentage for the location of the House with the Red Door to have massive consequences. Just take two basic what-if scenarios:

- What if... The memory is an illusion, and Dany realizes that she was never really happy in her entire life?

- What if... She finds out that the House is in a secluded place somewhere no one would find her if she hid there to lead a peaceful life?

I believe the HwtRD is important, and thus lemongate as well. But I think one should look for the impact on her self-perception, and thus, how this could change her.

What I wonder if whether she could take a turn for the worst and become the incarnation of fire magic gone wild, devastating Westeros with "fire and blood" ...

I think the "link with Dorne" theory is indeed simple. Too simple. Let's not forget that although the lemon tree is only mentioned two or three times (can't remember exactly), the house with the red door is mentioned on average once per Dany chapter throughout more than one book (forgive the approximation, I don't feel like counting again). This is something that is very important for the character, and it's only natural (and dare I say, logical) that people would wonder whether her parentage can be in doubt.

Now, since I'll willingly admit we don't have anything concrete to question her parentage (quite the contrary), we're back to identity. What does it mean that Dany misplaces the location of her "ideal" childhood?

 

[PrettyPig]

On 12/30/2016 at 11:10 AM, Sigella said:

I'm not all in on it being romance, though, "looked to" as a synonym for "romanced" is not one I've ever heard. It doesn't sit right.

 

On 12/30/2016 at 11:49 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It seems like something did happened to her at ToHH and after that she looked at a Stark

 

On 12/30/2016 at 2:24 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So the dishonoring was after her falling for a Stark and caused by a Stark or was after her falling for a Stark and not caused by a Stark or the dishonoring was just a sexual relationship with a Stark?

 

On 12/30/2016 at 4:29 PM, maudisdottir said:

I think it's ambiguous but also rests on what is considered "dishonoured". 

Barristan thinks it was the catalyst for all of the bad stuff that went down, and could have been avoided if he had won the tourney instead of Rhaegar.  So not only is he regretting it on Ashara's behalf, but also what happened to the entire kingdom because of it (R+L and the "thousands (who) died for it").

There's actually a scenario that can reconcile all of this business pretty easily - however, it requires you to step out of your headcanon for a bit and likewise leaves you with more questions than it answers, but it does work for the dishonoring at Harrenhal...and may support a fake Dany backstory as well, depending on how far you want to go with it.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Voice said:

I've seen your thread. No offense, but I would leave you to it, my friend.

I'd be happy to join in an honest debate in the original thread, but it just seems strange and rude to do so without the original poster. It is not my theory to  balloon. 

Yet you promote it in these threads, why? No offense meant, Voice. But if you are only looking for people to go to the other forum and not comment on essays posted there in these forums, you might want to state so upfront. If that's the case, I'd hope you change your mind. I'd like to see a discussion of your own essay on Jaime as Rhaegar's catspaw. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think you would find people here who would like to comment on it. If you have already done so, please post a link to the thread here. In my opinion, it's a much better piece, even if I have my disagreements.

"My thread," as you call it, was started when another poster did just as you did in posting a link to the article. I also see you have done the same thing in a thread on the same topic in the ADwD threads. I'm not sure how one gets to call those who respond to your call to read the essay and they then post their disagreements either strange or rude. If you link it to these forums, then people have the right to say what they think about it. Or at least that is my view. The OP is free to come here and participate if he wants to read what the people of these forums think. It's pretty clear there are many and varied opinions on the subject here.

[Voice]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Yet you promote it in these threads, why? No offense meant, Voice. But if you are only looking for people to go to the other forum and not comment on essays posted there in these forums, you might want to state so upfront. If that's the case, I'd hope you change your mind.

 

I'm not merely looking for people to go to our little forum. As you have seen in some of the responses you yourself have received, some people are turned off by the dismissal of differing opinions that so oft slows and hampers the process of debate. We don't have that problem in our forum. Rather than dismiss new or differing opinions and perspectives that might clash with popular ones, we encourage such dissent and novelty. 

I know you can appreciate that. And like I said in another post, you are one of the more amicable members at westeros.org, imo. But you have to admit that differing points of view are often dismissed by certain westerosi as failures of reading comprehension, overly contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nonsensical, or trolling. 

Case in point:  Even with the self-depreciating tone of this thread's title, and OP, you and others have felt the need to fault the ideas contained in the original post, rather than simply discuss them for the sake of new conversation.

This has always struck me as odd. Rather than replay a single narrative over the course of hundreds of threads, why not find new narratives? New ideas? New perspectives? 

For me, that is what it's all about. MarkG171's (f)Dany theory is in that spirit. If dismissed, business carries on as usual. If considered (with an open mind), new ground might be discovered. 

I can only speak for myself, but Protect vs Obey, and Bastard vs King, have grown more than tiresome. They are a tranquilizer. 

 

Quote

I'd like to see a discussion of your own essay on Jaime as Rhaegar's catspaw. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think you would find people here who would like to comment on it. If you have already done so, please post a link to the thread here. In my opinion, it's a much better piece, even if I have my disagreements.

 

Flattery will get you everywhere. LOL

Rhaegar's Catspaw Assassin

 

Quote

"My thread," as you call it, was started when another poster did just as you did in posting a link to the article. I also see you have done the same thing in a thread on the same topic in the ADwD threads. I'm not sure how one gets to call those who respond to your call to read the essay and they then post their disagreements either strange or rude. If you link it to these forums, then people have the right to say what they think about it. Or at least that is my view. The OP is free to come here and participate if he wants to read what the people of these forums think. It's pretty clear there are many and varied opinions on the subject here.

 

Tis a free world, and far be it from me to limit your freedoms. And, no, of course the act of posting your disagreement alone is neither strange nor rude. But you can surely understand that I find it odd to criticize a person's work with such fervor without that person being present to defend it. It feels like moving a trial out of a defendant or plantiff's zip code in order to ensure a more favorable verdict. To each his own. I was only stating why I'd rather not play at water balloons so far from the tap.  

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well I can't fault the logic , this was one of the explanations I considered more than a year ago.

As they say, great minds think alike, right? Except mine is getting less great as the years add up. My ideas were formed in response to posters bringing the Preston Jacobs videos here some time ago.

 

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I guess in this case, we would have to assume the passage in the Mercy chapter is indeed incidental. A bit surprising, given that the best clue about the lemon tree comes after the reveal that the Dornish are Targ' loyalists, but it's not a possibility that can be ruled out.

One thing your going to find, my friend, is I will continue to harp on the need to use spoiler tags or take the discussion of spoiler chapters to the appropriate forum. I hate people making the decision about spoilers for me, and I try to not make those decisions for others. It one of the reasons I come here because of the clear lines about such things.

Spoiler

The Mercy chapter's lines of dialog between the two guards is in no way new. It just repeats what has been said in various forms for quite a while now. I guess the one reference there that is fairly new is the statement of Braavos being north of King's Landing. I think most of us knew that, but the release of the world maps confirmed it. But the core of the facts - Braavos being a climate not native to lemon trees has been know for a vary long time. But so has the facts about Winterfell's glass houses. It shouldn't be a shock to hear people make the argument about the Sealord's gardens, or how non-native plants are grown in different climates. The one thing that is relatively new is the confirmation of the marriage pact as revealed in A Dance with Dragons. That is what I think every theory about this topic needs deal with.

 

[khal drogon]

On 12/30/2016 at 11:25 PM, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Pardon me for barging in, but...

I've just been reading the last few pages and there's something I don't understand. Why is it so important that Dany grow up in Dorne? That makes no sense. It seems to me that you're forgetting Viserys. He was next in line and it was HIS claim that mattered. Not hers. Dany was and is Plan C for Illyrio and Varys. If Aegon is the real deal, then her claim still plays second fiddle to his. 

Viserys was eight years older than Dany. If he says they wandered the Free Cities, maybe we should believe him. He definitely never said they stayed in Dorne and I see no reason why Doran Martell would want to shelter them there. Betrothing his daughter to Viserys is one thing. Having them so close to Robert and bringing down the whole might of the Seven Kingdoms on his head is quite another. 

I prefer the explanation that Dany is always intended as a bargaining chip for a marriage alliance. If Viserys had to agree to a plan then he had to believe it would help him to become a king. If Viserys beat Dany into believing herself as a Targaryen is true it means he was with the plan. She was to be given to any lord who would pledge to his cause. As days went he became desperate enough to say fuck it and agreed to give her to barbaric horselords if that gave him an army which is also a weird marriage choice for a Targaryen princess. The rise of Dany's importance only happened after she hatched the dragons.

[khal drogon]

On 12/31/2016 at 11:05 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Since we're apparently still talking lemon trees, I think it will be fun to throw the Tyroshi connection into the mix.

[Edit: wrong link, sorry.]

 

That doesn't say anything really. Maybe he initially named the city that was called Braavos now as Tyrosh.

[monsterface]

@SFDany, I do think you're making a bit much in your Westeros.org post about the lasthearth.com (f)Dany post out of the word choice "trouble conceiving" as applied to Aerys and Rhaella. Of course, you're totally, demonstrably right that they were quite able to conceive, but I think it's pretty obvious from the context that markg171 means to refer to their problems having living children that then survived infancy by using that phrase. Did markg make an inaccurate word choice in describing those issues? Definitely. Is there an inarguable hole in the theory because of that? Not so much, in my opinion, because like I say, it's obvious what they're meaning by it.

I'm not at all saying that I buy (f)Dany, because I don't, really - I'd be interested if it turned out to be true, but I think at this stage I more lean towards the lemon tree as evidence of Dornish supporters - but I do think focussing on semantics like that is not particularly relevant to your argument.  

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, monsterface said:

@SFDany, I do think you're making a bit much in your Westeros.org post about the lasthearth.com (f)Dany post out of the word choice "trouble conceiving" as applied to Aerys and Rhaella. Of course, you're totally, demonstrably right that they were quite able to conceive, but I think it's pretty obvious from the context that markg171 means to refer to their problems having living children that then survived infancy by using that phrase. Did markg make an inaccurate word choice in describing those issues? Definitely. Is there an inarguable hole in the theory because of that? Not so much, in my opinion, because like I say, it's obvious what they're meaning by it.

I'm not at all saying that I buy (f)Dany, because I don't, really - I'd be interested if it turned out to be true, but I think at this stage I more lean towards the lemon tree as evidence of Dornish supporters - but I do think focussing on semantics like that is not particularly relevant to your argument.  

@monsterface first, welcome to the boards. I think you will like westeros. Have fun here.

I'm kind of flattered that you took the occasion of your first post to criticize something I wrote. At least it provoked a response. Let me say, I started out when reading the essay in question with the same conclusion you have about the specific opening "mistake" on the part of the author. After having analyzed the entire post I had to reluctantly change my opinion based on the pattern set throughout the essay. Facts are consistently distorted and what I can only describe as a lying technique used on the part of the author. One cannot be so consistently making "errors" about the truth without knowing they are errors. So I reached the conclusion that author wasn't interested in a honest discussion, but rather he is interested in trying to fool his readers. After slogging your way through the essay, and the rebuttals, If you think I'm wrong, let me know. If the discussion has gone on you can either send me a personal message, or resurrect the thread. If the @ symbol is used and immediately followed by my username it will be highlighted in red and I will be notified of your response. It won't be the first time I've made a mistake, but in this instance I don't think I am mistaken. Welcome. 

SFDanny

[Greywater-Watch]

15 hours ago, Voice said:

I must ask, given your username, have you read GRRM's The Men of Greywater Station?

No, I have not. The parentage of my name is linked to the mysteries I await to be cleared up by Howland Reed.

[Voice]

3 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

No, I have not. The parentage of my name is linked to the misteries I await to be cleared up by Howland Reed.

Howland Reed is quite intriguing. Greywater Watch is an homage to Greywater Station. GRRM repeats quite a few themes in asoiaf from his other series. (Blue roses in Bitterblooms, Lyanna's wolf blood in A Song for Lya). Greywater Station is quite an interesting story. I won't mention any spoilers in case anyone is interested in reading it, but it may well give us some insight to the Crannogmen and their unique use of poisons (if not their true origin, then perhaps an analogy). 

 

@SFDanny, just so you know, I did reply to your query. We posted at nearly the exact same time, so I thought you may have missed it. 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/144580-why-daenerys-dayne-may-not-be-a-ridiculous-idea/&do=findComment&comment=7838082

 

[SFDanny]

42 minutes ago, Voice said:

@SFDanny, just so you know, I did reply to your query. We posted at nearly the exact same time, so I thought you may have missed it. 

Thanks, Voice. I don't have much time to post this morning, but I'm very glad to see your essay linked. Get back to it later. And if I haven't already said it - Happy New Year, my friend!

[Voice]

On December 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM, black_hart said:

Oddly, the only actual red door shown in the books is on Dragonstone.

 

On it's own, tis but a fun bit of alliteration. Bearing GRRM's multi-layered subtlety in mind, it is quite another thing. 

Red Door ~ Red Dorne

[Voice]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Thanks, Voice. I don't have much time to post this morning, but I'm very glad to see your essay linked. Get back to it later. And if I haven't already said it - Happy New Year, my friend!

 

Yes, Happy New Year! 

[PrettyPig]

I'll propose something I worked out a while back that could possibly resolve the mystery of the "dishonoring", as well as provide some support for Dany as a Dayne/daughter of Ashara.      This won't be a popular idea as it will be in conflict with some favorite fan theories, but my purpose was really just to ferret out scenarios that might work.    Although I have a couple more, this one seems to check the most boxes.

First, I want to highlight GRRM's description of Rhaegar and Elia's relationship as "it's complicated", plus the notion from the text that Rhaegar was "fond" of Elia.     Those two things in combination lean toward the idea that while the marriage may not have been necessarily bad, it wasn't a hotbed of passion, either.

Let's follow that up with two SSMs from some long ago fan conversations regarding Dorne and paramours.

1.  Scifi.com Chat, December 2000:

Moderator: <Linda> to <Moderator>: A couple of times in the books, the word "paramour" is used in connection with the Dornishmen (Lord Yronwood's paramour and Ellaria Sand), but no one else. Is that meant to connote customs and habits peculiar to the Dornish, or is it simply coincidence?
GRRM: Dornish customs and habits.  The Rhoynar influence.   A Dornishman's paramour has a certain status, below that of a wife but not insignifcant.

2.  ConJose August 2002:

Can any noble have a paramour regardless of gender, rank, or marital status? For example, an unwed young heiress having a paramour.
No comment.

Could each partner in a marriage have their own paramour?
Yes, but it would depend on the rank of the partners.

So there's some typical GRRM hedging there, but now we know that A/ paramours aren't exactly bottom-of-the-barrel mistresses, and B/ married people can have paramours.

 

Now, let's turn to this oft-discussion passage given to us from Barristan's PoV, ADWD The Kingbreaker:

Quote

Rhaegar had chosen Lyanna Stark of Winterfell. Barristan Selmy would have made a different choice. Not the queen, who was not present. Nor Elia of Dorne, though she was good and gentle; had she been chosen, much war and woe might have been avoided. His choice would have been a young maiden not long at court, one of Elia's companions … though compared to Ashara Dayne, the Dornish princess was a kitchen drab.

Even after all these years, Ser Barristan could still recall Ashara's smile, the sound of her laughter. He had only to close his eyes to see her, with her long dark hair tumbling about her shoulders and those haunting purple eyes. Daenerys has the same eyes. Sometimes when the queen looked at him, he felt as if he were looking at Ashara's daughter …

But Ashara's daughter had been stillborn, and his fair lady had thrown herself from a tower soon after, mad with grief for the child she had lost, and perhaps for the man who had dishonored her at Harrenhal as well. She died never knowing that Ser Barristan had loved her. How could she? He was a knight of the Kingsguard, sworn to celibacy. No good could have come from telling her his feelings. No good came from silence either. If I had unhorsed Rhaegar and crowned Ashara queen of love and beauty, might she have looked to me instead of Stark?

In my exercise, I broke out some of the individual statements in this passage and tried to look at each independent of any other data or conclusion - so this is kicking out any "Brandon and Ashara got busy in his tent" and "Aerys raped Ashara" stuff straight away.     The text itself is rather ambiguously worded as well, so I wanted to see what was actually being said.

Going out of order, the famous final line:

Quote

If I had unhorsed Rhaegar and crowned Ashara queen of love and beauty, might she have looked to me instead of Stark?

Barristan is looking at this from the perspective of the person who placed second at the tourney, the guy who lost to the champion, Prince Rhaegar Targareyn.     This is some tricksy wording here, because Barristan thinks had he won, had he given her the QoLaB laurel, Ashara would have looked to him...the VICTOR...instead of Stark.      This somewhat implies that winning the tourney was important because Ashara "looked to" the champion - however, this does not follow logically, because the champion was Rhaegar...and Ashara didn't look to Rhaegar, she looked to Stark.   But...no Stark was victorious at the tourney.

No male Stark.      Brandon, Ned, and Benjen didn't win a thing...but another Stark took home quite a high honor indeed.

 

Next, this line:

Quote

Rhaegar had chosen Lyanna Stark of Winterfell. Barristan Selmy would have made a different choice. Not the queen, who was not present. Nor Elia of Dorne, though she was good and gentle; had she been chosen, much war and woe might have been avoided.

So no surprise there - if Rhaegar had picked his own wife, all would have stayed right with the world.     Much war and woe might have been avoided....and presumably, Ashara might not have looked to Stark.

This begs the question:   why would Ashara Dayne have taken notice of Selmy instead had she been crowned by him, or not batted an eye had Elia been crowned by Rhaegar, but been compelled to "look to Stark" once Lyanna had received the glory as QoLaB?

The answer, IMO, is in the paramour - a paramour with status beneath a wife, but not insignificant.   A paramour who might be flattered to receive recognition from another man, but also be okay with their consort giving recognition to the existing spouse...a relationship to which a paramour would be accustomed.    However, a man showing attention to a woman besides the paramour OR the wife?    A woman that a paramour doesn’t know, one that might threaten her position?   That’s a problem.

Had Rhaegar chosen Elia, much war and woe might have been avoided.   But, Rhaegar chose Lyanna Stark...and Ashara later looked to Stark, a memory that gives Barristan great cause for regret  -  no good came from staying silent about his feelings for her, for not making her aware that someone (else) loved and wanted her.

What did Ashara Dayne do?

 

Quote

But Ashara’s daughter had been stillborn, and his fair lady had thrown herself from a tower soon after, mad with grief for the child she had lost, and perhaps for the man who had dishonored her at Harrenhal as well.

Rhaegar was the winner of the Harrenhal tourney.
Rhaegar gave honors to Lyanna Stark.
Ashara Dayne, who received no crown, was dishonored at Harrenhal.
Ashara Dayne committed suicide sometime after Ned brought news to Starfall - mad with grief over her child, and the man who dishonored her at Harrenhal.
Grief, meaning over one who has died.
Rhaegar died at the Trident.

 

Re: Dany possibly being her daughter, we have this part of the passage:

Quote

Even after all these years, Ser Barristan could still recall Ashara’s smile, the sound of her laughter. He had only to close his eyes to see her, with her long dark hair tumbling about her shoulders and those haunting purple eyes. Daenerys has the same eyes. Sometimes when the queen looked at him, he felt as if he were looking at Ashara’s daughter ...

Ashara was "not long at court" at Harrenhal per Barristan, and per text and SSM Ashara returned to Starfall at some point during the war, though not "nailed to the floor" there.    Did she leave King's Landing/Dragonstone voluntarily,  or was she sent away?

An excerpt from TWOIAF on the reign of Aerys II may establish precedent:

Quote

"It would later be rumoured that, on the night of Jaehaerys's coronation, Aerys took the maidenhead of Lady Joanna Lannister, who had come to court for the celebrations. There are rumours that Joanna had given her maidenhead to Prince Aerys the night of Jaehaerys' coronation, and briefly became Aerys' paramour after he ascended the throne himself.    Not long thereafter, Joanna was dismissed by Queen Rhaella from her service in King's Landing.   While Queen Rhaella turned a blind eye towards most of her husband's infidelities, she did not approve when it concerned one of her own "ladies."  (Joanna was one of many ladies to be sent away from court.) She departed for Casterly Rock at once, and seldom visited King's Landing afterwards."

I believe this was touched upon in the fake-Dany thread that has been discussed here on the last couple of pages, but yeah.... it's the oldest story in the book:   guy falls for the hot sister of his best friend or the saucy maid who works for him.  Ashara is both.  Plus, it's not the first time in real life or even in the story that we've seen some lovestruck chump move his side piece into a close-proximity job so they can be together (I'm eyeballing you, Tyrion).     Ashara "not long at court" indeed....I wonder who brought her there?   And is it possible that she had to leave because she overstepped her bounds as a paramour, perhaps getting too deeply involved or....maybe even falling pregnant?

Again, Ashara returned to Dorne at some point after the Tourney of Harrenhal but before the end of the war.    We don't know when, but this part of Barristan's recollection:

Quote

But Ashara’s daughter had been stillborn, and his fair lady had thrown herself from a tower soon after

...along with the general consensus that Ashara was still alive and residing at Starfall when Ned returned Dawn post-TOJ leads me to believe that the birth of her child either coincided with Ned's visit or happened shortly afterward...her swan dive off the Palestone could only have happened after Ned got to Starfall.    If Rhaegar was actually chilling with Ashara (and not Lyanna) in the south during the war and she became pregnant before Rhaegar left for KL, it's quite possible that Dany is this child, just age-fudged by a few months.

Ashara returned to Dorne at some point between the Tourney and the end of the Rebellion.
Rhaegar disappears, supposedly with Lyanna, and is AWOL through the first part of the war.
Per Jaime, Rhaegar "returned from the south" to take control of the royal forces.
Ashara had a stillborn daughter.
This child would have been born in the south
Daenerys has Ashara's eyes.
Dany has a strong connection with Rhaegar.

There's also Ned's coldness toward Catelyn at the mention of that name, my lady, Cersei's comment to Ned in the godswood of "was it the brother you killed, or the child you stole?", and Dany's jumbled memories along with her association with starlight that makes me think yes, she is Ashara's daughter - a bastard daughter of Rhaegar professed dead so as not to invoke the wrath of Dayne liege lord Doran Martell, but in reality sent away to play the role of a true Targaryen - Rhaegar's sister instead of his daughter.      This is getting into pure conjecture territory, though, so I won't belabor it.

    
To conclude:

Obviously, the premise of this theory is that Ashara had been involved in a cozy little affair, maybe even as a paramour, with none other than Rhaegar Targaryen.   Rhaegar is the man who dishonored her at Harrenhal, Rhaegar is the stupid prince whose death caused her to jump from her stupid tower, and I think Ashara somehow tricked the Starks /deceived them in some way - particularly Ned, perhaps taking advantage of his sense of honor -  and then betrayed them in the end.    I think that looking at the evidence comprehensively supports the idea that Ashara may have "looked to" LYANNA Stark, rather than the traditional assumption of Brandon or Ned - why, and what resulted, is still TBD.

[monsterface]

@SFDanny You should definitely be flattered! I’ve been reading the boards for months now, and I finally felt ready to jump in. You seemed prepared to argue, but able to be respectful, and also you provided lots of sources for me to, as you say, slog through. I’m sorry if it feels targeted, I really don’t mean it that way. 

 

Let me start by saying again that I don’t necessarily buy (f)Dany. I totally agree with everyone that  we’re going to get some kind of reveal about Dany, and like you, I think that reveal is going to be entrenched Dornish support. But at the same time, I’m always interested in other theories, so I read everything linked with interest. 

 

To my mind, the stupidest part of the (f)Dany essay is the argument that Illryio is too fat to have “fucked” his “bedwarmer” when he met Dany, so he must have met her younger, when he was skinnier. Leaving aside the fact that fat people can in fact definitely have the kind of sex the author asserts they can’t (topping at penetrative sex?), I feel like “fucked” is a word someone like Illyrio would use for whatever kind of sex he had (especially with a bedwarmer, which is what, an employee whose job is to make him feel good? Or is it meant to be a one one night stand who isn’t an employee?) He’s a rich man who likes throwing his (no pun intended) weight around, of course he brags about “fucking” everyone he has sex with.

 

That and the fact that surely how fat he is is a subjective description by the POV character? I mean, unless I give you a lbs to height ratio, and a really comprehensive description of how muscly someone is or isn’t, or something, you don’t really know how fat they are, you just know that I think they’re really fat. 

 

Anyway, Illyrio’s fatness is totally not relevant to the argument. That part just made me roll my eyes. So I can see where you’re coming from with finding some things a little pointlessly spurious.

 

Of the (f) arguments I found most convincing, I was almost swayed by R+L=D, but then I’m 1000% convinced by R+L=J, and I just can’t really buy that Dany and Jon were twins (although it would fit narratively if they were - and then, say, they don’t get together in the end and it “breaks the cycle” of incest and racial purity? That seems like it could fit the story. But the logistics give me a headache, and while I’m sure GRRM could make it convincing, I’d still feel like it was a little goofy and forced).  

 

I’m likewise really interested in what Ashara’s role is going to be, but that doesn’t automatically make me think she’s Dany’s mother. I like the idea that Barristan fantasies that she is though. It would be kind of tragic and slightly beautiful if Barristan invents an idea that Dany is Ashara’s daughter as a kind of… bleeding the past into the present, trying to hold on to the stability he’s lost, saving Ashara by saving Dany. Perhaps that’s not the intention either, but I could see it. It’s interesting that Ashara’s memory is so important to Barristan and to Ned - maybe Ashara’s position in the narrative is similar to the position of “perfect knights” who then realize the impossibility of perfection, i.e., to serve as the fantasy trope of the perfect, tragically ruined lady, whom men idealise (similar to Lyanna for Robert, but also different), and in GRRM’s tradition of brutally inserting realism, draw wrong conclusions about. This would work well if she did turn out to be Septa Lemore! 

 

But I do disagree, I think, about your central premise of idea of a “lying technique” being used by the original author of the (f)Dany essay, and the suggestion that markg is trying to manipulate the reader into believing something false. Basically, I guess I just don’t see why someone would do that, what someone stands to gain by advancing an incorrect projection about what’s going to happen or be revealed in some incomplete books. I assume they’re earnest and enthusiastic, and maybe wrong. Or hell, maybe they will turn out to be right about something? There’s still two books to go, GRRM could change his mind on something he’s been setting up just to shake us up! Either way, literally all markg would gain from convincing anyone is bragging rights if they’re right, and people to console with if they’re wrong. I don’t agree that they’re making errors they know are errors, partly because the book series is still going, and it’s impossible for anyone to be definitively correct yet, we can just make predictions about what’s likely, but partly because that just seems like a crazy thing to do! But then, maybe I don’t know the ASoIaF community as well as you do…  

 

If they really are deliberately lying, then let me just say, worst. troll. ever.