Jump to content

My thoughts on the Tyrion Targaryen Theory


Agent 326

Recommended Posts

On 14 June 2017 at 7:14 AM, Newstar said:

IIt is interesting that Tyrion doesn't come up when Dream/Ghost Joanna is talking about the children Tywin dreamed of having:

 

Not really evidence one way or another, but it is kind of odd. "His son" as in only the one. 

I interpret it that these were his dreams for his newborn healthy twin babies - Tyrion did not them exist. I doubt he ever had any such dreams for Tyrion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2017 at 1:28 PM, Lord Varys said:

Quite honestly, I think Tyrion is very likely to become a dragonrider accidentally in the coming battle(s). He may be confronted with Viserion there, and be forced to either die or try to jump on the dragon's back. And considering that he has those mad fits of courage and gallantry from time to time it would be not surprising at all if he does something like that in an attempt to save the life of Penny or somebody else (Jorah).

Afterwards Selmy could then tell Tyrion what he knows, leading to him accepting his Targaryen ancestry.

One idea I had is that in a Barristan chapter during the battle, he would see Tyrion riding a dragon and have some cryptic thought like "It's true." And then, like you say, he would approach Tyrion after the battle and explicitly draw the connection to Aerys and Joanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

One idea I had is that in a Barristan chapter during the battle, he would see Tyrion riding a dragon and have some cryptic thought like "It's true." And then, like you say, he would approach Tyrion after the battle and explicitly draw the connection to Aerys and Joanna.

That would be fun but I'm not sure how Selmy would recognize Tyrion flying on a dragon. But if one of his chapters ended with Viserion landing in front of him with Tyrion dismounting and greeting him he could have a rather interesting mental reaction. Perhaps he is even going to faint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

For your specific question, this was my "One interesting point" post above. I have no better for you here. I agree it proves nothing. It just justifies it is not impossible.

Well, if that's all it is it is just a nice would-if-scenario, basically. A lot of things are not impossible. It is not impossible either that Eddard Stark found out about and honed his skinchanger skills in the black cells after his last chapter, eventually taking over the body of Ilyn Payne for some mad revenge scheme. It is just not very likely.

12 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

And I agree, in comparison, the 272 tourney is a big big clue in favor of Tyrion. Enough if I could find a few other things convincing. Other than putting the 3 main characters equals in blood.

That is an important point, though. But hardly the only point. There is a very long and compelling lists of all the hints in the books that make this idea pretty likely, in addition to the potential the revelation of this fact might have for the conclusion of the series. In fact, I actually maintain that Tyrion just being Tywin's son is making it very unlikely in a realistic setting that he can end up where the plot is most likely going to want him to be later on. An ugly dwarf who murdered his own father and nephew is simply not the kind of man that would be trusted by people who have no reason to like him. They might use him, yes, but not trust him. And as such a person Tyrion would quickly have to become a pawn or even an extra in the story of other people.

People really overlook that the only thing that made Tyrion a player was his father's name and wealth and the fact that his sister married the king. Without that Tyrion is nothing as he learns during his voyage in ADwD. And he would continue to remain nothing among Dany's people if it didn't turn out there was more to him than meets the eye (and I'm not speaking about him being smart - being smart makes him even more dangerous, not less). 

12 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Neither Aerys nor Tywin would need to suspect anything. Tywin is supposed to bed his woman. And the children are fully looking Lannisters.

Joanna was pregnant nine months, though. Don't you expect that you might be the father of the child(ren) of a woman you had sex with around the time she got pregnant? I would. And Aerys had nine months to think about this whole thing before he was informed about the looks of those children, and the idea that he would have been as jealous of those beautiful twins as he obviously was in Yandel's text makes little sense if he had even the slightest inclination that they might not be Tywin's.

12 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Maybe the Targaryens are not that much special. But maybe Daenerys and those in Aerys+Rhaella line have something special. Or something from Aegon V's Blackwood wife. But speculations. It's not a question of inheriting the throne. No legitimate proof of anything is necessary. Just a why for those who think something (resurrecting for example) can't happen with normal people.

Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Tully also got resurrected. That is nothing special. They might have both had diluted Targaryen blood through a Tully-Lothston match or one of Rhaena Targaryen's Hightower girls but the same could be true for Targaryen blood among the Lannisters. All we have to assume for that is that Joanna or Jeyne Marbrand or Rohanne Webber Osgrey Lannister had an affair with a Plumm that led to the conception of Jason. The fact that she disappeared shortly after Jason's birth makes the idea not unlikely that Jason Lannister is not, in fact, Lord Gerold's son.

The fact is that there is simply no way but a revelation of the past through visions or dreams or people remembering or telling us stuff that Aerys II is the father of anyone, be it Tyrion or the twins. And if this is the case we are going to get some real confirmation. Just symbolic stuff isn't enough.

Prince Aegon also most likely has some Targaryen blood but this doesn't mean he has to be Rhaegar Targaryen's son. If he becomes a dragonrider, hatches some dragon eggs, or does other things Targaryens this is not going to work as a *real* confirmation that he is Rhaegar's son by Elia. And the same goes for Jon Snow, really. Jon could also become a dragonrider if Ned had fathered him on the descendant of some Targaryen bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

You really stretch it a lot to equalise 'Tywin' with' Lannister'. Look at Tywin's siblings, look at Jaime's cousins, look at some history Lannisters like Tytos, for example. It's not Jaime who is not that much a Lannister, it's Tywin. It's him who is an outlier. Jaime by his qualities is actually a Lannister to the bone. It is even weird to me that you mention smiling/joking, one of the most common Lannister traits, as not Lannister-like. Tywin was not a combination of all 'true' Lannister traits, far from it. Him hating smiling doesn't mean that smiling isn't a normal Lannister behaviour.

You said exactly what I wanted (dared) to say! But I'm sure I didn't say "equalise Tywin with Lannister". Or that joking isn't a Lannister trait. I downplayed the importance of some traits in Jaime. But of course he is Lannister. His mother is Lannister and anything Lannister could be expected in him. Nothing strange there. I did wrong because it was not the point I was defending. Sorry.

But what you said, if I'm expressing correctly is that Tywin had some traits not common (or unique?) in Lannisters. And that is exactly what Genna emphasis. She finds a good deal of Lannister in Jaime. But nothing significant of Tywin. While she sees Tywin in Tyrion. How likely these traits be in Tyrion if they are uncommon in Lannister?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-6-15 at 7:36 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

But I'm sure I didn't say "equalise Tywin with Lannister".

Well, you didn't say it, but you have straight up done it in this post:

On 2017-6-13 at 8:16 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

 

And concerning Jaime, if you refer to this quote:

You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there’s some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak ... but Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you.

She says he has the color and the look of a Lannister, superficial qualities. But he is not! Contrary to Tyrion.

 

ETA: In case you wonder, I don't pretend she says "Tywin is not a Jaime's father". I say she doesn't see him that much a Lannister.

You here claim that the quote *"Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you"* means that Jaime isn't that much a Lannister, which can only mean that only if you share Tywin's traits can you be a true Lannister and hence that Tywin's traits = Lannister traits. In your quote "he has the color and the look of a Lannister, superficial qualities. But he is not! Contrary to Tyrion" you basically substitute "Tywin" with "Lannister" for no real reason.

On 2017-6-15 at 7:36 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

But what you said, if I'm expressing correctly is that Tywin had some traits not common (or unique?) in Lannisters. And that is exactly what Genna emphasis.

No, Genna was speaking about Tywin's ability to lead and protect House Lannister against its enemies, that's all. The point she was making was that Tyrion also has the qualities to do it while Jaime lacked them - that Jaime can fight, laugh and be a good follower but he can't rule. She does not speak about Lannister traits at all.  And Genna is wrong in her assessment anyway, you shouldn't really take her statement at face value.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dofs said:

Well, you didn't say it, but you have straight up done it in this post:

You here claim that the quote *"Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you"* means that Jaime isn't that much a Lannister, which can only mean that only if you share Tywin's traits can you be a true Lannister and hence that Tywin's traits = Lannister traits. In your quote "he has the color and the look of a Lannister, superficial qualities. But he is not! Contrary to Tyrion" you basically substitute "Tywin" with "Lannister" for no real reason.

Again for the fourth or fifth time, my point was not to say Jaime is not a Lannister, in little or in much. I will not come back on that. And by singularizing Tywin you support my claim. For the rest, if you disqualify my facts, and I've seen nothing much in favor of Tyrion, we have nothing to argue. I've seen in the past posts with 20 or more points arguing for Tyrion, some were as insubstantial as "liking his meat charred".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Again for the fourth or fifth time, my point was not to say Jaime is not a Lannister, in little or in much.

That may not have been your point, I can't read your thoughts, but that's what you have written, that's all. How else can one understand: "She says he has the color and the look of a Lannister, superficial qualities. But he is not! Contrary to Tyrion." or this: "she doesn't see him that much a Lannister."?

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

And by singularizing Tywin you support my claim.

singularize Tywin based on his personality because of your original argument about Lannister traits but I don't think it is relevant to what Genna was saying. And about your claim, sorry but I am not even sure what is it at this point, as it seems to have changed from the one in your earlier posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2017 at 10:15 PM, Lord Varys said:

If Jon has to kill 90% of the human population of Martinworld to defeat the Others he should do it. And he sure as hell should allow as many people to die if that would guarantee a victory over them. Morality is irrelevant if you face a supernatural enemy who intends to kill everyone.

I agree with most of your comments on AJT, but this comment is a fallacy - the same kind as thinking the trolly problem in moral philosophy raises some kind of genuine issue.

The fact is if the premises of your argument (or the trolley problem) were actually correct - that if you push the fat man onto the tracks, or cause one person to die, you will definitely save the 5 other people - or, here, that if Jon kills 90% of ASOIAF-world it would "guarantee a victory" of them - then your conclusion that he should do so would carry some weight.

But the fact is that both the real world - and ASOIAF-world - are a lot more messy and contingent than that.

We never know how things are going to turn out.  All you can do is plough on through a fog of confusion and misinformation.

Prophecies are predictions often, even usually, turn out to be wrong or flawed in some particular aspect -- often a crucial aspect, that can only be seen in hindsight.

What is the point of all this?  Morality doesn't work in the utilitarian way you have described because of the absence of certainty.  Common sense utilitarian thinking is still is very important - and is a key part of battle strategy, which Jon may be learning. Some will always die, and the plan that leads to 100 people dying is better than that leading to 10000 people dying, no doubt.

But conscious, cold-hearted sacrifice in the name of a falsely certain utilitarianism is certainly a major theme of the series, and will be ultimately repudiated by Jon, Tyrion and Dany.

As important as the symbolism of Dany's sacrifices are, the literal fact is she did not knowingly sacrifice anyone.  Drogo was gone.  She didn't know she was sacrificing Rhaego.  Jon didn't just directly sacrifice Ygritte.

Jon's heart re: Arya was correct, but he will learn to be more pragmatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

I agree with most of your comments on AJT, but this comment is a fallacy - the same kind as thinking the trolly problem in moral philosophy raises some kind of genuine issue.

The fact is if the premises of your argument (or the trolley problem) were actually correct - that if you push the fat man onto the tracks, or cause one person to die, you will definitely save the 5 other people - or, here, that if Jon kills 90% of ASOIAF-world it would "guarantee a victory" of them - then your conclusion that he should do so would carry some weight.

But the fact is that both the real world - and ASOIAF-world - are a lot more messy and contingent than that.

That is why I used the word 'if' there. Anybody killing 90% of the population of any country or world just on a vague hunch, a mad delusion, or even pretty good evidence would be committing an atrocity. One could perhaps sell the whole thing as mercy killings then if at least death at the hands of the Others was certainly but whether death from their hands (and that insidious burning cold that comes with them) or from being burned alive or killed in some other magical ritual is better I don't know.

However, the NW isn't an institution that concerns itself overmuch with morality. They have a mission and it seems that the vow they speak allows and demands of them to whatever it takes to succeed. They are not supposed to follow utilitarian principles

And quite honestly, nobody in real life does. We don't care about ridiculously unlikely moral dilemmas where we know every detail (even the outcome) in advance, we care about real people in real situations and how we are involved in that. I happen to read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics right now and I'm at time flabbergasted by his idea that people should make moral decisions based on the abstract considerations of various interests. That is not how people make such decisions, nor are such things the basis for most of our actions and plans. Suggesting that people should behave in such a manner would necessitate to first radically change the way our brains actually work.

32 minutes ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

What is the point of all this?  Morality doesn't work in the utilitarian way you have described because of the absence of certainty.  Common sense utilitarian thinking is still is very important - and is a key part of battle strategy, which Jon may be learning. Some will always die, and the plan that leads to 100 people dying is better than that leading to 10000 people dying, no doubt.

Well, I'd actually think that it would be better not even conduct a battle, but that's just me. Battles are seldom fought with the lives of your own soldiers as a top priority. They are more important if your have few but pretty much no priority if you have more than enough and can afford to lose many.

32 minutes ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

But conscious, cold-hearted sacrifice in the name of a falsely certain utilitarianism is certainly a major theme of the series, and will be ultimately repudiated by Jon, Tyrion and Dany.

As important as the symbolism of Dany's sacrifices are, the literal fact is she did not knowingly sacrifice anyone.  Drogo was gone.  She didn't know she was sacrificing Rhaego.  Jon didn't just directly sacrifice Ygritte.

Jon's heart re: Arya was correct, but he will learn to be more pragmatic.

I'd like to agree there. It is part of the reason why I hope Jon does not have to forge himself a Lightbringer (which is why I like to believe the dragons are Lightbringer). If he has to then he would most likely have to sacrifice Arya to get it. She is the person he loves the most. And I don't want him to kill Arya.

But I honestly don't think sacrifice in this magical sense is all that important topic in this series. People are giving up a lot of things for various reasons, but the idea that characters have to sacrifice people literally or only figuratively doesn't happen all that often. It is theme in Stannis' arc, but that's it. Dany may have sacrificed some persons she loved in AGoT but this trend didn't continue in the book that came afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why I used the word 'if' there. Anybody killing 90% of the population of any country or world just on a vague hunch, a mad delusion, or even pretty good evidence would be committing an atrocity. One could perhaps sell the whole thing as mercy killings then if at least death at the hands of the Others was certainly but whether death from their hands (and that insidious burning cold that comes with them) or from being burned alive or killed in some other magical ritual is better I don't know.

However, the NW isn't an institution that concerns itself overmuch with morality. They have a mission and it seems that the vow they speak allows and demands of them to whatever it takes to succeed. They are not supposed to follow utilitarian principles

And quite honestly, nobody in real life does. We don't care about ridiculously unlikely moral dilemmas where we know every detail (even the outcome) in advance, we care about real people in real situations and how we are involved in that. I happen to read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics right now and I'm at time flabbergasted by his idea that people should make moral decisions based on the abstract considerations of various interests. That is not how people make such decisions, nor are such things the basis for most of our actions and plans. Suggesting that people should behave in such a manner would necessitate to first radically change the way our brains actually work.

Well, I'd actually think that it would be better not even conduct a battle, but that's just me. Battles are seldom fought with the lives of your own soldiers as a top priority. They are more important if your have few but pretty much no priority if you have more than enough and can afford to lose many.

I'd like to agree there. It is part of the reason why I hope Jon does not have to forge himself a Lightbringer (which is why I like to believe the dragons are Lightbringer). If he has to then he would most likely have to sacrifice Arya to get it. She is the person he loves the most. And I don't want him to kill Arya.

But I honestly don't think sacrifice in this magical sense is all that important topic in this series. People are giving up a lot of things for various reasons, but the idea that characters have to sacrifice people literally or only figuratively doesn't happen all that often. It is theme in Stannis' arc, but that's it. Dany may have sacrificed some persons she loved in AGoT but this trend didn't continue in the book that came afterwards.

Interesting.  Well, we are not too far apart then, except for your last paragraph.  The distinction between a feudal world, where the tribe only matters not the individual, and partly based on magic, and many of its rituals are based on notions of blood sacrifice inherited from long ago and almost beyond memory, on the one hand, and a modern world where magic and blood sacrifice are finally overcome, seems a major thematic pull of the series - GRRM's version of that movement in LOTR.  The greater potency of magic during the series seems to be a kind of dialectic --- magic is the return of the repressed, with vengeance --- giving way in ADoS to the sense of a possible new world based on the synthesis.

This is actually one reason why, paradoxically, though I see Tyrion as simpatico with the dragons, he will not ride them -- he is fascinated as a modern man with the existence of these ancient creatures, and will use them in battle, but that kind of demiurgic aspect is foreign to him.  He is a statesman, a man of reason - a true prince, in the machiavellian sense.

Anyway, back to AJT.  When I first heard of AJT, I instinctively thought - what a fuck up by GRRM if it were true. For the usual reasons people give - the damage it does to Tywin and Tyrion as characters and their relationships.  And then eventually I was convinced by it, despite this.  However, now I tend to see it as only enriching the Tyrion and Tywin dynamic and them individually as  characters.  In particular, it turns Tywin from a plastic sort of character to a man of great light and shade.

No one can sensibly doubt he loved Joanna.  Joanna died in giving birth to Tyrion, just as Lyanna did Jon.  Before Lyanna died, she was able - miraculously - to speak to her beloved brother Ned and make him promise.  Joanna would have had not miraculous but immediate assured access to Tywin, or the ability to have someone pass on a message to him at least.  Tyrion was immediately deformed from birth.  Why is it so hard to imagine that Joanna didn't make Tywin promise with his dying breath, just as Lyanna did Ned?  Whomever Tyrion's father was, Joanna would have known that there were rumours about her and Aerys, and that the child's paternity would not be beyond doubt.  What dying mother wouldn't try to protect her newborn in that circumstance, by extracting a promise that the son would be raised as a Lannister.  And of all ppl Tywin would ever consider himself bound in honour to fulfil, it would be that from his dying wife, the only person he ever really loved.

There may not be a clear-cut answer, and Tywin or even Joanna may not have known one way or the other --- but Tywin's character is much reduced without a lot of his behaviour toward Tyrion being explained by at least a suspicion that Aerys was Tyrion's true father.  Otherwise Tywin is merely irrationally malicious and spiteful towards his most intelligent and politically able child.

Similarly, it greatly enriches the tragedy for Tyrion --- a lot of Tyrion's frustration is because he is intelligent enough to be aware of the above point --- that is, that Tywin is very pragmatic and intelligent, and his treatment of Tyrion simply does not make sense --- it would have to be an irrational hatred based on Joanna's death and hatred of physical deformity.  It is just plausible as an explanation, but does not make intuitive sense to Tyrion --- especially when he does good things, like the Battle of the Blackwater.  It is at points like that that Tyrion just cannot believe how poorly Tywin treats him, because it just makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

Interesting.  Well, we are not too far apart then, except for your last paragraph.  The distinction between a feudal world, where the tribe only matters not the individual, and partly based on magic, and many of its rituals are based on notions of blood sacrifice inherited from long ago and almost beyond memory, on the one hand, and a modern world where magic and blood sacrifice are finally overcome, seems a major thematic pull of the series - GRRM's version of that movement in LOTR.  The greater potency of magic during the series seems to be a kind of dialectic --- magic is the return of the repressed, with vengeance --- giving way in ADoS to the sense of a possible new world based on the synthesis.

Well, we have to wait and see how things turn out. It is very difficult to try to make sense of those concepts at this point, especially in light of us not knowing what twists based on revelations that have yet to come will do to the entire story.

5 hours ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

This is actually one reason why, paradoxically, though I see Tyrion as simpatico with the dragons, he will not ride them -- he is fascinated as a modern man with the existence of these ancient creatures, and will use them in battle, but that kind of demiurgic aspect is foreign to him.  He is a statesman, a man of reason - a true prince, in the machiavellian sense.

That is an interesting idea but I doubt that. Tyrion actually got corrupted by power in ACoK. His original idea of doing justice became a travesty. He tried his best to defend the city, yes, but he also very much liked the fact that he could play with people now, abusing his power. He knows how to play the game of thrones but back then he did not use that ability to actually do something good (aside from protecting the city against Stannis and Renly).

And if he as a Targaryen descendant he will have to come to terms with his own legacy. And that will have magical quality. His interest with dragons is something based on emotions, not rationality. He rationalizes it but if he is Aerys' son the root of that will turn out to be in his blood.

5 hours ago, Aemon Targaryen said:

Anyway, back to AJT.  When I first heard of AJT, I instinctively thought - what a fuck up by GRRM if it were true. For the usual reasons people give - the damage it does to Tywin and Tyrion as characters and their relationships.  And then eventually I was convinced by it, despite this.  However, now I tend to see it as only enriching the Tyrion and Tywin dynamic and them individually as  characters.  In particular, it turns Tywin from a plastic sort of character to a man of great light and shade.

No one can sensibly doubt he loved Joanna.  Joanna died in giving birth to Tyrion, just as Lyanna did Jon.  Before Lyanna died, she was able - miraculously - to speak to her beloved brother Ned and make him promise.  Joanna would have had not miraculous but immediate assured access to Tywin, or the ability to have someone pass on a message to him at least.  Tyrion was immediately deformed from birth.  Why is it so hard to imagine that Joanna didn't make Tywin promise with his dying breath, just as Lyanna did Ned?  Whomever Tyrion's father was, Joanna would have known that there were rumours about her and Aerys, and that the child's paternity would not be beyond doubt.  What dying mother wouldn't try to protect her newborn in that circumstance, by extracting a promise that the son would be raised as a Lannister.  And of all ppl Tywin would ever consider himself bound in honour to fulfil, it would be that from his dying wife, the only person he ever really loved.

There may not be a clear-cut answer, and Tywin or even Joanna may not have known one way or the other --- but Tywin's character is much reduced without a lot of his behaviour toward Tyrion being explained by at least a suspicion that Aerys was Tyrion's true father.  Otherwise Tywin is merely irrationally malicious and spiteful towards his most intelligent and politically able child.

Similarly, it greatly enriches the tragedy for Tyrion --- a lot of Tyrion's frustration is because he is intelligent enough to be aware of the above point --- that is, that Tywin is very pragmatic and intelligent, and his treatment of Tyrion simply does not make sense --- it would have to be an irrational hatred based on Joanna's death and hatred of physical deformity.  It is just plausible as an explanation, but does not make intuitive sense to Tyrion --- especially when he does good things, like the Battle of the Blackwater.  It is at points like that that Tyrion just cannot believe how poorly Tywin treats him, because it just makes no sense.

Exactly. I have repeatedly laid out that if Tywin knew or suspected the truth about Tyrion's parentage that he might actually become a much better man than we think he was. Perhaps even better, in a sense, than Eddard Stark who may have loved Jon Snow as his son but failed to inform him of his own parentage and thus stole his identity. Tywin would have made his wife's bastard his own trueborn son, never mind his ugliness and size. It is understandable that he could never bring himself to love that creature but it didn't prevent him allowing Tyrion to live a privileged life.

And the idea that Joanna may have pleaded for the life of the child, forcing Tywin to promise her to not blame it for her death and raise it as his own is actually very likely. There is a reason why Tywin's wife is his first cousin and the woman Tywin loved with all his heart. Tyrion doesn't have to be Tywin's son to count as a Lannister in Tywin's mind. It is enough that he is Joanna's child. But being Joanna's son does not make him Tywin's heir which should be main reason why Tywin is so determined to ensure that Tyrion does not inherit Casterly Rock.

If he believed or knew Tyrion was his son he would never be as irrational about that. Especially not after Tyrion's deeds during the Battle of the Blackwater. Tywin knows that Tyrion's decisions were crucial to save the city. He isn't stupid enough to not realize this. And he must also know how smart Tyrion is and how well he learned the lessons he taught him. But he doesn't want Aerys' son to be his true heir. That is just too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And the idea that Joanna may have pleaded for the life of the child, forcing Tywin to promise her to not blame it for her death and raise it as his own is actually very likely. There is a reason why Tywin's wife is his first cousin and the woman Tywin loved with all his heart. Tyrion doesn't have to be Tywin's son to count as a Lannister in Tywin's mind. It is enough that he is Joanna's child. But being Joanna's son does not make him Tywin's heir which should be main reason why Tywin is so determined to ensure that Tyrion does not inherit Casterly Rock.

If he believed or knew Tyrion was his son he would never be as irrational about that. Especially not after Tyrion's deeds during the Battle of the Blackwater. Tywin knows that Tyrion's decisions were crucial to save the city. He isn't stupid enough to not realize this. And he must also know how smart Tyrion is and how well he learned the lessons he taught him. But he doesn't want Aerys' son to be his true heir. That is just too much.

Precisely.  Not "You are no Lannister" but "You are no son of mine".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...