Mister Smikes

Yet when Arthur died, Excalibur was returned to its faerie custodians. Though perhaps this goes hand in hand with the notion that Arthur is not really dead, which in turn perhaps could imply that the faerie custodians are merely holding the blade for Arthur.

Thank you for the quote. At the risk of being accused of nit-picking I would that the "falling star" and the "stone of magical powers" are one and the same. Both are what we would be tempted to identify with a "meteor" (though the ASOIAF texts never use the word AFAIK). And there is nothing here to contradict the idea that a blade forged from a meteor, or from the meteor's heart, would be made of metal, just like many other meteor-metal blades of history, legend, myth and fiction. Check out out this image of an ataxite sword. Kinda milky, isn't it? 13200498723_d1c57c458a_o.jpg (2436×2024) (wp.com)

Those Who Wait

I can't find your words on "a search of ice and fire." The words I find from the books: "forged from the heart of a fallen star". Which to my mind means some kind of meteoric metal. The meteor may be a stone. The heart of the meteor may be mostly stone as well for all I know. But once you forge something from that possibly stony heart, what you are normally working with is the metal content, together with whatever impurities (such as carbon) that could plausibly mix with forged metal. It says forged from the heart of the fallen star, not carved from the heart of a fallen star. The pommel, not the hilt, was made of pale stone. And it was "carved". It is a miniature sculpture affixed to the end of the hilt. It is perfectly plausible for a sculpture to be carved of stone. I meant that Allyria is no longer betrothed to Beric, who has died. She can betroth, and ultimately marry, another worthy knight, who will then be a "knight of house Dayne"

Not stone. The implication is that, like many historical swords, it is made of meteoric iron. The high nickel content can even contribute to a paler and more silvery appearance. I don't know if nickel content is by itself sufficient to explain it's milky appearance or other special qualities. But meteoric iron can contain any fantastical extraterrestrial substances that an author wishes it to have. Since there seem to otherwise seem no candidates, let me point out a possible broader interpretation. Dornish custom is not quite so patrilinear as the rest of the Seven KIngdoms. It is possible that a worthy knight could become a knight of House Dayne by marrying into House Dayne. Or perhaps even a betrothal would be sufficient. And Allyria Dayne is available.

Okay. I dislike it. And could raise several points against it. But I would never say it was based on nothing. I would never say there was no evidence for it. It is not as though GRRM has not done vaguely similar things before, first with the death of Ned; and then with the deaths of Robb and Catelyn. This explanation does not explain. For the dragons to be released, GRRM does not need to supply 4 POV chapters, and many other chapters in other POVs, devoted to backstory of one of several people who happened to be involved in releasing dragons who (judging from what they were doing to the Pit) were just about on the verge of escaping anyway. Your first explanation is more plausible. Because as much as I hate nihilistic decontruction, I cannot prove, ultimately, that this is not exactly what GRRM is up to. Quentyn was attacked by Dragon B, while trying to tame Dragon A. Dragon A (Viserion) even seemed to be responding to Quentyn, and that's not just my opinion. It is also the opinion voiced in the RADIO WESTEROS discussion linked to above, and those guys believe Q is dead. If Frog failed and died (and I don't think he did), we learned nothing about whether or not he could, potentially, have become a dragonrider given the right circumstances. He would be just one of many potential dragonriders who died without ever riding a dragon: Rhaegar, Viserys, Aerys, Rhaella, many others.

If you have no interest in speculating or theorizing on otherwise opining on what the point of Quentyn is, why are you even in this thread? Do you have an opinion? What, according to you, is the point of Quentyn? I'll listen. And I might not agree, but I'll probably not pretend you said nothing. I merely objected to you saying I had said nothing, when what you really meant is that you were not interested in what I said. I told you I had stated my reasons, told you where to find them, and said you had no obligation to be convinced by them I said more than that. Not sure what you mean by "associative references". Do you mean "subtle clues"? What kind of clues would you expect there to be? And, again, I'm not trying to "compel" you. I'm happy to agree to disagree and wait until WINDS comes out to see who is right. I do accept it. I never tried to missionize you. You're the one who seems determined to mock my theory. But that's a bee in your bonnet. If it is in the text, and it sounds important, then it might plausibly be a clue. It could be a red herring too. I'm not ruling that out at all. Or maybe everything GRRM writes is meaningless, and "words are wind" after all. I can't necessarily disprove that either. If you only want to discuss what we know for sure, then maybe you should come back when WINDS and DREAM are both released. Then we will know what roll the dragons played. So, again, what is you're opinion on the point of Quentyn? I promise I won't mock.

I think the explicit terms of the marriage pact are merely about Viserys marrying Aryanne. Implicitly, however, it is about House Martell allying with House Targaryen against the Iron Throne. Dany understands this, and also understands that she will need an alliance with Dorne if she is to take Westeros. Dany understands that she needs to control her dragons before she can use them take Westeros. But she can directly control only one. The other dragons will need other dragon-riders. What Dany is suggesting is that they can be allies against the iron Throne, but that Quentyn will be a far more valuable ally as a dragon-rider than as a husband. She all-but offers him a dragon, if only he can learn to ride it.

I listened to this, since I was curious on their take on certain mysteries. Here's one that they touch on, but ultimately dodge. Barristan regards it is critical to success that the Windblown switch sides. He sends Archie and Gerris as envoys to the Tattered Prince. Ultimately, in a WINDS sample chapter, it does indeed seem that the Windblown have switched sides. Which suggests that Archie and Gerris have succeeded in their mission. All of this is acknowledged in the above Radio Westeros broadcast. But there are mysteries here which RADIO WESTEROS does not even notice or hint at. When the Windblown seemingly switch sides, Tyrion is in his tent, and hears that something has happened only after emerging from his tent. Evidently, whatever happened was something GRRM does not want us to see or know about (yet). Also, when Barristan sends Archie and Gerris on a mission to Tatters, Gerris has an objection that he is unwilling to talk about in front of Barristan (and which GRRM seems to want to keep from the reader). Archie, however, has an answer to Gerris' objection, that he too does not want to talk about in front of Barristan. So what is going on? Any theories? Might it have something to do with "the point of Quentyn" seeing that his two buddies are involved? The only theory offered by RADIO WESTEROS is that Barristan was right in relying on the greed of sellswords. Which does not seem to sufficiently explain the mystery. (I know what my theory is. And it is not popular. But I have not seen alternate explanations.)

Yes, I'm referring to the "connect the dots" thing. And no, you are not required to discuss it, or be interested in it. And yes, I think it is evidence (not proof) as I define "evidence". And I already explained my definition of evidence. Quentyn, as he appears in ADWD, never provides any direct explanation for what his point is. The OP was asking for theories, and I gave mine. Feel free to present your own theory. And feel free to support your theory with as little or as much proof, or evidence, or baseless speculation as you see fit.

Which of my 20 points do you claim is not from the text? Let me know what you are disputing before you send me searching for citation. Is that the standard? Where does it say, in ADWD or anywhere else, that R+L+J? It doesn't. In fact, the text directly contradicts it by saying that Jon is Ned's bastard son. But it is still a valid theory with arguable clues supporting it. Are you too lazy to look upthread? I even told you the page. It takes two to have a conversation, and if you don't want one, why should I waste my time?

I listed 20 or 21 points on page 2 of this thread. You have not addressed or considered any of it. And you have no obligation to be interested. But why pretend you are? Why tell me I have presented no evidence, when in fact you neither know nor care whether I have presented evidence or not? What is your definition of "evidence"? My definition is merely a fact that tends to increase or decrease the likelihood of something being true. My 20 points, together or in combination, all do this. Or do you really mean to say that (for instance) a burnt beyond recognition body (for instance, Bran & Rickon's heads on spikes) does not have even the slightest tiny tendency to increase the likelihood of a fake-out. None of the 20 points I raised were conjectures. All of them were facts drawn more or less straight from the books. I paraphrased and condensed them for brevity, and it is conceivable that you might disagree with the accuracy of some of them, and we could discuss that. But you are not engaging at all. You are merely, in effect, denying that I ever said anything. That was not one of the 20 points I raised. This sounds more like you trying to raise a point of evidence AGAINST the theory. And it might be a valid point for all I know. A valid theory might have points of evidence pro-and-con, which we could discuss (if you were interested, which I guess you are not) But just in case you are interested, which POV character do you accuse me of not believing? Barristan? Barristan tells us what he believes and thinks he knows, like all POV characters. GRRM is on record that he never writes 3rd-person omniscient. Everything he writes is filtered through the POV of a particular character. Well, that was not one of my 20 points. But, such as it was, you have misconstrued it. I said nothing about the "need" of the Fake Aegon. I was discussing the literary logic, for the reader, of a satisfying story. Which is maybe a bit subjective, but whatever. I was saying that, if it turns out there is a real Aegon, the potential revelation that Young Griff is fake, may end up seeming like something that actually matters (to the reader and maybe the author too).

Here's where my ideas become a little elaborate. Maybe too elaborate. Yes, GRRM has made the point of telling us that prophesy is treacherous. And of course, this is an old idea. It has been around since the HISTORIES of Heroditus, and the Sophocles play OEDIPUS REX (or maybe earlier, if I could think of examples). Whenever a king or prince acts on a prophesy, he almost always gets it wrong. He always fails in some way or another. Sometimes he even causes what he seeks to prevent. For example Oedipus would never have killed his father and married his mother, if had his parents not set him out to die of exposure in an attempt to foil the prophesy. And Oedipus would not have triggered the prophesy, had he not, on hearing the prophesy, left home to avoid endangering those he thought were his real parents. So I think that, when Jahaerys forced Aerys and Rhaella to marry, to fulfill the woods witch prophesy, he was not helping. TPTWP will be born in spite of this, and not because of this. But how could this be? Maybe 'born of their line" does not mean born of their direct union. Maybe it would be up to their grandchildren to unite their line. What other lover has Rhaella ever had? The only one is Bonifer Hasty; and her first-born, Rhaegar, might plausibly be the result of their union. And Aerys plausibly has many unknown royal bastards, though his fondness for fooling around with the married wives of nobles at court. So to unite the lines of Aerys and Rhaella, Rhaegar must unite with a daughter of Aerys. Elia? Ashara? Lyanna? All 3?

That logic applies even if Rhaegar was not involved. Varys and Illyrio are also plausibly in league with Doran. Well sure. That's the surface truth of the moment. But I don't believe it for a minute. It does not explain the Blackfyre connection. Among other things. Not sure how to answer. I became convinced Frog was still alive, long before I became convinced Frog was the real Aegon and Young Griff was the real Quentyn. But now that I've thought of it, it fits so well I find it impossible to ignore. Once, people objecting to the "Quentyn is alive" theory would ask "what is the point of Quentyn being alive?" I could not say much more than "Dany needs dragon-riders" and "The theory can be right even if I don't what the point is" or "What is the point of Quentyn if he is dead?"

The text gives us reason to believe that Aegon is TPTWP. Specifically, we are told this via the HOTU visions, by way of Rhaegar. The visions could be wrong. Rhaegar could be wrong. But in literary terms, this is either a clue, foreshadowing final revelations, or a "red herring" intended to mislead us. If this is meant as a red herring, then GRRM is not trying too hard to mislead us. For this immediately followed by Jorah explaining away the "red herring" (if that's what it is) by saying (paraphrase) "Well, that was just Rhaegar's opinion, and he was obviously wrong, because Aegon is dead." "Move along nothing to see here." Which seems more like how a sneaky author would treat a clue than a red herring. Dunno. If Rhaegar thought being conceived under a comet is good enough, maybe GRRM agrees with him. Or maybe Aegon has yet to be (re)born amid salt and smoke while the red star bleeds. Don't the warrior's sons carve stars on their chests?