Jump to content

Daeron the Daring

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Daeron the Daring

  • Rank
    A dragonrider among 'Others'...
  • Birthday 05/09/2002

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,907 profile views
  1. I think we would definitely know if Daena had an egg that hatched. Not that she was born to ride a dragon. That's basically absurd. Aenys 'the Weak' was a frail and unhealthy man for his entire life, yet he bonded with his dragon unlike many others.
  2. They can be tricky sometimes. In the hungarian translation of the books, when Arya and Ned Dayne talk about Wylla and Jon, Ned tells Arya that they're milkbrothers as Wylla was a wet-nurse to Jon as well, and not his actual mother, as it is in the english version. For quite a long time I was unable to understand how people got the message wrong, whereas the problem was with my translation.
  3. To be honest, Old Nan=3EC is a logical nonsense. Are we supposed to believe Old Nan let Bran go from her side, spawned dreams to Jojen that had to bring him to her (altough he was with her), and at the same time stopped communicating with him once Bran begin his journey/arrived to Brynden?
  4. Daenerys considers Viserys' anger a terrible thing when aroused, yes, but my point was that everytime she thinks of her life before Illyrio's mansion but after the house with the red door, Viserys' behaviour wasn't the thing tha she remembers first, but that how they've been rejected by everyone, that they've been living on a street, and how Viserys had grown more and more bitter due to this life form. In a sense, I think Daenerys kind of undestands why Viserys was like that, likely because what cracked Viserys is her own burden now. She thinks life with Viserys was bad because they lived the life of a beggar or a homeless. Of course her past self was the profuct of growing up under Viserys' (abusive) hands, but she doesn't really blame him for the quality of life they had.
  5. I don't think life with Viserys was bad because of Viserys. Surely, he wasn't having the time of his life even then, but Daenerys pretty much didn't let him go unless Viserys threatened her child. We don't know how much did Daenerys romanticize Viserys, just that she tought they'll marry. The thing is, Daenerys (somehow) isn't traumatised by either of her two bullies. I'm not a woman but I hardly can imagine you'd fall in love with someone who previously kinda raped you. Viserys never assaulted Daenerys sexually, altough he desired her. He was harassive towards her sometimes, but I don't think that was as bad as sexually assaulting her should had been.
  6. Well, that George may have tried to write a twist that noone would be able to guess doesn't mean he does succeed. But then, RLJ isn't that big of a deal. I think it was you who said you put it together for the first time you read the books. However, I'm fairly confident that George has twists held up that we would've never guessed or something like that. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be invested in the story.
  7. No. Simply because that is the most possible variation. By far. Based on all the hints we got, not on personal preferences. I do read what I'm answering to, and I read the whole discussion (everyone's comment) when I'm invested in what others might have to say. I read every comment on this thread. I don't know where was I talking about (f)Aegon. I mentioned, Stannis, Robert and Jon, and explicitly did not mention Aegon/Young Griff. I can't counterargue? Okay, that must be true since you said it. Noone has been disrespectful towards you yet. People are free to disagree with you, they're free to tell their opinion about your opinion. I am free to tell my opinion, that your theories are crackpot. You shouldn't feel offended by that. If you do, that's your problem but I did not attack your persona, nor did I saw anyone else (I might have missed if someone did). We don't hate you for your opinion, we won't start hate threads when/if you're gone. We don't hate you at all. If you feel offended by criticism towards your theories/ideas, I can't help you but tell not to. I feel like everyone, including me, gave you the respect you deserve, and that people's own opinion towards something that's not you doesn't disrespect you. I think I am allowed to tell that you're biased or not when you make an argument. That's just looking for the rationality of your idea, which isn't your persona. And that you posted this idea, which is very controversial/not well received by majority doesn't mean you have to dig your grave or anything.
  8. Here it is, when George was asked if DnD answered correctly regarding who Jon's mother is. After this, (since you don't remember I gues it's worth writing it down) you started insisting that either George must have lied, DnD must have lied, George must have asked DnD not to reveal who Jon's mother is, among other stupid suggestions, since RLJ can't be true. It just can't, only because you don't want it. Don't you think you're biased a little bit? People often go against almost undoubtable things on this forum, creating their own cracpot or tinfoil ideas. Some because they want to be pioneers and who don't follow the 'herd', others because they don't want certain things to happen. I guess it's the latter with you. You're unable to accept that there might be other Targaryens beside Daenerys or something, or that there are other justified claims to the Iron Throne beside Daenerys'. The "Why Stannis has no claim to the IT" or this thread are perfect example to that. Or that you constantly call Robert the "usurper", etc...
  9. The problem is how blue roses are connected to supposed love stories. Bael the Bard left a blue rose on the Stark girl's pillow who supposedly fell in love with him. Rhaegar gave Lyanna a garland of blue roses at the Tourney of Harrenhall. Lyanna loved blue roses, we are told. Whenever Eddard dreams of Lyanna, blue roses always show up in his dreams, at her death in his dream black dead petals of roses. The winter roses/blue roses are heavily connected to love stories and the Starks. That's why I think Jon is the winter rose. His mother is Lyanna, who loved and had always been heavily associated with blue roses. In a sense the Jon-Daenerys relationship will be similar to Rhaegar's with Lyanna and I think Jon will be the person who will fill the air around Daenerys with sweetness (just like in her vision at the HotU), aka he will be able to have a children with Daenerys. Winter roses being heavy simbolism in love stories pretty much makes me believe Aemon Rayder has nothing to do with them, him being a newborn kiddo. But hey, that's just me. Many people don't like Jon and Daenerys being shipped (altough I don't think I'm shipping the two).
  10. You must have been arguing so much you don't remember any. No wonder you still hold on. I don't have any much to say.
  11. I agree with you that Ned said Wylla is Jon's mother to Robert. To the questions he asked, the answer was one. One name. Robert even specifically said "the woman who made Ned Stark forget his oath" or something, which clearly indicates he thinks of a single woman. If Ned was answering only one of those questions, he simply admitted on cheating on Catelyn with two separate women: with Wylla, and with another one, Jon's mother. Ned would've never taken up the blame of cheating on his wife twice with two different women unless it wasn't the case. Not that it changes anything, Jon's mother is confirmed to be Lyanna. That Ned told his best friend a name means nothing. He could've played his keeping it all secret game against others, but not with Robert,. That would've been an insult to him coming from such a good friend Ned supposedly was to him. That's why I think he said the name and played the role of the ashamed.
  12. I'm invested in what you're trying to tell with this. A lot of things feel incomplete or out of place, I hope the later threads you plan will help that out. Other than that, I believe in the Night's King being the actual Last Hero (just like you, I assume, based on the connections you made), I tend to believe he was mischaracterized/wasn't understood by the people of his age or something, and the present Last Hero figure will have to fix that in some way, and achieve what the Night's King couldn't. What really doesn't fit with this is how Old Nan presents the Others. That they hunt maidens (specifically) and their dead servants eat little children (specifically) seems to be made up horror story by commoners who try to scare their children or just simply terrorize anyone anyone by telling how the Others focus on the purest natured humans, on children and maidens. Usually that's what every horroe story tells, I like not to give too much credit to that part of the story.
  13. I think everyone should read those 2 quotes and the case can be closed. Jon knew what he did. It's another thing that he found justification in other grounds for his actions. I can sympathise with that, but it still doesn't make it legally justified to me (altough the reason I read the books was him). Nor it did to him, ever.
  14. I think most people have an interpretation issue when it comes to the "Ned tore the tower down" phrase. I think it clearly means he had other people doing it. That's not taking away the credits in any way (as some suggest), but referring to things as usually anyone would do, honor and anyithing like that not being a factor in this. You buy some land, and build a house on it, you say. In reality you hire a crew of a few people who build it. Yet you will always say you built it, as that's the usual wording anyone would use, honor doesn't change that or anything. It's not a credit that anyone has to take away, it's not an achievement that you tore down a tower (alone or not) that you would seize from random peasants. And nowhere in the text it is mentioned that the tower was torn down to make those cairns. That they've been made out of the tower's material is a different thing, but the text clearly doesn't say "Ned teared the place down so he could build 8 cairns out of it".. (this part isn't really dedicated to you, tho).
  15. Who we may never get to know, unless that person would be born and named heir at the end of ADOS, which also raises further questions. The main pont is that we would be left hanging that way with a serious plothole or something similar.
  • Create New...