Gilbert Green

No, she's a blonde savior. Obviously.

The corpse has a secret identity. It is supposed to be Davos. Secretly, it is someone else. Manderly knows the truth, but he keeps it secret. It is an identity and it is a secret. Similar with Bran and Rickon heads on pikes. It's supposed to be Bran and Rickon. Secretly it is two common boys. Theon knows the truth but he keeps it a secret. It is an identity and it is a secret. Does it matter who is keeping the secret? Either way, identity confusion is a theme. The burnt-beyond-recognition man is supposed to be Prince Frog. Archie and Gerris know it is actually Prince Tatters. They keep this true identity a secret from Barristan. It is secret, and it's an identity. The flip side of this is Rattleshirt. His fake identity was adopted for him - he did not do it himself. His true identity was kept a secret. Nonetheless, Dead Mance was actually Rattleshirt. Melisandre knew the truth, and did not tell most people. It was an identity, and it was a secret. Dead Davos is an example of character X actually being character Y. It is true that this differs from other examples where we learned about character Y in advance rather than after the fact. It is still an example of character X actually being character Y.

Yes, he will die. And perhaps not be entirely unsympathetic. So it will be at least a little tragic too. Just responding to the OP.

When people debate secret identity theories, they generally don't debate theories that have already been proven true. That's why no-one (any more) debates whether Davos is really dead, or whether those fingerbones were really his. You are saying that Davos does not count, as this swap was done casually and without a lot of buildup. We were never introduced in advance to the random criminal who would be used as his doppleganger (logically, why should we need this?). I say it is still relevant. If it is sometimes done casually, and it with little buildup, then it is even more likely when there is more buildup. Obviously, it is still an example that shows that fake-identity and fake-death scenarios move easily in GRRM's mind. Take, for example, the burnt-beyond recognition man dying on Dany's bed. Was he really Quentyn? Dunno. Maybe he is really no-one we have really met -- one of the random non-descript Windblown dressed just like Quentyn known to be present in the Pit. That's very little buildup, but is still more than we got for Davos when we were told he was dead. Alternatively, the dying man could be the Tattered Prince, someone who has actually appeared "onscreen" with speaking lines, and even went out of his way to say that he likes to take off his distinctive cloak and maneuver incognito because he is so ordinary looking. That would be FAR more buildup than what Davos' anonymous criminal doppleganger got.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I agree that not all identity swaps are the same. Identity-swap A is different from identity swap B. Nonetheless, there was an identity swap involved in the execution of fake-Davos. If you defined what you are looking for, I might agree that the execution of fake-Davos does not count. All I am saying is that he counts as an identity swap.

I wish more people would formulate their ideas as verifiable/falsifiable propositions that have some chance of being proven true or false in the coming volumes. You are merely incorporating the language of ambiguous prophesy which, by design, could mean any number of different things, and may end up meaning multiple things. "Jon is the Prince that was Promised" will never be proven true or false. "AAR and TPTWP will be two different people" will never be proven true or false. Yes, various things may happen that seem ambiguously foreshadowed by these prophesies. It is meaningless to predict that Dany is AAR reborn, if you don't commit to what that means, and whether it is even good or bad. In what sense is Bran a "parallel of the Last Hero"? And is that good or bad? You do seem to predict that Jon will become King of something (assuming that's what you mean by "predestined"). But that's the only statement you have made that is verifiable or falsifiable. I'm not saying that the AAR prophesy and the TPTWP prophesy and the Last Hero legend might not be ambiguous clues foreshadowing something or other. But until you commit to a guess as to what they actually mean, and how this will actually play out, it is meaningless to say this or that person is AAR or TPTWP or the Last Hero. I don't count "Dany is AAR" or the equivalent as an actual theory. Will post my own list of propositions shortly.

A man, believed or supposed to be Davos, actually was executed. "Davos", someone we are familiar with right down to his stumpy fingers, really was executed. Except the executed man wasn't really Davos. I get that the entire subplot was more or less "off screen". But it is still a identity-swap subplot, no matter how we hear of it.

Davos was executed in Feast, and revealed to have been a fake in Dance.

A claim may be supported by evidence regardless of whether time is taken to present it in a particular context (such as a hostile demand). But "some evidence" =/= "absolute proof", and many and maybe even most theories supported by "some evidence" will surely turn out to be wrong. But if you like, you can just wait until the books come out, check to see who guessed correctly, and then ask "Gosh, how did you guess?" This will save time for those frustrated and angered by the "too many theories" problem. But of course, if you really want a discussion on the evidence supporting an unpopular theory, you are always free to ask.

X is really Y is (once x and y are defined) a proposition which is either true or false.

Nobody owes you a well-written theory either. They can just say "I think Lemore is really Mellario", and if that is proven correct in the next book, they win bragging rights. Of course, you can always politely ask them to explain and defend their position, if you're curious. Hopefully, when the books are finally written, they will indeed be "well written". But a theory, if it can be reduced to a verifiable/falsifiable proposition, will in the end be either right or wrong. I don't necessarily share your opinion that too many secret identities will undermine the story. I say, bring 'em on, George, and if your readers groan, it is their own fault for taking it all too seriously, or maybe not seriously enough.

Most of these theories must be wrong (because, after all, there are so many of them, and they contradict each other). But some of them could be right. Nobody is under any obligation to try to refute a theory they have no time for, or interest in. But if a specific identity theory is presented, then "I don't have time for this and I have already settled on R+L=J, and I want everyone else to shut up", is not a rational counter-argument.

It is not that Dunk is a secret Targ. It is that Rhaegar is secretly a descendant of Dunk, via Dunk's son/grandson, Bonifer.

I don't think so, but also: - Denys - Yandry - Aenys

Right. But he does not have to be, if his job is to be paired against an LF favorite, and lose on purpose.