Jump to content

corbon

Members
  • Content Count

    5,328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About corbon

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,859 profile views
  1. Don't you think thats a it hyperbolic? This is not "running wild with assumptions". Its just looking at all the indications we have, and seeing where they point. Not making wild assumptions as definitive cases. Even though every Dayne that we'd gotten hair colour from had light hair, that didn't definitively prove that Ashara had light hair. Its juts an indication. An indication reinforced, by the 'fair' description from Cat. No one thought she had to have fair hair, just that in the absence of formal information, that was a more likely case than other options. No one mentioned Dyanna Dayne. Her hair colour isn't mentioned so she's not a data point, and potential indication from GRRM. Actually, they are. You may think they are not, but you haven't been paying attention. Just as in real life, repeatedly ASoIaF purple eyes can appear to be other colours. Just as in real life, because people 'know' certain people are famous for purple eyes, they see that more easily in those cases and describe those people as purple eyed because they 'know' its the case. Because its fantasy and deliberately 'larger than life', ASoIaF purple eyes can be 'more' purple than real purple eyes. But the same properties apply and are used in multiple cases. They can be different shades of purple, some are pure blue with no purple at all, and some purples can be disguised as not-purple with the aid of accessories etc (clothes, hair, probably makeup and jewelry too). Thats how it is/was for Elizabeth Taylor. Thats how it is/was for some purple-eyed Westerosi - fAegon disguises his purple eye colour with blue hair - Egg's eyes appeared black in poor light, and were explicitly described as blue in relatively good light (IIRC) the first time (more or less) we met him - John the Fiddler wore blue to disguise his (Daemon II Blackfyre's) purple eyes There aren't a great many examples given, because usually its a feature to bring out, not to hide. But we have enough examples to know that its a thing. And yet, she's famously purple eyed. By someone who has never seen her... Yes. Especially when they are doubtlessly deliberately 'brought out' because thats a particularly 'special' thing in this world. Exactly as it was for Elizabeth Taylor. Riiiight. Thats why mean never estimate a middle aged woman's age out loud. Because they are afraid of complimenting her. You mean... his guess is not a guess because of how he defined it numerically? I've seen you discuss things before. You don't usually use such terrible arguments as these. Why is it so important to hang on to that you must use such terrible arguments? Purple eyes don't work in ASoIaF the wya they do in the real world even though GRRM gives us multiple direct examples that they do? A man can accurately guess a middle aged woman's age? And his past record on inaccuracy means nothing? Its handwaved because its a guess about something famously inaccurate. The handwaving doesn;t make it evidence 'for'. the fact that when you look at the information we have and generate a best estimate of Ashara's real age it comes damn close to the guess, and certainly within any reasonable margin of error, is a positive rather than negative point. Yet people still try to bring it up as a negative. What are you saying here? It can't be that "GRRMs secrets only have clues that don't require attention?" But I'm having trouble seeing you words as meaning anything else. Could you rephrase it perhaps, mre clearly? What is the point here? Who could she be? She's clearly someone. WHat makes the limited number of direct refences rule out Ashara? Elia has more refences, but we know not much more about her and she fails as a candidate in multiple ways. Mellario has even few reference and even less data. Wenda too. Umm, so we are in agreement then? I'm quite confused, because you seem to be arguing that we don't know enough about her for her to be relevant, I point out we know more about her than it seems if we are careful reader - and that all we know match both, and you reiterate that she's a minor back character? I'm not sure it even goes there. She is apparently there because she wants to be and is suffiently Oberyn's daughter to ignore rules and conventions and get around them if she wants to. Southron politics is an 'at most' option - I don't see any indication that even that is involved in her presence, but it could be. Her connection to Sam and what he brings to Oldtown is surely coincidental at best. She can't have been sent there for that. I don;t see anything political in her connection to Marwyn either. That seems like a pretty reasonable 'accidental' connection given her interests, situation, and him being involved with 'fringe' Oldtower-ian academia. So if its all pretty much 'accidental' that she is involved, how is it of earthshaking importance? Me too BTW, but part of the point is that GRRM can pick and choose what he wants to from many possibilities. But not to make thins clearer for readers. Agreed. But without HR (or whoever HR was when he ws part of events), GRRM has limited avenues for revealing imprortance connections and backstory the reader needs. I think here we have something. You agree that GRRM made it her singularly defining feature. But given that its something that can, in-story as well as in real life, be alternately 'brought out' or 'concealed', doesn't that make it the perfect defining feature for someone he wants to introduce but keep their real identity hidden? I think this is subjective and I guess we differ. I think if you give away too much, you ruin the surprise of a reveal. Balancing that with lifting expectation... I guess thats a thing I think that that is for all intents and purposes, a reveal. If Lemore has purple eyes then its pretty much a slam dunk she is Ashara. Yet he's clearly not ready yet for such a reveal. And yes, I think revealing that Jon is Rhaegar's son in Ned's first chapter would have spoiled a lot of interest in his parentage. Virtually all of it in fact. Attention would be shifted entirely to Jon's arc, rather than Jon's mysteries and all the little things like the bastards not allowed to hurt princes thing completely change their meaning and character. One of the themes (there re many of course) in ASoIaF is that of identity and how, in a low tech society it is really very easily changed. I see the Ashara was PURPLE EYED (and nothing else) thing as reinforcing this. So its a feature, not a flaw. Two of them having either not met her or not naming her. Barristan provides the one reference that direct and by observation. I think it is like how GRRM hides mysteries - except for a couple of instances that are minor. Its subtle and deceiving much like John the Fiddler was (more so in this case because we are still at the 'hidden' stage, whereas ae ae past the 'reveal' stage with John. Her is the thing with John the Fiddler Here, the first time we meet, the reader is given the impression that John's eyes are blue. But here, later, we find that GRRM has deceived us, Jon's eyes match the dark amethysts - they are dark purple. and looking back to the first book Eggs eyes are definitively blue, GRRM tells us. Or lies to us, though he clues us in as well. Back to Daemon II Blackfyre Both Egg and Daemon have true Targaryen eyes, deep and dark and purple, famously so. Yet both can appear blue. But Ashara's eyes are not open to deception because they are what defines the youthful beautoful public her? Its just a terrible argument to make. If I'm strawmanning, I apologise. It just truly seems to be what you are saying. haha, this is a whole other issue and discussion. Probably better not to get into it here. Umm, we agree. I don't really understand why you think GRRM only gives obvious clues for average readers? He has done that a couple of times, but only for unimportant (Alleras) or quickly resolved (Arstan) 'mysteries'. Not for something he still seems to be deliberately hiding the resolution of, while throwing in our faces that its a mystery. Well, yes. Thats necessary when you aen;t ready to reveal the answer yet. Hang on. just above you are telling me that purple eyes is the definitive Ashara thing. The glaring lack of them is a huge problem. Now you are saying that purple eyes wouldn't point people at Ashara. Having them wouldn't mean anything anyway.
  2. I doubt you missed the point, so you are ignoring it I guess? The claim was that the Martells required coercion to act on the Targaryen side. The reality is that the Martells had already acted before the 'coercion' (ie the 10,000 spears were coming up the Kingsroad (ie already set by Doran) and Lewyn was sent to meet them and take command, by Aerys) and the 'coercion was a bit of crass reference to possible coercion, not an actual formal situation. In a society where active, formal coercion is a standard tactic. No. There is evidence that they sometimes clashed. An estrangement is something bigger. And most of the evidence is at best rumour, even as recounted by their enemies. No, we aren't told that they were estranged. Ok, they were by the formal definition - to longer affectionate. As I already agreed, they clashed at times and didn't get on all that well. So technically you are absolutely correct But the context of the use goes farther than that - that they were no longer on the same side. This context is political, not just personal, and more than just lost affection into actual enmity. The truth is that Rhaegar was never disinherited and they both were always on the side of House Targaryen and not ready to 'war' against each other, literally or figuratively. That they disagreed on how/what needed to be done etc doesn't make them enemies, even though Aerys' increasing paranoia makes it harder for them to 'get along' personally. You gave three quotes. Remember first that all three are made by their enemies, after they were gone, for the express benefit of the hater-in-chief, "I see only dragonspawn", King Robert I Baratheon. Thats the base context. The first merely says Aerys was suspicious of Rhaegar (and everybody). Thats not enough for estrangement (political) in context. The second gives the opinion that they ought to be reconciled by the birth of a Targaryen heir (even if female) to the Martell woman Aery's picked for Rhaegar. It seems like a sensible opinion to me, no quibbles as such, except that 'reconciled' covers both the personal-level estrangement and/or political level. Given that Rhaegar did actually bring his wife and newborn child to his father, everything I see there is personal estrangeent but you are using it as political. I see no evidence of political estrangement in that quote. The third quote is purely political, so its the strongest, but its also the weakest. It is directly from Pycelle's writings, Tywin's stooge at court who was likely actively fomenting political estrangement and even if he wasn't, would certainly have no hesitation in exaggerating the situation in order to make it look even worse than it was. But ok, the third quote is evidence, no matter how dubious, of political estrangement. I will of course, accept that actual facts on the ground, that neither ever moved actively against the other and both actively supported the other against all others, hold considerably more weight than the writings of a know traitor against them. But they did see each other. So no, there is no evidence they couldn't see each other, just evidence they sometimes disagreed and didn't get on well, and there was a lack of personal affection, at least from Aerys. Except that there is no good evidence that they were ever enemies of each other. If the enemeny of my enemy is my friend, then Robert and Aerys should have been besties acording to your logic. Rahegar was both their enemy according to you, and Robert no enemy to Aerys. Shouldn't you show some evidence that they were enemies first? Maybe you are surprised because your premises are wrong? I'm not surprised at all. I think what he should have done is use their common interest in breaking up Rhaegar and Lyanna to gain an ally in Rickard Stark. Not to destroy Rhaegar though, thats counterproductive as Rhaegar is still his heir and greatest ally, but to thwart whatever Rhagear was doing that he didn't approve of or understand. I'm not at all surprised though that the moment Rhaegar, House Targaryen, is threatened, Aerys lashes out viciously and irrationally at those threatening his House and future. He's mad and paranoid after all. Its noticeable his first response is to attack Rhaegar's attacker, not support Rhaegar's enemy. I guess the enemy oy my enemyis not my friend after all - or perhaps that actually the enemy of my ally? Except, as I pointed out, thats not true. Viserys is not in a position to give them anything at all except risk. If there is quid now, but no pro now and no prospect of pro for many years, and very little prospect of pro at all, I call that loyalty. And as an investment you'd expect there to be a reasonable chance of profit commensurate to the risks. I see risks, but little prospect of profit. Loyalty, on the other hand, changes the equation. The chance of profit doesn't need to be as great. But if the motivation is revenge, then there are no dead ends. The rapacity of the Lannisters means every avenue has a chance of bearing fruit - many of them far earlier than the Targ option. Yet no other avenues are explored. None. None with the Starks, who have no love for Lannisters. Not with the Tully's, coerced into the coalition early but receiving less fruits than the late-coming, low-contributing Lannisters. None with the Reach, beaten Targ allies with no fruits at all. Nothing. But everything thrown in one direction, with the least strength and power and the longest time for any possibility of revenge. Agreed. Except that if its self interest only, then all baskets are equal. If loyalty, then one basket is much greater, the others only supporting. We see only one basket. Why not? Faction change in courts, over time. If the only motivation is the death of Tywin, why is there no internal politicking at all? I don't believe you can't tell the difference between a greater family lending their blood to a lesser family and looking down on them vs a lesser family joining their blood to a greater family and feeling part of it. You cherrypicked them, not me. Given the rebellion of 239AC, I guess you have a different definition of 'staunch supporters'. And that was only 60 years ago. There would still be people alive who remember it. Right. A short but bloody rebellion is the very definition of loyalty. And the position of Hand of the King is not an honour, or reward, and not likely to go to someone willing to support the king's policies. I know we don't always agree on stuff, and there are shades and nuances which we often disagree on (and such are often a cause of an apparent larger disagreement when we are mostly aligned I suspect) but you seem to be taking some pretty hyperbolic positions here purely for the cause of arguing against my position, no? I mean, Lyonel Baratheon as an example of loyalty? In the past 150 years: Martell weds future Targ King. Targ weds Martell Prince. Special privileges and rights granted to House Martell Multiple Targ kings with Martell mother Dornish support in the first Blackfyre Rebellion Houses Baratheon, Tully and Tyrell alienated through broken marriage pacts (Baratheon rebellion crushed bloodily). House Martell again chosen to supply a wife for a crown prince (all non-Martell, non-Targ queens in this time period were chosen when their husbands were far from succession. Every outside wife chosen for a king of crown prince in this time has been Martell. Yes, actually, the Martells have been closer to House Targaryen for the last 150 years than any other House. They still have special priveleges and rights. I paid attention. Yes, the point was Elia was descibed as delicate. Its a point against the thread title theory. Since when has Littlefinger been privy to any of Varys' secrets? Littlefinger's focus' are different to Varys. Both have good networks, but both are much more limited than most readers seem to think. I don't believe there is any indication Littlefinger knows much at all about Vary or Varys' plots, except within King Robert's court. Littlefinger is an outsider playing his own game for his own advantage. Varys is an insider playing very different games that Littlefinger has no conception of.
  3. No, very much doubt that they do mostly. They just see more than that. Yes, but why would she? Rhaegar failed, died. He was wrong. SHE is tPtwP, the dragons prove it, clearly (in her view - but also in fact in Aemon's view, who agreed with Rhaegar before). Rhaegar was clearly fallible, since he lost and died. He can be part right - she is the 'one more', and part wrong - She, not Aegon is the PtwP. And thats assuming she knows or cares about prophecy at all. She is the Mother of Dragons after all. Thats real and now and much bigger than some dusty old obscure prophecies that may or may not be relevant in the here and now. I don't think you are displaying any idea how to get inside someone's head and see things from their POV.
  4. Yes, quite right. Stuff that we've not been given clues to doesn't count though. Don't think so. (can't find any evidence at all that could be construed as such). Jaime's words (memory) is that Aerys "gracelessly" reminded Lewyn Martell that he had Elia, when sending him to command the (already coming) Dornish host. I can't see that as Jaime thinking Aerys was right, just that he was a bit of an ass. 'Graceless' means it was crass, not directly threatening. Thus its not an actual hostage situation (according to Jaime, who was there and is relatively unbiased), just a crass reminder that it could be if things didn't proceed as expected. The word 'hostage' is only used post-war by Aerys' enemies writing for the pleasure of King Robert. And even then, they don't report it as fact, just as rumour. Its hardly as reliable as Jaime's memory as an actual witness. Well, there isn't actually any real evidence of them being 'estranged' in the first place. Just some talk by unscrupulous courtiers trying to get advantage at court and various paranoid ramblings during Aerys' bad moments. Noticeably Aerys wanted Rhaegar to command early in the war too, and when he couldn't be found selected the nearest thing he could find (Rhaegar's ex-squire, JonCon). Anyway, the point was that a blunt statement was made that the Martells had a (continuing) grudge against the Targaryens, for which there is no evidence, and more, that the Martells only joined the war because of the hostage situation - when in point of fact the significantly stronger evidence (unbiased witness in his own thoughts vs biased history writer writing for Robert and even then not recounting as fact but as rumour - "it is said") about the situation show it to be a potential as opposed to actual hostage situation, directed locally (at Aerys' court), not to the Dornish leaders who sent the troops, and that the Dornish army was already on the way. What evidence? Every time the chips are down, Aerys wants Rhaegar ahead of everyone. And Rhaegar supports Aerys. Thats the 'real' evidence, as opposed to the worst times when they clashed in relatively meaningless ways. Or the self-interested and malicious gossips at court trying (and occasionally succeeding in minor ways perhaps) to drive a wedge between them for the courtier's advantage. Rhaegar knew he needed to do something about the mad king (because the madness and paranoia hurts the king, the family/House as well as the Kingdom), but there is no reason to suspect he would have had Aerys harmed, or done anything unconstitutional, so to speak, In fact the evidence we have leads toward Rhaegar trying to do things as 'properly' as possible and in fact doing nothing at all against Aerys (for which he is sometimes faulted) rather than improper things. So? He's crazy sometimes, but never goes far enough for it to matter (with family at least), and its immaterial what he wants anyway. It was always Rhaegar who was next, and then dead Aerys' madnesses wouldn't make any difference to who followed Rhaegar on the throne. You don't think a secret pact with Viserys, after the Martell niece and nephew are dead, isn't evidence of some loyalty? Seems a bit more than "what can you do for me" (which was nothing at the time, whereas the risk should that document get exposed would be considerable). Its not like Doran has been trying to cultivate other anti-Lannister alliances. There is no indication of any outreach to any of the other great Houses, nearly all of which dislike the Lannister power and should be in some way amenable to some sort of alliance building. But... nothing. All Doran' eggs have been aimed at the Targaryen basket. Since when was their goal to destroy the Baratheon regime? I thought it was to get revenge on Tywin Lannister, primarily, and restore the Targ regime (with them closely attached to it) secondarily? Destroying the Baratheon regime is only a byproduct of the secondary goal. The Baratheons are Targ-blooded, the Targs are not Baratheon-blooded (ie the connections are down, not up, and virtually all the same way). Its not quite the same. The Baratheons have not been staunch supporters with multiple intermarriages over the last 150 yrs. Instead they actively rebelled and declared independence less than 70 years before. True. Its possible. But that doesn't make it that way automatically either. There is 150yrs of connected family history there, and a Pact with Viserys as well, even though he has no close, recent Martell connection. Yeah, rushed mistake, reinforced, whoops.
  5. Thats a fan and some not-involved character interpretation. There is no indication that Elia felt snubbed at Harrenhal. In fact, there is no indication that Elia felt snubbed by any events (she may have been in on Rhaegar's plans, though I think it unlikely on balance), the snub was felt by Dorne after Rhaegar abducted Lyanna and disappeared. Once Rhaegar reappears (without Lyanna) and Rhaenys and Aegon are still firmly his heirs, there simply isn;t any snub to feel. At least not one that beats family connection and a grandson on the throne. No, the Rebellion did not start at Harrenhal. It started months and months later over a separate event. This is simply false. There is no major ongoing Martell grudge against Targaryens. The 'Martell kids' that were killed were Targaryens and were killed by the Targaryen's enemies.. Partly due to Rhaegar's apparent snub of Elia when he stole Lyanna (and partly due to Doran's innate caution) the Martells were slow to send forces to support the Targaryens during the rebellion. But they did support and the only indication we have of the 'hostages' factor is Aerys' paranoid delusions. To remind you, Rhaegar was not estranged from his father - in fact he was put in charge of all Targaryen forces including the disposition of the Kingsguard, and Rhaegar's heir was a Martell. Doran's grandson would have sat the throne, until after Rhaegar was killed and mad, paranoid, deluded Aerys changed the succession. And with Viserys dying without heirs, 50+% Martell Aegon is still the rightful Targaryen heir, if he really is alive. There is no evidence for this at all. The Targaryens and Martells are family and have been for generations. Aegon is particularly close family being Doran's grandson as well as something-somethingth cousin.
  6. lost these two last little bits. How is that relevant? The point is that Doran aimed both his kids at Dany/Viserys and neither at fAgeon. That rather ruins any argument that Mellario is working the fAegon angle on Doran's behalf, since if he'd known about it it would have been relevant for his plans for his kids. If he'd known, Doran's plans for Arrianne would have moved from Viserys to Aegon, once Viserys died. Its a natural progression. Instead he has no plans for her until after JonCon contacts him and informs him of Aegon's existence. And maybe it does. But as indicated by the prior plans of the Golden Company, the one thing its not possible for it it refer to is exclusively Blackfyre blood.
  7. Hmmm. I explicitly applied to the argument itself, not to you, so I was trying to be clear that I wasn't calling you personally disingenuous. I apologise unreservedly for any appearance of it being personal. Probably another word is better, Sorry. I can't think of one, and its not easy to find one as all the synonyms emphasis the dishonest part (which supports your case for my misapplication of it, sorry), which is not the relevant part I am trying to bring out. For lack of the ability to chose a better word, I'll try a longer explanation on my part: I think your argument here doesn't have a sound internal structure. Its structure is: "the data doesn't completely disprove an unreasonable alternative therefore the not-disproved alternative is reasonable". I don't think you are dishonestly applying it, but I do think this argument is not actually an honest one internally to itself. She has the Tully look, from her mother. No, its not an 'absolute' rule. But it is a strong theme throughout the books thats relevant to storylines. If GRRM is going to break this rule/theme he has used so consistently, then he needs to lay out some actual clues or examples of a child being described with one family look and changing to another family look. He hasn't, at least that I know of or that you've been able to bring to the table. Yes. Because IMO they are literally so unreasonable as to be virtually impossible. If your Arrianne Martell example had worked, then you'd have enough for me to say I really don't think so, but its reasonably possible. But it didn't. To be perfectly honest, if we can do that without insulting (which I already did in error, sorry again) each other, I suspect that your error with the Arrianne Martell appearance change probably affected your headcannon around appearances much like mine with olive skin did to my head cannon around Frog's appearance. We all make such errors from time to time. The only difference is that I think yours is absolutely critical for an otherwise non-existent case and mine is just an extra factor amongst many. You are trying to buck the trend and I'm just applying it, so your data is rare and critical, mine is plentiful and thus each piece less important. Obviously we aren't going to move each other (unless you come up with more actual data). I'm happy with what is out there from each of us for others to read and decide themselves with a fair perspective from both sides, not just one side.
  8. Agreed. Which is why I stated that the point is not exactly wrong, even though it is not exactly right. You have extrapolated from one subset, and assumed it apply universally to the whole set (in fact indicating that you weren't aware that there were important subsets). I merely pointed out that the extrapolation, while not necessarily wrong, is not necessarily right as applied to Daynes, either. Its a point best left out, since we have no clarity on it, rather than tried to apply for or against either side in this case.
  9. Not exactly. There are 3 different main racial/cultural groups within Dorne. Sandy Dornish, Salty Dornish and Stoney Dornish. The Daynes are stoney Dornish, who appear to have Andal/First men origins as posed to the Salty/Sandy Dornish who have Rhoynar origins. From origins, seem to follow customs. Also, note that the Daynes, more than any other House in Westeros, cling to their origins. Their symbol, their colours, their motto, their history, their House heirloom, all relate to their origins - pre Rhoynar. All the examples of differing Dornish cultural attitudes in this area are Salty or Sandy.
  10. Largely, he's just being melodramatic. It cannot possibly truly refer only to the Blackfyre origins of the Company, as we know both Myles Toyne and Harry Strickland were happy to return to Westeros under Visery or Dany's banners. So at best it refers to the blood in the context of a return to Westeros with blood of the Dragon (red or black) or a reference to the blood of exiles that still remains (little as it may be) within the company. The point there wasn't moving the needle on the overall argument. It was to counter the specific argument that we know very little about Ashara Dayne. Or for that matter about Lemore. The fact is, we know more than was insinuated and virtually everythnig we know about either Ashara or Lemore is a fit for the other. Its actually quite remarkable that everything we know (bar a Stark connection for Ashara, which I don't think actually existed in a relevant sense) fits them both. Edric Dayne has pale blonde hair, Gerold Dayne Silver (with a streak of black) (thats all we had on Daynes for hair colour until Barristan told us Ashara was dark) and the Daynes are noted with dark blue or purple eyes. All indications were that the Daynes had Targ-like colouring. Ie light coloured special hair and purple eyes. And this appeared to be 'backed up' by the description from Cat about Ashara being 'tall and fair'. Further, you have the general indications of Targ 'beauty' and Ashara's 'beauty' referencing her similar colouring (though eyes only). In retrospect it was clever misdirection on GRRM's part. But if pressed to guess Ashara's hair colour prior to Barrstan's chapters, you have to go at least 67% a light colour, if not 90+%. I think its actually a really good match. 20 years ago, Ashara was a beautiful young noblewomen (note that the 'stunning beauty' is not actually attested to. She had great eyes and was 'fair' and in one crush's opinion put a weak and sickly woman in the shade, but none of that actually says she was exceptionally beautiful more than the average attractive, wealthy young woman with pretty eyes). 20 years later Lemore is a 'handsome' older woman, still attractive enough at 'past 40' to draw men's eyes despite her plain religeouse persona (and I'm sure the naked swimming helps there, but its plainly more than that). To me, thats almost an exact match. I really can't understand people arguing that its a mis-match. And yet, thats exactly how it works for the most famous real purple eyed person in history. Elizabeth Taylor's eyes look grey or pale blue in many photos where she is not wearing makeup or pink/purple accessories. And its also how it works for fAegon's eyes, though not perfectly. Makeup or accessories (blue hair) is used to help change his hair colour and bring out one shade more than another. It may not be perfect, but it helps significantly or they wouldn't do it. I do not think it is worth pointing out - as a real thing. It is worth pointing out as a subtle misdirection that works on some people on GRRM's part. The fact is that the difference between 30s and 40s is as little as a year. Ie, it can be truly negligible. First, lets look at Ashara's side of that equation. Its also a fact that Ashara was away from her family, in a court position (not as a ward, but as a courtier) about 19 years before current time (281). Arguably she was between 14ish and 21 at that time since GGRM saying 'she would be in her thirties by now' ties her birth between 260AC and 270AD, but 11-13 is clearly too young for her position and her actions/effect at Harrenhal. We have to guess between 14-21, but given she is not a ward of anyone at court, danced with men in the 20ish range, was old enough to be 'dishonoured' (and get pregnant it seems), and intimidating enough for 18yr old shy Ned to be reluctant to dance with, I think its fair to guess at the high end of that range, rather than the low end. The high end of that range puts her very close to 40, if still under it per definitive GRRM word (otherwise we could guess even older, mid 20s or more, though still most likely 18-22ish). Then we look at Tyrion's side of that equation. For some reason GRRM has spent space twice for Tyrion to guess ages wrong. And now we are supposed to think that he's (or any man!) is 'accurately' guessing the age of a middle-aged woman? You know, that thing that we as men simply don't go near in any way since its so easy to get it so badly wrong? Never mind arguments about Tyrion's expectations of the way women look/age, noblewomen and whores vs more natural women, the life Lemore has lived etc etc To summarise the 'age' issue; 1. Ashara's correct age fits well to being close enough to indistinguishable from Tyrion's guess 2. Tyrion's guess is numerically totally unreliably, serving only to give the most general description 3. THere simply is no age issue. Bringing it up only shows the weakness of the counter-case. Sure, except for those that pay attention, its Targaryen+Dayne. Every Dayne we've met has purple (or nearly) eyes too. In your opinion. In the books she's the early leader in the 'who is Jon's mother' stakes. Plus her brother is the finest knight Ned even knew, a legend. Plus Gerold and Edric. Its enough of a thing that GRRM had to explicitly say that the Daynes weren't Targaryen/Valaryen offshoots (that he knows) in a Q&A session. I guess we have different vales on what is important. IMO a side intrigue between 'southrons' is of little importance in the grander scheme of ASoIaF. It has its own political relevance in Iron throne politics, but the whole Iron throne politics thing is entirely a sideshow, other than how it affects the Song of Ice and Fire and the solution to the whole 'Other' (white Walker) issue. The whole Jon's origins, Rhaegar's plan, Ned/Rhaegar pre-story story is much more important IMO. Ashara ties to all of the mysteries surrounding early Ned's activities, Jon's origins, the ToJ period plus Rhaegar and his motivations. Thats most of the most important mysteries of the past (IMO of course). Plus she is tied to Barristan and thus possibly Dany's "betrayal for love". Plus her ties to Aegon give an apparent (but not necessarily real) legitimacy (in Westerosi eyes) to the whole fAegon plot in a way that no other potential character could. Arthur Dayne's sister and Elia's Handmaid, proclaiming Rhaegar and Elia's son is so much more powerful in Westerosi terms than... anyone else that could be. And those mysteries are (mostly) the exact same mysteries as we already have for baby Aegon-> fAegon. In fact she provides a lot of the answers, more so than an other option. As to Ashara's baby? Either dead or Allyria, raised and claimed by her mother to give a better life to a loved bastard (I don't really believe this one, but it could be and its so cutely neat...). Either way, thats not really a part of Ashara=Lemore's story in the end. Ok. Mostly I'm replying because IMO your arguments have been bad, and need (so to speak) countering less they mislead people. Thats a weakness of mine, sorry. And this is the 'bad argument' - IMO. 1. Its not just 'Ashara was the handmaid'. Its 'every thing we know about the two matches' + 'connections much better than any other option' + 'much more potential going forward' 2. The 'caveats' are all very badly flawed; - age is a match, not a mismatch, once thought is applied past the raw numbers - the attractiveness thing is a match, rather than a mis-match - despite their rarity, purple eyes are demonstrably not super-obvious, both in real life and in Westeros. According to the GC, it has. They were up for Viserys/Dany. fAegon is a backup option that has fallen in their lap (against Illyrio's plans it must be noted). In fact he says he never met her. Or, Robert had a report on Ned's visit already, and made the assumption the wetnurse was the mother, just as he did in the conversation we saw. Why would Ned tell Robert Wylla was the mother once, and be so reluctant, angry and avoidant every other time - both with Robert and Cat? Actually, We know that some salty/sandy Dornish have different attitudes. Ashara is from stoney Dornish stock who physically appear more like other Westerosi than salty/sandy Dornish and may also have more similar customs and attitudes. So while the point is not exactly wrong, its also not exactly right.
  11. I suspect it was the pudgy and flat chested one. Obviously she's 'changed' and is no longer flat chested, but thats purely a kid of around 12ish who hasn't started developing but wants to, vs a full grown woman. And its not really a change. She's short and buxom, which is a common grown-up version of the slightly pudgy kid. I think that this is a very disingenuous argument. We a clear "Targaryen look". And they are basically opposite from Frog (and Arrianne). We have a Martell mother and a Targaryen father. One child is written as looking more like a Martell and the other as looking more like a Targaryen. Which, in context, doesn't just mean 'he looked less Martell', it means he had the Targaryen look. Saying otherwise is pure sophistry. The context gives more meaning than just the words alone. In Doran's family, we see the Martell (salty Dornish - the same look is referenced elsewhere) look from Oberyn (tall, slender, dark eyes, dark hair - using Oberyn since Doran doesn't get a useful description) and we see both Arrianne and Quentyn with a salty Dornish colouring plus the stature they got from Mellario (Oberyn is tall and lean, Arianne (and Quentyn) short and buxom(/stocky) and said to favour her mother (which is likely the stature, since her hair and eyes match Oberyn but stature is opposite to his). This is GRRM's westerosi signature - 'family 'looks' that stay consistent, whether its Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon, Targaryen or Martell. And you are trying to tell us that a child GRRM identified with one 'look' (with supporting evidence from Kevan) he is then hiding as a complete opposite 'look'? No, Period. It is a problem, which is why I brought it up, just not a provably insurmountable one as I conceded. It is further evidence added to the heaped pile. Quentyn is not just 'short legged', he's also 'stocky', which is a description given to shorter people, never to taller people (while it could technically apply to a taller person as it doesn't by definition refer to height, it never is as tall people who could be described as stocky are always described in other ways, such as huge, broad, barrel chested, etc.) Arrianne and Quentyn are given the same body type, which shows off in slightly different ways in males and females. And apparently it comes from Mellario. Correct, my mistake. I his-applied that from Arrianne and teh salty dornish look in general. Horse before the cart on that one, sorry.. Yes it is. The colour of new-turned earth which is usually dark, nearly black from a distance until it dries lighter (and is no longer newly-turned). No, thats the disingenuous part. A large part of GRRM's story here are distinctive family looks. Baby Aegon is noted as looking like a Targaryen, which tends to tall lean and beautiful with silver or gold hair and purple eyes. He had fair hair. To hide him as a short, stocky, ugly, dark haired, dark eyed young man just doesn't work. Period. I don't claim to be perfect, but I do admit my errors when they are pointed out (as did you, for which you have my respect). To Doran yes, that would be just her adding that correction to fAegon's party. Notably Doran appears not to know about fAegon (at least until the Golden Company invades Westeros) - his plans for both his children being aimed at Viserys and Dany, neither at fAegon, which is one of the many weak points about the Mellario theory. The rest are already connected to Aegon without Mellario and she provides no extra 'connection' to them. She also had no particular connection to them prior to the conspiracy. In other words, no Mellario provides nothing in this context. Your own list fails at every step. Or not. Thats opinion. Illyrio is a showman. He's full of enigmatic hints of this or that, most of which mean nothing. Thats his character. He's also full of shit more often than not. All of this is correct, at least in its own way. The point being, Illyrio is not the Master Schemer in control of everything that he presents himself as. Its a false front, showmanship. In truth he fumbles along as best he can just like anyone else and his schemes don't actually work the way he thinks they will. He is smart enough to have multiple plans in play and to adapt to circumstances, but he doesn't have the control he insinuates and that too many readers give him credit for. We also see here that the Golden company expected (and accepted) Targaryen's to support, not just Blackfyres. Everyone pushing the Golden Company/Blackfyres-only angle complete ignores this basic fact which kills their argument stone dead. Irrelevant. The leadership were already going to support Viserys, then Dany. So they were always willing to 'break contract' when the right opportunity came along vis-à-vis Westeros. Yes, inasmuch as he 'showmans' everything he says. The actual evidence of who and what they are, is significantly different than how he presents them (or at least how you present them and indicate its partly from him - I don't think its necessary I go back and check that it is from him) They don't need Illyrio's payoff. Lands and keeps of their own are worth more than gold. Doubly so from Homeless Harry (and Miles Toyne before him), who unlike most of the company actually has ancestral lands to recover. @Alexis-something-Rose, he's got you there.
  12. Apologies to anyone who's brought this up before, but I don't recall seeing this idea before. Its really clever and interesting, even though I personally won't take it any further at this stage, with my literal bent.
  13. While I respect (though don't entirely trust - its too subjective for my taste, but its awesome when other people work these metaphorical connections out) this line of figurative thinking, I think in this case we have some rather blunt direction from Lemore herself that she has a secret identity. I don't think she's doing this metaphorical type stuff about herself even if GRRM might have. Lemore is secretly a westerosi noblewoman with connections and motivations relating to Aegon's origins and probably known toa younger Jon Connington.
  14. Quote please. I don't recall anything like this. Nothing I can find suggests Arriane ever looked anything un-Doran-like (not to mention nothing tells us what Mellario looked like). She's short, dark and large bosomed, As a child she was pudgy - which matches with short and large bosomed. Thats it. Yes, but you are positing something a lot more than this. Aegon looked like a Targaryen. What does that mean? Generally speaking the "Targaryen look" is: tall, often lean, tending toward pale skinned, silver or golden hair, purple eyes. Quite distinctive. Yes, Aegon was a baby so tall and lean are not confirmed, and yes, Targaryens can also have other looks, but the above is the signature "Targaryen Look". And GRRM confirms directly that Aegon followed this look And Frog? He's short, stocky, olive skinned, dark eyed and black haired. This is not a small difference. It is in fact virtually a perfectly antithetical look. Frog (and Arrianne and Doran) couldn't possibly look further from a Targaryen and still be from the same continent. It provides solutions to nothing of importance, it just ties together a few irrelevant unknowns. Mellario only provides connections and resolutions to herself - a bit part character with a tenuous connection to Westeros. Contrast that with what Ashara offers... I think the answer to this is the same for any theory. A chance for more than they can get in Essos. A chance to go "home" and gain their own lands and titles etc. More and more permanent rewards than they have any chance of in Essos. Maybe even a sort of resolution for any current members (we haven't seen any) who do have (now far-removed) ties to the founding members The Golden Company is not what it was. Few remain of those who began it, and those that do have original connections are 2-3 generations removed from its origins. A dragon is a dragon. What does any current member of the Golden Company really care whether it be black or red? Nothing at all. If they can put a dragon in power, then they can get everything their forbears dreamed of. This is all fairly explicit and shouldn't need pointing out, but people romanticise the Golden Company far more than the current membership deserves.
  15. I honestly don't think its worth your time. But these things need to be checked out anyway, just in case. Apparently its not important that baby Aegon had the Targaryen look while Frog has, basically, the un-Targaryen look. I think its truly amazing the way people can connect disparate dots within a picture while ignoring both the actual picture and the lines drawn by the author inside it. Only their own lines count. Its quite a skill to have.
×
×
  • Create New...