three-eyed monkey

I don't think Littlefinger is trying to crash the Iron Bank, he's trying to crash Ilyyrio and Varys's party without an invitation. There was a time when I suspected that Littlefinger's rivalry with Varys was just for show and that they were possibly working together, but I tend to lean away from that now because Varys complained about Littlefinger's meddling in the plan (Littlefinger not Joffrey was the one who hired the catspaw and armed him with a blade he had publicly handed over to Robert and later secretly reacquired, but that's beside the point) and meddling is unwarranted interference. So I don't believe they are working together but we are told Littlefinger and Varys watch each other very closely. I think Littlefinger knows about Varys and Illyrio's plan to bring in King Aegon. Littlefinger's counter move is to create a queen for Aegon to marry, a beautiful and recently widowed queen who brings the North and the Vale to the new king. Littlefinger knows there will be rival suitors, like Highgarden and Dorne, and that's what he means by what little peace the five kings left will not survive the three queens. He anticipates a war for Aegon's hand. But Varys will counter that by taking Sansa off Littlefinger, by way of the Mad Mouse. It might even be checkmate for Littlefinger if that happens.

Then we are reading different stories. Dany motive from the beginning is to win back the throne from the Usurper who stole it and murdered her family in the process. This is the wound she wants to heal, one she shares with Viserys when he is alive and takes up alone when he dies. She makes decisions based on that. She considers that she could be happy being Drogo's queen but resolves that it would be no life for a dragon. She only turned into Slavers Bay to get an army, one that would help her win back the throne. If she is a random Valyrian, then how does that character's arc work? How did she end up with Viserys and Darry? Why does Viserys blame her for killing their mother? Going forward, who can now convince her that she is not who she thinks she is? Will some character reveal it to her? If Illyrio or Varys or Doran tell her that she is not actually who she thinks she is, why would she believe them? How would that work? Who are her parents? Where was she born? Where's the house with the red door? How did she come to be with Viserys and Darry? That is the case now and that's the point. She is the blood of the dragon, the blood of Aegon the conqueror and her family has ruled the realm for 300 years. She bears that tradition as the Last Targaryen, as she believes she is. But that is the tradition she needs to sacrifice to save the realm, and she can't truly sacrifice what she does not possess. That's a main theme of the story. Well I think it means when she reflects on her journey and the price she paid for the throne, her goal, which is the throne, will be lost. That's how Serwyn slew the dragon, by showing it it's reflection. Agreed. Her choices and everything she will have to sacrifice are more meaningful if she is a Targaryen. Part of it. She has an internal conflict because she also wants to win the throne, which stems from her being a Targaryen. She also wants to be a good queen who is loved. These are the things she wants, and she will be forced to sacrifice them to get what she needs, which is to be a true queen and protect the realm whatever the personal cost. Yes, she is essentially a good person. But she has been learning that if she wants to take the throne and rule then she sometimes has to do bad things to get her way. In the end she will have to remember who she is, the good person who began the story. Not that she is someone else. You want her to have the potential to hatch dragons like Valyrians or Targaryens but in the same breath say that there's nothing exceptional about her. I agree that you don't have to be part of some great family to achieve greatness, it does come down to the character's choices and who they are, not their name. The point GRRM is making with Dany is that even if you have the power to rule the world, the thing everyone is fighting for in the series, it's what you choose to do with that power that matters. If that's her character's goal from the outset, then when she gets it could she give it all up to save the realm? Certainly, GRRM's saying that you don't have to part of some great family to achieve greatness, but that point is being made through characters like Davos or Mance.

I accept that Dany could potentially be anyone, same for any character really I suppose. Dany could be Viserys. When she says if I look back I'm lost, maybe she means if I look down I'm lost? Personally I think her story and character-arc work much better if she is who we are told. Some readers think it's about surprises that we can guess at and wait until the next book comes out to find out who guessed right. That's not how good stories work though. Characters are crafted with wounds and goals and traits, they have internal conflict and an external conflict to resolve, and their arcs are created with plot-points where they make decisions that ultimately either succeed or fail to resolve those conflicts. Then there is the symbolism and foreshadowing and themes built into the arc. All of this is part of the story the author is telling us. If you take the Targaryen out of Dany, then you rip the heart out of her arc, in my opinion. If people want to think that she is someone else, fine, I'm just saying I'm not at all convinced.

But this is so contradictory. You say the real Dany was used to make an alliance. An alliance with who? Just Viserys and Willem Darry? But then you say the Targaryens only value is what the plotters around them choose to give them. If that's the case then why do they need to make a secret marriage alliance using the real Dany, who they took back to Dorne in the guise of the Archon's daughter? Then there's the point @Nevets is making. If they swap the real Dany for a fake, then in the eyes of the world it is the fake who is the real Dany. If they later reveal the real Dany the world will think she is a fake produced by Doran. So Dorne end up with the real Dany, who the world thinks is the Archon's daughter, while their fake is who the world thinks is Dany. Even Doran's son Quentyn thinks she is the real Dany. Did Doran neglected to tell him when he sent him off to bring her back? Or did Doran just realize that his fake Dany scheme actually made no sense and the less said about it the better? Besides, he may as well get on board with the rest of the world and pretend the fake he swapped is now the real Dany, she is the one with the dragons after all, and the Archon's daughter, who was the real Dany, is just a pool lounging freeloader he really has no use for.

They should have swapped in a fake Viserys instead, one they controlled, and sold the real Dany to get him his army. But then that would mean the Archon's daughter is really the Archon's daughter.

The way I see it Varys and Illyrio are thieves and confidence tricksters. Illyrio even told Tyrion how their scheme works. Their scheme is quite simple. Varys spied on lesser thieves and took their takings, while Illyrio offered to help the victims recover their valuables for a fee. They both grew rich and Illyrio grew respectable, while other thieves sought out Varys to either slit his throat or sell him what they had stolen. Then they started leaving the gold and gems for common thieves, while they stole information instead. Secrets are worth more than silver and sapphires. In King’s Landing, after the sack, the lesser thieves that Varys was spying on were those who had stolen the throne, the Usurper and his dogs. Meanwhile Illyrio offered to help the victims, the Targaryens, recover their valuables for a fee. The takings of these lesser thieves were the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms. This is where the value of secrets becomes apparent because that’s how Varys would take the lesser thieves’ takings, by revealing the truth about Robert’s children and thus driving a wedge between Baratheon and Lannister, but only when the time was right. That’s why others who might uncover the secret too soon, like Jon Arryn and Ned, were a problem. The timing of the war that the secret would inevitably provoke would have to be right. Jorah told Dany that the arrival of the Dothraki would only unite the realm. Clearly no one in Westeros would want a Dothraki horde coming ashore. The secret would be used to provoke an internal war that prevented any such unity when Viserys and the Dothraki were ready to invade. Illyrio and Varys didn't want an internal war, like the one brewing between the wolf and the lion, to come until Viserys was ready. No one wanted the Dothraki, but they only had a part to play in the scheme. A bigger problem for Illyrio and Varys was that no one would want Viserys as king either. Jorah said as much to Dany and when she thought about it she had to agree. Barristan remembers that even at a young age Viserys showed signs that he was the Mad King’s son. And Willem Darry? It’s odd he never told Viserys about the marriage pact with Dorne, even on his death bed. I think he decided to spare the realm a lot of blood. Illyrio and Varys would have known that Viserys was a bad horse to back because the Seven Kingdoms did not want another Mad King. Even if Viserys won the throne, how long would he have held it for before the realm rose against him, as it had against his father. Viserys was not a sustainable investment. In the eyes of Illyrio and Varys, Viserys was never a king, just a pawn they led to believe the realm would rise for when he returned. And pawns are expendable. If the Targaryens were to return, then the son of Rhaegar, not Aerys, would be smarter the horse to back. Illyrio’s guards stopped Viserys from trying to take Dany’s maidenhead before she married Drogo. Illyrio said that if Viserys had succeeded, he would have ruined years of planning. Surely it did not take years of planning to arrange the marriage to Drogo, so this refers to a wider plan that was in motion before Viserys and Dany came into Illyrio’s care. The Golden Company also lost something valuable, their lands and titles in Westeros, and a century of trying to regain them had ended in multiple failures. But if you wanted your valuables back, then it was known in Essos that Illyro was the man you needed to see. We know Illyrio’s plot with the Golden company goes back a dozen years at least, to when they recruited Jon Connington. Dany remembered that when she was young Viserys feasted the Golden Company in the hope that he might persuade them to take up his cause, but they laughed at him. Yet they had no problem with Viserys joining them with his Dothraki, when that was the plan. It's not that they had a change of heart towards King Viserys, but rather that they understood that he was a pawn and Aegon the king. A return to Westeros under King Viserys was not likely to last long. Jon Connington and Aegon himself believe he is Rhaegar’s son, some speculate that he is secretly a Blackfyre, either could be true but the boy could just as easily be the pisswater prince for all it matters. Power resides where men believe it resides, according to Varys. It’s just a trick. Aegon is the king Illyrio and Varys want to put on the throne, the one they groomed to rule from a young age. Aegon could be real or fake, their scheme works either way. Primarily he’s who Illyrio and Varys need him to be to make the scheme work - a Targaryen king the realm will support, returning lands and titles to the exiles who helped him win the throne and in the process allowing Illyrio to return his client’s lost valuables. Illyrio gains the kings favor and grows his influence in Westeros as much as he did in Essos, while half the lesser thieves like Cersei seek out Varys to slit his throat and the other half to sell him back what they had stolen, which in this context means turn their cloaks back to Targaryen. Dany, who Illyrio once used as coin in his plan, has now become the main threat to the Fat Man’s plan, given that she has a claim to rival Aegon’s and the dragons to back it. Illyrio might have hoped to marry Aegon and Dany, but now that Aegon has sailed west to claim the throne without her, he surely hopes the slavers will end her in Meereen. The plan continues to change to meet the circumstance, but the goal of putting Aegon on the throne has remained the same.

You are the one who brought burden of proof into it. I agree that the same standard should be applied to theories. I'm not guessing that Dany is who we are told, there's plenty of evidence to support that in the text. You are guessing that she is someone else. If you want to develop that guess into a theory, then find the support in the text. That's the same standard, the difference is that your guess is not really supported. I'm not trying to shut down any theory, but that doesn't mean I agree with the validity of every theory. I believe Dany is who we are told she is, and I've made my case above. I welcome any theory, but if it's going to be convincing then it needs to be more than a guess. I don't find any of the theories claiming Dany is someone else to be convincing. There are universal rules of story-telling and both GRRM and Tolkien do follow them. Take for example the hero's journey arc structure, something Frodo and Dany share. Take for example set-up and pay-off, something that both writers use. These are used by both writers because both writers know what works, they understand the rules of story-telling. Now, they can still tell different stories and make different points. I believe the point GRRM is making is that the fate of mankind is in the hands of mankind, not the hands of the gods. You then brought Tolkein into it by saying that can't be the case because it has to be down to the gods, which is something Tolkien alludes to in LotR. I support my position using Jaime and the White Book, and what he says about being free to write what ever he choose. This is not merely about what he writes in the book, it's about him being free to be whatever type of man he wants to be, or at least aspire towards that. You refute that by saying that can't be what it means because it's not down to him, and then you cite Frodo to support your case. If that's your position then you need to find support in ASoIaF because GRRM is making a different point about gods than Tolkien was making. It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. The point he's making is being made in the text in scenes like Jaime and the White Book and that's what matters to the story he's telling. He's putting that stuff in there for a reason. If he wanted to make the point that Jaime is not free to write whatever he wants, then the scene would have been different and the point would have been made that whatever fills the blank page is not down to Jaime, it's down to the gods. But that's not what's in the text.

Leave as many alternatives as you want on the table. I have no problem with that. I've discussed my position and why I think Dany is who we are told. You are free to disagree. If you think Dany is someone else, great, but if you want to make an argument for that belief then the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works for every theory. There is no burden of disproof on anyone. The reader's personal beliefs should not come into this. GRRM wrote this story, not Tolkien or anyone else, and I'm only talking about what GRRM wrote, because I'm only talking about his story; the themes, character-arcs, plot-points, etc. If you have a problem with the author's world view then feel free to take it up with him. I'm not really interested in that, I'm only interested in his story and his incredible skill as a storyteller.

I'm pretty much of the same mind as you. It's the last two paragraphs of the chapter that are written in third-person omniscient as opposed to third-person limited. That Vic came back on deck rather than went shows that. We do get the characters thoughts at the end of the paragraph, but that's fine in omniscient. The change is taking you out of the character and into the ether, so to speak, because the story does not have an omniscient narrator to go to. So I read it as an out of body or perhaps near death experience. I'm reminded of Varamyr's experience between bodies in the prologue. There are definitely parallels to the scene in Drogo's tent. Both are seemingly innocuous wounds that fester, after which the treatment of the wound is entrusted to magic. The deep, dark, mad laughter heard first tells us that Victarion was in great pain, because he told Moqorro that he laughed at pain. I get the sense that Vic was close to death, if not dead, by the time the laughing was done. The change to omniscient point of view might indicate that his spirit had left his body and indeed the cabin. Then later Moqorro's singing is a high wail, same as Mirri's. Mirri told Dany that no one must enter the tent when she started singing, because she would wake powers old and dark, the dead would dance and no living man must look upon them. When the crew of the ship tried the cabin door it was locked, which suggests Moqorro didn't want anyone entering the cabin during the ritual, and I suspect that's for the reason Mirri gave Dany. I don't know why people always stick around for that creepy stuff but the monkeys were gone. Then there's Vic's arm, blood to the elbow at first and then hideous to look at when healed, burnt like pork crackling, the skin of which would split and smoke. This reminds me of Beric's blood washing over his sword and setting it afire during the Hound's trial. Drogo and Beric were resurrected, albeit different from their former selves. I think it's the same for Vic. I'm not sure if it's a literal resurrection like Beric, or just a symbolic one. After this, his chapter is called Victarion. The Iron Suitor marks the end of chapters with names like the Iron Captain, which are named for roles assigned to him rather than him. We see the same thing with Theon. So I get the sense that Vic is reborn here, with what he believes is his own agenda, but it's very clear that he is growing more influenced by Moqorro and the Red God. While Vic plans on making Dany his bride, I suspect his marriage to fire has already begun.

I'm not saying we create ourselves, and I'm not saying every event in our lives is within our control, because that's clearly not true. I'm talking about the things the characters can control and the choices the characters must make, particularly at their major plot-points, which are decisions the characters will make that determine the direction of the plot. These choices will determine who the characters are in the end, whether they are heroes or villains in simple terms. This point is made by Jaime and the White Book. Every character's future is a blank page, one they fill with what they choose because they are the ones writing their own stories, so to speak. Jaime's has a similar choice laid out before him in his arc as Dany does, because the author constructed it that way. Jaime can be the Smiling Knight or Ser Arthur Dayne. This is the thematic equivalent of madness or greatness. That's why the Smiling Knight is referred to as a madman, and as we know Arthur Dayne was a great knight. He wanted to be Arthur Dayne, but he became the Smiling Knight. But his future is a blank page so he can try to change that and write whatever he chooses, henceforth. I don't see any convincing argument that she is not the Mad King's daughter, nor do I see any convincing argument that she is someone else. So...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Tyrion's fate is in his own hands and the choices he makes, it's not down to the will of the gods. I'm not twisting the quote. I accept that in the view of people in Westeros, Targaryen's are born either mad or great, and that this is down to the gods. The gods flip a coin, and the world holds it breath hoping that it doesn't land on madness. However, I'm saying that it's not really down to the gods, it's actually down to the choices said Targaryen makes. Regardless of the cards you are dealt at birth, it's how you choose to play your cards that determines who you are. I'm not fighting against that idea at all. I agree that incest is a problem. This point is made by Ygritte talking about a man stealing a wife. The suggestion is that incest can lead to monsters. I agree with you that the reason for this is genetic, rather than a curse of the gods. That may be the hand Dany is dealt, but it does not have to define her. She can choose a different destiny. The themes of the story connect every character. I used the quote to support the point I was making about my belief that all justice and goodness will flow from men. I quoted that in response to your claim that I was endorsing what you called the gods flip a coin idea, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.

I'll add my thoughts about the theme of gods versus men. I'm not getting into religion here and I certainly don't want to offend anyone's beliefs. I'm only talking about a theme in the story. To begin with, I think it is an important theme. We hear a lot about in the eyes of gods and men, and of course there is the God's Eye, all of which relate to the theme. The Seven are seven aspects of one god, but they are also aspects of any one person, including the dark aspect known as the stranger. This is an aspect that needs to be kept in check, an aspect that should remain a stranger because you don't want to get too friendly with your dark side. Next we have the dualism of the Lord of Light and the Great Other. This can also represent two sides of someone's personality. We're all capable of being cruel or kind, being true or false, etc. We see this dualism best expressed through Stannis and his shadow, as in Renly's assassin, which was essentially part of Stannis. It's also expressed in the Targaryen coin toss. Then there's the Many-Faced God, and that can represent the many faces of the people of the realm. And finally, the Old Gods, who watch through faces carved in the trees. We know that it is greenseers who watch through the trees and greenseers are men, like Bran and Bloodraven. So I feel that GRRM is saying that the fate of mankind is in human hands and not in the hands of the gods. That's what I think GRRM is getting at when Stannis says that all he ever saw of justice and goodness was made by men. And that's why I think the choices the characters make will determine their fate and indeed the fate of the realm. But we're way off topic now, and I don't have anything else to say about Lemongate. I don't believe Dany is someone else. I've given my reasons why. Everyone's free to disagree.

GRRM is playing with the words. War is madness. Saving the realm is greatness. You're not born either mad or great, but you can make choices that take you down different paths, like to war, which is madness, or to saving the realm, which is greatness. That's how the coin toss represents the paths Dany can choose. I'm talking about story structure, you keep going off about genetics and modern rationalist materialist philosophy. What's next? ABBA lyrics? When did I say Davos is on team atheism... wait a minute, there are books too?

One of the red, blue, green motifs that is harder to notice is Davos, the Onion Knight. He's a red onion now, sworn to Stannis who is connected to the Red God, but red onions turn blue in time, and I suspect Davos will end up being a green onion because green onions are spring onions.

Given that I'm saying it all comes down to character choices, no I'm clearly not endorsing the gods flip a coin idea, you're just misunderstanding me. The coin flip is just another story-telling device. There is another theme running through the story, gods versus man. I'm not going to get into that whole theme now but here's a pertinent quote. I think Stannis is right about this - all justice and goodness is made by men. I believe Stannis himself is slowly changing his belief and getting on board with the Red God and the idea that he is guided by a divine hand, but this choice will only lead to his ruin.

Aerys said to Rossart, he'd leave them nothing but ash. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat. That's where the point is made that if he can't have it no one can. Jaime believed Aerys thought he would be reborn as a dragon to come back and turn his enemies to ash, we don't know if Aerys believed that but if he did then the end result would be that everything except the dragon would be ash. The clear parallel here is to Dany, who did emerge from a funeral pyre with dragons, but who must ultimately resist turning all her enemies to ash in order to win the throne if she wants to avoid becoming the Mad Queen. Well, as I said, you could make it work perhaps with some Targaryen bastard. My question is which Targaryen bastard can a convincing case be made for? I don't find any of the options convincing. I don't think it's as good a story-telling choice as her being the daughter of Aerya and Rhaella, and the sister of Rhaegar and Viserys, with the true Targaryen claim once Viserys dies. Why I think she must be the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella is not entirely to do with her claim. Bastards can have a claim too, especially when there are no trueborn children left, so it's not that. As I said, I believe Dany has a brilliantly constructed character arc, with a central conflict between her right to the throne and her duty as a queen. I think this is reflected in so many parts of her arc, including in her direct family, which I believe to be her two parents and her two brothers; that's Aerys, Rhaella, Rhaegar and Viserys. I think there's a beautiful symmetry in GRRM's construction of her family because one of parents and one of her brothers, Aerys and Viserys, are all about their right to the throne. This is the madness side of the coin. On the other side we have Rhaegar and Rhaella. Rhaegar was trying to save the realm from prophesied doom, and Rhaella died giving birth. To me, this combination perfectly represents what Dany must do; sacrifice herself to save the realm and essentially die giving birth to spring. This is the greatness side of the coin. I get it that you don't agree with what I'm saying, but I really don't have anything else to add to my argument so we'll have to agree to disagree. I remain convinced Dany is who we think she is and if the lemon tree hints at something, it's not hinting at Dany being someone else, but that's just my opinion.

I'll add my thoughts on the inheritance of madness because it's related to the points I've made. GRRM says he's not really into the genetics and stuff, it's more about the story. We see that with Robert's bastards all having black hair. I don't know how that works genetically but I know that GRRM doesn't care because he's using it as a story-telling device to clue Ned and the reader into the fact that Joffrey is not Robert's heir. I don't know if madness can be inherited genetically or not, but I feel that's beside the point being made in the story. It is power that is inherited, and power can corrupt. It comes down to the individual characters and the choices they make when faced with the tests and trials of their journey. Dany can turn towards greatness or turn towards madness, they are the two sides of the coin, but her coin is still turning in the air while she continues her journey because she still has choices to make before she reaches the climax of the story and resolves her arc. When Dany makes her final choice, her third and final plot-point, her third and final mount and treason and fire, only then will the coin land on madness or greatness. One more point on madness and the moniker, the Mad King. I can't help but think that GRRM is referring here to concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is pretty much what Aerys was saying when he talked about leaving Robert to rule over charred bones and ash. If he can't have the throne nobody will have the throne. It's the ultimate expression of a perceived right to the throne and the antithesis of a king's duty to his people. Again it demonstrates the conflict between right and duty, which is very relevant to Dany.

I don't think Jon's legitimate for much the same reason that I think Dany is. Being a bastard is a characteristic of Jon's that is central to his inner-conflict. I think one of the points his character will make is that bastards can have honor, and to do that he needs to be a bastard. R+L=J, sure, I even believe they were married, but I don't think he's legitimate. You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying being a Targaryen makes Dany more worthy to rule. In fact I'm saying quite the opposite. It has nothing to do with it, it only gives her dragons and puts her in a position to rule, but she must set that aside if she wants to be a true queen. I don't have distaste for the possibility of her not being who she is, I just don't believe it because I expect her to have to sacrifice the idea or fictitious nonsense that being a Targaryen gives her the right to rule if she's to save the realm.

Well there's a strong theme about sacrifice to consider. I believe Dany will have to sacrifice her right to do her duty, rather than just do her duty. I mean her right as a queen versus her duty as a queen, regardless of the setting. Viserys was all about his rights, but everyone knows he would have made a terrible king. Dany is determined to be a good queen and bring peace and justice to the realm but the problem is she needs to wake the dragon and bring fire and steel if she wants to win the throne. No he doesn't, unless he thinks a horse and a cart are the same thing. All he could think of was his rights until Davos reminded him of his duty. Stannis accepted that he had the cart before the horse. Then we disagree. I'm not saying vows and parentage are the same. The connection is the character's inner-conflict, and how it relates to their character. In Jaime's case the characteristic of being a kingsguard, that's the characteristic that creates the conflict when he kills Aerys. I feel the same about Dany and her characteristic of being a Targaryen. I don't know what other way to put it. No, what I'm describing is the intrinsic connection between theme, character, and plot in any story. And when you say good guys always win, well that's the case for more than children's stories. Do I think the heroes of the story will bring the dawn? Yes, I do. Do I think they'll all win? No. Do I think they'll all live happily ever after? No. I suspect both Dany and Jon will pay a heavy cost to save the realm. Good men don't get good results in a corrupt realm ruled by false kings who only consider protecting their rights. If the realm was true, then Ned would not have been beheaded. So true kings and queens are needed to bring the light of truth back to the realm, which is symbolized by the dawn. All the justice will be man made, that's why it comes down to the character's choices. The moral lessons you are talking about are expressed in the themes and will be brought to life by the characters actions. The point is if you put the horse before the cart and do your duty then you earn the right to rule. Therefore the right to rule is not something that should be inherited. Mance makes a lot of points about this too. As someone who inherited the right to rule, this lesson is important for Dany for reasons I've explained. Stannis and Viserys both considered themselves the rightful king, but neither had the commitment of the realm. A true king or queen who puts the realm first would have the commitment of the realm. Yes they can, and many will, but the point about duty being more important than rights is best made by someone who has the right to the throne but sacrifices it to do their duty to the realm.

No, we clearly see the story differently.

Dany believes it is her right, based on her heritage. And that's the point being made, the point of the theme around kings or queens and their rights and duty. The characters of the story will prove the themes of the story by their actions and the choices they make at their final plot-points. In Dany's case the point is better made if she has the right but chooses duty, rather than just chooses duty. You can call it a desire for the throne, but GRRM is going further than that by making it a perceived right. That's how characters like Dany and Stannis see it. Then on the other hand there is duty, and it's made very clear that Dany does believe she has obligations as a queen. A queen belongs not to herself but to her people, she tells herself on more than one occasion. The conflict between her right and her duty is set up all through her arc, reinforced several times, and explored by secondary characters like Stannis. That conflict will have to be resolved if she is to resolve her arc. If she chooses her rights then the realm will be led into chaos, but if she chooses her duty then she will save the realm. And when she makes that choice the Targaryen coin toss will land on madness and greatness. If it's a lie then it only diminishes the conflict set up in her arc. My point is that it is the fact that Jaime is a kingsguard, sworn to protect the king, that creates the character conflict when he kills the king. If you take that away and Jaime was not a kingsguard when he killed Aerys then the conflict would not be so pronounced. Same thing if Dany is not a Targaryen. I wouldn't say magic drives the plot, it just facilitates it. The plot is driven by character decisions. Dany decided to walk into the pyre and she got dragons, which are just a device that will facilitate her achieving her goal of winning the throne. But the direction of the plot will be determined by the choices she makes with regard to her inner-conflicts. Same with Bran, he'll attain magical abilities, sure, but it is the very human decisions he will be forced to make that helps to resolve the plot. I'm not sure what you mean by rules, and I don't mean to take you up wrong. But every story has rules and they're expressed through the themes of the story. The themes are where the author makes their point, and the rule is that characters who understand the point will succeed while those who don't will fail. That way it is the characters who prove the theme of the story true by their actions. The point being made in Dany's case is that true queens are not about who has the right, but rather who does their duty. And again, I feel that point is better made if she has the right, perceived right if you prefer, but must sacrifice it to do her duty. The violent and forcible nature of dragons is the reason the Targaryens have a perceived right to the throne. The Dragons give her the power to enforce her right. What better way to strip away the nonsense of having a right to the throne? Give Stannis a legal claim on throne so that the throne becomes his goal. Then have Stannis face a choice between saving the kingdom or winning the throne, make him pick winning the throne, and let him be destroyed. Give Dany a legal claim on the the throne so that it becomes her goal, have her face the same choice but make her pick save the kingdom at the cost of the throne, and let her find salvation. The point is that it's not who has the right that makes a true king or queen, it's who has the commitment to the realm. A true queen is so committed to the realm that she will sacrifice her right to save the realm, and you can only truly sacrifice what you possess.

This is my point when I talk about Dany's arc and the themes involved. The Targaryens put their right to the throne ahead of their duty to protect the realm. This is emphasized by Aerys, who would leave nothing but ash if the throne can't be his. If Dany is to chose between her right to the throne and her duty to protect the realm, then she needs to have the right to the throne or else it's not really a choice. For example, imagine if Jaime somehow learned that he was never really a kingsguard, just a fake inserted by some plot. A change like that would trash his central conflict and his whole character-arc. Dany being someone else feels a bit like that to me. Magical bloodlines and dragons are only secondary to the story, in my opinion. As we all know, this is a story about the conflict of the human heart, the choices the characters must make, what they must sacrifice in making those choices, and the consequences of the characters' actions.

I accept that Dany's parents being no one of note and her being a conqueror of low birth would make a point, to a degree. But you're saying a conqueror of no notable birth except for the fact that she possesses the necessary bloodline to hatch dragons. I just think this is a wrinkle that's not needed compared to her being the blood of the dragon, as we are told. As Rhaella's daughter she is already characterized as a conqueror because that's what the Targaryens are going back to Aegon. There's a clear parallel between both with the three dragons. She will be Aegon come again in many respects, especially once she wakes the dragon. As far as her being a low born conqueror, I see the point that makes but for me it jars with the idea that it is the high lords who play the game of thrones and every time they do the realm bleeds. Part of the problem is the sense of entitlement that comes with the nobility of Westeros. This is very much part of Dany's arc, she is the blood of the dragon, the throne is hers by right, etc. But if Dany isn't the blood of the dragon, a descendant of Aegon, all this part of her arc gets weakened just to make the point. Personally I think her story is stronger if she is who we are told. Her wound is genuine if it really was her father and brother who were killed by the Usurper and his dogs. Her wound drives her toward her goal, the Iron Throne, along with her sense of entitlement to the throne. The Targaryen coin toss, greatness or madness, is more applicable to her if she is a Targaryen. It's a very well constructed arc as it is, I don't see how suddenly making her someone else would add to it. I think it would subtract from it. So are you saying the house with the red door is in Braavos? Because Dany remembers Willem Darry and Viserys being there too.

I remember when Yolkboy posted a thread called There are no lemon trees in Braavos. That was probably ten years ago or close to it. I thought it was an interesting observation and I'm open to it meaning something. The discussion went in different directions. Some people think the lemon tree is in the Sealord's palace. I think that's reasonable. Some people believe it means Dany was somewhere else in her early years, like Tyrosh or Dorne, when she thought she was in Braavos. I think this is very plausible given that she was traveling through the Free cities. Her accent is Tyroshi. Doran was sending Arianne to Tyrosh to meet Viserys. Maybe the house with the red door was there too. Perhaps they got kicked out after Willem died because Doran never did send Arianne? I think that's reasonable. Some people think it means Dany is someone else and that her whole backstory is false. I think that's less reasonable, and those theories don't convince me, personally. It suggests controversy to me, not mockery. I said I'm open to the house with the red door and lemon tree not being in Braavos. I didn't say I agree it's not. What I don't agree with is the notion that Dany is not who we've been told she is. Absolutely. There's a lot we disagree about with regard to this. I won't go through it point for point but we view things like the three heads of the dragon, the three mounts, what happened at the Tower of Joy, and other central points to the story, quite differently. That's fine. You are a good sport, I appreciate that. Then I'll have to wait for GRRM. Any moment now...

Well GRRM said that it points to something, so I'd say that's true. The debate is really about what it points to and how significant that may be. I'm not a Lemonhater. I never insulted anyone on this forum as far as I recall. Not for a long time anyway. I probably fired a few shots back at people who insulted me from time to time. But in general I'm quite polite. A proper theory would go further than a basic proposition, it would state what it points to and how that is significant. Like the hooded man in Winterfell for example, the basic proposition is that it is a character we know who's presence points to something significant. Hooded man theories suggest who he is and what is significant about him being in Winterfell. I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just not convinced by the theories. I'm more convinced that Dany is who we are told she is. Why would the red door not being in Braavos suggest that Dany is not the child born to Rhaella on Dragonstone? It suggests to me that Dany was somewhere else when she thought she was in Braavos. Me too. I am interested in discussing theories. Maybe you could suggest a theory and not just a proposition. You believe the lemon tree points to the fact that Dany is not the child of Rhaella. I call that a Lemongate theory. It's not a theory I find convincing, but that doesn't mean I'm hating on people who believe it. I don't know. I'm happy to accept that Dany is the daughter of Rhaella. I think it makes perfect sense, and is a good starting place for the journey she is on. There are some points about her character that I feel are important to her arc. I think it's important that she is a Targaryen. I think it's important that she is the Mad King's daughter. I think it's important that Viserys and Rhaegar, two vastly different characters, are her brothers. I think it's important that she comes from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. I think it's important that her mother died giving birth to her. I think the number three is important to her arc, as in child of three. I feel these things will have a bearing on her arc, and the decisions she will have to make to resolve it. So I'm not sold on the idea that she might be someone else. It would be a surprise, sure, but what would the significance be. What point would that make? I'm open to the house with a Red Door not being in Braavos, sure. If that makes me a Lemongater in your book then I'm glad I'm not a Lemonhater anymore. Well, GRRM said it points to something, I think we might differ on how significant it is. Off the top of my head, Dany speaks with a Tyroshi accent, she recalls playing in the alleys of Tyrosh, and Doran Martell planned on sending Arianne to Tyrosh as the Archon's cup-bearer so she could meet in secret with Viserys after they had been betrothed. Dany and Viserys were clearly in Tyrosh, and probably for a significant amount of time, given that Dany developed a Tyroshi accent. So if the House with the Red door is not in Braavos, then my guess is that it is in Tyrosh, where the climate is more suited to lemon trees. Then we have the Archon's brother attending Dany's wedding. This suggest Tyroshi interest and involvement with the exiled Targaryens from the time of the marriage pact up to present. What's the significance? Tyrosh have been playing a long game and are secretly waiting to support Dany as she heads west. I haven't really thought about it too much, but it's a theory that is supported in the text. We can discuss it and test it because it is a theory, not just a broad proposition. It goes beyond the proposition and explains where the house with the red door is and why that is significant. Before I object to anything you would have to clarify some things. It's all well and good claiming Dany is Rhaegar's daughter with Ashara or with Lyanna, but it obviously raises some questions? Where was she born and when? Where is the house with the red door and how did she get there? Did Willem Darry know who Dany really was? Who knew? Why does Viserys blame her for killing Rhaella? What happened Rhaella's child? When did Darry and Viserys go from Dragonstone to the house with the red door? Did Stannis think two Targaryens escaped him at Dragonstone or just one? And what's significant about who Dany really is, and by that I mean what is the point GRRM is making by having her be whoever it is you believe she is?