R+L=J v 67

[Lyse Stark]

In our world. They can afford to flatter their clients because since it's all bullshit anyway, flattery will not affect their accuracy.

Where prophecy does exist, fortune tellers would be more like say doctors or something. They'd have a vested interest in being as accurate as possible.

And Maggy the Frog's prophecy certainly was accurate in that Cersei married a king, bore 3 bastards of his own while Robert had 16, and one of her children is dead, with the other two soon to follow, while the YMBtQ will soon cast her down and take all she held dear.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Why though? Maggy the Frog, who was described as a woods witch, prophesied about Cersei and her friend, even though she was Essosi and they were Andal.

As for the whole AAr/PtwP discussion, I think it's pretty simple: there was an old prophecy about Azor Ahai returning, similar to Jesus or King Arthur in our own world. The GoHH said that this individual would come from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. That's all.

But the difference was that Cersei went to Maggy, Maggy didn't go to Cersei. Maggy might have even charged money

Its possible it could be as simple as that, but from what we have seen of GoHH, she speaks in symbols not as direct as Maggy. So I find it odd she told the Targs something that simple and from what we have seen, most of the prophecies the Targs were interpreting probably were wrong like Aegon being TPTWP so its not farfetched that they also misinterpreted what the GoHH said.

[Julian Rayne]

Well (and I'm just riffing here), she may not have simply given them a straightforward prophecy. What we heard was Barristan's memory of his interpretation of what she said.

If indeed he heard it first hand. It may well be his memory of his interpretation of someone else's memory of their interpretation of what the GoHH said.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Well (and I'm just riffing here), she may not have simply given them a straightforward prophecy. What we heard was Barristan's memory of his interpretation of what she said.

If indeed he heard it first hand. It may well be his memory of his interpretation of someone else's memory of their interpretation of what the GoHH said.

I haven't read Barristans POV in awhile. Did he hear it first hand?

[Julian Rayne]

I haven't read Barristans POV in awhile. Did he hear it first hand?

Caveat: I'm going from memory. It wasn't clear, it was in a Daenerys chapter. He said, paraphrased, a woodswitch predicted that... etc.

[Ser Leftwich]

Caveat: I'm going from memory. It wasn't clear, it was in a Daenerys chapter. He said, paraphrased, a woodswitch predicted that... etc.

Ser Barristan went on. “I saw your father and your mother wed as well. Forgive me, but there was no fondness there, and the realm paid dearly for that, my queen.”

“Why did they wed if they did not love each other?”

“Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line.” ADwD p. 300 (Dany POV)

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Ser Barristan went on. “I saw your father and your mother wed as well. Forgive me, but there was no fondness there, and the realm paid dearly for that, my queen.”

“Why did they wed if they did not love each other?”

“Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line.” ADwD p. 300 (Dany POV)

So he saw them wed, but its not clear whether he heard what exactly the GoHH said.

[Ser Leftwich]

So he saw them wed, but its not clear whether he heard what exactly the GoHH said.

Barristan was not in the KG yet, so he was just at court in KL. He was trying to get noticed to get into the KG. He would not have the same opportunities to overhear as when he was in the KG.

[J. Stargaryen]

But the difference was that Cersei went to Maggy, Maggy didn't go to Cersei. Maggy might have even charged money

Its possible it could be as simple as that, but from what we have seen of GoHH, she speaks in symbols not as direct as Maggy. So I find it odd she told the Targs something that simple and from what we have seen, most of the prophecies the Targs were interpreting probably were wrong like Aegon being TPTWP so its not farfetched that they also misinterpreted what the GoHH said.

So? No offense, but it seems like you're really grasping here.

But you don't know that this is what happened. You're just setting up an unknown scenario in an unflattering light, in order to make your idea seem more likely.

Is this all Targs, or just Rhaegar?

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

So? No offense, but it seems like you're really grasping here.

But you don't know that this is what happened. You're just setting up an unknown scenario in an unflattering light, in order to make your idea seem more likely.

Is this all Targs, or just Rhaegar?

I already stated my theory could be wrong so I'm not reaching thank you.

I am just showing that, we don't know what exactly the GoHH said so anything could have been possible.

The scholarly targs is what I meant, they all tried to find a way to bring back dragons but they never cracked the puzzle.

[J. Stargaryen]

I already stated my theory could be wrong so I'm not reaching thank you.

I am just showing that, we don't know what exactly the GoHH said so anything could have been possible.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. 90% of what is posted on this site is probably wrong, but that doesn't mean a lot of those theories aren't based on some solid ideas to begin with.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. 90% of what is posted on this site is probably wrong, but that doesn't mean a lot of those theories aren't based on some solid ideas to begin with.

Umm...ok? What did I do wrong?

[J. Stargaryen]

Umm...ok? What did I do wrong?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. All I was saying was that previously admitting your idea might be wrong does not mean that you can't also be grasping at straws or reaching, which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post:

I already stated my theory could be wrong so I'm not reaching thank you.

Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, admitting that an idea is crackpot doesn't somehow give one a free pass to make seemingly nonsensical arguments. There should still be some underlying cohesion to the case. Agreed?

I mean, how is Cersei's visit to Maggy – instead of the other way around, as was the case with the GoHH – consequential to the discussion? What possible effect could that have on the prophecies?

[Ser Creighton]

But the difference was that Cersei went to Maggy, Maggy didn't go to Cersei. Maggy might have even charged money

Its possible it could be as simple as that, but from what we have seen of GoHH, she speaks in symbols not as direct as Maggy. So I find it odd she told the Targs something that simple and from what we have seen, most of the prophecies the Targs were interpreting probably were wrong like Aegon being TPTWP so its not farfetched that they also misinterpreted what the GoHH said.

Ok help me out, how does going to Maggy or Maggy coming to you matter at all? A vision is a vision.

As for the theory argument, if I may. That's not a theory it's an assumption or a series of assumptions. A theory is an assertion based on given facts, supporting evidence, cause and effect, etc... I highly recommend people to flush out ideas they have for theories and research them as a lot of time they debunk there own theory the more they study it.

Finally it was Martin in an interview that said AA/TPTWP are one in the same.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIe0Q3PgcOw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDIe0Q3PgcOw

Hope this helps.

As for who this person or persons is, I do not know, I am in the Jon camp though as I think while the people are the same, the prophecies themselves are wrong. Dany was the person who was going to wake the Dragons, and that prophecy may be confused within the books with the Azor Ahai prophecy. And I would not put it past the Targs to do something like that as they tend to think the universe revolves around them. Not all of them but from what we have seen a lot of them. Note I do not call this a theory, it's just some personal assumptions.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I mean, how is Cersei's visit to Maggy – instead of the other way around, as was the case with the GoHH – consequential to the discussion? What possible effect could that have on the prophecies?

I am not stating anything irrelevant to the discussion.

You stated that Maggy was Essosi and Cersei was Andal. And I stated Cersei went to her willingly. The GoHH went to the targs no one seeked her out. Meaning it was something important not just for the targs but probably to her aswell, in Cersei's case Maggy didn't seek her out so it wouldn't be important to her only Cersei.

Greenseers/CotF have been known to work with first men and I was simply ststing that it seemed odd that if she had a vision of a destined hero it would come from valyrian blood rather than first men.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Ok help me out, how does going to Maggy or Maggy coming to you matter at all? A vision is a vision.

As for the theory argument, if I may. That's not a theory it's an assumption or a series of assumptions. A theory is an assertion based on given facts, supporting evidence, cause and effect, etc... I highly recommend people to flush out ideas they have for theories and research them as a lot of time they debunk there own theory the more they study it.

Finally it was Martin in an interview that said AA/TPTWP are one in the same.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIe0Q3PgcOw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDIe0Q3PgcOw

Hope this helps.

As for who this person or persons is, I do not know, I am in the Jon camp though as I think while the people are the same, the prophecies themselves are wrong. Dany was the person who was going to wake the Dragons, and that prophecy may be confused within the books with the Azor Ahai prophecy. And I would not put it past the Targs to do something like that as they tend to think the universe revolves around them. Not all of them but from what we have seen a lot of them. Note I do not call this a theory, it's just some personal assumptions.

That interview doesn't prove they are the same though because Mel says they are the same in the book, so GRRM may have just been speaking from her POV, or you could be right and he meant what he said.

Thats also what I think, and what I was trying to explain, that the waking dragons etc. are a different prophecy completely and probably refer to Dany about the return of dragons and the prophecy of fighting the others or whatever is evil up north is Jon or possibly Bran or both.

[J. Stargaryen]

I am not stating anything irrelevant to the discussion.

Needless to say, I don't agree. :)

You stated that Maggy was Essosi and Cersei was Andal. And I stated Cersei went to her willingly. The GoHH went to the targs no one seeked her out. Meaning it was something important not just for the targs but probably to her aswell, in Cersei's case Maggy didn't seek her out so it wouldn't be important to her only Cersei.

Do we know that the GoHH requested to go to court with an important message? If we don't know that, then why are we assuming that instead of something like: Jenny brought her to court and she did what she does – foretell the future.*

Greenseers/CotF have been known to work with first men and I was simply ststing that it seemed odd that if she had a vision of a destined hero it would come from valyrian blood rather than first men.

And this is why I pointed out that Maggy the Frog was Essosi and Cersei Andal, to show that the heritage of a woods witch doesn't matter when it comes to prophesying.

*

“Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line.”

“A woods witch?” Dany was astonished.

“She came to court with Jenny of Oldstones. A stunted thing, grotesque to look upon. A dwarf, most people said, though dear to Lady Jenny, who always claimed that she was one of the children of the forest.”

“What became of her?”

“Summerhall.” The word was fraught with doom.

- ADwD, Daenerys IV

I don't see anything that indicates that the GoHH went to court with an important message for the Targaryens. But even if you're right, the fact that she's First Men, or a CotF as Jenny claimed, wouldn't seem to prevent her from having a prophecy involving Valyrians, since Maggy's Essosi heritage didn't prevent her from having prophecies about Cersei and her friend, who are both (presumably) Andals.

Not to mention, but even if there is something to what you're saying, don't you think that is covered by the likelihood that Jon – he of half First Men heritage – is a good bet to be tPtwP?

[Ser Leftwich]

I am not stating anything irrelevant to the discussion.

You stated that Maggy was Essosi and Cersei was Andal. And I stated Cersei went to her willingly. The GoHH went to the targs no one seeked her out. Meaning it was something important not just for the targs but probably to her aswell, in Cersei's case Maggy didn't seek her out so it wouldn't be important to her only Cersei.

It does not follow that the GoHH sought out the Targs. If the GoHH knew Jenny, then the GoHH came to the attention of Duncan the Small. She likely got some other foretelling correct and then Duncan the Small brought her to court.

[Alia of the knife]

I think so too. While there's nothing explicit in the text to support it, I think there are hints in the texts that could lead to that conclusion, or at least to the conclusion that Cersei's reputation for spite and cruelty precedes her and would be unappealing to Rhaegar.

I note that Oberyn and Elia Martell were present when Cersei abused baby Tyrion. Maybe that sort of thing may be written off as childish spite but it may also indicate just one of other incidents of cruelty that Cersei committed in front of witnesses.

Cersei seems particularly blind to her own faults and tends to blame others for the malicious actions she commits. She might not consider how her cruel and vindictive actions looks to other people because she feels justified. There are other incidents of cruelty and spite committed by Cersei that we know about, and perhaps some incidents that witnesses spread gossip about it. That sort of information might give someone like Rhaegar the strong impression that Cersei was vindictive, cruel and not trust-worthy, and certainly not the kind of woman he wanted for a wife. In view of Aerys' distrust of Tywin Lannister, Rhaegar's adamant refusal to marry Cersei would just make the decision to refuse Tywin's offer easier.

Thinking about the trouble Aerys went through in sending Steffon Baratheon to Essos to find a Valyrian bride for Rhaegar (only to fail and end in tragedy), Aerys could have considered Cersei as a convenient plan B, but he didn't. Why? I think it was because Rhaegar didn't want to marry Cersei. Elia had some Targaryen ancestors which probably appealed to Aerys and I'm sure the intelligence they had about her character made her a more suitable choice in Rhaegar's consideration.

ETA:

I think there's a difference between how (some) knights are supposed to represent and conduct themselves, and how they actually do. The books are full of these incidents. Some knights serve vicious Lords and commit acts of brutality against the helpless at the behest of those Lords. Does that make them good knights for being dutiful, or bad because of their un-knightly acts? Jaime saved 500,000 people by killing the King. Instead of being hailed a true knight for protecting the people, he's called Kingslayer and reviled for it for violating his oath as a knight who serves the corrupt King.

Think of Boros Blount who beat Sansa Stark, a very un-knightly action, and his acts of cowardice. The Kings Guard are the supposedly the best and most noble knights in the realm and this one is as corrupt as the regime he serves. He was stripped of his white cloak by Joffrey and then reinstated to the Kings Guard by Tywin. Why? Tywin likes useful lackeys and doesn't seem to care about honor.

There are "good" knights and "bad", depending on one's point of view.

Gregor was knighted for some feat he accomplished in the field of battle, presumably, regardless of concerns about his character. I'm not sure that Rhaegar spent a lot of effort investigating whether Gregor was a psychopath if Tywin Lannister or other Lords vouched for his valor in battle.

I agree, the idea that Rhaegar himself may have had a part in refusing Cersei has always been my speculation. All seemed to be going as planned at Casterly Rock until the end of the evening, and then Aerys says no.

Why go all the way to Casterly Rock to humiliate Tywin when he could tell him no at Court? I'm sure it was not a secret before they arrived what Tywin was proposing.

It ties into Martins themes of irony and the fact that we have one more character in Cersei that longs for something she can't have and blames the fates, Elia, Lyanna, (a.k.a. the "wolf girl), etc., for the turn of events.

"if only Rhaegar had married me as the gods intended......."

If only, if only.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I am not stating anything irrelevant to the discussion.

You stated that Maggy was Essosi and Cersei was Andal. And I stated Cersei went to her willingly. The GoHH went to the targs no one seeked her out. Meaning it was something important not just for the targs but probably to her aswell, in Cersei's case Maggy didn't seek her out so it wouldn't be important to her only Cersei.

I'm not saying this is wrong, but I am saying it's impossible to know this for sure based on what we've been given.