Possible Crackpot: Did Aerys foresee Jon's birth?

[oursisthefury69]

"Dude, sorry you didn't get an answer you like" An Answer! jeeeez lmao THATS THE PROBLEM, nobodys an authority enough to give an answer to any theory other than the greatest writer there's ever been GRRM himself. When did I get an Answer? I got opinions. I remember getting a few opinions. The side of the debate that Appletini is on isn't the ANSWER, just because he has the most posts, its another side and another opinion-an opinion I might add with zero textual evidence. I've "been over" this thread since I first read it im not talking still to try to work out a solution to a thread that's based on a dream that never happened. Of course I cant prove he didn't have a dream, and you couldn't prove to me that the others weren't having a couple thousand year dance party up in the lands of always winter up until GoT. Inability to disprove isn't a reason to believe something true, which is a really common misunderstanding in the majority of people everywhere in their day to day lives and beliefs. I've never came close to posting as many times as I have today and frankly its not because there were interesting threads. It's because I'm attempting to open the eyes of the people of this forum-Your opinions are not more valuable as you post more and more, and their is clearly an agenda when threads like this with 0 evidence go for 200+ comments and then we have things like the tyrion targ-threads that get shut down after a few worthless persnickety comments that involve "there being no textual proof" I've truly never seen a thread with less textual proof get more attention And that's my purpose going forward on these forums now that I've learned all I can from the boards until the next book. Unlike others who's only purpose is to make there opinions as widespread an accepted as possible, while attempting to destroy ones they disagree with

[kiasyd]

The only other avenue is logic concerning the layout of the RK: The throne room is likely easier to reach than getting into Maegor's Holdfast.

Again, we do not know definitively.

It's clear to me. Jaime killed Aerys himself, and is quite assertive in saying that the rebel forces were just reaching the city and castle grounds. And here is another thought: As KG, he should defend Aegon & family as well - one could argue that he is complicit with the Targ children's killings.

[J. Stargaryen]

"Dude, sorry you didn't get an answer you like" An Answer! jeeeez lmao THATS THE PROBLEM, nobodys an authority enough to give an answer to any theory other than the greatest writer there's ever been GRRM himself. When did I get an Answer? I got opinions. I remember getting a few opinions. The side of the debate that Appletini is on isn't the ANSWER, just because he has the most posts, its another side and another opinion-an opinion I might add with zero textual evidence. I've "been over" this thread since I first read it im not talking still to try to work out a solution to a thread that's based on a dream that never happened. Of course I cant prove he didn't have a dream, and you couldn't prove to me that the others weren't having a couple thousand year dance party up in the lands of always winter up until GoT. Inability to disprove isn't a reason to believe something true, which is a really common misunderstanding in the majority of people everywhere in their day to day lives and beliefs. I've never came close to posting as many times as I have today and frankly its not because there were interesting threads. It's because I'm attempting to open the eyes of the people of this forum-Your opinions are not more valuable as you post more and more, and their is clearly an agenda when threads like this with 0 evidence go for 200+ comments and then we have things like the tyrion targ-threads that get shut down after a few worthless persnickety comments that involve "there being no textual proof" I've truly never seen a thread with less textual proof get more attention And that's my purpose going forward on these forums now that I've learned all I can from the boards until the next book. Unlike others who's only purpose is to make there opinions as widespread an accepted as possible, while attempting to destroy ones they disagree with

This is an early candidate for whinge of the year.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, the fact that Ned was leading his troops through the King's gate at that time pretty much blurs the timings and even suggests that Gregor is on his very final phase of scaling the Keep by that time IMHO.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, it was in part this blurriness that made me think that Aerys and Aegon were the two kings. GRRM tends to be vague, especially about timelines, in places where he's doing actual maneuvering (the Sack-to-ToJ timeline is a good example). The more willing he is to nail down specifics, the less likely it is that he's doing something dodgy there; if he were specific about Aerys dying before Aegon, it might give it away. Likewise, if the opposite were true, it would eliminate them outright. I think for now it's meant to be an open question.

ETA: If I recall, Jaime thinks of crowning Aegon after Aerys is dead. Whether it's actually true, he unambiguously thinks Aerys died first.

[Ser Leftwich]

It's clear to me. Jaime killed Aerys himself, and is quite assertive in saying that the rebel forces were just reaching the city and castle grounds. And here is another thought: As KG, he should defend Aegon & family as well - one could argue that he is complicit with the Targ children's killings.

What does Jaime's complicity have to do with the order of Aerys and Aegon's deaths?

What does Jaime's complicity have to do with this line of discussion?

[Jô Maltese]

"Dude, sorry you didn't get an answer you like" An Answer! jeeeez lmao THATS THE PROBLEM, nobodys an authority enough to give an answer to any theory other than the greatest writer there's ever been GRRM himself. When did I get an Answer? I got opinions. I remember getting a few opinions. The side of the debate that Appletini is on isn't the ANSWER, just because he has the most posts, its another side and another opinion-an opinion I might add with zero textual evidence. I've "been over" this thread since I first read it im not talking still to try to work out a solution to a thread that's based on a dream that never happened. Of course I cant prove he didn't have a dream, and you couldn't prove to me that the others weren't having a couple thousand year dance party up in the lands of always winter up until GoT. Inability to disprove isn't a reason to believe something true, which is a really common misunderstanding in the majority of people everywhere in their day to day lives and beliefs. I've never came close to posting as many times as I have today and frankly its not because there were interesting threads. It's because I'm attempting to open the eyes of the people of this forum-Your opinions are not more valuable as you post more and more, and their is clearly an agenda when threads like this with 0 evidence go for 200+ comments and then we have things like the tyrion targ-threads that get shut down after a few worthless persnickety comments that involve "there being no textual proof" I've truly never seen a thread with less textual proof get more attention And that's my purpose going forward on these forums now that I've learned all I can from the boards until the next book. Unlike others who's only purpose is to make there opinions as widespread an accepted as possible, while attempting to destroy ones they disagree with

A few threads for you: you are welcome to keep them alive, I still follow them :

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/102076-danys-dragonriders-tyrion-viserion-and-victarion-rhaegal/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/101235-tyrion-targaryen/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/97382-tyrions-paternity-re-visited/

I especially recommend the last one ;)

[OnionAhaiReborn]

:commie:

Posters of the board, unite! You have nothing to lose but your crackpots!

[WeaselPie]

Another idea that isn't mine (all credit to Ser Leftwich and J. Stargaryen), but that I saw, loved and thought needed more widespread attention.

We know that least some Targaryens have prophetic dragon dreams, and that in at least some (maybe even all ...) of these cases, the dragons in question are metaphorical/symbolic, not literal. It's possible for the dreamer to recognize the symbolism and maybe even apply that symbolism to himself or herself.

As J. Stargaryen pointed out, look at the exchange between Daeron and Dunk in The Mystery Knight.

Daeron saying, "I don't care to die today" implies that he recognizes the possibility that 1. a dragon could (does?) mean a Targaryen and 2. it might even mean him.

Now fast forward to Aerys. (ETA: From here on out, this is Ser Leftwich's line of thinking.) We're told he thought that if he destroyed the city, he would rise out of it as a dragon, an actual dragon. Obviously this makes him nuttier than squirrel poo, but what made him think this? Where did he get this idea, this inspiration? It's a fairly specific, in-order idea: Destroy the city first, and a dragon hatches.

What if Aerys had a prophetic dream of a dragon hatching out of the ruins of the city, and applied that dream to himself? Rather than Daeron's metaphorical interpretation, Aerys chooses to apply it literally and, given his apparent obsession with dragon imagery and blood purity, believes his dream is in reference to him? That gives him both the inspiration and motive to attempt to burn the city down, if he thought that it was going to happen or that it needed to happen in order to be reborn as a dragon.

Obviously Aerys wasn't reborn as a dragon, and the city didn't succumb to wildfire, but it was heavily damaged by the Sack and the human toll was obviously immense. We know that Jon's birth is timed to around the time of the Sack to fairly soon after it. What if Aerys did have some prophetic vision, but that rather than wildfire and himself, it was the Sack he saw, and Jon's birth, which closely followed it? Jon's birth already fits another "dragon hatching/waking" parameter: "Two kings to wake the dragon." Aerys died, and then Aegon died, and then Jon was born.

Obviously with this you have to look at an outcome and work backward based on what happened. It's the same sort of thinking that's applied to surmise that Rhaegar is the dragon that hatched at Summerhall and that perhaps Aegon V and/or Duncan the Small killed themselves trying to fulfill a prophecy that they might not have ever had pegged correctly. We also have people in D&E interpreting dragon dreams incorrectly: Daemon II thinks he'll hatch a real dragon at Whitewalls, and it's actually Egg coming of age; Daeron recognizes that his dragon dream might be metaphorical, but never pegs it to mean Baelor Breakspear. If Aerys is acting out based on some dragon-themed thing, does it not make sense that he could be acting on something he saw in a dream? And might it not equally make sense, given how similar dreams have unfolded in the past, that he was wrong (which would be obvious given what happened) and the vision came to pass in some other way?

OP. So, are you saying.. that Aerys had a misinterpreted vision (him burning down KL and becoming a dragon) that actually never happened... yet did happen (sort of) in another time and in another place?

Then how do you explain the Battle of the Bells in which the burning did also not happen?

[Usrnmhsnomning]

OP. So, are you saying.. that Aerys had a misinterpreted vision (him burning down KL and becoming a dragon) that actually never happened... yet did happen (sort of) in another time and in another place?

You're trying way too hard to discredit a suggestion without actually discussing the points supporting the suggestion.

[kiasyd]

ETA: If I recall, Jaime thinks of crowning Aegon after Aerys is dead. Whether it's actually true, he unambiguously thinks Aerys died first.

I remember that as well, he does think about crowning Aegon:

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother.

-x-

What does Jaime's complicity have to do with the order of Aerys and Aegon's deaths?

His role as Kingsguard - he should protect the royal family.

What does Jaime's complicity have to do with this line of discussion?

Nothing... I drifted way from the topic... Again. :bang:

[WeaselPie]

You're trying way too hard to discredit a suggestion without actually discussing the points supporting the suggestion.

Hey the OP posted the premise, not me.

And I did post points. KL does not burn. The Stoney Sept does not burn, yet Aerys burns many men, both friends and enemies. If Aerys had a prophecy about burning to produce Jon, the OP's premise doesn't support it, since the target suggested did not actually burn. And Aerys was killed by the sword, not burned.

I do think it's possible that Aerys had some thoughts about prophecies, but I see no connection between the title of this thread and his actions.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Hey the OP posted the premise, not me.

And I did post points. KL does not burn. The Stoney Sept does not burn, yet Aerys burns many men, both friends and enemies. If Aerys had a prophecy about burning to produce Jon, the OP's premise doesn't support it, since the target suggested did not actually burn. And Aerys was killed by the sword, not burned.

I do think it's possible that Aerys had some thoughts about prophecies, but I see no connection between the title of this thread and his actions.

Yeah, the problem with your absolute dismissal being that dragon dreams are often not literal therefore saying "Oh KL didn't burn so it's impossible" isn't debating the concepts supporting the theory itself, it's dismissing the theory with a flawed understanding of dragon dreams.

[WeaselPie]

Yeah, the problem with your absolute dismissal being that dragon dreams are often not literal therefore saying "Oh KL didn't burn so it's impossible" isn't debating the concepts supporting the theory itself, it's dismissing the theory with a flawed understanding of dragon dreams.

So, a bunch of stuff Aerys believed didn't happen, and that foretold Jon's birth. Okee Dokee.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

OP. So, are you saying.. that Aerys had a misinterpreted vision (him burning down KL and becoming a dragon) that actually never happened... yet did happen (sort of) in another time and in another place?

Then how do you explain the Battle of the Bells in which the burning did also not happen?

Based on this idea, it DID happen, he just interprets it wrong. The destruction of the city was actually the Sack and the dragon was Jon, not him. What he saw would have been correct, it's the interpretation that was flawed. Which we see repeatedly in the series, it's not a new idea.

As for the Battle of the Bells, what does that have to do with anything?

[oursisthefury69]

@Jo Maltese appreciate it even though ive prob seen them all, I cant find one from early today where I racked off a few reasons. The only thing left to say on the tyrion targ concept is that there's probably not one single reason strong enough to support it, but when you add together a couple dozen smaller reasons then it starts seeming like something that might happen. I'm not 100% behind the idea, I just think its a shame that one of the more interesting, game-changing, evidence based theorys gets no serious discussion whilst ones like this get way too much.(theres people on page 14 who still can't figure it out, probably because they see 18,000 posts and think there's some one who'll know stuff, and're flipping through their books looking for this phantom dream) @Stargaryen- until next time you make no sense, take the night to come up with an actual response in replace of anything else u said -and keep thinking you and overtly effeminate barely alcoholic beverage are authoritys on these books _good day

[oursisthefury69]

No dragons no fire no targs in KL = no prophetic dream correlating with the wildfire plot

[FittleLinger]

Hey the OP posted the premise, not me.

And I did post points. KL does not burn. The Stoney Sept does not burn, yet Aerys burns many men, both friends and enemies. If Aerys had a prophecy about burning to produce Jon, the OP's premise doesn't support it, since the target suggested did not actually burn. And Aerys was killed by the sword, not burned.

I do think it's possible that Aerys had some thoughts about prophecies, but I see no connection between the title of this thread and his actions.

He sees a dream. A city burning and a dragon birthing out of it. He says to himself, "Hey, I should burn King's Landing and I will be reborn as a dragon". Instead, he was seeing the Sack - there is burning in a sack - and a metaphorical dragon - Jon - being born. That's what the OP is saying. Sorry to speak for you, Apple. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[WeaselPie]

Based on this idea, it DID happen, he just interprets it wrong. The destruction of the city was actually the Sack and the dragon was Jon, not him. What he saw would have been correct, it's the interpretation that was flawed. Which we see repeatedly in the series, it's not a new idea.

As for the Battle of the Bells, what does that have to do with anything?

Because Aerys had a burning fetish, and the plan was to burn out the Stoney Sept to flush out Robert. Then there is the burning of Rickard, Brandon, the Darklyns, the Hollards, Chelstead and countless others. There is no evidence that his "burning men alive" fetish had anything to to with the "hatching of a dragon."

Yet I find it amazing that some are so quick to say "the dragon dream must have been misinterpreted" yet find these same "dragon dreams" to be, only partially (and never the parts that don't fit), to be the entire basis for false Canon.

[butterbumps!]

It's because I'm attempting to open the eyes of the people of this forum-Your opinions are not more valuable as you post more and more, and their is clearly an agenda when threads like this with 0 evidence go for 200+ comments and then we have things like the tyrion targ-threads that get shut down after a few worthless persnickety comments that involve "there being no textual proof" I've truly never seen a thread with less textual proof get more attention And that's my purpose going forward on these forums now that I've learned all I can from the boards until the next book. Unlike others who's only purpose is to make there opinions as widespread an accepted as possible, while attempting to destroy ones they disagree with

Post count has no bearing on post quality-- that isn't really earth shattering news. I mean, E Ro has almost 9k posts, for gods sake (lol, that's a (half) joke, little brohoof). Still, there's nothing new in that idea, and the OP's high post count isn't why this thread isn't being shot down categorically.

Since you keep bringing this up, here's why this entirely speculative thread is garnering discussion despite being entirely speculative. Apple isn't really proposing a "theory" so much as tossing something out wondering if there's significance to the possibility. Importantly, the fact that it's speculative and merely brainstorming was her stated goal at the outset. Meaning, she's not really making claims about anything that one would necessarily disprove the way, for example, the timeline prevents Benjen from being Jon's father. I hasten to add that I've been one of the more vocal critics of the implications stated in here, so I'm not saying that to advance what you consider to be the shadowy forum agenda going on, or any sort of agenda on this topic specifically. I'd also add that I don't agree with the way this was worked out from back to front, (I think it might be too orchestrated to conclude Jon as the referent but since Apple acknowledged that backwards methodology, I'm rolling with that hypothetical, and by doing so, the possibility led to some thoughts about Targ madness and other subjects that are worth discussing).

[WeaselPie]

Post count has no bearing on post quality-- that isn't really earth shattering news. I mean, E Ro has almost 9k posts, for gods sake (lol, that's a (half) joke, little brohoof). Still, there's nothing new in that idea, and the OP's high post count isn't why this thread isn't being shot down categorically.

Since you keep bringing this up, here's why this entirely speculative thread is garnering discussion despite being entirely speculative. Apple isn't really proposing a "theory" so much as tossing something out wondering if there's significance to the possibility. Importantly, the fact that it's speculative and merely brainstorming was her stated goal at the outset. Meaning, she's not really making claims about anything that one would necessarily disprove the way, for example, the timeline prevents Benjen from being Jon's father. I hasten to add that I've been one of the more vocal critics of the implications stated in here, so I'm not saying that to advance what you consider to be the shadowy forum agenda going on, or any sort of agenda on this topic specifically. I'd also add that I don't agree with the way this was worked out from back to front, (I think it might be too orchestrated to conclude Jon as the referent but since Apple acknowledged that backwards methodology, I'm rolling with that hypothetical, and by doing so, the possibility led to some thoughts about Targ madness and other subjects that are worth discussing).

Curious why you keep speaking for the OP?

I've seen numerous threads waylaid by the OP for similar arguments as oursisthefury's, yet you are belittling their point. How is the OP's thread more worthy of deference, or less worthy of skepticism than anyone else's? Since it is not based on Canon, yet rather on the observations and opinions of other members.