Lord Varys Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 UL, I was there at the reading. Aenys forced Maegor to choose between Alys and a five-year-exile, but this does not mean that he accepted the marriage, or that Aenys would just have gone along with this new marriage after Maegor's return. More importantly, that whole thing was only between Aenys and Maegor, not between Maegor and the Faith. The High Septon clearly did neither accept nor approve of this new marriage, regardless of the agreement Maegor reached with 'King Abomination'. As of yet, we don't know if Maegor forced the Faith to accept his later marriages, but the fact that Maegor had to fight against the Faith Militant throughout his whole reign strongly suggests that the Faith did never formally approve of polygamy or incest at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 LV-- I think we disagree on what it mean "not to accept" the marriage. I know you were at the reading, but I read what you wrote and have had back-and-forth with you, so I have a pretty good idea of what was said (but admittedly will have to wait until the end of the month to get better detail). Maybe I am splitting hairs, but I believe there is a difference between not approving of a marriage and asserting that the marriage is not actually a marriage. I am sure the FM would be upset by the marriage, and maybe even believe it should result is some punishment. But that is different than the FM stating that it was not an actual marriage. Of course, at the time Rhaegar would have married Lyanna, there was not FM (IIRC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Well, it is pretty clear that marriages are not only valid when the king or the head of the family acknowledges or approves of them, but it is pretty clear, that a prince insisting on a marriage the king or the Realm does not approve of (Maegor, Duncan) do have very severe consequences. But certainly Aenys or Aegon V could have gone down the road Tywin took, and dissolve a marriage against the will of the participants - it really seems to depend on how far are you willing to go to assert your authority. Aenys could have dealt with Alys Harroway the same way Tywin dealt with Tysha... If Aerys had not wanted to accept Rhaegar's polygamous marriage - and there is really no reason why he, or any sane Targaryen king would have done such a thing, especially not since Rhaegar did, apparently, neither ask his father for permission nor approach Lord Rickard to dissolve the betrothal to Robert prior to the abduction - no one could have forced him to. Taking Lyanna was essentially Rhaegar throwing away the Iron Throne - or possibly his life - and he must have been aware of that. Royalty and nobility controls itself by controlling its marriages. If you marry below your station or take a husband/wife with a problematic background, you are done. Your family casts you out and you lose everything. True, this real world custom isn't as well documented in Westeros, but Prince Duncan Targaryen is a pretty good example. The idea that the Realm, the smallfolk, the Faith, the Martells, the Starks, the Baratheons, and the royal family would accept this thing is simply ... not very likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vulture King Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Why is this turning into a R+L=J thread>!?! Why would he smash the main theory of his yet unpublished book in a off shoot book. Pretty sure its safe to say this has NOTHING to do with R+L=J. How would this septon even know that?!? Back to the theory that might actually be smashed and like another poster said it will have to be something that no one can argue. I personally think this will be a that you NEED Dragon Lord blood to ride a dragon. The word casual would fit if it was written in a matter of fact way that not one person has ever rode a dragon without dragon lord blood for 5 thousand years BECAUSE they lacked the blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moondancer Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 All we need to do is to google a bit and find the theories Ran finds particularly annoying. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Perhaps "Rhaegar = Mance." That one's already been smashed by the books, but I suspect it will go up in flames in the World book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Finally the R+L stuff is over. Back on topic: Another possibility is the theory that there are no lemon trees in Braavos. Perhaps with a description and illustration of the Sealord's Palace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Finally the R+L stuff is over. Back on topic: Another possibility is the theory that there are no lemon trees in Braavos. Perhaps with a description and illustration of the Sealord's Palace. I would be very happy with such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Martell Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I would be very happy with such... I would send the authors some lemon tarts just to thank them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prince of Magpies Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I personally think this will be a that you NEED Dragon Lord blood to ride a dragon. The word casual would fit if it was written in a matter of fact way that not one person has ever rode a dragon without dragon lord blood for 5 thousand years BECAUSE they lacked the blood. While I agree with you in thinking that Dragon blood is a necessary prerequisite for dragon riding (although the horn may constitute exceptional circumstances), I don't think it will be categorically stated either way in AWOIAF. Keeping that vague for the remaining books in the main series leaves so many more possibilities open (with regard to reader speculation and expectation) as to the fate of the dragons. Given that they will likely be play a big role in the struggle for Westeros, I don't think GRRM would want to narrow the possibilities of the uses they could be put to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Count me as another entirely skeptical of such theory-smashing having anything to do with dragonblood. That would be Holy Exposition Basil! Consider the prose - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be narrated by a maester attempting to curry favor with the current 'Baratheon' dynasty? If that's the case, an assumedly prolonged discourse on the efficacy of dragonblood would seem patently off-topic. I tend to think the OP is in actuality referring to the reveal of Ned's mother, but carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messem Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Another possibility is the theory that there are no lemon trees in Braavos. Perhaps with a description and illustration of the Sealord's Palace. It's a few weeks since I have seen the video but if I remember correctly the theory smashing was mentioned while talking about the Westerlands. My favorite is clearly the parentage of the Lannister children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbison from Ibben Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I strongly doubt that tWoIaF will have any major reveals that a casual reader of the series would need to understand the story. It also won't have any story spoilers. (I fully expect that the Targ family tree to have some major inkblots around Aegon V's time. For example, we probably won't find out who Aegon V's third son was, other than perhaps a name, if the guy is in any way important to the story.) Theory Smashing will probably be limited to deep history that is discussed around here but that casual readers don't care about. Perhaps something about the Long Night, the Others, the CotF, and the building of the Wall. There's been lots of off-the-Wall ideas floated about that time period, and many are prime candidates for being shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkfaithful85 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Even if that turns out to be true and is somehow revealed in the main series, why should the maester compiling the World book have any knowledge of it? And even if he had heard rumors of Joanna having an affair or being raped, it would be pretty dangerous to put it in the book with Tywin still around and one of the more powerful supporters of the throne. Even if he desired to make Aerys look bad, he could not do so without touching on matters that would be likely to put him in hot water with Tywin, not to mention Robert's queen, and one of his Kingsguard. I suppose it could be done as a later addition after Tywin died, but the Lannisters are still in power, so why risk it? Even if Tywin himself suspected, he raised Tyrion as his own rather than deal with him as he brutally dealt with the known children of Rhaegar. In a way, if Tyrion ends up being Aerys' son, Tywin and Ned, on such opposite ends of the spectrum in so many ways, both hid the identity of and raised a Targaryen child that wasn't theirs as their own. Of course, Ned knew, while Tywin might have only suspected.it could be something like aerys was in dorne during the time of tyrion's conception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 I just hope we can get Ran to let us know after the book is out which theory he was talking about, you know, settle the endless debate before it becomes endless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trepesoa Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I assumed the smashed theory was Davos = AA. I'm assuming that the three heads of the dragon will all satisfy the AA reborn prophecy. So that pretty much leaves Danny, Jon, and Tyrion if Davos is now excluded because he doesn't have Targ blood. I think Martin in particular has disliked the Davos = AA theory because he's repeated noted in the books that Davos is as common as common gets so him suddenly having Tag blood in order to fulfill AA prophecy has probably been very annoying for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 This pretty much has nothing to do with what he was asking lol. And as others have said his age was revealed in the app already and others have used hints to guess his age was mid twenties way before that. I think it will have to do with dragon taming / dragon blood. I think GRRM will just smash all theories that you can ride a dragon without some of the special 40 dragon lord blood. How exactly would it be possible to prove that you CAN'T ride a dragon without Targ blood? It is possible to prove that you CAN ride a dragon without Targ blood, and casually smash the theory about the necessity of Targ blood to pieces by giving an example of someone who couldn't have had any Targ or Valyrian blood and still rode a dragon. But you can never actually prove that the Targ blood is necessary and that nobody without Targ blood could ride it, especially since the pool of people who weren't officially Targs and who were ever given a chance to try to ride a dragon is incredibly small so you can't even draw statistical probabilities from it, let alone a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotcat Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Well, if there's one way to get people even more psyched up about this book - more than they already were - it's by announcing something like this. Lol. It has definitely got people talking. As for what the smashed theory could be, I doubt it will be anything major (like R+L=J or the possible parentage of the Lannister siblings for example). I personally, like a few others, think it could have something to with dragons and who can ride them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Count me as another entirely skeptical of such theory-smashing having anything to do with dragonblood. That would be Holy Exposition Basil! Consider the prose - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be narrated by a maester attempting to curry favor with the current 'Baratheon' dynasty? If that's the case, an assumedly prolonged discourse on the efficacy of dragonblood would seem patently off-topic. I tend to think the OP is in actuality referring to the reveal of Ned's mother, but carry on... The Stark family tree from the book was released months ago and it has Ned's mother on it. She was a cousin of Rickard's named Lyarra. Her parents were Rodrik Stark and Arya Flint. So I don't think the OP is talking about Ned's mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrion Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 How about the Roose Bolton theory that he steals souls and the reason we have no Bolton ancestors is because Roose is the only Bolton? I hope thats crushed to pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.