Lord Varys Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I never thought about the Qartheen only acquiring the horn after the Doom. That certainly would be a possibility (I imagined he made up the whole story about going to Valyria, as this would be the kind of thing he does to sound more daring and adventurous than he actually is), as the magic of the Undying should have been considerably more powerful shortly after the Doom that it was centuries later, if the whole slow decline of magic is true (and I guess real sorcerers could have actually had ways to figure out where powerful magical artifacts might be). However another possibility would be unmentioned contacts between Qarth and Valyria - wars, truces, perhaps even marriages. If a dragonlord woman or man married into a Pureborn family (or one of the ancient kings of Qarth) he/she could have taken such a horn with them. But the reason I thought that there might have been wars is the supposed dragon skeleton in the Red Waste. That could be hint, although that does not necessarily mean that the Qartheen were involved in whatever caused the death of that dragon. The Lannister ancestry up to a certain point in the past should be resolved in TWoIaF if there is a Lannister family tree in there. Elaena-Damon certainly is still a possibility, although, if that was not the case, and one of Elaena's daughter married into House Lannister, I'd guess that a daughter of Elaena's would have had the honor to marry Lord Damon's heir (i.e. Tybolt Lannister's, whose line died with his daughter). Alternatively, such a girl would have been the first wife of Lord Gerold, who, as far as we know, did not give birth to any of his children (or at least not to Tytos, who is the one who had 'the surprising Lannister ancestor'). The same would be true for any daughters of Lord Viserys Plumm - assuming that he had any daughters. Tyrion only mentions sons. I'm not sure the ages would allow Lord Damon to marry one of Viserys' daughters - they would either be married to Tybolt or to Gerold in the first marriage, and thus not contribute anything lasting to the Lannister bloodline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Bael, MaiaThanks. I haven't read the history of the Westerlands and don't plan to. Hate reading only bits and pieces.Actually, if there had been Plumms in the family tree, it would explain how Joanna planned to explain Tyrion's appearance if he had been born all silver-haired and purple-eyed. So, it wouldn't be completely superfluous.Well since Tyrion was not born silver-haired and purple eyed I still maintain that it would be superfluous.Also, that wood witch was quite insistent on Aerys and Rhaella marrying each other - maybe because having Targ blood from both sides of the family tree might have been important? Maybe Aerys's blood already lacked something necessary for dragon-bonding and not just for dragon-hatching? So, I could see a point in there being post-Elaena Plumm blood in the Lannisters, but Tyrion still being Aerys's son. But it doesn't look like GRRM is playing it that way.Didn't the woods witch say that the PtwP would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line? I don't think that dragon bonding had anything to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yeah, we do know about Joanna's parents. Joanna's father was Jason, the younger brother of Tytos. Jason had been married to a Stackspear girl, who died after giving birth once, and then married Marla Prester, who birthed him his other children. So one of them was Joanna's mother. Joanna's grandparents were Tywin's grandparents, Gerold Lannister, and Lady Rohanne. Okay. Thanks. There are still a few missing pieces but it is looking increasingly likely that they may not be any Targ blood in the main Lannister line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Granted, it is notes rather than word for word, but the reading supposedly covered the entire history of the Westerlands from the earliest days down to the wiping out of the Reynes and Tarbecks, but doesn't complete the history from there. There is a lot of interesting information. I can't wait to get the actual book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Didn't the woods witch say that the PtwP would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line? I don't think that dragon bonding had anything to do with it.Maester Aemon thought that Dany's dragons proved that she was The Promised Prince. Clearly, dragons were somehow involved in the PTwP prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Maester Aemon thought that Dany's dragons proved that she was The Promised Prince. Clearly, dragons were somehow involved in the PTwP prophecy. All that we know is that the PtwP is supposed to come from Aerys and Rhaella's line. This does not tell us that Aerys blood is lacking something necessary for dragon bonding. While dragons being involved in the prophecy is a distinct possibility we still lack the information to say they are 'clearly' involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Without pulling my skirt up too high, let's hypothetically say that maybe the Aerys/Joanna material could equally apply to the twins, if not more so than Tyrion, but that it's Tyrion who will probably get the attention because of the higher popularity of the theory relating to him. Is the "new king" this is written for supposed to be Tommen or Joff? This might be a very stupid question, but why would maesters writing a history for "the new king" write something that would call said new king's legitimacy into question? I'm not contesting A+J with this, but more like genuinely asking what this maester's racket is. If there's A+J material in there, is that a clue he's writing it for a king who's not Cersei's kids, or is purposely trying to undermine "Baratheon" rule or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is the "new king" this is written for supposed to be Tommen or Joff? This might be a very stupid question, but why would maesters writing a history for "the new king" write something that would call said new king's legitimacy into question? I'm not contesting A+J with this, but more like genuinely asking what this maester's racket is. If there's A+J material in there, is that a clue he's writing it for a king who's not Cersei's kids, or is purposely trying to undermine "Baratheon" rule or something? The book was written for Robert, Joffrey, Tommen Baratheon.. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The book was written for Robert, Joffrey, Tommen Baratheon.. ;) I'm glad for that. Neither Robert of Joffrey were going to read this beautiful book. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The book was written for Robert, Joffrey, Tommen Baratheon.. ;) Is it confirmed anywhere that it's Tommen specifically? I'm not contesting that there's some A+J fodder in there, or that it's written for Tommen. I'm more like saying that if someone wrote a history for Tommen and included anecdotes that call his mother's legitimacy into question, that maybe this maester should get fired. Or is there some sort of a racket going on here that I'm missing? Because, for example, I can see the motivation to include something like that if the "new king" in question were Aegon, and like that this is part of his instruction or something. Otherwise, this Yandel guy should get demoted, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Agrippa Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is it confirmed anywhere that it's Tommen specifically? I'm not contesting that there's some A+J fodder in there, or that it's written for Tommen. I'm more like saying that if someone wrote a history for Tommen and included anecdotes that call his mother's legitimacy into question, that maybe this maester should get fired. Or is there some sort of a racket going on here that I'm missing? Because, for example, I can see the motivation to include something like that if the "new king" in question were Aegon, and like that this is part of his instruction or something. Otherwise, this Yandel guy should get demoted, lol. Maybe he is loyal to Aegon VI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Maybe he is loyal to Aegon VI? well, that's kind of what I'm wondering. And I guess more generally, I'm wondering to what extent there's a maester's gloss on this, as being written in a political (and therefore, kind of propagandistic) context affects what we take away from the book. I guess I'm wondering if something like that is meaningful-- like how portrayal of A+J as a thing would kind of like undermine Tommen's rule, and whether a contradiction like that is purposeful and meaningful to the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is it confirmed anywhere that it's Tommen specifically? I'm not contesting that there's some A+J fodder in there, or that it's written for Tommen. I'm more like saying that if someone wrote a history for Tommen and included anecdotes that call his mother's legitimacy into question, that maybe this maester should get fired. Or is there some sort of a racket going on here that I'm missing? Because, for example, I can see the motivation to include something like that if the "new king" in question were Aegon, and like that this is part of his instruction or something. Otherwise, this Yandel guy should get demoted, lol. IICR, the whole Robert Joffrey Tommen joke is in the text (somewhere). So, the book was essentially, for Robert, that's why I thuoght it was very likely to discard any kind of hope to see anything RLJ related, or anything making the Targaryens more favourable than simply historical facts about them. I suppose no sane maester would write "...and it's debatable whether Lyanna Stark ran away by her own will or she was kidnapped". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 IICR, the whole Robert Joffrey Tommen joke is in the text (somewhere). So, the book was essentially, for Robert, that's why I thuoght it was very likely to discard any kind of hope to see anything RLJ related, or anything making the Targaryens more favourable than simply historical facts about them. I suppose no sane maester would write "...and it's debatable whether Lyanna Stark ran away by her own will or she was kidnapped". It's written in the book itself that way, explicitly stating Robert and then Cersei's kids? Can someone just confirm to me if it's actually a "Baratheon" recipient intended for this? If it is, can someone please explain why it would contain A+J material that would undermine any of the "Baratheon" parties in question? I'm really genuinely curious about what the maester could be possibly thinking there. I can see why an anti-Lannister maester would write about it during Robert's rule. I'm struggling with why that would not be redacted for Tommen or Joff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I am sure if it is something that could relate to A+J=whatever, it is something that can possibly be deduced from an otherwise "innocent" bit of information as making something possible or impossible, not something the maester explicitly states or goes into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is it confirmed anywhere that it's Tommen specifically? I'm not contesting that there's some A+J fodder in there, or that it's written for Tommen. I'm more like saying that if someone wrote a history for Tommen and included anecdotes that call his mother's legitimacy into question, that maybe this maester should get fired. Or is there some sort of a racket going on here that I'm missing? Because, for example, I can see the motivation to include something like that if the "new king" in question were Aegon, and like that this is part of his instruction or something. Otherwise, this Yandel guy should get demoted, lol. The book was written originally for Robert, but Robert died before the book was finished, so Yandel decided to dedicate the book to Joffrey. Then Joffrey died, and Yandel still had either not finished, or not yet presented his book. So he dedicated it to Tommen. The whole "Robert, Joffrey, Tommen" joke is from Yandel (though he was most likely being serious). One of the first pages contains a "handwritten" introduction, dedicating the book to the King, where you can see the names of Robert and Joffrey crossed out. The next page contains an introduction of sorts, where Yandel tells a bit about himself. You can see it in the preview :) (3rd page, IIRC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's written in the book itself that way, explicitly stating Robert and then Cersei's kids? Can someone just confirm to me if it's actually a "Baratheon" recipient intended for this? If it is, can someone please explain why it would contain A+J material that would undermine any of the "Baratheon" parties in question? I'm really genuinely curious about what the maester could be possibly thinking there. I can see why an anti-Lannister maester would write about it during Robert's rule. I'm struggling with why that would not be redacted for Tommen or Joff. Of course, my dear non-believer. http://i.imgur.com/CxQkJHK.jpg It's from the previews we had a few months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Agrippa Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Maybe for the pro-robert maester argument- prehaps he knew Robert despised the Lannisters. We know Robert didn't exactly make it a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The running gag would be really fun if Maester Yandel showed up in TWoW and presented the book to ... Aegon VI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 If it is, can someone please explain why it would contain A+J material that would undermine any of the "Baratheon" parties in question? Why would it undermine any "Baratheon" parties, if it could, say, only apply to Tyrion? And one would only know the significance of whatever it is because of all the other things we know about Tyrion, that maester wouldn't have been aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.