Aerys and Joanna (TWOIAF Spoilers)

[Ingelheim]

Tywin named Tyrion. Hell, we all know now why he was named Tyrion.

[Lord Varys]

Yet George said 'most like' in that quote. That is not a confirmation.

And I really don't care that much about SSMs. Things flow. I once asked George about the wife of Daeron I, and he said he was married. But he was not.

[Wmarshal]

Yet George said 'most like' in that quote. That is not a confirmation.

And I really don't care that much about SSMs. Things flow. I once asked George about the wife of Daeron I, and he said he was married. But he was not.

About Dany, yet we are a hundred percent sure her mother named her as well as Tywin and Ned named Tyrion and Jon.

Until it is corrected in the books or rejected the word of the author is the word of the author.

[Ingelheim]

Yet George said 'most like' in that quote. That is not a confirmation.

And I really don't care that much about SSMs. Things flow. I once asked George about the wife of Daeron I, and he said he was married. But he was not.

Sure, but...why in hell would Aerys name Tyrion? Everyone would have believed Tyrion wasn't Tywin's son, but Aerys'. Also, why would the already Mad King name the very son who killed the only woman he ever loved?

Tyrion is a cursed name for the Lannisters. It's pretty clear who named him.

[UnmaskedLurker]

So why not say, "Tywin, Rhaella, Ned," or even "father, mother, father" and then later, after the reveal, say that he meant legally, not biologically? There were other ways to word it beside "father, mother, Ned" if he wanted it to stay vague.

Well he certainly is not going to say legally and not biologically because that would give away too much. As to why he said father, mother Ned rather than Tywin, Rhaella Ned, I am not sure. Maybe it is because you are right and I am wrong. Or maybe it is because when people speak--even when they are trying to speak carefully--they don't always speak carefully enough. Perhaps he said Ned because he had RLJ on the brain and knew many people knew of that theory and so was careful in that reference, but he did not think anyone was speculating about AJT at that point, so he was not focused on speaking carefully then. While I don't think GRRM outright lies, I think he sometimes sort of misleads when he speaks (a bit like Varys--technical truths easily misunderstood). But more to the point, this was a spoken sentence not a written statement--and when speaking, people simply cannot be as precise in their sentence structure as is demanded of the people who insist that if AJT is correct, then GRRM was obligated to say Tywin, Rhaella and Ned, rather than father, mother, Ned. Human beings--even GRRM--simply do not speak with that level of precision. He was intending to be understood by the audience, and everyone understood he meant Tywin, Rhaella and Ned--he was not trying to give evidence for or against AJT (which is why he felt free to say father in reference to Tywin--or more to the point, simply was not thinking about the issue at all and knew everyone considered Tywin as his father)--while I think he was trying to avoid getting into any issues of giving evidence one way or the other for RLJ (which is why he said Ned because he knew "father" would raise discussions of whether GRRM meant Rhaegar or Ned).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yet George said 'most like' in that quote. That is not a confirmation.

And I really don't care that much about SSMs. Things flow. I once asked George about the wife of Daeron I, and he said he was married. But he was not.

I don't think the backstory of an ultimately minor-ish historical figure is quite on the same level as how three main characters got their names, but cling on if it makes you feel better. You guys are hedging on the author being obtuse (when actually the answer is quite specific) or an outright liar. I'm not sure what "flow" has to do with this, since I don't think anyone sincerely doubts that Tywin named Tyrion, including you, for all your concern trolling about "confirmation." The issue is whether "father" can be taken to mean that Tywin is Tyrion's father. Unless GRRM decided to make Aerys Tyrion's father since answering that question, there's nothing to "flow."

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well he certainly is not going to say legally and not biologically because that would give away too much. As to why he said father, mother Ned rather than Tywin, Rhaella Ned, I am not sure. Maybe it is because you are right and I am wrong. Or maybe it is because when people speak--even when they are trying to speak carefully--they don't always speak carefully enough. Perhaps he said Ned because he had RLJ on the brain and knew many people knew of that theory and so was careful in that reference, but he did not think anyone was speculating about AJT at that point, so he was not focused on speaking carefully then.

Which is why I said AFTER the reveal. If he referred to Ned as Jon's father and someone confronted him over it AFTER the reveal, THEN he could say he meant legally and cover his ass.

If he subconsciously switched to "Ned" instead of "father" because he didn't want to lie, that still doesn't explain the "father" remark for Tyrion. He would still subconsciously know that Tywin wasn't Tyrion's father. That he'd catch himself on one but not the other doesn't make sense. Even without fan speculation, HE would have still known the truth.

You guys are doing some impressive mental gymnastics over what is actually a pretty straightforward quote. You say he doesn't speak carefully enough, when the quote is actually very carefully worded.

[Lord Varys]

My mind is set, I'm immune to arguments now. After all, it is 'a matter of faith'...

George was asked who named those characters, he was not asked whether the official story he gave in his books about their heritage was true.

If you approach George and say 'Let's talk about Tyrion and his father' he will, of course, not start talking about Tyrion and Aerys. Just as he would most likely begin to talk about Jon and Ned should you ask 'Hey, let's talk about Jon and his father'. After all, Ned is still Jon's father in the book, is he not?

[Cas Stark]

My mind is set, I'm immune to arguments now. After all, it is 'a matter of faith'...

George was asked who named those characters, he was not asked whether the official story he gave in his books about their heritage was true.

If you approach George and say 'Let's talk about Tyrion and his father' he will, of course, not start talking about Tyrion and Aerys. Just as he would most likely begin to talk about Jon and Ned should you ask 'Hey, let's talk about Jon and his father'. After all, Ned is still Jon's father in the book, is he not?

Well, then why does anyone pay attention to what GRRM says, if we're going to choose to interpret it in any way that fits our theories? I mean, is Jeyne Westerling pregnant again? If the idea is going to be 'he lies or tells the truth' depends on what I believe then people should stop quoting him.

[Wmarshal]

My mind is set, I'm immune to arguments now. After all, it is 'a matter of faith'...

George was asked who named those characters, he was not asked whether the official story he gave in his books about their heritage was true.

If you approach George and say 'Let's talk about Tyrion and his father' he will, of course, not start talking about Tyrion and Aerys. Just as he would most likely begin to talk about Jon and Ned should you ask 'Hey, let's talk about Jon and his father'. After all, Ned is still Jon's father in the book, is he not?

And instead of saying Jon's father, he said Ned.

[butterbumps!]

I understand this argument and see why people interpret it as evidence against AJT. I think Corbon has said that he believed AJT until this SSM and reversed his position almost entirely as a result of this SSM. But to me, I think it makes too much of the point. GRRM knew that rumors about RLJ were running wild at the time he made the statement, so he named Ned by name to avoid creating a dispute of the issue. Assuming ATJ to be true (as I think it is), it is easily explained that GRRM did not think there was much speculation at that time about ATJ, so merely referencing Tywin as Tyrion's father was no big deal--whereas referencing Ned as Jon's father would have started a host of speculation.

As careful as GRRM may be when he speaks, it is just not possible to be that careful with every word. So I don't think GRRM was lying--he just was not being quite as careful with his "parallel construction" in referencing one adopted parent as the "father" and the other by his name, Ned. GRRM tries to give honest answers without giving away mysteries--that can be an exhausting exercise and I think people read way too much into some of these SSMs. They may be canon or semi-canon for the explicit statements make, but they are also intended to be partial evasions much of the time and cannot be expected to be in the same vain as carefully crafted clues in literature. So the implications from the sentence structure should not be used to prove too much.

I only produced that quote since it was being talked about so that we'd have it for reference. That quote isn't really part of my A+J=/= T argumentation.

That said, if Martin was being coy about Jon and Tyrion's parentage, then using the same convention to name all 3 the same way was the logical way to it:

• "Dany by her mother, and Tyrion and Jon by their fathers"

"Dany by Rhaella, Tyrion by Tywin, Jon by Ned."

As it stands, the quote reads: "one of these things is not like the others."

I've never been too involved in the A+J=T debates. I've only gotten involved in a couple of those threads over almost 3 years, and my interest was never in whether it was "possible," nor really about that quote's being evidence (though I think it's really hard to argue against that quote).

My rationale against it has been consistently about how it doesn't fit into the rest of the story.

[mezmerised]

The simplest answer he could have given if he didn't want to give anything away would be to say "they were named by Tywin, Rhaella and Ned". The fact that he said "his father, her mother and Ned" was a nod in the direction of people who already figured out RLJ without giving anything away for the rest of the fans.

I find it very hard to believe that he simply forgot about AJT when answering because he was only focused on RLJ. If both of these theories were actually facts that existed since the beginning of the story you'd think they would be closely connected in GRRMs mind.

The only possible explanation would be that GRRM deliberately wanted to lead us in the wrong direction because he absolutely wanted to avoid people figuring out AJT too early.

But that would basically mean he's lying in his SSMs. Which is especially weird because he could have easily avoided being caught in a lie by simply saying "Tywin, Rhaella and Ned".

[Chaircat Meow]

Having now seen the SSM I'm confident Tywin is Tyrion's real father. You don't say Jon was named by Ned but Tyrion by his father if Tyrion's father isn't Tywin. So that's settled as far as I am concerned.

I think the important point is that Tywin himself doesn't know that for sure, because Aerys raped Joanna in 272. Tywin's actions make so much more sense if that's true.

[Washingmachine]

http://grrm.livejournal.com/381419.html

This is the post at the end of the summer where George talks about Tyrion as his favorite character and interviewers need to stop asking this question. Notice how he refers to him as "son of Tywin."

[Lord Varys]

I know that he said Ned in that particular quote. But this discussion was not about Jon's father, now, or was it? If you came to George asking him to talk about Jon's father he would not unless we assume that he wanted to spoil you or give away things he does usually not give away - talk about Rhaegar, or treat Ned like he was not Jon's father.

He is aware that people think Jon is not really Ned's son, after all.

And I'm also not sure what level of evidence we'll get in regards to any of those things. Even if Tyrion and Jon both become dragonriders, even if Howland Reed and Barristan Selmy come forth and tell us what they know, who is to say that not Tywin fathered Tyrion? Who is to say that not, say, Oswell Whent or Arthur Dayne stepped in for Rhaegar in one particular night and fathered Jon? We won't get any real evidence, just stories some people tell us, perhaps backed up by magical events. But who is to say that those events have anything to do with dragonlord blood. Just because people in Westeros believe it does not make it true.

It really sucks to discuss things on that level. I'm inclined to believe that Tyrion is Aerys' son, but I could also accept the opposite. In fact, I was not particularly happy with the whole Joanna episode in ADwD when I first read it. But I've adjusted and operate now under the presupposition that it is true until proven otherwise. I really can live with both options, but I'd really be surprised if it turned out to be a red herring. I really don't see why GRRM would invest anything in a long-dead character like Joanna just to confuse people. That we know virtually nothing about Minisa Whent, on the other hand, strongly suggests that she completely unimportant and did not conceive Edmure with some wandering singer or something like that...

[Washingmachine]

http://grrm.livejournal.com/381419.html

This is the post at the end of the summer where George talks about Tyrion as his favorite character and interviewers need to stop asking this question. Notice how he refers to him as "son of Tywin."

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think the important point is that Tywin himself doesn't know that for sure, because Aerys raped Joanna in 272. Tywin's actions make so much more sense if that's true.

Agreed that the uncertainty is key. Hence Ran's post on page 1 of this thread. Tywin's treatment of Tyrion was inconsistent - despite all the abuse, he also name him Hand of the King, Master of Coin, tried to send him to the Wall instead of the chop, etc. Uncertainty explains that.

If he was certain Tyrion was a bastard, I don't think he would have given him anything - Tyrion would have died early in an an arranged accident. But if he was certain Tyrion was his, I think his treatment may have been less harsh, and he may have even named him heir.

[Wmarshal]

http://grrm.livejournal.com/381419.html

This is the post at the end of the summer where George talks about Tyrion as his favorite character and interviewers need to stop asking this question. Notice how he refers to him as "son of Tywin."

Welcome!

And thanks for the link!

[Mithras]

I know that he said Ned in that particular quote. But this discussion was not about Jon's father, now, or was it? If you came to George asking him to talk about Jon's father he would not unless we assume that he wanted to spoil you or give away things he does usually not give away - talk about Rhaegar, or treat Ned like he was not Jon's father.

He is aware that people think Jon is not really Ned's son, after all.

And I'm also not sure what level of evidence we'll get in regards to any of those things. Even if Tyrion and Jon both become dragonriders, even if Howland Reed and Barristan Selmy come forth and tell us what they know, who is to say that not Tywin fathered Tyrion? Who is to say that not, say, Oswell Whent or Arthur Dayne stepped in for Rhaegar in one particular night and fathered Jon? We won't get any real evidence, just stories some people tell us, perhaps backed up by magical events. But who is to say that those events have anything to do with dragonlord blood. Just because people in Westeros believe it does not make it true.

It really sucks to discuss things on that level. I'm inclined to believe that Tyrion is Aerys' son, but I could also accept the opposite. In fact, I was not particularly happy with the whole Joanna episode in ADwD when I first read it. But I've adjusted and operate now under the presupposition that it is true until proven otherwise. I really can live with both options, but I'd really be surprised if it turned out to be a red herring. I really don't see why GRRM would invest anything in a long-dead character like Joanna just to confuse people. That we know virtually nothing about Minisa Whent, on the other hand, strongly suggests that she completely unimportant and did not conceive Edmure with some wandering singer or something like that...

Because this red herring George is making is not only about Joanna; it is about dragonriding, three heads of the dragon etc. which are much bigger mysteries than a simple case of paternity.

I really don't think that George will proceed with the "special drop of Valyrian blood to ride a dragon" explanation. That is the giant red herring and George can do better than that.

[Wouter]

Definitely central to Tyrion's internal identity dilemma, but it's Dany who will push it and be surer than Tyrion. True or not it's an agreed upon fact in Westeros that Targaryen's ride dragons, when Tyrion hops on Viserion without any horn it's Dany, the proud Targaryen, blood of the dragon, who will want answers to willingly accept.

Viserion named for Viserys, the brother who betrayed her, or did she betray him?

I think this is a good point that has been overlooked in this thread (recently in favour of the SSM that some hold to be the be-all-end-all of the discussion, while Martin may have simply been answering in a coy way, 10 years ago when few suspected anything regarding Tyrion's parentage!).

Look at the way the dragonseeds on Dragonstone have been treatet by the Targaryen dynasty: officially all are, by definition, Targaryen bastard offshoots. Whether it is true or not, the official party line is that only those with Targaryen (or at least Valyrian) blood can tame and ride dragons. And one thing we know of Dany is that she follows the official party line, much like Viserys did, and even Barristan is unlikely to think differently in this particular instance.

As far as most Westerosi are concerned, riding a dragon means Targaryen, if not in name than in genetics. Should Tyrion turn out to be able to ride Viserion, than short of him having used the magic horn, Dany would cling to every doubt that he is or at least could be a Targaryen, so as to keep the Targaryen magic/PR intact. If he is a dragonrider, he will be considered Targaryen and Tyrion himself will have little reason to deny this (even if he would have doubts himself) because this would give Dany a very good reason not to kill him and might even see him becoming her heir, at least temporarily.

As to whether it is true or not, I think the key here is that Tywin had doubts. He said this litterally in the main books, and while this used to be dismissed by many as being purely because he couldn't fathon having fathered a dward, the companion book points to him having rational reasons to doubt, given the state of affairs between Aerys and Joanna (and given Tyrion's features). Aerys may not have known for sure either, maybe why he at first mocked Tywin as being punished by the Gods, yet later sought forgiveness from the Gods for his own unfaithfulness.

So, Tyrion could Tywin's son, could be Aerys' son or has been suggested by some he could even be a chimaera, from the seed of two fathers (leading to the mismatched eyes and the weird hair).

Tywin stated that Tyrion was not his son twice that I recall, while once he acknowledged him as his son. However, that last part came when he had need of Tyrion to go run KL after Cersei f*cked up and Jaime was captured. Tywin seemed to be aware that Tyrion was very capable, but his entire treatment of him is consistent with the idea that he had serious doubts but was never 100% certain Tyrion wasn't his.

Dany may not be certain either, but if Tyrion rides a dragon she'll be inclined to believe every rumour pointing to Targaryen parentage.

And FWIW, I think Maia's argument about the taming of dragons is sound. It may be possible to control a dragon through magical means like Warging (for an expert, that is, like the children of the Forest would be) or through magical horns, but if merely feeding it sheep for a time would be enough then there is no reason why some Valyrian families would be the only dragonowners. Surely Nettles wouldn't be the first in 100s of years to think of that (and where did she get all those sheep anyway, from a rich donor)?

As for the impact of the World Book on this theory, for all the claims that it changes nothing I note that some who don't like the theory (like Ran) seem to fear that it may be true now, while none of the supporters have come out and said they are less convinced now.