OberynBlackfyre Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Sooo from the WOIAF we learn that there WAS a time in which a Targaryen was going to marry a Stark.....however that never happened due to the Targaryen that was supposed to carry out the said pact untimely death. Yet the pact was known as "The Pact of Ice and Fire." Which somewhat gives creed to Jon's song actually being the song of ice and fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Underfoot Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 [emoji106] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto2 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Doesn't really prove anything. The clues R+L=J are still found in the main novels. The World book really added nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Good catch, the only time the term "of ice and fire" is used in something it refers to a marriage pact between a Stark and a Targaryen. Therefore, "a song of ice and fire" could refer to an event involving both Stark and Targaryen, and if it refers to a person than Jon is the only person who can fit this description given his heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Good catch, the only time the term "ice and fire" is used in something it refers to a marriage pact between a Stark and a Targaryen. Therefore, "a song of ice and fire" could refer to an event involving both Stark and Targaryen, and if it refers to a person than Jon is the only person who can fit this description given his heritage.Not true unless you specifically mean the world bookWhen Meets and Jojen make their speech to Bran upon meeting they say something to a similar effect; it definitely stuck out to me on the reread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooded Lady Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 So a betrothal took place but no marriage? In other words, a prince was promised but not delivered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Not true unless you specifically mean the world bookWhen Meets and Jojen make their speech to Bran upon meeting they say something to a similar effect; it definitely stuck out to me on the reread Keybord slip? :P Anyway, even though I haven't yet read this part so I have limited opinion, I believe this will be brought in the next books. We saw Rhaegar saying this words about Aegon. We know he's bookish, so he probably knows about the pact. Why would he use them on a son of his that has no Ice at all? We also know that baby IS Aegon (the real), and the woman there is Elia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Not true unless you specifically mean the world bookWhen Meets and Jojen make their speech to Bran upon meeting they say something to a similar effect; it definitely stuck out to me on the rereadBut they say "by ice and fire" not "of ice and fire." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 So a betrothal took place but no marriage? In other words, a prince was promised but not delivered?Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoamingRonin Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Excellent. People speculated there was a previous Stark/Targaryen marriage but I knew that wasn't true at all. For Jon/Lyanna/Rhaegar to truly be special, they would have to be the first union of Stark and Targaryen. I need to get the world book but I $40 on a book full of unreliable narrator? Argh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Good catch, the only time the term "ice and fire" is used in something it refers to a marriage pact between a Stark and a Targaryen. Therefore, "a song of ice and fire" could refer to an event involving both Stark and Targaryen, and if it refers to a person than Jon is the only person who can fit this description given his heritage. No. Meera and Jojen swear their fealty to Bran by "Ice and Fire." ETA your initial statement is still wrong. Dany's vision of Rhaegar refers to Aegon, who has nothing to do with a marriage pact between Stark and Targ. So we only have one out of three uses of the term (and one is a fan fiction account) that the term is used for an S/T marriage pact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Excellent. People speculated there was a previous Stark/Targaryen marriage but I knew that wasn't true at all. For Jon/Lyanna/Rhaegar to truly be special, they would have to be the first union of Stark and Targaryen. I need to get the world book but I $40 on a book full of unreliable narrator? Argh... I just went to the local bookstore and spend an hour perusing it. I didn't really feel the need to buy it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Snark of Winterfell Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't think that proves anything. I believe in R+L=J, there is a lot obviously in the book that says it and then to top that off was Sean Bean saying "I'm obviously not Jon's father" in multiple interviews and the thing where the HBO show providers essentially guessed at it and that why GRRM agreed to the show (or something to that effect) So far I read everything except for the individual houses and have been left with just more questions. My biggest one is, how is he going to fit what he wants to do in 2 novels the way he progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanset Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 "A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer's dragon, you said. What is a mummer's dragon, pray?" "A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." Ser Jorah frowned. Dany could not let it go. "His is the song of ice and fire, my brother said. I'm certain it was my brother. Not Viserys, Rhaegar. He had a harp with silver strings." Ser Jorah's frown deepened until his eyebrows came together. "Prince Rhaegar played such a harp," he conceded. "You saw him?" She nodded. "There was a woman in a bed with a babe at her breast. My brother said the babe was the prince that was promised and told her to name him Aegon." "Prince Aegon was Rhaegar's heir by Elia of Dorne," Ser Jorah said. "But if he was this prince that was promised, the promise was broken along with his skull when the Lannisters dashed his head against a wall." "I remember," Dany said sadly. "They murdered Rhaegar's daughter as well, the little princess. Rhaenys, she was named, like Aegon's sister. There was no Visenya, but he said the dragon has three heads. What is the song of ice and fire?" "It's no song I've ever heard." (ACoK, 63, Daenerys V)The entire conversation is really interesting, Dany points out things she saw in The House of the Undying (ACoK, 48, Daenerys IV). I transcribed just this part. Actually, it was going to be half of it, but the mummer's dragon is right before Aegon and Rhaegar, so I had to quote it too. It is curious how Quaithe (in ADwD, 11, Daenerys II) tries to make Dany rethink of all that. How does Quaithe know what Dany saw? It's a little creepy how Quaithe spies on Dany. If we think that Young Griff is not Rhaegar's son, then, what Jorah is saying is right: «"But if he was this prince that was promised, the promise was broken along with his skull when the Lannisters dashed his head against a wall."» So, that leads us to Jon, who we know(*) is "ice and fire". I think most people agree to that, the controversies come with the more specifics PTWP/AAR. This isn't the point here. The point is, we can see that Rhaegar was wrong about Aegon (his son, not fAegon), ergo whatever he says about his son Aegon should apply to Jon Snow (his son too), who is the "ice and fire" that Rhaegar was really talking about (even when he didn't know it). I think Jon is «the song of ice and fire» that Rhaegar is talking about, but I'm triyng to keep it as simple as I can. Maester Aemon and Rhaegar (and probably Bloodraven, too) were wrong about 'some' things, not about everything. In THotU Dany saw undoubtedly Aegon and Elia but, Dany and Jorah knows(**) that Aegon is dead, so what Rhaegar says goes to Jon (even the king part, though he was wrong about the name). Rhaegar also said: «"There must be one more,"» That's the reason why most readers (and Rhaegar) are always looking for another Targaryen "blood of the dragon", because as we read a million times: «"The dragon has three heads."» (*) L+R=J: It is a very obvious theory, particularly after six (main) books and 18 years for some people, probably half of that for most readers which is a lot anyway. (**) fAegon: Yes, it is a theory that is not proven yet. Anyway, Dany and Jorah believe so, we'll see if they change their minds. I think Dany won't, maybe she doubts it but if she remembers THotU she we'll see that fAegon is not Rhaegar's Aegon. Dany saw «A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd» in THotU (ACoK, 48), she talks about the «mummer's dragon» in her conversation with Jorah (ACoK, 63). Then Quaithe repeated it in her "beware/prophecy" during Dany's vision in Meereen (ADwD, 11). «"(...) and the mummer's dragon. Trust none of them. Remember the Undying. Beware the perfumed seneschal."» Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 not for nothing, i think the union between stark and targ is essentially what started the Other movement 14 years ago. maybe the pact is that they SHOULDNT have been united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Jon NEVER SHOULD HAVE been born. to unite the valyrians and the first men? No no no. It's enough to WAKE THE DEAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Jon NEVER SHOULD HAVE been born. to unite the valyrians and the first men? No no no. It's enough to WAKE THE DEADYou can't possibly be serious. How would Jon's birth have any connection at all to the Others coming back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 You can't possibly be serious. How would Jon's birth have any connection at all to the Others coming back? im actually not serious. chillax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost's Shadow Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Their avatar is a Clown, after all. Great to see the spoilers are staying out of the titles in the General Forum. Congrats. Especially since there's a(n ex-)pinned R+L=J thread in the WoIaF subforum, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 It was interesting to note but I doubt it changes the mind of anyone. It's an easter egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.