Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

40 Thousand Skeletons

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Tyrion, Son of the Mad King

Recommended Posts

I've written this in another thread but... I was re-reading ADoD yesterday and came upon an this Tyrion quote



"When he was still a lonely child in the depths of Casterly Rock, he oft rode dragons through the nights, pretending he was some lost Targaryen princeling, or a Valerian dragonlord soaring high o'er field and mountains."



The evidence is mounting up, but GRRM doesn't seem to be the happy endings, 'dream it and it will be' type. I really think the J/A hints are just a red herring. It's lovely that Tyrion wishes he were a Targ so that he may ride a dragon. But it's still possible (although I like this theory even less) that he could be a dragon rider without having Targ blood/ or no dragon rider at all, but at least he gets to see them, which would in a way fulfil his dream.



I'm just not fully convinced that GRRM would have two secret Targs in Westeros, it would start to feel a bit Melrose place.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

I'm just not fully convinced that GRRM would have two secret Targs in Westeros, (...)

Well, Rhaegar said: "There must be one more," (...) "The dragon has three heads." It sounds logical to think that another Targaryen is around though hidden. Anyway, if we can expect one more, three would be a surprise. Or maybe not so much, because GRRM likes to play with one and three. I mean it wouldn't be out of the blue because we've had clues all over the books from the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

«He wore crimson silk, high black boots, a black satin cloak.» (Jaime Lannister. AGoT. Ch.5, Jon I)

Why on Earth Planetos is Jaime wearing Targaryen colors in Winterfell in Jon's chapter and he compares Jaime with the notion of king? «This is what a king should look like»

«The prince wore sword and dagger, black boots polished to a high sheen, a black cloak lined with blood-red silk. (...) At his throat he wore three huge square-cut rubies on a chain of black iron, a gift from Magister Illyrio. Red and black. Dragon colors. That was good. "You look a proper prince," he told the boy. "Your father would be proud if he could see you."» (fAegon Targaryen. ADwD. Ch.24, The Lost Lord. JonCon I)

Lannister red is crimson. Targaryen red is blood-red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lannister red is crimson. Targaryen red is blood-red.

That's true, two different shades of red.

There are some differences and also some similarities.

PS: I've done a little bit of search with google's help and I found that they're not too far away from each other after all in the hex code:

#990000 Crimson Red

#980002 Blood Red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joanna was send away by Rhaella, and seldom visites KL.. having been send away by the Queen, does not leave you the option to visit KL whenevet you want.

Do either King or Queen would have needed to have ordered her to KL. We know of only one occasion: 272 AC.

Joanna and court were together once more, in 267 AC, when Aerys and court visited CR because Tytos had died. It had been the intention of Aerys to summon her to KL when she had recovered from childbirth, but Tyros' death brought him to CR instead.

That's twice in 9 years. That counts as seldom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrion's time of birth is not clearly known. Joanna coming to KL in 272 proves nothing because we do not know that Tyrion was born exactly 9 months after that. Even if that was the case, that does not necessarily mean that Aerys and Joanna had sex.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anniversary tourney in 272 AC would have coincided with the date of Aerys' ascension in 262 AC. We have no reason to believe that Jaehaerys II died in the first three months of 262 AC, and only in that case would Joanna give birth to Tyrion in 272, if we assume she was impregnated during the tourney.



It also seems that Summerhall was near the end of 259 AC, as the War of the Ninepenny Kings, which began shortly thereafter, is said to have begun in 260 AC, not 259 AC.



We also know that Jaehaerys only said 'roughly three years' on the Iron Throne, suggesting that he perhaps ruled from September/October 259 AC until August/September 262 AC.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Tyrion, he was already ten when the Trident took place. So that would mean that his birth did not took place in the last few months of the year. It doesn't make the time window a lot smaller, but I think Jons birth can be placed, ideally, in the 8th or 9th month of the year, meaning that the Trident and Sack took place around that time, and thus that Tyrions birth took place before..

That is, of course, if Tyrion was being literal... And not just rounding up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Tyrion, he was already ten when the Trident took place. So that would mean that his birth did not took place in the last few months of the year. It doesn't make the time window a lot smaller, but I think Jons birth can be placed, ideally, in the 8th or 9th month of the year, meaning that the Trident and Sack took place around that time, and thus that Tyrions birth took place before..

That is, of course, if Tyrion was being literal... And not just rounding up.

We can scarcely be sure of when the ages are exact and when they are rounded up. Perhaps Oberyn was right and all the rest was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can scarcely be sure of when the ages are exact and when they are rounded up. Perhaps Oberyn was right and all the rest was wrong.

Oberyn was wrong, the World Book shows that clearly. But it had always been a strange thing to take the literal words of the man who says "oh, thereabouts" and "I seem to recall", before giving two different differences in age between him/Elia and Jaime/Cersei.

As Tyrion is very specific about these kind of things, he most likely meant it that he had already turned 10 when Robert defeated Rhaegar.. I just felt I had to mention that there is a small chance that he was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Tyrion, he was already ten when the Trident took place. So that would mean that his birth did not took place in the last few months of the year. It doesn't make the time window a lot smaller, but I think Jons birth can be placed, ideally, in the 8th or 9th month of the year, meaning that the Trident and Sack took place around that time, and thus that Tyrions birth took place before..

That is, of course, if Tyrion was being literal... And not just rounding up.

Trying to nail down a precise timeline is probably an impossible task given the information we are given. The point is that prior to WoIaF, one of the biggest arguments that was circulated against the AJT theory was that there was no evidence that Aerys and Joanna were in the same place during a time that could have been Tyrion's conception--that Joanna was at CR and Aerys in KL. While this argument always struck me as a weak one, given that, as GRRM has noted in regard to other characters--they are not nailed down to one spot. Nevertheless, prior to WoIaF, the readers never had access to any information that specifically indicated that the two would have been in the same place anywhere near the needed time frame.

Now WoIaF puts them in the location at a time that could be the right time. There also is new information about Aerys making sexual comments about Joanna and Aerys trying to resign the next day. If AJT is true, we should not expect to get anything more than that level of confirmation. GRRM is not going to make it absolutely clear that the tourney was exactly nine months prior to Tyrion's birth--that would just be too obvious.

The point is that a major objection to the theory has been removed--and it does not appear to have been removed accidentally. Does that information mean that AJT is absolutely 100% proven and GRRM has completely boxed himself into the theory? No. But quibbling that this information does not definitively prove the theory is also missing the point--of course it does not. But if AJT is not true, then we need an alternative explanation for all the clues. I have not heard a very good one (shouting red herring is not a very persuasive argument--red herring for what?)--but that does not mean one does not exist. But just because the information does not 100% prove the theory, that is not the same thing as arguing that the information does not make the theory more likely to be true. I believe this new information unambiguously makes the theory more likely to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out to the people who don't think this theory has merit that we were also explicitly told that Tywin had to come to the Free Cities on duty as hand of the king, and we do not know when that happened. I suspect GRRM's next level of hinting at Tyrions identity will be the reveal that Tywin went to the Free cities in 272.

If Tywin had been away from Joanna at the time Tyrion was conceived, it would have been obvious to everyone that Tyrion was not Tywin's. Since everyone in the books seems to take it for granted that Tyrion is Tywin's, I believe we can safely conclude that they were in the same place.

I also personally think that Tywin's behavior toward Tyrion is best explained if Tywin suspected Tyrion's paternity, but wasn't certain. If he were certain, I expect he probably would have discreetly poisoned Tyrion at an early age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snp

Yeah, but I wasn't trying to proof or disproof anything :) just jumping into when in the year Tyrion was most likely born, trying to close the window a little bit.

Because the tourney in 272 AC might have been for Aerys' 10th year on the throne, there's nothing that indicates that he tourney was held on the date where it had been 10 years exactly.. of course, the tourney could have been weeks or months later or earlier..

If I am correct, and Tyrions nameday had already passed by the time Rhaegar died, then that actually works in favor of the A+J= T theory, because it would mean that the conception must have been in 272 AC (assuming a 9 month pregnancy).

I am personally not entirely convinced by the theory, but I wasn't trying to argue for or against it.. just completing the "when was Tyrion most likely born?" argumentation a little..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tywin had been away from Joanna at the time Tyrion was conceived, it would have been obvious to everyone that Tyrion was not Tywin's. Since everyone in the books seems to take it for granted that Tyrion is Tywin's, I believe we can safely conclude that they were in the same place.

I also personally think that Tywin's behavior toward Tyrion is best explained if Tywin suspected Tyrion's paternity, but wasn't certain. If he were certain, I expect he probably would have discreetly poisoned Tyrion at an early age.

I agree with both those points.

I suppose J+C being bastards and Tyrion being a bastard are technically 2 separate questions, and I would believe that J+C are the Aerys', but I find it highly unlikely that Joanna continued the affair after her wedding, especially considering the treatment of the king toward Tywin thereafter. He seems super jealous that Tywin had twins, and he couldn't have another child for a long time. As for Tyrion, I think the likely scenario is that drunk Aerys (he was described as such in the 272 visit) raped Joanna, and Joanna tried to hide it from Tywin but he suspected anyways? That's a bit speculative on my part though.

Question for everyone then, given info in TWOIAF that seems to indicate Valyrian blood actually is necessary, would Tyrion riding a dragon in TWOW confirm he is Aerys' son in your mind? It pretty much would confirm it for me, unless Tyrion acquires Vic's horn and somehow re-performs ancient dragon-binding blood magic somehow in ways unknown to us, but I always felt like that required sacrificing someone of your blood, and the other Lannisters are far away. CRACKPOT: Gerion will show up in Meereen and get sacrificed by Tyrion in TWOW! (Probably not thought :drunk:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I wasn't trying to proof or disproof anything :) just jumping into when in the year Tyrion was most likely born, trying to close the window a little bit.

Because the tourney in 272 AC might have been for Aerys' 10th year on the throne, there's nothing that indicates that he tourney was held on the date where it had been 10 years exactly.. of course, the tourney could have been weeks or months later or earlier..

If I am correct, and Tyrions nameday had already passed by the time Rhaegar died, then that actually works in favor of the A+J= T theory, because it would mean that the conception must have been in 272 AC (assuming a 9 month pregnancy).

I am personally not entirely convinced by the theory, but I wasn't trying to argue for or against it.. just completing the "when was Tyrion most likely born?" argumentation a little..

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you were doing anything other than what you clarify above that you were doing. And I agree that your "time line narrowing" is helpful and not harmful to the AJT theory. I just felt the need to clarify that I did not think there would be any way to fully narrow down that timeline--and we should not expect to be able to do so because GRRM has it in his interest not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder, why bother with the entire huge plot point of Joanna and Aerys having an affair and then elaborating on it a bunch in TWOIAF if it is a red herring? That is silly. George throws in actual red herrings, like fAegon, who is basically a big red herring making you think that he will be the 3rd head instead of Tyrion. I really hope he conquers the South, then tries to ride Rhaegal and die in the attempt when Dany, Tyrion, and the dragons show up. There is a small chance fAegon has the right drop of Targ blood in him, but it is probably unlikely, and short of a Varys reveal, I can't think of any other way that George will reveal he is a fake. Then Howland Reed will somehow inform Jon or Tyrion that Jon is the last dragon, and then ADOS will happen.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term "blind faith" applies more to the A+J=T theory because all those so-called proofs have several different interpretations and nothing is conclusive. In the Plumm case, the theory can simply be tested when we learn what happened to the rest of the Plumms (which might happen in TWoW).

What are the different interpretations for A+J=T ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to nail down a precise timeline is probably an impossible task given the information we are given. The point is that prior to WoIaF, one of the biggest arguments that was circulated against the AJT theory was that there was no evidence that Aerys and Joanna were in the same place during a time that could have been Tyrion's conception--that Joanna was at CR and Aerys in KL. While this argument always struck me as a weak one, given that, as GRRM has noted in regard to other characters--they are not nailed down to one spot. Nevertheless, prior to WoIaF, the readers never had access to any information that specifically indicated that the two would have been in the same place anywhere near the needed time frame.

Now WoIaF puts them in the location at a time that could be the right time. There also is new information about Aerys making sexual comments about Joanna and Aerys trying to resign the next day. If AJT is true, we should not expect to get anything more than that level of confirmation. GRRM is not going to make it absolutely clear that the tourney was exactly nine months prior to Tyrion's birth--that would just be too obvious.

The point is that a major objection to the theory has been removed--and it does not appear to have been removed accidentally. Does that information mean that AJT is absolutely 100% proven and GRRM has completely boxed himself into the theory? No. But quibbling that this information does not definitively prove the theory is also missing the point--of course it does not. But if AJT is not true, then we need an alternative explanation for all the clues. I have not heard a very good one (shouting red herring is not a very persuasive argument--red herring for what?)--but that does not mean one does not exist. But just because the information does not 100% prove the theory, that is not the same thing as arguing that the information does not make the theory more likely to be true. I believe this new information unambiguously makes the theory more likely to be true.

I've said this before, and now I'm saying it again. You are my god!

No-one should be saying 100% Tyrion is a targ. They should be saying things are looking very likely. Very very likely in my opinion, even before the world book came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the different interpretations for A+J=T ?

As I think you know, I have been debating MS on this issue for a while, and what I think he means is that each "clue" pointing toward A+J=T could have an "innocent" explanation, and these clues are merely red herrings, hiding the "real" mystery (which he seems to think is that Gerion Lannister is Tyrion's real father--for what purpose in the story, he won't say). I agree with MS that each separate clue, in isolation, could have an explanation other than A+J=T. Put together, I don't think they work very well as a red herring (for reasons I have gone into before and can do again if necessary), but I cannot be 100% certain.

I've said this before, and now I'm saying it again. You are my god!

No-one should be saying 100% Tyrion is a targ. They should be saying things are looking very likely. Very very likely in my opinion, even before the world book came out.

Thanks again. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you were doing anything other than what you clarify above that you were doing. And I agree that your "time line narrowing" is helpful and not harmful to the AJT theory. I just felt the need to clarify that I did not think there would be any way to fully narrow down that timeline--and we should not expect to be able to do so because GRRM has it in his interest not to do so.

Ah, ok :)

I agree, it isn't possible to get the timeline of the 272 AC tourney/Tyrion's birth in 273 AC in detail, and we probably never will be able to get it.

I just wonder, why bother with the entire huge plot point of Joanna and Aerys having an affair and then elaborating on it a bunch in TWOIAF if it is a red herring? That is silly. George throws in actual red herrings, like fAegon, who is basically a big red herring making you think that he will be the 3rd head instead of Tyrion. I really hope he conquers the South, then tries to ride Rhaegal and die in the attempt when Dany, Tyrion, and the dragons show up. There is a small chance fAegon has the right drop of Targ blood in him, but it is probably unlikely, and short of a Varys reveal, I can't think of any other way that George will reveal he is a fake. Then Howland Reed will somehow inform Jon or Tyrion that Jon is the last dragon, and then ADOS will happen.

Is it silly to explain why Tywin treated Tyrion the way he did all his life? Is it silly to explain that there was more to it than Tyrion simply being a dwarf? To explain that Tywin actually had reason to suspect, even if it isn't true?

Explaining the motivations of characters isn't silly, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×