Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v. 2

Recommended Posts

This OP is intended to pull together all of the evidence regarding the theory that Aerys is the biological father of Tyrion. WARNING: This OP includes WOIAF spoilers. The evidence comes both from threads started before the release of WOIAF, including the original A+J=T thread, as well as here (dealing with Aerys losing respect for Tywin); and here (dealing with the similarities among Tyrion, Jon and Dany), and from threads started after the release of WOIAF from here (Aerys and Joanna part 1), here (Aerys and Joanna part 2) and here (Tyrion, Son of the Mad King).



None of these clues individually proves that Aerys is the biological father of Tyrion, and each one might be explained through an alternative explanation. Some might not be real clues at all, but for the sake of completeness, the analysis includes as many of clues that were developed in the threads noted above as are practical to summarize. After the summary of the clues in favor of A+J=T, the analysis includes some of the most common opinions put forth in opposition to the A+J=T theory, followed by a counter argument to each argument. While this analysis is not intended to serve as absolute proof that A+J=T is accurate, the evidence should be considered as a whole to be a strong argument in favor of the theory.



List of Clues Pointing Toward A+J=T



1. Pale blond hair (sounds closer to Targ color than Lannister color) with patches of black hair (the Black hair could be from Bertha Blackwood, the grandmother of Aerys, which might be even more compelling evidence given that there is no known source of black hair on the Lannister side)



2. Mismatched eyes, one black and one green (only other example of mismatched eyes is Shiera Seastar, a Targ bastard—not an indication necessarily of the mismatch as hereditary, but perhaps a similarity planted by the author)



3. Fascination with fire (pretended it was dragonfire) and dragons / dreamed of dragons / asked his uncle for a dragon as a gift / admired the dragon skull (while possibly others had some of these traits, readers hear few if any other examples)



4. Barristan admits to Dany that Aerys lusted after Joanna, is the woman he would have wanted to marry and took inappropriate liberties during the bedding ceremony at her wedding (not an indication of sex at that time—just that Aerys wanted Joanna)



5. Tywin refuses to let Tyrion inherit CR even though Jaime cannot inherit as a member of the King’s Guard and tells Tyrion, “Men’s laws give you the right to bear my name and display my colors, since I cannot prove that you are not mine” (perhaps actually a confession that Tywin suspects that Tyrion might not be Tywin’s true-born son or perhaps really just a clue from the author)



6. Tywin on deathbed telling Tyrion, “You are no son of mine” (either a literal confession or a clue provided by the author)



7 Born deformed and described to have had a tail (similar to certain still-born Targaryens, perhaps including Rhaego)



8. References to Tyrion having cast the shadow of a king



9. Moqorro’s vision—“Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all.” (ambiguous whether Tyrion is an additional dragon or just among the other dragons)



10. Likes burnt bacon (not technically a clue but possibly a sly wink from the author)



11. Does not get greyscale after swallowing infested water (Dany suggests that Targs might be resistant to illness and Septon Barth wrote “Death comes out of the dragon’s mouth but death does not go in that way” and while Targs can get sick—some died from Spring Sickness—Targs might still have some resistance to illness or perhaps the Spring Sickness had a magical element that other sickness don’t have)



12. Only character to have contact with both Dany (known Targ) and Jon (strongly suspected to be a Targ)



13. Uses the alias of Hugar Hill (Hugar of the Hill was the name of the first king of the Andals and Hill are bastards from westerlands—if Aerys were known to be Tyrion’s father, Tyrion would be Tyrion Hill)



14 Similarities to Bloodraven, a Great Bastard: (i) distinct marking (mismatched eyes / huge red birthmark); (ii) mutilation in defense of royals (cut nose / missing eye); (iii) capable rulers but hated nonetheless; (iv) arrested on false accusations of treason; and (v) kinslayers.



15. Tells Jon, “All dwarfs are bastards in their father’s eyes.” (perhaps a message from the author that this dwarf really is a bastard)



16. Tells Jon, “Most of my kin are bastards,” … “but you’re the first I’ve had to friend.” (perhaps a hint from the author that Tyrion and Jon are kin)



17. Dreams he has two heads and kills Lannisters, while one head is laughing and one is crying (is the laughing head Targ and the crying head Lannister?)



18. Aerys seems to lose respect for Tywin after the period of time during which Aerys would have impregnated Joanna with Tyrion (the analysis is complicated, so if interested, refer to the OP that describes the details of this theory)



19. Similarities among Tyrion, Jon (assuming R+L=J) and Dany: (i) mothers died as a result of their births; (ii) fathers / presumed fathers (Aerys, Rhaegar, Tywin and Ned) killed; (iii) lived in the shadow of older brothers; (iv) outcasts; (v) unexpectedly rose to leadership roles; (vi) lovers died arguably by their own hand (Shae / Ygritte / Drago); (vii) attempted assassinations; (viii) third child of one of his or her parents (Joanna / Rhaegar / Rhaella); (ix) each killed someone in a position of power (Tywin / Janos / Kraznys); and (x) each has been betrayed (Shae / Bowen / Mirri Mah Durz) (for additional details, refer to this OP that discusses the similarities among the three heads)



20. Joanna was rumored to have had an affair with Aerys and was dismissed from court by Rhaella because Aerys was making Joanna a whore (suggesting that the affair continued even after Aerys and Rhaella were married)



21. Joanna visited KL in 272 AC for the Anniversary Tourney and Aerys made a humiliating remark about her breasts. Tywin attempted to resign the next day, and Aerys refused to accept the resignation (this timeline makes the birth of Tyrion in 273 AC consistent with Aerys as the biological father, and Tywin’s desire to resign could be more easily explained as a reaction to the rape of his wife rather than the “cover story” of a reaction to an insult regarding her breasts)



Arguments Against A+J=T



1. Genna says to Jaime, “I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna’s breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there’s some Kevan in you, else you would not wear the cloak … but Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you. I said so once to your father’s face, and he would not speak to me for half a year.”



Counter argument: Genna was talking personality and not necessarily inherited traits. Tyrion wanted Tywin’s approval and thus would try to be like Tywin. Tywin’s refusal to speak to his sister for one-half a year indicates that Tywin might have been upset because he was reminded that the son most like himself was the one that might not even really be Tywin’s biological son.



2. Tommen’s hair also is pale blond, and he certainly is 100% Lannister.



Counter argument: Tommen’s hair became golden blond as he grew older, while Tyrion’s hair remained pale blond as an adult.



3. SSM: “Three heads of the dragon... yes... but the third will not necessarily BE a Targaryen.” This SSM suggests that even if Tyrion is the third head of the dragon, he is not necessarily the son of Aerys.



Counter argument: Tyrion would not be a Targaryen. He would be a Hill, a Targ bastard raised in the westerlands. Further “not necessarily” is the not the same as “not”.



4. SSM: “Since all of their mothers died, who gave Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen and Tyrion Lannister their names? Mothers can name a child before birth, or during, or after, even while they are dying. Dany was most like named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, Jon by Ned.” This SSM suggests that by referring to Ned as “Ned” rather than “Jon’s father” but referring to Tywin as “his father” suggests that Tywin is Tyrion’s true father.



Counter argument: This analysis reads too much into an SSM. It is not possible to know for sure what was going through GRRM’s mind when answering the question. This sentence was not part of a carefully crafted piece of literature but a quick written answer to questions (notice the grammatical error, using “like” rather than “likely” shows that it was likely written quickly). R+L=J is a more widely circulated theory than A+J=T, so GRRM might have thought the need to refer to Ned by name for clarity sake, but did not think the same care was needed for the reference to Tywin. Bottom line, the SSM never explicitly states that Tywin is Tyrion’s biological father, just references Tywin as Tyrion’s father, which Tywin was regardless of the identity of Tyrion’s birth father. Because GRRM is careful to refer to Ned as Ned rather than Jon’s father does not guarantee that GRRM would take the same care with Tywin, particularly if GRRM wanted the mystery of A+J=T to remain hidden to those readers who uncovered R+L=J.



5. Tywin would not give Tyrion a classic Lannister name if there was doubt as to paternity.



Counter argument: Tyrion probably is named after Tyrion the Tormentor, a Lannister king who enjoyed making women bleed. Tywin might have found the reference irresistible given the nature of Joanna’s death (which likely involved quite a bit of blood after Tyrion’s birth).



6. The relationship developed in the series between Tywin and Tyrion would be undermined by Tyrion turning out not to be Tywin’s natural born son.



Counter argument: This analysis is particularly subjective. Some readers will consider the relationship ruined and others enhanced by finding out that Tywin rightfully suspected that Tyrion was really the son of Aerys. Assuming the author was planning such a development in the narrative, the author had sufficient leeway to write the relationship as he did, particularly given that any reveal of Tyrion’s birth father will occur only after Tywin is dead. GRRM might not consider a revelation after Tywin’s death to have any real effect on the import their interactions (or might even consider them more interesting in light of the revelation).



7. If Joanna was raped by Aerys, she would have taken moon tea and not carried the pregnancy to term.



Counter argument: The evidence is somewhat ambiguous whether Joanna went to Aerys willingly, so the encounter might not have been rape. Even if Aerys raped Joanna, Joanna might have had her own reasons to carry the fetus to term (we have been told little about Joanna or her personality or values). Further, moon tea might not be 100% effective, so she might have taken moon tea which failed. Other forms of terminating a pregnancy in Westeros might require more extreme measure that Joanna either might not have been able to obtain or might not have wanted to take the risks involved. In addition, Joanna might have thought it was most likely Tywin’s child and did not want to terminate the pregnancy under these circumstances. Bottom line, we don’t know enough about Joanna or the circumstances of the pregnancy to conclude that Joanna definitely would have terminated the pregnancy.



8. GRRM inserted these “clues” intentionally to serve as red herrings.



Counter argument: A typical definition of red herring is “something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.” Usually, such a misleading or distracting clue is intended to prevent the actual solution to a mystery from being too obvious to the readers (classically, for example, by introducing multiple suspects in a murder to keep the identity of the real murderer from being discovered too easily). Further, a red herring often is explicitly stated as a potential theory by a character. If A+J=T is a red herring, the true “mystery” from which the theory serves as a distraction is unclear. Certainly, no other mystery that has been explicitly introduced in the series is obscured by introduction of these clues regarding A+J=T. In addition, no character explicitly contemplates that Aerys might be the biological father to Tyrion. Compare this situtation to Wylla being mentioned as the assumed mother to Jon. The identity of Jon’s mother is a known mystery in the series. If R+L=J is correct, then Wylla serves as a classic red herring. She is a distraction or misleading clue from the true solution to the mystery (Lyanna). She is explicitly stated as the assumed mother by a character in the series (Robert). The clues for A+J=T do not satisfy any of these criteria for a typical red herring.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really good post! Kudos for summarising the main points of the theory!



In regards to the arguments against A+J=T, quite often it is suggested that if Aerys is Tyrion's father then this means that Tyrion is no longer guilty of kinslaying so the theory is an attempt to whitewash Tyrion. I don't think that this argument is valid since Tywin was Joanna's first cousin, a close relative to Tyrion and the fact remains that when Tyrion killed he thought that he was his father. It is still a horrible thing to do and kinslaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just quick notes:



1. Justin Massey, Leo Tyrell and Ned Dayne also have pale blond hair.



2. Euron?



6. He said this to Jaime too.



7. Tyrion didnot have a tail. Dwarfism is not equal to the malformed babies of Targs.



8. Jon thought that Jaime looked like every inch a king should be.



9. It is not ambigious. Moqorro calls him a small man, not a small dragon.



11. Barth can be highly esoteric/metaphoric.



12. which does not prove anything.



13. If Gerion is his father, he would still be Tyrion Hill.



14. Bloodraven was not arrested falsely.



15. which is (if it is a clue) equally valid for Gerion being Tyrion's bio dad.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just quick notes:

1. Justin Massey, Leo Tyrell and Ned Dayne also have pale blond hair.

2. Euron?

6. He said this to Jaime too.

7. Tyrion didnot have a tail. Dwarfism is not equal to the malformed babies of Targs.

It was rumored that he had a tail and Tywin had it removed...But we don't know if it's true or just a rumor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just quick notes:

1. Justin Massey, Leo Tyrell and Ned Dayne also have pale blond hair.

2. Euron?

6. He said this to Jaime too.

7. Tyrion didnot have a tail. Dwarfism is not equal to the malformed babies of Targs.

I am sure you have figured out that this is the post I was promising you that I would post earlier in the week.

My replies:

1. These people are not Lannisters.

2. I don't think Euron was born with mismatched eyes.

3. Context matters.

7. Tyrion said he was born with a tail and his father had it removed. Even if said in sarcasm, it is still a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread! I also think another clue is that Tyrion has a sharp temper that sometimes leads to violent acts-slapping and kicking Joffrey, slapping Jaime,etc.-i.e."waking the dragon."


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion regarding this theory is very simple. Although I understand where the theory comes from, for me, it is not working. It is quintessentially in contrition with some of the most important themes in ASOIAF and as such, I simply believe it is wrong.



Now, the evidence provided in this long and well organized OP (well done UnmaskedLurker) certainly put some light on this theory, but I believe that most of these clues are getting confused in the process, My opinion is that GRRM's intention is to make Tyrion a dragonrider, which many readers inevitably see as making of him a Targaryen. Given that I believe that the two things are not interchangeable terms, thus when we remove obvious "Tyrion a dragonrider" clues, we have much less pile of possible clues for Tyrion being a Targaryen. And that is perhaps the crux of where I believe this theory got it wrong.



On the other hand, some of the proofs are borderline funny. I mean, using burned bacon as some sort of proof is as nonsensical as using Sansa's love for lemoncakes to prove that she is, IDK, Dornish. Furthermore, the D&E stories clearly established that Targaryens are not immune to diseases, so point 11 is simply inadmissible as a proof. Point 12 is also a bit sketchy due to the simple fact that logically, if Dany comes to Westeros, number of people that will interact with both her and Jon will get much higher and it would be quite wrong to assume all those people are secret Targaryens. As for the eye and hair color, I believe that by this moment, we know better than to assume these things. Ahem, ahem, Stark children.



In conclusion, I will return to the core of my objection to this theory. Throughout the series, one of the major theme was deconstruction of the bloodlines and their importance. We started from belief that everything is in the blood, and slowly we have moved significantly in other direction. Daenerys has learned very early in AGOT what blood really means, even Viserys' blood of dragons. In Sansa's and Arya's chapters we have seen what power has the name alone. Furthermore, LF and Varys are proving what you really need for success - not the right birth, but the qualities that are not given by surname. Even Daenerys is proving that you are what you do, not what last name you have. The examples are plentiful and this theory just goes against it. Basically, the point is to make Tyrion "special" enough to be a dragonrider, which not only that goes against everything that we have read about Tyrion, but also negates the clear introduction of dragonhorn as plot tool. So, I believe that Tyrion is already "special" enough to be a dragonrider, without attaching secret parenthood to him.



All and all, nice OP, UnmaskedLurker, but nothing new is brought to the table and I, personally, still am not convinced by the arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion regarding this theory is very simple. Although I understand where the theory comes from, for me, it is not working. It is quintessentially in contrition with some of the most important themes in ASOIAF and as such, I simply believe it is wrong.

Now, the evidence provided in this long and well organized OP (well done UnmaskedLurker) certainly put some light on this theory, but I believe that most of these clues are getting confused in the process, My opinion is that GRRM's intention is to make Tyrion a dragonrider, which many readers inevitably see as making of him a Targaryen. Given that I believe that the two things are not interchangeable terms, thus when we remove obvious "Tyrion a dragonrider" clues, we have much less pile of possible clues for Tyrion being a Targaryen. And that is perhaps the crux of where I believe this theory got it wrong.

On the other hand, some of the proofs are borderline funny. I mean, using burned bacon as some sort of proof is as nonsensical as using Sansa's love for lemoncakes to prove that she is, IDK, Dornish. Furthermore, the D&E stories clearly established that Targaryens are not immune to diseases, so point 11 is simply inadmissible as a proof. Point 12 is also a bit sketchy due to the simple fact that logically, if Dany comes to Westeros, number of people that will interact with both her and Jon will get much higher and it would be quite wrong to assume all those people are secret Targaryens. As for the eye and hair color, I believe that by this moment, we know better than to assume these things. Ahem, ahem, Stark children.

In conclusion, I will return to the core of my objection to this theory. Throughout the series, one of the major theme was deconstruction of the bloodlines and their importance. We started from belief that everything is in the blood, and slowly we have moved significantly in other direction. Daenerys has learned very early in AGOT what blood really means, even Viserys' blood of dragons. In Sansa's and Arya's chapters we have seen what power has the name alone. Furthermore, LF and Varys are proving what you really need for success - not the right birth, but the qualities that are not given by surname. Even Daenerys is proving that you are what you do, not what last name you have. The examples are plentiful and this theory just goes against it. Basically, the point is to make Tyrion "special" enough to be a dragonrider, which not only that goes against everything that we have read about Tyrion, but also negates the clear introduction of dragonhorn as plot tool. So, I believe that Tyrion is already "special" enough to be a dragonrider, without attaching secret parenthood to him.

All and all, nice OP, UnmaskedLurker, but nothing new is brought to the table and I, personally, still am not convinced by the arguments.

True, but I think many people (including me) have taken the info in TWOIAF to mean that you do in fact need the right blood (and a high enough % of it) to ride a dragon. Thus, keeping the clues that Tyrion will ride a dragon, we conclude that he may likely be the bastard of Aerys, having no other (realistically) possible source of Targ blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mladen,



I'd agree that there is a deconstruction in regards to the importance of bloodlines and the right to rule (or competence of any sorts, intelligence, strength, or any virtue whatsoever). After all, GRRM is neither a monarchist nor an aristocrat or a fascist.



However, there is really no sign that the same deconstruction is working on the concept of magic/magical abilities or prophesied saviors.



Not everyone has the ability to become a skinchanger, dragonrider, or (presumably) sorcerer. Not everyone has it in himself (or herself) to become a Facless Man/Woman. Some things can be learned, but not all of them.



The idea that dragonriding, skinchanging, or other magical things are things for the average guy is simply wrong, as is the idea that there is nothing special going on in Targaryen/Valyrian dragonlord blood.



I think it is also a stretch to assume that Dragonbinder is in there simply as a plot device to allow Tyrion to become a dragonrider. It could turn out that he uses it, but we simply don't know yet that 'special blood' is not needed to successfully make use of it. Not to mention the fact that Tyrion being Aerys' bastard would not make him 'a Targaryen'. He would simply be the twisted mirror image of Jon Snow, a Lannister who is actually a bastard, whereas Jon Snow may turn out to be the (sort of) legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.



Such a development would not necessarily make Tyrion 'royal' or or 'special' due to his blood besides of the fact that it may very well enable him to become a dragonrider. He would also not gain a claim to the Iron Throne. The only thing that would change is his biological father.



UL's point 11 is indeed not very good, as Valyrians/Targaryens have no immunity whatsoever against sickness in general or greyscale (Septa Maegelle) in particular.



In my opinion, this theory has to be taken as seriously as the Jon Snow thing, especially in light of TWoIaF and ADwD. I was not really a fan of this one prior to ADwD, but I'd be really surprised if it turned out to be wrong.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mladen,

I'd agree that there is a deconstruction in regards to the importance of bloodlines and the right to rule (or competence of any sorts, intelligence, strength, or any virtue whatsoever). After all, GRRM is neither a monarchist nor an aristocrat or a fascist.

However, there is really no sign that the same deconstruction is working on the concept of magic/magical abilities or prophesied saviors.

Not everyone has the ability to become a skinchanger, dragonrider, or (presumably) sorcerer. Not everyone has it in himself (or herself) to become a Facless Man/Woman. Some things can be learned, but not all of them.

The idea that dragonriding, skinchanging, or other magical things are things for the average guy is simply wrong, as is the idea that there is nothing special going on in Targaryen/Valyrian dragonlord blood.

I think it is also a stretch to assume that Dragonbinder is in there simply as a plot device to allow Tyrion to become a dragonrider. It could turn out that he uses it, but we simply don't know yet that 'special blood' is not needed to successfully make use of it. Not to mention the fact that Tyrion being Aerys' bastard would not make him 'a Targaryen'. He would simply be the twisted mirror image of Jon Snow, a Lannister who is actually a bastard, whereas Jon Snow may turn out to be the (sort of) legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Such a development would not necessarily make Tyrion 'royal' or or 'special' due to his blood besides of the fact that it may very well enable him to become a dragonrider. He would also not gain a claim to the Iron Throne. The only thing that would change is his biological father.

UL's point 11 is indeed not very good, as Valyrians/Targaryens have no immunity whatsoever against sickness in general or greyscale (Septa Maegelle) in particular.

In my opinion, this theory has to be taken as seriously as the Jon Snow thing, especially in light of TWoIaF and ADwD. I was not really a fan of this one prior to ADwD, but I'd be really surprised if it turned out to be wrong.

Dragonbinder will obviously end up being used by Vic to bond the Greyjoy bloodline to one of Dany's dragons so that Theon can fulfill his destiny as Azor Ahai and defeat the others and save the realm. :cool4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but I think many people (including me) have taken the info in TWOIAF to mean that you do in fact need the right blood (and a high enough % of it) to ride a dragon. Thus, keeping the clues that Tyrion will ride a dragon, we conclude that he may likely be the bastard of Aerys, having no other (realistically) possible source of Targ blood.

Well, I seriously doubt it is about percentage (Look at Viserys for example). Ran said it is more about having a right drop of blood. Furthermore, he never explicitly said it is the rule, thus that GRRM at some point in the future can't make someone else (a person without Targaryen blood) a dragonrider. So, having that in mind, with the dragonhorn in game, it stands to reason that these two things - being dragonrider and being a Targaryen indeed are not interchangeable.

Mladen,

I'd agree that there is a deconstruction in regards to the importance of bloodlines and the right to rule (or competence of any sorts, intelligence, strength, or any virtue whatsoever). After all, GRRM is neither a monarchist nor an aristocrat or a fascist.

However, there is really no sign that the same deconstruction is working on the concept of magic/magical abilities or prophesied saviors.

Not everyone has the ability to become a skinchanger, dragonrider, or (presumably) sorcerer. Not everyone has it in himself (or herself) to become a Facless Man/Woman. Some things can be learned, but not all of them.

The idea that dragonriding, skinchanging, or other magical things are things for the average guy is simply wrong, as is the idea that there is nothing special going on in Targaryen/Valyrian dragonlord blood

Actually it isn't. Skinchanging is indeed in genome of First Men but it is rather huge pool. Skinchangers in wildlings are just average people. We have Ghost of High Heart, Mirri Maz Duur, Melisandre and Thoros as prime example of ordinary people being able to perform magic. So, it is quite wrong to say that for supernatural powers, to call it that way, you necessarily need appropriate bloodline. The fact is that the debate on that subject is pretty much open, especially given the fact that we have been introduced with the object that circumvents that opinion.

Such a development would not necessarily make Tyrion 'royal' or or 'special' due to his blood besides of the fact that it may very well enable him to become a dragonrider. He would also not gain a claim to the Iron Throne. The only thing that would change is his biological father.

Which indeed is a point. Being a rider is being a special, and if you need appropriate parentage for it, then we are back to what I have been saying. This theory works as rubric for Tyrion to become a dragonrider, when in fact, we don't even know whether it is necessary. Take out dragonriding out of equation and it is basically empty theory. And there is a huge question mark for dragonriding being in this equation in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone has the ability to become a skinchanger, dragonrider, or (presumably) sorcerer. Not everyone has it in himself (or herself) to become a Facless Man/Woman. Some things can be learned, but not all of them.

The idea that dragonriding, skinchanging, or other magical things are things for the average guy is simply wrong, as is the idea that there is nothing special going on in Targaryen/Valyrian dragonlord blood.

I disagree here on several grounds.

1) by statistics, literally everyone in 7k has dragon blood. Just imagine all the Targs in 300 years who married outside family and had offspring: their descendants probably number thousands, if not more people "today". And let's keep in mind that Targs were not the only Valyrian family, other ones had descendents as well

2) what are the arguments that right blood is needed for controlling a dragon? We have Quentyn, undoubtedly of right blood, trying and failing. People who read PATQ mention Nettle who controlled her dragon by bringing him sheep. Ancient Valyrians used magic horns. And I've yet too see single argument that it takes Valyrian blood to master a dragon, rather than magic and training.

3) several millenia ago, shepard people known as Valyrians found dragons and learn how to control them. What exactly was "right blood" they, and by extension their descendents, possessed? None, I think. It was only a chance that they, and not e.g. Quartheen or Lhazareen stumbled upon dragons and decided to use them. If they did, we'd probably be discussing "Lhazareen blood" right now, and not "Valyrian".

Unless, that is, if you propose that Valyrian people truly and unique and have some sort of exclusive god-given ability to control dragons?

UnmaskedLurker, kudos for the OP: it's well-written and nicely presented. I don't agree with theory, but I think this is one of the cases where GRRM is intentionally giving red herrings to readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would tywin suffer the shame of having a dwarf as his son if he suspects him to be a bastard?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would tywin suffer the shame of having a dwarf as his son if he suspects him to be a bastard?

Tywin didn't know for sure. If he killed Tyrion he'd be a kinslayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent OP, btw, UL. I have nothing to add saving that I'm growing increasingly favourable to this theory. I now think it is probably true.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15. Tells Jon, “All dwarfs are bastards in their father’s eyes.” (perhaps a message from the author that this dwarf really is a bastard)

I think there is more for this one. In AGOT, Jon I is the first Tyrion's full appearance (he's briefly seen in Eddard I), and his very first talk with someone is with Jon about bastards. Everyone assumes it's all about Jon being a bastard, but I think it would be great if it foreshadowed that in the end, Tyrion would be a bastard too !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×