Jump to content

A+J=T v. 2


UnmaskedLurker

Recommended Posts

“I am the blood of the dragon. Do not presume to teach me lessons.”

Do I need to explain that actions speak louder than words. Dany certainly possess certain amount of entitlement, I didn't negate that, but she is not just talking the talk, she is walking the walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way?

I suppose that if indeed Rhaegar set out to fulfill a prophecy to create a child of ice and fire and he actually manage to accomplish this, then all these themes about prophecies being a double edge sword go out the window. We have Cersei as the best example of what happens when you try to avoid a prophecy and it still ends up coming true. So, if we take Rhaegar's example and Cersei's example as they stand right now, it tells us that no matter if you try to accomplish or avoid a prophecy it'll come to pass no matter what. Where is the free will? Is the future suppose to be set in stone?

That's what's off for me. That and that the prophecy would be that simple but perhaps I'm just over thinking it.

Yeap... Just as Jon isn't special because of his blood, Dany is special because of what she does, not what she is. She learned that lesson very early in AGOT.

Exactly - it's about doing the right thing without being told to do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nitpick in point 14: from TWOIAF we know that Bloodraven was not falsely accused, he admitted to murdering Aenys Blackfyre under a peace banner after promising him safe conduct. It was a horrible and dishonorable thing to do by any measure, and it cannot be disputed that Egg had good reason to send him to the Wall for that, since the trustworthiness of the king's word could not be maintained unless he was punished.



Also, about the moon tea: it occurs to me that if Joanna did take moon tea and it failed to abort Tyrion, it could be the reason for his deformity.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, we cannot be sure whether Nettles or any other seeds really had Targ blood or Gyldayn and his sources assumed that they did because they succeeded in riding a dragon. This is circular logic.

Rhaenyra let Gormon Massey and Denys Darklyn (who had very little probability of having Targ blood) try to tame dragons and they were burned to death. One cannot propose that if Targ blood was a must to ride dragon, Rhaenyra didnot know that. So, why did she let these most precious followers (a Lord and the LC of her KG) commit suicide, if there is really such a thing?

Regarding Gormon Massey: you yourself has pointed out many times that Justin Massey has pale white hair, just like Tyrion, to prove that Tyrion's hair is nothing special. To turn that around: since we know the Massey's live close to Dragonstone and have been Targaryen allies since before the conquest, it's far from unthinkable that there were marriages in the past. It's very well possible that Gormon Massey had a drop of dragon blood, much like Brown Ben Plumm.

Regarding dragonriders: whether this is circular logic or not (Martin's SSM quoted by Danelle suggests that it is not, or at least Nettles must have had access to other magical means if she is not a dragonseed in the sense the others presumably were), the same kind of logic will be applied to Tyrion once he rides a dragon. He succeeded in riding a dragon, hence he has dragon blood. This alone would have large implications on the story, even if it is only circular reasoning, particularly if Barristan or someone else makes the connection with Aerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeap... Just as Jon isn't special because of his blood, Dany is special because of what she does, not what she is. She learned that lesson very early in AGOT.

Dany being what she is certainly played a big role in her being special. Dany miraculously survived the flames and just as miraculously she turned stone into dragons. Arguably, she is more powerful sorceress than Melisandre or Mirri, and far more powerful than the Warlocks. Sure, Dany is also special because of the way she thinks and acts, but the presence of the dragons certainly played a big role in her subsequent journey.

And somehow I doubt Dany could have pulled off that stunt at the end of AGOT without having the "special" blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is that SSM? Was he talking from a maester's POV because that is what Yandel thinks too?

It was a video I watched. I don't know if it has been transcribed by anyone but I watched it. It had nothing to do with the view of maesters. He was being interviewed and talking about a lot of different issues. He simply made the statement as one of "fact" not from anyone's point of view other than the Targaryens themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dany being what she is certainly played a big role in her being special. Dany miraculously survived the flames and just as miraculously she turned stone into dragons. Arguably, she is more powerful sorceress than Melisandre or Mirri, and far more powerful than the Warlocks. Sure, Dany is also special because of the way she thinks and acts, but the presence of the dragons certainly played a big role in her subsequent journey.

And somehow I doubt Dany could have pulled off that stunt at the end of AGOT without having the "special" blood.

I would agree- the dragons gave Dany the power she needed to be 'special'. I seriously doubt that she would have become the conquerer she is without the dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read TWOIAF? I think that origin of three-headed dragon speaks volumes and I wouldn't be so quick to assume that prophecies are necessarily connected with the sigil. Regardless of what Rhaegar might have thought.

It has nothing really to do with the Targ sigil. It has to do with what "dragon" would mean in such a prophesy. We hear Rhaegar and Aemon state that the dragon has three heads. I don't think Rhaegar or Aemon go it right in terms of who they thought were the three heads, but I think they are accurately quoting the prophecy that the dragon has three heads--i.e., that TPTWP must have two others as part of the "head" of the dragon to win the Battle for the Dawn 2.0. Now we, as readers, need to interpret that prophecy ourselves to try to figure out what it might mean. Of course, I am not sure, but the one thing that makes no sense to me is that someone who is 100% Lannister could be a head "of the dragon." Notice it is not "of the dragons" (plural), but "of the dragon" (singular). So being a dragon rider is not enough, in and of itself to be a head of the dragon because the reference clearly is not to a literal dragon in the prophecy. So if head of the dragon is not a reference to literal dragons, then what else can "dragon" mean in this context. Keeping in mind that a prophecy is really just a symbolic vision of the future, I cannot see "dragon" meaning anything else in this context other than House Targ. So if "dragon" means House Targ, then Tyrion must be of "House Targ" to be of the "dragon." He is not a Targ (he would be a Hill, as a bastard), but he is of House Targ, given a Targ father. So that is my logic. I ask you, how can Tyrion be "of the dragon" if he is 100% lion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If eating burnt food is a clue, why do we never hear about how Dany, Aemon or Jon likes their food blackened?

Unless there is an established pattern of behavior, I don't see how this is admissible as evidence.

Come on, I give a list of over 20 items and all you have to say it that one of them is not a clue at all. I have already said that I am trying to be over inclusive. Alone, of course it means nothing. The only issue is whether it might be a wink from GRRM. Maybe it is and maybe it is not. Don't get hung up on any one or two clues. Look at them as a whole, throw out any that don't qualify as clues at all in your view, and then make a judgment. Quibbling over whether one or two of the clues is or is not really a clue is not really the point of the analysis. I included pretty much any point that someone else listed as a clue in one of the other threads, even if I was not particularly persuasive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has nothing really to do with the Targ sigil. It has to do with what "dragon" would mean in such a prophesy. We hear Rhaegar and Aemon state that the dragon has three heads. I don't think Rhaegar or Aemon go it right in terms of who they thought were the three heads, but I think they are accurately quoting the prophecy that the dragon has three heads--i.e., that TPTWP must have two others as part of the "head" of the dragon to win the Battle for the Dawn 2.0. Now we, as readers, need to interpret that prophecy ourselves to try to figure out what it might mean. Of course, I am not sure, but the one thing that makes no sense to me is that someone who is 100% Lannister could be a head "of the dragon." Notice it is not "of the dragons" (plural), but "of the dragon" (singular). So being a dragon rider is not enough, in and of itself to be a head of the dragon because the reference clearly is not to a literal dragon in the prophecy. So if head of the dragon is not a reference to literal dragons, then what else can "dragon" mean in this context. Keeping in mind that a prophecy is really just a symbolic vision of the future, I cannot see "dragon" meaning anything else in this context other than House Targ. So if "dragon" means House Targ, then Tyrion must be of "House Targ" to be of the "dragon." He is not a Targ (he would be a Hill, as a bastard), but he is of House Targ, given a Targ father. So that is my logic. I ask you, how can Tyrion be "of the dragon" if he is 100% lion?

I am sorry, but this is rather flawed logic. I mean, it is plainly obvious that three-headed dragon thing is indeed a sigil reference. Because, as we know, there is no such thing as three-headed dragons in the nature. We simply have no idea what reference we here talk about, whether it is part of the prophecy, vision whatever. An argument can be made that it is about one person - it is one dragon at the sigil after all. Argument can be made that it is about three riders whom someone perceived as Targaryens due to being dragonriders. Simply, "dragon" whatever it means is not clear and there can't be one way to solve this puzzle. Your interpretation isn't flawed because of some logical leap, but because you put the weight on one premise (three-headed dragon is House Targaryen) when in fact we don't know it.

Come on, I give a list of over 20 items and all you have to say it that one of them is not a clue at all. I have already said that I am trying to be over inclusive. Alone, of course it means nothing. The only issue is whether it might be a wink from GRRM. Maybe it is and maybe it is not. Don't get hung up on any one or two clues. Look at them as a whole, throw out any that don't qualify as clues at all in your view, and then make a judgment. Quibbling over whether one or two of the clues is or is not really a clue is not really the point of the analysis. I included pretty much any point that someone else listed as a clue in one of the other threads, even if I was not particularly persuasive.

I am sorry, but that particular clue is rather nonsensical and it is quite understandable that people takes a bite at it. You did make a nice OP, but some things are rather wrong, like the immunity thing too. So it is not just quibbling about one or two points.

Dany being what she is certainly played a big role in her being special. Dany miraculously survived the flames and just as miraculously she turned stone into dragons. Arguably, she is more powerful sorceress than Melisandre or Mirri, and far more powerful than the Warlocks. Sure, Dany is also special because of the way she thinks and acts, but the presence of the dragons certainly played a big role in her subsequent journey.

And somehow I doubt Dany could have pulled off that stunt at the end of AGOT without having the "special" blood.

I am not denying that Dany is special, as both a person and literary character. Dany is special because GRRM made her that way, and dragons do play a huge role in it, but this is Dany, not just some random Targ. Not every Targaryen would be able to do what she has done in Slaver's Bay. We even have such stark contrast between her and Viserys when he was only Targaryen, and she was something more. Jorah taught her about nonsense that Viserys was speaking, and she learned that calling yourself a dragon is not same as being a dragon (dragon in this situation is some ideal of power.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, I give a list of over 20 items and all you have to say it that one of them is not a clue at all. I have already said that I am trying to be over inclusive. Alone, of course it means nothing. The only issue is whether it might be a wink from GRRM. Maybe it is and maybe it is not. Don't get hung up on any one or two clues. Look at them as a whole, throw out any that don't qualify as clues at all in your view, and then make a judgment. Quibbling over whether one or two of the clues is or is not really a clue is not really the point of the analysis. I included pretty much any point that someone else listed as a clue in one of the other threads, even if I was not particularly persuasive.

I just don't think it means anything at all because no other Targaryen ever purports to prefer the taste of burnt food.

It's a fair criticism of one of the items on your list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think it means anything at all because no other Targaryen ever purports to prefer the taste of burnt food.

It's a fair criticism of one of the items on your list.

That is fine--but no one point on the list is critical in and of itself. I am not sure I understand what point you are making--other than a specific point regarding one of the more minor potential clues. Are you just pointing out that you think my list should have 20 and not 21 items? You have not really commented on the theory generally--just focused on one or two relatively minor points.

I was hoping to encourage a larger discussion of the evidence as a whole rather than getting bogged down in a discussion of one or two of the weaker points--which could be misleading in that eliminating one or two of the points does not really address the validity of the theory as a whole.

ETA: And the point of the burnt bacon--if it means anything--is not a clue in the sense that Targaryens are more likely to enjoy burnt food. It was never presented in past posts or this post as that kind of clue. It was more a suggestion that maybe GRRM put that in the text merely as an "Easter Egg" or sorts to associate Tyrion with something burnt--reminiscent of the dragons. But not a clue in the classic sense that people who like burn bacon are more likely to be Targs. All that said--I concede that some of these clues might be a stretch--the bacon being one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know if 'three heads of the dragon' are mentioned in the promised prince prophecy. I consider it a possibility as Rhaegar would have to much weirder than he seems to be if he just jumped from 'some promised prince' to 'I've to mimic the founder of our royal dynasty for some reason'. That would be strange.



It is still a possibility that's all about the heraldry, but I don't think that's the case. The promised prince prophecy should be much older than the Targaryen sigil, especially if - what we don't really know yet - the promised prince (or the three dragon heads) is really the rebirth or destined to fulfill (loosely) a similar role as the Last Hero (just as the R'hllorians believe Azor Ahai Reborn is supposed to do).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is fine--but no one point on the list is critical in and of itself. I am not sure I understand what point you are making--other than a specific point regarding one of the more minor potential clues. Are you just pointing out that you think my list should have 20 and not 21 items? You have not really commented on the theory generally--just focused on one or two relatively minor points.

I was hoping to encourage a larger discussion of the evidence as a whole rather than getting bogged down in a discussion of one or two of the weaker points--which could be misleading in that eliminating one or two of the points does not really address the validity of the theory as a whole.

ETA: And the point of the burnt bacon--if it means anything--is not a clue in the sense that Targaryens are more likely to enjoy burnt food. It was never presented in past posts or this post as that kind of clue. It was more a suggestion that maybe GRRM put that in the text merely as an "Easter Egg" or sorts to associate Tyrion with something burnt--reminiscent of the dragons. But not a clue in the classic sense that people who like burn bacon are more likely to be Targs. All that said--I concede that some of these clues might be a stretch--the bacon being one of them.

I think that if someone is going to establish that Tyrion is Aerys' son, then they need to:

1. Prove that Aerys and Joanna could have conceived him

and

2. Prove that Tyrion has known Targaryen features or personality traits

I don't think #1 is likely, but the new book established that it was at least possible.

#2 is where most people try to make their case, and really, it can only work in conjunction with #1 because any "Targaryen" personality trait or feature could be applicable to many people without Targaryen blood. Like 'burnt bacon', for example.

Basically, I think it would be more prudent to start with proving #1 beyond a doubt and then start on using #2 to back up #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who is to say that the Conqueror trio's choice of a sigil didn't also allude to the Promised Prince prophecy, as well as to their own triumvirate? In fact, the prophecy may have played a part in their decision to conquer and unite Westeros in the first place.

Also, didn't maester Aemon also mention the three heads of the dragon in conjunction with this prophecy and bemoan the fact that he himself was too old and frail to be one of them? So, it wasn't just Rhaegar.

Nice work, UnmaskedLurker!

Oh, and one of the points that could be added to the OP:

"He had not thought to find them beautiful. Yet they were. As black as onyx, polished smooth, so the bone seemed to shimmer in the light of his torch. _They liked the fire, he sensed._"

Now, the only other person sensing dragon-related stuff like that was Dany with her then supposedly dead eggs turned to stone.

We have a stark ;) contrast there with Arya, who encountered dragonbones at a similar age:

"She could feel its empty eyes watching her through the gloom, and there was something in that dim, cavernous room that did not love her."

It may also be worth it to hunt down the scene where Tyrion fucks Shae among the dragon skulls in ASoS too, IIRC there was something suggestive there. And in his reaction to wildfire in ACoK. Though we now have a counter-example of Cersei getting off on burning of the Tower of the Hand, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a point, assuming the R+L=J, and that they got married, it would an interesting parallel between Tyrion and Jon.



Jon was trueborn and raised a bastard.



Tyrion was a bastartd and raised trueborn.




I think it would also but a light on Tywin, especially if he strongly suspected Tyrion wasn't his child, he still raised him as such.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maia,



I don't think Cersei shows hints of a truly Targaryenesque/mad fascination or obsession with fire. She just gets off on what she can do now, and that she is burning down the Tower of the Hand, the very symbol of all the men who tried to use or harm her - her father, Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, Tyrion.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...