Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.6

Recommended Posts

A boy can be forced into a marriage too.


Good point. But we also have examples of males successfully refusing their betrothals (was Daeron punished at all?), when we don't for women. Also, trying to think of an example of a boy being forced....got any? Curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renly thinks so and I agree with him.

Military might and the ability to marshal and employ it is the most potent form of power on the board--the queen if you will--but it is not the only form of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriages are also arranged for males, that is true, and sons should also bow down to their fathers in this regard. But they can break out and disobey much easier than girls. We have multiple examples for this - the sons of Aegon V, Tion Lannister, Brynden Tully, Robb. Noblemen can defy their fathers and make a living of their own. A noble maiden who doesn't have Brienne's skills or size cannot even try doing that outside the confines of a motherhouse. As Danny Flint and Sarella Sand prove, a girl has to become a boy to try to do anything noteworthy in this world, and if she is discovered she'll face rather severe consequences...

 

Military might is the very thing that makes you powerful as a lord and king in Westeros. The ability to call your levies and vassals to arms. And it is precisely that right and power that is restricted to the male gender. Knights and levies may fight in the name of lady or queen, but they are not commanded by her directly, and will only very seldom fight at her side. Only if their lady/queen is freakish she-warrior like Brienne, Visenya Targaryen, or Mad Danelle Lothston. The average lady ruling a house would have to ask the male guy in charge of her knights to do that for her, and that relationship will have a different power dynamic than the relationship between a mighty manly lord and his right hand man.

 

Thus many female rulers will defer to men in military matters simply because of their gender, even if they are technically the ones in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. But we also have examples of males successfully refusing their betrothals (was Daeron punished at all?), when we don't for women. Also, trying to think of an example of a boy being forced....got any? Curious.

 

 

Depending on how stringently you define force, there are actually a few major examples:  Ned, Robert, Edmure, and Tyrion were each forced by duty and obligation into their marriages, while Aerys II was more conventionally forced by his prophecy-obsessed father and grandfather to marry a specific person for a specific reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I have always said: When you create a theory and then defend it based on numerous assumptions it's not a good theory. 

You assume J and T had a relationship (sidenote: I find it interesting that ppl use the World Book and Yandel's narrative as evidence for one theory as if his account is unquestionable and then ignore that he specifically says that rumors the two were having an affair are false in order to support this theory) ---IIRC the only CONFIRMED events between J and T are that he "took liberties" (probably more than fondling as I imagine that's par for the course when drunk men are stripping a woman) and J made a rude comment about T's breasts. That's far from proof of anything.

You assume that Tyrion being a hunchback ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes and pale blonde hair means he's Targ. Based on what? And the whole thing about him being born with a tail...ridiculous. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of any Targ (stillborn or not) being born with a tail. To say that one Targ (Shiera) having mismatched eyes is proof that that is a Targ trait is unsupported.

All the quotes regarding Tywin implying or flat out stating that Tyrion is not his son are a perfect example of a red herring, yet you say that no one ever suggests Tyrion was not Tywin's natural son. My opinion has always been that these are more examples of how Tywin and the entire Lannister clan has shamed and humiliated Tyrion to the point where he would not only willingly but gleefully participate in his own houses destruction.

As above the numerous quotes where Tyrion makes reference to himself being a bastard as more red herring stuff and could be interpreted not as a literal statement but as how the Lannister's make Tyrion feel.  Plus these are to on the nose and obvious to be considered clues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how stringently you define force, there are actually a few major examples:  Ned, Robert, Edmure, and Tyrion were each forced by duty and obligation into their marriages, while Aerys II was more conventionally forced by his prophecy-obsessed father and grandfather to marry a specific person for a specific reason.


Yeah I was looking for more stringent 'forcing' that could be analogous to Lady Hornwood or Jeyne Poole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I have always said: When you create a theory and then defend it based on numerous assumptions it's not a good theory. 
You assume J and T had a relationship (sidenote: I find it interesting that ppl use the World Book and Yandel's narrative as evidence for one theory as if his account is unquestionable and then ignore that he specifically says that rumors the two were having an affair are false in order to support this theory) ---IIRC the only CONFIRMED events between J and T are that he "took liberties" (probably more than fondling as I imagine that's par for the course when drunk men are stripping a woman) and J made a rude comment about T's breasts. That's far from proof of anything.
You assume that Tyrion being a hunchback ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes and pale blonde hair means he's Targ. Based on what? And the whole thing about him being born with a tail...ridiculous. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of any Targ (stillborn or not) being born with a tail. To say that one Targ (Shiera) having mismatched eyes is proof that that is a Targ trait is unsupported.
All the quotes regarding Tywin implying or flat out stating that Tyrion is not his son are a perfect example of a red herring, yet you say that no one ever suggests Tyrion was not Tywin's natural son. My opinion has always been that these are more examples of how Tywin and the entire Lannister clan has shamed and humiliated Tyrion to the point where he would not only willingly but gleefully participate in his own houses destruction.
As above the numerous quotes where Tyrion makes reference to himself being a bastard as more red herring stuff and could be interpreted not as a literal statement but as how the Lannister's make Tyrion feel.  Plus these are to on the nose and obvious to be considered clues.

That's not necessarily true, as long as the assumptions are acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I have always said: When you create a theory and then defend it based on numerous assumptions it's not a good theory. 

You assume J and T had a relationship (sidenote: I find it interesting that ppl use the World Book and Yandel's narrative as evidence for one theory as if his account is unquestionable and then ignore that he specifically says that rumors the two were having an affair are false in order to support this theory) ---IIRC the only CONFIRMED events between J and T are that he "took liberties" (probably more than fondling as I imagine that's par for the course when drunk men are stripping a woman) and J made a rude comment about T's breasts. That's far from proof of anything.

You assume that Tyrion being a hunchback ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes and pale blonde hair means he's Targ. Based on what? And the whole thing about him being born with a tail...ridiculous. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of any Targ (stillborn or not) being born with a tail. To say that one Targ (Shiera) having mismatched eyes is proof that that is a Targ trait is unsupported.

All the quotes regarding Tywin implying or flat out stating that Tyrion is not his son are a perfect example of a red herring, yet you say that no one ever suggests Tyrion was not Tywin's natural son. My opinion has always been that these are more examples of how Tywin and the entire Lannister clan has shamed and humiliated Tyrion to the point where he would not only willingly but gleefully participate in his own houses destruction.

As above the numerous quotes where Tyrion makes reference to himself being a bastard as more red herring stuff and could be interpreted not as a literal statement but as how the Lannister's make Tyrion feel.  Plus these are to on the nose and obvious to be considered clues.

Here is the problem, the Three Heads of the Dragon list is getting awfully short.

You can add fAegon to the list of candidates ( I would say that he is easily probably the 4th or 5th most commonly chosen to be a head) but fAegon only works for either Jon not being a Targaryen OR Tyrion not being a Targaryen.

 

Aerys father is told that the Prince who was promised will be born from the lineage of Aerys and Rhaella, that only leaves Daenerys, fAegon and (maybe) Jon left alive from that lineage.

We also know that every dragon (minus MAYBE one) has been bonded with a Valyrian/ Targaryen blooded individual, now that opens up quite a bit who could rides dragon, but the Three Heads of the Dragon refers to who will lead House Targaryen (as confirmed by Maester Aemon saying he wished he could go to Daenerys side because the Dragon must have Three Heads). That is a short list. That is Daenerys, Jon and who? Only really fAegon and Tyrion.

 

So if Jon is not R+L=J, then fAegon almost has to be the real deal so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, fAegon and Tyrion. Daenerys is TPtwP

And if Tyrion is not A+J=T then fAegon almost has to be real, as well as Jon, so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, Jon and fAegon. Jon, Daenerys or fAegon could be TPtwP

And if fAegon is real then only one of the Jon or Tyrion can be real, otherwise you have too many heads. Jon or Daenerys could be TPtwP.

 

If you add the Mummer's Dragon, and the Slayer of Lies prophecy things dont look good for fAegon, thus leaving Jon and Tyrion as the most likely Targaryen blooded people left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I have always said: When you create a theory and then defend it based on numerous assumptions it's not a good theory. 

You assume J and T had a relationship (sidenote: I find it interesting that ppl use the World Book and Yandel's narrative as evidence for one theory as if his account is unquestionable and then ignore that he specifically says that rumors the two were having an affair are false in order to support this theory) ---IIRC the only CONFIRMED events between J and T are that he "took liberties" (probably more than fondling as I imagine that's par for the course when drunk men are stripping a woman) and J made a rude comment about T's breasts. That's far from proof of anything.

You assume that Tyrion being a hunchback ugly dwarf with mismatched eyes and pale blonde hair means he's Targ. Based on what? And the whole thing about him being born with a tail...ridiculous. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of any Targ (stillborn or not) being born with a tail. To say that one Targ (Shiera) having mismatched eyes is proof that that is a Targ trait is unsupported.

All the quotes regarding Tywin implying or flat out stating that Tyrion is not his son are a perfect example of a red herring, yet you say that no one ever suggests Tyrion was not Tywin's natural son. My opinion has always been that these are more examples of how Tywin and the entire Lannister clan has shamed and humiliated Tyrion to the point where he would not only willingly but gleefully participate in his own houses destruction.

As above the numerous quotes where Tyrion makes reference to himself being a bastard as more red herring stuff and could be interpreted not as a literal statement but as how the Lannister's make Tyrion feel.  Plus these are to on the nose and obvious to be considered clues.

The theory depends on no assumptions. The theory is based on textual clues planted by GRRM that individually could be written off as innocent. Taken together, however, they all point is the same direction. It is the accumulation of clues that makes the theory plausible. So I don't know whether the affair between Joanna and Aerys really happened and it does not matter. What matters is that the discussion that they might have had an affair points in the direction of AJT. And the real clue in that portion of the world book is the answer to the objection that they were in different locations -- but Joanna is placed in KL in the year prior to Tyrion's birth. That is a huge clue and not dependent of Yandel's reliability as a report of someone's public location is reliable even from a source that is not always reliable.

 

As to the physical characteristic that point toward being a Targ -- these are not assumptions -- the physical characteristics are stated in the book. The question becomes whether it is a logical conclusion that a character with these characteristics must be a Targ. I would argue -- no -- there are other possibilities. Again, it is the accumulation of clues that matters. Why does GRRM give Tyrion hair that is lighter than any other Lannister? Why does GRRM give Tyrion black streaks? Why does GRRM give Tyrion mismatched eyes? Why does GRRM give Tyrion deformities and rumors of a tail? None of these facts alone means anything. But each suggests he might be a Targ. Targs have lighter color hair than Lannisters. Aerys's grandmother had black hair and no know Lannisters have been described as having any black hair. Shiera -- as Targ bastard -- was said to have mismatched eyes -- so not a Targ trait but just a small allusion connecting Tyrion to someone known to be a Targ bastard. The other children described with deformities were Targ miscarriages. So each one individually can be written off -- but at some point the accumulation of coincidences seems to point in the direction that these choices by GRRM are not coincidences.

 

As to the statements by Tywin that Tyrion is not his son or Tyrion referring to himself as a bastard being red herrings -- these statement do not qualify as red herrings. A red herring is a proposed solution to a mystery which is intended to distract the reader from the real solution to the mystery to make the solution harder to resolve. What mystery are these statements intended to distract from? Is it that Tyrion really is exactly who he has been said to be -- the son of Tywin? Is that the mystery? I don't see how a basically unquestioned "fact" in the series can be the mystery that GRRM does not want the readers to figure out too easily. If what you really mean is that GRRM wants some people to mistakenly conclude that Tyrion is the son of Aerys when he really is the son of Tywin -- I ask, why? What purpose would GRRM have to send a very small number of readers (as only a very few even know that AJT is a theory at all) on a wild goose chase?

 

And these clues are not "on the nose" in the manner you suggest. The context in which GRRM introduces these statement in the series seem to be sarcastic comments meant by Tywin as an insult and by Tyrion as a way to whine about his position in his family. Only on closer examination do these statement seem to be statements of actual fact -- perhaps intended by Tywin and certainly accidental by Tyrion (as he has no reason to question his parentage).

So again, can each of these clues be explained by an "innocent" alternative explanation? Yes. But I find it difficult to believe that all of these clues -- taken together -- mean nothing and are just a figment of our imagination.

 

 

If the foundation is facts (as in r+l=j) and then assumptions are used in support and those assumptions are based on logical extensions of things that are known, then yes. I just don't see  that being the case here.

 

 

That is EXACTLY what is going on here. Based on what I wrote above, what unsupported assumptions or illogical extensions have been made in support of this theory? Every single clue is a stated fact. Every conclusion regarding how that clue points in the direction of AJT (not proves AJT -- just points in support of it) is a logical extension of a stated fact. As I outlined above, you have given no examples to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem, the Three Heads of the Dragon list is getting awfully short.

You can add fAegon to the list of candidates ( I would say that he is easily probably the 4th or 5th most commonly chosen to be a head) but fAegon only works for either Jon not being a Targaryen OR Tyrion not being a Targaryen.

 

Aerys father is told that the Prince who was promised will be born from the lineage of Aerys and Rhaella, that only leaves Daenerys, fAegon and (maybe) Jon left alive from that lineage.

We also know that every dragon (minus MAYBE one) has been bonded with a Valyrian/ Targaryen blooded individual, now that opens up quite a bit who could rides dragon, but the Three Heads of the Dragon refers to who will lead House Targaryen (as confirmed by Maester Aemon saying he wished he could go to Daenerys side because the Dragon must have Three Heads). That is a short list. That is Daenerys, Jon and who? Only really fAegon and Tyrion.

 

So if Jon is not R+L=J, then fAegon almost has to be the real deal so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, fAegon and Tyrion. Daenerys is TPtwP

And if Tyrion is not A+J=T then fAegon almost has to be real, as well as Jon, so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, Jon and Daenerys. Jon, Daenerys or fAegon could be TPtwP

And if fAegon is real then only one of the Jon or Tyrion can be real, otherwise you have too many heads. Jon or Daenerys could be TPtwP.

 

If you add the Mummer's Dragon, and the Slayer of Lies prophecy things dont look good for fAegon, thus leaving Jon and Tyrion as the most likely Targaryen blooded people left.

For the record -- did a poll on the 3HD and my recollection is Dany came in first, then Jon second, then Tyrion third, then fAegon fourth and I think Bran fifth.

 

The notion that GRRM would pair 2 POV characters who have been central to the story from the beginning with the third head (meaning the third war general who will be central to winning the battle for the dawn 2.0) as a character introduced half way through the series who the readers know little about and is not a POV and who the readers really have no reason to identify with -- is hard to swallow. In my view, while I believe very strongly that Tyrion is the third head -- the only other possibility I see is Bran on the theory that Dany is Fire, Bran is Ice and Jon is a combination of Ice and Fire. But Bran is not "of the dragon" so I don't really think he can be the third head. Tyrion really is the only viable candidate -- meaning he must be the son of Aerys to be "of the dragon" and thus the third head of the dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem, the Three Heads of the Dragon list is getting awfully short.

You can add fAegon to the list of candidates ( I would say that he is easily probably the 4th or 5th most commonly chosen to be a head) but fAegon only works for either Jon not being a Targaryen OR Tyrion not being a Targaryen.

 

Aerys father is told that the Prince who was promised will be born from the lineage of Aerys and Rhaella, that only leaves Daenerys, fAegon and (maybe) Jon left alive from that lineage.

We also know that every dragon (minus MAYBE one) has been bonded with a Valyrian/ Targaryen blooded individual, now that opens up quite a bit who could rides dragon, but the Three Heads of the Dragon refers to who will lead House Targaryen (as confirmed by Maester Aemon saying he wished he could go to Daenerys side because the Dragon must have Three Heads). That is a short list. That is Daenerys, Jon and who? Only really fAegon and Tyrion.

 

So if Jon is not R+L=J, then fAegon almost has to be the real deal so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, fAegon and Tyrion. Daenerys is TPtwP

And if Tyrion is not A+J=T then fAegon almost has to be real, as well as Jon, so that the Three Heads are Daenerys, Jon and Daenerys. Jon, Daenerys or fAegon could be TPtwP

And if fAegon is real then only one of the Jon or Tyrion can be real, otherwise you have too many heads. Jon or Daenerys could be TPtwP.

 

If you add the Mummer's Dragon, and the Slayer of Lies prophecy things dont look good for fAegon, thus leaving Jon and Tyrion as the most likely Targaryen blooded people left.

 

so the support for this theory is a another theory that the 3 heads of the dragon have to be dragonrider's. i don't remember that being confirmed. even the idea that all 3 have to be targ blooded is just a theory. we have never seen the prophecy for ourselves and IIRC no one has stated that.

 

and UL - you keep saying that the idea of AJT is only noticed by a small number of readers and in my experience, both lurking here for a while and in talking to other book readers, it's actually obvious and picked up by most readers. at the very least the basic idea that tyrion is not tywin's son is obvious.

the way that the whole atj theory is a red herring is that is distracts from the rlj theory. which is what I propose it's sole purpose is.

you very readily dismiss the idea that character development in a character driven series is meaningless and totally subject to interpretation and I argue that these character arcs are discernable if you bother to look for them. if you then weigh a theory in how it acts on the character's existing arc, how it affects the character's development and how it opens up new arc's for specific characters then you see how this theory makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JS survival is a question I have pondered and failed to find convincing clues for one solution or another. What I believe is that for the plot to make sense the way it has been constructed, Jon cannot die permanently and he cannot come back in the same way that Beric or Cat came back -- i.e., he cannot be "less" of himself -- he needs to be the entire original Jon Snow. Now that does not mean that the experience won't change him -- it definitely will, but that will be more along the lines of character development than losing a part of himself as seems to happen in traditional resurrections.

 

So I am left with two possibilities that make sense to me. One is that he is in a long-term coma -- like Bran was -- and is eventually brought out of it through some sacrifice (as many think the death of Lady did for Bran). Or he really is dead but having warged into Ghost, when he is resurrected, he is brought back fully in tact because by transferring his consciousness to Ghost, he was able to avoid losing part of himself in the process. Of course, some sacrifice would be needed for the resurrection as well. The main candidates for sacrifice under either scenario seem to be Shireen, Theon or Ghost. I am not sure which it will be or how it will happen. I just don't think the clues are clear enough at this point to know for sure. But I am fairly certain Jon will come back but for much of WoW, I think he will be stuck in Ghost.

 

 

I am reluctant to get into the show in too much depth here, but I will say the the TV show does not require the same level of foreshadowing. Yes, Selmy is dead on the show so he cannot be the source of revelation about AJT. But I think the producers may use Varys for this purpose. I think show-Varys knows (even though book-Varys might or might not), and I think he will be the source of the big reveal regarding Tyrion after he bonds with a dragon. But, of course, I am only speculating. I just think if Tyrion as a Targ is a major plot point in the book, it will be on the show as well.

 

I have to agree on your idea that Jon shouldn’t change like Beric/Cat did, but the event will influence him. I see several problems with all realistic outcomes, that’s why I’m not convinced of any of them. (Btw, warging into ghost to long will change him aswell, maybe even more than being ‘resurrected’)

 

 

Shireen/Theon being the one who will be sacrificed makes sense (both kings blood), but option one isn’t possible in the show anymore. I know he isn’t ‘dead dead’, and I can even see him not being horribly injured (seen an explanation of GRRM’s word choice somewhere here, which made sense).

 

 

A+J=T in the books being confirmed by Selmy? That doesn’t make sense to me tbh. Why would he wait until Tyrion rides a dragon (if he even does) before revealing the truth? Most of the times, info is being revealed because the person who reveals the info has something to gain with it. I can’t see what Selmy gains with revealing this? Varys on the show makes sense, but wouldn’t work in the books.

 

 

The above is btw also my a big issue that I see with A+J=T, but also with R+L=J. There are several options to reveal these secrets (if they are true), but it’ll be very hard to convince all the families of these claims. Will they accept that riding a dragon shows that you have dragonsblood (and since the only living dragonriders are the Targs, that you are a Targaryen?) I’m not sure.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Jon's death is not going to change him in a lot of ways then the whole episode was just a needless filler, and death or near-death can be overcome quite easily. That is not how stuff usually works. Remember what happened to Victarion's arm in the process of his healing...

 

George has said that he hasn't killed Shireen yet in the books, and considering that show let Stannis do it suggests that he will be the one who is supposed to do it in the books as well. Which makes it very unlikely that this will have anything to do with Jon. 

 

Selmy hasn't been a POV for long, and it is quite intriguing that Tyrion didn't remember any conversation/interaction with Selmy in ADwD despite the fact that they must have met each other on occasion during Robert's reign. My guess is that Selmy is not necessarily going to spill the beans after Tyrion became a dragonrider, but possibly even before that - when they meet again. After all, the chances for Tyrion to win the trust of Dany's people are pretty much zero. Her Ghiscari and freedmen allies won't know him, and generally don't think that they should care about the ideas and notion of some poor dwarf, and Selmy, being honorable and all, wouldn't just accept Tyrion as an ally because he has murdered his nephew and father who happen to be enemies of Daenerys. Just because you commit a crime a profit from doesn't mean you are my best friend. But if Selmy knows who Tyrion actually is - the half-brother of his queen - then he cannot possible execute him or send him away in Dany's absence. Especially not since he knows Daenerys is interested in reconnecting with any family members she might still have.

 

Tyrion could also claim a dragon accidentally during the coming battle, but if it is Viserion as foreshadowed it does not seem likely that it happens during the battle since he retreated from it and returned to his lair on the pyramid. If Dragonbinder causes the dragons to go mad and/or if they became a threat to the peace in the city after the battle, Barristan may simply reveal the truth about Tyrion's parentage to get him to try and claim one of the dragons. Without any knowledge of his true parentage Tyrion would never try to mount a wild dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
so the support for this theory is a another theory that the 3 heads of the dragon have to be dragonrider's. i don't remember that being confirmed. even the idea that all 3 have to be targ blooded is just a theory. we have never seen the prophecy for ourselves and IIRC no one has stated that.
 
and UL - you keep saying that the idea of AJT is only noticed by a small number of readers and in my experience, both lurking here for a while and in talking to other book readers, it's actually obvious and picked up by most readers. at the very least the basic idea that tyrion is not tywin's son is obvious.
the way that the whole atj theory is a red herring is that is distracts from the rlj theory. which is what I propose it's sole purpose is.
you very readily dismiss the idea that character development in a character driven series is meaningless and totally subject to interpretation and I argue that these character arcs are discernable if you bother to look for them. if you then weigh a theory in how it acts on the character's existing arc, how it affects the character's development and how it opens up new arc's for specific characters then you see how this theory makes no sense.


People here are people who love to make theories, the forum population being aware of something is not reflective how the general readership reads the books. Most casual readers are not even aware of R+L=J (until recently maybe since the media has been picking it up because of Jon Snow). But the casual readers are awere of the real red herring like Wylla. And I would imagine quite a few people in here read about A+J=T theory in a threads like this instead of noticing it in the books, apart from perhaps wondering why would Tywin say twice that Tyrion is not a son of his and wishes to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? That makes zero sense and I dont know what the comparison even is there. Is there anything in the novels that hints that Catelyn had an affair with Hodor?

 

See these types of counterarguments are so dumb.  We are talking about Tyrion whose mother was known to have an affair with Aerys.  So finding hints for him being a Targaryen makes sense with the story and the novels (since Joanna had a known affair with Aerys, and Tywin doubts his paternity).  Throwing in a random off-the-wall argument with zero textual support is pointless.

 

This is the same counter argument you are making though: Rickon and Jon look like their mothers. Their wolves are unique. They are set apart from the rest of the Stark-direwolves. Therefore, their fathers must be someone else. Actually, Maester Luwin is a better candidate for being Rickon's father. He delivered Cat's babies. Cat did not mind being naked around him. Maybe that was a hint for an affair between them.

 

Every family has black sheep. It does not mean that their biological parents are different. So, Tyrion standing out in the Lannister family cannot be taken as a paternity test. George designed him that way because he wanted Tyrion to go against his evil family in the course of the story. That is obvious from his 1993 draft where there is absolutely no hint of A+J=T whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 
A+J=T in the books being confirmed by Selmy? That doesnt make sense to me tbh. Why would he wait until Tyrion rides a dragon (if he even does) before revealing the truth? Most of the times, info is being revealed because the person who reveals the info has something to gain with it. I cant see what Selmy gains with revealing this? Varys on the show makes sense, but wouldnt work in the books.


Selmy could only confirm this when it is obvious. If Tyrion for excample has to try to tame a dragon during a battle if it is attacking him Selmy can later inform him of the rumour he has heard of since if Tyrion has a dragon it would obviously be good to inform him that he might be Dany's brother to ensure his loyaty. Selmy would not have to know for certain. I assume in universe it is pretty much accepted only those with dragonblood can ride dragons so nothing more than Selmy's speculation is not really neened for Tyrion to belive this. Tyrion being Aerys's son is important for him to ride a dragon and become one of the heads and what it does do to his identity and motivations and not because he would claim the throne so the people of Westeros do not need to convinced of this. I must admit I believe it is somewhat possible that he might try to claim the trone or that all the other canditates have died. by the end of the books and Tyrion has a dragon. But I can not see that his his destiny nor I see Jon dying twice. But Tyrion's parentage does not need to known to people the same way Jon's is. It is possible Selmy could only explain his knowledge to Dany (and the readers) or it to be something people start speculating without nobody knowing for certain. But I think this would be something too big for GRRM not to confirm some way.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem, the Three Heads of the Dragon list is getting awfully short.

 

As I always happily point out, the actual backbone of A+J=T theory is this as proved in your post once again:

 

Tyrion will ride a dragon.

Targ blood is necessary to ride one.

Three heads of the dragon are three dragonriders.

 

Ergo, Tyrion is a Targaryen and a head of the dragon.

 

You do see the amount of leaps here right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Jon's death is not going to change him in a lot of ways then the whole episode was just a needless filler, and death or near-death can be overcome quite easily. That is not how stuff usually works. Remember what happened to Victarion's arm in the process of his healing...

 

George has said that he has killed Shireen yet in the books, and considering that show let Stannis do it suggests that he will be the one who is supposed to do it in the books as well. Which makes it very unlikely that this will have anything to do with Jon. 

 

Selmy hasn't been a POV for long, and it is quite intriguing that Tyrion didn't remember any conversation/interaction with Selmy in ADwD despite the fact that they must have met each other on occasion during Robert's reign. My guess is that Selmy is not necessarily going to spill the beans after Tyrion became a dragonrider, but possibly even before that - when they meet again. After all, the chances for Tyrion to win the trust of Dany's people are pretty much zero. Her Ghiscari and freedmen allies won't know him, and generally don't think that they should care about the ideas and notion of some poor dwarf, and Selmy, being honorable and all, wouldn't just accept Tyrion as an ally because he has murdered his nephew and father who happen to be enemies of Daenerys. Just because you commit a crime a profit from doesn't mean you are my best friend. But if Selmy knows who Tyrion actually is - the half-brother of his queen - then he cannot possible execute him or send him away in Dany's absence. Especially not since he knows Daenerys is interested in reconnecting with any family members she might still have.

 

Tyrion could also claim a dragon accidentally during the coming battle, but if it is Viserion as foreshadowed it does not seem likely that it happens during the battle since he retreated from it and returned to his lair on the pyramid. If Dragonbinder causes the dragons to go mad and/or if they became a threat to the peace in the city after the battle, Barristan may simply reveal the truth about Tyrion's parentage to get him to try and claim one of the dragons. Without any knowledge of his true parentage Tyrion would never try to mount a wild dragon.

 

What happened to Victarions arm weren’t normal circumstances. He was healed with the help of the fire god (or magic).

Did GRRM confirm that he also kills Shireen in the books? Doesn’t make it unlikely in the books btw. Maybe he does it with the wrong reasons, but it the end it doesn’t help him, but it helps Jon.

 

About the Tyrion part. It again feels like; I don’t see an option how Tyrion and Dany are going to be allies, so the way must be that he is related, mounts a dragon and that way wins her trust. Who even says they will end up at the same side? Maybe in the show that happened, but we don’t know anything about the books for that part.

 

Selmy could only confirm this when it is obvious. If Tyrion for excample has to try to tame a dragon during a battle if it is attacking him Selmy can later inform him of the rumour he has heard of since if Tyrion has a dragon it would obviously be good to inform him that he might be Dany's brother to ensure his loyaty. Selmy would not have to know for certain. I assume in universe it is pretty much accepted only those with dragonblood can ride dragons so nothing more than Selmy's speculation is not really neened for Tyrion to belive this. Tyrion being Aerys's son is important for him to ride a dragon and become one of the heads and what it does do to his identity and motivations and not because he would claim the throne so the people of Westeros do not need to convinced of this. I must admit I believe it is somewhat possible that he might try to claim the trone or that all the other canditates have died. by the end of the books and Tyrion has a dragon. But I can not see that his his destiny nor I see Jon dying twice. But Tyrion's parentage does not need to known to people the same way Jon's is. It is possible Selmy could only explain his knowledge to Dany (and the readers) or it to be something people start speculating without nobody knowing for certain. But I think this would be something too big for GRRM not to confirm some way.

 

This again is based on the assumption that he will ride a dragon. I don't like theories based on other assumptions.. 'Tyrion must be a Targ because I believe he will ride a dragon' doesn't really make a strong story. 

Share this post


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

×