Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.6

Recommended Posts

Tell us again how Gerion is Tyrion's father please. talk about lack of proof in published materials  :lol:

 

 

Oh, and Mithras, just give us an account how the Lannister siblings are descended from Viserys Plumm without using subjunctives or using modal verbs. And try to keep a straight face while doing so...

 

 

I'm starting to feel I've missed something here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm starting to feel I've missed something here..

Mithras has made such assertions multiple times in the past in arguing against ATJ. SS and LV simply are throwing these prior statements by him back at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince Jaehaerys' deformities (additional toes and fingers) are mentioned in TRP. Jaehaera and Vaella being simpletons is also mentioned. When I last looked then from 'lots and lots of stillborn monstrosities' doesn't follow necessarily 'there can't come any cripples who live from that bloodline'.

 

Anyone who has eyes to see will realize that George had Amok conceal the same arm on his portrait that is revealed to be deformed and crippled in the picture of Aegon V and his sons in TWoIaF. That is a sign of continuity, and some of those pictures were reworked again and again according to George's specifics. If you had seen the original versions of Aegon's mistresses and Aegon's coronation you would understand.

 

Oh, and Mithras, just give us an account how the Lannister siblings are descended from Viserys Plumm without using subjunctives or using modal verbs. And try to keep a straight face while doing so...

Also Brynden Rivers was born Albino, with red eyes and a big birthmark across his face. The Targaryen family tree is littered with humans who do not fall into the category of 'normal appearance'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-Valyrians riding dragons. Until we do, I will be hypothesizing under the assumption that Dragon riding is limited to Valyrians.

WOAIF;

"Valyrians alone have the power to tame and subdue dragons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maelys and Shiera are known to have deformities, proven deformities.

 

Which proves that Tyrion is a Targ along with Penny, Euron, all the treasures of Yezzan and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which proves that Tyrion is a Targ along with Penny, Euron, all the treasures of Yezzan and so on.

Again with this? we just talked about it yesterday.  Is there anything in the published works that suggest Penny's mother had an affair with a Targ? Or Yezzan or Euron and so on? NO???? I thought not, which makes these statements totally superfluous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOAIF;

"Valyrians alone have the power to tame and subdue dragons."

 

WOIAF:

Asshai'i dragonlords, Five Forts, foundation of Hightower, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Brynden Rivers was born Albino, with red eyes and a big birthmark across his face. The Targaryen family tree is littered with humans who do not fall into the category of 'normal appearance'.

 

Gregor's appearance is far from normal. He should be a Targ too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm starting to feel I've missed something here..

 

 

Mithras has made such assertions multiple times in the past in arguing against ATJ. SS and LV simply are throwing these prior statements by him back at him.

Yes based on his other theories I would say that Mithras disagreeing with AJT gives it more credence than any actual proof from the book ever could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As CoHS points out, we have Maelys. But even if we had no examples, we have a potential independent explanation. If Tyrion is the prophecized third head of the dragon and if his mother died to provide the necessary sacrifice to give Tyrion the power to be the third head, then it would explain how Tyrion was able to survive when he was expected to die. Further, the point of the deformities is that the other deformities we hear about are in regards to Targs. The connection does not have to be direct as this is literature. It only has to be an allusion of a connection -- something to bring the readers' minds to the connection. So Tyrion is deformed -- and the other deformities we hear about are Targs. Could be a connection or maybe not. Again, no one clue is dispositive. This clue merely adds to all the other clues.

 

 
 

 

As you have stated above, you are not a native speaker, so I will try to explain what I mean as it really becomes a semantic discussion, which is not really very interesting. You certainly can attack the underlying basis upon which a conclusion is formed. If you think that the evidence for Tyrion as a head of the dragon is weak, then obviously it cannot be used to support Tyrion as the son of Aerys. But I don't think that finding the conclusion weak turns it into an assumption. It merely makes it a false conclusion or an unproven or weak theory. My view of the word "assumption" (as a native English speaker, which I am) is that it means a facts which is taken to be true without any basis or support. A theory or conclusion that turns out not to be true is not the same thing as saying that the theory or conclusion was merely an assumption. Sometimes assumptions turn out to be true and sometimes false, but they are a statement without textual support. Tyrion as the third head of the dragon has textual support -- even if you are not convinced by it. But yes, I agree, that if you are right that Tyrion is not the third head, then the AJT theory is badly damaged. We can discuss further, if you want, why I think the text supports Tyrion as the third head. I don't think that discussion is off-topic given that the support for that theory is integrally related to one of the main clues upon which to support AJT.

 

To be honest, I know exactly the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. At the point of writing it I felt it was the right word to use, but I have to say that was a mistake. In my native language the words mean exactly the same and reading your explanation and thinking about it helped me to get to the conclusion (;)) that I was using the word assumption incorrectly. I guess I did it because I didn't came to the same conclusion.

 

Thanks for refreshing my memory about this. I never really thought about it this way, even though I very well knew the difference. Well, I guess that makes me human.

 

Unfortunately, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-Valyrians riding dragons. Until we do, I will be hypothesizing under the assumption that Dragon riding is limited to Valyrians.

 

I guess we have no choice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to make a total rejection of this theory once again.

 

Note: Individually, none of these clues prove that Tyrion's biological father is Aerys. However, when taken together, these clues provide a strong argument in favor of the theory.

 

No, this theory is actually formulated like this:

 

Tyrion will ride a dragon (a bold assumption, though it has a good chance to be true).

Targ blood is necessary to ride one (circular logic - plus there are the examples of Nettles, Gormon Massey, Steffon Darklyn - they rode or attempted to ride dragons without any hint of having Targaryen blood).

Three heads of the dragon are three dragonriders (a huge assumption).

 

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

 

Then you scan the text and come up with anything you could find to support this hypothesis.

 

So, this theory is not a theory by its own; it is the extension of other theories people are committed to. It is a classic example of confirmation bias. What is worse is that Tyrion’s parentage was ever made a mystery like Jon’s. That takes away half of the credibility of this theory right from the beginning. It is like creating a problem first and then attempting to solve it instead of trying to solve an existing problem as in the case of R+L=J.

 

Clues in favor of A+J = T:

 

- Pale blond hair (sounds closer to Targ color than Lannister color) with patches of black hair (the Black hair could be from Betha 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).

 

Pale blonde hair is not a Targaryen-only color. Justin Massey has white blonde hair too. Black hair is not a Blackwood-only color. Lannisters married with lots of people in the history. Black hair could come from anywhere. Even if we assume that pale blonde hair comes from a Targaryen ancestor, it does not necessarily mean that Aerys should be the father of Tyrion. A distant ancestor having Targaryen blood works just the same.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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).

 

Euron has mismatched eyes too. Even if you brush away Euron, mismatched eyes cannot be taken as Targaryen trait.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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).

 

Cersei is fascinated with wildfire in AFfC and she resembles Aerys in much more profound way than these would-be facts being used to imply A+J=T; yet it is near impossible for her to be Aerys’ child. A distant ancestor having Targaryen blood works just the same for both Cersei and Tyrion.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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).

 

Debunked by TWOIAF. Joanna was only a temporary thing for Aerys if she ever was. Whatever happened at the wedding or the anniversary tourney, it was between Tywin and Aerys. Joanna was pretty immaterial to the conflict between these two old friends.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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).

 

It does not sound like a clue given Tywin has thrown lots of “you are my sons” and “you are not my sons” to both Tyrion and Jaime. Even if it is a clue, it is not necessarily related to Aerys.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

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

 

Same as above.

                           

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

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

 

Not all the deformed people have Targaryen ancestry.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- References to Tyrion having cast a shadow that made him as tall as a king.

 

It was about Jon. He is the one who was referred to as the king in that quote.

                           

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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).

 

As you said, Tyrion is not described as a dragon in that quote, which works against your theory.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- Uses the alias of Hugor Hill (Hugor of the Hill was the name of the first king of the Andals and Hill are bastards from the Westerlands—if Aerys were known to be Tyrion’s father, Tyrion would be Tyrion Hill—and use of the name Hugor Hill could be interpreted to mean that Tyrion is a "royal bastard").

 

All of the Lannisters from the main line claim descent from the Kings of the Rock. There were Kings of the Rock named Tyrion. Cersei remarks that in AFfC.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

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

 

This does not necessarily mean that Tyrion is a bastard or he has to be Aerys’ bastard.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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?).

 

All speculations. Nothing is as subjective as interpreting a dream.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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 an affair occurred between Joanna and Aerys while Aerys and Rhaella were married and might have continued even after Joanna married Tywin).

 

All speculations. No tangible proof of anything happened between Joanna and Aerys. In fact, TWOIAF revealed that Aerys hardly kept his interest in a particular woman more than two weeks.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- 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 an insult regarding her breasts).

 

All speculations. No tangible proof of anything happened between Joanna and Aerys. According to comparable cases and known character of Tywin, Joanna would abort the child if she was raped; Tywin would immediately declare independence and rise against Aerys if he knew the possible rape etc. There is absolutely no logical scenario to work around these facts. Plus, no exact months were given. It may very well be that the anniversary tourney took place in the beginning of 272 and Tyrion was born in late 273, which utterly destroys the possibility of A+J=T.

                                                                                                                       

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- Aerys seems to lose respect for Tywin after the period of time during which Aerys would have impregnated Joanna with Tyrion.

 

Not only we have no proof of anything like this happened but even if we assume that this happened, what the hell is this supposed to mean?

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

- The fifth book is titled A Dance with Dragons. However the book is not really focused much on the actual dragons or a battle between Targs or Targ descendants (as the Dance OF Dragons was). So why the title? Had GRRM simply decided that because he had picked the title years ago when he thought different material would be covered in that book he nevertheless kept the title? No. The better theory is that the title is a clue. Book 4 (A Feast for Crows) focused on most all of the characters other than Dany, Jon and Tyrion (who are essentially absent from that book) but A Dance with Dragons primarily focuses on these three characters. So the title of book 5 could be an additional clue pointing towards Tyrion being a dragon.

 

The book is clearly setting the scene for the upcoming Dance of Dragons between fAegon and Dany.

 

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

Similarities to Bloodraven, a Great Bastard: 

  1. Distinct marking (mismatched eyes / huge red birthmark).
  2. Mutilation in defense of royals (cut nose / missing eye).
  3. Capable rulers but hated nonetheless.
  4. Kinslayers.

 

Cersei resembles Aerys in much more profound way than this; yet it is near impossible for her to be Aerys’ child. A distant ancestor having Targaryen blood works just the same for both Cersei and Tyrion.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

Similarities amongst Tyrion, Jon (assuming R+L=J) and Dany:

  1. Mothers died as a result of their births.
  2. Fathers / presumed fathers (Aerys, Rhaegar, Tywin and Ned) killed.
  3. Lived in the shadow of older brothers.
  4. Outcasts.
  5. Unexpectedly rose to leadership roles.
  6. Lovers died arguably by their own hand (Shae / Ygritte / Drogo).
  7. Attempted assassinations.
  8. Third child of one of his or her parents (Joanna / Rhaegar / Rhaella).
  9. Each killed someone in a position of power (Tywin / Janos / Kraznys).
  10. Each has been betrayed (Shae / Bowen / MMD).
  11. Each used the help of "raiding" warrior tribes in battle (Mountain Clan / Wildings / Dothraki)

 

1.      Mothers die from childbirth quite often.

2.      Valar Morghulis.

3.      Jon did not live in the shadow of an older brother.

4.      Jon was not an outcast.

5.      Jon’s rise to leadership was not unexpected. Mormont was grooming him right from the beginning.

6.      Nothing is remotely similar in those cases.

7.      They are hardly the only ones. Gendry survived an assassination too.

8.      Debunked by TWOIAF. Rhaella had many children who could not survive to adulthood.

9.      Janos was not in a position of power. Tywin and Kraznys were murdered. Janos was executed.

10. MMD did not betray Dany. These three are hardly the only ones who were betrayed. Ned comes to mind for example.

11. What a great connection. They all must be Targs because only Targs use the help of raiding warrior tribes in battle. Not to mention, Jon did not use the wildlings in a battle yet.

 

It is a very stretchy list. You can make such list with any given characters.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

Frequently Asked Questions / Counter Arguments:

 

1. Would the relationship between Tywin and Tyrion be undermined?

 

This is entirely 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).

 

This does not necessarily mean that Tyrion is a bastard or he has to be Aerys’ bastard.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

2. If Aerys raped Joanna, wouldn’t she have taken moon tea instead of carrying the pregnancy to term?

     

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.

 

There is no logical explanation to why Joanna did not drink moontea or why Tywin did not rise against Aerys if he knew/suspected a rape.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

3. 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.” Does this imply that Tyrion is Tywin's biological son?

 

Not necessarily. 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.

 

This does not necessarily mean that Tyrion is a bastard or he has to be Aerys’ bastard.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

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

 

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

 

Pale blonde hair is not a Targaryen-only color. Justin Massey has white blonde hair too. Black hair is not a Blackwood-only color. Even if we assume that pale blonde hair comes from a Targaryen ancestor, it does not necessarily mean that Aerys should be the father of Tyrion. A distant ancestor having Targaryen blood works just the same.

 

Ergo, this cannot be taken as a proof of Tyrion having Targaryen ancestry, let alone being an illegitimate son of Aerys.

 

5. Euron has mismatched eyes as well. Does this make him a secret Targ?

 

No. There is no evidence to suggest that Euron was born with mismatched eyes. There are several reasons why a more likely explanation is that his condition is a hyphema rather than a genetic condition. [Credit to Corbon]

 

- A hyphema is effectively a bruise on the eye. It usually comes from a blow to the eye causing bleeding. If it does not clear up the blood can thicken and turn black and damage to vision can be permanent. That fits everything we know about Euron.

 

- If Euron sustained an eye injury causing a hyphema during his early career, that would have happened before Theon's birth and as far as Theon is concerned it would have 'always been like that'

 

- His nickname of "crows eye'. His other eye is blue, and crows eyes change from a light blue/grey to a red/black colour as they mature, which suggests perhaps that Euron's eye changed colour around the time he reached maturity.

 

- His sigil, which is a red eye with a black pupil. That suggests his patched eye might be dark red, or once have been red rather than black, as Theon recalls.

 

- His eye patch. The patch suggests that the eye does not have good sight, or else he would lose much by covering it most of the time.

 

- His lifestyle. Trauma injuries seem rather fitting amongst the Ironborn, especially the most adventurous of them.

 

Nonsense. Complete fabrication. Not even a slightest hint in the text.

 

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

 

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 the introduction of these clues regarding A+J=T. In addition, no character explicitly contemplates that Aerys might be the biological father to Tyrion. Thus, the clues for A+J=T do not satisfy any of these criteria for a typical red herring.

 

It might very well turn into a red herring in TWoW.

 

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

 

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).

 

This was a meaningless question.

 

8. What about the SSM stating that Tyrion was named by his father, Dany by her mother and Jon by Ned; suggesting that Tywin is Tyrion’s biological father?

 

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.

 

Reading too much into an SSM? Really? You were taking Tyrion’s taste for well cooked meat as a sign of him being a dragon. It is completely reasonable to expect that George showed the same amount of attention to all the characters in that SSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are getting the order wrong. This theory is not Tyrion will ride a dragon let's figure out how.

It is, these clues lead to Tyrion being a Targaryen bastard. Now what does that mean?

Exactly, the dragon riding thing didn't really become obvious until the 2nd half of DwD. Tyrion possibly being fathered by a man who was not Tywin was mentioned byTyrion during Jon's very first chapter in GOT, then it grew from there, with more and more hints littered through all 5 books.  As myself, UL and Consigliere have brought up several times; yes sure when you take one hint and separate it from the others maybe it does not stand alone as proof of anything, but when coupled with the hundred other hints, there is clearly something there.  Besides all the blatant hints in Tyrion's chapters there are many other reasons to suspect it as well.  Targaryens have a lot of bastard children.  They are a family of hotties (most of them anyway), and most of them seem to have a problem keeping it in their pants, even noble, valiant Rhaegar couldnt do without a 2nd wife.  Aerys was just as comely and lustful as the rest of his kin, he did not turn into Howard Hughes until after Duskendale, so the man Joanna was in love with (or whatever) is not the same guy as The Mad King whom Jaime slew in King's Landing.  It seems likely that Aerys would have a bastard cuz it's the cool thing to do if you are a Targ. Joanna is the only person ever mentioned by name to have had an affair with him, a long lasting affair that is mentioned in the 5 main books, the app and WOAIF several times.  An affair which caused the queen to banish her from court, and clearly something big enough happened at the 10 year anniversary tourney that was notable enough that it made it into the history book documenting the events of the year 272 in Westeros.  That right there should be proof enough for most people, the encounter Joanna and Aerys had in the year before Tyrion was born made History! Hello!

 

Ran has admitted that GRRM clearly intentionally left the Aerys/Joanna stuff in the WOIAF, like do people really think all this literature is really some giant accident or oversight on GRRM's part?  I give the guy more credit than that personally, I dont consider him to be so stupid that he would do all this on accident (and please spare me the red herring argument unless you can name what the red herring is for).   GRRM did all this on purpose, so even if it turns out that Tywin is the biological father, the intention of the author is to make us think otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-Valyrians riding dragons. Until we do, I will be hypothesizing under the assumption that Dragon riding is limited to Valyrians.

 

I thought in one of the short stories about the original dance of dragons, that one the sides recruits whoever can ride the wild dragons, like sheepstealer? 

Is everyone who rode one a confirmed valyrian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- References to Tyrion having cast a shadow that made him as tall as a king.

 

It was about Jon. He is the one who was referred to as the king in that quote.

 

Sorry, but this one is just wrong...

 

Aside from that, of course there is no conclusive proof for the theory, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it. There's just certain things that hint to the theory. And no, the dragonriding is not part of why people came up with this theory, it's rather something that might or might not happen if the theory were to be true.

 

I could make the same list for R+L=J, we have no proof there either, for every clue we get for that theory we could just say "Oh, that's all speculation" or "That can be interpreted this other way" or "This doesn't necessarily mean it's true", but that's the easy way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

You might be surprised to know that I agree with almost everything you wrote in your more or less through analysis of how each clue does not prove AJT. I agree that each and every clue can be explained away -- not one of them is "proof" of AJT. But I would not expect any one of them to be proof. GRRM is not going to give the readers proof until he is ready for the big reveal. The question is not whether any individual clue is proof of AJT. I have stated over and over and over again that there is not one clue that is proof of AJT. I would not expect there to be. If someone is limiting theories to those with "proof" along those lines -- then there will be no theories to be had (except maybe the most basic version of RLJ).

 

What I have always argued (and others as well) is that taken as a whole, they all make AJT more likely. If GRRM is trying to give hints of AJT -- what hints might he give? Would he have the person have hair color that seems to be more consistent with being a Targ than being a Lannister? Sure, a Lannister could have such hair color (even though none in in the book does), but is it just a coincidence?

 

Would he make the person fascinated with fire and dragons? Sure, a non-Targ could be fascinated with fire and dragons, but how many non-Targs have been described as fascinated with both (even if Cersei is fascinated with fire -- and I don't agree she is, she is fascinated with the power using the wildfire would give her not the fire itself -- and she shows no interest in dragons). I know of none. Is it just a coincidence?

 

Would he have the person use a fake name that suggests both royalty and being a bastard -- like Hugar Hill? Sure, it could just be a name that Tyrion likes for other reasons and not a clue from the author to the readers. But it sure seems like a possible clue in favor of Tyrion as a Targ bastard. Is is just another coincidence?

 

Would he go out of his way to let readers know that the person's mother was in the same city with the potential father in the year before the birth -- and make clear that the potential father had sexual desires toward the mother at some point in time? Sure, that information could just be part of "world building" and not an indication of actual sex at that time. But there is no way we would get a confirmation of sex at that time -- it would give away too much. It sure seems like a clue that maybe that is when Tyrion was conceived. Or is it just another coincidence?

I could go on and on with each of the points, but I think you get the message. Yes, taken in isolation each one has a separate explanation. I have admitted that fact too many times to count. But in literature like this, that is how the clues are given -- in a way that could mean something else. But the accumulation of clues seem to make such a series of coincidences unlikely. 

 

I will also admit that for anyone that thinks that Jon is the 3HD all himself, then the theory makes less sense. What makes the theory so compelling to me is how is ties together with the 3HD theory (again -- not focused principally on dragonriding -- just on the prophecy that the dragon has three heads). There simply are no other viable candidates for the third head. And the deaths of 3 mothers is a powerful connection -- we have been told over and over again how magic needs a price, often death, to work. Being a head of dragon presumably means having some special abilities -- magic. The 3 deaths line up with the rest of the theory. And there just is no other viable candidate to be the third head. Who are the 3 central characters of the series? I think most people would say Jon, Dany and Tyrion.

 

So don't believe the theory -- I don't care. We will know soon enough which of us analyzed the clues correctly. If I am wrong, I will come on this board and admit my mistake and take my lumps. I hope you are man enough to do the same if you turn out to be wrong.

 

 

 

I thought in one of the short stories about the original dance of dragons, that one the sides recruits whoever can ride the wild dragons, like sheepstealer? 

Is everyone who rode one a confirmed valyrian?

 

 

This issue gets complicated and a little tedious to explain. First, the public position is that each of the dragonriders had Targ blood. WOIAF refers to them all as "dragonseed" which mean having Targ blood, i.e., being a Targ bastard.  Now, some have argued that this designation is just Targ propaganda, but I don't think so, and here is why. The riders don't just "tame" the dragon -- it is not like riding a horse. Nettles had a problem of being able to approach the dragon without being killed -- so she "tamed" the dragon by delivering sheep to eat until the dragon trusted her. Then she jumped on the dragon and bonded. The taming is not to allow her to bond -- but to allow her to approach the dragon safely and try to bond. But understand what bonding means.

 

The side books also clarified that it is one person -- one dragon. As long as both live, the person cannot bond with another dragon and the dragon cannot have another rider. Basically, a life-long mental bond is formed that lasts until one dies -- and a person and dragon can only have one such bond at a time.To me, that sounds a lot like magic -- probably the result of powerful blood magic. Dragons were around Varyria for a long time. Apparently no one other than a member of a dragonlord family ever was reported to bond with a dragon. If anyone could just jump on a dragon's back and bond -- it would have happened at some point and the dragonlords would have lost their monopoly. What seems more likely is that the bonding was tied to the blood of these families -- originally created by powerful "blood magic" that came a price -- almost certainly some lives at the time but maybe also the increasing instability of Valyria. It took many mages to keep Valyria from erupting but eventually infighting became a problem -- the number of mages reduced -- and DOOM. Now the Targs are the only ones with dragonblood left.

 

As an analogy, the series reports that First Men blood is required to be able to warg. No one thinks that assertion is mistaken and maybe a non-First Man can warg. Bonding with a dragon is clearly magical. In this series, magic generally has a blood tie. I will be shocked if it turns out just anyone can bond with a dragon, and the dragonlord families merely tricked others into not trying all those years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be surprised to know that I agree with almost everything you wrote in your more or less through analysis of how each clue does not prove AJT. I agree that each and every clue can be explained away -- not one of them is "proof" of AJT. But I would not expect any one of them to be proof. GRRM is not going to give the readers proof until he is ready for the big reveal. The question is not whether any individual clue is proof of AJT. I have stated over and over and over again that there is not one clue that is proof of AJT. I would not expect there to be. If someone is limiting theories to those with "proof" along those lines -- then there will be no theories to be had (except maybe the most basic version of RLJ).

 

What I have always argued (and others as well) is that taken as a whole, they all make AJT more likely. If GRRM is trying to give hints of AJT -- what hints might he give? Would he have the person have hair color that seems to be more consistent with being a Targ than being a Lannister? Sure, a Lannister could have such hair color (even though none in in the book does), but is it just a coincidence?

 

Would he make the person fascinated with fire and dragons? Sure, a non-Targ could be fascinated with fire and dragons, but how many non-Targs have been described as fascinated with both (even if Cersei is fascinated with fire -- and I don't agree she is, she is fascinated with the power using the wildfire would give her not the fire itself -- and she shows no interest in dragons). I know of none. Is it just a coincidence?

 

Would he have the person use a fake name that suggests both royalty and being a bastard -- like Hugar Hill? Sure, it could just be a name that Tyrion likes for other reasons and not a clue from the author to the readers. But it sure seems like a possible clue in favor of Tyrion as a Targ bastard. Is is just another coincidence?

 

Would he go out of his way to let readers know that the person's mother was in the same city with the potential father in the year before the birth -- and make clear that the potential father had sexual desires toward the mother at some point in time? Sure, that information could just be part of "world building" and not an indication of actual sex at that time. But there is no way we would get a confirmation of sex at that time -- it would give away too much. It sure seems like a clue that maybe that is when Tyrion was conceived. Or is it just another coincidence?

I could go on and on with each of the points, but I think you get the message. Yes, taken in isolation each one has a separate explanation. I have admitted that fact too many times to count. But in literature like this, that is how the clues are given -- in a way that could mean something else. But the accumulation of clues seem to make such a series of coincidences unlikely. 

 

I will also admit that for anyone that thinks that Jon is the 3HD all himself, then the theory makes less sense. What makes the theory so compelling to me is how is ties together with the 3HD theory (again -- not focused principally on dragonriding -- just on the prophecy that the dragon has three heads). There simply are no other viable candidates for the third head. And the deaths of 3 mothers is a powerful connection -- we have been told over and over again how magic needs a price, often death, to work. Being a head of dragon presumably means having some special abilities -- magic. The 3 deaths line up with the rest of the theory. And there just is no other viable candidate to be the third head. Who are the 3 central characters of the series? I think most people would say Jon, Dany and Tyrion.

 

So don't believe the theory -- I don't care. We will know soon enough which of us analyzed the clues correctly. If I am wrong, I will come on this board and admit my mistake and take my lumps. I hope you are man enough to do the same if you turn out to be wrong.

 

 
 

 

This issue gets complicated and a little tedious to explain. First, the public position is that each of the dragonriders had Targ blood. WOIAF refers to them all as "dragonseed" which mean having Targ blood, i.e., being a Targ bastard.  Now, some have argued that this designation is just Targ propaganda, but I don't think so, and here is why. The riders don't just "tame" the dragon -- it is not like riding a horse. Nettles had a problem of being able to approach the dragon without being killed -- so she "tamed" the dragon by delivering sheep to eat until the dragon trusted her. Then she jumped on the dragon and bonded. The taming is not to allow her to bond -- but to allow her to approach the dragon safely and try to bond. But understand what bonding means.

 

The side books also clarified that it is one person -- one dragon. As long as both live, the person cannot bond with another dragon and the dragon cannot have another rider. Basically, a life-long mental bond is formed that lasts until one dies -- and a person and dragon can only have one such bond at a time.To me, that sounds a lot like magic -- probably the result of powerful blood magic. Dragons were around Varyria for a long time. Apparently no one other than a member of a dragonlord family ever was reported to bond with a dragon. If anyone could just jump on a dragon's back and bond -- it would have happened at some point and the dragonlords would have lost their monopoly. What seems more likely is that the bonding was tied to the blood of these families -- originally created by powerful "blood magic" that came a price -- almost certainly some lives at the time but maybe also the increasing instability of Valyria. It took many mages to keep Valyria from erupting but eventually infighting became a problem -- the number of mages reduced -- and DOOM. Now the Targs are the only ones with dragonblood left.

 

As an analogy, the series reports that First Men blood is required to be able to warg. No one thinks that assertion is mistaken and maybe a non-First Man can warg. Bonding with a dragon is clearly magical. In this series, magic generally has a blood tie. I will be shocked if it turns out just anyone can bond with a dragon, and the dragonlord families merely tricked others into not trying all those years. 

 

Thanks UL,

 

It has been awhile since I read the stories, I forgot the dragonseed line. I guess it makes sense there were lots of Targ bastards running around dragonstone and all of their descendants would also have some dragonseed in them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks UL,

 

It has been awhile since I read the stories, I forgot the dragonseed line. I guess it makes sense there were lots of Targ bastards running around dragonstone and all of their descendants would also have some dragonseed in them as well.

No problem.  :cheers: By the way, I short-handed the explanation as there are other clues that also support this conclusion. For example when Tyrion talks about the dragons liking BBP due to him having "two drops of dragon blood." So the implication is that there has to be enough Targ blood (too diluted and the bond is gone) and that even then, not all Targs successfully bond. The use of incest also is explained as an attempt to keep the dragon blood as strong as possible.

 

I know people try to say Nettles might not have been a real dragonseed or that the dragonhorn might allow bonding with a non-Targ, but I just don't see that happening. GRRM has set up a story in which blood ties are central. Of course, what someone does with the gifts is what really matters -- but the talents are not random. Even the dragonhorn is said to have made it easier to control the dragons -- not allow a non-dragonlord to bond with a dragon. I think the dragonhorn is going to done something very different than many expect. So in the end, this series really will not make any sense overall if just anyone can jump on a dragon and form a magical bond -- or have someone blow a horn for them to form the bond. If I am wrong, then I have really misunderstood the entire series and the nature of the world GRRM created.

Share this post


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

×