The Heresy essays: X+Y=J- Howland + Lyanna=Jon

[purple-eyes]

I thought it was confirmed that lyanna and KG died in red mountain. 

She was apparently in TOJ. 

[LmL]

 There is a war going on, yet somehow someone managed to import a Lyanna Stark. Lyanna Starks are considerably hotter property than roses. Roses have very limited strategic value. 

Who said periodically? What makes you think the roses weren't brought with Lyanna and never replenished? You know that dried flowers smell too, right?

Again, this entire debate is bizarre.

 

It just gets more and more bizarre. How many times must it be said?

1.) The red mountains are a "fertile green belt" where clouds drop their moisture. The Stormlands and the Dornish marches, similarly, are not desert. The ToJ is in between the Red Mountains and the Dornish Marches - not in the desert - and so there is no issue with plants or flowers growing in the area. 

but that's actually completely irrelevant, because...

2.) Ned's waking memory of the room that smelled of blood and roses described dead and black roses in Lyanna's hand - they may well have been her one year old rose crown from the tourney.  No new roses needs be brought, at all. No living roses were ever said to be there - only dead ones.  

So that ends that debate, right? Right? 

[purple-eyes]

It just gets more and more bizarre. How many times must it be said?

1.) The red mountains are a "fertile green belt" where clouds drop their moisture. The Stormlands and the Dornish marches, similarly, are not desert. The ToJ is in between the Red Mountains and the Dornish Marches - not in the desert - and so there is no issue with plants or flowers growing in the area. 

but that's actually completely irrelevant, because...

2.) Ned's waking memory of the room that smelled of blood and roses described dead and black roses in Lyanna's hand - they may well have been her one year old rose crown from the tourney.  No new roses needs be brought, at all. No living roses were ever said to be there - only dead ones.  

So that ends that debate, right? Right? 

I think a small dead garland can not make the whole room has a smell of rose, considering the smell of blood must be quite strong too. 

And also in his dream there was a storm of rose petals. 

So there must be many roses in the room to give him this impression. 

By the way, the garland was two year old at least. Maybe even three year old. 

It seems to be hard for them to be very smelly. 

Ned often brought flowers to lyanna's tomb and said she is fond of flowers. 

I bet this is is a hint that rhaegar did same thing. 

After all lyanna must miss winterfell a lot at TOJ. 

So no wonder rhaegar bought roses for her to entertain her. 

 

 

[purple-eyes]

By the way, that area is close to reach. 

I am sure you can purchase roses in local villages and markets. 

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'm not saying that they can't grow flowers near the toj i'm saying there's none because there's no evidence anywhere that there is.Not on the maps so fond of,no one says it.In fact all we get is grass.That's it.GRRM makes it a point to mention certain location and what's there in terms of flora. There is no roses growing wild in the Dornish marches....Just grass.Additionally,in a land where water is as prized as gold exactly why would you want to use every inch of fertile ground to plant things they don't need.

And when during the main series did a POV spend enough time there to tell us whether or not roses grow there?

Realise, it was either spring, or already summer. Can Winter Roses grow during those seasons? Remember that the only roses described by Ned are petals which are 'dead and black', which brings me back to this question.. were there even fresh flowers present in the room? 

 

The emotional shock undermines the arguement because it goes hand in hand with why Ned gives a vivid account of the aftermath fight with the KGs detailing what he did with the bodies,what he did with the structure and him and Howland riding off after.

When it come to him recounting what happens with Lyanna's death he confesses he remembers none of it.He doesn't remember what happened after.Infact he stresses that twice.You see where i'm going with this? One event he remembers well because it doesn't carry such an emotional shock.He's bitter about it,but he recalls it.The other is more emotionally jarring.The death of a loved one and his memory loss and shock fits.

It would have added nothing to mention that he removed Lyanna's body from the tower then pulled it down by himself.Omitting a detail like that does infact cast ambiguity on where she is. Ned's waking recollection smashes that notion.

And yet, at some point, the memories begin again. So him remembering what he did hours, or (more likely) a day or so after Lya's death, is not an issue.. 

 

 There is a war going on, yet somehow someone managed to import a Lyanna Stark. Lyanna Starks are considerably hotter property than roses. Roses have very limited strategic value. 

Who said periodically? What makes you think the roses weren't brought with Lyanna and never replenished? You know that dried flowers smell too, right?

Again, this entire debate is bizarre.

 

Again, the only roses described were petals which were dead black. So, there might not even have been fresh flowers. 

[Ygrain]

 

I agree that Lyanna not being there vs carrying her rotting corpse around is a false dichotomy. However, the question we should be asking is not 'what could he have done with Lyanna's corpse?', but 'what could he have don with Lya's corpse that he couldn't do with the others that died at the same time?' If pyre was an option for one body, why wasn't it an option for six bodies? Or, if it was, why didn't he use it? I'm sure it's still possible to come up with explanations, but I think this concern is not as easy to dismiss as you make it out to be.

Eight bodies, of fully grown men. That would mean at least eight times more fuel than for Lyanna. Plus, we know that Lyanna wanted to be brought home as her deathbed wish, so perhaps it would be better to poise the question not as could and couldn't, but had to and didn't have to.

 

 

We can be reasonably sure that the ToJ fight has something to do with finding Lyanna on her deathbed. I don't think this something necessarily has to be Lyanna physically being there in the tower, although that would be the most straightforward explanation. I certainly can't come up with anything plausible off the top of my head, but then I'm no GRRM. Even if the encounter just gave them a clue where to look for Lya, it'd still work IMO.

Perhaps - but in the absence of such clues that would place Lyanna elsewhere, all we are left with is the tower. 

Plus, why keep Lyanna's location a mystery when the main mystery, that she gave birth to Jon, is already revealed?

 

Actually, it'd make sense for her to spend a few days there coming/going somewhere ... it's mainly her spending nearly a year there that I find difficult to believe. That, and there are small things in Ned's waking memories make more sense to me if Lyanna wasn't there. The corpses are one thing, the bolded bit is another:

Well... her death at ToJ does not require her to have spent all of the duration of the Rebellion there. On the other hand, now that we know from TWOIAF that the area is fertile enough to allow for sustenance, she may have.

 

It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory’s father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel 
had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build 
eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned 
it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard 
Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should 
dream that dream again after so many years.

It's odd for Ned to elaborate on the bitterness of the memory the way he did if Lyanna also died then and there. As if the fight was the most/only important aspect of the tower scene. And that oddness could easily have been avoided by placing the same information slightly differently. 'Only two had lived to ride away' also gives the impression of an unfinished business.

I don't think it odd. The train of thought is started by Jory's death and his resting place, which leads to his father's resting place. Mentioning Lyanna would have been tangential - it could have been done, but wasn't necessary.

Not sure if "ride away" implies unfinished business, but you are no incorrect in this - they did make a detour to Starfall, after all.

 

And yes, Ned zoning out holding Lyanna's hand and them (whoever they are) finding him there is also easier to fit with a different scenario, although relatively easy to explain even at the ToJ.

As you say - allows to be explained at ToJ. No other scenario required.

No, the debate really isn't bizarre. It's pointing out an inconsistency. Does that inconsistency necessarily need to mean anything? No. Could it mean something? Certainly. Could there be ways to make the tower room smell of roses? Sure. There are ways that it could work. All of the ideas that have been suggested are plausible.

In other words: a presumed inconsistency, based on assumptions that have been debunked several times-

 

Is it a little odd that a mostly abandoned tower room would smell of roses? Yeah, it really kind of is. The hubby buys me roses on occasion. It's rare that one small bouquet would scent an entire room. I would find it even more odd if the small amount of black rose petals that fell from Lyanna's hand was enough to create a noticeable odor in the room.

Here you go into false assumptions, as well. Abandoned tower? Not if it had been inhabited for days, weeks or months.

Bought roses do no scent an entire room - what kind of roses? Some roses have a prominent scent, others don't (the ones from the flower shops mostly don't). Was there only a small bouquet? How big was the room?

A small amount of dried roses fell from Lyanna's hand - indeed, and where did those get from? Something much bigger that she might have been holding onto? 

The thing is, WE DONT KNOW FOR SURE. Neither side can prove themselves without a doubt, because the information is just not available. It's a question mark and will remain so until more information is available. There are other small inconsistencies as well. Are there enough there to say that Lyanna was definitely not at the tower? No. But there's certainly enough to make a big question mark.

Wrong. One side has Lyanna's location in the tower, from the text, from the app, from Ran's reference to a family tree drawing or whatever it was placing Lyanna at ToJ. The other side has zero such sources to place Lyanna elsewhere, anywhere. They keep repeating "it's just a dream", "she couldn't have had roses", "they couldn't have stayed for a year" and the like, but all they are doing is attempting to negate Lyanna's presence at ToJ, without offering any supported scenario where she really was.

 

[LmL]

When Wolfmaid started with the roses business, she was under the mistaken impression that the ToJ was in the desert. Now that we've shown her that this wasn't so, it's just odd that she continues to press the case. There's absolutely no issue with roses growing anywhere near the ToJ, and we only heard about dead roses anyway. It's not inconsistent in the slightest. 

[LmL]

I think a small dead garland can not make the whole room has a smell of rose, considering the smell of blood must be quite strong too. 

And also in his dream there was a storm of rose petals. 

So there must be many roses in the room to give him this impression. 

By the way, the garland was two year old at least. Maybe even three year old. 

It seems to be hard for them to be very smelly. 

Ned often brought flowers to lyanna's tomb and said she is fond of flowers. 

I bet this is is a hint that rhaegar did same thing. 

After all lyanna must miss winterfell a lot at TOJ. 

So no wonder rhaegar bought roses for her to entertain her. 

 

 

Dried roses have a strong smell, so says the "how to make potpourri" website. They have a list of flowers which have a strong smell when dried - roses are on that list. 

Again, there is absolutely not even an angel's asshair of inconsistency with either dead or live roses at the  ToJ.

Most likely, Martin never even worried about this at all - Lyanna's calling card symbols are her bed of blood and her roses, and that's how she is represented in Neds dream - we see roses and blood in the sky above the ToJ to let us know that she is there. I highly doubt Martin is thinking "I'll say the room smells like roses to give everyone a clue that she wasn't at the ToJ." It just doesn't add up as a clue - there's absolutely nothing to make us think they can't have roses there. If this was intended to be a clue about Lyanna not being there, we'd get a comment from some minor character about how it's well known that you can't grow roses anywhere near that area or something. But no, instead we learn that the nearby area is a fertile green belt.

It's most likely the case that Lyanna's symbols are blood and roses and so her deathbed smells of blood and roses. It's easy to see the death symbolism of black flowers - the primary purpose here is narrative. She was alive, she had a blue rose crown. Dying, it's blood and black roses for her. 

Also, isn't it one year between the tournament and Lyanna's death? Or is it one year from Harrenhall to abduction, and then another year? Either way, it's not an issue. 

[Ser Leftwich]

 

It's simple, dear Watson: in the text, there are introduced three means of preparing the body for transport: bugs, fire, Silent Sisters. Never, ever, is it mentioned anywhere that someone would traipse along the countryside with a dessicating body. Therefore, the OP's argument that this is what Ned must have done doesn't hold water because there is zero textual support for this and out of those three means mentioned, at least one is relatively quick and easy to arrange. In other words, nope, Ned almost certainly did no such thing because there were other means, less offending to the body, not to mention the noses of those involved, that would solve the problem

To add to this point, we have examples of diseased/plague/sick bodies being burned (Spring Sickness in KL, plague in Pentos.) They do not have a complete grasp of germ theory, so burning a body that died of 'fever' is well within the likely.

Heck, they might have burned her right in the bed, to compromise the wooden inner structure of a tower.

[purple-eyes]

Dried roses have a strong smell, so says the "how to make potpourri" website. They have a list of flowers which have a strong smell when dried - roses are on that list. 

Again, there is absolutely not even an angel's asshair of inconsistency with either dead or live roses at the  ToJ.

Most likely, Martin never even worried about this at all - Lyanna's calling card symbols are her bed of blood and her roses, and that's how she is represented in Neds dream - we see roses and blood in the sky above the ToJ to let us know that she is there. I highly doubt Martin is thinking "I'll say the room smells like roses to give everyone a clue that she wasn't at the ToJ." It just doesn't add up as a clue - there's absolutely nothing to make us think they can't have roses there. If this was intended to be a clue about Lyanna not being there, we'd get a comment from some minor character about how it's well known that you can't grow roses anywhere near that area or something. But no, instead we learn that the nearby area is a fertile green belt.

It's most likely the case that Lyanna's symbols are blood and roses and so her deathbed smells of blood and roses. It's easy to see the death symbolism of black flowers - the primary purpose here is narrative. She was alive, she had a blue rose crown. Dying, it's blood and black roses for her. 

Also, isn't it one year between the tournament and Lyanna's death? Or is it one year from Harrenhall to abduction, and then another year? Either way, it's not an issue. 

Yes, I agree that GRRM did not think too much on this thing. 

It is just a symbol. Even one single rose on the ice wall can fill the air with sweet smell. There is no logic for this type of thing. 

Also the servants in TOJ, or why Ned did not bring Arthur's body to Starfall. or why KG did not use TOJ as shelter to defend from inside (instead they stood in front of it! come on. how silly this is!) 

GRRM really did not think that much.

it is we who thought too much.  

 

Timeline is quite vague. 

Tourney happened in 281. 

Lyanna was found in the end of 283. (Jon was born in the late 283.)

depends on Tourney's exact date, it can be close to three years. Or two years. 

So that rose garland is pretty old. 

 

 

 

 

[wolfmaid7]

Some of you are missing the point conflating arguement and sadly trying to cover this with GRRM not thinking things through.The man when it comes to description is meticulous. 

Ygrain I'm sorry but you can give a dozen ideas about what Ned did with Lyanna's body but you can't give evidence for what's not there.We  know that the kingsguard's and Ned's men died and were buried there because Ned's dream is validated by a detail description of him pulling down the stones then building cairns for them on the ridge.Did anyone hear Ned say anything about removing Lya from that tower before he pulled it down. 

He remembers that yet can't remember what occurred after Lya died when that happened after she died?  Come on now.

[Ygrain]

Ygrain I'm sorry but you can give a dozen ideas about what Ned did with Lyanna's body but you can't give evidence for what's not there.We  know that the kingsguard's and Ned's men died and were buried there because Ned's dream is validated by a detail description of him pulling down the stones then building cairns for them on the ridge.Did anyone hear Ned say anything about removing Lya from that tower before he pulled it down. 

He remembers that yet can't remember what occurred after Lya died when that happened after she died?  Come on now.

Ever heard of shock? Emotional trauma? His beloved sister died right before him, after all he had been through to get to her. I find nothing suspicious about it, and the same goes for him not mentioning every single thing that he did. We are receiving only fragments of his memories, with a lot of omissions. Why pick that he never mentioned what he had done with the body? We don't have any mention of him entering her room, either, yet he apparently must have. We don't have the full conversation with Lyanna, yet no-one finds it weird that we only get "promise me".

[nanother]

Eight bodies, of fully grown men. That would mean at least eight times more fuel than for Lyanna. Plus, we know that Lyanna wanted to be brought home as her deathbed wish, so perhaps it would be better to poise the question not as could and couldn't, but had to and didn't have to.

Fair points, although it seems likely that Ned would have brought his companions home if he could, deathbed wish or not. It's generally assumed that people want to rest at home and/or next to their loved ones. Lady Barbrey is pretty miffed that Ned didn't bring her husband's bones back. Or else that he made an exception with Lyanna. Anyhow, yes, there are many possible scenarios where Lyanna gets back to Winterfell and everyone else gets buried. Lyanna's death being at a different place and time is one of the more straightforward ones, but hardly the only, or even the most likely one.

Perhaps - but in the absence of such clues that would place Lyanna elsewhere, all we are left with is the tower. 

Plus, why keep Lyanna's location a mystery when the main mystery, that she gave birth to Jon, is already revealed?

 I'm not too fussed about not knowing the exact location of Lyanna's death at this point. Still two books to go, and it's still pretty much a mystery who did what in the lead-up to and during the rebellion, why, how that'll impact the present day characters and events, and what it all has to do with the Others. Jon's parentage is just a small (although crucial) part of that. So I couldn't disagree more with the bolded. In particular, I disagree with your assertion as to what the main mystery is

 I don't think it odd. The train of thought is started by Jory's death and his resting place, which leads to his father's resting place. Mentioning Lyanna would have been tangential - it could have been done, but wasn't necessary.

 The train of thought started because Ned was woken from a nightmare about the ToJ fight AND Lyanna literally a few minutes before and it was still occupying his mind. If Lyanna's death was part of the ToJ memory, then she's not tangential. Not anymore than Howland surviving.

To clarify, the oddity is not that Lyanna isn't mentioned. Ned/Martin could just have stopped after stating that it was a bitter memory. We'd seen enough to have a pretty good idea why. Going into specifics after that, but only covering half of the supposed events, raises the possibility that the other half isn't actually part of that memory.

I'm not saying any of this is strong evidence for Lyanna not being in the tower. But it's enough to generate doubt. Depending on how much you trust the app, your might or might not have a reason to believe she was there in the first place. As far as the books go, my understanding is that the appendix puts Lyanna's death to the mountains of Dorne, but that's as specific as it gets. ToJ is a reasonable guess, and the app points towards it being correct, but is not infallible.

Now, Lyanna being in the ToJ in particular is not all that relevant for the OP, but her being in Dorne is. Ned heads south after the sack of KL. I can't see him making a detour to the Riverlands to find Lyanna. He could have done that on the way home, I guess, but that raises further questions - where did he pick up Wylla and how did she end up with the Daynes, what was he doing in Dorne in the first place? Also, how did Ned and Howland's friendship endure him eloping with his sister,getting his brother and father executed and ultimately leading to a war? I'm also confused about the sequence of events after Harrehnal. Did H&L elope right afterwards? How come no-one noticed? It seems to me that there had to have been at least months between HH and the news of Lyanna's kidnapping. Also, I can't see any good reason why Jon should go to Winterfell. Even if they're twins with Meera, it's very far from obviouss how Jon would be safer in WF than at Greywater Watch. A castle that no-one can find and hardly anyone even thinks to look for is as safe as you can get, I think...

[Frey family reunion]

All right sorry for the delay, and I'm not even going to try and respond to any of the individual posts, because I would really like to finish my current train of thought. 

So I left off with the idea that there is an Asshai legend that a father and a son are needed to be sacrificed to wake The Dragon (capitalized emphasis mine), the father first and then the son so both die as kings.  If Aegon V was influenced by the ancient texts of Asshai, I believe that the two kings in question are Aegon V and his eldest son, Duncan the Small.  Now how does this interact with another legend near and dear to the Targaryen family, the Prince that was Promised?

It's evident from both Melisandre and Aemon that the Prince that was Promised is somehow tied into the War for the Dawn.  It's also evident that both Melisandre and Aemon seem to equate the Prince that was Promised with the legend of Azor Ahai reborn.  Melisandre believes the Prince to be promised to be Stannis, and links his tie to salt and smoke to his time at Dragonstone.  Aemon first believes it to be Rhaegar, equating the smoke and salt to the grief over Summerhall, and then comes to believe that the Prince (Princess) to be Daenaerys and notes that Daenerys was literally born amidst salt and smoke at Dragonstone.

But interestingly enough, Aemon also seems to literally equate the idea of TPTWP to dragons:

No one ever looked for a girl,... It was a prince that was promised, not a princess.  Rhaegar, I thought...the smoke that was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died.  He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet.  What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise!  The error crept in from the translation.  Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame.  The language misled us all for a thousand years.  Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke.  The dragons prove it.

I find it interesting that Aemon starts to equate TPTWP with Barth's thoughts on the gender of actual, not figurative, dragons.  Then we have this last little nugget from Aemon:

He (Aemon) said the sphinx was the riddle, not the riddler, whatever that meant.

Here is where things get interesting.  We are introduced to something called a Valyrian Sphinx.  It has the body of a dragon, but the head of a human. 

TPTWP is a legend that has endured for a thousand years.  Dragon riders existed throughout the time that the Maesters or Targaryens have tried to decipher the meaning of TPTWP.  The lack of dragons and dragon riders is a mere blip in the radar of the events of the last thousand years.  So I don't think TPTWP is a mere dragon rider.

I think tying dragons into another form of magic, skin changing, is the key.  A skinchanger's consciousness is transported into the body of another.  Even after the skinchanger dies his consciousness can still exist even in a submerged way in another body.  Think Orell's eagle, and the ravens that contained the consciousnesses of COTF.  I think the riddle of the sphinx, is finding a way for a human consciousness to find a true second life in the form of a dragon.

In fact the Targaryens seem obsessed with this possibility, Aerion drinks wildfire with the belief that he will be reborn as a dragon.  Aerys concocts a plot to burn down King's Landing along with himself under the belief that he will be reborn as a dragon.

My thought is that TPTWP is the third sacrifice, whose consciousness will be come the dominant consciousness of a dragon.

If Rhaegar believed himself to be TPTWP then perhaps this explains his almost psychic connection with Summerhall and with the people that died there.  Perhaps all were supposed to share a consciousness with a dragon which was to have been hatched at Summerhall.  Literally, a dragon with three heads or consciousnesses.

[LmL]

All right sorry for the delay, and I'm not even going to try and respond to any of the individual posts, because I would really like to finish my current train of thought. 

So I left off with the idea that there is an Asshai legend that a father and a son are needed to be sacrificed to wake The Dragon (capitalized emphasis mine), the father first and then the son so both die as kings.  If Aegon V was influenced by the ancient texts of Asshai, I believe that the two kings in question are Aegon V and his eldest son, Duncan the Small.  Now how does this interact with another legend near and dear to the Targaryen family, the Prince that was Promised?

It's evident from both Melisandre and Aemon that the Prince that was Promised is somehow tied into the War for the Dawn.  It's also evident that both Melisandre and Aemon seem to equate the Prince that was Promised with the legend of Azor Ahai reborn.  Melisandre believes the Prince to be promised to be Stannis, and links his tie to salt and smoke to his time at Dragonstone.  Aemon first believes it to be Rhaegar, equating the smoke and salt to the grief over Summerhall, and then comes to believe that the Prince (Princess) to be Daenaerys and notes that Daenerys was literally born amidst salt and smoke at Dragonstone.

But interestingly enough, Aemon also seems to literally equate the idea of TPTWP to dragons:

I find it interesting that Aemon starts to equate TPTWP with Barth's thoughts on the gender of actual, not figurative, dragons.  Then we have this last little nugget from Aemon:

Here is where things get interesting.  We are introduced to something called a Valyrian Sphinx.  It has the body of a dragon, but the head of a human. 

TPTWP is a legend that has endured for a thousand years.  Dragon riders existed throughout the time that the Maesters or Targaryens have tried to decipher the meaning of TPTWP.  The lack of dragons and dragon riders is a mere blip in the radar of the events of the last thousand years.  So I don't think TPTWP is a mere dragon rider.

I think tying dragons into another form of magic, skin changing, is the key.  A skinchanger's consciousness is transported into the body of another.  Even after the skinchanger dies his consciousness can still exist even in a submerged way in another body.  Think Orell's eagle, and the ravens that contained the consciousnesses of COTF.  I think the riddle of the sphinx, is finding a way for a human consciousness to find a true second life in the form of a dragon.

In fact the Targaryens seem obsessed with this possibility, Aerion drinks wildfire with the belief that he will be reborn as a dragon.  Aerys concocts a plot to burn down King's Landing along with himself under the belief that he will be reborn as a dragon.

My thought is that TPTWP is the third sacrifice, whose consciousness will be come the dominant consciousness of a dragon.

If Rhaegar believed himself to be TPTWP then perhaps this explains his almost psychic connection with Summerhall and with the people that died there.  Perhaps all were supposed to share a consciousness with a dragon which was to have been hatched at Summerhall.  Literally, a dragon with three heads or consciousnesses.

Yeah dawg, I feel you now. I've heard someone else talk about the riddle of the Valyrian sphinx having to do with the idea of skinchanging and controlling or creating the dragon bond. (I happen to be one that thinks fire magic and "blood of the dragon" bonding is a mutated / altered form of greenseer magic, just so you know).

I believe it was my good friend Evolett who suggested that when we see an animal head on a human body or vise-verdsa, we are talking about skinchanging, and that when the head is the animal one, it represents the animal being in control, or a failed mastery of the bond; whereas a human head on an animal body represents human mastery or a controlled bond. It's basically like when Jojen cautions Bran not to lose himself in the wolf... Robb didn't master his bond, ignored his wolf, and ended up with the inverted animal head / human body.  

Consider the strengths brought to the table by the person and the animal: the animal is in almost all ways physically superior, while the human has a higher level of intelligence (that doesn't mean "wiser," of course, but rather a "higher level of mental function"). Ergo, the proper balance is to have the human be in control. The Valyrian sphinxes, in this scenario, would seem to symbolize the Valyrians' mastery over the dragonbond, on a basic level. It probably also indicates that to call oneself a true dragon rider, you must truly "skinchange" the dragon, or whatever the fire magic equivalent of that is. We've seen signs of a psychic connection between Drogon and Daenerys, which is one of the things people who equate dragonbonding as a form of skinchanging point at as evidence. I wouldn't be surprised to learn in future books that Dany can mingle her consciousness with the dragon somehow. 

Your idea about a dragon-blooded person dying and becoming the consciousness of a dragon is similar to ideas I've Mithras talk about. He proposed something along of the lines that this is how the dragon bond is created, through blood sacrifice of a would-be "blood of the dragon" person to wake a dragon, with that person's descendants - his bloodline - then able to bond with dragons of that lineage. Instead of reptile dragon blood being inserted into a human, this idea speaks of a human's blood mingling with the dragon's, which sounds similar to what you're proposing. It's also similar to the idea that you have to use human sacrifice to "activate" a weirwood tree... an idea which I'm probably about 50-50 on, fwiw. 

The occasional lizard babies born to Targs would suggest there is reptilian blood in Valyrian blood; however I don't see these ideas as being mutually exclusive by any means. 

This also raises the question of how skinchanging abilities arose. The obvious answer is that it arose with the cotf and was passed to humans via interbreeding... and I suppose the cotf are just psychic like that, and that's all there is to it. So, if dragonbonding is an outgrowth of skinchanging... then cotf or greenseers must have had something to do with creating the blood of the dragon, right? This I think is highly likely. It would also explain why the cotf might take an interest in Targaryens, such as the GoHH and Jennie and Rhaegar, TPTWP, etc. If the LH had dragonsteel, and if he had anything to do with Azor Ahai, we might be talking about dragonlords or dragon-forged swords, fire magic, etc, and the cotf helped the LH as well. There's also the fun little tidbit that in Scandinavian languages, "Nissa" means "helpful / mischievous elf." The "Nissa Man" is the make believe person you blame when something goes missing, and it's wrapped up in the Scandinavian Christmas lore as well. In any case, if there were greenseers or skinchangers messing with fire magic and creating dragonbonding, I would certainly point the finger at Azor Ahai (for many reasons to side-tracky to go into), so the idea he "stabbed" (or impregnated) a helpful elf might be just the right thing. Their son might have been the first dragonlord, some shit like that. 

We've also go the TWOIAF info about Battle Isle, which talks of an accent dragon presence in Westeros in the Dawn Age, and the idea that mariners from far off lands came there before the First men to trade with the cotf. The fused stone fortress there - definitively pre-Long Night and pre-Valyrian - proves that not only were dragons there, but sorcerers who could control them... so again we have a potential for interaction with dragonlords and cotf. I am pretty sure it's a thing. 

Enjoyed your post btw, very nice. But I must ask - was this intended for the heresy thread? Seems like it might have been. 

[J. Stargaryen]

 

Your idea about a dragon-blooded person dying and becoming the consciousness of a dragon is similar to ideas I've Mithras talk about. He proposed something along of the lines that this is how the dragon bond is created, through blood sacrifice of a would-be "blood of the dragon" person to wake a dragon, with that person's descendants - his bloodline - then able to bond with dragons of that lineage. Instead of reptile dragon blood being inserted into a human, this idea speaks of a human's blood mingling with the dragon's, which sounds similar to what you're proposing. It's also similar to the idea that you have to use human sacrifice to "activate" a weirwood tree... an idea which I'm probably about 50-50 on, fwiw.

This actually sounds like the idea I proposed in one of your early threads. Is that what you're thinking of, or did Mithras have a similar idea?

When the Targaryens go around saying they are blood of the dragon, they are right, just not in the way that they mean. The Targaryens do not have dragon blood, it's the the other way around. The dragons have Targaryen "blood." That's the idea, anyway. (Not all dragons mind you, just the ones belonging to them.) By "blood," I mean the first Targaryen-bonded dragon contained the spirit (aka, shade or shadow) of a Targaryen who was sacrificed -- maybe willingly, maybe not -- which resulted in his spirit merging with the dragon, similar to what a skinchanger will try to do when his or her human body dies. Once the human spirit binds with the dragon, which is a form of magic, that imprint will pass along to its children, and its children's children. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Sort of like a magic gene. So, in a manner of speaking, the Targaryens are related to their dragons. They are "blood."

(Maybe the reason, or at least one of the reasons, the Targaryen dragons eventually became sickly and died out is because this process must be renewed every so often, and it hadn't been in a while. Probably not since before the Doom, at least.)

Btw, another way to describe a "spirit merging" in this universe would be, shadow binding. But it's not clear to me if the original dragon lords would have required an actual shadowbinder, or if they were able to accomplish this on their own, the way skinchangers do when they die. If this theory is correct, then the former is likely since Valyrian dragon lords were not skinchangers according to GRRM. Perhaps that skill was lost prior to the rise of Valyria. Maybe around the time of the Bloodstone Betryal.

[LmL]

This actually sounds like the idea I proposed in one of your early threads. Is that what you're thinking of, or did Mithras have a similar idea?

When the Targaryens go around saying they are blood of the dragon, they are right, just not in the way that they mean. The Targaryens do not have dragon blood, it's the the other way around. The dragons have Targaryen "blood." That's the idea, anyway. (Not all dragons mind you, just the ones belonging to them.) By "blood," I mean the first Targaryen-bonded dragon contained the spirit (aka, shade or shadow) of a Targaryen who was sacrificed -- maybe willingly, maybe not -- which resulted in his spirit merging with the dragon, similar to what a skinchanger will try to do when his or her human body dies. Once the human spirit binds with the dragon, which is a form of magic, that imprint will pass along to its children, and its children's children. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Sort of like a magic gene. So, in a manner of speaking, the Targaryens are related to their dragons. They are "blood."

(Maybe the reason, or at least one of the reasons, the Targaryen dragons eventually became sickly and died out is because this process must be renewed every so often, and it hadn't been in a while. Probably not since before the Doom, at least.)

Btw, another way to describe a "spirit merging" in this universe would be, shadow binding. But it's not clear to me if the original dragon lords would have required an actual shadowbinder, or if they were able to accomplish this on their own, the way skinchangers do when they die. If this theory is correct, then the former is likely since Valyrian dragon lords were not skinchangers according to GRRM. Perhaps that skill was lost prior to the rise of Valyria. Maybe around the time of the Bloodstone Betryal.

Yep, seems like I got that confused. You and Mithras have both given me a ton of good comments and ideas... it's easy to get mixed up. Yes, this was the idea I was referring to, I'm glad you saw my comment and clarified. 

In any case, your idea and FreyFamily's idea are quite similar. And wasn't there an extra layer of meaning provided by the idea of Valyrian lemurs, with the word "lemur" meaning "ghost" or "spirits of the dead"? 

One way or the other, it seems like a good possibility that the current form of the dragonbond, "the blood of the dragon," was created by the Bloodstone Emperor Azor Ahai. He seems to have basically twisted and corrupted whatever magic the Great Empire of the Dawn possessed. I suspect his predecessors might have used something more akin to skinchanging / greenseer magic, while the BSE might have invented the dragonbinder horn (psychic rape horn) and / or performed whatever blood magic was needed to create the dragonbond. Perhaps the Amethyst Empress Nissa Nissa was the sacrifice, and that's why her purple eyes descendents can bond with dragons. 

Note: the idea the Azor Ahai = the BSE and the Amethyst Empress = Nissa Nissa is hypothesis, not fact, just to be clear. I am well convinced of these identifications, but they are hypothesis only. 

[Frey family reunion]

Now I want to address the aftermath of Summerhall.  and yes, I stole a huge part of my theory from Ibbison's excellent thread, http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/96492-a-dragonfly-among-the-reeds-is-howland-reed-the-grandson-of-duncan-the-small/

Now for the record, I thought of Howland as a potential father of Jon before I read his theory, but his theory was one of the major inspirations for the bigger picture, along with Wolfmaid's posts about the book's parallels to pagan Beltane rituals.  And yes, just so no one is confused, Ibbison is not on board with making Howland Jon's father.

So what I'll think we'll find is that Jenny of Oldstones escapes Summerhall pregnant with Duncan the Small's child, Howland Reed.  In addition to Ibbison's thread I want to turn to the chapter where the story of Jenny of Oldstones and Duncan the Small are first introduced to the reader:

"There's a song," he remembered.  "Jenny of Oldstones, with the flowers in her hair."

"We're all just songs in the end.  If we are lucky."  She had played at being Jenny that day, had even wound flowers in her hair.  And Petyr had pretended to be her Prince of Dragonflies. 

And while Robb and Catelyn were having this conversation, where were they standing?

Robb studied the sepulcher.  "Whose grave is this?"

"Here lies Tristifer, the Fourth of His Name, King of the Rivers and the Hills,"...With Tristifer the Fifth died House Mudd, that had ruled the riverlands for a thousand years before the Andals came."

So the reader is introduced to Jenny and Duncan the Small while they are standing over the grave of King Mudd IV and discuss the tale of him and his son King Mudd V.

And what are Meera Reed and her brother, Jojen called, along with other crannogmen called?

"Mudmen," answered Little Walder disdainfully.  "They're thieves and cravens, and they have green teeth from eating frogs."

In addition, while standing over the grave of King Mudd, Robb and Catelyn discuss Jon's place in the succession of House Stark.

I think this whole conversation is a hint, Howland and Jon are the father and son whose deaths as "kings"  will wake The Dragon.  This will also tie in with Jon's role as the "Corn King" or the person whose bloodlines are an intersection of a wide variety of the king's blood, and who along with TPTWP are sacrificed to create The Dragon.

[wolfmaid7]

Now I want to address the aftermath of Summerhall.  and yes, I stole a huge part of my theory from Ibbison's excellent thread, http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/96492-a-dragonfly-among-the-reeds-is-howland-reed-the-grandson-of-duncan-the-small/

Now for the record, I thought of Howland as a potential father of Jon before I read his theory, but his theory was one of the major inspirations for the bigger picture, along with Wolfmaid's posts about the book's parallels to pagan Beltane rituals.  And yes, just so no one is confused, Ibbison is not on board with making Howland Jon's father.

So what I'll think we'll find is that Jenny of Oldstones escapes Summerhall pregnant with Duncan the Small's child, Howland Reed.  In addition to Ibbison's thread I want to turn to the chapter where the story of Jenny of Oldstones and Duncan the Small are first introduced to the reader:

And while Robb and Catelyn were having this conversation, where were they standing?

So the reader is introduced to Jenny and Duncan the Small while they are standing over the grave of King Mudd IV and discuss the tale of him and his son King Mudd V.

And what are Meera Reed and her brother, Jojen called, along with other crannogmen called?

In addition, while standing over the grave of King Mudd, Robb and Catelyn discuss Jon's place in the succession of House Stark.

I think this whole conversation is a hint, Howland and Jon are the father and son whose deaths as "kings"  will wake The Dragon.  This will also tie in with Jon's role as the "Corn King" or the person whose bloodlines are an intersection of a wide variety of the king's blood, and who along with TPTWP are sacrificed to create The Dragon.

Good to see you FFR.I haven't seen this part or i may have missed it.It might be in Ibbson's essay which i haven't read yet,but did he cover anything substantial that indicated that Jenny did survive? 

I'm more in favor of "the blood" aspect of these things vs the name ever since GRRM's quote about the heads of the Dragon need not be all Targs.I could see the point of it being blood vs name,from TPATQ we got introduced to how much the Targ royalty mingled their blood.

 

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Good to see you FFR.I haven't seen this part or i may have missed it.It might be in Ibbson's essay which i haven't read yet,but did he cover anything substantial that indicated that Jenny did survive? 

 

ADAtR does not speculate about whether Jenny survived Summerhall. I consider it possible - Tom's song in the epilogue of ASoS might imply that she survived, but went mad.

High in the halls of the kings who are gone, Jenny would dance with her ghosts . . .

I strongly doubt she was pregnant - she would have been close to 40 years old at the time.

 

Many thanks to FFR for the kind words about ADAtR, and also for the disclaimer about my position on his theory. That's a perfect example of how to disagree but still be respectful, and I will attempt to live up to his standard.

My post back on page 5 of this thread covers my opinion of Mel's attempted sacrifices. comment=7397079 (Damn, I miss the post numbers in the old system.) The possible link between House Mudd and the crannogmen in covered in ADAtR. The scene at the grave of Tristifer IV, however, seems to be foreshadowing of Robb's death, with Grey Wind trying and failing to clue Robb in about the warning. (Here's the text.)

The lid of the sepulcher had been carved into a likeness of the man whose bones lay beneath, but the rain and the wind had done their work. The king had worn a beard, they could see, but otherwise his face was smooth and featureless, with only vague suggestions of a mouth, a nose, eyes, and the crown about the temples. His hands folded over the shaft of a stone warhammer that lay upon his chest. Once the warhammer would have been carved with runes that told its name and history, but all that the centuries had worn away. The stone itself was cracked and crumbling at the comers, discolored here and there by spreading white splotches of lichen, while wild roses crept up over the king’s feet almost to his chest. 

Tristifer, like Robb, won all his battles but the last. Like Robb, he wears crown and beard. The roses entwining Tristifer are wild roses, however, not blue winter roses as they would be if this was a reference to Jon. Wild roses have a very specific and well established symbolic meaning. (Spoilered for length.)

Wikipedia - Sub Rosa

The Latin phrase sub rosa means "under the rose" and is used in English to denote secrecy or confidentiality, similar to the Chatham House Rule. The rose as a symbol of secrecy has an ancient history.

History

Paintings of roses on the ceilings of Roman banquet rooms were also a reminder that things said under the influence of wine (sub vino) should also remain sub rosa.[3]

In the Middle Ages a rose suspended from the ceiling of a council chamber similarly pledged all present (those under the rose) to secrecy.[4]

In Christian symbolism, the phrase "sub rosa" has a special place in confessions. Pictures of five-petalled roses were often carved on confessionals, indicating that the conversations would remain secret. The phrase has also been understood to make reference to the mysterious virginal conception of Christ.

The rose is also an esoteric symbol of Rosicrucianism which was often considered to be a secret society or brotherhood.

In the 16th century, the symbol of Henry VIII of England was the stylised Tudor dynasty rose. A large image of the rose covered the ceiling of the private chamber where decisions of state were made in secret.

In current times, the term is used by the Scottish Government for a specific series of "off the record" meetings.[4]

and (this next part came from the FTD Florist site, IIRC)

Long a symbol of love and passion, the ancient Greeks and Romans associated roses with Aphrodite and Venus, goddesses of love. Used for hundreds of years to convey messages without words, they also represent confidentiality. In fact, the Latin expression "sub rosa"(literally, "under the rose") means something told in secret, and in ancient Rome, a wild rose was placed on the door to a room where confidential matters were being discussed.

Wild roses appear three times in ASoIaF - Chett's Boquet (ASoS prologue) Aegon's Garden, ASoS - (Davos II) and Trister Mudd's Tomb (ASoS - Catelyn V). All involve conspiracies, either present or future.