Tyrion Targaryen?

[hallam]

14 hours ago, Woman of War said:

A bit off topic but: actually I never understood why Rhaegar had to "run off" with Lyanna if he felt the need of another child as third head. He could have chosen any young and hopefully fertile woman without choosing the fiancée of another Lord. Did he need Lyanna? Did he make use of her being in love with him?

 So maybe the main reason was not that he wanted another child but that he and Lyanna simply wanted each other and another child  would have been ok on top. In that case: why was a 23 year old prince so unreasonable to run off? As unreasonable as the 14 year old girl n love. Rhaegar might have known what would happen.

Sorry but being an intellectual prince and risking war over a pretty face is just not credible, just as the story of Paris and Helena is not credible, there was a power game behind it. Yes yes, I am questioning one of the story's basic assumptions, I know. But a prince acting like a fourteen year old in love was just too dumb, anything would have been less damaging politically than "running off".

Meaning there must be more to it, I did not buy the whole story when I read it for the first time and I do not buy it now, something is off. Jon is most likely the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna. But the damage could not have been bigger if Rhaegar as prince had openly forced Robert to  step back and had taken Lyanna as wife, she for sure would have agreed and Daddy Stark was the crown's subject.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. There must be something more to it.

Virtually the only thing we are told about Rheagar and Lyanna is that they are paragons of virtue. They are not a pair of millennials hooking up on Tinder. They are living in a world where sexual infidelity by the elite can lead to tens of thousands of people dead. Jamie and Cersei's incest causes the war of the five kings. A plot that makes the two heroes of the backstory no better than them is rubbish.

There are lots of boosters for the theory on this site. But that doesn't mean they are right. 

Let me tell you about a colleague of mine. A while back he developed a program that solved a problem in computer science in a new way. Or rather instead of solving couple of problems that had been holding people back, he pointed out that they weren't really important after all and not solving them allowed the system to work much better and make it scale. Well he was laughed at and the paper he wrote was rejected by the main conference in the field because he was completely wrong, everyone 'knew that'.

His name was Tim Berners-Lee and you are using the system he invented, the World Wide Web.

[hallam]

15 hours ago, sj4iy said:

What people believe will happen to Shireen ≠ what people believe will happen to Jon.  We've had much, much more evidence regarding Jon's past and his possible future than we've had about Shireen- because he's one of the main characters with the most POV chapters and Shireen is a tertiary character without any POV chapters who rarely gets mentioned by the POV characters around her.  Her future is a lot more fluid than Jon's, and people are going to have more wiggle room to debate.  What you have suggested about Jon's parentage just can't work.  Sorry, but it can't.  The text precludes it, the show hasn't set it up at all, and yet you demand that we pay attention because you are the only one smart enough to have worked it out and insult others for criticizing your arguments for not making any sense.

Elia was unable to bear any other children.  That's a fact that you keep trying to ignore, but the text mentions it over and over and over again.  In fact, it's part of the evidence for Rhaegar and Lyanna running off together because he believed the dragon needed three heads.  Without something, somewhere, in the books or the show to suggest that she could have, and in fact did, bear Rhaegar another child, your argument has no ground to stand upon.

 

No, I don't find the evidence at all convincing on that point. The text does not mention it 'over and over'. We are told Elia was 'always fragile' but she had at least two children. The claim that she was unable to bear any more children comes from a character whose name is JonCon. I am sorry but I do not find 'evidence; from a character called 'I am going to tell lies about Jon' to be remotely credible, quite the opposite.

I have pointed this out repeatedly. I have not ignored the point at all. I find the fact that the character is called Connington to indicate he is there to insert a red herring. JonCon does not have first hand knowledge. 

There are problems with every theory. Now that it is well established that appearance is mutable, the only problem with R+E=J is the statement about her health from Jon"I a complete"Con.

The problems with R+L=J are that Rheagar and Lyanna have to be adulterers or worse. They are to blame for a war that destroys both their houses. Ned finds Lyanna at the ToJ but it is pretty obvious that would be a bad place to remain for long. So where are they headed? Given the ToJ location, the logical place is some fast in Dorne but why expect a welcome for Lyanna or Jon there when Rheagar had deserted Elia? Surely Dorne would be the last place to hide?

Why would Ned take Lyanna's child in those circumstances let alone take him as her own and build a monument for her? It only makes sense to a 21st century sensibility.

And most important of all, why does R+L=J even matter? Jon would still be a bastard as far as the Iron Throne is concerned. 

There is really only one way that Jon can be the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne and that is if he is the son of Rheagar and his wife Elia. So either he is the real Aegon or there is a child whose birth is kept secret for some reason.

Once you realize that Jon has to be legitimate for the secret of his birth to matter, there is only one answer that works. Of course there has to be disinformation to put people off the trail. But it is clearly flagged as such.

[sj4iy]

35 minutes ago, hallam said:

No, I don't find the evidence at all convincing on that point. The text does not mention it 'over and over'. We are told Elia was 'always fragile' but she had at least two children. The claim that she was unable to bear any more children comes from a character whose name is JonCon. I am sorry but I do not find 'evidence; from a character called 'I am going to tell lies about Jon' to be remotely credible, quite the opposite.

I have pointed this out repeatedly. I have not ignored the point at all. I find the fact that the character is called Connington to indicate he is there to insert a red herring. JonCon does not have first hand knowledge. 

There are problems with every theory. Now that it is well established that appearance is mutable, the only problem with R+E=J is the statement about her health from Jon"I a complete"Con.

The problems with R+L=J are that Rheagar and Lyanna have to be adulterers or worse. They are to blame for a war that destroys both their houses. Ned finds Lyanna at the ToJ but it is pretty obvious that would be a bad place to remain for long. So where are they headed? Given the ToJ location, the logical place is some fast in Dorne but why expect a welcome for Lyanna or Jon there when Rheagar had deserted Elia? Surely Dorne would be the last place to hide?

Why would Ned take Lyanna's child in those circumstances let alone take him as her own and build a monument for her? It only makes sense to a 21st century sensibility.

And most important of all, why does R+L=J even matter? Jon would still be a bastard as far as the Iron Throne is concerned. 

There is really only one way that Jon can be the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne and that is if he is the son of Rheagar and his wife Elia. So either he is the real Aegon or there is a child whose birth is kept secret for some reason.

Once you realize that Jon has to be legitimate for the secret of his birth to matter, there is only one answer that works. Of course there has to be disinformation to put people off the trail. But it is clearly flagged as such.

Wow, really?  You can't see why Ned, who loved his sister very much, would bury her in the crypts with the rest of the Stark ancestors and then raise her orphaned child as his own?  Seriously?  How does it make MORE sense for him to raise a child that isn't related to him by blood and take him away from his Dornish relatives when he was literally right in Dorne?  It doesn't.

Of course, this conversation probably won't matter whatsoever in a few weeks since it looks like we will finally get the confirmation we've been waiting for for 20 years, so I refuse to keep beating a dead horse.

[Baelor_the_Blessed]

41 minutes ago, hallam said:

And most important of all, why does R+L=J even matter? Jon would still be a bastard as far as the Iron Throne is concerned. 

There is really only one way that Jon can be the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne and that is if he is the son of Rheagar and his wife Elia. So either he is the real Aegon or there is a child whose birth is kept secret for some reason.

Once you realize that Jon has to be legitimate for the secret of his birth to matter, there is only one answer that works. Of course there has to be disinformation to put people off the trail. But it is clearly flagged as such.

Just tossing an idea out there. What if Rheagar and Lyana had secretly eloped prior to Rhaegar marrying Elia? You guys know the back story a lot better than I do. Is that possible? 

[sj4iy]

1 minute ago, Darren Allen said:

Just tossing an idea out there. What if Rheagar and Lyana had secretly eloped prior to Rhaegar marrying Elia? You guys know the back story a lot better than I do. Is that possible? 

Yes, it's possible.  The Targaryens have practiced polygamy in the past, but more importantly,  the Kingsguard are guarding a tower, long after the death of Rhaegar, in the middle of nowhere despite the fact that their 'king' (Viserys) needs them.  If Jon is legitimate (as in Rhaegar and Lyanna were married), then he would be the true heir to the Targaryen throne over Viserys, and therefore, it would make sense that the Kingsguard refuse to leave the tower to go to him.

[hallam]

9 hours ago, sj4iy said:

Yes, it's possible.  The Targaryens have practiced polygamy in the past, but more importantly,  the Kingsguard are guarding a tower, long after the death of Rhaegar, in the middle of nowhere despite the fact that their 'king' (Viserys) needs them.  If Jon is legitimate (as in Rhaegar and Lyanna were married), then he would be the true heir to the Targaryen throne over Viserys, and therefore, it would make sense that the Kingsguard refuse to leave the tower to go to him.

Game of Thrones is many things. One thing it is not is a tale of how Westeros came to embrace 21st century notions of poly.

Jon has to be legitimate and a secret polygamous marriage does not count. Jon would not recognize a marriage like that as legitimate. Once you recognize Jon is legitimate there are only two possibilities, R+E=J and B+L=J 'Bob'.

In the Robert + Lyanna scenario you have to posit that there was a northern wedding between Robert and Lyanna by a weir wood tree and Jon is the result. It does not work with the timings developed for R+L=J but those assume the conclusion and work back.

The big problem with B+L is that it makes Ned a complete jerk for hiding Jon from Robert.

If you find Wierwood tree wedding far fetched, the idea of a poly wedding is even sillier. It would make Robert's rebellion justified. 

[sj4iy]

9 hours ago, hallam said:

Game of Thrones is many things. One thing it is not is a tale of how Westeros came to embrace 21st century notions of poly.

Jon has to be legitimate and a secret polygamous marriage does not count. Jon would not recognize a marriage like that as legitimate. Once you recognize Jon is legitimate there are only two possibilities, R+E=J and B+L=J 'Bob'.

In the Robert + Lyanna scenario you have to posit that there was a northern wedding between Robert and Lyanna by a weir wood tree and Jon is the result. It does not work with the timings developed for R+L=J but those assume the conclusion and work back.

The big problem with B+L is that it makes Ned a complete jerk for hiding Jon from Robert.

If you find Wierwood tree wedding far fetched, the idea of a poly wedding is even sillier. It would make Robert's rebellion justified. 

Quit acting like I'm bringing up modern sensibilities, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I'm using the actual text itself.  Aegon the Conquerer, the first Targaryen king, married both of his sisters.

The Isle of Faces was close enough for Rhaegar and Lyanna to travel to if they married in a Northern ceremony.  There was never any 'Robert + Lyanna' and I never brought it up.  Strawman argument, but I will answer anyway.  No, Ned would have never hidden Jon from Robert if Jon were truly his son by Lyanna.  But that wasn't even a possibility because Robert was fighting a war while Lyanna was hidden in Dorne with Rhaegar.

I don't find the idea of a northern wedding farfetched at all, given their vicinity to the Isle of Faces.  Nor do I find a polygamous marriage farfetched either, given that Rhaegar was obsessed with prophecy and could have very well been trying to 'recreate' Aegon and his sister wives.

[Visenya the Dragon]

On 5/2/2016 at 1:56 AM, if it please m'lord said:

Did anyone else feel that tonight's episode pretty much laid the foundation for the Tyrion-is-a-Targaryen theory? 

I, for one, am a complete believer! And this episode confirmed it to me. 

I agree. They have been setting this up for so long.( the way Tywin talked about Tyrion, and treated him.would not give him Casterly Rock because he sleeps with whores. But Tywin was found with a whore when he died.The show is not going to flat out say it. They give hints and clues. We just might get a flashback about it.

Dragons are wild and to think you can walk up to a dragon and talk to it just because Tyrion thinks it's because they are intelligent. (They are. But not my point)That goes against everything we know about dragons. Dany can only ride one. So she can only tame one. Tyrion will help her cause he knows everything about dragons. Which will help him ride one. But there has to be a blood bond as well.

Or is Martin messing with us and "Blood of the Dragon"  means nothing.

[Vastet]

I've actually been of the opinion that Jamie and Cersei are Targs, and Tyrion is Tywin's only true son. The irony in that is just too perfect.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Yes, the show has pretty much confirmed it while Martin sits there and continues to let Beinoff and Weiss spoil his lifelong work.

[Tianzi]

21 hours ago, Vastet said:

I've actually been of the opinion that Jamie and Cersei are Targs, and Tyrion is Tywin's only true son. The irony in that is just too perfect.

Tywin married his cousin, so he and Tyrion would be related anyway (not to mention theories that Tyrion is a chimera), so Tyrion being so similar to Tywin is still plausible.

[ununsullied]

On 2 May 2016 at 9:44 PM, Direwight said:

It didn't really make sense to me why Tyrion wasn't eaten/roasted? It makes sense that they wouldn't eat Missandei because obviously she's "family" and she was around them for a long time. But they've never seen Tyrion before, and especially not seen him with their mother.

To be fair, we've never seen them attack anyone who was approaching them peacefully. The slaver fed to them wouldn't count since they could be smart enough to realize he was given to them to eat. But still, they were locked up specifically because they (or at least Drogon) were eating things they weren't supposed to, which to me seems to be rather at odds with the idea that simply being friendly and unthreatening is enough to allow you to walk into their lair and touch them, regardless of intelligence? I guess we can assume Tyrion is smart enough that he at least made sure that they were very well fed first.

Tyrion went to see them because they were refusing to eat, so they can't have been well fed.  - I was so excited to see this scene. He's going to ride the smallest dragon. 

Jon always comes back - Jon came back

You're not my son! - He's not his son

[Vastet]

""Tywin married his cousin, so he and Tyrion would be related anyway (not to mention theories that Tyrion is a chimera), so Tyrion being so similar to Tywin is still plausible."

But it has a completely different impact on the succession of the Lannister children. If Tyrion is not Tywin's son, then Tyrion is not entitled to inherit under any circumstances. If Tyrion is Tywin's ONLY child, then unless he dies only he can inherit Casterly Rock. It has nothing to do with how similar they are or aren't.

[dornishdragon]

I think it can go both ways. 

There are some evidence that Tyrion is a Targaryen in the books.

- His hair is described as pale blond, almost white, similar to the Targaryens with some darker hairs that may come from Betha Blackwood or even Myriah Martell. 

-Twyin says that he cannot prove Tyrion is not his son. Also repetadly he said that he is not his son and refuses to give him Casterly Rock as he should. Since Tyrion's birth he was always mistreat by Twyin because supposedly he killed his love. In my opinion this is obviously excessive even with all the love that Twyin might have had for Joanna. 

- Twyin tried to resign as hand in the anniversary tourney in Kings Landing after Aerys comments to Joanna asking her if nursing her children had ruined her beasts. Around one year after this Tyrion was born. Maybe some more happened during that night. 

-In the books Tyrion is described having one green eye (Lannister like) and other one black. Maybe there's a chance that black eye could be a very dark purple eye. Still the dark eye could be explained by Betha Blackwood or Myriah Martell. 

-Tyrion since his childhood loves dragons and have dragon dreams. Could it be a signal of his Targaryen ancestry? Specially when in this episode he actually touches a dragon. 

- His bookish nature resembles somehow Rhaegar Targaryen and his love of whores resembles Aerys early years. 

Evidence against A+J=T 

- Tyrion's rulling ability is similar to Twyin. 

- His aunt Genna says that Tyrion is Twyin's only true son not Jaime. 

- It could be a good metaphor if Jaime and Cersei rather than Tyrion are Aerys children because it could mean that the only thing that Twyin was able to create was a dwarf rather than two beautiful twins.

 

 

[hallam]

On 6/18/2016 at 0:21 PM, dornishdragon said:

- It could be a good metaphor if Jaime and Cersei rather than Tyrion are Aerys children because it could mean that the only thing that Twyin was able to create was a dwarf rather than two beautiful twins.

Particularly if it was Tywin's jealousy that made him think that Tyrion was by Aerys and gave Joanna the moon tea that killed her and dwarfed Tyrion. So like Theon, he ends up killing (or trying to kill) his own son.

I think that in the books it will turn out that the prophecy had a lot to do with the actions of all the players in Robert's rebellion.

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

On 05/05/2016 at 0:06 AM, Writhen said:

1. Tyrion is 100% Lannister, being the son of Joanna and Tywin. Them being cousins led to physical defect (dwarfism).

2. Jaime and Cersei are Joanna and the mad king Aerys' children. They are half targs and that's why they are incestuous.

3. When full targs do targs, instead of physical defect they get mental defect (insanity) as a possible trait.

4. Thus both Jaime (Aerys) and Tyrion (Tywin) committed patricide.

Then why did Tywin Lannister shout at Tyrion just before dying “YOU ARE NOT MY SON!!” WHY?… None is possible! That’s impossible! How? Jamie and Cercei?ooh please!

Why did Tywin love Jamie and Cercei more than Tyrion? 

[Slaysman]

On 7/6/2016 at 10:41 AM, Being Daenerys Targaryen said:

Then why did Tywin Lannister shout at Tyrion just before dying “YOU ARE NOT MY SON!!” WHY?… None is possible! That’s impossible! How? Jamie and Cercei?ooh please!

 

Why did Tywin love Jamie and Cercei more than Tyrion? 

What else would you say to a son that just shot you? You people really read to much into things.