Tyrion Targaryen?

[hallam]

1 hour ago, RhaeBee said:

Why did Elia leave Jon behind? And why would Lyanna be charged with protecting him of all people? And why would he be taken to the Tower of Joy instead of off to a save place like Viserys and Daenerys from Dragonstone? The King's Guard members at the Tower of Joy did not arrive after the sack of King's Landing, they were never at the sack of King's Landing or the battle of Trident, they were at the Tower of Joy all along, hence there was also nothing for them to survive.

It isn't clear where the knights have come from or that they all came from the same place. 

Lyanna would be the obvious person to care for Jon because a woman with a child would be a lot less suspicious than five heavily armed knights. I suspect that in the books we will see some intervention of a red priest and the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. So the baby would look like Lyanna. Fake Aegon being the other child by Ashara Dayne and Benjen Stark. why else introduce that switch in the books? GRRM has to get round Jon's Stark appearance. The show has taken a different route, showing that the red priests can change appearance in other ways.

Jon would be at the ToJ because it is on the way to Dorne which is the obvious place to take him if he was Elia's son. 

There is a whole slew of events that is explained by R+E = J that R+L leaves open. For example why does Ashara jump off the tower or disappear? Why does Ned take Dawn back in person?

And no, being a bastard would be completely unacceptable to the High Sparrow et al.

If R+L=J then Jon would be the surviving Stark, legitimized by Robb and the rightful King in the North. Why bother to seek the Iron Throne at all? He would not have a legitimate claim on that as Rheagar was dead before he was born and Aegon certainly didn't legitimize him.

[Tadco26]

2 hours ago, sj4iy said:

Tywin, who had always hated Tyrion for what he was and what it meant for his family, tells him that he's not his son after Tyrion has just shot him with a crossbow.

I don't think there are any subtle clues to glean from that statement.  It's straight up Tywin disowning him for killing him.  If Tywin had ever thought for one moment that Tyrion wasn't truly his son, Tyrion would have been dead long ago.

Exactly.

When Tywin names Tyrion Hand of the King, Tyrion asks:

"Why me?" he asked, cocking his head to one side. "Why not my uncle? Why not Ser Addam or Ser Flement or Lord Serrett? Why not a... bigger man?"

Lord Tywin rose abruptly. "You are my son."

The whole book "evidence" for Tyrion being Targaryen hinges around Barristan Selmy saying this to Dany:

When she and Tywin wed, your father drank too much wine at the wedding feast and was heard to say that it was a great pity that the lord’s right to the first night had been abolished. A drunken jape, no more, but Tywin Lannister was not a man to forget such words, or the . . . the liberties your father took during the bedding.”

Of course if "liberties" at the bedding literally meant they had sex, then the comment about abolishing the lord's rights wouldn't be a drunken jape.  This suggests Aerys was very hands on in the undressing leading up to the bedding, but nothing more.  And Tyrion is the 3rd born, so even if sex did happen then, it wouldn't be Tyrion who would be conceived by the encounter.  If Tyrion ended up being a Targaryen, there is no way Tywin knew it.  Tywin's sister also points out that Tyrion, not Jaime is the son more like Tywin.

[RhaenysBee]

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Truly the most bizarre allegation I’ve seen in quite some time here, and there's never been a shortage of those.

I'm sorry, but if I go to an event and dress up as a knight and fight three people it's enough to make me a knight? No, it's not. Playing dress up and taking a false identity to teach three people a lesson doesn't make anybody a knight and that's what Lyanna did. Brienne on the other hand was anointed by Renly, she lived her life as a knight, she served a king then a lady. 

52 minutes ago, hallam said:

So Lyanna was not a knight. Only she was a knight in the tournament. 

Make up your mind.

What is the point of the laughing tree story if not to indicate that Lyanna was capable of fighting as a knight? Arya and Brienne both represent different sides of Lyanna's personality. Arya more so than Brienne of course.

If Lyanna was capable of fighting as a knight, why dismiss the possibility Rheagar would make her one?

See above. Dressing up as a knight and fighting doesn't make you a knight. You know, wearing an armor doesn't make you a knight, any idiot can buy armor. 

And there is no proof that Lyanna was the knight of the laughing tree. And even if she was, that doesn't indicate Rhaegar would make her one. He may have, it is not impossible, but that is still nothing against r+l=j and even less for r+e=j which doesn't make any sense on any level.

 

41 minutes ago, hallam said:

It isn't clear where the knights have come from or that they all came from the same place. 

Lyanna would be the obvious person to care for Jon because a woman with a child would be a lot less suspicious than five heavily armed knights. I suspect that in the books we will see some intervention of a red priest and the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. So the baby would look like Lyanna. Fake Aegon being the other child by Ashara Dayne and Benjen Stark. why else introduce that switch in the books? GRRM has to get round Jon's Stark appearance. The show has taken a different route, showing that the red priests can change appearance in other ways.

Jon would be at the ToJ because it is on the way to Dorne which is the obvious place to take him if he was Elia's son. 

There is a whole slew of events that is explained by R+E = J that R+L leaves open. For example why does Ashara jump off the tower or disappear? Why does Ned take Dawn back in person?

And no, being a bastard would be completely unacceptable to the High Sparrow et al.

If R+L=J then Jon would be the surviving Stark, legitimized by Robb and the rightful King in the North. Why bother to seek the Iron Throne at all? He would not have a legitimate claim on that as Rheagar was dead before he was born and Aegon certainly didn't legitimize him.

It isn't clear but it's clear they were neither at the sack of KL, nor at the Trident, see Ned's dialogue with Arthur Dayne. 

A baby swap is entirely possible and likely, but does nothing for the theory that Jon is Elia's son. 

And I still have no answer to why Jon would end up with Ned Stark, how and why Lyanna died. 

How on god's earth does Jon being Elia's son explain why Ashara jumped off the tower and Ned obviously took back dawn personally, because he was a man of honor and respected Arthur Dayne and his family heirloom, and thought the Dayne family deserves its return in person, he also had a massive crush on Ashara, as we are informed. 

What does the high sparrow have to do with anything? 

Who said there was going to be a king in the north? Who said Jon will claim the iron throne? Who said Daenerys can't legitimize Jon? 

so basically the whole theory is based on your idea that Jon has to be a legitimate son to begin with to have a claim on the Iron Throne and that the only way for him to be legitimate is to be Elia's son. And then you had to do something about Lyanna, so she would be a knight to Rhaegar and transport around Jon before she commits suicide for no reason, and Jon would be conceived literally within weeks after Aegon's birth, abandoned by his mother for no reason and taken in by Eddard Stark for no reason and glamoured to look like a Stark because there aren't enough bastards in Dorne among whom he could be hidden. And somehow even Ashara dayne's suicide fits into this whole idea. That surely makes more sense than Jon being either Lyanna's or Ashara's or Wylla's son. 

[lojzelote]

12 hours ago, Newstar said:

I have no doubt that if Tyrion is a Targ in the books, he will be one in the show. If he were a second-tier or third-tier character, who cares? However, Tyrion is one of the most important characters in the series. He is arguably THE most important character. The show is not going to change his parentage from what it is in the books.

I agree that there has been ample support for R+L=J in the show: Stannis expressing doubt that Ned was the type of man to cheat, Oberyn characterizing Rhaegar as running off with another woman, Littlefinger's thoughtful face when Sansa says that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna and raped her, etc. etc. The setup started a while ago. Joanna, on the other hand, has never even been mentioned by name in the show, let alone Aerys having a thing for her. If the show was going to reveal Tyrion being a Targ, given that he is the closest thing the show has to a main character, wouldn't they have dropped some hints by now? I mean, even if Varys is blown away by Tyrion's dragontaming, what's he going to do, sit Tyrion down next episode and be all "LOL, turns out you're a Targ, I guess Aerys raped your mom"? This season is definitely letting the revelations fly fast and furious, but come on.

With all that said...GRRM made a silly comment about Tyrion flying years ago on Livejournal. If you assume that Jon, Dany and Tyrion are going to be the three dragonriders and form a trinity of sorts, it would be weird for two of them to be Targs and one of them to be a non-Targ. Mucks up the symmetry a bit, and GRRM like any writer loves his symmetry.

With respect to Nettles, she inarguably tamed Sheepstealer using food bribes. However, I thought she was supposed to be a dragonseed. Nettles is described as such in the list of the dragons in TWOIAF ("A wild dragon tamed by a dragonseed"). Was it just that everyone in Westeros assumed she must be a dragonseed because she tamed the dragon, or was it in fact confirmed that she was a dragonseed? Because if it's the latter, then I don't think there would be any instances in ASOIAF history of a non-Targ taming a dragon (which would bode well for the Tyrion Targ theory if Tyrion IS in fact going to ride one). If it's the former, then that clears the way for a non-Targ to tame a dragon in the books.

Assuming Nettles had Targ blood, it seemed from the dragonseed stuff that having Targ blood was a necessary but not sufficient condition for riding dragons (in the books, anyway). You needed to have Targ blood, but the mere fact of having Targ blood wouldn't suffice, which is why Nettles succeeded using food bribes. Thus many dragonseeds died trying to tame dragons.

A bit off topic, but I've always found it passing strange that Nettles is singled out as the dragonseed of dubious Targaryen ancestry.

I guess that people missed Brown Ben Plumm, the Black Pearl of Braavos, the Sand Snakes and the Martells.

Targaryen descendants can have dark skin!

I'd undestand it if people doubted the ancestry of the Two Betrayers as well (because they really only could have had silver hair because one of their ancestors was a Lysene sailor or something like that), but it's always only Nettles. Duh, maybe GRRM just wanted to put in a character of color? Kind of like one of Aegon the Unworthy's mistresses is black.

[hallam]

2 hours ago, RhaeBee said:

I'm sorry, but if I go to an event and dress up as a knight and fight three people it's enough to make me a knight? No, it's not. Playing dress up and taking a false identity to teach three people a lesson doesn't make anybody a knight and that's what Lyanna did. Brienne on the other hand was anointed by Renly, she lived her life as a knight, she served a king then a lady. 

See above. Dressing up as a knight and fighting doesn't make you a knight. You know, wearing an armor doesn't make you a knight, any idiot can buy armor. 

And there is no proof that Lyanna was the knight of the laughing tree. And even if she was, that doesn't indicate Rhaegar would make her one. He may have, it is not impossible, but that is still nothing against r+l=j and even less for r+e=j which doesn't make any sense on any level.

 

It isn't clear but it's clear they were neither at the sack of KL, nor at the Trident, see Ned's dialogue with Arthur Dayne. 

A baby swap is entirely possible and likely, but does nothing for the theory that Jon is Elia's son. 

And I still have no answer to why Jon would end up with Ned Stark, how and why Lyanna died. 

How on god's earth does Jon being Elia's son explain why Ashara jumped off the tower and Ned obviously took back dawn personally, because he was a man of honor and respected Arthur Dayne and his family heirloom, and thought the Dayne family deserves its return in person, he also had a massive crush on Ashara, as we are informed. 

What does the high sparrow have to do with anything? 

Who said there was going to be a king in the north? Who said Jon will claim the iron throne? Who said Daenerys can't legitimize Jon? 

so basically the whole theory is based on your idea that Jon has to be a legitimate son to begin with to have a claim on the Iron Throne and that the only way for him to be legitimate is to be Elia's son. And then you had to do something about Lyanna, so she would be a knight to Rhaegar and transport around Jon before she commits suicide for no reason, and Jon would be conceived literally within weeks after Aegon's birth, abandoned by his mother for no reason and taken in by Eddard Stark for no reason and glamoured to look like a Stark because there aren't enough bastards in Dorne among whom he could be hidden. And somehow even Ashara dayne's suicide fits into this whole idea. That surely makes more sense than Jon being either Lyanna's or Ashara's or Wylla's son. 

 

Oh you just don't get how books like this are put together. do you? As an unseen character, Lyanna can do surprising things but only from the established repertoire of what is possible for characters of that type. So Arya and Brienne both establish possibilities for Lyanna. Denying that Lyanna was the knight of the Laughing Tree or that she could have become a knight undr Rheagar is just being obtuse.

In the books, the mechanism would be a swap of the children and a glamor spell to make Jon look Stark and (Rickard/Ned/Benjen)/Ashara's child look Targarean. It was meant to be a temporary thing but when Lyanna hears of the murder of Elia and her other children she commits suicide to keep the spell going in perpetuity and to escape from Robert who she now considers a monster.

Ned arrives inside the ToJ to find the room literally filled with blood and Lyanna dying. That explains all the circumstances of the fever dream and the reason that Ned builds the tomb for Lyanna as well as Rickard and Brandon. Ned then returns to Dawnstar with Jon. Ashara fakes her suicide and runs away with the Stark child who now looks Targ and who appears some time after as fake Aegon.

Hence Ned says to Jon, 'you are of my blood'.

The show has done away with fake Aegon and also the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. I predicted that the lack of one would mean the lak of the other. But the show doesn't need to explain why Jon looks Stark, nor can it allow for Jon to be reborn looking Targarean.

This is also consistent with Jon's dream in which he is not a Stark.

R+L=J only provides an explanation for one part of the backstory. It does not explain anything else. R+E explains pretty much the entire backstory. The only thing missing is Rheagar's motive for concealing the birth of a third son. And  I believe that will be explained when we hear the prophecy that motivated Rheagar and Aerys. I suspect it also led Jamie to sit on the Iron throne after killing Aerys.

[Clariana]

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

A bit off topic, but I've always found it passing strange that Nettles is singled out as the dragonseed of dubious Targaryen ancestry.

I guess that people missed Brown Ben Plumm, the Black Pearl of Braavos, the Sand Snakes and the Martells.

Targaryen descendants can have dark skin!

I'd undestand it if people doubted the ancestry of the Two Betrayers as well (because they really only could have had silver hair because one of their ancestors was a Lysene sailor or something like that), but it's always only Nettles. Duh, maybe GRRM just wanted to put in a character of color? Kind of like one of Aegon the Unworthy's mistresses is black.

Well my take on it is that Nettles is not a dragonseed [dragonseed = Targ BS] just an extremely courageous and ingenious woman.

[sj4iy]

55 minutes ago, hallam said:

 

Oh you just don't get how books like this are put together. do you? As an unseen character, Lyanna can do surprising things but only from the established repertoire of what is possible for characters of that type. So Arya and Brienne both establish possibilities for Lyanna. Denying that Lyanna was the knight of the Laughing Tree or that she could have become a knight undr Rheagar is just being obtuse.

In the books, the mechanism would be a swap of the children and a glamor spell to make Jon look Stark and (Rickard/Ned/Benjen)/Ashara's child look Targarean. It was meant to be a temporary thing but when Lyanna hears of the murder of Elia and her other children she commits suicide to keep the spell going in perpetuity and to escape from Robert who she now considers a monster.

Ned arrives inside the ToJ to find the room literally filled with blood and Lyanna dying. That explains all the circumstances of the fever dream and the reason that Ned builds the tomb for Lyanna as well as Rickard and Brandon. Ned then returns to Dawnstar with Jon. Ashara fakes her suicide and runs away with the Stark child who now looks Targ and who appears some time after as fake Aegon.

Hence Ned says to Jon, 'you are of my blood'.

The show has done away with fake Aegon and also the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. I predicted that the lack of one would mean the lak of the other. But the show doesn't need to explain why Jon looks Stark, nor can it allow for Jon to be reborn looking Targarean.

This is also consistent with Jon's dream in which he is not a Stark.

R+L=J only provides an explanation for one part of the backstory. It does not explain anything else. R+E explains pretty much the entire backstory. The only thing missing is Rheagar's motive for concealing the birth of a third son. And  I believe that will be explained when we hear the prophecy that motivated Rheagar and Aerys. I suspect it also led Jamie to sit on the Iron throne after killing Aerys.

It doesn't take a genius to 'put' the clues to a fantasy story together.  You clearly have no actual evidence to support your theory so you are insulting those who are questioning it.

1. Lyanna wasn't a knight.  No evidence, and as stated above, dressing up as a knight in a tourney doesn't make her one.

2. There are no parallels between Brienne and Lyanna's stories.

3. As far as the glamour baby swap bad soap opera mess, nothing you stated has been hinted at or even inferred by the story at all.  Meanwhile, R+L=J has been 20 years under scrutiny and has stood up to the test.  It provides the explanation for everything concerning Jon, Ned, Rhaegar and Lyanna.  Yours does not whatsoever.  The very first pitfall is that, in the show, Ned says to Jon "You may not have my name, but you have my blood."  He's risked everything to raise Jon as his own...something he would not do for a child which is not his relation.  If Jon truly were Elia's son, the safest place for him would have been Dorne.  And since Ned was already in Dorne, it would make no sense whatsoever for him to pretend that Jon was his own and take him North to face the scorn of his wife.

I already know that you will probably dismiss my criticism as you have dismissed the criticism of others, but that doesn't make you any more 'right' for doing so.

[CrypticWeirwood]

4 hours ago, RhaeBee said:

I'm sorry, but if I go to an event and dress up as a knight and fight three people it's enough to make me a knight? No, it's not. Playing dress up and taking a false identity to teach three people a lesson doesn't make anybody a knight and that's what Lyanna did. Brienne on the other hand was anointed by Renly, she lived her life as a knight, she served a king then a lady. 

I didn't mean you saying she wasn't, but rather the other person say she was.

[lojzelote]

1 hour ago, Clariana said:

Well my take on it is that Nettles is not a dragonseed [dragonseed = Targ BS] just an extremely courageous and ingenious woman.

Well, then you are just the person I am searching for. Why is Nettles' ancestry suspect and the other dragonseeds' isnt?

[sj4iy]

35 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, then you are just the person I am searching for. Why is Nettles' ancestry suspect and the other dragonseeds' isnt?

I agree, there's no reason to believe she was a Targaryen.

[RhaenysBee]

3 hours ago, hallam said:

 

Oh you just don't get how books like this are put together. do you? As an unseen character, Lyanna can do surprising things but only from the established repertoire of what is possible for characters of that type. So Arya and Brienne both establish possibilities for Lyanna. Denying that Lyanna was the knight of the Laughing Tree or that she could have become a knight undr Rheagar is just being obtuse.

In the books, the mechanism would be a swap of the children and a glamor spell to make Jon look Stark and (Rickard/Ned/Benjen)/Ashara's child look Targarean. It was meant to be a temporary thing but when Lyanna hears of the murder of Elia and her other children she commits suicide to keep the spell going in perpetuity and to escape from Robert who she now considers a monster.

Ned arrives inside the ToJ to find the room literally filled with blood and Lyanna dying. That explains all the circumstances of the fever dream and the reason that Ned builds the tomb for Lyanna as well as Rickard and Brandon. Ned then returns to Dawnstar with Jon. Ashara fakes her suicide and runs away with the Stark child who now looks Targ and who appears some time after as fake Aegon.

Hence Ned says to Jon, 'you are of my blood'.

The show has done away with fake Aegon and also the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. I predicted that the lack of one would mean the lak of the other. But the show doesn't need to explain why Jon looks Stark, nor can it allow for Jon to be reborn looking Targarean.

This is also consistent with Jon's dream in which he is not a Stark.

R+L=J only provides an explanation for one part of the backstory. It does not explain anything else. R+E explains pretty much the entire backstory. The only thing missing is Rheagar's motive for concealing the birth of a third son. And  I believe that will be explained when we hear the prophecy that motivated Rheagar and Aerys. I suspect it also led Jamie to sit on the Iron throne after killing Aerys.

I may not understand how these books are put together, but that doesn't make any of what you said right. 

Not one part of your theory makes one bit of sense and you consequently ignore everything I or anybody else says to point out its logical pitfalls. I will not try to reason further, because there is honestly no point. I will however say, that Dawnstar is a location in Skyrim, not in Westeros. Even though their sword is called Dawn, the Daynes reside in Starfall. 

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

I didn't mean you saying she wasn't, but rather the other person say she was.

Sorry about misunderstanding you then. 

[Richard Writhen]

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.

[lojzelote]

1 hour ago, sj4iy said:

I agree, there's no reason to believe she was a Targaryen.

Personally i find it more likely she was a dragonseed, though I'm not arguing about it right now.

What I don't understand is why only Nettles is singled out as fake by disbelievers. It has been shown in the main series that Targaryen descendants can have brown skin. OTOH it has also been shown that great many people in GRRM's word can have silver hair.

Still, I am yet to see anyone actively argue that Ulf or Hugh the Hammer weren't Targaryen descendants, it's only Nettles who is widely considered to be suspect.

It makes zero sense.

 

[CrypticWeirwood]

1 hour ago, Wrycthen said:

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

This is extremely unlikely. There are countries where cousin marriages account for more than half of all marriages, and overall worldwide more than one in ten.

“Children of first-cousin marriages have a doubled risk of genetic disorders (although scientists contend that this is relatively small at five percent, compared with a three percent risk for children whose parents are not genetically related to each other).”

It is unreasonable to blame Tyrion’s dwarfism on cousin marriage, which is perfectly normal and common.

It is, however, not unreasonable to consider whether it might have been instead caused by an incompletely applied abortifacient administered by a disgraced Joanna desperately trying to cover up the residual spawn of the Mad King.

[Colonel Green]

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

Personally i find it more likely she was a dragonseed, though I'm not arguing about it right now.

What I don't understand is why only Nettles is singled out as fake by disbelievers. It has been shown in the main series that Targaryen descendants can have brown skin. OTOH it has also been shown that great many people in GRRM's word can have silver hair.

Still, I am yet to see anyone actively argue that Ulf or Hugh the Hammer weren't Targaryen descendants, it's only Nettles who is widely considered to be suspect.

It makes zero sense.

That she doesn't have the Targaryen look in any respect is surely part of it.  She's also the most prominent, and we're given a description of how she tamed Sheepstealer, whereas the Betrayers don't seem to have done anything extraordinary.

[lojzelote]

That is true, though it can be quite easily explained by the fact that Sheepstealer was an adult wild dragon who had never been ridden before, unaccustomed to the presence of humans, and therefore "not broken in", so to speak.
OTOH Vermithor and Silverwing both had riders before and had been used to human company, so to claim them might have been a much easier task.

I think it is Sheestealer's background (i.e., being a wild dragon, just like Grey Ghost and Cannibal, who had never been tamed at all) what makes the situation special, not Nettles' origins.

From what we know of dragon-bonding, it appears the Targaryens usually claimed dragons as eggs/hatchlings or they chose a dragon who had a rider in the past. Which could mean that to claim a wild adult dragon like Sheepstealer might have been quite tricky.

[dbunting]

20 hours ago, hallam said:

It isn't clear where the knights have come from or that they all came from the same place. 

Lyanna would be the obvious person to care for Jon because a woman with a child would be a lot less suspicious than five heavily armed knights. I suspect that in the books we will see some intervention of a red priest and the Mance/Rattleshirt glamor. So the baby would look like Lyanna. Fake Aegon being the other child by Ashara Dayne and Benjen Stark. why else introduce that switch in the books? GRRM has to get round Jon's Stark appearance. The show has taken a different route, showing that the red priests can change appearance in other ways.

Jon would be at the ToJ because it is on the way to Dorne which is the obvious place to take him if he was Elia's son. 

There is a whole slew of events that is explained by R+E = J that R+L leaves open. For example why does Ashara jump off the tower or disappear? Why does Ned take Dawn back in person?

And no, being a bastard would be completely unacceptable to the High Sparrow et al.

If R+L=J then Jon would be the surviving Stark, legitimized by Robb and the rightful King in the North. Why bother to seek the Iron Throne at all? He would not have a legitimate claim on that as Rheagar was dead before he was born and Aegon certainly didn't legitimize him.

Couple of things to think about, not disagreeing just a different view.

Baby swap - yes it is in the books, but nothing like that is in the show at all. No fAegon, no baby swap at the wall either

Ashara basically doesn't exist in the show and neither does Dawn

If R+L=J then he is not a Stark, he is a Targaryen and you assume R-L weren't married.

Best bet is not to apply book theories and red herrings to the show, they have cut almost all the book items that look like clues and misdirection.

[sj4iy]

59 minutes ago, dbunting said:

Couple of things to think about, not disagreeing just a different view.

Baby swap - yes it is in the books, but nothing like that is in the show at all. No fAegon, no baby swap at the wall either

Ashara basically doesn't exist in the show and neither does Dawn

If R+L=J then he is not a Stark, he is a Targaryen and you assume R-L weren't married.

Best bet is not to apply book theories and red herrings to the show, they have cut almost all the book items that look like clues and misdirection.

I wouldn't say that that people or things don't 'exist' in the show simply because we've had no reason to see them up to this point.

But while I agree that it's not always prudent to apply book theories to the show, I disagree that they have cut out everything.  They had Ned name Wylla as Jon's mother, which is a red herring from the books, as well.

[RhaenysBee]

13 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

 

It is unreasonable to blame Tyrion’s dwarfism on cousin marriage, which is perfectly normal and common.

It is, however, not unreasonable to consider whether it might have been instead caused by an incompletely applied abortifacient administered by a disgraced Joanna desperately trying to cover up the residual spawn of the Mad King.

I'm am really not sure about this. It's been argued in the thread before that his dwarfism might be a result of an unsuccessful abortion, but based on Tyrion's appearance he has disproportionate dwarfism.  Which is for the most part a case of achondroplasia, the cause of which is a genetic mutation. An attempt at physical or chemical abortion cannot bring about genetic malfunctions. 

Of course this is applying modern medicine on a medieval fantasy character. No, it's applying high school biology major and Wikipedia on a medieval fantasy character. But the point is, this is a story and the author can do whatever he wants regardless of its medical accuracy. And I'm not even sure what I said is correct, because I'm no doctor. 

[Daniel Tarly]

On 5/2/2016 at 2:48 PM, The 10th Penny King said:

I'm fairly certain, NO other show characters (except Dany) have ever TOUCHED one of the dragons.  If anyone has an example, please point it out.  

I think this fact alone, is HUGELY significant.  There has been implied interaction etc, but not ON SCREEN touching, until NOW.

Also, Dany has not even touched those two since she chained them.  Yet they let a STRANGER walk up to them and touch them.  Also, the WHITE dragon offers his neck!  This type of gesture is written about in the Dance of Dragons saga - of the Dragon accepting a rider.

So, I think Tyrion touching them IS very significant.

TWO other points:

Is it just a coincidence that ALL three main characters' MOTHERS died to bring them into the world?  Are we supposed to ignore that GIANT connection?

Is it just a coincidence that ALL three main characters have had ONE great love in their life that ended badly?  AND all three have vowed to never love again?  This is another GIANT connection as well.

You can believe it or not, but they are the main characters and they are the dragon riders.  

 

 

This. 

Tyrion, Danaerys, and Jon all have a lot in common.