Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

[Maxxine]

10 minutes ago, black_hart said:

I would like to draw attention to what else Daenerys tells about the House with the Red Door:

Very early in the story:

This strongly suggests to me they were renting and not simply hosted by a rich and powerful benefactor.

Very late in the story (dreaming of Daario):

If we take this as faint memory of an actual building, this might provide further clues (without involving lemons).

Oddly, the only actual red door shown in the books is on Dragonstone.

Valid point. In regards to that, I personally think they were being housed by the sea lord of braavos and they were kicked out of the house once that sea lord died. That IMO explains why they were kicked out and how the servants were able to steal everything. The next sea lord didn't want to be involved or perhaps the servants kicked them out before the next sealord moved in. This was a theory I think brought by Radio Westeros (I think) that really made sense especially since I've never been able to get behind the lemon gate theory. It explains everything including why the sea lord of braavos was the one witnessed the agreement regarding the betrothal of Viserys and Arianne.

Also, I could very easily see Dany just being an unreliable narrator in regards to where the house with the the red door was. She was very young and moved around a lot. It could be very easily mean she just misremembered (think Sansa misremembering kissing the hound)  and doesn't indicate a deep conspiracy.

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The problem is the chronology. Once the Dornish involvement with the Targlings is revealed in a DwD, there really is no point in reminding the readers that lemon trees should not grow in Braavos, unless it is a clue to something else entirely.
Generally speaking, there were a lot of reasonable guesses about the lemon tree... But the fact that hints continued in Winds goes against reasonable and suggests something bigger. And needless to say, there are a number of additional small clues here and there that Dany probably did not grow up in Braavos. In fact, I realize now that the reason why Martin moved the supposed location of the house with the red door from Tyrosh to Braavos may have been specifically so he could use the climate as a clue.
I dunno what this points to, but this is a work of fiction. Most arguments against lemongate are grounded in a realistic view of the books which is at odds with the usual way we build theories on the forum. It's like people suddenly stop seeing clues and hints when discussing Dany's childhood. And yet, taken all together, I'm not certain there's less clues about Dany than Jon...
Anyway, I've long given up trying to convince people. There is a thread about lemongate in my signature that sums up various ideas and theories on that specific subject. In the meantime, happy new year, everyone!

And happy new year to you as well Rippounet.

There is not a problem with the in story chronology. It all fits. A hint about a lemon tree in Braavos to make one wonder where in Braavos the Targaryens are staying. Followed by subplot of the Martells continuing anger over the deaths of Elia and her children with the culmination of the Red Viper's duel with the Mountain. All followed by the reveal of Doran's conspiracy to not only get revenge but to restore the Targaryens to the Iron Throne. This is followed by Quentyn's mission to Slaver's Bay and the reveal of the Pact along with the details of who signed it. It's all of one piece, and in sync with all the rest of the parts. And there is likely to be more revelation to come as we are likely to see other loyalist houses step forth showing their long time support for the Targaryens as the Aegon and Golden Company invasion plays out, and if, as is likely, Daenerys actually lands in Westeros. Perhaps we will find out just who are the "friends in the reach."

What you are suggesting though, is that there can never be further, even incidental, mention of lemon trees in the story without some conspiratorial meaning. I fundamentally disagree. If there is some question of a faulty memory, a secret identity, or a swap of children we need much more in the way of revealing the scope of the conspiracy. Not a mention of a lemon tree here, or the fact lemon trees are not native to certain climates. Or are we going to suggest that every mention of a weirwood means Jojen paste? I don't think so.

[maudisdottir]

But if Viserys knew she was a fake all along, don't you think we would have had some hint of it in 5 books?  Not once that I can recall did Viserys ever taunt her with the possibility that she's not his sister - and he was a little shit who took every opportunity to torment her.  I can't believe George didn't drop a single clue of Viserys saying or doing anything to make her wonder about it.  And Viserys had a huge superiority complex - there is no way he would let that go.  He wouldn't even have to admit it, just make vague threats that he knows a terrible secret about her, so that she's afraid that if he's telling the truth he'll cast her out.  What's she going to do, she's a little kid.  For sure Viserys would have used it to keep her in line.

But he doesn't, and in the next four (three) books she never thinks about it.  Is there any other character who has ever questioned her heritage?  No, none.  Not once, in five books.  I can't believe the master of hidden details, twists and foreshadowing did not leave a single clue that one of his major characters was anything other than she appeared.  Does that sound like GRRM?

How is the average reader supposed to find clues that don't exist?

[Nevets]

I find myself somewhat disconcerted by the repeated mentions of lemons coming from Dorne, as if George wants careful readers to connect the two .  I think that it could indicate that there is something suspicious about her background.  Possibly they were secretly in Dorne when they shouldn't have been, for example, and Darry was the glue that kept that arrangement together, so that when he died, they had to leave.

I don't think that it means that she is anyone other than who she appears to be, Viserys's sister by Aerys and Rhaelle.  I can see no reason for Viserys and Lord Darry to accept a substitute Dany.  There is no advantage to this, and they get saddled with a small child they have to care for, protect, feed, etc.  A royal pain.  Marrying her because she's your sister doesn't work if she isn't really your sister.  And any marriage alliances are very speculative and a long ways (15 years or so) away.  So while I think we will find out more about her past, I don't think it will include any revelations about her parentage.

[maudisdottir]

1 minute ago, Nevets said:

I don't think that it means that she is anyone other than who she appears to be, Viserys's sister by Aerys and Rhaelle.  I can see no reason for Viserys and Lord Darry to accept a substitute Dany.  There is no advantage to this, and they get saddled with a small child they have to care for, protect, feed, etc.  A royal pain.  Marrying her because she's your sister doesn't work if she isn't really your sister.  And any marriage alliances are very speculative and a long ways (15 years or so) away.  So while I think we will find out more about her past, I don't think it will include any revelations about her parentage.

I agree with all of this.

As for the lemons, it may be something big, or it might have been subtle foreshadowing of the Arianne/Viserys pact, which hit me with a wallop when Doran says "It was a pot of molten gold" and almost made up for the (IMO) slow Dornish storyline that I had found hard to get into up to that point.  Later when I read some of the lemon tree conspiracy theories, the whole Dornish thing made sense to me.  

And sure, it could go deeper than that, I'm not disputing that he's putting clues in there for a reason (trolling maybe?).  But either way, I don't believe the (potential) mystery has anything to do with her identity.

[Darth Sidious]

On 12/17/2016 at 2:38 PM, Sigella said:

Firstly I agree on the Dany Dayne-thing you got going.

Pro: that Barristan Selmy chapter where he finds Danys eye "hauntingly like Asharas" (or something like that) which he drops right in-between other more dramatic stuff.

Con: not sure of how many Targs are intermarried with the Daynes though... Could be from them they have the look. 

Dany can still be the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella and still have the blood of the Daynes.  The recent generation of Targaryens all carry the genes of the Daynes.  A Dayne married into the Targaryens long ago.  Dany is directly descended from that line.  She is also carries Blackwood genes, from Aegon V's wife, who was a Blackwood.  She's the child of three.  Three houses that may have a role to play in the future. 

Dany is special enough without having her Dayne genes play a role.  To me, the more probable way for the Daynes to play a role in the story is in Jon.  This is a story about temptation and betrayal.  What if Arthur was sleeping with Lyanna behind Rhaegar?  That fits the story better.  Listen to this.  What if poor Princess Elia was a scapegoat for Rhaegar's difficulty in producing children.  The Martells have no fertility problems that we know.  We do know that the Targaryens have fertility issues.  It's more diplomatic for the maesters to tell the king it's her.  Do you tell king grillmaster his son has a low sperm count?  It's safer to say Elia has the problem of conception.  What if Arthur and Lyanna were doing it behind Rhaegar's back at the Tower of Joy.  That would explain the black rose petals.  The corruption of that love.  Blue rose drying up and turning black. 

[maudisdottir]

Elia was frail and had problems giving birth, not conceiving.  I don't know whether it's even claimed that she had problems conceiving - she had two kids under four, and Rhaenys was born in their first year of marriage, so unless I'm forgetting something specifically from the books, Elia's issue was the inability to bring a child to term and (both) survive.  She was bedridden for months after Rhaenys was born, and Aegon's birth took such a toll that she was warned not to try and have any more.

According to Kevan Lannister:

Quote

A second Targaryen, and one whose blood no man can question. Daenerys Stormborn.

Who told Kevan about the Targaryen princess born during a storm on Dragonstone, if there were no witnesses?  Big Kev believes it, and he's not known for being a simpleton.

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, Lord High Papal said:

We do know that the Targaryens have fertility issues.  It's more diplomatic for the maesters to tell the king it's her.  Do you tell king grillmaster his son has a low sperm count? 

How do we know the Targaryens have "fertility issues"? As pointed out by maudisdottir that is not the case with Rhaegar and Elia, and we know it's not the case with Aerys and Rhaella. They had what can best be described as a possible survivability issue, not a fertility issue with their children. If the mortality rate of their kids is out of the normal range we can certainly speculate why that is the case. SIDS? Infanticide? Environmental issues? Bad luck? But it's not an issue of fertility.

So, outside of Maegor, I'm not sure where you are getting Targaryen fertility issues? Could you clarify?

[Ygrain]

I wonder if the proponents of fDany take into account the sheer number of people who would have to be fooled or participating in the scheme - basically all of Dragonstone's garrison who had seen  Rhaella's pregnant belly and conspired to give both children to Stannis, who was in turn told off by Robert for not being able to secure the boy and the babe. I.e., everyone knew there was a babe.

Rhaella faking her pregnancy in medieval conditions would require the cooperation of her maids who would dispose of her menstrual rags and keep their traps shut along with the door whenever Rhaella was bathing. Which goes against "castle has no secrets" and "someone always tells", and above all, why the hell Rhaella would do it in the first place.

A stillborn Dany would require either prescience or a paranoid level of safeguard, to smuggle a Targ-looking newborn into the castle, stash her somewhere where she wouldn't be seen or, more importantly, heard, so that she can be immediately produced at the due time, and the maids, wetnurses, maester and the like are either fooled, or their faithfully participate in the show and no-one ever tells, including the people who procured the substitute.

Dany or fDany in Dorne requires all of Dragonstone to be conspiring or deluded that there was a babe when there wasn't, hence spreading the lie or delusion to Stannis, the Citadel etc. Vis and Darry live 3-4 years in Braavos and in all that time, no-one notices and reports to Robert the absence of a toddler Dany, or Varys keeps this information to himself for an unknown reason and continues in the scheme, without ever giving a single clue of its existence. When fDany turns up, Viserys is fed some lie which he believes all his life and never brings it up during any of his moments of uncontrolled, irrational behaviour.

This is basically why I believe that the lemongate points either to the Dornish scheme to reinstate the Targs, or it may turn out that Dany's defining memory of safe home is a concoction of misplaced early memories and she will be devastated to find out that things are not as she remembers and that the home she has dreamt of so many times never really existed.

 

[Greywater-Watch]

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

How do we know the Targaryens have "fertility issues"? As pointed out by maudisdottir that is not the case with Rhaegar and Elia, and we know it's not the case with Aerys and Rhaella. They had what can best be described as a possible survivability issue, not a fertility issue with their children. If the mortality rate of their kids is out of the normal range we can certainly speculate why that is the case. SIDS? Infanticide? Environmental issues? Bad luck? But it's not an issue of fertility.

So, outside of Maegor, I'm not sure where you are getting Targaryen fertility issues? Could you clarify?

 

11 hours ago, Lord High Papal said:

We do know that the Targaryens have fertility issues. 

Dear @Lord High Papal and dear @SFDanny, I wish you a happy New Year. My New Year's gift to you is a little bit of knowledge.

Please find here the definition of "fertility" as by Wikipedia:

Fertility is the natural capability to produce offspring. Human fertility depends on factors of nutrition, sexual behavior, consanguinity, culture, instinct, endocrinology, timing, economics, way of life, and emotions. In demographic contexts, fertility refers to the actual production of offspring, rather than the physical capability to produce which is termed fecundity.

There are in fact misconceptions on both of your sides. Please note that it is appropriate to apply fecundity to an individual, fertility to a couple. Though, in science of course, female and male fertility are both investigated, but it is the paternal fertility which is measured in the first place. If one of the parents lacks fecundity, i.e. is sterile, the fertility of the couple is of course zero.

 

@SFDanny:

The couples Rhaella/Aerys and Rhaegar/Elia both have in fact "fertility issues". Except of course that external factors (e.g. someone poisened Rhaella systematically) existed.

ad Elia/Rhaegar: Elia was bedridden for half a year after giving birth to Rhaenys, and giving birth to Aegon nearly killed her. Following Aegon's birth, the maesters told Rhaegar that Elia would bear no more children.

ad Rhaella/Aerys: After the birth of their first son Rhaegar, Rhaella had 8 stillbirths/miscarriages/infants-dying-early in sequence.

@Lord High Papal:

The data we have are not sufficient to conclude that Targaryens would be the reason for the fertility issues. I assume you refer to the two couples I mentioned above? You cannot base statistically viable theories on two different couples: {Targaryen Man/Non-Targaryen Woman} & {Targaryen Man/Targaryen Woman}.

[Orphalesion]

The Lemon tree has been explained so freaking often that I don't know why people still bother to bring it up as "evidence" for Daenerys ever being in Dorne.

1) GRRM himself has admitted that he wrote that at a time when he had not yet decided Braavos' location and climate. That's the thing about a series that is still ongoing at the time of publication; some details will be problematic.

2)The Sealord has dinosaurs and marsupials prancing about his garden...why not a Lemon tree? Do we know if Braavos freezes? If not a lemon tree might be okay there.

3) The Lemon tree might have stood in a hothouse (Winterfell has them, so Braavos can too). The witner garden/hothouse might have been built right as part of the house and Daenery's window opened into it. There were manors in Russia that had their dining halls open up into winter gardens filled with palm trees so that the nobles could dine and entertain their guests amidst exotic plants while the snow piled up outside. 

The Sealord is fabulously wealthy, would he be not able to afford things like that?

4) It was a barely-alive, crippled little lemon tree in a pot, but as Daenerys was a toddler it seemed a real tree to her and as she travelled and saw other trees the memory of "her" lemon tree became muddled and she remembers it as a proper tree.

5)It's ridiculous to think that the only Lemon trees in the known world grow in Dorne. Of course Westerosi characters associate Lemons with Dorne; it's their main source of the things. Compare Florida Oranges.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

22 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Now, I see a difference between what I see as mistaken jumps in logic on this topic, and the essay in question. Many people besides myself have pointed out the problem of substituting the simple fact, well established in the books and by the author, that lemon trees are not native to the Braavosi climate, with the supposed inability to grow the tree in Braavos. That is a mistaken jump in logic. Plain and simple.

...

None of the supposed baby swap theories involving Dany has anything like that kind of evidenced based support. It's not just mistaken logic; it's fanciful story creation substituting for evidence. So, we have to turn Quaithe's exhortation to Dany to remember who she is from a in context push to remember she is Daenerys Targaryen, into a secret unnamed identity. 

Show me one single quote of a poster arguing that growing lemon trees in Braavos is impossible. You can't do it because nobody is arguing it.

You wanna talk about mistaken jumps in logic? Maybe you should look up "straw man fallacy".

Perhaps when the author points out over and over again that something doesn't belong, then maybe arguing how it would be technically possible is missing the point.

And now you keep going on about how your opponents don't have any arguments based on evidence. You've replied to my posts, you've seen the evidence. Pretending that it doesn't exist is childish. Once more, in case you decide to acknowledge it this time:

• Lemon tree points to childhood in Dorne
• Eyes like Ashara's daughter
• "Remember who you are"
• Viserys beating Targaryen identity into her
• "Future revelations about Dany's past?" GRRM: "Yes"

And now you'd like to compare evidence based arguments to fanciful stories. OK, I'm game. 

• The Sealord of Braavos has a glasshouse: FAN FICTION
• The Sealord's glasshouse has a lemon tree: FAN FICTION
• Doran gave him the lemon tree: FAN FICTION
• "He felt as if he were looking at Ashara's daughter" means Dany's eyes are purple and nothing else: ASSUMPTION
• The second hand accounts of Dany's origins are all true: ASSUMPTION

 

14 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

But if Viserys knew she was a fake all along...

That's a nice little theory you've got there, perhaps you'd like to cite some evidence to back it up? What makes you so sure that a baby swap could only have happened with Viserys knowledge?

 

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I wonder if the proponents of fDany take into account the sheer number of people who would have to be fooled or participating in the scheme - basically all of Dragonstone's garrison who had seen  Rhaella's pregnant belly and conspired to give both children to Stannis, who was in turn told off by Robert for not being able to secure the boy and the babe. I.e., everyone knew there was a babe...

And that's a nice little theory you've got there, perhaps you'd like to cite some evidence to back it up? What makes you so sure that a baby swap could only have happened at the exact moment Rhaella gave birth?

 

22 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

5)It's ridiculous to think that the only Lemon trees in the known world grow in Dorne. Of course Westerosi characters associate Lemons with Dorne; it's their main source of the things. Compare Florida Oranges.

Westerosi characters are not the point. The point is that readers associate lemons with Dorne.

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

4) It was a barely-alive, crippled little lemon tree in a pot, but as Daenerys was a toddler it seemed a real tree to her and as she travelled and saw other trees the memory of "her" lemon tree became muddled and she remembers it as a proper tree.

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

And that's a nice little theory you've got there, perhaps you'd like to cite some evidence to back it up? What makes you so sure that a baby swap could only have happened at the exact moment Rhaella gave birth?

What evidence do you require, that a whole lot of people saw Rhaella pregnant on DS?

As for the baby swap: and what's the difference if the supposed swap took place later? There were still people involved. Plus, what was its point? If they wanted to get the real Dany to safety, then where the hell is she now? If the real Dany died, did they have a Targ-looking baby on the standby, just in case? 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

The Lemon tree has been explained so freaking often that I don't know why people still bother to bring it up as "evidence" for Daenerys ever being in Dorne.

1) GRRM himself has admitted that he wrote that at a time when he had not yet decided Braavos' location and climate. That's the thing about a series that is still ongoing at the time of publication; some details will be problematic.

Source, please?
I very much doubt that since we have a confirmed SSM stating the opposite and I don't believe George is prone to contradicting himself.

22 hours ago, Maxxine said:

All the stuff you said makes perfect logical sense but Viserys is not really known for making logical decisions. It wouldn't be smart for Viserys to out her but what smart decisions has Viserys made on his own. It wasn't smart for him to ride with Dothraki or threaten a khal's wife and unborn child in a sacred place but he still did it. And as Dany I think correctly thought regarding the agreement with Dorne, had Viserys known he would've screwed it up bc he would've immediately went to Dorne which would have been stupid. That's really my point about temperament. Viserys doesn't make the decisions based off of logic, but impulsive decisions motivated by anger, fear or madness. Nothing in his development (as little as we have) indicates he would be able to keep that secret especially in one of those "wake the dragon" moments.

Ah, I see what you mean now (the champagne must have helped my brain cells).
Yes, point taken, it would be out of character for Viserys to keep such a secret for so long.
I guess the only way out of this would be to speculate that Viserys didn't know... But further speculation is never a good thing for a theory.

 

21 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Valid point. In regards to that, I personally think they were being housed by the sea lord of braavos and they were kicked out of the house once that sea lord died. That IMO explains why they were kicked out and how the servants were able to steal everything. The next sea lord didn't want to be involved or perhaps the servants kicked them out before the next sealord moved in. This was a theory I think brought by Radio Westeros (I think) that really made sense especially since I've never been able to get behind the lemon gate theory. It explains everything including why the sea lord of braavos was the one witnessed the agreement regarding the betrothal of Viserys and Arianne.

Also, I could very easily see Dany just being an unreliable narrator in regards to where the house with the the red door was. She was very young and moved around a lot. It could be very easily mean she just misremembered (think Sansa misremembering kissing the hound)  and doesn't indicate a deep conspiracy.

I find this theory rather unsatisfying though. Would servants of the Sealord'd Palace really dare steal from former guests ? I think this is exactly the kind of further speculation I'm wary of.
Also, the "Sealord theory" is completely unsupported by the text anyway. It's just a convenient construction to dismiss lemongate, but in fact it has even less textual support.

Dany being an unreliable narrator is much more simple and consistent with what is found throughout the books.

 

21 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What you are suggesting though, is that there can never be further, even incidental, mention of lemon trees in the story without some conspiratorial meaning. I fundamentally disagree.

The problem is that the mention we have in the Mercy chapter isn't exactly incidental. It's almost written black on white that lemons are not supposed to grow in Braavos, but do grow in other Free Cities ; it is in fact the best quote we have that quite specifically deals with fruits, and the guards' conversation seems almost forced, as if Martin was really trying to drive the point home that lemons should be associated with warmer climates.
 

16 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

But if Viserys knew she was a fake all along, don't you think we would have had some hint of it in 5 books? 

A good point, but I sometimes wonder about clues hidden in plain sight, because of what is not there.

There is one little tiny detail which I am -I believe- the only one to have found and to wonder whether it is relevant.
The only time Viserys ever calls her “Dany” is when he begs her for mercy before his death. Appart from that, throughout their conversations, he always calls her “sweet sister” even when he is verbally abusing her. As if...

Another thing that has troubled me but which fails to elicit much interest in other people on the forum is the fact that Dany and Viserys are not shown to have conversations in High Valyrian. This could be Martin simply not going into such details, but Dany's mastery of High Valyrian turns out to be a plot point later on. And yet, we have nothing to indicate that she got it from Viserys, or even Darry.

Dany speaks at least three languages: the Common Tongue of Westeros, the “bastard” Valyrian of the Free Cities, and High Valyrian. But her bastard Valyrian is Tyroshi Valyrian, not Braavosi. We know thanks to Sam that High Valyrian is very different from the the Valyrian of the Free Cities, and thanks to Tyrion that although they are close, Tyroshi Valyrian and Braavosi Valyrian are not the same dialect (in fact, he considers them separate languages).

This in turn raises an interesting question (for me): can Dany talk Braavosi? There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest this. The only time there is any comment on her Valyrian is a man saying she has a Tyroshi accent.

Why would a girl having grown up in Braavos have a Tyroshi accent?

In fact, how can one read this quote:

Quote

"When I was a little girl, I loved to play in the bazaar," Dany told Ser Jorah as they wandered down the shady aisle between the stalls. "It was so alive there, all the people shouting and laughing, so many wonderful things to look at … though we seldom had enough coin to buy anything … well, except for a sausage now and again, or honeyfingers … do they have honeyfingers in the Seven Kingdoms, the kind they bake in Tyrosh?"

So without getting into the more extreme theories of baby swaps, it is at least reasonable to wonder whether that house with the red door wasn't in Tyrosh. Which, coincidentally was the case in a previous version of the text.

The question then is to know what difference does it make whether Dany grew up in Braavos or Tyrosh. Obviously it does make a difference because Martin made the change, stuck to it, admitted that it was significant (rather than admitting a mistake), and keeps giving hints to the reader about it.

I don't know what it means though. It only suggests Dany's memories are fuzzy. I haven't seen anyone give any better explanation or theory about it. But it could become very important later on.

 

55 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

As for the baby swap: and what's the difference if the supposed swap took place later?

Come on Ygrain, that's so much bad faith it's almost laughable.
From the moment the Targlings left Dragonstone, it was just them and Darry. Any other actor (like Illyrio) or group could have intervened and replaced a dying Daenerys with the Dany we know. To even suggest that there would have to be huge numbers of people involved is completely delusional and weakens your position.
No, the real issues with any swap are Viserys's likely knowledge and Dany's obvious Targ' powers. Those are good arguments, no need to attempt to create bad ones.

[Greywater-Watch]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No, the real issues with any swap are Viserys's likely knowledge and Dany's obvious Targ' powers. Those are good arguments, no need to attempt to create bad ones.

I fully agree to you. Though I would even take one step back:

The indications that Daenerys did not spend a good part of her childhood at Braavos are there. But she believes, she spend this time at Braavos.

These are the pillars of the theory.

If Daenerys is not the real one, if she passed the discussed period of her childhood elsewhere than Viserys, why she believes the house with the red door had been in Braavos, these are all questions leading to different theories.

[ViserionsFire]

22 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Valid point. In regards to that, I personally think they were being housed by the sea lord of braavos and they were kicked out of the house once that sea lord died. That IMO explains why they were kicked out and how the servants were able to steal everything. The next sea lord didn't want to be involved or perhaps the servants kicked them out before the next sealord moved in. This was a theory I think brought by Radio Westeros (I think) that really made sense especially since I've never been able to get behind the lemon gate theory. It explains everything including why the sea lord of braavos was the one witnessed the agreement regarding the betrothal of Viserys and Arianne.

Also, I could very easily see Dany just being an unreliable narrator in regards to where the house with the the red door was. She was very young and moved around a lot. It could be very easily mean she just misremembered (think Sansa misremembering kissing the hound)  and doesn't indicate a deep conspiracy.

The Sealord of Braavos giving Viserys and Daenarys shelter at his home would makes sense.  When coming to Kings Landing after the Battle at the Trident, Ned found the treasury full and later as Hand was astonished to find Westeros nearly bankrupt under Robert.  So, at the time during RR, Braavos didn't have any financial claim on Westeros and could take the Targaryen heirs in to assist them in taking back the throne.  Later, as Littlefinger began borrowing from the Iron Bank the opportunity for gain shifted from potential profit to actual with Westeros indebtedness.  So,when a new Sealord took office, the Targaryen's were sent packing.

[Ygrain]

29 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

From the moment the Targlings left Dragonstone, it was just them and Darry. Any other actor (like Illyrio) or group could have intervened and replaced a dying Daenerys with the Dany we know. To even suggest that there would have to be huge numbers of people involved is completely delusional and weakens your position.
No, the real issues with any swap are Viserys's likely knowledge and Dany's obvious Targ' powers. Those are good arguments, no need to attempt to create bad ones.

Where did I say that every single scenario involves a huge number of people?

Besides, yet another problem with a later swap: for fDany to be raised elsewhere and retain the memories, she would have to be way past infancy, at least three years old. There is no way a child that old can be replaced without anyone noticing (and without the child itself noticing that her familiar people and surroundings are suddenly gone), and no way Viserys would have kept his trap shut.

[Rippounet]

23 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

If Daenerys is not the real one, if she passed the discussed period of her childhood elsewhere than Viserys, why she believes the house with the red door had been in Braavos, these are all questions leading to different theories.

Oh, absolutely, we're talking about different questions and different theories here. That's the problem with lemongate: it is a question, not an answer or theory.
Honestly, I fear any discussion on lemongate will take this thread off-topic, as it does not support the OP's ideas.
 

22 minutes ago, ViserionsFire said:

So, at the time during RR, Braavos didn't have any financial claim on Westeros and could take the Targaryen heirs in to assist them in taking back the throne. 

The curious thing is that historically speaking, Braavos is an unlikely Free City for Targaryen heirs to hide.
 

2 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Where did I say that every single scenario involves a huge number of people?

That's literally the first thing you wrote 8 hours ago: " I wonder if the proponents of fDany take into account the sheer number of people who would have to be fooled or participating in the scheme [...]." And then when VC pointed out that the swap could have happened later you answered it didn't make much of a difference and that there would still be people involved.
 

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

Show me one single quote of a poster arguing that growing lemon trees in Braavos is impossible. You can't do it because nobody is arguing it.

 

Quote

Now without knowing anything about Braavos, this lemon tree outside Dany’s room is nothing. And notably, GRRM avoids describing Braavos or having any characters at all go to Braavos for many books, precisely because of this. Because Braavos cannot actually grow lemons. It has the completely wrong climate to do so. (bold emphasis added) The Last Hearth Forums linked to in this thread by Voice

I'm not just arguing against your version of this theory, VC. I've engaged on this multiple times and on the essay linked above multiple times, including in this thread.

However, to your point. You do not use the same words, but you argue the same point.

5 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

Lemon tree points to childhood in Dorne

No, it does not. The memory of a lemon tree by the house with the red door points to it's existence anywhere lemon trees can be grown. Not to Dorne only. Dorne and Lys and other places in Martin's world have climates where lemon trees are native. Other places the lemon tree can be grown with special attention and the resources to do so. Braavos is among the many places that fall into the latter category. You make a jump in logic to eliminate the entire latter category, and even other places where lemon trees are native. You do so without any evidence to eliminate these other places, and, in fact, against evidence that places the house with the Red Door and its lemon tree in Braavos. That's a fact. No straw man.

And in case you thought I missed it, THIS is a straw man argument:

Quote

Oh no! It's the 'climate-controlled biodome containing the House with the Red Door and a lemon tree in the Sealord's menagerie next to the velociraptor because for some reason the Sealord decided Targaryen princesses need Dornish climate so they can run barefoot through grass' theory. (link)

Oh, and no, the fact Martin mentions lemon trees in Dorne many times does not indicate this particular lemon tree is in Dorne. Anymore than all the mentions of weirwood trees in the North means all weirwoods or any particular weirwood is in the North. We know that is not the case.

5 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

And now you keep going on about how your opponents don't have any arguments based on evidence. You've replied to my posts, you've seen the evidence. Pretending that it doesn't exist is childish. Once more, in case you decide to acknowledge it this time:

• Lemon tree points to childhood in Dorne
• Eyes like Ashara's daughter
• "Remember who you are"
• Viserys beating Targaryen identity into her
• "Future revelations about Dany's past?" GRRM: "Yes"

I responded to each of these in this post when you first posted this list. I'm sorry you missed it the first time.

5 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

And now you'd like to compare evidence based arguments to fanciful stories. OK, I'm game. 

• The Sealord of Braavos has a glasshouse: FAN FICTION
• The Sealord's glasshouse has a lemon tree: FAN FICTION
• Doran gave him the lemon tree: FAN FICTION
• "He felt as if he were looking at Ashara's daughter" means Dany's eyes are purple and nothing else: ASSUMPTION
• The second hand accounts of Dany's origins are all true: ASSUMPTION

The first two bullet points I've not made. I have pointed to the Winterfell greenhouse as an example, in world, of how plants can be grown outside their native climate zone. An important point because as a work of fantasy Martin's world doesn't have to abide by the rules of the real world. The Winterfell greenhouse is proof that in this regard, the rules of raising non-native plants out of their native climate zones are basically the same in his fantasy world as in the real world. Saying that I've made these two points would be another example of straw man arguments on your part.

Now, saying the Sealord of Braavos has the resources to grow a lemon tree in Braavos is undeniable. Both in terms of servants to do the work and money to acquire and transport the tree, it would be easily within the Sealord's power to do so. That would include building a greenhouse such as the one in Winterfell. Although this doesn't appear necessary in the case of this one tree.

The third bullet point is not what I've said either. I've said it is likely the Red Viper brings the tree to be planted outside the Targaryen's house in exile as a reminder of Dornish support. This is supported by the evidence of the Red Viper's visit to Braavos to sign the marriage pact. It is my opinion, stated as such, as what the lemon tree's history and significance is, but I support it with evidence. Not with jumps in logic about baby swaps and secret childhoods.

The fourth bullet point is dealt with in my response to you linked to above.

The fifth bullet point is about positive evidence supporting Dany's story as she remembers it. You have yet to show any evidence contradicting these in story points of evidence. Far from it. Everyone in the story thinks Dany is exactly who she thinks she is. How again did Kevan Lannister put it? 

Quote

"A second Targaryen, and one whose blood no man can question. Daenerys Stormborn." (A Dance with Dragons 947)

 

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That's literally the first thing you wrote 8 hours ago: " I wonder if the proponents of fDany take into account the sheer number of people who would have to be fooled or participating in the scheme [...]." And then when VC pointed out that the swap could have happened later you answered it didn't make much of a difference and that there would still be people involved.

Ah. That was related to the first part of my post, the garrison of Dragonstone who wanted to give away the Targlings (lol, a nice nick)