Jump to content

Elia Martell: Yes, another Septa Lemore speculation


Alexis-something-Rose

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well, we're even now, because I don't find this interesting.  I want Dany to go to Westeros.  Speculating that Doran will blame Dany for a situation that is in no way her fault, thereby rejecting a natural ally, makes no sense to me.  If conflict arises between Dorne and Dany, it will be for other reasons, surely.

Oberyn's death was his own fault but the Dornish still blame King's Landing. The Dornish character, as established, is to take offense at the slightest provocation. Doran is more cautious, yes, but no less vengeful, and we are already seeing him struggling to contain his people's rage. Quentyn is the first of his own children to die, and having your child die can make even the most patient and calm and rational of people need to find someone to blame.

We know that Doran is exploring an alliance with Aegon. Arianne is unlikely to marry Aegon as he is still hoping to marry Dany, but the Golden Company and Connington are too rational to reject their first and so far only allies. So when Dany finally comes, not only will Quentyn have died by dragonfire after her rejection of his proposal, she will be displeased to say the least to find out that her nephew, ahead of her in line for the Iron Throne, supposedly lives. She will be inclined to distrust him and even fight him, not to ally with him.

This means that Quentyn's death is a key moment of the prelude to the dragons dancing (as fortold by the Toland girl)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Oberyn's death was his own fault but the Dornish still blame King's Landing.

Oberyn challenged Gregor because Gregor murdered Elia and her children.  Therefore Oberyn's death was also Gregor's fault.  Which is also why the Dornish were already mad at King's Landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Oberyn challenged Gregor because Gregor murdered Elia and her children.  Therefore Oberyn's death was also Gregor's fault.  Which is also why the Dornish were already mad at King's Landing.

Yes, well, Rhaegar snubbed Elia at Harrenhal, and the smiles died and the Rebellion started, so while their grudge against the Targaryens was not as strong as their grudge against the Lannisters after Elia and her children were killed it is a good thing to remember they only joined the Targaryen side of that war because Elia and her kids were hostages. 

This time around they see Targaryens as USEFUL in their revenge schemes, but do not have strong loyalty to them or love for them. As such, while their alliance would have been natural if Quentyn had not died, the fact is that he DID die. Beyond the Aegon/Dany conflict death will revive old hostilities within Dorne, just as all of the other regions are also splitting into internal conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Yes, well, Rhaegar snubbed Elia at Harrenhal,

Thats a fan and some not-involved character interpretation. There is no indication that Elia felt snubbed at Harrenhal. In fact, there is no indication that Elia felt snubbed by any events (she may have been in on Rhaegar's plans, though I think it unlikely on balance), the snub was felt by Dorne after Rhaegar abducted Lyanna and disappeared.
Once Rhaegar reappears (without Lyanna) and Rhaenys and Aegon are still firmly his heirs, there simply isn;t any snub to feel. At least not one that beats family connection and a grandson on the throne.

Quote

and the smiles died and the Rebellion started,

No, the Rebellion did not start at Harrenhal. It started months and months later over a separate event.

Quote

so while their grudge against the Targaryens was not as strong as their grudge against the Lannisters after Elia and her children were killed it is a good thing to remember they only joined the Targaryen side of that war because Elia and her kids were hostages. 

This is simply false. There is no major ongoing Martell grudge against Targaryens. The 'Martell kids' that were killed were Targaryens and were killed by the Targaryen's enemies..
Partly due to Rhaegar's apparent snub of Elia when he stole Lyanna (and partly due to Doran's innate caution) the Martells were slow to send forces to support the Targaryens during the rebellion. But they did support and the only indication we have of the 'hostages' factor is Aerys' paranoid delusions. To remind you, Rhaegar was not estranged from his father - in fact he was put in charge of all Targaryen forces including the disposition of the Kingsguard, and Rhaegar's heir was a Martell. Doran's grandson would have sat the throne, until after Rhaegar was killed and mad, paranoid, deluded Aerys changed the succession. And with Viserys dying without heirs, 50+% Martell Aegon is still the rightful Targaryen heir, if he really is alive.

Quote

This time around they see Targaryens as USEFUL in their revenge schemes, but do not have strong loyalty to them or love for them. 

There is no evidence for this at all. The Targaryens and Martells are family and have been for generations. Aegon is particularly close family being Doran's grandson as well as something-somethingth cousin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, corbon said:

There is no major ongoing Martell grudge against Targaryens.

That we know of. :P

I myself doubt it however, the only people the Martell had a reason to a have a grudge with are the eldest Targaryen and they died pretty badly in the war, hating children is always silly. I would not be surprised if there still is some guilt by association tho.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

But they did support and the only indication we have of the 'hostages' factor is Aerys' paranoid delusions.

Jaime too believes that.  Doesn't he?

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

To remind you, Rhaegar was not estranged from his father - in fact he was put in charge of all Targaryen forces including the disposition of the Kingsguard, and Rhaegar's heir was a Martell.

I don't know if that's a proof of them not being estranged with one another or simply both of them acknowledging that they had bigger enemies than either of them that were very especifically aiming for both their heads. 

They had a common enemy in the rebels and so they joined forces but i don't see the reason to believe they were not on bad terms, all the evidence we have points towards that.

And Rhaegar's changes besides, we have little to know about what was on Aerys's mind regarding his own succesion and what we know does not point that he would have been okay with a Martell on the throne.

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

There is no evidence for this at all.

There is no evidence for loyalty either. All the Martells have done regarding the Targlings is based on  the old "what can you do for me" instead of  any particular loyalty or even affection. The Martell's goal is perfectly clear and even better laid out, they want to destroy Tywin's Robert's regime and the Targaryens happen to be their only  and better card to pull that off. Without the Targaryen legitimacy and alledged support, he cannot hope to overcome the Lannister-Barathteons. Means to an end as the saying goes.

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The Targaryens and Martells are family and have been for generations.

So are are the Baratheons... As if that meant anything in particular.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Aegon is particularly close family being Doran's grandson as well as something-somethingth cousin.

If he is the real deal. And even then, they would be loving the Elia's son... who just happen to be Targ. It's like saying that Ned loves the Lannister because Joffrey is Robert's son and he loves Robert and is loyal to him. He can love Robert while being indifferent or loathing the Lannisters, they are not in the emotional package.

Btw, how Aegon is Doran's grandson?? He is Doran's nephew.

 

 

About the theory, it's not a bad one actually. Isn't Lemore described asa very attractive woman however?? The best we hear about Elia is about her having a delicate beauty, neither Barri nor Cersei or JonCon are particularly flattering to her, and Tyrion notes that she has more breast than the flat chested woman Cersei describes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2021 at 2:32 PM, corbon said:

The colour of new-turned earth ...

Here's a thought.  Maybe "the colour of new-turned earth" suggests a mix of hues.  Something analogous to what is now called "dirty brown", which in modern parliance sometimes refers to brown hair with gold highlights.  I've heard that some blond babies whose hair darkens with age end up with an irregular mix of hues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, frenin said:

That we know of. :P

Yes, quite right.
Stuff that we've not been given clues to doesn't count though. B)

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Jaime too believes that.  Doesn't he?

Don't think so. (can't find any evidence at all that could be construed as such). 
Jaime's words (memory) is that Aerys "gracelessly" reminded Lewyn Martell that he had Elia, when sending him to command the (already coming) Dornish host. I can't see that as Jaime thinking Aerys was right, just that he was a bit of an ass. 'Graceless' means it was crass, not directly threatening.
Thus its not an actual hostage situation (according to Jaime, who was there and is relatively unbiased), just a crass reminder that it could be if things didn't proceed as expected.

The word 'hostage' is only used post-war by Aerys' enemies writing for the pleasure of King Robert. And even then, they don't report it as fact, just as rumour. Its hardly as reliable as Jaime's memory as an actual witness.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't know if that's a proof of them not being estranged with one another or simply both of them acknowledging that they had bigger enemies than either of them that were very especifically aiming for both their heads. 

Well, there isn't actually any real evidence of them being 'estranged' in the first place. Just some talk by unscrupulous courtiers trying to get advantage at court and various paranoid ramblings during Aerys' bad moments.
Noticeably Aerys wanted Rhaegar to command early in the war too, and when he couldn't be found selected the nearest thing he could find (Rhaegar's ex-squire, JonCon).

Anyway, the point was that a blunt statement was made that the Martells had a (continuing) grudge against the Targaryens, for which there is no evidence, and more, that the Martells only joined the war because of the hostage situation - when in point of fact the significantly stronger evidence (unbiased witness in his own thoughts vs biased history writer writing for Robert and even then not recounting as fact but as rumour - "it is said") about the situation show it to be a potential as opposed to actual hostage situation, directed locally (at Aerys' court), not to the Dornish leaders who sent the troops, and that the Dornish army was already on the way.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

They had a common enemy in the rebels and so they joined forces but i don't see the reason to believe they were not on bad terms, all the evidence we have points towards that.

What evidence? Every time the chips are down, Aerys wants Rhaegar ahead of everyone.  And Rhaegar supports Aerys. Thats the 'real' evidence, as opposed to the worst times when they clashed in relatively meaningless ways. Or the self-interested and malicious gossips at court trying (and occasionally succeeding in minor ways perhaps) to drive a wedge between them for the courtier's advantage.
Rhaegar knew he needed to do something about the mad king (because the madness and paranoia hurts the king, the family/House as well as the Kingdom), but there is no reason to suspect he would have had Aerys harmed, or done anything unconstitutional, so to speak, In fact the evidence we have leads toward Rhaegar trying to do things as 'properly' as possible and in fact doing nothing at all against Aerys (for which he is sometimes faulted) rather than improper things.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

And Rhaegar's changes besides, we have little to know about what was on Aerys's mind regarding his own succesion and what we know does not point that he would have been okay with a Martell on the throne.

So? He's crazy sometimes, but never goes far enough for it to matter (with family at least), and its immaterial what he wants anyway. It was always Rhaegar who was next, and then dead Aerys' madnesses wouldn't make any difference to who followed Rhaegar on the throne.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

There is no evidence for loyalty either. All the Martells have done regarding the Targlings is based on  the old "what can you do for me" instead of  any particular loyalty or even affection.

You don't think a secret pact with Viserys, after the Martell niece and nephew are dead, isn't evidence of some loyalty?
Seems a bit more than "what can you do for me" (which was nothing at the time, whereas the risk should that document get exposed would be considerable).
Its not like Doran has been trying to cultivate other anti-Lannister alliances. There is no indication of any outreach to any of the other great Houses, nearly all of which dislike the Lannister power and should be in some way amenable to some sort of alliance building. But... nothing. All Doran' eggs have been aimed at the Targaryen basket. 

9 hours ago, frenin said:

The Martell's goal is perfectly clear and even better laid out, they want to destroy Tywin's Robert's regime and the Targaryens happen to be their only  and better card to pull that off. Without the Targaryen legitimacy and alledged support, he cannot hope to overcome the Lannister-Barathteons. Means to an end as the saying goes.

Since when was their goal to destroy the Baratheon regime? 
I thought it was to get revenge on Tywin Lannister, primarily, and restore the Targ regime (with them closely attached to it) secondarily? Destroying the Baratheon regime is only a byproduct of the secondary goal.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

So are are the Baratheons... As if that meant anything in particular.

The Baratheons are Targ-blooded, the Targs are not Baratheon-blooded (ie the connections are down, not up, and virtually all the same way). Its not quite the same. 
The Baratheons have not been staunch supporters with multiple intermarriages over the last 150 yrs. Instead they actively rebelled and declared independence less than 70 years before.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

If he is the real deal. And even then, they would be loving the Elia's son... who just happen to be Targ. It's like saying that Ned loves the Lannister because Joffrey is Robert's son and he loves Robert and is loyal to him. He can love Robert while being indifferent or loathing the Lannisters, they are not in the emotional package.

True. Its possible. But that doesn't make it that way automatically either.
There is 150yrs of connected family history there, and a Pact with Viserys as well, even though he has no close, recent Martell connection. 

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Btw, how Aegon is Doran's grandson?? He is Doran's nephew.

Yeah, rushed mistake, reinforced, whoops. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Don't think so. (can't find any evidence at all that could be construed as such). 
Jaime's words (memory) is that Aerys "gracelessly" reminded Lewyn Martell that he had Elia, when sending him to command the (already coming) Dornish host. I can't see that as Jaime thinking Aerys was right, just that he was a bit of an ass. 'Graceless' means it was crass, not directly threatening.
Thus its not an actual hostage situation (according to Jaime, who was there and is relatively unbiased), just a crass reminder that it could be if things didn't proceed as expected.

Huh?? If i remind you that i have your family and you better behave... i'm not using them as hostages?? It sure as hell sounsds like coercion to me.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Well, there isn't actually any real evidence of them being 'estranged' in the first place. Just some talk by unscrupulous courtiers trying to get advantage at court and various paranoid ramblings during Aerys' bad moments.

So... There is evidence, You simply don't like them.

But we're told they were estranged in the first place, we have no reason to believe it a lie as there is no reason for that lie. The most important bits are those.

 

Quote

Above all, King Aerys II was suspicious: suspicious of his own son and heir, Prince Rhaegar; suspicious of his host, Lord Whent; suspicious of every lord and knight who had come to Harrenhal to compete … and even more suspicious of those who chose to absent themselves, the most notable of whom was his former Hand, Tywin Lannister, Lord of Casterly Rock.

 

Quote

 

Quote

To Grand Maester Pycelle and Lord Owen Merryweather, the King’s Hand, fell the unenviable task of keeping peace between these factions, even as their rivalry grew ever more venomous. In a letter to the Citadel, Pycelle wrote that the divisions within the Red Keep reminded him uncomfortably of the situation before the Dance of the Dragons a century before, when the enmity between Queen Alicent and Princess Rhaenyra had split the realm in two, to grievous cost. A similarly bloody conflict might await the Seven Kingdoms once again, he warned, unless some accord could be reached that would satisfy both Prince Rhaegar’s supporters and the king’s.

 

So there is actual evidence that father and son could not see one another

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Noticeably Aerys wanted Rhaegar to command early in the war too, and when he couldn't be found selected the nearest thing he could find (Rhaegar's ex-squire, JonCon).

Well ofc.  Rhaegar was a rallying figure,, they both had a very dangerous common enemy now in the rebels, Aerys wanted a youth to match with Robert and the rebels wanted very especifically to kill Aerys and Rhaegar. Those are more than enough reasons to reconcile if only momentarily.

You know, enemy of my enemy is my friend, lesser evil yadda  yadda yadda.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Noticeably Aerys wanted Rhaegar to command early in the war too, and when he couldn't be found selected the nearest thing he could find (Rhaegar's ex-squire, JonCon).

Agree.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Every time the chips are down, Aerys wants Rhaegar ahead of everyone.  And Rhaegar supports Aerys. Thats the 'real' evidence,

No, every time  (one time) they have a common enemy that is set on killing them. They are forced to koin forces.

And that's not real evidence, that's simply confirmation bias.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

or done anything unconstitutional, so to speak,

When talking about the Rebellion Martin says that there is no "legal way to remove an insane king". So whatever the son was up to regarding the father, it was def not legal. Popular?? Likely.

The evidence points towards Rhaegar trying not to start a civil war he (and we for that matter)  don't know he could win. As neither he nor us can know what the great lords were thinking about Keeping up with the Targaryens.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

or done anything unconstitutional, so to speak,

Well ofc, he dies.

And well, Aerys can frame Rhaegar for treason, disown him...

I'm still surprised why he opted for actually signing his death sentence instead of  taking advantage of the golden opportunity Rhaegar had given by disappearing with Lyanna, Few would have gone to war over him for it.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

You don't think a secret pact with Viserys, after the Martell niece and nephew are dead, isn't evidence of some loyalty?
Seems a bit more than "what can you do for me" (which was nothing at the time, whereas the risk should that document get exposed would be considerable).

No, actually no. It's purely "what can you do for me".

Viserys can give them the vengeance they seek and they can give him the throne he seeks. Quid pro quo. I don't see any loyalty involved, nor we're  given any reason that there was any loyalty involved. In Oberyn's and Doran's vocabulary, the word revenge comes and justice for elia and the kids comes out quite a bit. Loyalty is never mentioned.

The secret pact is an investment... 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Its not like Doran has been trying to cultivate other anti-Lannister alliances. There is no indication of any outreach to any of the other great Houses, nearly all of which dislike the Lannister power and should be in some way amenable to some sort of alliance building. But... nothing. All Doran' eggs have been aimed at the Targaryen basket. 

Indeed, a dead end is a dead end. The Lannisters marry into the new royal family the year after the war ends. It matters little whether many people dislike the Lannisters, the Lannisters are now Robert's family and part of his gigantic coalition.

Whether Doran is acting out of loyalty (targ basket) or self interest... He should be looking for alliances within the Realm. Unless he he believes that he can take on the Baratheons by himself.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

You don't think a secret pact with Viserys, after the Martell niece and nephew are dead, isn't evidence of some loyalty?
Seems a bit more than "what can you do for me" (which was nothing at the time, whereas the risk should that document get exposed would be considerable).

Doing the former means doing the latter. The Lannisters would not go out without Robert's regime following them (in normal circumstances ofc).

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The Baratheons are Targ-blooded, the Targs are not Baratheon-blooded (ie the connections are down, not up, and virtually all the same way). Its not quite the same. 

So... Aren't they family?

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The Baratheons have not been staunch supporters with multiple intermarriages over the last 150 yrs. Instead they actively rebelled and declared independence less than 70 years before.

Seems cherrypicking to me. The Baratheons have been staunch supporters of the Targs, in fact Lyonel Baratheon is the only great lord we're told that supported  Egg's policies out of loyalty and not because he was promised a reward. he only rebelled when he was screwed over. His son served loyally as Hand of the King and so was about to his grandson.  

The Martells have not been more or less supporters than the average lord that was not screwed over by the Targs.

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The Baratheons are Targ-blooded, the Targs are not Baratheon-blooded (ie the connections are down, not up, and virtually all the same way). Its not quite the same. 

-Honestly, you're giving that 150yrs of connected family history more fuzz than the characters have ever done.

- Oh yes, the pact of Sand and Fire, more commonly now as  "I scratch your back, you scratch mine".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, frenin said:

About the theory, it's not a bad one actually. Isn't Lemore described asa very attractive woman however?? The best we hear about Elia is about her having a delicate beauty, neither Barri nor Cersei or JonCon are particularly flattering to her, and Tyrion notes that she has more breast than the flat chested woman Cersei describes.

Lemore is described as handsome, not delicate. She is also very clearly in excellent health.

Elia, however, was NEVER in good health. She was a premature baby and always frail. Adventuring on the Rhoyne doesn't fit with that I would say. I do not doubt that whoever Lemore is, she has Dornish and/or Marcher roots, but that is basically the only box Elia ticks. Also, believing that Elia survived requires believing that Gregor restrained himself from raping and killing someone and then lied to the world about it. This doesn't fit either I would say.

Lemore's identity is a big puzzle, but whoever she is, she is connected to the schemers and/or fence sitters, so the real question is, how is the merry band surrounding Aegon linked to other plots, and is Illyrio's plot the only one going? I would assume not, and IF not, she is a link to another branch of the story, such as the Brotherhood (full of Dornish and Marcher characters), the High Sparrow (whose identity is also currently unknown) or Littlefinger (who has known Varys's secret all along and no doubt has a source of information).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

It was to counter the specific argument that we know very little about Ashara Dayne.

I don't think your list really disproves that, you include a lot of stuff that tells us very little about who she was.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Edric Dayne has pale blonde hair, Gerold Dayne Silver (with a streak of black) (thats all we had on Daynes for hair colour until Barristan told us Ashara was dark)

One blond nephew and a presumably distant cousin from a cadet branch with silver hair may have been enough for some people to run wild with the assumption that every Dayne is fair haired, but I view that more as people being overly presumptuous about what every Dayne looks like than the author "misdirecting" on what Ashara looks like. In addition, it seems unlikely that Dyanna Dayne had silver hair since one of Egg's brothers is described as having sandy hair, though I know that's not covered in ASOIAF itself.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

And yet, thats exactly how it works for the most famous real purple eyed person in history.
Elizabeth Taylor's eyes look grey or pale blue in many photos where she is not wearing makeup or pink/purple accessories.

I think you know very well that purple eyes in ASOIAF are not the same as "purple eyes" in real life. Elizabeth Taylor's eyes were not actually purple. Ashara comes up in six chapters in the books. One of those is Cersei flinging an accusation at Ned with no sort of description of her of any kind either in her words or Ned's thoughts. One is Catelyn thinking in ACOK that she doesn't know who Jon's mother could be if it isn't Ashara. One is Arya's chapter with Ned Dayne and Harwin, neither of whom ever met her or have any reason to describe her eyes to Arya. Now what about the other three chapters? In Catelyn's first chapter where Ashara gets brought up for the first time, she's described as having "haunting violet eyes." When Meera tells the story of Harrenhal to Bran (which she obviously heard from her father), like the other characters talked about Ashara is not mentioned by name, and instead she's referred to as the maid with "laughing purple eyes." When Barristan thinks of her, he wistfully remembers those "haunting purple eyes." Does this really sound like her eyes are just the sort of thing that really only look remarkable in a certain light, and akin to the real-world blue eyes of people like Elizabeth Taylor? This is clearly the defining feature people notice about her.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Then we look at Tyrion's side of that equation.
For some reason GRRM has spent space twice for Tyrion to guess ages wrong.

We don't know how old Young Griff is, and even if he is Aegon, Tyrion was off by about two years in his guess. That's quite different to me from confidently asserting that a woman in her thirties is past 40. And if anything, I think people are generally more likely to underestimate the age of an attractive woman Ashara's age rather than the opposite. If he had said "around 40" I'd agree it wouldn't be very meaningful, but that carries a different meaning from "past 40." This is definitely something we are told that goes against what we know about Ashara, and while I agree it's not conclusive as Tyrion is fallible, I don't agree that it's something to be handwaved as in fact further proof as you seem to think.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Sure, except for those that pay attention, its Targaryen+Dayne. Every Dayne we've met has purple (or nearly) eyes too.

How is this a point against my argument? Clues should reward readers that pay attention, that it's something many casual readers would miss but careful readers won't is all the more reason why it shouldn't have been left out.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

In your opinion.
In the books she's the early leader in the 'who is Jon's mother' stakes. Plus her brother is the finest knight Ned even knew, a legend.

I really didn't mean for my claim to be at all subjective. I wasn't making any assertion about her importance to the future of the books, just her presence in the ones that we currently have. And she is clearly less prominent there than she is on message boards, I don't know how you can possibly deny that. She comes up in six chapters out of how many? That the second point you could think of is that her long-dead brother was a famous knight (instead of anything about her) proves what I'm saying. I'm not saying she wasn't important to events at Harrenhal and/or the end of the rebellion, and I'm not claiming anything about her importance in the last two books. I'm just saying that she is objectively in the books a lot less than she appears in theories and discussions on message boards. To a lot of readers with no exposure to the fandom, she's one character out of many from the backstory. My point is that planting evidence about her that isn't caught by such readers but may seem obvious to careful ones is perfectly fine and in fact very good writing. 

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

I guess we have different vales on what is important.
IMO a side intrigue between 'southrons' is of little importance in the grander scheme of ASoIaF.  It has its own political relevance in Iron throne politics, but the whole Iron throne politics thing is entirely a sideshow, other than how it affects the Song of Ice and Fire and the solution to the whole 'Other' (white Walker) issue. The whole Jon's origins, Rhaegar's plan, Ned/Rhaegar pre-story story is much more important IMO.

While I'm not saying Sarella is in Oldtown because of the Others, the storyline she's involved in there very much seems to involve things that go well beyond just "southron politics." Ashara can shed light on past stuff (though I think there's probably still a lot of stuff she wouldn't know), but it would take more than that for her to actually change the story going forward. To make a comparison, Howland Reed certainly knows a lot of important things (and on top of that he could be the one to reveal RLJ, which could obviously have a huge impact on the story going forward), but it wouldn't ruin the story if someone figured out that he was a certain character hiding their identity because George had a POV character describe him the way you'd expect him to be described. The reader figuring out that Lemore is Ashara doesn't ruin any surprise about Jon's origins or Rhaegar's plan, I don't see why that's a reason to have a POV character miss what George himself has made out to be her almost singular defining feature. If anything, more clear confirmation that it's Ashara (that isn't going beyond anything you wouldn't expect someone who met her to notice, and is still something many readers would miss) helps to build the hype and excitement around possible revelations to come.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Ashara ties to all of the mysteries surrounding early Ned's activities, Jon's origins, the ToJ period plus Rhaegar and his motivations. Thats most of the most important mysteries of the past (IMO of course). Plus she is tied to Barristan and thus possibly Dany's "betrayal for love". Plus her ties to Aegon give an apparent (but not necessarily real) legitimacy (in Westerosi eyes) to the whole fAegon plot in a way that no other potential character could. Arthur Dayne's sister and Elia's Handmaid, proclaiming Rhaegar and Elia's son is so much more powerful in Westerosi terms than... anyone else that could be.

And my point is, how is any of that undermined by noting that Lemore has purple eyes? Are any of those things ruined by it, the way that revealing that Jon is Rhaegar's son in Ned's first chapter would have ruined any twist around his parentage and the importance thereof? 

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

connections much better than any other option

I thought this over after our conversation last week, and I do agree with this. This is probably the strongest argument in favor of Ashara = Lemore. Whatever the strength of evidence for her being Ashara, it seems stronger than any single specific alternative, and given that she does seem to be a noblewoman hiding her identity, that probably makes Ashara the best guess. I'm just saying that if it's the case, I don't think George should have tried to hide it by having Tyrion fail to notice the one thing that he has gone repeatedly out of his way to establish as the overriding thing everyone notices and defines Ashara by. That's not something that the Elizabeth Taylor comparison justifies to my satisfaction. If there had been an offhand reference to her having purple eyes once, I could maybe buy that, but not when you have three characters define her by that feature, especially given how little else we've been told about her.  And not given the way that George handles clues for other characters hiding their identity (and I'm not just talking about Alleras).

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Or, Robert had a report on Ned's visit already, and made the assumption the wetnurse was the mother, just as he did in the conversation we saw.

I'm a little confused on what you're arguing here. We've established that Robert never met Wylla. So why would he know anything about her or Jon's wetnurse at all? He says that Ned told him her name once. Why would Robert ask him the name (or Ned give him the name without him asking) of a wetnurse he's never met? 

On 4/2/2021 at 2:49 PM, corbon said:

Why would Ned tell Robert Wylla was the mother once, and be so reluctant, angry and avoidant every other time - both with Robert and Cat?

Who says he wasn't reluctant, angry, or avoidant in that conversation? It's not like we have a play by play of that conversation. Ned gives a Robert a name that Robert clearly believes is Jon's mother in the very conversation in the books that you're citing as evidence Ned would never do such a thing. As for why he'd treat Robert and Cat differently, that's pretty obvious. Robert is the one person Ned has to give an answer to if asked. He doesn't have to tell Cat shit. Ned giving Robert a name and basically nothing else when asked is entirely consistent with the conversation we get between the two of them on the subject in AGOT.

Edit: This is an additional thought I had after my post, but another reason why Ashara isn't necessarily an obvious guess for the average reader is that there's no real indication in the books of any connection to Elia or Rhaegar until Barristan's chapter, which comes after Tyrion meeting Lemore. While George had confirmed in a SSM years ago that Ashara was a lady-in-waiting to Elia, this is never mentioned in the books until Barristan recalls it. It is true that her brother was a good friend of Rhaegar's, but there's no direct connection involving Ashara herself before that. The five previous references to her are almost entirely about real or supposed connections to Ned - Catelyn's two chapters where she thinks about her as the potential mother of Jon, Cersei's accusation that she's Jon's mother, Ned Dayne and Harwin talking to Arya about the supposed romance at Harrenhal between Ashara and Ned, and Meera's story, where she mentions that Ashara danced with Ned, along with JonCon, Oberyn, and a KG (without explicitly naming any of them, given how she tells the tale). And even Barristan's chapter also connects her with the Starks with the ambiguous "turned to Stark" line. My point is not that Ashara's true importance is to the Starks. I'm saying once again that while Ashara may seem like an obvious guess to be accompanying Rhaegar's son to people like us that pore over the books and participate in endless theories and discussion and know a bunch of SSM, it really is not at all obvious if you try to position yourself in the position of an average reader who's just read the books and doesn't follow fan theories or Martin's answers to fan inquiries, and I think that 100% would still hold true if Tyrion noticed Lemore's purple eyes. From the POV of that person, there really isn't any direct, substantive reason up until then to connect Ashara to Elia or Rhaegar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Lemore is described as handsome, not delicate. She is also very clearly in excellent health.

Elia, however, was NEVER in good health. She was a premature baby and always frail. Adventuring on the Rhoyne doesn't fit with that I would say. I do not doubt that whoever Lemore is, she has Dornish and/or Marcher roots, but that is basically the only box Elia ticks. Also, believing that Elia survived requires believing that Gregor restrained himself from raping and killing someone and then lied to the world about it. This doesn't fit either I would say.

Lemore's identity is a big puzzle, but whoever she is, she is connected to the schemers and/or fence sitters, so the real question is, how is the merry band surrounding Aegon linked to other plots, and is Illyrio's plot the only one going? I would assume not, and IF not, she is a link to another branch of the story, such as the Brotherhood (full of Dornish and Marcher characters), the High Sparrow (whose identity is also currently unknown) or Littlefinger (who has known Varys's secret all along and no doubt has a source of information).

 

I think the following are in the realm of possibility:

1. Lemore was linked to Rhaegar when he was alive.  

2. Lemore was linked to the Kingswood Brotherhood, considering that a relative of the former head of the Brotherhood entered into the agreement with Illyrio.

3.  Lemore is linked with the Blackfyre contingent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Huh?? If i remind you that i have your family and you better behave... i'm not using them as hostages?? It sure as hell sounsds like coercion to me.

I doubt you missed the point, so you are ignoring it I guess?

The claim was that the Martells required coercion to act on the Targaryen side.
The reality is that the Martells had already acted before the 'coercion' (ie the 10,000 spears were coming up the Kingsroad (ie already set by Doran) and Lewyn was sent to meet them and take command, by Aerys) and the 'coercion was a bit of crass reference to possible coercion, not an actual formal situation. In a society where active, formal coercion is a standard tactic.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

So... There is evidence, You simply don't like them.

No. There is evidence that they sometimes clashed. An estrangement is something bigger.
And most of the evidence is at best rumour, even as recounted by their enemies. 

8 hours ago, frenin said:

But we're told they were estranged in the first place, we have no reason to believe it a lie as there is no reason for that lie. The most important bits are those.

No, we aren't told that they were estranged. 
Ok, they were by the formal definition - to longer affectionate. As I already agreed, they clashed at times and didn't get on all that well. So technically you are absolutely correct

But the context of the use goes farther than that - that they were no longer on the same side. This context is political, not just personal, and more than just lost affection into actual enmity.
The truth is that Rhaegar was never disinherited and they both were always on the side of House Targaryen and not ready to 'war' against each other, literally or figuratively. That they disagreed on how/what needed to be done etc doesn't make them enemies, even though Aerys' increasing paranoia makes it harder for them to 'get along' personally.

You gave three quotes. Remember first that all three are made by their enemies, after they were gone, for the express benefit of the hater-in-chief, "I see only dragonspawn", King Robert I Baratheon. Thats the base context.
The first merely says Aerys was suspicious of Rhaegar (and everybody). Thats not enough for estrangement (political) in context.
The second gives the opinion that they ought to be reconciled by the birth of a Targaryen heir (even if female) to the Martell woman Aery's picked for Rhaegar. It seems like a sensible opinion to me, no quibbles as such, except that 'reconciled' covers both the personal-level estrangement and/or political level. Given that Rhaegar did actually bring his wife and newborn child to his father, everything I see there is personal estrangeent but you are using it as political. I see no evidence of political estrangement in that quote.
The third quote is purely political, so its the strongest, but its also the weakest. It is directly from Pycelle's writings, Tywin's stooge at court who was likely actively fomenting political estrangement and even if he wasn't, would certainly have no hesitation in exaggerating the situation in order to make it look even worse than it was.
 

But ok, the third quote is evidence, no matter how dubious, of political estrangement.

I will of course, accept that actual facts on the ground, that neither ever moved actively against the other and both actively supported the other against all others, hold considerably more weight than the writings of a know traitor against them.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

So there is actual evidence that father and son could not see one another

But they did see each other. So no, there is no evidence they couldn't see each other, just evidence they sometimes disagreed and didn't get on well, and there was a lack of personal affection, at least from Aerys.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

You know, enemy of my enemy is my friend, lesser evil yadda  yadda yadda.

Except that there is no good evidence that they were ever enemies of each other.
If the enemeny of my enemy is my friend, then Robert and Aerys should have been besties acording to your logic. Rahegar was both their enemy according to you, and Robert no enemy to Aerys. 

8 hours ago, frenin said:

No, every time  (one time) they have a common enemy that is set on killing them. They are forced to koin forces.

And that's not real evidence, that's simply confirmation bias.

Shouldn't you show some evidence that they were enemies first? 

8 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm still surprised why he opted for actually signing his death sentence instead of  taking advantage of the golden opportunity Rhaegar had given by disappearing with Lyanna, Few would have gone to war over him for it.

Maybe you are surprised because your premises are wrong?
I'm not surprised at all. 
I think what he should have done is use their common interest in breaking up Rhaegar and Lyanna to gain an ally in Rickard Stark. Not to destroy Rhaegar though, thats counterproductive as Rhaegar is still his heir and greatest ally, but to thwart whatever Rhagear was doing that he didn't approve of or understand. I'm not at all surprised though that the moment Rhaegar, House Targaryen, is threatened, Aerys lashes out viciously and irrationally at those threatening his House and future. He's mad and paranoid after all.
Its noticeable his first response is to attack Rhaegar's attacker, not support Rhaegar's enemy. I guess the enemy oy my enemyis not my friend after all - or perhaps that actually the enemy of my ally?

8 hours ago, frenin said:

No, actually no. It's purely "what can you do for me".

Viserys can give them the vengeance they seek and they can give him the throne he seeks.

Except, as I pointed out, thats not true. Viserys is not in a position to give them anything at all except risk.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Quid pro quo. I don't see any loyalty involved, nor we're  given any reason that there was any loyalty involved.

If there is quid now, but no pro now and no prospect of pro for many years, and very little prospect of pro at all, I call that loyalty.  

8 hours ago, frenin said:

The secret pact is an investment... 

And as an investment you'd expect there to be a reasonable chance of profit commensurate to the risks.
I see risks, but little prospect of profit.

Loyalty, on the other hand, changes the equation. The chance of profit doesn't need to be as great.

8 hours ago, frenin said:
Indeed, a dead end is a dead end. The Lannisters marry into the new royal family the year after the war ends. It matters little whether many people dislike the Lannisters, the Lannisters are now Robert's family and part of his gigantic coalition.

But if the motivation is revenge, then there are no dead ends. The rapacity of the Lannisters means every avenue has a chance of bearing fruit - many of them far earlier than the Targ option.
Yet no other avenues are explored. None. None with the Starks, who have no love for Lannisters. Not with the Tully's, coerced into the coalition early but receiving less fruits than the late-coming, low-contributing Lannisters. None with the Reach, beaten Targ allies with no fruits at all.
Nothing. 
But everything thrown in one direction, with the least strength and power and the longest time for any possibility of revenge.   

8 hours ago, frenin said:
Whether Doran is acting out of loyalty (targ basket) or self interest... He should be looking for alliances within the Realm. Unless he he believes that he can take on the Baratheons by himself.

Agreed. Except that if its self interest only, then all baskets are equal. 
If loyalty, then one basket is much greater, the others only supporting.
We see only one basket.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Doing the former means doing the latter. The Lannisters would not go out without Robert's regime following them (in normal circumstances ofc).

Why not? Faction change in courts, over time.

If the only motivation is the death of Tywin, why is there no internal politicking at all?

8 hours ago, frenin said:

So... Aren't they family?

I don't believe you can't tell the difference between a greater family lending their blood to a lesser family and looking down on them vs a lesser family joining their blood to a greater family and feeling part of it.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Seems cherrypicking to me.

You cherrypicked them, not me.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

The Baratheons have been staunch supporters of the Targs,

Given the rebellion of 239AC, I guess you have a different definition of 'staunch supporters'. And that was only 60 years ago. There would still be people alive who remember it. 

8 hours ago, frenin said:

in fact Lyonel Baratheon is the only great lord we're told that supported  Egg's policies out of loyalty and not because he was promised a reward. he only rebelled when he was screwed over. His son served loyally as Hand of the King and so was about to his grandson.  

Right. A short but bloody rebellion is the very definition of loyalty.
And the position of Hand of the King is not an honour, or reward, and not likely to go to someone willing to support the king's policies.

I know we don't always agree on stuff, and there are shades and nuances which we often disagree on (and such are often a cause of an apparent larger disagreement when we are mostly aligned I suspect) but you seem to be taking some pretty hyperbolic positions here purely for the cause of arguing against my position, no? I mean, Lyonel Baratheon as an example of loyalty?

8 hours ago, frenin said:

The Martells have not been more or less supporters than the average lord that was not screwed over by the Targs.

In the past 150 years:
Martell weds future Targ King.
Targ weds Martell Prince.
Special privileges and rights granted to House Martell
Multiple Targ kings with Martell mother
Dornish support in the first Blackfyre Rebellion
Houses Baratheon, Tully and Tyrell alienated through broken marriage pacts (Baratheon rebellion crushed bloodily).
House Martell again chosen to supply a wife for a crown prince (all non-Martell, non-Targ queens in this time period were chosen when their husbands were far from succession. Every outside wife chosen for a king of crown prince in this time has been Martell.

Yes, actually, the Martells have been closer to House Targaryen for the last 150 years than any other House. They still have special priveleges and rights.

8 hours ago, frenin said:
-Honestly, you're giving that 150yrs of connected family history more fuzz than the characters have ever done.

I paid attention. 

6 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Lemore is described as handsome, not delicate. She is also very clearly in excellent health.

Yes, the point was Elia was descibed as delicate. 
Its a point against the thread title theory.

6 hours ago, Hippocras said:

 or Littlefinger (who has known Varys's secret all along and no doubt has a source of information).

Since when has Littlefinger been privy to any of Varys' secrets?

Littlefinger's focus' are different to Varys. Both have good networks, but both are much more limited than most readers seem to think. I don't believe there is any indication Littlefinger knows much at all about Vary or Varys' plots, except within King Robert's court.
Littlefinger is an outsider playing his own game for his own advantage. 
Varys is an insider playing very different games that Littlefinger has no conception of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

One blond nephew and a presumably distant cousin from a cadet branch with silver hair may have been enough for some people to run wild with the assumption that every Dayne is fair haired, but I view that more as people being overly presumptuous about what every Dayne looks like than the author "misdirecting" on what Ashara looks like.

Don't you think thats a it hyperbolic?
This is not "running wild with assumptions". Its just looking at all the indications we have, and seeing where they point. Not making wild assumptions as definitive cases.

Even though every Dayne that we'd gotten hair colour from had light hair, that didn't definitively prove that Ashara had light hair. Its juts an indication. An indication reinforced, by the 'fair' description from Cat. No one thought she had to have fair hair, just that in the absence of formal information, that was a more likely case than other options.

Quote

In addition, it seems unlikely that Dyanna Dayne had silver hair since one of Egg's brothers is described as having sandy hair, though I know that's not covered in ASOIAF itself.

No one mentioned Dyanna Dayne. Her hair colour isn't mentioned so she's not a data point, and potential indication from GRRM.

Quote

I think you know very well that purple eyes in ASOIAF are not the same as "purple eyes" in real life.

Actually, they are. You may think they are not, but you haven't been paying attention.
Just as in real life, repeatedly ASoIaF purple eyes can appear to be other colours. Just as in real life, because people 'know' certain people are famous for purple eyes, they see that more easily in those cases and describe those people as purple eyed because they 'know' its the case.
Because its fantasy and deliberately 'larger than life', ASoIaF purple eyes can be 'more' purple than real purple eyes. But the same properties apply and are used in multiple cases. They can be different shades of purple, some are pure blue with no purple at all, and some purples can be disguised as not-purple with the aid of accessories etc (clothes, hair, probably makeup and jewelry too).

Thats how it is/was for Elizabeth Taylor.
Thats how it is/was for some purple-eyed Westerosi 
 - fAegon disguises his purple eye colour with blue hair
 - Egg's eyes appeared black in poor light, and were explicitly described as blue in relatively good light (IIRC) the first time (more or less) we met him
 - John the Fiddler wore blue to disguise his (Daemon II Blackfyre's) purple eyes

There aren't a great many examples given, because usually its a feature to bring out, not to hide. But we have enough examples to know that its a thing.

Quote

Elizabeth Taylor's eyes were not actually purple.

And yet, she's famously purple eyed.

Quote

Ashara comes up in six chapters in the books. One of those is Cersei flinging an accusation at Ned with no sort of description of her of any kind either in her words or Ned's thoughts. One is Catelyn thinking in ACOK that she doesn't know who Jon's mother could be if it isn't Ashara. One is Arya's chapter with Ned Dayne and Harwin, neither of whom ever met her or have any reason to describe her eyes to Arya. Now what about the other three chapters? In Catelyn's first chapter where Ashara gets brought up for the first time, she's described as having "haunting violet eyes."

By someone who has never seen her...

Quote

When Meera tells the story of Harrenhal to Bran (which she obviously heard from her father), Ashara is not mentioned by name like all the other characters, and instead she's referred to as the maid with "laughing purple eyes." When Barristan thinks of her, he wistfully remembers those "haunting purple eyes." Does this really sound like her eyes are just the sort of thing that really only look remarkable in a certain light, and akin to the real-world blue eyes of people like Elizabeth Taylor? This is clearly the defining feature people notice about her.

Yes. Especially when they are doubtlessly deliberately 'brought out' because thats a particularly 'special' thing in this world.
Exactly as it was for Elizabeth Taylor
 

Quote

We don't know how old Young Griff is, and even if he is Aegon, Tyrion was off by about two years in his guess. That's quite different to me from confidently asserting that a woman in her thirties is past 40. And if anything, I think people are generally more likely to underestimate the age of an attractive woman Ashara's age rather than the opposite.

Riiiight. Thats why mean never estimate a middle aged woman's age out loud. Because they are afraid of complimenting her.

Quote

If he had said "around 40" I'd agree it wouldn't be very meaningful, but that carries a different meaning from "past 40."

You mean... his guess is not a guess because of how he defined it numerically?

I've seen you discuss things before. You don't usually use such terrible arguments as these. Why is it so important to hang on to that you must use such terrible arguments?
Purple eyes don't work in ASoIaF the wya they do in the real world even though GRRM gives us multiple direct examples that they do?
A man can accurately guess a middle aged woman's age? And his past record on inaccuracy means nothing?

Quote

This is definitely something we are told that goes against what we know about Ashara, and while I agree it's not conclusive as Tyrion is fallible, I don't agree that it's something to be handwaved as in fact further proof as you seem to think.

Its handwaved because its a guess about something famously inaccurate.
The handwaving doesn;t make it evidence 'for'.
the fact that when you look at the information we have and generate a best estimate of Ashara's real age it comes damn close to the guess, and certainly within any reasonable margin of error, is a positive rather than negative point. Yet people still try to bring it up as a negative. 

Quote

How is this a point against my argument? Clues should reward readers that pay attention, that it's something many casual readers would miss but careful readers won't is all the more reason why it shouldn't have been left out.

What are you saying here? 
It can't be that "GRRMs secrets only have clues that don't require attention?" But I'm having trouble seeing you words as meaning anything else. Could you rephrase it perhaps, mre clearly?

Quote

I really didn't mean for my claim to be at all subjective. I wasn't making any assertion about her importance to the future of the books, just her presence in the ones that we currently have. And she is clearly less prominent there than she is on message boards, I don't know how you can possibly deny that. She comes up in six chapters out of how many?

What is the point here? 
Who could she be? She's clearly someone. WHat makes the limited number of direct refences rule out Ashara? Elia has more refences, but we know not much more about her and she fails as a candidate in multiple ways. Mellario has even few reference and even less data. Wenda too. 

Quote

That the second point you could think of is that her long-dead brother was a famous knight (instead of anything about her) proves what I'm saying. I'm not saying she wasn't important to events at Harrenhal and/or the end of the rebellion, and I'm not claiming anything about her importance in the last two books. I'm just saying that she is objectively in the books a lot less than she appears in theories and discussions on message boards. To a lot of readers with no exposure to the fandom, she's one character out of many from the backstory. My point is that planting evidence about her that isn't caught by such readers but may seem obvious to careful ones is perfectly fine and in fact very good writing. 

Umm, so we are in agreement then?
I'm quite confused, because you seem to be arguing that we don't know enough about her for her to be relevant, I point out we know more about her than it seems if we are careful reader - and that all we know match both, and you reiterate that she's a minor back character?

Quote

While I'm not saying Sarella is in Oldtown because of the Others, the storyline she's involved in there very much seems to involve things that go well beyond just "southron politics."

I'm not sure it even goes there. She is apparently there because she wants to be and is suffiently Oberyn's daughter to ignore rules and conventions and get around them if she wants to.
Southron politics is an 'at most' option - I don't see any indication that even that is involved in her presence, but it could be.

Her connection to Sam and what he brings to Oldtown is surely coincidental at best. She can't have been sent there for that. I don;t see anything political in her connection to Marwyn either. That seems like a pretty reasonable 'accidental' connection given her interests, situation, and him being involved with 'fringe' Oldtower-ian academia.

So if its all pretty much 'accidental' that she is involved, how is it of earthshaking importance?

Quote

Ashara can shed light on past stuff (though I think there's probably still a lot of stuff she wouldn't know),

Me too BTW, but part of the point is that GRRM can pick and choose what he wants to from many possibilities.

Quote

but it would take more than that for her to actually change the story going forward.

But not to make thins clearer for readers. 

Quote

To make a comparison, Howland Reed certainly knows a lot of important things (and on top of that he could be the one to reveal RLJ, which could obviously have a huge impact on the story going forward), but it wouldn't ruin the story if someone figured out that he was a certain character hiding their identity because George had a POV character describe them the way you'd expect them to be described. The reader figuring out that Lemore is Ashara doesn't ruin any surprise about Jon's origins or Rhaegar's plan,

Agreed. But without HR (or whoever HR was when he ws part of events), GRRM has limited avenues for revealing imprortance connections and backstory the reader needs.

Quote

I don't see why that's a reason to have a POV character miss what George himself has made out to be her almost singular defining feature.

I think here we have something.
You agree that GRRM made it her singularly defining feature.
But given that its something that can, in-story as well as in real life, be alternately 'brought out' or 'concealed', doesn't that make it the perfect defining feature for someone he wants to introduce but keep their real identity hidden?

Quote

If anything, more clear confirmation that it's Ashara (that isn't going beyond anything you wouldn't expect someone who met her to notice, and is still something many readers would miss) helps to build the hype and excitement around possible revelations to come.

I think this is subjective and I guess we differ. 
I think if you give away too much, you ruin the surprise of a reveal. Balancing that with lifting expectation... I guess thats a thing 

Quote

And my point is, how is any of that undermined by noting that Lemore has purple eyes? Are any of those things ruined by it, the way that revealing that Jon is Rhaegar's son in Ned's first chapter would have ruined any twist around his parentage and the importance thereof? 

I think that that is for all intents and purposes, a reveal. If Lemore has purple eyes then its pretty much a slam dunk she is Ashara. Yet he's clearly not ready yet for such a reveal.

And yes, I think revealing that Jon is Rhaegar's son in Ned's first chapter would have spoiled a lot of interest in his parentage. Virtually all of it in fact. Attention would be shifted entirely to Jon's arc, rather than Jon's mysteries and all the little things like the bastards not allowed to hurt princes thing completely change their meaning and character.

Quote

I thought this over after our conversation last week, and I do agree with this. This is probably the strongest argument in favor of Ashara = Lemore. Whatever the strength of evidence for her being Ashara, it seems stronger than any alternative, and given that she does seem to be a noblewoman hiding her identity, that probably makes Ashara the best guess. I'm just saying that if it's the case, I don't think George should have tried to hide it by having Tyrion fail to notice the one thing that he has gone repeatedly out of his way to establish as the overriding thing everyone notices and defines Ashara by.

One of the themes (there re many of course) in ASoIaF is that of identity and how, in a low tech society it is really very easily changed.

I see the Ashara was PURPLE EYED (and nothing else) thing as reinforcing this. So its a feature, not a flaw.

Quote

That's not something that the Elizabeth Taylor comparison justifies to my satisfaction. If there had been an offhand reference to her having purple eyes once, I could maybe buy that, but not when you have three characters define her by that feature, especially given how little else we've been told about her. 

Two of them having either not met her or not naming her.
Barristan provides the one reference that direct and by observation.

Quote

And not given the way that George handles clues for other characters hiding their identity (and I'm not just talking about Alleras).

I think it is like how GRRM hides mysteries - except for a couple of instances that are minor. Its subtle and deceiving much like John the Fiddler was (more so in this case because we are still at the 'hidden' stage, whereas ae ae past the 'reveal' stage with John.

Her is the thing with John the Fiddler
 

Quote

"There you are, Gormy," called the rider on the black, a young man lean and lithe, with a comely, clean-shaven face and fine features. Black hair fell shining to his collar. His doublet was made of dark blue silk edged in gold satin. Across his chest an engrailed cross had been embroidered in gold thread, with a golden fiddle in the first and third quarters, a golden sword in the second and the fourth. His eyes caught the deep blue of his doublet and sparkled with amusement. "Alyn feared you'd fallen from your horse. A palpable excuse, it seems to me; I was about to leave him in my dust."

Here, the first time we meet, the reader is given the impression that John's eyes are blue.

Quote

Dunk turned to find Ser John the Fiddler looming over him, a half smile on his lips. His white silk doublet had lagged sleeves lined with red satin, so long their points drooped down past his knees. A heavy silver chain looped across his chest, studded with huge dark amethysts whose color matched his eyes. 

But here, later, we find that GRRM has deceived us, Jon's eyes match the dark amethysts - they are dark purple.

Quote
"No." The Fiddler's eyes sparkled with mischief.
He has Egg's eyes.

and looking back to the first book

Quote

"Can I have a sword to run them off with?" Egg asked. He had blue eyes, Dunk saw, very dark, almost purple. His bald head made them seem huge, somehow.

Eggs eyes are definitively blue, GRRM tells us. Or lies to us, though he clues us in as well.

Quote

A look was all the answer that he got. Egg had big eyes, and somehow his shaven head made them look even larger. In the dimness of the lamplit cellar they looked black, but in better light their true color could be seen: deep and dark and purple. Valyrian eyes, thought Dunk

Back to Daemon II Blackfyre

Quote

Now half the hall grew quiet. At the high table, the man who'd called himself the Fiddler turned to smile at him. Ile had donned a purple tunic for the feast, Dunk saw. Purple, to bring out the color of his eyes. 

Both Egg and Daemon have true Targaryen eyes, deep and dark and purple, famously so.
Yet both can appear blue. 

But Ashara's eyes are not open to deception because they are what defines the youthful beautoful public her?

Its just a terrible argument to make.
If I'm strawmanning, I apologise. It just truly seems to be what you are saying.

 

Quote

I'm a little confused on what you're arguing here.

haha, this is a whole other issue and discussion. Probably better not to get into it here.

Quote

Edit: This is an additional thought I had after my post, but another reason why Ashara isn't necessarily an obvious guess for the average reader

Umm, we agree. I don't really understand why you think GRRM only gives obvious clues for average readers?
He has done that a couple of times, but only for unimportant (Alleras) or quickly resolved (Arstan) 'mysteries'. Not for something he still seems to be deliberately hiding the resolution of, while throwing in our faces that its a mystery.

Quote

is that there's no real indication in the books of any connection to Elia or Rhaegar until Barristan's chapter, which comes after Tyrion meeting Lemore. While George had confirmed in a SSM years ago that Ashara was a lady-in-waiting to Elia, this is never mentioned in the books until Barristan recalls it. It is true that her brother was a good friend of Rhaegar's, but there's no direct connection involving Ashara herself before that. The five previous references to her are almost entirely about real or supposed connections to Ned - Catelyn's two chapters where she thinks about her as the potential mother of Jon, Cersei's accusation that she's Jon's mother, Ned Dayne and Harwin talking to Arya about the supposed romance at Harrenhal between Ashara and Ned, and Meera's story, where she mentions that Ashara danced with Ned, along with JonCon, Oberyn, and a KG (without explicitly naming any of them, given how she tells the tale). And even Barristan's chapter also connects her with the Starks with the ambiguous "turned to Stark" line. My point is not that Ashara's true importance is to the Starks. I'm saying once again that while Ashara may seem like an obvious guess to be accompanying Rhaegar's son to people like us that pore over the books and participate in endless theories and discussion and know a bunch of SSM, it really is not at all obvious if you try to position yourself in the position of an average reader who's just read the books and doesn't follow fan theories or Martin's answers to fan inquiries,

Well, yes. Thats necessary when you aen;t ready to reveal the answer yet.

Quote

and I think that 100% would still hold true if Tyrion noticed Lemore's purple eyes. From the POV of that person, there really isn't any direct, substantive reason up until then to connect Ashara to Elia or Rhaegar. 

Hang on. just above you are telling me that purple eyes is the definitive Ashara thing. The glaring lack of them is a huge problem.
Now you are saying that purple eyes wouldn't point people at Ashara. Having them wouldn't mean anything anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, corbon said:

I doubt you missed the point, so you are ignoring it I guess?

The claim was that the Martells required coercion to act on the Targaryen side.
The reality is that the Martells had already acted before the 'coercion' (ie the 10,000 spears were coming up the Kingsroad (ie already set by Doran) and Lewyn was sent to meet them and take command, by Aerys) and the 'coercion was a bit of crass reference to possible coercion, not an actual formal situation. In a society where active, formal coercion is a standard tactic.

I'm not ignoring anything.

Aerys did use Elia as hostage against Lewyn, he did not use them against Doran so far we can tell. There is no possible coercion, Aerys reminds Lewyn that Elia is in his power, that's coercion.

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

No. There is evidence that they sometimes clashed. An estrangement is something bigger.
And most of the evidence is at best rumour, even as recounted by their enemies. 

Nope, we are literally told that they needed reconcilement. That's the very definition of estrangement.

How is it rumour?? Yandel is retelling historical events and he has a primary source in Pycelle. 

One thing is arguing that the evidence may be unreliable, don't really think so but more about this down below, another quite different is acting as if there was no evidence in the first place.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

No, we aren't told that they were estranged. 
Ok, they were by the formal definition - to longer affectionate. As I already agreed, they clashed at times and didn't get on all that well. So technically you are absolutely correct

:leaving:

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

But the context of the use goes farther than that - that they were no longer on the same side. This context is political, not just personal, and more than just lost affection into actual enmity.

We are told that literal factions existed within the court. Ofc they were no longer politically on the same side, How could they if the father feared the son was moving against him... and the son was actually moving against him?

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

The truth is that Rhaegar was never disinherited and they both were always on the side of House Targaryen and not ready to 'war' against each other, literally or figuratively. That they disagreed on how/what needed to be done etc doesn't make them enemies, even though Aerys' increasing paranoia makes it harder for them to 'get along' personally.

Daeron II remained the Unworthy's heir for his entire life, he was never disinherited and they both were always on the side of House Targaryen (this one is shocking, which side do you want them to be?)

Does that mean that father and son were not political rivals?? Or should we dismiss all the evidence we have just the same?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

You gave three quotes. Remember first that all three are made by their enemies, after they were gone, for the express benefit of the hater-in-chief, "I see only dragonspawn", King Robert I Baratheon. Thats the base context.
The first merely says Aerys was suspicious of Rhaegar (and everybody). Thats not enough for estrangement (political) in context.

That's a terrible way to see a historical piece, there are for sure adultered parts but those tidbits in particular have no more reason to be adultered than Egg's reign.

 

  • Robert hates them but he has absolutely no reason to be lied about father and son being on bad terms. He gains or loses little by it.
  • It's stupid to try and lie to Robert, Robert was a grown adult during those times, he knows full well whether they were cool or not. He would be one of the lords invested in knowing about it, especially because they were his cousins and Storm's End is rather nearby.
  • It's a private book, destined to be read by a handful of people, not a full blown propagand book destined to a broader audience.
  • Most of the quotes are actually in time citations. Unless you wanna argue that Pycelle could see the future and knew that the Targs were going to be ousted from power when he wrote those letters, there is no merit on your argument.

 

In summary there is no motive.

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

The second gives the opinion that they ought to be reconciled by the birth of a Targaryen heir (even if female) to the Martell woman Aery's picked for Rhaegar. It seems like a sensible opinion to me, no quibbles as such, except that 'reconciled' covers both the personal-level estrangement and/or political level. Given that Rhaegar did actually bring his wife and newborn child to his father, everything I see there is personal estrangeent but you are using it as political. I see no evidence of political estrangement in that quote.

Perhaps you have not read the quote.

 

Quote

 

You sure you see no evidence of "political estrangement"??

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

The third quote is purely political, so its the strongest, but its also the weakest. It is directly from Pycelle's writings, Tywin's stooge at court who was likely actively fomenting political estrangement and even if he wasn't, would certainly have no hesitation in exaggerating the situation in order to make it look even worse than it was.

  1. And Pycelle is unreliable in this matter because...
  2. Him being Tywin's stooge has little to nothing to do with him lying or misleading at the time, since Tywin is nowhere to be found there.
  3. Why would he foment political estrangement?? And how is that "likely"?  How do you even know he was?
  4. Why in the world would he exaggerate to make it bigger than it was instead of giving his personal opinion on the matter?
  5. Why can't it be his personal opinion again?

 

Do you realize how many jumps you have given just to dismiss the argument?? 

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

I will of course, accept that actual facts on the ground, that neither ever moved actively against the other and both actively supported the other against all others, hold considerably more weight than the writings of a know traitor against them.

That's simply spurious unless ofc you want to argue that Pycelle is lying because of things he would do in the future. That is simply a very absurd stance to hold.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

But they did see each other. So no, there is no evidence they couldn't see each other, just evidence they sometimes disagreed and didn't get on well, and there was a lack of personal affection, at least from Aerys.

Oh did they now? They saw each other what once? Besides the phrase was purely idiomatic...

We know that there were factions, we know that Rhaegar plotted to have his father removed from power, we know that they didn't reconcile at the time.

Honesty...

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Except that there is no good evidence that they were ever enemies of each other.
If the enemeny of my enemy is my friend, then Robert and Aerys should have been besties acording to your logic. Rahegar was both their enemy according to you, and Robert no enemy to Aerys. 

  1. Yeah there is good evidence, you simply mislike it because you have decided this is the hill you will die on.

Robert and Aerys would have been wonderful besties... Had Aerys not actively tried to kill him and had he not killed the Starks off.  Then Robert wanted him dead in return and his best friend who had lost half his family wasn't very pleased either, suddenly father and son found themselves with pissed off rebels who wanted them both dead and half the realm against them. They could have:

A) Join forces and become stronger   

B) Refuse and become easy pickings for the rebels that wanted both of them dead.

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Except that there is no good evidence that they were ever enemies of each other.
If the enemeny of my enemy is my friend, then Robert and Aerys should have been besties acording to your logic. Rahegar was both their enemy according to you, and Robert no enemy to Aerys. 

I already have, you have decided that you don't like it and therefore it does not count as evidence.

 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Maybe you are surprised because your premises are wrong?
I'm not surprised at all. 
I think what he should have done is use their common interest in breaking up Rhaegar and Lyanna to gain an ally in Rickard Stark. Not to destroy Rhaegar though, thats counterproductive as Rhaegar is still his heir and greatest ally, but to thwart whatever Rhagear was doing that he didn't approve of or understand. I'm not at all surprised though that the moment Rhaegar, House Targaryen, is threatened, Aerys lashes out viciously and irrationally at those threatening his House and future. He's mad and paranoid after all.
Its noticeable his first response is to attack Rhaegar's attacker, not support Rhaegar's enemy. I guess the enemy oy my enemyis not my friend after all - or perhaps that actually the enemy of my ally?

  1. What premises?? It is a fact that Aerys distrusted Rhaegar.
  2. Rhaegar is still his heir, which is what disowning him is for. And Aerys did not believe him and ally until after the war had broken out.
  3. The enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend. Then again, i cannot pretend to rationalize the act of a mad and paranoid man after all. He saw the tree not the forest, too bad for him.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Except, as I pointed out, thats not true. Viserys is not in a position to give them anything at all except risk.

?? Viserys is the pretender in exile, those who believe in him would rally around him.  That's what Viserys provides,

It's a simple objective by objective game.

1) They want the Lannisters dead -> 2) Robert marries Cersei/The Lannisters become too strong to fall -> 3) If they want the Lannisters they need to go through Robert -> 4) They need to go through Robert's coalition -> 5) They need a figure capable of breaking said coalition and o creating another of similar might -> 6) Only a Targ pretender bring that to the table (potentially) -> 7) They go get that pretender.

 

Ofc it's a risk but if there is no vengeance without risk and they are certainly not giving up on vengeance.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

If there is quid now, but no pro now and no prospect of pro for many years, and very little prospect of pro at all, I call that loyalty.  

There is no quid now.

It's quid tomorrow and pro tomorrow. The bethrotal can always be cancelled and it is not about how you call it, it's about what it is. It is simply vengeance.

When someone never mentions loyalty but always has revenge on his tongue... it is revenge.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

And as an investment you'd expect there to be a reasonable chance of profit commensurate to the risks.
I see risks, but little prospect of profit.

Loyalty, on the other hand, changes the equation. The chance of profit doesn't need to be as great.

You'd expect a chance to profit. Which there is, however small it is.

The investment is revenge which is purely emotional so...

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

But if the motivation is revenge, then there are no dead ends. The rapacity of the Lannisters means every avenue has a chance of bearing fruit - many of them far earlier than the Targ option.
Yet no other avenues are explored. None. None with the Starks, who have no love for Lannisters. Not with the Tully's, coerced into the coalition early but receiving less fruits than the late-coming, low-contributing Lannisters. None with the Reach, beaten Targ allies with no fruits at all.
Nothing. 
But everything thrown in one direction, with the least strength and power and the longest time for any possibility of revenge.   

 

Well but ofc most of those you have mentioned are already pro Robert, even if they don't like the Lannisters, they are not going to abandon Robert because of it, i would not say that the Tullys were coerced into a coalition more than they were bribed into it, The Reach lords were soon enough bought in so unreliable. And the Reach lords were not beating Robert's coalition after the Lannisters jumped in, not even with the Martells.

As i said, whether it's revenge or it's loyalty. They would have needed allies on the land, this bit is something everyone points out.

Revenge takes time for Doran and he's a rather... patient man. How's this news to you that he'd choose the path he'd think the ost sure?

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Maybe you are surprised because your premises are wrong?
I'm not surprised at all. 
I think what he should have done is use their common interest in breaking up Rhaegar and Lyanna to gain an ally in Rickard Stark. Not to destroy Rhaegar though, thats counterproductive as Rhaegar is still his heir and greatest ally, but to thwart whatever Rhagear was doing that he didn't approve of or understand. I'm not at all surprised though that the moment Rhaegar, House Targaryen, is threatened, Aerys lashes out viciously and irrationally at those threatening his House and future. He's mad and paranoid after all.
Its noticeable his first response is to attack Rhaegar's attacker, not support Rhaegar's enemy. I guess the enemy oy my enemyis not my friend after all - or perhaps that actually the enemy of my ally?

Yeah and that basket is revenge, everything else, including the Targs? Only supporting.

This is not difficult, you show a single time they talk about loyalty and then we can continue.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Why not? Faction change in courts, over time.

If the only motivation is the death of Tywin, why is there no internal politicking at all?

Family not so much. Tywin is not just a faction, he's Robert's father in law. That's nearly impossible to break. That's the point about this dynastic marriages.

His motivation is the destruction of the Lannisters, which is not going to happen.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

I don't believe you can't tell the difference between a greater family lending their blood to a lesser family and looking down on them vs a lesser family joining their blood to a greater family and feeling part of it.

Ofc i can i just don't see where it happens,

Where do the Targs look down on the Baratheons again?? I don't remember Egg, his sons, Aerys or Rhaegar ever doing it. The only times the Martells have cared about their blood is when it came to stealing dragons.

And your point was that the Martells and the Targs were family, as a familiar tie 120 years old meant much for either of them.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Why not? Faction change in courts, over time.

If the only motivation is the death of Tywin, why is there no internal politicking at all?

You mentioned familial ties, on the wrong assumption that either of them care much about, or better said on the wrong assumption that either of them should care about ties a hundred years long. I said other  families had too. You changed your tune.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Right. A short but bloody rebellion is the very definition of loyalty.

No, but supporting policies that go against your interest is.

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

And the position of Hand of the King is not an honour, or reward, and not likely to go to someone willing to support the king's policies.

The position of Hand of the King is for his son... who is the Hand of Egg's son. Jaeharys dismantled many of his father's policies so?

Yes actually, Had he not been insulted he would have not rebelled. Arrogant asshole? For sure, but the very fact that a great lord like him supported his policies is astonishing.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

In the past 150 years:
Martell weds future Targ King.
Targ weds Martell Prince.
Special privileges and rights granted to House Martell
Multiple Targ kings with Martell mother
Dornish support in the first Blackfyre Rebellion
Houses Baratheon, Tully and Tyrell alienated through broken marriage pacts (Baratheon rebellion crushed bloodily).
House Martell again chosen to supply a wife for a crown prince (all non-Martell, non-Targ queens in this time period were chosen when their husbands were far from succession. Every outside wife chosen for a king of crown prince in this time has been Martell.

Yes, actually, the Martells have been closer to House Targaryen for the last 150 years than any other House. They still have special priveleges and rights.

  1. Sure
  2. Sure
  3. As a price for Dornish allegiance.
  4. 2 as a matter of fact.
  5. Every great house south of the neck supported the reds.
  6. The Baratheons were not crushed and given that Lyonel got a princess out of his entitlemet i don't think he was alineated fot long.
  7. Neither Baelor nor his heirs had a Martell bride, neither did Egg's heirs. So there is some 100 years between Daeron 2  (who by that time was not intended to be the heir) taking Mariah Martell and Rhaegar taking Elia. 

I still don't see why the rights are a factors buut.

 

 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

In the past 150 years:
Martell weds future Targ King.
Targ weds Martell Prince.
Special privileges and rights granted to House Martell
Multiple Targ kings with Martell mother
Dornish support in the first Blackfyre Rebellion
Houses Baratheon, Tully and Tyrell alienated through broken marriage pacts (Baratheon rebellion crushed bloodily).
House Martell again chosen to supply a wife for a crown prince (all non-Martell, non-Targ queens in this time period were chosen when their husbands were far from succession. Every outside wife chosen for a king of crown prince in this time has been Martell.

Yes, actually, the Martells have been closer to House Targaryen for the last 150 years than any other House. They still have special priveleges and rights.

It certainly seem so, to the point of knowing what the characters are thinking because as of now, no one really cares much about that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Actually, they are. You may think they are not, but you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not saying that playing with light and accessories makes no difference, but if you're really trying to argue that the purple-eyes that are distinctive of Valyrians (and some Daynes) are really meant to be 100% just the same as the "purple" (read: not actually purple at all) eyes of real people like Elizabeth Taylor, I'm not going to bother to argue because it's frankly absurd.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

By someone who has never seen her...

We don't necessarily know 100% that Catelyn never met Ashara, but even still that's hardly a point against my argument. 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Riiiight. Thats why mean never estimate a middle aged woman's age out loud. Because they are afraid of complimenting her.

It's a bit disingenuous to substitute generic "middle aged woman" for "woman in her 30s who appears to have been universally regarded as exceptionally attractive." If you really think it's more common to overestimate the age of attractive people (at least past teenage years and early 20s) rather than the other way around I don't know what to tell you. Clearly everyone is shocked that Salma Hayek is 54 instead of 64.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

What are you saying here? 
It can't be that "GRRMs secrets only have clues that don't require attention?" But I'm having trouble seeing you words as meaning anything else. Could you rephrase it perhaps, mre clearly?

I'm not saying that George plants clues that don't require attention, I'm saying the fact that a clue requires the reader to pay attention to catch is not a point against it. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. As for the quote below that, again, I'm not saying the limited number of references rules out Ashara, I'm saying that it's a reason why a reader who has no experience outside the text would have to do some thinking to come to the conclusion that she is Lemore even if Lemore was described as having purple eyes.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Umm, so we are in agreement then?
I'm quite confused, because you seem to be arguing that we don't know enough about her for her to be relevant, I point out we know more about her than it seems if we are careful reader - and that all we know match both, and you reiterate that she's a minor back character?

I'm sorry but you are completely failing to comprehend my argument if you think my position is that Ashara isn't relevant. I'm saying that her presence in the novels themselves is rare and spaced out enough that a lot of readers who don't spend time on fan forums or scouring Martin quotes aren't necessarily going to be thinking of her any time a mystery woman comes up, even one with purple eyes - and thus I don't think any mention of a woman having purple eyes is "too obvious" of a clue such that it requires characters to fail to notice it despite it being repeatedly established as the defining feature of her appearance.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

I think here we have something.
You agree that GRRM made it her singularly defining feature.
But given that its something that can, in-story as well as in real life, be alternately 'brought out' or 'concealed', doesn't that make it the perfect defining feature for someone he wants to introduce but keep their real identity hidden?

Not quite. It's possible for purple eyes to have been Ashara's defining feature in the sense that it's the one thing that stuck out to people the most about her appearance, and also that it's not such a unique feature to her as to inherently give away her identity - and I would argue in fact that this is the case because purple eyes are generally described in the narrative as one of the defining traits of Valyrians and specifically the traditional royal family of Westeros.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

think this is subjective and I guess we differ. 
I think if you give away too much, you ruin the surprise of a reveal. Balancing that with lifting expectation... I guess thats a thing

IMO a good twist is one that a careful reader can guess without having to get into the fandom. I don't think it ruins the reveals that many readers can guess RLJ or that Martin put in some very blatant foreshadowing for the Red Wedding that many readers miss on a first read.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

I think that that is for all intents and purposes, a reveal. If Lemore has purple eyes then its pretty much a slam dunk she is Ashara. Yet he's clearly not ready yet for such a reveal.

The only way that's even close to being true is if you presume the reader is hyper active on message boards and looking for Ashara Dayne to pop up everywhere. I would be shocked if fewer people guessed RLJ just based on the text than would guess Lemore = Ashara in this scenario. And that people guess RLJ based on hints that are pretty obvious if you know what to look for does not take away from the story at all, quite the opposite! RLJ is a twist that's obvious if you're involved in the fandom, but can slip by many readers, and not just people who pay no attention. George clearly found it subtle enough to give away the rights to the TV show based on D&D correctly answering the question of who Jon's mother was. As is, Lemore = Ashara is something that I think hardly anyone would guess if they weren't exposed to all the fan theorizing and discussions involving Ashara Dayne. A clever twist shouldn't require participation in fandom, and a twist isn't bad if it seems obvious to people who do participate in it. Lemore having purple eyes is nothing remotely like Ned thinking that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, that's my point.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Two of them having either not met her or not naming her.
Barristan provides the one reference that direct and by observation

By this logic noting that Lemore has purple eyes doesn't mean much because there had been no mention of Ashara's eyes by anyone with direct observation before that passage.

As for all the ensuing quotes about eyes, I'd be more positive about the writing here and the absence of any mention of purple eyes (if Lemore is indeed Ashara) if there was something similar; if Tyrion made note of her blue eyes in a way that leaves open the possibility of him mistaking purple for blue like the examples you cite. That could be a decent way to add a clue if you think calling them purple is too obvious. To have him not notice her eyes at all despite repeatedly hammering how alluring they are is cheap IMO.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Umm, we agree. I don't really understand why you think GRRM only gives obvious clues for average readers?
He has done that a couple of times, but only for unimportant (Alleras) or quickly resolved (Arstan) 'mysteries'. Not for something he still seems to be deliberately hiding the resolution of, while throwing in our faces that its a mystery.

My entire point is that Lemore having purple eyes would not be that obvious of a clue that she is Ashara to a lot of readers. As I said above, RLJ is a good example - there are clues that are very obvious if you know what to look for, but may slip by many readers. It doesn't require participating in fan culture to get, but it isn't necessarily obvious if you don't do that. Lemore = Ashara is not like that at all, hardly anyone who doesn't visit message boards is going to come to that theory based solely on the text. RLJ is guessed by far more fans than Lemore = Ashara is, and is a much more important twist in the story. Even with a purple eyes qualifier, a lot of readers would not think of her in that moment. Even with the show and the comments by Martin and D&D there are still a bunch of people who insist that Ashara is Jon's mom, and you think there'd be universal agreement even among casual readers on Lemore being Ashara if she had purple eyes?

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Well, yes. Thats necessary when you aen;t ready to reveal the answer yet.

I don't know what exactly you're referring to when you say "that's necessary." A big part of your argument has been that Ashara would be super obvious if Lemore had purple eyes because she has all these connections to Rhaegar and Elia, etc., the fact that there's absolutely no direct indication of that prior to Tyrion meeting her IMO points toward that not being the case. Based on everything up to that point, why would Average Joe Reader who has no exposure to fan theories or anything outside the books have any obvious reason to expect to find Ashara Dayne when meeting a woman with the supposed son of Elia and Rhaegar? If they figure it out after Barristan's chapter, that's an indication of good writing, not bad. You seem to believe pretty firmly that Lemore is Ashara, does that ruin it for you? Did Martin spoil the story by revealing it to you?

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Hang on. just above you are telling me that purple eyes is the definitive Ashara thing. The glaring lack of them is a huge problem.
Now you are saying that purple eyes wouldn't point people at Ashara. Having them wouldn't mean anything anyway.

As I explained above, this is only a "gotcha" if purple eyes uniquely identify someone as Ashara or a Dayne, not if they're just the feature people notice and remember her by. The vast majority of mentions of purple eyes in the books involve them being a defining trait of Targaryens and other Valyrian-descended people, with three mentions of Ashara's eyes (one of which takes place after the passage in question) plus a couple for Darkstar and Edric's (which are said to be almost purple). Daenerys's hair and eyes are very distinctive, but that doesn't mean any silver-haired, purple-eyed girl we meet must be Daenerys. I'm not saying this example is equally obvious, but to illustrate the point, it's the difference between someone failing to note that Tyrion is a dwarf upon meeting him for the first time, and assuming that any male dwarf must be Tyrion.

I think part of the issue here is that we seem to be talking past one another to some extent. You seem to think the main point of my argument is to rebut the notion that Lemore is or can be Ashara, when it's more so that a) I'm critiquing the writing if Lemore is in fact Ashara and b) I'm saying that people who spend as much time on ASOIAF message boards and reading stuff outside the main books like us exaggerate how obvious twists involving Ashara Dayne would be to most readers, even with a mention of purple eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, corbon said:

Since when has Littlefinger been privy to any of Varys' secrets?

It says directly in the first book at one point that Littlefinger knows a secret that he considers to be Varys's big secret - in other words the secret that tells him what Varys wants in the game of thrones. Because that is how Littlefinger works, by figuring out what people want. We can assume therefore that he knows about Aegon. Maybe he knows no other secrets of Varys, and maybe he knows very little about Aegon, but he does know Aegon exists and is Varys's endgame I am willing to bet. So for that, he must have a source of information somewhere.

I am not saying the information comes from Aegon's inner circle necessarily, it just seems like a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@corbon

Ashara Dayne is partially Targaryen, that's why her eyes are violet. Also could be that she is distantly bloodrelated to the founders of Valyrian 40 Dragonlord families.

Rhaegar's great-great-grandmother, Dyanna Dayne, was a sister of Ashara Dayne's great-grandparent. Dyanna and her siblings were great-grandchildren of Rhaena Targaryen, who was half-sister of Viserys II, thus Dyanna was a third cousin to her husband, Maekar Targaryen. So Arthur, Ashara and Allyria Daynes were Rhaegar Targaryen's third cousins once removed, and 1/64 dragonseeds.

Also, in my opinion, Azor Ahai had 5 wives and 44 sons (in parallel to the Fiery Hand and Hugor of the Hill). The children of Azor's first wife settled at Valyria and founded 40 dragonlord families. The children of the other four wives migrated to Westeros and founded there new Houses. House Dayne was founded by the son of Nissa Nissa, Azor's fourth wife, House Hightower was founded by Azor's second wife. That's why Daynes and Hightowers have Valyrian looks, that's because the founders of those two Houses and the founders of the 40 Dragonlord families were half-siblings.

Also, even if septa Lemore does have Valyrian-colored eyes, same as Ashara, it doesn't mean that she is Ashara. In my opinion Lemore is Jeyne Swann, and House Swann was founded by the son of Azor Ahai and his fifth wife. And Azor was a son of the Amethyst Empress, that's why his descendants, not only Valyrians but also four Great House of the 7K, also have "dragonseed" looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/2/2021 at 8:51 PM, corbon said:

No, its not an 'absolute' rule. But it is a strong theme throughout the books thats relevant to storylines. If GRRM is going to break this rule/theme he has used so consistently, then he needs to lay out some actual clues or examples of a child being described with one family look and changing to another family look. He hasn't, at least that I know of or that you've been able to bring to the table.  

Well, I don't know if you think it will qualify, but I just came across the following quote in FIRE & BLOOD about Alyssa, daughter of Jahaerys & Alysanne:

"... Alyssa proved to be a lively, healthy child.  As a baby she was so like her late sister, Daenerys, that the queen oft wept to behold her, remembering the child she had lost.  The likeness faded as the princess grew older, however; long-faced and skinny, Alyssa had little of her sister's beauty.  Her hair was a dirty blond tangle with no hint of silver to evoke the dragonlords of old, and she had been born with mismatched eyes, one violet, the other a startling green.  Her ears were too big and her smile lopsided, and when she was six ... broke her nose.  It healed crooked.  By that age, her mother had come to realize that it was not Daenerys she took after, but Baelon."

Lots of ambiguities however.  It seems to hint, though it does not say directly, that as a baby Alyssa had at least some silver in her hair, and seems to suggest that the hair darkened with age.  As an older child she had no silver.  "Dirty blond" often means blond streaked with brown.  And also here we have an example of a baby seeming to take after one family member but growing to take after another.  Part of that might be personality, though.  IIRC, the hair colors of Baelon and Daenerys are never specified.

But again, I don't think GRRM has any particular obligation to lay out clues that merely address routine facts of human nature, such as the fact that babies can changes as they age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gregor most likely killed the real Aegon (only way of making sense of Illyrio). So he most likely killed the real Elia too. Besides, if GRRM plotted doubts about a positive identification of Aegon, there was none for Elia. Lemore is probably not Ashara. Certainly not Elia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...