Heresy 214 The Last Heretic

[Matthew.]

15 hours ago, JNR said:

The other issue of course is that we'd expect constant and obvious Targ support of the Watch.  But instead of growing and strengthening, the Watch has declined tremendously since Aegon's day (the brief help and respect of Alysanne notwithstanding).

So I think if Aegon had such an idea in his head, and he may have, the timing of it was not something he felt sure of.  And it was definitely not something he passed on in a way that convinced subsequent Targs.

My exact issue with this line of speculation as well (and, IMO, what GRRM has actually said about Aegon I's motives is more vague than the way people are interpreting his comments); I actually do believe that Aegon was possibly being driven by prophecy, and had some sense that a unified Westeros would be important--but, as you say, there's no emphasis placed specifically on preparing for the Others.

Indeed, by unifying and stabilizing Westeros, there would be far fewer wars between rival kings and great houses, and consequently, far fewer losing factions being sent to the Wall en masse, and there was no plan in place to compensate, no inherited cultural idea within the Targaryens that the Wall and the Watch were important.

IMO, his understanding of the prophecy - assuming it existed in his era - appears to be the same as everyone else's: eventually, an era of darkness will descend on the world (with no specific definition of what that darkness actually is), and a prophesied figure will emerge.

Even the function of TPtwP, or AAR, should, IMO, be seen as up for debate by the readers (even if in-world bias would be inclined toward viewing the figure as a warrior); for example, if Rhaego were TPtwP, his 'duties' may already have been technically fulfilled with the return of dragons (or his rebirth into them) and fire sorcery. It may also be the case that TPtwP/AAR/whatever is not meant to be some prolific Other slayer, but to correct the broken seasons.

[Melifeather]

55 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Do you mean Aegon I or Aegon II ?

If you mean Aegon I, that is my thought, as we do not have any family signs for the house of Targaryen. It has been written that Valyrians didn't use coat of arms, however there should be some family heritage that predates Aegon I and defines the family. 

The system of knighthood and a family coat of arms with sigil are an Andal influence. I doubt very much that the Targaryens had a sigil prior to invading Westeros. I also doubt their religion originally was the Faith of the Seven. I think it's something they eventually converted to. So because of the origin of sigils and family coat of arms, the three headed dragon was established as the Targaryen family's sigil based upon Aegon the Conqueror and his two sister-wives. I suspect that Aegon II just wanted a variation of an already established family sigil.

[Tucu]

6 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The system of knighthood and a family coat of arms with sigil are an Andal influence. I doubt very much that the Targaryens had a sigil prior to invading Westeros. I also doubt their religion originally was the Faith of the Seven. I think it's something they eventually converted to. So because of the origin of sigils and family coat of arms, the three headed dragon was established as the Targaryen family's sigil based upon Aegon the Conqueror and his two sister-wives. I suspect that Aegon II just wanted a variation of an already established family sigil.

F&B gives more details on the sigil and religion of Aegon before the conquest:

Spoiler

Heraldic banners had long been a tradition amongst the lords of Westeros, but such had never been used by the dragonlords of old Valyria. When Aegon’s knights unfurled his great silken battle standard, with a red three-headed dragon breathing fire upon a black field, the lords took it for a sign that he was now truly one of them, a worthy high king for Westeros.

Spoiler

Aegon made no reply. Instead he summoned his friends, bannermen, and principal allies to attend him on Dragonstone. Their numbers were small. The Velaryons of Driftmark were sworn to House Targaryen, as were the Celtigars of Claw Isle. From Massey’s Hook came Lord Bar Emmon of Sharp Point and Lord Massey of Stonedance, both sworn to Storm’s End, but with closer ties to Dragonstone. Lord Aegon and his sisters took counsel with them, and visited the castle sept to pray to the Seven of Westeros as well, though he had never before been accounted a pious man.

 

[Melifeather]

The wiki explains that Aegon II took inspiration for the three headed golden dragon from his sister-wife, Helena's dragon, Sunfyre the Golden. Aegon II usurped his elder half-sister Rhaenyra's claim during the Dance of the Dragons. While Aegon II and his sister Rhaenyra shared a father, they had separate mothers. Rhaenyra's personal sigil was the normal Targaryen heraldry (a three-headed red dragon on a black field), quartered with the moon-and-falcon sigil of House Arryn (for her mother Aemma Arryn), and the silver seahorse on sea green of House Velaryon (for her first husband Laenor Velaryon, as well as for the Velaryons in general, who were among her major supporters). During the Dance, her faction used her personal heraldry as their battle-flag. Rhaenyra's full-blooded younger brother Baelon kept the traditional red three-headed dragon for his sigil. It sounds like Rhaenyra's sigil was politically influenced.

[St Daga]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The opposing force to dragons isn't direwolves - its white walkers. White walkers are ice made flesh which is the flip side of fire made flesh. This is why I assert that the Stark's are not the representatives of ice in this story. They are the family that defeated ice. That's a big difference.

Are white walker's flesh?  The one that Sam killed seem to melt like ice, which makes me think it isn't flesh at all. Or a being that is like a human or animal life form in any way. While dragons are beasts that seem to produce fire, they are not actually made of fire. Nor did I claim that direwolves are made of ice. But I do think that the direwolves could represent the ice side of the equation, just as dragons could represent fire. I see the dragons and direwolves as two magical beasts in this world, that might have been brought back into the world by magic. Not ice magic, not fire magic, but just plain old magic.

I will say that I do see some contradictions within the direwolves themselves, just as I do in the Starks. The direwolves are large furry beasts which do well in colder climates, and they seem to do well in the ice and snow (while dragons will probably not face the cold with ease) but they are often described as warm, as a heat source, or the heat (burning, fire, embers, etc) of their eyes are noted. The direwolves themselves are a bit like Winterfell, a fortress that is designed to comfort and protect during times of cold but that is warmed by an internal heat source. The direwolves, the Starks and Winterfell are strongly tied together. So, I admit that thedDirewolves are not a clear representation of ice at all. So perhaps they are the middle ground that is needed?

As for ice and fire, neither element is good or bad, and I think a middle ground is where the war will be won. Probably the middle ground that is held by people of Stark blood, because for whatever reason, they carry a balance of ice and fire within them.

 

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

At the same time it's a little more complicated for the cold winds, which are necessary to raise the dead. If the cold winds are all it takes to raise the dead, then the dead on the south side of the Wall should already be rising as wights - but currently, they don't. I think this is enough evidence to support the theory that white walkers are needed to raise the dead. Furthermore, if white walkers cannot pass the Wall, then someone has to create white walkers on the south side of the Wall in order to activate wights, which means someone already did that early on with Othor and Jafer. White walkers are the flip side of shadow babies, except instead of dissipating like smoke, ice preserves, so this white walker might still be "alive" somewhere south of the Wall.

But Othor and Jafer were already wighted before they crossed the wall. They were not rotting even though they were dead, their hands were black, their eyes were blue. So, the magic needed to change them was already part of them before they were brought to Castle Black. Something flipped the on switch, but the batteries were already in place, if that makes any sense. We don't know what caused them to "turn on". I don't think that necessarily means a white walker is south of the wall. It might, but in might not, either. I don't really have an answer for what activated them except that GRRM needed them to be awake and attack Jeor at that time. 

Perhaps white shadows/walkers and black shadows are opposites of one another. I have certainly considered it, but am not 100% convinced. They do share things in common, for certain. I do think the idea that they are both shadows "cast" by using the seed of a man and the womb of a woman makes a lot of sense. But what can destroy the black shadow baby? Just because it seems to disappear, does it really? It takes a man (Sam) or the weapon (dragonglass) to destroy the white walker, which leads me to think if they are the same type of being, then something should be able to destroy the black shadow as well as the white shadow. So far, we know of two shadow's that Mel has cast, but no hint that either of them don't still exist somewhere. And shadows are a product of the light, either of the sun or of the light cast by fire, so perhaps these shadow's are waiting for the right conditions to emerge again. Just like the white walkers need the right conditions to emerge or be seen.

 

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

We don't know, though I had an interesting discussion about the Targaryen coat of arms (the three dragonheads) a while back. We do not know where they come from, some people suggested they are there because of Aegon and his sisters. 

However, we have seen variations of the coats (Aegon II) with a golden dragon (and three heads). This to me at least opens the possibility that the three heads have nothing to do with Aegon and his sisters. As there was a house before Aegon and after him. Yet the three heads stayed, the color however changed (including the red of Blackfyre). 

I have wondered if the "dragon has three heads" has been some verbiage passed down with the Targaryen's for generations. We are told it was tradition for the dragon lords to marry a sister, but it was unusual for Aegon to marry both his sisters. Perhaps he did this thinking he was creating what was "meant to be" with the "dragon has three heads" concept. It sounds like Aegon's sigil didn't come until he has started his conquest, which is rather odd, since the Targaryen's had been off the coast of Westeros for at least a hundred years. One would think they would have had some type of sigil, as it seems like the Velaryon's and Celtigar's already did. Perhaps the Targaryen's had some type of sigil in place but Aegon wanted his own?

Also, the sigil has always been a bit odd to me in the sense of color. One would think the dragon would have been black, representing Balerion, instead of a red dragon on a black background. I have questioned for a long time the idea of a "red dragon" perhaps being a call back to Targaryen history in Valyria, perhaps the first Targaryon dragon was red? I also wonder about if this idea of a "red dragon" could tie to the idea in the story of a "red stallion". I find the Targaryon dragons that are red to be interesting, and perhaps their riders, too.  Of the top of my head, I think Caraxes and Meleys were red dragons. Caraxes, the blood worm, rode by Daemon "the rogue prince", a man who was never king (unless you count the step stones, but is surrounded by kings), Meleys, the red queen, rode by Rhaenys, the queen who never was. Is there a key here with red dragons and their riders being destined to be king or queen but never achieving the honor? There might be other red dragons but after looking over the list of Targaryen dragons, no other red ones stick out to me.  The only thing that might be close is Vermithor, who was bronze, which can look reddish, rode by Jaehaerys, who served as king for years and years. But bronze isn't truly red, so this might be a stretch for a red dragon.

 

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

The wight's hand rotted before anyone would see Ser Alliser. It was too warm in Kings Landing.

Too warm, or perhaps to far away from the magic that preserved it. Either way, it didn't last long enough for Tyrion to see it.

 

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Craster seems to be an acronym of Stark. "Starc-er"

It could mean he's a branch relative, or it could mean his "ways" are starker than the other wildlings, as in harsher or grimmer.

I have toyed with Craster having Stark blood. But I also wonder about Targaryen blood. IF he has both, then perhaps that is what makes his sons special. If that is the case, then I do lean toward RL+someone. Perhaps Jon, but could be other children, too. Dany, Young Griff/Aegon, maybe Samwell?

I had honestly never looked at Stark and Craster as similar before. You are meaning an anagram, correct? Craster can be made to spell Re Cast (with an extra R), which I always found interesting, if he is trying to reestablish some special blood line. Re Cast, or remake a blood potion or human recipe! Sounds really creepy, like that.      Craster always has made me think of the word Crass, as he is rather crass in his behavior. Crasser becomes Craster. 

 

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

We don't know, though I had an interesting discussion about the Targaryen coat of arms (the three dragonheads) a while back. We do not know where they come from, some people suggested they are there because of Aegon and his sisters. 

However, we have seen variations of the coats (Aegon II) with a golden dragon (and three heads). This to me at least opens the possibility that the three heads have nothing to do with Aegon and his sisters. As there was a house before Aegon and after him. Yet the three heads stayed, the color however changed (including the red of Blackfyre). 

Is it possible that he only wanted to make a variation on an already established family sigil?

Yes, I wonder if there wasn't something before Aegon's sigil. It makes sense that there was something.

 

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

The books themselves don't provide much evidence Aegon knew about the White Walkers beyond the Septon Barth quote.  GRRM all but confirmed Aegon knew about the White Walkers in his SSM. 

I haven't finished F&B yet, but I didn't get any impression that Aegon knew about the Other's or the threat of a Long Night 2.0  I don't really think GRRM confirmed anything either in that SSM, just commented that some people have speculated that Aegon knew. He doesn't give much away in his statement, but perhaps that he addressed it all is what is important, and might hint that Aegon did know something. But if he did, he doesn't seem to have done much to help prepare for such a war. As a matter of fact, the Night's Watch almost crumbled after Aegon's conquest, so perhaps that is what Aegon's ultimate goal was?

 

24 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The system of knighthood and a family coat of arms with sigil are an Andal influence. I doubt very much that the Targaryens had a sigil prior to invading Westeros. I also doubt their religion originally was the Faith of the Seven. I think it's something they eventually converted to. So because of the origin of sigils and family coat of arms, the three headed dragon was established as the Targaryen family's sigil based upon Aegon the Conqueror and his two sister-wives. I suspect that Aegon II just wanted a variation of an already established family sigil.

Are sigil's of Andal influence? I have never heard that before. I would think that First Men, would have had some form of broadcasting themselves or their families long before the Andal's came to Westeros.

 

14 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The wiki explains that Aegon II took inspiration for the three headed golden dragon from his sister-wife, Helena's dragon, Sunfyre the Golden. Aegon II usurped his elder half-sister Rhaenyra's claim during the Dance of the Dragons. While Aegon II and his sister Rhaenyra shared a father, they had separate mothers. Rhaenyra's personal sigil was the normal Targaryen heraldry (a three-headed red dragon on a black field), quartered with the moon-and-falcon sigil of House Arryn (for her mother Aemma Arryn), and the silver seahorse on sea green of House Velaryon (for her first husband Laenor Velaryon, as well as for the Velaryons in general, who were among her major supporters). During the Dance, her faction used her personal heraldry as their battle-flag. Rhaenyra's full-blooded younger brother Baelon kept the traditional red three-headed dragon for his sigil. It sounds like Rhaenyra's sigil was politically influenced.

Aegon II's dragon was Sunfyre. Helaena, his wife and sister's dragon was Dreamfyre, a blue and silver dragon rode by Rhaena, daughter of Aenys, who was the mother to the twins, Aerea and Rhaella. Aegon certainly was trying to make his sigil different, probably to help distinguish himself from his half sister Rhaenyra, who only later used the sigil that used the traditional Targaryen sigil quartered with House Arryn and House Velaryon's sigils. Smartly political on her part! Rhaenyra's brother Baelon died when he was a day old, so the sigil that is tied to him was never of his own choice.  After Helaena's son Jaehaerys was murdered in front of her, she never rode her dragon again, which probably very much hurt Aegon II's cause, since dragon riders were so important in that civil war.

[St Daga]

On 11/30/2018 at 12:03 PM, JNR said:

I understand he's off in a literal cabin in the mountains trying to repair that relationship.  Hope it works out for them.

Hahaha! Hopefully!

 

On 12/1/2018 at 7:32 PM, Brad Stark said:

I've often wondered if all the POV characters were descended from Aegon the conqueror. 

This would be a really interesting idea. I am unsure if I see that with the POV's that come from unnamed chapter's however. We have Aero Hotah that I find difficult to imagine, and even Barristan the Bold, Arys Oakheart, Jon Connington. Those I find a hard time seeing. The Greyjoy's, perhaps. And maybe not the prologue/epilogue POV's? For the first three novels, I could totally buy this concept!

 

On 12/2/2018 at 9:57 AM, alienarea said:

And I'm really scared that we have invested a lot of time and effort in this thread for analysing a story which may turn out to be another hidden prince saves the world tale. Yawn.

I really hope this is not the case. Or if so, then that he can pull it off in some spectacular fashion. 

 

On 12/2/2018 at 11:46 AM, JNR said:

Given GRRM's public dismissal of Mushroom's accuracy in the past, this actually reads to me like GRRM trolling the audience over its imaginary RLJ scenarios (as believed in such detail, by so many, with so little reason for belief). 

It does seem like Mushroom's testimony might have had the flavor of GRRM trolling a little bit. And if that is the case, he has been doing it since the World Book was published. Actually, since the Princess and the Queen was published in 2013. But it does make sense that he is using the character's wild claims and stories to poke at the fandom in small ways.

 

23 hours ago, MaesterSam said:

The one potential problem I see is that the First Men have firm rules prohibiting kinslaying of any kind. On the other hand, we hear about the Rat Cook who was white with red eyes and could only eat his own young. That could refer instead to feeding your own young to the weirwood. 

Hmm! This mention of the rat cook is very like Ser Shadrich's coat of arms, with a red eyed white mouse on brown and red. The brown and red seemed like a call to the Tully coat of arms (of red mud and blue water) but the white mouse was confusing to me. Is it tied to the weirwoods or the Ghost of High Heart. But now I am wondering if it in some way calls back to the Rat Cook? Who was the Rat Cook and what did the Andal king do to him to deserve such vengeance. Could that tie Ser Shadrich to a similar type of vengeance? Does the Rat Cook have red eyes? I need to look into the text a bit. I just reread the Feast chapter when Brienne meets Shadrick the Mad Mouse, and I find myself mighty curious about him, which I honestly have never given him much thought on other rereads.

 

7 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Aegon the Holy was such a good guy, he acted on some potential thread 300 years in the future. He simply was to good for the world. And now King Aegon is sleeping with his sword Excalibur under some rock near King's Landing and will awake when Britannia err I mean Westeros needs him most.

Fantasy has always ben full of tropes and for me the question is more, how far will GRRM go in his drawings. He has had his fair share of style over substance in the past (e.g. the Ironborn). The Wall (and it's size) is another example where he may have drawn the picture a little too extreme. 

I can definitly see Aegon as an overdrawn hero. Much like with Tolkien, where some rulers are good and wise, while everything is in declining. 

It is interesting to see how GRRM does play with history, fiction, mythology, etc. There certainly does seem to be a King Arthur trope playing in this story. I think you are joking about Aegon the Dragon rising from the ashes, since he was given to the flames, but I have toyed with the idea that Arthur Dayne and his magic sword might be the hero this world is waiting for. But I also wonder about Eddard Stark. He is associated with a sword, his bones are somewhere (not safely interred at Winterfell with iron on his lap to hold him down) and he has a reason for vengeance. I have wondered if Eddard will rise, and it will be some horrible version of himself. Not the loving father, not the calm leader of the north, but more like the Stark's of old, the ones he himself thought of in the crypts. the men who were "hard as the land they ruled". When Jon has nightmares of his father's face burning, melting, I have wondered if it could hint to us that Ned will rise, and Jon will have to be the one to put him down? Something about Barbrey wanting Ned's bones hints to me at a dark resurrection, not a dinner for her dogs! 

Perhaps in F&B part 2, GRRM can have Mushroom joking about my tinfoil??? 

 

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Your mention of King Aegon sleeping with his sword Excalibur under some rock is Bran's story, or rather an inspired version of Castell Dinas Bran. 

Interesting. Thanks for sharing! 

 

 

[Melifeather]

5 hours ago, St Daga said:

Are white walker's flesh?  The one that Sam killed seem to melt like ice, which makes me think it isn't flesh at all. Or a being that is like a human or animal life form in any way. While dragons are beasts that seem to produce fire, they are not actually made of fire. Nor did I claim that direwolves are made of ice. But I do think that the direwolves could represent the ice side of the equation, just as dragons could represent fire. I see the dragons and direwolves as two magical beasts in this world, that might have been brought back into the world by magic. Not ice magic, not fire magic, but just plain old magic.

Quote

 

...From her Dany received only a warning. “Beware,” the woman in the red lacquer mask said.

  “Of whom?”

  “Of all. They shall come day and night to see the wonder that has been born again into the world, and when they see they shall lust. For dragons are fire made flesh, and fire is power.”

 

Quote

 

...The white dragon lay coiled around a pear tree, his head resting on his tail. When Dany passed his eyes came open, two pools of molten gold. His horns were gold as well, and the scales that ran down his back from head to tail. “You’re lazy,” she told him, scratching under his jaw. His scales were hot to the touch, like armor left cooking too long in the sun. Dragons are fire made flesh. She had read that in one of the books Ser Jorah had given her as a wedding gift.

 

 

You pierce a dragon's flesh and it bleeds molten lava. You pierce a white walker and they bleed water and mist. You pierce a direwolf and it just bleeds blood. The direwolf is just an animal with no special magical origin. They can procreate on their own without the help of magical intervention.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

But Othor and Jafer were already wighted before they crossed the wall. They were not rotting even though they were dead, their hands were black, their eyes were blue. So, the magic needed to change them was already part of them before they were brought to Castle Black. Something flipped the on switch, but the batteries were already in place, if that makes any sense. We don't know what caused them to "turn on". I don't think that necessarily means a white walker is south of the wall. It might, but in might not, either. I don't really have an answer for what activated them except that GRRM needed them to be awake and attack Jeor at that time. 

The dead only rise when it's dark and when the cold wind is rising. During daylight hours they act like proper corpses. The blue light doesn't "turn on" until they're active, which suggests the power to move isn't stored inside them, but more akin to skin changing. I'm not suggesting it's the same as skin changing, just that they don't move until that blue-powered light comes on. There's a logic to the sequence I've suggested upthread as to why I believe white walkers are necessary and how magic cannot pass the Wall. If a white walker was able to control a wight on the south side of the Wall, then they should be able to control any dead corpse south of the Wall, but they can't because the magic in the wind can't pass.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Perhaps white shadows/walkers and black shadows are opposites of one another. I have certainly considered it, but am not 100% convinced. They do share things in common, for certain. I do think the idea that they are both shadows "cast" by using the seed of a man and the womb of a woman makes a lot of sense. But what can destroy the black shadow baby? Just because it seems to disappear, does it really? It takes a man (Sam) or the weapon (dragonglass) to destroy the white walker, which leads me to think if they are the same type of being, then something should be able to destroy the black shadow as well as the white shadow. So far, we know of two shadow's that Mel has cast, but no hint that either of them don't still exist somewhere. And shadows are a product of the light, either of the sun or of the light cast by fire, so perhaps these shadow's are waiting for the right conditions to emerge again. Just like the white walkers need the right conditions to emerge or be seen.

 

The only explanation we're given is that fire consumes and ice preserves, therefore shadow babies have short lives, whereas white shadows have longer lives. As long as it's dark and cold they can live indefinitely, but that is probably why the Children gave the men of the Watch obsidian blades.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Aegon II's dragon was Sunfyre. Helaena, his wife and sister's dragon was Dreamfyre

Yes, I misspoke there. Sunfyre the Golden was definitely Aegon II's dragon, so his sigil was inspired by his own dragon.

[Frey family reunion]

On 12/2/2018 at 12:46 PM, JNR said:

Given GRRM's public dismissal of Mushroom's accuracy in the past, this actually reads to me like GRRM trolling the audience over its imaginary RLJ scenarios (as believed in such detail, by so many, with so little reason for belief). 

The thought that GRRM was trolling his audience did occur to me as well.  As for the reliability of the sources, my take is that all of the sources needed to be taken with a grain of salt.  My guess is that the truth may lie somewhere between them all.  For example, while the wedding before a heart tree may seem fanciful, bedding a Stark bastard girl seemed quite possible.

I guess it just comes down to the purpose behind a F&B (other than just taking my 12 bucks).  Is it just a bit of world building without consequence to the primary series?  Or does GRRM drop some clues in the book that might explain the uniqueness of some of the characters in ASOIAF?

My thought has long been, that GRRM is playing around with the idea of magical genetics.  So when you have magical bloodlines that are sought after as strongly as the Targaryen bloodline, I think it’s interesting to try and follow where these bloodlines branch off.  Since there is only limited Targaryen interaction with the folks up north, I found it intriguing that one of the few travels up north, was given such a interesting name as the Pact of Ice and Fire (even though the Pact seemingly amounted to nothing) and George continues to bring up and then debunk the idea of a dragon laying its eggs in Winterfell.  While I’ve probably just spent too much time on this forum, and others like it, I do wonder if that’s some coded language from GRRM.

[Frey family reunion]

On 12/2/2018 at 2:25 PM, MaesterSam said:

The one potential problem I see is that the First Men have firm rules prohibiting kinslaying of any kind. On the other hand, we hear about the Rat Cook who was white with red eyes and could only eat his own young. That could refer instead to feeding your own young to the weirwood. 

I wonder if it matters who does the actual slaying.  For example, if the King doesn’t do it directly, but instead an old lady with a bronze knife does it instead?  Does the King creating an alternative sacrifice (which was going to happen regardless) as opposed to his own “legal child” knowing the child will be sacrificed count as kinslaying?

And I wonder if the King is really the one responsible for the sacrifices to the weirwoods, as opposed to some parallel religious authority?  

[Frey family reunion]

21 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

I disagree this does not come up.  The Targaryens talk about a Prince who was Promised, the Dragon must have 3 heads, etc.  Aemon seems to be aware of something coming. The Targaryens clearly knew more than we have learned as readers. The only question is whether that includes timing information and whether it goes back to Aegon 1. 

It’s an interesting question.  Aemon seems to indicate that TPTWP prophecy was a nut that they were trying to crack for about a thousand years.  But it’s not clear who he’s referring to.  Does he mean the Targaryens, or does he mean the Citadel were trying to solve this prophecy?

Then we have the very notion of a prophecy that centers on a Prince.  Before Aegon, the Valyrians were a Freehold, who would not have had a Prince.  A thousand years ago, the idea of a Prince would be rooted in the Westeros monarchy, or the Rhoynish sovereignty.  And we really don’t hear about the connection between the Targaryen family and TPTWP until the reign of Aegon V.  And the interesting thing about Aegon and his family, is that they were just as much Dornish as they were Targaryen.

[Tucu]

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I wonder if it matters who does the actual slaying.  For example, if the King doesn’t do it directly, but instead an old lady with a bronze knife does it instead?  Does the King creating an alternative sacrifice (which was going to happen regardless) as opposed to his own “legal child” knowing the child will be sacrificed count as kinslaying?

And I wonder if the King is really the one responsible for the sacrifices to the weirwoods, as opposed to some parallel religious authority?  

We also have to take into account the voluntary sacrifices for the chance to gain some advantage like becoming a dragonrider, sometype of Hero or a Coldhands-type of undead.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It’s an interesting question.  Aemon seems to indicate that TPTWP prophecy was a nut that they were trying to crack for about a thousand years.  But it’s not clear who he’s referring to.  Does he mean the Targaryens, or does he mean the Citadel were trying to solve this prophecy?

Then we have the very notion of a prophecy that centers on a Prince.  Before Aegon, the Valyrians were a Freehold, who would not have had a Prince.  A thousand years ago, the idea of a Prince would be rooted in the Westeros monarchy, or the Rhoynish sovereignty.  And we really don’t hear about the connection between the Targaryen family and TPTWP until the reign of Aegon V.  And the interesting thing about Aegon and his family, is that they were just as much Dornish as they were Targaryen.

Agreed. What would a dragonlord know of princes? That's just my point. The prince that was promised was something that the Targaryens were chasing when they were trying unsuccessfully to hatch dragon eggs. They either forgot how it was done, or were using bastard children for sacrifices. In my opinion the "prince" that they were looking for was a hatched dragon. Rhaegar was born during the Tragedy at Summerhal - this is why he thought he might be the prince that was promised, but then realized that a dragon never hatched, so it couldn't have been him. Then he thought his son Aegon might be the prince, which means he may have tried whatever Aegon V did only at Dragonstone. Did they try the ritual while yet on Dragonstone? Did the real Aegon perish then? In any case Rhaegar's interest in the prince that was promised indicates his interest in hatching dragons too.

[Brad Stark]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It’s an interesting question.  Aemon seems to indicate that TPTWP prophecy was a nut that they were trying to crack for about a thousand years.  But it’s not clear who he’s referring to.  Does he mean the Targaryens, or does he mean the Citadel were trying to solve this prophecy?

Then we have the very notion of a prophecy that centers on a Prince.  Before Aegon, the Valyrians were a Freehold, who would not have had a Prince.  A thousand years ago, the idea of a Prince would be rooted in the Westeros monarchy, or the Rhoynish sovereignty.  And we really don’t hear about the connection between the Targaryen family and TPTWP until the reign of Aegon V.  And the interesting thing about Aegon and his family, is that they were just as much Dornish as they were Targaryen.

Regarding the prophecy, I assumed it was the Targaryens not the masters of the Citadel.  The Targaryens are known to have the gift of prophecy, which saved them from the Doom.  The Citadel seems to be against anything magical or non scientific. 

We know the word 'prince' has a language issue from what Aemon said about dragons being male or female.  So the word isn't 'prince' but something that translated to 'prince'.  This is also evidence the language is Valaryian and the prophecy is Targaryen.  The Citadel could have had another language with a word similar to dragon that means prince, but this is unlikely. 

[Brad Stark]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I guess it just comes down to the purpose behind a F&B (other than just taking my 12 bucks).  Is it just a bit of world building without consequence to the primary series?  Or does GRRM drop some clues in the book that might explain the uniqueness of some of the characters in ASOIAF?

Hibberd asked if Fire & Blood offered any hints about what’s to come in A Song of Ice and Fire. “There are a few that are definitely important, but I’m not going to flag them,” Martin said. “Readers will have to find them and puzzle out whether they’re hints or red herrings.”

 

I was puzzled by this, as I haven't found either clues or red herrings.  We do have some tie ins, such as an explanation of Dany's eggs' origin - but while this could either be correct or a red herring it has little to do with what happens in Winds of Winter. 

[Tucu]

38 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

Hibberd asked if Fire & Blood offered any hints about what’s to come in A Song of Ice and Fire. “There are a few that are definitely important, but I’m not going to flag them,” Martin said. “Readers will have to find them and puzzle out whether they’re hints or red herrings.”

I was puzzled by this, as I haven't found either clues or red herrings.  We do have some tie ins, such as an explanation of Dany's eggs' origin - but while this could either be correct or a red herring it has little to do with what happens in Winds of Winter. 

I can think of a few:

Spoiler

-dragons getting nervous during during cold weather (including not flying past The Wall)

-The sea freezing east of The Wall

-Northmen willing to travel south as "dead men" in order to give their families a chance

-Aerea's fate

-Travel across the Sunset Sea and Krakens!

-Dragon eggs turning to stone when stored in cold places.

-Braavos buying dragon eggs for unclear purposes; this might tie with Euron's egg and his payment to the Faceless Men. It also raises questions about how Varys/Illyrio got their eggs.

-The R'hllor cult probably being a less fanatic religion in the first century AC.

-The Warrior making a sudden appereance as a shadow to slay a dragon. This reminds me of the Id monster in Forbidden Planet.

 

[Melifeather]

51 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

Regarding the prophecy, I assumed it was the Targaryens not the masters of the Citadel.  The Targaryens are known to have the gift of prophecy, which saved them from the Doom.  The Citadel seems to be against anything magical or non scientific. 

We know the word 'prince' has a language issue from what Aemon said about dragons being male or female.  So the word isn't 'prince' but something that translated to 'prince'.  This is also evidence the language is Valaryian and the prophecy is Targaryen.  The Citadel could have had another language with a word similar to dragon that means prince, but this is unlikely. 

Yes, the Citadel's position is against magic, but that doesn't mean that they don't believe it never existed. They studied it and tried to replicate it, and would perhaps know about the promised prince dragon. They would want to know when and where to look so that they could perhaps put a stop to it.

[JNR]

23 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

So it could be thousands of years - but only if we discount the idea Aegon the Conqueror knew about the threat to the North. 

Not really; Aegon could have been told Westeros threatened the Doom of Man while also being told nothing about the timing.  It's just that simple.

We have no way to know (1) if he was ever told anything like that, (2) if he took it seriously, (3) what conclusions he drew, and (4) whether those conclusions included anything about specific timing. 

The premise that Aegon knew when a Long Night would occur simply has no foundation at all.

22 hours ago, SirArthur said:

This to me at least opens the possibility that the three heads have nothing to do with Aegon and his sisters.

It's possible, but there's still no evidence Aegon knew when a Long Night would occur... or even that it would occur at all.

Only Rhaegar (and his correspondent Aemon) draws any verbal connection between the phrase "three heads of the dragon" and the phrase "prince that was promised."  

We certainly have no way to know what Aegon would have thought on these topics three hundred years before.

 

[JNR]

21 hours ago, Matthew. said:

IMO, his understanding of the prophecy - assuming it existed in his era - appears to be the same as everyone else's: eventually, an era of darkness will descend on the world (with no specific definition of what that darkness actually is), and a prophesied figure will emerge.

Even the function of TPtwP, or AAR, should, IMO, be seen as up for debate by the readers

Yes, I agree.  These are murky matters (by GRRM's design).

What's not murky is that the Targs took none of the obvious steps we would expect them to take, if it were seriously believed by the founder of the dynasty, and by his successors, that a Long Night would occur in three hundred years. 

In all that time, they didn't create any public policy at all designed to defend Westeros against Others and wights.  Instead, they let the Watch shrink by about 90%.

19 hours ago, St Daga said:

But it does make sense that he is using the character's wild claims and stories to poke at the fandom in small ways.

Yes, and in fact, there have been reports here and there that he intends to "play with reader expectations" that emerge from the assumption the show and books are the same.

Whether "playing with reader expectations" -- if it happens -- rises to the level of trolling will be up to us to decide.

[SirArthur]

I begin to wonder, if Ned's children, for which he raised up in rebellion, weren't all the declared "miscarriages" of Rhaella. And they really tried to hatch the prince that was promised. Only that the prince was a dragon. Rhaegar survived because he was born in Summerhall and they thought he may be the dragon. Viserys survived, because he had some gift called "waking the dragon". And Dany is the dragon.

Like Maester Aemon said. Only that Aemon got it wrong. It was not about male/female, it was about prince/dragon. And Dany is not the prince that was promised because she can wake dragons out of stone or because she fullfills the prohecy, she is the prince, because she is the dragon they tried to breed. 

I think all that talk about "remember who you are" is about that. About being the dragon. I just don't know where the three heads of the dragon belong. Is this about Dany's three treasons ?