Janneyc1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 27 minutes ago, Jova Snow said: Actually it is amazing Stannis managed to achieve greatness without a magic sword, I think Lady Forlorn is the Lighbringer we search for and maybe it will be Sansa and her Vale host that will unite AA with his destinied blade Isn't Lady forlorn just an old Valyrian steel blade? What makes it Lightbringer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienarea Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Janneyc1 said: Isn't Lady forlorn just an old Valyrian steel blade? What makes it Lightbringer? Stabbing into the heart of Melisandre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asongofheresy Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Janneyc1 said: Isn't Lady forlorn just an old Valyrian steel blade? What makes it Lightbringer? I have wrote about it in my MMoL/LoN thread - first the meaning of Forlorn is interesting it means heartbroken, melancholy, tearful, regretful, it is also referred as a blood thirsty lady and has a heart shaped ruby and resembles Ice, if I am not wrong we are also told Ned's Ice isn't the original Ice. So there is a possibility Theon the Hungry Wolf lost their family Sword while fighting the Andal and Ice returned to Westeros with Andal Invaders. But that's what I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asongofheresy Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, alienarea said: Stabbing into the heart of Melisandre? Not out of question, there is a chance story of AA wasn't unknown to Westeros, there is a Stormland house, House Staedmon and their sigil is a heart pierced by a dagger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 28 minutes ago, alienarea said: Stabbing into the heart of Melisandre? And then throwing it away, so that Devan can pick it up again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Stark Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 15 hours ago, JNR said: It might turn out to be, indeed. Jon's story, so far at least, is the story of the north -- the Starks, the Wall, the Night's Watch, and the free folk. As Tyrion memorably observed: Tyrion's a bright guy. Problem is, there are at least two gigantic books to go. So there's really no way to determine if Jon's parentage is important to the story -- not until we know the parentage and we've read the last page of the story. I'm sure we can all imagine how the story might take twists and turns in such a way as to make any theory we like important. I disagree. While the mystery of Jon's parents is much less prominent in the actual books than on the Internet, the SSMs make it clear this is central to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 5 hours ago, SirArthur said: even our books tell us, that Rhaegar thinks Aegon's song is ice and fire. Of course we can doubt the source, but that doesn't go well with another part of RLJ speculation You mean that on a symbolic level, but on a practical level it's even worse since, going by SSM combined with canon, Rhaegar said that to Elia right around the time the Rebellion began (a truth little recognized on these forums). There really is no good way to reconcile that situation with the foundational RLJ concept that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna and then, weeks later the Rebellion began. 8 hours ago, Black Crow said: Its one of those funny things where reader expectations diverge markedly. Yes, it's very strange to me that most fans not only think RLJ will happen... but that that would be a good development, one that is well suited to GRRM and everything he appreciates in fiction and says he wanted to achieve in this series. Here's what GRRM says he wanted for ASOIAF: Quote As a reader, what I seek is a book that delights and surprises me. I want to not know what is gonna happen. For me, that’s the essence of storytelling and for this reason I want my readers to turn the pages with increasing fever: to know what happens next. There are a lot of expectations, mainly in the fantasy genre, which you have the hero and he is the chosen one, and he is always protected by his destiny. I didn’t want it for my books. I mean, really. Come on, now. Hidden Prince Who Saves World and Becomes King is not going to get GRRM to the above goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Stark Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 8 hours ago, Black Crow said: Its one of those funny things where reader expectations diverge markedly. In part its Mel's fault. She has preached that this is all about defeating the Great Other and that Azor Ahai will be the boy to do it. Take a leap to identify the Others beyond the Wall as the Great Other's minions, then mix in R+L=J to identify Jon as the son of Rhaegar and therefore as Azor Ahai and its sorted. There's a basic problem with this in that this is the Song of Ice and Fire. The R+L=J theory, when not obsessing with the Targaryen side and entitlement to the Iron Throne, holds that Jon is the son of Ice [Lyanna] and Fire [Rhaegar] and therefore uniquely empowered to save the world from the Ice/Others - so what about the Fire which has more recently been identified as another threat. Balance is good. No doubt about it but Azor Ahai, the champion of Fire [Danaerys the Dragonlord?] aint the one to sort it. I still like the story as Jon being Azor Ahai, and Mel only realizing after he dies because she wrote the pink letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Brad Stark said: While the mystery of Jon's parents is much less prominent in the actual books than on the Internet, the SSMs make it clear this is central to the story. OK, show me an SSM where GRRM says that Jon's parentage is central to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Stark Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 9 hours ago, Jova Snow said: George also said all three heads of the dragon don't have to be Targaryens I've wondered about this quote. It validates the idea that 3 characters have to serve as heads of the dragon. If it were just a Targaryen saying or reference to Aegon the conqueror, he would have answered differently. And I have to assume GRRM already knows who they will be. GRRM never said all 3 would not be Targaryens, but he would have answered differently if they all were Targaryens. Being a Targaryen could mean different things. If it means having the name, only Dany and fAegon have it currently. If it means a paternal line to Aegon the Conqueror, we can add in hidden Targs. If it means descended from Aegon the Conqueror, that includes the Lannisters (regardless of father), Martells and Baratheons. BTW going through ssms now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asongofheresy Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Brad Stark said: I've wondered about this quote. It validates the idea that 3 characters have to serve as heads of the dragon. If it were just a Targaryen saying or reference to Aegon the conqueror, he would have answered differently. And I have to assume GRRM already knows who they will be. GRRM never said all 3 would not be Targaryens, but he would have answered differently if they all were Targaryens. Being a Targaryen could mean different things. If it means having the name, only Dany and fAegon have it currently. If it means a paternal line to Aegon the Conqueror, we can add in hidden Targs. If it means descended from Aegon the Conqueror, that includes the Lannisters (regardless of father), Martells and Baratheons. BTW going through ssms now. Having Targaryen blood doesn't matter, Blackfyres are Targaryens, we don't know if Duncan and Jenny had any child or not, we have no information about Alys and Aemond's son, Saera had three sons and at least one daughter, Maegor Brightflame and Brightflame bastards exists, Rhaena and Baela had children, Rhae and Daella too so Targ blood isn't special when there are lots of branches of the family tree. Even as a family name both Maegor's and Duncan's children are trueborn Targaryens that will carry the family name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janneyc1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 47 minutes ago, Brad Stark said: And I have to assume GRRM already knows who they will be. GRRM never said all 3 would not be Targaryens, but he would have answered differently if they all were Targaryens. Being a Targaryen could mean different things. If it means having the name, only Dany and fAegon have it currently. If it means a paternal line to Aegon the Conqueror, we can add in hidden Targs. If it means descended from Aegon the Conqueror, that includes the Lannisters (regardless of father), Martells and Baratheons. when looking at the original outline and where our story is developing, the three headed dragon has importance, but in what regard? What is the three headed dragon? It could just be Dany's three dragons or in my opinion, it will be the three leaders that lead the Human side of the War for the Dawn. They might get to ride dragons, but I don't think that is the important part. Related to that, how does the Three Eyed Raven play into this? looking into some context, I wouldn't be surprised if this prophecy doesn't predict three kingdoms, working together, with the 3ER playing messenger between the kingdoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 8 minutes ago, Janneyc1 said: the three headed dragon has importance, but in what regard? What is the three headed dragon? Great question. People seem to think it means Rhaegar's children, but actually, it's not even clear that Rhaegar thought that. Aemon, with whom Rhaegar corresponded on these subjects, had quite a different idea: Quote He asked Sam to read for him from a book by Septon Barth, whose writings had been burned during the reign of Baelor the Blessed. Once he woke up weeping. "The dragon must have three heads," he wailed, "but I am too old and frail to be one of them. I should be with her, showing her the way, but my body has betrayed me." Here we see that Aemon believes he himself could be a head of the dragon, and furthermore, that the role of the three heads is to guide or advise the PtwP (whom he thinks is Dany). Since Aemon isn't in any conceivable sense a child of Rhaegar, it's perfectly obvious he doesn't think Rhaegar's children are relevant to that subject at all. Which aligns pretty well with GRRM's remark that the three heads don't even have to be Targs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asongofheresy Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Janneyc1 said: when looking at the original outline and where our story is developing, the three headed dragon has importance, but in what regard? What is the three headed dragon? It could just be Dany's three dragons or in my opinion, it will be the three leaders that lead the Human side of the War for the Dawn. They might get to ride dragons, but I don't think that is the important part. Related to that, how does the Three Eyed Raven play into this? looking into some context, I wouldn't be surprised if this prophecy doesn't predict three kingdoms, working together, with the 3ER playing messenger between the kingdoms. Three Eyed Crow* Why do you think TEC is related to Three Heads of the Dragon or that they will fight the battle of Dawn? We have no information about any Targaryen being interested in WW or the Others and that includes Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Stark Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 36 minutes ago, Jova Snow said: Having Targaryen blood doesn't matter, Blackfyres are Targaryens, we don't know if Duncan and Jenny had any child or not, we have no information about Alys and Aemond's son, Saera had three sons and at least one daughter, Maegor Brightflame and Brightflame bastards exists, Rhaena and Baela had children, Rhae and Daella too so Targ blood isn't special when there are lots of branches of the family tree. Even as a family name both Maegor's and Duncan's children are trueborn Targaryens that will carry the family name. It is a little bit of a stretch, but we can interpret the SSM to mean at least one of the heads is NOT Targaryen and thefore NOT any of these people. If NOT having Targaryen blood is a prerequisite, it eliminates most of the POVs that make sense as dragonriders or warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asongofheresy Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Brad Stark said: It is a little bit of a stretch, but we can interpret the SSM to mean at least one of the heads is NOT Targaryen and thefore NOT any of these people. If NOT having Targaryen blood is a prerequisite, it eliminates most of the POVs that make sense as dragonriders or warriors. Why eliminate? Only Daenerys is a true Targaryen, beside her we can't prove any secret Targaryen theory like RLJ/AJT/AJCJ without TWOW and ADOS and the rest are Martell Princess, okay we eliminate her after Quentyn's failure but Stark children stay as they are all wargs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 6 hours ago, alienarea said: Imagine The Winds of Winter is released after the tv show has been finished and the first chapter after the prologue is the cremation of Jon Snow. Funnily enough somebody on the main board recently suggested that GRRM has actually finished WoW but is delaying its release until the mummers version wraps, on account of it being totally different. He got shot down pretty sharpish but I can't help thinking its possible and makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 42 minutes ago, Brad Stark said: It is a little bit of a stretch, but we can interpret the SSM to mean at least one of the heads is NOT Targaryen and thefore NOT any of these people. If NOT having Targaryen blood is a prerequisite, it eliminates most of the POVs that make sense as dragonriders or warriors. At the time the SSM was being waved around it was being used to support theories that Tyrion was going to be dragon rider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienarea Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 22 minutes ago, Black Crow said: Funnily enough somebody on the main board recently suggested that GRRM has actually finished WoW but is delaying its release until the mummers version wraps, on account of it being totally different. He got shot down pretty sharpish but I can't help thinking its possible and makes sense. Thinking about ASoIaF not GoT my line of thinking has Bran Stark - Stark Kings of Winter - Others vs Daenery Targaryen - The prince(ess) that was promised - Rhol'lor conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janneyc1 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Jova Snow said: Three Eyed Crow* Why do you think TEC is related to Three Heads of the Dragon or that they will fight the battle of Dawn? We have no information about any Targaryen being interested in WW or the Others and that includes Rhaegar. My bad, I mixed up my corvids. I think that the TEC is related to the Three headed dragon due to the symmetry (Both involving threes and magic) and because they are both bigger than the squabbles of the 7 kingdoms. Lastly, I would argue that the TPTWP prophesy is about fighting the War of the Dawn. I think that TPTWP = Azor Ahai. More specifically, I would argue that the three headed dragon is about fighting the war and the TEC is about getting information about the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.