What are your personal favorite theories?

[Nevets]

40 minutes ago, Lady Stonehearts Simp said:

3. Her blood had absolutely nothing to do with how she survived the pyre. It’s like I’m talking to a casual show watcher. The ONLY reason she survived was because she sacrificed poor MMD. That’s it. It’s nothing to do with her blood or her being AAR (which she very well could be)

I think her being a Targaryen princess had everything to do with her survival.  It may be that feeding Mirri Maz Duur to the flames helped, but I remain convinced that if she were not Targaryen she would not have survived, and certainly wouldn't have hatched three dragons.

As for whether she is the rightful ruler of Westeros, that remains to be determined.  The fire did not declare a monarch, rightful or not.

[csuszka1948]

On 5/29/2023 at 1:05 AM, StarkTullies said:

Coldhands is the Night's King.  The Night's King was not a villain but whose true actions were forgotten and rewritten after thousands of years of rumor, propaganda, and constantly changing word of mouth.

 

It could be.

On 5/29/2023 at 1:05 AM, StarkTullies said:

The Great Northern Conspiracy.

 

It's false: 

In general, these large-scale conspiracies orchestrated by tons of people who all have different interests and have to keep their mouts shut (such as a 'Southron ambitions' theory or the 'masters against Targaryens' theory) are false.

On 5/29/2023 at 1:05 AM, StarkTullies said:

Daario is a mole working for the Sons of the Harpies.

 

This makes the least sense. Daario changing sides would help more the slavers than him being a 'mole'.

On 5/29/2023 at 1:05 AM, StarkTullies said:

Targaryens aren't special in their dragon-riding abilities, and the claim that they are is just propaganda to keep themselves in power.  Nettles wasn't a dragonseed but just an ordinary person who tamed a dragon.

 

That's probably true, but Targaryens probably can do it easier and I am not sure they are claiming it only as propaganda or they really believe it. 

On 5/29/2023 at 1:05 AM, StarkTullies said:

A Song of Ice and Fire isn't a song about the Starks and the Targaryens, or Jon and Dany, or a single prophesized hero... but about the two great threats (Others and dragons) coming to a continent ill-prepared for outside conflicts because they are already fighting from within.

 

I think it was recently revealed that the 'song of ice and fire' refers to Aegon's dream of the three-headed dragon facing the darkness coming from the North.

This shows to me that the dragons aren't only a threat and a destructive force - although that's one of their role in the Second Dance of Dragons (happening in second half of book 6 and/or first half of book 7) - but also a saving grace.

[KingAerys_II]

Lightbringer is not a sword, but the bleeding star, that Gendry considers it to be a red sword. Lightbringer is a symbol of dragons, the three heads of the dragons are Drogon, Rhaegal and Viserion. This theory is linked to Aerion Targaryen, who had as a sygyl a Red dragon with heads colored of red, orange and yellow as the color shades of Daenerys dragons flames, he believed to be Daenerys, that's why he drunk wildfire to imitate the magic ritual when she walks into the flame. The Prince that was promised is Daenerys and she is the Nissa Nissa of Jon Azhor Ahai

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[StarkTullies]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

In general, these large-scale conspiracies orchestrated by tons of people who all have different interests and have to keep their mouts shut (such as a 'Southron ambitions' theory or the 'masters against Targaryens' theory) are false.

Maybe.  I'm not talking about the entire north... but we know that Wyman Manderly and the Glovers are plotting, and I think Barbrey Dustin is part of it too.

A short-term plot in one location is a lot different than a 300-year plot of an ancient organization stretching across the entire continent, too.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

This makes the least sense. Daario changing sides would help more the slavers than him being a 'mole'.

Maybe it doesn't make sense.  I haven't thought it through for a while.  And I admit I'm biased for wanting to think this: I think Daario Naharis is by far the most annoying character in the books (not the worst, but the most annoying), and a "twist" like this would justify his annoying presence in the story for me.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's probably true, but Targaryens probably can do it easier and I am not sure they are claiming it only as propaganda or they really believe it. 

I definitely think it is easier, but they aren't as special as they claim.  (Targaryens, or Valyrians in general.)

I'm not sure why King Jaehaerys I would have threatened to burn down Braavos if he didn't get the stolen dragon eggs back to prevent other families from riding dragons, if he actually believed that no one else but his family could ride dragons.

I also don't have Fire & Blood memorized, but Rhaenyra spreading claims about Nettles using "witchcraft" seemed about trying to retain her lie that only Targaryens can ride dragons.  (I know some people think that Nettles is a dragonseed, but those are mostly people who are already convinced that only Targaryens can ride dragons.  I think one of the main purposes of Nettles in the story is to prove the claim isn't true.)

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

I think it was recently revealed that the 'song of ice and fire' refers to Aegon's dream of the three-headed dragon facing the darkness coming from the North.

I won't believe that is canon until the book confirms it or I hear it from George Martin: not from the alternate story where this revelation came from.  Regardless of whether Aegon knew about this prophecy or not, we learned about "the song of ice and fire" in ACOK, but the book is called "a song of ice and fire".  Maybe I am silly for making the distinction, but I think there is one.  Even if the "the song" is about one single prophesized hero, the book is about "a song" which includes much more than the path of one character.

[Jon Fossoway]

Patchface kills Melisandre, then canibalizes her. Melisandre is afraid of him, not because of what he represents, but because of a specific life threatening reason. He saw him with "red lips [presumably bloody] sorrounded by skulls" in the flames.  This happens after Mel gets Shireen burned, in the middle of the mindfuckfest at the Wall that develops after Jon "dies" and before he gets revived or just wakes up or wargs back from Ghost.

Well, that's how the theory goes. It enmarks in the, as I mentioned, many grotesque events that happen when the lord Commander is murdered in the mutiny. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jon Fossoway

[BalerionTheCat]

I like the theories that sound right, and at the same time greatly modify the meaning of the story. The Blackfyre. Particularly if you think Varys engineered fAegon from the beginning. Ruining Aerys rule by his lies. Escalating Lyanna affair in a full rebelion. Sowing distrust with Dorne. Forcing Elia to KL while she was safe at Dragonstone. Finishing Gregor work so the true Aegon could not be identified...

Not exactly a theory. A general direction. I would like the Others to be the punishment of the gods for the crimes and atrocities committed by men. They will leave only if men clean their mess. Or else everyone will die. And the threat of their return, the thing that will keep men returning to their "business as usual".

Edited June 25, 2023 by BalerionTheCat