I am not convinced by Lemongate

[Alester Florent]

The ultimate problem I have with this theory is that it's a huge and wobbly edifice built on a foundation of a vague inconsistency about lemons. It requires that Daenerys is not who she - or anyone else, including the readers - believes herself to be, which would be an enormous upset in the context of the narrative, far bigger than the revelation of Jon Snow's true parentage which has deliberately been left mysterious.

There just isn't enough coffee to justify the amount of froth.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Alester Florent said:

The ultimate problem I have with this theory is that it's a huge and wobbly edifice built on a foundation of a vague inconsistency about lemons. It requires that Daenerys is not who she - or anyone else, including the readers - believes herself to be, which would be an enormous upset in the context of the narrative, far bigger than the revelation of Jon Snow's true parentage which has deliberately been left mysterious.

There just isn't enough coffee to justify the amount of froth.

Agree. And it would make Dany’s story… kind of idiotic at this point. Also, there are several ways to explain Martin’s “that would be telling”. 

[Gilbert Green]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, there are several ways to explain Martin’s “that would be telling”. 

I'm all ears.  But in my experience, most of those "several ways" amount to theorizing that he did not really mean what he said.  GRRM seems to tease us and invite us to form theories, to which the response from a certain crowd basically translates to "NO NO NO DON'T LISTEN TO GRRM MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE."

[Gilbert Green]

7 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

The ultimate problem I have with this theory is that it's a huge and wobbly edifice built on a foundation of a vague inconsistency about lemons.

It is a deliberate inconsistency, confirmed to be a clue to something spoilerish by GRRM himself.  Anyone who does not like other people's theories can come up with his own better theory.

7 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

It requires that Daenerys is not who she - or anyone else, including the readers - believes herself to be,

It does not require that at all.  It only "requires" (sort of) that Dany's earliest memories not be of Braavos.  And it technically does not even require that either.  The only reason it seems to "require" that is that nobody can think of a better theory as to how that lemon tree climate discrepancy would point to spoilerish future plot revelations.

7 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

There just isn't enough coffee to justify the amount of froth.

The froth of the lemonhaters is not an argument. And it is entirely their own problem.

[Alester Florent]

10 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

It is a deliberate inconsistency, confirmed to be a clue to something spoilerish by GRRM himself.  Anyone who does not like other people's theories can come up with his own better theory.

I mean I still think that it was an accidental inconsistency that he's turned into an easter egg and has later retrofitted an explanation for yet to be revealed, rather than anything actually significant. But that's me.

10 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

It does not require that at all.  It only "requires" (sort of) that Dany's earliest memories not be of Braavos.  And it technically does not even require that either.  The only reason it seems to "require" that is that nobody can think of a better theory as to how that lemon tree climate discrepancy would point to spoilerish future plot revelations.

So the part of the theory I can get behind is that there are inaccuracies in her memory of exactly what happened and when, as there are for everyone.

What I can't support is the various extrapolations from that that require a complete rewriting of Dany's past, and that seems to be where all the theories end up.

My own suspicion is that it's not really any more significant than that realising her memory is fallible later has an impact on her certitude and state of mind, as realising that she's been remembering things wrong (like the very place she thinks of as home!) causes her to call into question what she's doing and why. I don't think it needs to be any more than that.

 

10 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

The froth of the lemonhaters is not an argument. And it is entirely their own problem.

Who said anything about the lemonhaters? The froth in question is the theory itself.

[Nevets]

Basing a theory, or rejecting one, based on the precise passage of time is a bad idea.  GRRM is notorious for the imprecise nature of the passage of time.  So we shouldn't reject the idea that Lyanna gave birth to Jon right around the sack of KL simply because of travel times and/or GRRMs comment about Dany being born 9 months after Jon.  I think it was an off-the-cuff answer based on the human gestation period.

As to Lemongate itself, I have considered the possibility that Viserys and Daenerys secretly spent time in Dorne, possibly after the signing of the marriage agreement, an arrangement that fell apart after Darry's death.  If true, it would be a significant reveal, suggesting far more Dornish involvement than has been supposed.  Disclosure could also cause trouble with KL.

I have no doubt this theory has holes in it.  I still find it easier to believe something along these lines that the child switching we've been hearing about, which generally require twisting of text and lots of jumping through hoops.

[Gilbert Green]

22 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I mean I still think that it was an accidental inconsistency that he's turned into an easter egg and has later retrofitted an explanation for yet to be revealed, rather than anything actually significant. But that's me.

If it points to something spoilerish, it points to something spoilerish.  I don't see the point of micro-analyzing his creative process.  Whether it BEGAN as an accidental inconsistency in an early draft (and there is no actual evidence of this as the early draft contained no inconsistency) is neither here nor there.  He has teased us with his CURRENT intentions, and invited us to form theories.

22 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

So the part of the theory I can get behind is that there are inaccuracies in her memory of exactly what happened and when, as there are for everyone.

What I can't support is the various extrapolations from that that require a complete rewriting of Dany's past, and that seems to be where all the theories end up.

Come up with your own better theory, then.  Or just wait till the books come out.

22 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

My own suspicion is that it's not really any more significant than that realising her memory is fallible later has an impact on her certitude and state of mind, as realising that she's been remembering things wrong (like the very place she thinks of as home!) causes her to call into question what she's doing and why. I don't think it needs to be any more than that.

So your theory  is that when GRRM teased us with "that would be telling", what he was really doing was talking about the fallible nature of the POV structure, something he has already discussed openly in interviews and statements multiple times?

22 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Who said anything about the lemonhaters? The froth in question is the theory itself.

Lemonhaters are real.  There is no froth in observing this undeniable fact.  The froth and the hate lie almost entirely with them.  The rest of us just want to discuss theories, and those not interested in particular theories don't have to participate.   The term does not have to apply to you.  Unless you want it to. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

18 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Basing a theory, or rejecting one, based on the precise passage of time is a bad idea.  GRRM is notorious for the imprecise nature of the passage of time.  So we shouldn't reject the idea that Lyanna gave birth to Jon right around the sack of KL simply because of travel times and/or GRRMs comment about Dany being born 9 months after Jon.  I think it was an off-the-cuff answer based on the human gestation period.

I never suggested standard R+L=J could be ruled out absolutely based on timeline arguments.  I merely suggested it was not obviously superior to competing theories.  Yes, competing theories do conflict with timelines built around standard R+L=J assumptions, but such arguments are circular.   And you just said that timeline arguments don't matter, and you may be right.  But that also goes for competing theories.

18 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As to Lemongate itself, I have considered the possibility that Viserys and Daenerys secretly spent time in Dorne, possibly after the signing of the marriage agreement, an arrangement that fell apart after Darry's death.  If true, it would be a significant reveal, suggesting far more Dornish involvement than has been supposed.  Disclosure could also cause trouble with KL.

Ok.  That's possible, I guess, though I personally don't think it amounts to much yet. 

18 minutes ago, Nevets said:

 

[Gilbert Green]

I'd like to point out that the term "lemongate" was coined by those who wished to mock such ideas, and as the name implies, the mockery was directed at the very idea that the lemon tree discrepancy was significant or important.

Now that GRRM has basically confirmed that the lemon tree discrepancy is indeed significant and points to something spoilerish, this term is being subtly redefined.

AFAIK, proponents of any of the various theories that incorporated the lemon tree rarely refer to their theories as "lemongate".  They are likely to use more specific and useful labels, like maybe "R+L=D" or "R+A=D"; or something else, depending upon the theory.

"Lemongate" is still predominantly a term of mockery.  But it has lost its original meaning, and it is by no means clear what new meaning it has acquired.  "Theories we don't like", I guess.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[kissdbyfire]

This theory was, initially, about Jon and Dany being twins. And it immediately hit a hurdle: Jon is 8-9 months older than Dany, something the proponent wasn’t aware of at the time. And then the author started making adjustments to compensate for this. And here we are. I don’t think it stands on very solid ground. 

[Alester Florent]

23 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This theory was, initially, about Jon and Dany being twins. And it immediately hit a hurdle: Jon is 8-9 months older than Dany, something the proponent wasn’t aware of at the time. And then the author started making adjustments to compensate for this. And here we are. I don’t think it stands on very solid ground. 

Some animals can pause their pregnancies for up to 11 months. Maybe Targaryens can too.

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Some animals can pause their pregnancies for up to 11 months. Maybe Targaryens can too.

 

Yes, but how many multiparous species pause gestation of one foetus until another egg is fertilised? Even Targs aren’t that special! 

[Gilbert Green]

49 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This theory was, initially, about Jon and Dany being twins. And it immediately hit a hurdle: Jon is 8-9 months older than Dany, something the proponent wasn’t aware of at the time. And then the author started making adjustments to compensate for this. And here we are. I don’t think it stands on very solid ground. 

Is there some specific person you are accusing of altering his position in response to evidence?  Or are you lumping all theorists together?

What's wrong with adjusting one's position?  In the give and take of discussion, people listen to their opponents, adjust their positions, and maybe formulate better theories.  It is not, I suppose, as though he claimed to have seen GRRM's secret drafts.  His credibility is not at issue.

Seems to me you can't let go and move on.  You want to attack some old, flawed theory variant so you can savor forever the sweet taste of victory.  And how many YEARS ago was this???

[three-eyed monkey]

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Lemongate basically means that the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant and points to something spoilerish.  Lemonhate is the theory that anyone who thinks the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant and points to something spoilerish deserves to be insulted or worse.

Lemongate is just a basic proposition that could eventually be proven either true or false.  

Well GRRM said that it points to something, so I'd say that's true. The debate is really about what it points to and how significant that may be.

I'm not a Lemonhater. I never insulted anyone on this forum as far as I recall. Not for a long time anyway. I probably fired a few shots back at people who insulted me from time to time. But in general I'm quite polite.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Lemongate is just a basic proposition that could eventually be proven either true or false.   If you want a "proper theory" you have to be more specific, IMHO.

A proper theory would go further than a basic proposition, it would state what it points to and how that is significant. Like the hooded man in Winterfell for example, the basic proposition is that it is a character we know who's presence points to something significant. Hooded man theories suggest who he is and what is significant about him being in Winterfell.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Lemonhate is not even a theory.  Merely an attitude.  But it is true that one of the reasons the lemonhaters hate Lemongate is because they think it points to Dany being someone else.   To which my response is that I am open to alternate theories as to how the lemon tree is significant and points to something spoilerish.  But the lemonhaters never seem to get there.  They just get mad the instant anyone starts talking about the lemon tree.

I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just not convinced by the theories. I'm more convinced that Dany is who we are told she is.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

On the most basic level, I think Lemongate probably points to a more specific proposition, that "The House with the Red Door is not in Braavos"; which in turn might (possibly) be a clue to propositions like "The Dany we know is not the child born to Rhaella on Dragonstone".  

Why would the red door not being in Braavos suggest that Dany is not the child born to Rhaella on Dragonstone? It suggests to me that Dany was somewhere else when she thought she was in Braavos.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

But, as I said, I am open to alternative theories as to how the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant and points to something spoilerish.

Me too.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

There have been many theories you could discuss if you were interested in discussing theories.

I am interested in discussing theories. Maybe you could suggest a theory and not just a proposition.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

But I would not call any of those theories "Lemongate" because it is far too broad a term

You believe the lemon tree points to the fact that Dany is not the child of Rhaella. I call that a Lemongate theory. It's not a theory I find convincing, but that doesn't mean I'm hating on people who believe it.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I am open to whatever theory you wish to propose. 

I don't know. I'm happy to accept that Dany is the daughter of Rhaella. I think it makes perfect sense, and is a good starting place for the journey she is on.

There are some points about her character that I feel are important to her arc. I think it's important that she is a Targaryen. I think it's important that she is the Mad King's daughter. I think it's important that Viserys and Rhaegar, two vastly different characters, are her brothers. I think it's important that she comes from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. I think it's important that her mother died giving birth to her. I think the number three is important to her arc, as in child of three. I feel these things will have a bearing on her arc, and the decisions she will have to make to resolve it.

So I'm not sold on the idea that she might be someone else. It would be a surprise, sure, but what would the significance be. What point would that make?

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

But you seem to be willing to consider the basic proposition that the "House with the Red Door is not in Braavos".  Which makes you on board with "Lemongate" (and then some) in my book.

I'm open to the house with a Red Door not being in Braavos, sure. If that makes me a Lemongater in your book then I'm glad I'm not a Lemonhater anymore.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Can you formulate, for instance, a specific theory on how the House with the Red Door being in Tyrosh is significant and points to something spoilerish?

Well, GRRM said it points to something, I think we might differ on how significant it is.

Off the top of my head, Dany speaks with a Tyroshi accent, she recalls playing in the alleys of Tyrosh, and Doran Martell planned on sending Arianne to Tyrosh as the Archon's cup-bearer so she could meet in secret with Viserys after they had been betrothed. Dany and Viserys were clearly in Tyrosh, and probably for a significant amount of time, given that Dany developed a Tyroshi accent. So if the House with the Red door is not in Braavos, then my guess is that it is in Tyrosh, where the climate is more suited to lemon trees.

Then we have the Archon's brother attending Dany's wedding. This suggest Tyroshi interest and involvement with the exiled Targaryens from the time of the marriage pact up to present. What's the significance? Tyrosh have been playing a long game and are secretly waiting to support Dany as she heads west.

I haven't really thought about it too much, but it's a theory that is supported in the text. We can discuss it and test it because it is a theory, not just a broad proposition. It goes beyond the proposition and explains where the house with the red door is and why that is significant.

4 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

The theory that Dany is exactly who she thinks she is also runs into problems, when considered in conjunction with an SSM and standard R+L=J.    If Dany is 8 or 9 months younger than Jon, and was born 9 "moons" after the flight from KL, then Ned has something less than a month to race to KL while the Lannisters sack it, quarrel with Robert, march his army south to Storms End, lift the siege, and then travel to a remote location in the mountains of Dorne in time to find his sister dying in childbirth.

Of course, if you are committed to standard R+L=J, you can force it to work somehow.  But most of the objections to alternate theories is that they conflict with timelines built around assumptions designed to fit standard R+L=J. 

GRRM's timelines may have problems no matter what theory you subscribe to.  It could be he just messed up his timelines.

Nonetheless, I will happily address specific objections you want to raise.

Before I object to anything you would have to clarify some things. It's all well and good claiming Dany is Rhaegar's daughter with Ashara or with Lyanna, but it obviously raises some questions?

Where was she born and when? Where is the house with the red door and how did she get there? Did Willem Darry know who Dany really was? Who knew? Why does Viserys blame her for killing Rhaella? What happened Rhaella's child? When did Darry and Viserys go from Dragonstone to the house with the red door? Did Stannis think two Targaryens escaped him at Dragonstone or just one? And what's significant about who Dany really is, and by that I mean what is the point GRRM is making by having her be whoever it is you believe she is?

Edited April 2, 2023 by three-eyed monkey

[Gilbert Green]

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Well GRRM said that it points to something, so I'd say that's true.

That makes you a lemongater.  It was a term of mockery.  But GRRM has confirmed it. 

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not a Lemonhater.

I never accused you of being one.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

A proper theory would go further than a basic proposition, it would state what it points to and how that is significant.

I have several such theories that I would be happy to discuss with anyone interested.  But we can never seem to get past those who want to argue over the basic proposition

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Like the hooded man in Winterfell for example, the basic proposition is that it is a character we know who's presence points to something significant. Hooded man theories suggest who he is and what is significant about him being in Winterfell.

Yes.  And it is easier to progress to that point and have such discussion, because there is not an army of people mocking the theory as "hood-gate" and making enraged denials of any possibility that the hooded man has any significance.

Someone just started another thread called "Blue-Rose Gate".  Whose purpose was to mock the idea that the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant.  Never mind that GRRM confimed that it was significant.   Some people never move on.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Why would the red door not being in Braavos suggest that Dany is not the child born to Rhaella on Dragonstone? It suggests to me that Dany was somewhere else when she thought she was in Braavos.

You are perfectly welcome to work up such a theory.   I'm not saying that this point, standing alone, carries much weight one way or the other.

But since you want to hear a few points, they are:

• There is evidence that Darry was in fact in Braavos at the same time that Dany thought she was at the Red Door House.  For example, the marriage pace was signed in Braavos by Darry, at the time when Dany believes she was at the Red Door House.  So if Darry was in Braavos, the Ser Willem she remembers must not have been Darry.
• Illyrio is a slaver, dealing in Targaryen featured girls, who has involved himself in a scheme to sell a princess to an barbarian in exchange for an army.  He tells Tyrion this scheme involved years of planning, though Dany only recalls staying with Illyrio for some months prior to her wedding to Drogo.  What was his earlier involvement?  Maybe the procural of a Targaryen featured slave girl of Westerosi origin.
• Before Dany's wedding, Viserys seems worried and skeptical about Dany's ability to look the part of a Targaryen princess.
• Dany recalls being brutally punished by Viserys for imagining that she could be anything other than a princess.  Maybe she has been programmed, Jeyne Poole style, but from a much younger and more impressionable age.  But on the Dothraki sea, when she starts acting like a Princess, he starts screaming at her that she is only a whore.
• The vast majority of Rhaella's double-inbred pregnancies by Aerys did not result in healthy children who lived very long, and the one who was physically healthy (Viserys) was mad.  No particular explanation is needed for the fate of Rhaella's real daughter.  (As for Rhaegar, he is hinted to come from Bonifer, making him Rhaella's first and only sane, healthy child). 
• It feel weird to Dany that the marriage pact makes no mention of her.  I'm not sure it is weird, but GRRM calls attention to the weirdness nonetheless, and it might be meant as a clue.
• There are hints that the Three Headed Dragon of prophesy should be 3 siblings, since it is connected to the symbolism of Aegon and his Sisters.  Rhaegar apparently expected the 3 heads to be his own children.  In Dany's vision, Rhaegar seems to be looking at Dany when he says "there must be one more".  And we know that when he was told Elia could have no more children, he went chasing after Lyanna.
• There were 9 bodies at the Tower of Joy, but only 8 cairns built.  Lord Willam Dustin "never lived to ride away"; but we do not know he died right away.  He may have stayed behind to nurse his injuries and guard a little princess.  Ned's failure to eventually retrieve his bones embittered one of his proud vassals.  This implies he died later, at a time when Ned was not available to build a cairn to protect his bones until they could be retrieved.
• Three mounts shall Dany ride, per the HOTU prophesy.  She has already ridden a horse and a dragon.  What will be her third mount?  Maybe a direwolf, consistent with her Stark heritage?  Or maybe she will ride a velociraptor after finding the Red Door House at the Sealord's palace.  Take your pick, or suggest other ideas.  A unicorn?  A mammoth?
• The scented oils in the Western market remind Dany of home.  In medieval times, scented oils were mainly rose oils.  At the Tower of Joy, a storm blew a cloud of blue rose petals across the sky.  And the phrase "child of storm" from the HOTU prophesy, may have a double meaning.
• Mel has a vision about a girl in grey, who she thinks is Jon's sister.  But Jon does not have a sister, or, at least Arya is not his sister, and Sansa is not his sister, and Jeyne Poole is not his sister, and Alys Karstark is not his sister.  Probably.  Also, Alys Karstark never rode a dying horse along a huge lake, and (as far as we can confirm) never even wore grey.  Alys Karstark is a red herring.  The girl in grey will be Dany, I guess, and when her horse dies alongside the frozen shore of the God's Eye, she will need a new mount.  Because three mounts must she ride.
• While looking for Jon's sister in her flames, Mel has a vision of a girl named "Melony" being sold at "lot seven".  Most assume this is a vision of herself, and not a vision of the girl she is looking for.  But nothing is actually spelled out, except that these are voices out of the past (rather than the present or future).  Melony is a Westerosi name. 
• In one of her visions, Dany fears a death that is more than death, howling forever alone in the darkness.  That sounds rather wolfy, does it not?  Maybe she needs to escape the dragon that would devour her and find her wolf family.  Because the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives.
• I leave out all the clues pointing to the Red Door House not really being in Braavos, because you seem open to that idea already.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You believe the lemon tree points to the fact that Dany is not the child of Rhaella.

I think the lemon tree, by itself, points to the fact that the House with the Red Door is not in Braavos.  To go further you have to play connect-the-dots with a whole bunch of other clues.  I have listed a few of them above.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I call that a Lemongate theory.

I don't call it that.  Why would you?   It's not what we disagree about.  You say you agree that the climate discrepancy is significant.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't know. I'm happy to accept that Dany is the daughter of Rhaella. I think it makes perfect sense, and is a good starting place for the journey she is on.

That's fine.  Nobody has to agree with anyone else's theory.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

There are some points about her character that I feel are important to her arc. I think it's important that she is a Targaryen.

She's obviously Targaryen in the sense of having Targaryen heritage.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think it's important that she is the Mad King's daughter.

Well it is certainly an important clue.   As the double-inbred child of frail inbred parents, she ought to be sickly, or mad, or both.   To the extent she is viable at all, she ought to be a near clone of her parents.  But she seems to be healthy as a horse, and perhaps not entirely mad (fingers crossed).

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think it's important that Viserys and Rhaegar, two vastly different characters, are her brothers.

It certainly is a clue.  If Viserys and Rhaegar were full siblings, they ought to have been the next best thing to twins, especially since their parents were already inbred.  But Rhaegar comes from Bonifer.  That's why he can't be TPTWP.  He does not come from the line of Aerys and Rhaella.

Dany is told she is more like Rhaegar than Viserys.  If my ideas are correct, she is actually more closely related to Rhaegar than to Viserys.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think it's important that she comes from the line of Aerys and Rhaella.

Maybe only if she is TPTWP.  It is unclear if that has to be true of the other 2 heads. 

Rhaegar was not TPTWP because he was Bonifer's son.  And I think this somehow connects to the tragedy at Summerhall, which still haunts Bonifer.  But at least he injected (sorry) new vitality into the incest-degraded Targaryen line. 

Bonifer, the super-tall tournament knight, is also, I believe, a descendant of Dunk, and through him Rhaegar,and the 3 heads of the dragon who are also his children are also descendants of Dunk.  So, by now, we have not only united the lines of Aerys and Rhaella, but also the lines of Dunk and Egg.

Rhaegar sought out Elia as a bride because she was a by-blow of Aerys, whose mom rushed home to Sunspear to give birth "a month early".  Thus did he unite the lines of Aerys and Rhaella.  When Elia could have no children, he sought out Lyanna, the daughter of Lady Stark (a Stark by birth, not just by marriage, explaining how she did not heed her husband to give her daughter Lyanna some Stark features), who was with her husband in KL during Aerys' randy period of fooling around with the wives of nobles.

A similar ambiguity exists with the Aerys-Tywin-Joanna triangle, in which Tyrion (or alternatively Cersei and Jaime, if you prefer that theory) can be a Lannister, to at least a degree, even if he is the son of Aerys.  Because Joanna was a Lannister, by blood, and not just by marriage.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think it's important that her mother died giving birth to her.

That's true whether her mother was Lyanna or Rhaella.  And either way she was a "child of storm".  Maybe the storm that blew the rose petals across the crimson-streaked sky.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think the number three is important to her arc, as in child of three. I feel these things will have a bearing on her arc, and the decisions she will have to make to resolve it.

Three heads have the dragon.  The first is probably Aegon.  The second is probably Jon Snow.  The third is Dany.  (I think Aegon is still alive, though I don't think Young Griff is Aegon, but that's a separate debate.)

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So I'm not sold on the idea that she might be someone else. It would be a surprise, sure, but what would the significance be. What point would that make?

Well, she hates the Starks as the enemies of her father the Mad King.  Certainly it would be ironic if she were to learn that she herself is a Stark to some degree.  At least, I would find it amusing, though I guess you would feel differently.  And three mounts must she ride.

Technically, it suppose does not matter whether Daeron the Good is the son of Aegon the Unworthy or Aemon the Dragon-knight.  But it amuses people to debate such things.  But at the back of people's minds is the idea that heritage matters, and maybe Daeron comes from Aemon and that's why he is good.  And the Blackfyres come from Aegon the Unworthy, which is why they are all unworthy.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Before I object to anything you would have to clarify some things. It's all well and good claiming Dany is Rhaegar's daughter with Ashara or with Lyanna, but it obviously raises some questions?

I'll have a go at some of your questions in the interest of being a good sport.  But some disclaimers first.  I do theories, not fan fiction.  Trying to answer questions can be trap, as I will be only be accused of writing fan fiction if I try to answer them.  Ultimately either Dany is or is not Rhaegar's daughter, and if she IS Rhaegar's daughter, it is GRRM (not I) who will supply all the details, and I expect will do a better job than I could.   And if the theory is wrong it is just wrong.  Also, I speak only for myself, and not for "Lemongate".

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Where was she born and when?

I guess, at the Tower of Joy, at the time of the fight at the Tower of Joy.  During a storm.  Of blue rose petals.  Hence, she really is a "child of storm" as in the HOTU vision.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Where is the house with the red door and how did she get there?

At or near the Tower of Joy, in (I guess) a valley filled with blue roses, the pass to which is guarded by the tower.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Did Willem Darry know who Dany really was?

Sir Willem Darry never met our Dany.  The man she remembers is Lord Willam Dustin.  Note that Dany has no explicit memories of Viserys being there.  She assumes he was there, because she conflates her fading memories with Viserys's stories.

For example she seems to remember the flight from Dragonstone, even though, in this case, she knows she cannot possibly remember it, and it is a false memory derived from Viserys' stories.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Who knew?

Lord Willam Dustin, Eddard Stark, Howland Reed.  I suspect Ashara Dayne was there as well.  Servants were brought in, but they did not know the whole story.  When Lord Dustin died, they stole things.  And one of the things they stole was a little girl with Valyrian features, who someone realized would be valuable if sold on the slave market.  Eventually she was shipped to Illyrio, who specializes in such commodities.  Illyrio eventually gave her to Viserys to use in his Princess-for-an-army plot.  Neither Viserys nor Illyrio (I guess) knew she was a daughter of Rhaegar.  She was just a fake princess for their fake princess scheme. 

Jorah Mormont has a backstory in which Eddard Stark is really mad at him for selling Westerosi citizens into slavery.  I'm not sure if there is any direct connection.   

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Why does Viserys blame her for killing Rhaella?

Because he is cruel, and it suits his purpose to pretend she is the Real Dany, as well as to subject her to physical and psychological abuse as part of her programming.  And he probably does blame the real Dany for killing Rhaella.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

What happened Rhaella's child?

I guess she died, like virtually all Rhaella's other children.  Another possibility that occurred to me (and this is only brainstorming) is that he shipped her to hiding and safety to protect her from Viserys, and we have met her as Wylla, the green-haired young Manderly, whose green-dyed hair hides Valyrian coloring, and who is (ironically) fiercely loyal to the Starks; just as Dany fiercly hates the Starks.

But I think Darry was likely dead when Viserys and Illyrio got together and concocted a Jeyne Poole style scheme to sell a fake princess to a barbarian in exchange for an army.  If Darry had any involvement in the scheme, I would guess it was no more than to conceal the death of the real Dany, so as to keep this option open in future.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

When did Darry and Viserys go from Dragonstone to the house with the red door?

Darry and Viserys never went to the House with the Red Door.  The Sir Willem she remembers is Dustin, not Darry.  Viserys was never there either.  She has no explicit memories of seeing him there.  She assumes he was there because she conflates her memories with Viserys' stories. 

But she does sense that the House with the Red Door was never home to Viserys, in the sense that it has no importance to him.  It also, I guess, was never his home in a more literal sense.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Did Stannis think two Targaryens escaped him at Dragonstone or just one?

Does it matter?  Probably two.  There is no need for the "real Dany" to die right away, or even die at all.  I'm sure GRRM will have no difficulty supplying such details when the time comes, if the theory turns out to be correct.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And what's significant about who Dany really is, and by that I mean what is the point GRRM is making by having her be whoever it is you believe she is?

That's for GRRM to decide.  I only make theories.  I'm not going to write the whole book for you so you can decide whether you like it.  I'm sure GRRM can do it better.  The theory is either right or wrong, and if by some chance it is right, maybe GRRM will make it feel right by the precise way he writes it, and we can all debate what the point was, or whether it was any good at all.

But to be a good sport, here's some more brainstorming.  You know the lone wolf dies and the pack survives, and maybe to achieve her happy ending Dany will have to join forces with her Stark brothers and sisters (and Targ brothers and sisters) and learn to make love not war and save the planet.  All just guess work.  But there is all these hints about a planned Pact of Ice and Fire which was intended to join the Starks and Targs into a single family alliance.  And maybe when Dany remembers who she really is, she will recall that the Starks are her family, and not her enemies.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Nevets]

Why should we believe that William Dustin, or anyone else besides Ned and Howland, survived the fight at the Tower of Joy?  We're told in Ned's own thoughts that "they had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed".  If he was telling someone this, I might suspect him of lying by omission.  But it's his own private thoughts, so if he's lying, he's lying to himself, which I seriously doubt is the case.

So Daenerys remembers the house with the red door, but nothing that even remotely resembles slavery.  Hmmm.  Not to mention a series of very convenient coincidences.  I seriously doubt Illyrio has had Drogo in mind for 7-8 years.  I can see him maybe scanning around looking for a potential marriage partner for a few years, but I don't see them as that central to his plans.  He's already put his money on Aegon.  

Comments on a few things.

Darry was likely at Braavos for the signing of the marriage pact.  But he's hardly nailed to the floor there.  There is a multi-year window during which he, and Viserys and Daenerys, can go pretty much wherever they can get to.

I suspect Danny's three mounts are Silver (her horse), Drogo, and Drogon.  The terms "mount" and "ride" are often used to describe sexual activity.  No need to bring direwolves and the like into it.

Mel's visions are hardly shining examples of reliability and accuracy.  She even admits in her POV to having trouble properly interpreting her visions.  So I think she saw Alys Karstark and assumed it was Arya.

I still find it easier to believe that the inconsistencies point to something other than a switch.  Possibly more extensive involvement by Dorne than generally understood or even time spent there.  Which if true could be explosive in-world.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Nevets

[Gilbert Green]

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Why should we believe that William Dustin, or anyone else besides Ned and Howland, survived the fight at the Tower of Joy? 

You don't have to believe anything.  It's only a theory.  But there are arguable clues.

- Because Dany remembers a Ser Willam, who, based on other clues may not have been Darry.  Both men are knights named Willem/Willam.  Might be a clue.

- Because there is a drama about the failure to return Willam's bones.  Might be a clue.

- Because there were 9 bodies and 8 cairns at the Tower of Joy.  Might be a clue.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

We're told in Ned's own thoughts that "they had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed".  If he was telling someone this, I might suspect him of lying by omission.  But it's his own private thoughts, so if he's lying, he's lying to himself, which I seriously doubt is the case.

He's not lying.  Willam is dead.  And he never left the Tower of Joy.  He died there, maybe 4 or 5 years later.  Specifically, he never RODE away, and we even have a little drama bout Ned returning Willam's horse, just to make sure we know that, whatever Lord Dustin had been up to before he finally died, he had not been riding at all, much less riding away.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

So Daenerys remembers the house with the red door, but nothing that even remotely resembles slavery. 

She seems to hate slavery with a bitter seething burning passion.  And small children often lose access to early memories, especially traumatic ones.  Poor Reek had issues remembering things.  I bet poor Jeyne Poole has issues too.  And Dany would have been far younger.  But you have to remember who you are.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Hmmm.  Not to mention a series of very convenient coincidences.  I seriously doubt Illyrio has had Drogo in mind for 7-8 years. 

He does not need to.  Everyone knows that princesses are used for marriage plots for the forging of political alliances.  If not Drogo, then someone else.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I can see him maybe scanning around looking for a potential marriage partner for a few years, but I don't see them as that central to his plans.  He's already put his money on Aegon.  

That was always true.  You have a problem reconciling his support for Viserys with his support for Aegon.  But that is not an objection to this theory or any other particular theory.  It's just a problem.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Comments on a few things.

Darry was likely at Braavos for the signing of the marriage pact.  But he's hardly nailed to the floor there.  There is a multi-year window during which he, and Viserys and Daenerys, can go pretty much wherever they can get to.

True.  But Dany does believe that Pact is dated at a time when she thinks she was in Braavos in the House with the Red Door.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I suspect Danny's three mounts are Silver (her horse), Drogo, and Drogon.  The terms "mount" and "ride" are often used to describe sexual activity.  No need to bring direwolves and the like into it.

You left out Daario.  Why not "four mounts shall she ride"?   And that assumes she is stuck with Daario or celibacy from now on.

Maybe the prophesy refers to sex mounts rather than riding mounts.  Prophesies are treacherous after all.  But if it refers to both at once, we already have too many mounts.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Mel's visions are hardly shining examples of reliability and accuracy. 

It's called misdirection.  If GRRM tells you to ignore the visions.  So obviously you should pay close attention to the visions. Especially when he creates a whole new POV just so he can give you a few visions.

If you want absolute certainty wait til the future books come out.  All i am same is that visions and prophesies are fair game for clues for persons making theories.

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

She even admits in her POV to having trouble properly interpreting her visions.  So I think she saw Alys Karstark and assumed it was Arya.

She did not see Alys Karstark.  Alys never went anywhere near any big lake.  And the horse was dying at Castle Black, not at any big lake.  And GRRM covers her in a black cloak of the Nights Watch so we cannot even check to see if she is really wearing grey.  Sneaky.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Alester Florent]

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Is there some specific person you are accusing of altering his position in response to evidence?  Or are you lumping all theorists together?

What's wrong with adjusting one's position?  In the give and take of discussion, people listen to their opponents, adjust their positions, and maybe formulate better theories.  It is not, I suppose, as though he claimed to have seen GRRM's secret drafts.  His credibility is not at issue.

From what I've seen in this thread, the problem is not that the position was changed to take account of new information or discussion. It's that instead of incorporating that information in a sensible way to inform the theory it became more preposterous.

We started off with "the house with the red door is not in Braavos" which is not a slam-dunk (it's been pointed out that a particularly rich Braavosi could maintain lemons) but is entirely plausible. And somehow we've ended up with "Rhaegar is not Aerys's son".

This is a common feature with the wilder type of theory: that in the face of contrary evidence the creator(s) start adjusting the evidence to fit the theory, rather than the other way around.

For instance:

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

It certainly is a clue.  If Viserys and Rhaegar were full siblings, they ought to have been the next best thing to twins, especially since their parents were already inbred. 

I don't really get what this is supposed to mean. That Viserys and Rhaegar can't be brothers because they're dissimilar in character? You do realise that - both in ASOIAF and in real life - identical twins are only physically "identical", not emotionally/socially identical, right?

Quote

- Because there were 9 bodies and 8 cairns at the Tower of Joy.  Might be a clue.

Yes, nine people died (five of Ned's crew, three Kingsguard, Lyanna) and Ned brought one of their bodies (Lyanna's) home. This is there in black and white. The only "mystery" is why Ned didn't bring his five mates' bodies home, and I think that's just a matter of practicality.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Alester Florent

[three-eyed monkey]

4 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

That makes you a lemongater.

I remember when Yolkboy posted a thread called There are no lemon trees in Braavos. That was probably ten years ago or close to it. I thought it was an interesting observation and I'm open to it meaning something. The discussion went in different directions.

Some people think the lemon tree is in the Sealord's palace. I think that's reasonable.

Some people believe it means Dany was somewhere else in her early years, like Tyrosh or Dorne, when she thought she was in Braavos. I think this is very plausible given that she was traveling through the Free cities. Her accent is Tyroshi. Doran was sending Arianne to Tyrosh to meet Viserys. Maybe the house with the red door was there too. Perhaps they got kicked out after Willem died because Doran never did send Arianne? I think that's reasonable.

Some people think it means Dany is someone else and that her whole backstory is false. I think that's less reasonable, and those theories don't convince me, personally.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

It was a term of mockery.

It suggests controversy to me, not mockery.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

You say you agree that the climate discrepancy is significant.

I said I'm open to the house with the red door and lemon tree not being in Braavos. I didn't say I agree it's not. What I don't agree with is the notion that Dany is not who we've been told she is.

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

That's fine.  Nobody has to agree with anyone else's theory.

Absolutely. There's a lot we disagree about with regard to this. I won't go through it point for point but we view things like the three heads of the dragon, the three mounts, what happened at the Tower of Joy, and other central points to the story, quite differently. That's fine.

6 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'll have a go at some of your questions in the interest of being a good sport. 

You are a good sport, I appreciate that.

6 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'm not going to write the whole book for you so you can decide whether you like it.

Then I'll have to wait for GRRM. Any moment now...

[Gilbert Green]

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

From what I've seen in this thread, the problem is not that the position was changed to take account of new information or discussion. It's that instead of incorporating that information in a sensible way to inform the theory it became more preposterous.

We started off with "the house with the red door is not in Braavos" which is not a slam-dunk (it's been pointed out that a particularly rich Braavosi could maintain lemons) but is entirely plausible.

We actually started out with "Lemongate", which is confirmed by GRRM.  "The House with the Red Door is Not in Braavos" is a theory.

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

And somehow we've ended up with "Rhaegar is not Aerys's son".

That's another theory.  I have a lot of theories.  I may end up being right about some of them but wrong about others.   Or maybe I'll be wrong about all of them.   I do tend to look for connections between them.  I expect the many many many loose ends and mysteries of ASOIAF to have convergences and connections in spots, rather than being entirely separate.  When I think I find such connections, it tends to encourage me with the idea that I might be on the right track.  Your idea is that if I find such connections it proves that my ideas are on the wrong track, because it makes my ideas too elaborate.  I don't agree with that.

If you want to know why I think Rhaegar is Bonifer' son, you can ask me.  I mainly regard it as a separate theory.  But I won't deny that I imagine I can see connections between it and other theories I hold.

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

This is a common feature with the wilder type of theory: that in the face of contrary evidence the creator(s) start adjusting the evidence to fit the theory, rather than the other way around.

I did not form the Bonifer + Rhaella = Rhaegar theory for any such reason.  If you want to know my reasons, you can ask me.  I have many reasons, including some I have not mentioned yet (but no proof -- it's only a theory). You don't have to be interested of course..

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I don't really get what this is supposed to mean. That Viserys and Rhaegar can't be brothers because they're dissimilar in character? You do realise that - both in ASOIAF and in real life - identical twins are only physically "identical", not emotionally/socially identical, right?

I don't want to get into any nature versus nurture ideological debates.  But no, I do not agree with you that physical traits are always heritable and that mental traits are never heritable.  The issue is not just their "character", but also the fact that Rhaegar is hugely talented, and Viserys is almost completely useless.  Madness is a mental trait, is it not?  Is it not at implied that Viserys inherited his madness from his father?  What does one expect to happen when a man who suffers from heritable madness marries a woman who shares most of his genes?  She's not just his sister, she's his inbred sister.

Rhaegar and Viserys are different physically as well as mentally.  Rhaegar is taller than Viserys, and, I would guess, taller than Aerys as well.  (Bonifer was tall).  Rhaegar was a top warrior and tournament knight, unlike either Viserys or Aerys.  (Bonifer was a top warrior and tournament knight).

Also, none of my points are meant to be absolute.  It was not my goal to prove absolutely that there is no conceivable way that a hugely talented prodigy like Rhaegar could possibly be the products of two successive generations of full-sibling- incest, through the same mad father and sickly mother.  It only seems unlikely, not absolutely impossible.   Subtle clues are always deniable clues.

It is only a theory, and it could be wrong.  If you want absolute proof, you are going to have to wait for GRRM.

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Yes, nine people died (five of Ned's crew, three Kingsguard, Lyanna) and Ned brought one of their bodies (Lyanna's) home. This is there in black and white. The only "mystery" is why Ned didn't bring his five mates' bodies home, and I think that's just a matter of practicality.

Ned brought Lyanna's bones home, not her rotting corpse.  In the meantime, she would have needed a cairn.  Or a tomb.  Or something.

Or maybe Ned chopped up Lyanna and put her in a cauldron so he could quickly boil the meat off her bones.  Or maybe he found a really big cauldron so he did not need to chop.  Or maybe he was being followed around by an army of Silent Sisters carrying jars of flesh-eating beetles.  Or maybe Ned built 8 cairns on the ridge and one more in the valley, the latter which he did not count because he dismantled it when he later retrieved Lyanna's bones.  Or maybe GRRM did not think too hard about the issue. 

"9 bodies but 8 cairns" is only an (arguable, subtle) clue in favor of a theory.  If you want absolute proof, you will have to wait for GRRM.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Gilbert Green