I am not convinced by Lemongate

[Frey family reunion]

16 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?

I tend to agree that a lot of the theories discussed in this thread (and most of the other Lemongate threads) get too convoluted and you are correct to question, what’s the point.

This is why the only possibility that would be interesting to me at all, is that Dany’s parents were of no one of note.  Except for the fact that they possessed the necessary bloodlines to enable Dany to hatch the dragons, something that the blood of the royal Targaryen dynasty couldn’t do at the time of the rebellion.

At least then, it could add to her character arc.  She’d no longer be coming into Westeros to reclaim her “rightful inheritance”.  But she’d be coming in as a conqueror and more notably as a conqueror whose actual origin was something that would be looked down upon by the nobility.  Which is why I think (perhaps like Young Griff) her parentage may have been born from the brothels.  

Maybe the memory of the red door, is how the door appeared because of the red lamp over the door.  The brothels would be a possible way to recombine dragon bloodlines that have branched off from the Targaryen royal family.

And there is one more hint that Dany may not be who she is supposed to be.  Oberyn Martell was the one who traveled to Braavos to sign the marriage pact with Willem Darry pledging Viserys to Arianne.

Oberyn’s name was inspired by the fairy king, Oberon, from Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream.  In the tale, Oberon was in possession of a changeling child.  A changeling refers to the tale of fairies swapping children and replacing them with an imposter.  

Which makes me wonder, if the swap could have happened in Braavos.  That Oberyn brought Dany as a substitute and in exchange for the marriage pact, the Dornes were given Viserys’ actual sister, and Viserys was given a replacement to be used to try to obtain an army.  While the Dornes or some third party held on to the real thing.  Perhaps, the green haired daughter of the   Archon of Tyrosh, the one who spent time in the Water Gardens of Dorne.

If so, this might explain why Dany is considered so expendable.  That they would be willing to marry her off to a Dothraki horselord, instead of keeping her for a proper political alliance.  And Viserys’ job is to keep the illusion up and convince Dany that she is indeed a Targaryen princess so he could obtain his army.

ETA:

Hmmm, this could explain why the Archon of Tyrosh’s brother was at Dany’s wedding shower to Khal Drogo.  The Archon was a conspirator in the plan.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[three-eyed monkey]

27 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This is why the only possibility that would be interesting to me at all, is that Dany’s parents were of no one of note.  Except for the fact that they possessed the necessary bloodlines to enable Dany to hatch the dragons, something that the blood of the royal Targaryen dynasty couldn’t do at the time of the rebellion.

At least then, it could add to her character arc.  She’d no longer be coming into Westeros to reclaim her “rightful inheritance”.  But she’d be coming in as a conqueror and more notably as a conqueror whose actual origin was something that would be looked down upon by the nobility.

I accept that Dany's parents being no one of note and her being a conqueror of low birth would make a point, to a degree. But you're saying a conqueror of no notable birth except for the fact that she possesses the necessary bloodline to hatch dragons. I just think this is a wrinkle that's not needed compared to her being the blood of the dragon, as we are told.

As Rhaella's daughter she is already characterized as a conqueror because that's what the Targaryens are going back to Aegon. There's a clear parallel between both with the three dragons. She will be Aegon come again in many respects, especially once she wakes the dragon.

As far as her being a low born conqueror, I see the point that makes but for me it jars with the idea that it is the high lords who play the game of thrones and every time they do the realm bleeds. Part of the problem is the sense of entitlement that comes with the nobility of Westeros. This is very much part of Dany's arc, she is the blood of the dragon, the throne is hers by right, etc. But if Dany isn't the blood of the dragon, a descendant of Aegon, all this part of her arc gets weakened just to make the point.

Personally I think her story is stronger if she is who we are told. Her wound is genuine if it really was her father and brother who were killed by the Usurper and his dogs. Her wound drives her toward her goal, the Iron Throne, along with her sense of entitlement to the throne. The Targaryen coin toss, greatness or madness, is more applicable to her if she is a Targaryen. It's a very well constructed arc as it is, I don't see how suddenly making her someone else would add to it. I think it would subtract from it.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

And there is one more hint that Dany may not be who she is supposed to be.  Oberyn Martell was the one who traveled to Braavos to sign the marriage pact with Willem Darry pledging Viserys to Arianne.

Oberyn’s name was inspired by the fairy king, Oberon, from Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream.  In the tale, Oberon was in possession of a changeling child.  A changeling refers to the tale of fairies swapping children and replacing them with an imposter.  

Which makes me wonder, if the swap could have happened in Braavos.  That Oberyn brought Dany as a substitute and in exchange for the marriage pact, the Dornes were given Viserys’ actual sister, and Viserys was given a replacement to be used to try to obtain an army.  While the Dornes or some third party held on to the real thing.  Perhaps, the green haired daughter of the   Archon of Tyrosh, the one who spent time in the Water Gardens of Dorne.

If so, this might explain why Dany is considered so expendable.  That they would be willing to marry her off to a Dothraki horselord, instead of keeping her for a proper political alliance.  And Viserys’ job is to keep the illusion up and convince Dany that she is indeed a Targaryen princess so he could obtain his army.

So are you saying the house with the red door is in Braavos? Because Dany remembers Willem Darry and Viserys being there too.

[Gilbert Green]

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This is why the only possibility that would be interesting to me at all, is that Dany’s parents were of no one of note.

It's a possibility.  The advantage (if you want to call it that) to this twist is that it does not connect to any of the other threads in the story.  I guess it would appeal to those who want to see the story branch out in random directions indefinitely.  Which in all fairness is what he often seems to be doing so far.

Personally, I would rather see the threads of the story start to come together.  It's not that I object to Dany being a commoner; it's just that none of the major characters in the story are commoners, so it would be hard to connect this twist to any other story threads.  But to each his own.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

At least then, it could add to her character arc.  She’d no longer be coming into Westeros to reclaim her “rightful inheritance”.  But she’d be coming in as a conqueror and more notably as a conqueror whose actual origin was something that would be looked down upon by the nobility.  

Like a class war thing?  A commoner striking a blow against the nobility?  By seizing power?  And it ends like Animal Farm?

This twist is going to have to happen quickly if it happens before she invades.  Or at least, I hope that Dany's invasion will begin not too far into the next book.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Which is why I think (perhaps like Young Griff) her parentage may have been born from the brothels.  

Maybe the memory of the red door, is how the door appeared because of the red lamp over the door.  The brothels would be a possible way to recombine dragon bloodlines that have branched off from the Targaryen royal family.

Personally, I'm a bit weary of GRRM's preoccupation with whores and brothels.  So I hope you are wrong.   But I cannot pretend he does not have such a preoccupation.  So you could be right.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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).

I didn't say that physical traits are always heritable and mental traits aren't, rather that the obvious differences in character between Viserys and Rhaegar could easily result from two identical twins raised the same way, without even taking into account age gap and different circumstances. I knew a pair of identical twins well when I was growing up, and they matured into quite different people.

Likewise, the physical differences between them are easily explained by circumstance. Rhaegar was a priviled prince who never wanted for anything and had access to the best martial training in Westeros. Viserys is neither as well-nourished nor as well-trained.

Social/emotional traits are in any case not the same as "mental traits", and madness is clearly heritable in ASoIaF, although I don't think Viserys is mad anyway... though Rhaegar might be.

We have a pair of actual twins in the series (Jaime and Cersei), and they are not really very much like each other. We also have hosts of inbred Targs from generations past. Viserys I and Daemon were the product of two consecutive generations of inbreeding, like Rhaegar and Viserys, and they're nothing like each other. (Indeed, those two were probably even more inbred than Aerys's children, as the injections of non-Valyrian blood after Daeron II hadn't happened by that point).

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

I was wondering earlier how excarnation actually happens in Westeros, but however it's done, if Ned always intended to take Lyanna's bones home, he wouldn't build a cairn for her. The cairns at the ToJ - like tombs in general - are clearly permanent structures, so Ned would take Lyanna's body with him to the nearest place where he can excarnate it, and bury the others. It would actually be much weirder if he'd made a cairn for her and brought her bones home anyway: the bonus "empty cairn" would raise a lot more questions.

I agree that we won't come up with any definitive answers ourselves, but we can still examine how plausible theories are. It isn't the case that everything is equally valid until proven otherwise. Theories range from the all-but-certain (R+L=J) to the ludicrous (Ned Stark is alive and well and living in Meereen). I think it's a fair distinction to draw and I don't, personally, feel the need to wait for TWOW before dismissing the latter as bunk.

Moreover, that several implausible theories link together doesn't make any of those theories individually any more plausible: it just means that the theorycrafter is building more and more of an alternate reality.

[Gilbert Green]

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

Yes, it was in 2013.

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I thought it was an interesting observation and I'm open to it meaning something. The discussion went in different directions.

I believe Yolkboy more or less retracted.

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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

It does not seem particularly spoilerish, though, so as to justify a teasing "that would be telling".  We already knew, for example, that the Sealord was a signator to the marriage pact.  And we already knew, at least initially, that they had no trouble finding wealthy hosts.

Preston Jacobs has a rather amusing video where he mocks the Sealord's Palace theory.  I offer it for amusement's sake only, not as "serious" argument.  No offense intended to proponents  of the Sealord's Palace hypothesis.

 

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

I think Tyrosh was where they were most recently, before they joined Illyrio in Pentos.  Children pick up accents quickly.  I think her Tyroshi accent reflects her most recent abode, not her original abode.

[Mourning Star]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

If you want to know why I think Rhaegar is Bonifer' son, you can ask me. 

You’ve made a lot of nice points in a logical and measured way that does you credit.

I’m intrigued, what’s the case for Bonifer being Rhaegar’s dad?

[Alester Florent]

With regard to Daenerys's accent, I think it's worth noting that it's only confirmed that she speaks Valyrian with a Tyroshi accent. I don't think it's been confirmed what her Common Tongue accent is.

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I accept that Dany's parents being no one of note and her being a conqueror of low birth would make a point, to a degree. But you're saying a conqueror of no notable birth except for the fact that she possesses the necessary bloodline to hatch dragons. I just think this is a wrinkle that's not needed compared to her being the blood of the dragon, as we are told.

As Rhaella's daughter she is already characterized as a conqueror because that's what the Targaryens are going back to Aegon. There's a clear parallel between both with the three dragons. She will be Aegon come again in many respects, especially once she wakes the dragon

At the time of Robert’s Rebellion the Targaryen family had very little in common with Aegon the Conqueror.  Aegon and his sisters ruled because they conquered Westeros.  The last royal Targaryens ruled because their last name was Targaryen and they inherited the right to rule from their parents who inherited it from their parents etc. etc.  Basically a bunch of entitled brats from a long line of entitled brats.

They also had very little in common with Aegon the Conqueror genetically as well.  Aegon’s ancestors and his immediate descendants believed that to keep their blood pure, they had to marry sibling to siblings or first cousin.  Aegon and Rahella were ultimately descended from Viserys I who never could hatch or ride a dragon, and the daughter of a Lysenian banker.  The ancestors of Aerys and Rahella had not been able to hatch dragons for almost a hundred and fifty years.

So in other words, apart from their hair and eye color, there was nothing special about them other than what the fiction of their last name granted them.

But them came Dany.  So what makes Dany special?  My guess is she’s special precisely because she’s not from the Targaryen royal line.  

In the first book we’re told that 1) the Targaryens had married sibling to sibling to keep their line pure, and 2) there came something called the Dance of Dragons where rather than marry, the Targaryen siblings went to war with each other, and after that they lost their ability to hatch dragons.

Later GRRM painstakingly tells about Targaryen offshoots: Velaryon, Blackfyre, Plumm, Longwater, etc.  Bloodlines that branched off from the royal family and never rejoined it. 

So if one were to try and bring back the bloodline of Aegon the Conqueror, what would be the easiest way to do it?  My guess is the easiest way to do it is through the brothels.  Assuming of course Targaryens, Velaryons, Plumms, Longwaters etc had frequented brothels over the years.  Which I think is a safe assumption.

So if one was to keep track of this type of thing, one might be able to engineer a return of bloodlines from various off shoots, strictly through the women in the brothels.  If one were interested in such a thing, that is.  My guess is someone probably was.

Or perhaps it’s all purely happenstance.  That there is a monetary advantage to having women in your brothel that look Valyrian or perhaps more specifically, Targaryen.  So if you own a brothel you start to breed women and men to get the right look.  Perhaps, in doing so you might have also brought the right bloodlines together that brought back the magic of the bloodlines of Aegon and his sisters.

Either way, I think that may be how Dany came about.

 

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So are you saying the house with the red door is in Braavos? Because Dany remembers Willem Darry and Viserys being there too

What I’m suggesting is that Dany was so young she’s conflating her memories of her time in Braavos and her earlier time in Dorne.

It’s something called childhood amnesia.  How much can you remember when you were four?  How much can you remember when you were three?  It’s said that she left Braavos approximately when she was five years old.  So much of her memory is going to be hazy.  

She has childhood memories of Willem Darry.  She has childhood memories of a House with a red door.  She has childhood memories of a lemon tree outside the window.  I’m suggesting that some of these memories were in Braavos, some of these memories were in Dorne.  But because she’s always been told by Viserys that she was taken straight to Braavos after her birth, she just assumes that all of these memories took place in Braavos.  

It’s the one theory that I’ve found where everything sort of falls into place:

1.  Yes, Rahella was pregnant, and it seems that she died giving birth to Viserys sister on Dragonstone.

2.  It appears from Stannis statement, that he let Viserys and his sister escape from Dragonstone.  So…

3.  If there was a switch it had to happen in Braavos, after Viserys and his sister got there.

4.  Dany has a memory of a lemon tree that the author seems to be telling us, shouldn’t have happened in Braavos.  Instead, the author suggests we should look to Dorne when it comes to lemon trees.

5.  It just so happens that when Viserys and his sister are still in Braavos, Oberyn comes to visit with a marriage contract between Arianne and Viserys.  Oberyn is from Dorne.  Oberyn is named after a famous fictional character who had in his possession a changeling child.  

6.  The Dornes would want something in return for sticking out their necks to make a marriage contract with Viserys.  My guess is the last princess of the Targaryen family might be sufficient payment.

7.  Viserys would need something to exchange for an army.  If Oberyn takes his real sister with him back to Dorne, (or someplace else) then they would need to give something back to help Viserys obtain an army.  Thus, they give Willem Darry a girl that can pass for Viserys’ sister.

8.  We know that the Dornes have a strong tie to the Archon of Tyrosh.  The Archon of Tyrosh has a green haired daughter that comes up several times in Arianne’s chapters.  There was even talk of exchanging Arianne for the green haired Tyrosh daughter at one point so they could serve as cup holders in Sunspear and Tyrosh.  

9.  It just so happens that at Dany’s wedding shower, the Archon of Tyrosh’ brother is there as a witness.

10.  Even though Viserys tells Dany that the Targaryens don’t mate with the lesser beasts, Dany notes that she’s about to be sold to a Dothraki.  

11.  Illyrio tells Tyrion that he didn’t expect Dany to survive the Dothraki Sea. 

12.  So why has Dany become so expendable that she’s sold to a Horse Lord?

13.  Perhaps because the participants in this conspiracy are all aware that she’s not really a Targaryen princess.

14.  Instead the real Targaryen princess is living with the Archon of Tyrosh disguised with green hair dye.

15.  Then Dany is sold to the Dothraki, and suddenly, she goes from being expendable to the Mother of Dragons, something much more valuable than even a Targaryen princess.  And perhaps ironically she becomes this, because she’s not in fact a Targaryen princess, but instead the recipient of the original bloodlines of Aegon the Conqueror, come together in the brothels of Westeros.

[Nevets]

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

This is the sort of thing we reference when we say "twisting text into a pretzel".  It is still a lie by omission.  Given that it is in Ned's own thoughts, it requires him to be lying to himself, which makes no sense.  Dustin is dead.  Get over it.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

There are no hints as to this.  No mysterious injuries.  No unexplained gaps in memory.  Nothing suggestive of slavery or serious trauma.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

Dany sees that the document is signed by Willem Darry and the Sealord.  She concludes it was signed in Braavos in Braavos while Darry was alive.  She associates her time at the house with the Red door with this time period.  but even if the house is not in Braavos there is ample time for them to live in it in a different location.  We have a multi-year window.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

We are given her POV so we know how difficult it is for her to accurately read her visions, and therefore how unreliable they can be.  It's not misdirection, and Alys Karstark is the girl in grey.

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

Alys was found at Mole's Town.  We have no idea where she was before.  If she took a non-direct route to throw off pursuit, she could easily have passed by Long Lake.  If the horse was dying at Castle Black, it was probably approaching death en route as well.

[Frey family reunion]

4 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I think Tyrosh was where they were most recently, before they joined Illyrio in Pentos.  Children pick up accents quickly.  I think her Tyroshi accent reflects her most recent abode, not her original abode

The other possibility is that whoever taught Dany how to speak Valyrian was Tyroshi.  

[Gilbert Green]

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

This is the sort of thing we reference when we say "twisting text into a pretzel".  It is still a lie by omission.  Given that it is in Ned's own thoughts, it requires him to be lying to himself, which makes no sense.

If there is a lie by omission, GRRM would be to blame, not Ned.  GRRM gave us readers a fragmentary glimpse into Ned's thoughts.  The idea that Ned would be lying to himself, merely because he failed to consider how a mindreader would misinterpret a fragmentary glimpse of his thoughts, is just silly.

You think GRRM would never try to fool us readers because that would be mean.  Maybe you are right.  All I can say is that fooling readers does not seem to have hurt Agatha Christie's reputation any.

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

Dustin is dead.  Get over it.

Yes m'lord. 

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

There are no hints as to this.  No mysterious injuries.  No unexplained gaps in memory.  Nothing suggestive of slavery or serious trauma.

I'm not sure why you would expect slavery to be particularly traumatic.  Surely the real abuse began when sadistic Viserys took charge of her.  Would she scream in agony merely because money changed hands?  The typical function of Valyrian featured girls would  be as sex slaves, but they would not necessarily be used in that way before puberty.  They would be fed and housed and treated reasonably well like the valuable commodities they are.

There are gaps in memory.  This is explicitly noticed.  And no it is not unexplained.  It is a perfectly normal phenomenon for older children to lose access to early childhood memories, even if we rule out factors such as Jeyne-Poole-style or Reek-style abuse and programming. 

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

We are given her POV so we know how difficult it is for her to accurately read her visions, and therefore how unreliable they can be.  It's not misdirection, and Alys Karstark is the girl in grey.

Alys Karstark is a minor character, seemingly introduced for the sole purpose of seeming to resolve a prophesy that is solely about her.  If she is not misdirection and a red herring, one wonders what the point of it is.

Maybe there is some other purposes I have not thought of.  But you will not resolve my doubts by just insisting.

And if Alys does not match the vision, you can always hide behind your idea that Mel's vision is inaccurate and unreliable.  But that only begs the question of what is the point of this weird little subplot?  Is GRRM merely trying to convince us that words are wind?

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

Alys was found at Mole's Town. 

That's at Castle Black, or close enough to make no difference on a large-scale map.    Mel did not see a dying horse at Moles Town.  She saw it alongside an enormous lake, and the nearest enormous lake is over 350 miles away to the south, and across a major river, and not even in the general direction of Karhold.  A dying horse that can travel 350+ miles and swim major rivers is pretty damned vigorous, as dying horses go.  Especially when people whose horses are not dying are in hot pursuit.

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

We have no idea where she was before. 

Right.  Alys never confirmed she rode by any lake.  We also have no idea whether she was wearing grey, because GRRM made sure she was covered up with a borrowed Night Watch cloak. You just demand that I assume (without verification) that this ultra-minor character fulfills some prophesy that GRRM went out of his way to feed us because ... why exactly? 

Gorghan of Old Ghis said that prophesy is treacherous, and does not necessarily mean what you think.  But on the other hand, Nevets of Westeros.org says that prophesy always means exactly what you think.   I wonder who is right?  Maybe Macbeth was right to trust those witches after all.

But Alys was indeed fleeing a marriage.  I guess we have that much, if you think it sufficient to resolve all doubt.

But Mel was explicit that this was a prophesy.  "It has not happened yet, but it will."  GRRM still has two more books at least to have Jon's sister, dressed in grey, on a dying horse, flee from a marriage they have made for her along the borders of a frozen lake.

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

If she took a non-direct route to throw off pursuit, she could easily have passed by Long Lake. 

You have a strange definition of "easily".   That detour ain't no hop, skip & jump.  Entire nation states, such as Ireland, are not nearly big enough to accomodate detours this big.  And on a dying horse, too.

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

If the horse was dying at Castle Black, it was probably approaching death en route as well.

For 350 miles?  I guess Cregan's horses were dying too for 350 miles, which is why it was so hard to catch her.  All those dying horses have stamina, at least.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

At the time of Robert’s Rebellion the Targaryen family had very little in common with Aegon the Conqueror.  Aegon and his sisters ruled because they conquered Westeros.  The last royal Targaryens ruled because their last name was Targaryen and they inherited the right to rule from their parents who inherited it from their parents etc. etc.  Basically a bunch of entitled brats from a long line of entitled brats.

This is my point when I talk about Dany's arc and the themes involved. The Targaryens put their right to the throne ahead of their duty to protect the realm. This is emphasized by Aerys, who would leave nothing but ash if the throne can't be his. If Dany is to chose between her right to the throne and her duty to protect the realm, then she needs to have the right to the throne or else it's not really a choice.

For example, imagine if Jaime somehow learned that he was never really a kingsguard, just a fake inserted by some plot. A change like that would trash his central conflict and his whole character-arc. Dany being someone else feels a bit like that to me.

Magical bloodlines and dragons are only secondary to the story, in my opinion. As we all know, this is a story about the conflict of the human heart, the choices the characters must make, what they must sacrifice in making those choices, and the consequences of the characters' actions.

[Frey family reunion]

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is my point when I talk about Dany's arc and the themes involved. The Targaryens put their right to the throne ahead of their duty to protect the realm. This is emphasized by Aerys, who would leave nothing but ash if the throne can't be his. If Dany is to chose between her right to the throne and her duty to protect the realm, then she needs to have the right to the throne or else it's not really a choice.

My problem with this is Dany’s “right to the throne” is fictional nonsense, no matter who her parents are.  If her parents are Aerys and Rahella, they were deposed and their reign ended, so Dany has no more “legitimate” right to the throne than anyone else.  And that’s not even going into the ridiculousness of a hereditary rule.

I think the true choice for Dany would be her desire for the throne vs obligation to protect the realm (if indeed she believes she has one).  If her desire for the Throne would lead the realm into chaos, what does she choose?

Now the motivations for her “desire for the throne” are tied into the fact that she believes she was the last member of the Targaryen family.  She desires the throne because she believes it to be her birthright.  I think it would be an interesting decision for Dany if she found out this initial belief was a lie.  Would that change her motivation?  Perhaps it would depend on when she finds out about the lie.  My guess is if she’s already in Westeros, than no.  That her desire for the throne wouldn’t change because she has already structured her entire life towards this goal, and abandoned what she accomplished or attempted to accomplish in Meereen.

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

For example, imagine if Jaime somehow learned that he was never really a kingsguard, just a fake inserted by some plot. A change like that would trash his central conflict and his whole character-arc. Dany being someone else feels a bit like that to me.

No, that’s not really an apt comparison.  Jaime was a Kingsguard through circumstance and choice, not a happenstance of birth.  The circumstance of your birth could be a lie told to you, because it’s not something that you have any type of conscious decision over or direct knowledge of.  You joining the Kingsguard is something that you consciously did.  So not really a fair comparison.  

Jaime’s issue is 1.  He feels that he was made a Kingsguard by Aerys not because he was worthy of the position, but as a way to punish Tywin.  So understandably he feels a bitterness towards that.  This is something that would be more akin to Dany finding out that she wasn’t truly a legitimate Targaryen, because it’s something not initially known to Jaime and out of his immediate control.  But for Jaime it’s more complicated than that.

 Because 2.  Jaime’s motivation for joining the Kingsguard was less than pure.  He joins the Kingsguard partly so he can avoid the responsibilities of being the heir to Casterly Rock, having an arranged marriage, and being unable to continue his relationship with Cersei.  So if Jaime were honest with himself he also shared the blame for how he became a Kingsguard.

And 3.  Jaime‘s conflict primarily centers on how he acted and behaved after he became a Kingsguard.  That he lived his life without honor or without code, contrary to the example of people he looked up to like Arthur Dayne.  Obviously a conflict made even more complicated because part of the honor and code he didn’t live up to is his violation of the oath of protecting and serving a King like Aerys.  So he’s trying to rewrite his book.  And that’s what his story arc seems to be settling on.

 

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Magical bloodlines and dragons are only secondary to the story, in my opinion. As we all know, this is a story about the conflict of the human heart, the choices the characters must make, what they must sacrifice in making those choices, and the consequences of the characters' actions.

I mean yes, but I fail to see why that would disprove the idea of Dany’s origin being something other than what she was told.  Because for plot considerations, magical ability is certainly one of the primary moving factors of the plot.  What would Bran’s story arc be, without his considerable magical ability.  

Now understandably, you may argue that the reason Bran is as powerful as he is, is unimportant, and the only true importance is that Bran is powerful, and this affects the significance of Bran’s decisions and actions.  And I agree.  The how and why he’s so powerful is very subordinate to how his power affects his development.  

But that doesn’t mean that George hasn’t thought about the why’s.  It’s a subject he’s toyed with in other writings, such as Wildcards and the Skin game.  So it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s created rules for this world as well.

So yes, ultimately I agree that the historical origins of Dany’s ability to hatch dragons are clearly of secondary important to the reality that she can hatch and control dragons, and how that ability has affected her development.  But I think that the true origin of how she was able to be the Mother of Dragons, can still deeply affect Dany’s character arc.

It basically strips away the fictional nonsense of a hereditary right to the throne, and focuses the readers attention on the true nature of power.  Before one could rule a realm based on the mere happenstance of your birth, there came a time when one’s forebears violently and forcibly caused people to submit to them, a submission which was continued on through their descendants.  What better way to demonstrate that than, to strip away the fictional nonsense of Dany having a “right to the throne” because she was born with the last name of Targaryen, and focus on the violent, forcible nature of Dany’s dragons as being her only true justification for sitting on the Iron Throne.

 

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

My problem with this is Dany’s “right to the throne” is fictional nonsense, no matter who her parents are.  If her parents are Aerys and Rahella, they were deposed and their reign ended, so Dany has no more “legitimate” right to the throne than anyone else. 

That's assuming you consider Aerys to have been lawfully deposed. There's a reason Dany and her supporters talk about "the Usurper" rather than "King Robert".

In systems which recognise hereditary succession, which Westeros very much is, at seemingly most levels of society, connexion to previous rulers is important as a means of establishing claim. They wouldn't consider that Dany has no more right to the throne than, say, Hot Pie.

For historical examples, even in elective/acclamatory systems like the early kingdom of England, kings were chosen almost exclusively from within the close family of the departed king. France switched horses a couple of times, but trod very carefully in doing so, Pepin for instance getting papal sanction before deposing the last Merovingian and crowning himself. Germany, while always elective, tended to follow a largely hereditary principle so long as there were candidates available to claim it (and even then, the Salians made a point of being the "rightful heirs" of the Ottonians, and the Hohenstaufens the heirs of the Salians likewise), only breaking down into a free-for-all on two or three occasions in the thousand years of the kingdom's existence.

In Westeros, Robert became the figurehead of his eponymous rebellion because he had royal blood, where Jon and Ned didn't. When the Tyrells rose up against Joffrey, they crowned Renly king, because he (unlike Mace) had royal blood. When Arianne launched her own rebellion, she used Myrcella, another royal, as a figurehead.

You may deride the hereditary principle and I'm not going to argue with you about it. But in a world where it's considered important, it does matter, and it does have a bearing on Dany's (and others') perceived legitimacy.

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

My problem with this is Dany’s “right to the throne” is fictional nonsense, no matter who her parents are.  If her parents are Aerys and Rahella, they were deposed and their reign ended, so Dany has no more “legitimate” right to the throne than anyone else.  And that’s not even going into the ridiculousness of a hereditary rule.

Dany believes it is her right, based on her heritage. And that's the point being made, the point of the theme around kings or queens and their rights and duty. The characters of the story will prove the themes of the story by their actions and the choices they make at their final plot-points. In Dany's case the point is better made if she has the right but chooses duty, rather than just chooses duty.

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think the true choice for Dany would be her desire for the throne vs obligation to protect the realm (if indeed she believes she has one).  If her desire for the Throne would lead the realm into chaos, what does she choose?

You can call it a desire for the throne, but GRRM is going further than that by making it a perceived right. That's how characters like Dany and Stannis see it. Then on the other hand there is duty, and it's made very clear that Dany does believe she has obligations as a queen. A queen belongs not to herself but to her people, she tells herself on more than one occasion.

The conflict between her right and her duty is set up all through her arc, reinforced several times, and explored by secondary characters like Stannis. That conflict will have to be resolved if she is to resolve her arc. If she chooses her rights then the realm will be led into chaos, but if she chooses her duty then she will save the realm. And when she makes that choice the Targaryen coin toss will land on madness and greatness.

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Now the motivations for her “desire for the throne” are tied into the fact that she believes she was the last member of the Targaryen family.  She desires the throne because she believes it to be her birthright.  I think it would be an interesting decision for Dany if she found out this initial belief was a lie.  Would that change her motivation?  Perhaps it would depend on when she finds out about the lie.  My guess is if she’s already in Westeros, than no.  That her desire for the throne wouldn’t change because she has already structured her entire life towards this goal, and abandoned what she accomplished or attempted to accomplish in Meereen.

If it's a lie then it only diminishes the conflict set up in her arc.

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No, that’s not really an apt comparison.  Jaime was a Kingsguard through circumstance and choice, not a happenstance of birth.

My point is that it is the fact that Jaime is a kingsguard, sworn to protect the king, that creates the character conflict when he kills the king. If you take that away and Jaime was not a kingsguard when he killed Aerys then the conflict would not be so pronounced. Same thing if Dany is not a Targaryen.

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I mean yes, but I fail to see why that would disprove the idea of Dany’s origin being something other than what she was told.  Because for plot considerations, magical ability is certainly one of the primary moving factors of the plot.  What would Bran’s story arc be, without his considerable magical ability.  

I wouldn't say magic drives the plot, it just facilitates it. The plot is driven by character decisions. Dany decided to walk into the pyre and she got dragons, which are just a device that will facilitate her achieving her goal of winning the throne. But the direction of the plot will be determined by the choices she makes with regard to her inner-conflicts. Same with Bran, he'll attain magical abilities, sure, but it is the very human decisions he will be forced to make that helps to resolve the plot.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But that doesn’t mean that George hasn’t thought about the why’s.  It’s a subject he’s toyed with in other writings, such as Wildcards and the Skin game.  So it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s created rules for this world as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by rules, and I don't mean to take you up wrong. But every story has rules and they're expressed through the themes of the story. The themes are where the author makes their point, and the rule is that characters who understand the point will succeed while those who don't will fail. That way it is the characters who prove the theme of the story true by their actions. The point being made in Dany's case is that true queens are not about who has the right, but rather who does their duty. And again, I feel that point is better made if she has the right, perceived right if you prefer, but must sacrifice it to do her duty.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

It basically strips away the fictional nonsense of a hereditary right to the throne, and focuses the readers attention on the true nature of power.  Before one could rule a realm based on the mere happenstance of your birth, there came a time when one’s forebears violently and forcibly caused people to submit to them, a submission which was continued on through their descendants.  What better way to demonstrate that than, to strip away the fictional nonsense of Dany having a “right to the throne” because she was born with the last name of Targaryen, and focus on the violent, forcible nature of Dany’s dragons as being her only true justification for sitting on the Iron Throne.

The violent and forcible nature of dragons is the reason the Targaryens have a perceived right to the throne. The Dragons give her the power to enforce her right. What better way to strip away the nonsense of having a right to the throne? Give Stannis a legal claim on throne so that the throne becomes his goal. Then have Stannis face a choice between saving the kingdom or winning the throne, make him pick winning the throne, and let him be destroyed. Give Dany a legal claim on the the throne so that it becomes her goal, have her face the same choice but make her pick save the kingdom at the cost of the throne, and let her find salvation.

The point is that it's not who has the right that makes a true king or queen, it's who has the commitment to the realm. A true queen is so committed to the realm that she will sacrifice her right to save the realm, and you can only truly sacrifice what you possess.

[Mourning Star]

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

In Dany's case the point is better made if she has the right but chooses duty, rather than just chooses duty.

I don't understand this.

Isn't the moral better if she doesn't have the right but chooses duty anyway?

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The conflict between her right and her duty is set up all through her arc, reinforced several times, and explored by secondary characters like Stannis.

How so? When does her right and duty ever come into conflict? Or do you mean her right to rule Westeros vs her duty to the Slaver's Bay she conquered?

Stannis sees his duty and his right as being the same thing, but in conflict with his blood. I do not think this supports the point you are trying to make.

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If it's a lie then it only diminishes the conflict set up in her arc.

I don't think this is the case. I just think the conflict isn't what you are describing.

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

My point is that it is the fact that Jaime is a kingsguard, sworn to protect the king, that creates the character conflict when he kills the king. If you take that away and Jaime was not a kingsguard when he killed Aerys then the conflict would not be so pronounced. Same thing if Dany is not a Targaryen.

I don't follow the connection you are trying to make here.

A vow is clearly not the same as parentage.

I'm not sure what this has to do at all with Dany being a Targaryen (and if she were the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna she would still have Targaryen blood.)

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I wouldn't say magic drives the plot, it just facilitates it. The plot is driven by character decisions. Dany decided to walk into the pyre and she got dragons, which are just a device that will facilitate her achieving her goal of winning the throne. But the direction of the plot will be determined by the choices she makes with regard to her inner-conflicts. Same with Bran, he'll attain magical abilities, sure, but it is the very human decisions he will be forced to make that helps to resolve the plot.

It kind of feels like you are comparing apples and oranges.

It is a character driven story in a fantasy setting. These qualities aren't mutually exclusive or necessarily related. 

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The themes are where the author makes their point, and the rule is that characters who understand the point will succeed while those who don't will fail.

I actually think this is a common mistake. What you are describing is a childs tale, where the good guys always win and the bad always get their comeuppance.

Being "good" should not come with an expectation of "good" results.

Ned is, in my opinion anyway, the example we are given of a "good" man, he still get's beheaded.

All that said, I do think this is a romantic tale at it's heart  and their are moral lessons, just not that one can have some expectation of pure divine justice.

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The point being made in Dany's case is that true queens are not about who has the right, but rather who does their duty. And again, I feel that point is better made if she has the right, perceived right if you prefer, but must sacrifice it to do her duty.

I think it's better made if she does her duty despite having no right to rule.

How are her duty and right to rule even in conflict?

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Give Stannis a legal claim on throne so that the throne becomes his goal. Then have Stannis face a choice between saving the kingdom or winning the throne, make him pick winning the throne, and let him be destroyed. Give Dany a legal claim on the the throne so that it becomes her goal, have her face the same choice but make her pick save the kingdom at the cost of the throne, and let her find salvation.

Oh, ya, I just don't see this as the story we are reading I guess.

23 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The point is that it's not who has the right that makes a true king or queen, it's who has the commitment to the realm. A true queen is so committed to the realm that she will sacrifice her right to save the realm, and you can only truly sacrifice what you possess.

Counterpoint, the rightful king/queen has the commitment of the realm. 

Anyone can sacrifice themself for the good of the realm, they don't need to be a king/queen by birth.

This is one of the big contrasts between Jon and Dany's stories, and I think a major theme of the series.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Mourning Star

[three-eyed monkey]

5 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Oh, ya I just don't see this as the story we are reading I guess.

No, we clearly see the story differently.

[kissdbyfire]

35 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Isn't the moral better if she doesn't have the right but chooses duty anyway?

How so? If she doesn’t have the right the decision on whether to do the right thing or not is out of her hands. My 2p. 

[Mourning Star]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

How so? If she doesn’t have the right the decision on whether to do the right thing or not is out of her hands. My 2p. 

Because she's making the right choice for the right reason and not because of who her parents are.

What exactly is the conflict you are picturing here?

Why does her duty to the realm change if she is or is not the daughter of Aerys?

Why is anything any more or less out of her hands if her father is Aerys or not?

I feel like you are both using some conception of a conflict between her right to the throne and duty to the realm that I don't understand. Why are these in conflict?

Edited April 4, 2023 by Mourning Star

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Because she's making the right choice for the right reason and not because of who her parents are.

What exactly is the conflict you are picturing here?

Why does her duty to the realm change if she is or is not the daughter of Aerys?

Why is anything any more or less out of her hands if her father is Aerys or not?

I feel like you are both using some conception of a conflict between her right to the throne and duty to the realm that I don't understand. Why are these in conflict?

The duty doesn’t change. But the real tests come from choices, and how each choice we make has its consequences. If she has no right to the throne, the choice is taken out of the equation and that changes everything.