I am not convinced by Lemongate

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nice quote.  Thanks. 

I guess this is addressed to Mourning Star.  But I see no reason to suppose that Viserys is lying about the flight from Dragonstone.  At most, he has altered his story over time for dramatic effect.

To me, if this is a clue, it only means that Dany seems to remember the flight from Dragonstone, even though (in this case) even she knows that it must be a false memory.  This foreshadows a possibility that some of her other memories are false, that she does NOT realize are false.

The precise details don't matter.  The point is, it is a false memory, and even Dany realizes that.

Sure.  I never listed this as a clue.  On the other hand, it does negate the "why didn't Ned try to find her?" argument.  How do you know Ned did not try to find her?  Paranoid or not, Viserys does seem to think SOMEONE Is hunting them.

Says you.  Viserys is a vicious little worm who hates the whole world.  I don't think he finds it even remotely hard to hate Dany.  There's nothing fake about the hate.  Accusing her of having killed Rhaella is perfectly consistent with pretending she is Rhaella's daughter.

Now you are just arguing against the text.  Illyrio says years of planning WERE involved.  And Illyrio DID allow Viserys to take Dany on a tour of the Free Cities with Dany during these years. 

He did take the precaution of inviting Viserys and Dany back to his Manse, for about six months, at around the time she hit puberty up until the time of the wedding.

Still, Viserys almost spoiled YEARS of planning and not "six months" of planning.

She IS more than a simply Lyseni whore.  She is the coin he is going to use to buy an army.  And by taking her on a tour of the free cities, he seems to establish her authenticity.

He can't control his carnal lust, merely means he cannot control his carnal lust.  It does not follow (to me) that he would have any particular temptation to tell Dany that she was not really a Targaryen princess.

It is not as though his narrative is 100% consistent.  He told her for years that Targaryens do not mate with the beasts of the field.  And all this time, he was secretly planning to marry her to a barbarian.  Even Dany thought that was weird.

 

Why would Viserys take her.  In order to use her as marriage bait for an army he has to find someone who is actually interested and can provide an army on his own.  That means he is unmarried or has family that is and is interested in a Targaryen princess.  That sounds mighty speculative.  Meanwhile, he has to care for, pay to support, and drag around some brat he has no connection to for about the next ten years or so for potentially no gain.  Viserys isn't an idiot, not is he a long term planner.

Years of planning simply means more than one.  It is possible Illyrio has been planning something for a couple of years.  I can't see much more than that; certainly not with Drogo.  If he plans too far ahead, Drogo could easily get married or killed.

I also find it hard to believe Viserys got the one real Targaryen available by chance.  That's a bit of a coincidence even for Martin.

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Why would Viserys take her.

By introducing her to the Free Cities he gives her a history that seems to establish her authenticity, and which at least SEEMS to predate his association with Illyrio the slave trader.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

In order to use her as marriage bait for an army he has to find someone who is actually interested and can provide an army on his own.  That means he is unmarried or has family that is and is interested in a Targaryen princess.  That sounds mighty speculative. 

No.  It is predictable.  Princesses are used for forge political alliances all the time.  And political alliances are ultimately military alliances.  Maybe, in the end, the settled on Drogo because he was the best they could get, and all other options fell through.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Meanwhile, he has to care for, pay to support, and drag around some brat he has no connection to for about the next ten years or so for potentially no gain. 

I'm sure Illyrio covered his expenses to some extent.  But he did not want this to be obvious, obviously.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Years of planning simply means more than one.

Okay dude.  Be that way.  "Years of planning" means two years.  It can't possibly be three years, or four years, or five years or eight years.  It's only a theory. 

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

If he plans too far ahead, Drogo could easily get married or killed.

In which case Dany marries someone else, maybe in exchange for a different army or political/military alliance.  That's how these things normally work.  You are only saying "Medieval history is stupid" when you argue against the very concept of a marriage alliance planned more than 2 years in advance.  Okay then.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

I also find it hard to believe Viserys got the one real Targaryen available by chance. 

It wasn't entirely random.  She looked the part, so they chose her.  If Viserys and/or Illyrio had any idea that Viserys had a niece, they probably would have guessed who she was.   But they had no idea Viserys had a living niece.  So they didn't guess.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Corvo the Crow]

When was the Dany “short story” published? Was it after the original plot was sent in 1993 or even before that? Over the three decades GRRM made numerous changes sometimes leading to outright contradiction with previously established things such as Tyrion witnessing more winters than a an old ranger who’s been at the wall before he was ever born.

[Sandy Clegg]

19 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

George: That’s an interesting question, but I don’t think I’m going to answer it. There’s a certain revelation about the red door that will come into the books that I have yet to write.

Interesting that the revelation will be about just 'the red door', not 'the house with the red door'.

I think this may go hand in hand with my suspicion that what Dany has been recalling is not in fact a lemon tree. It's something that her mind has interpreted as a lemon tree. Notice she never recalls eating any of the lemons. Perhaps the real nature of the lemon tree is too weird/shocking for her mind to process, so she has subconsciously invented a new version in her memory. Or have I just got an extremely suspicious mind?

This correspondingly would mean that the red door may not in fact have been a red door. 

 There's really no textual evidence for anything like this, but wouldn't that be kind of the point? If a problematic memory gets warped into something more palatable, how does a POV character acknowledge this? She can't. It's a logic loop that can only be broken through learning what actually happened via a third party, or if Dany underwent counselling/hypnotherapy. Which is unlikely, but perhaps there is a fantasy world solution to this.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that, in a fantasy book series where skinchanging  - and therefore  'mental manipulation' -  is part of the magic system, we may have to brace ourselves for the fact that Dany's subconscious has either voluntarily or involuntarily altered her perception of past events. Which means we should stop asking where things were, and start asking what they actually were.

[the trees have eyes]

On 6/25/2023 at 2:17 AM, Gilbert Green said:

I'm not necessarily talking about you, but the Lemonhate is real.  I don't see how anyone can deny that, whether "pejorative" or not.  But maybe that's not worth arguing about either. 

Is it?  What makes it real as opposed to any other rejection of a theory - say that Mance is/was Rhaegar/Arthur Dayne or Howland Reed is the High Septon or Jaime and Cersei are Aerys' not Tywin's children?

You've opined on it as if there's some sort of intellectual discourse here with two schools of thought and I have to agree with the poster who thought this was an attempt to give more status to a fringe theory than it deserves.  We all read the text and make up our own minds so I won't try and move yours but trying to undermine the criticisms of a fairly flimsy theory by painting them as some kind of reactionary or knee-jerk response to a supposedly "objective" reading of the text (in reality speculation, assumption and non-textual constructions of where babies / children were etc) seems both artificial and effectively ad hominem.

[Gilbert Green]

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Is it?  What makes it real as opposed to any other rejection of a theory - say that Mance is/was Rhaegar/Arthur Dayne or Howland Reed is the High Septon or Jaime and Cersei are Aerys' not Tywin's children?

You've opined on it as if there's some sort of intellectual discourse here with two schools of thought and I have to agree with the poster who thought this was an attempt to give more status to a fringe theory than it deserves.  We all read the text and make up our own minds so I won't try and move yours but trying to undermine the criticisms of a fairly flimsy theory by painting them as some kind of reactionary or knee-jerk response to a supposedly "objective" reading of the text (in reality speculation, assumption and non-textual constructions of where babies / children were etc) seems both artificial and effectively ad hominem.

There are such things as haters.  Perhaps even with the other theories you mention.  I just haven't noticed them as much.

What you COULD have said was something along the lines of:  I'm not a hater, I just disagree with the theory.  Which might be a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  And I'm sure it is perfectly true of many people.  Just as it is also perfectly true of most of the people (as far as I can tell) who reject the other theories you mention.  They calmly disagree, state their reasons, and wait for the next books.

Please recall that I did not call any particular person a lemonhater.  Anyway, I see no reason to argue that such words are bad words.  If the shoe does not fit, nobody need wear it.

And a friendly reminder.  GRRM has confirmed lemongate.  I do not mean he has confirmed R+L=D or R+L=A, or any other Dany identity theory.   Those are still just theories.  But he has confirmed lemongate.  In other words, he did confirm that the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant and points to something spoilerish.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

On 7/3/2023 at 8:13 AM, Sandy Clegg said:

Interesting that the revelation will be about just 'the red door', not 'the house with the red door'.

No.  He was merely referring back to the question, without using as many words.  The question was about the House with the Red Door. 

The question also referred to the Sealord's Palace.  So if he had said "there will be a future revelation about that" it would have been ambiguous which part of the question he was responding to.

So his answer specifies that a future revelation will concern the [House with] the Red Door, without saying one way or the other whether this revelation, or any revelation, will necessarily concern the Sealord's Palace.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

I've tried to trace the origin of the term "Lemongate".  Best as I can tell, the term must have originated in this forum, between late 2014 and early 2015, in threads/posts that have since been deleted.

The ideas behind Lemongate are older than the term.  They date at least as far back as Yolkboy's 3/13/13 thread "There Are No Lemon Trees in Braavos (Questioning Dany's Childhood).   This thread ran until Nov. 2014.  The word "Lemongate" never appeared.

Note that Yolkboy quickly retracted his ideas in favor of the Sealord's Palace theory.  I would guess that, if only for historical reasons, "Lemongate" was never meant to cover the Sealord's Palace theory; and those who mocked "Lemongate" tended to be supporters of the Sealord's Palace" theory.  I could not find that the thread ever mentions alternate Dany identity theories.

On 8/8/14 a certain youtuber uploads a video drawing a connection between the lemon-tree climate discrepancy, and R+L=D, and B+A=J.  He further explores this theme in another video on 12/3/14; and, for all I know, in other videos thereafter.  

Discussions of these videos on this forum must have occurred, though now I cannot find them.   It is my guess is that it was this context that the term "Lemongate" originated. 

But no "lemongate" references seem to survive prior to 5/25/2015.  Here are the earliest "Lemongate" references I could find, with dates only (I omit the names of the posters).  Except where otherwise indicated, all references are from this forum.  The earliest comments presuppose a level of hostility that is nowhere to be found in the original Yolkboy thread.

-- 2015-05-25, "... I think Lemongate is just a mistake from him".

-- 2015-05-25, "The main reason I want tWoW published is so lemongate can finally die.  Most ridiculous theory out there ..."

-- 2015-05-28, "I really do not see the point of lemongate unless it's to set up that Dany is secretly not a Targaryen, which I would hate."

-- 2015-05-29, "So please, stop lemongate, Daenerys never was in Dorne, the house with the red door is where she remembered it is."

-- 2015-05-30, "In a nutshell, Lemongate does not seem so absurd at all".  (First positive reference).

[From hereon, I don't try to get all references].

-- 2015-06-18, "... Lemongate persists like a bad case of teenage acne, or those stubborn blackheads in the creases of your nose that just won't go away."

-- 2015-06-18, someone asks "what's the Lemongate theory", and someone answers by linking to Yolkboy's thread.

-- 2015-06-18, Lemongaters are called "illemonati".

-- 2015-06-18, "... I agree with you completely about putting to ground the stupid Lemongate BS"

-- 2015-06-26, (off forum), "There is a theory that its detractors hilariously call Lemongate." 

-- 2015-07-03, "According to the Lemongate theory, there is some hidden message in the Lemon tree that grew in the courtyard of the house where Danny grew up in Braavos..."

-- 2015-07-03,  (referencing "Lemongate") "I hate this theory so much.  It's the dumbest semi-popular theory out there."

-- 2015-07-03, "Lemongate is the opiate of the masses."

-- 2015-07-03, "the fact that trees do grow in Braavos does not stop the Lemongaters"

-- 2015-07-04, poster identifies himself as a "somewhat defender of Lemongate", and its opponents as "all the haters".

-- 2015-07-04, "I am confused about the level of ridicule heaped upon the "lemongators" [...]. I don't understand the hate."

-- 2015-07-06, "People, Lost Melnibonean sorted this out. Lemongate is no more. It has ceased to be. It is a late lemon."

-- 2015-07-07, "<sigh> What is lemony may never die apparently, but rises again more sour and gate-y.Has anyone taken Mormont's suggestion and just asked GRRM if this is so important?"

I could go on, but will stop here.  Eventually, someone does ask GRRM.  On or about 8/15/2015, GRRM essentially confirms lemongate by saying that the lemon tree climate discrepancy is significant and points to something spoilerish.

After this, the definition of "lemongate" seems to subtly change, but I guess the camps do not.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Sandy Clegg]

44 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

- 2015-06-18, Lemongaters are called "illemonati".

Not bad lol. They must have not heard of The Lemonheads though - perfectly good name already in existence!

[Frey family reunion]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:13 AM, Sandy Clegg said:

 is part of the magic system, we may have to brace ourselves for the fact that Dany's subconscious has either voluntarily or involuntarily altered her perception of past events.

I don't think we have to deviate that far from the real world.  There is a phenomena known as childhood amnesia.  The younger we are the less distinct memories we have.  Think back to how much you can remember at the age of 5, then go back to 4, then go back to 3, ect.  So assuming Dany left Braavos soon around the time she turned 5, her memory of Braavos, isn't going to be as distinct as she got older.  Now if she left Dorne, for sake of argument, even earlier let's say at the age of 3, she's going to have almost no distinctive memories of her time there.

So let's assume that she has one very vivid memory at the age of 3, of a lemon tree outside her window, but no other memories when she was 3,  then she has fuzzy, spotty memories of her time in Braavos while she was four years of age.  Because she's told by Viserys that she was brought to Braavos as an infant, she's going to assume that the memory of the lemon tree occurred during her time in Braavos.

 

[Sandy Clegg]

8 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So let's assume that she has one very vivid memory at the age of 3, of a lemon tree outside her window, but no other memories when she was 3,  then she has fuzzy, spotty memories of her time in Braavos while she was four years of age.  Because she's told by Viserys that she was brought to Braavos as an infant, she's going to assume that the memory of the lemon tree occurred during her time in Braavos.

I think this is what I assumed on my first read of the books, though. That she was just having normal 'dim memories from early childhood'. Personally all I can remember before I was 6 is seeing Star Wars (showing my age there) and the memory of a rocking horse.

But George hinting at 'spoilerish' revelations regarding the red door has opened the barn door for all sorts of theory horses to bolt out, so here we are  

[Frey family reunion]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I think this is what I assumed on my first read of the books, though. That she was just having normal 'dim memories from early childhood'. Personally all I can remember before I was 6 is seeing Star Wars (showing my age there) and the memory of a rocking horse.

But George hinting at 'spoilerish' revelations regarding the red door has opened the barn door for all sorts of theory horses to bolt out, so here we are  

I think if it turns out that she's not really the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella that would be a pretty big revelation, especially to Dany.  I'm just suggesting that the clue that she's not who she's been told she is, comes from the memory of the lemon tree.  That she is a girl taken from Dorne and brought to Braavos as a fill in (changeling) for Viserys' sister.

[Sandy Clegg]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think if it turns out that she's not really the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella that would be a pretty big revelation, especially to Dany.  I'm just suggesting that the clue that she's not who she's been told she is, comes from the memory of the lemon tree.  That she is a girl taken from Dorne and brought to Braavos as a fill in (changeling) for Viserys' sister.

I'll say this. If she's not the daughter of Rhaella, and is instead part of an e.g. Dornish/Illyrio plan, then the red door being in Dorne doesn't bother me. It's just a geographical clue. That's a likely outcome if we assume no weirder 'shenanigans'.

I'm of the suspicion that it never really was a lemon tree, however, and she is misremembering something altogether different  - merely processing it as lemon tree. Which makes me Lord Admiral Tinfoil of the Narrow Sea etc etc. But when I see those two branching highways of Lemongate thundering off into the distance, I find it more fun to seek out the hidden alleyway and duck down there instead  

Long may the. debate rage, though. It's become almost as much fun as the books.