Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bravely Done

Aegon is Legitimate: It's Obvious, Right? (Long OP)

Recommended Posts

One good reason is that Dany and Viserys were known to be alive, Aegon was not. Better to keep him secret and safe so that Robert Baratheon wouldn't send assassins after him as well.

There were no assassins until Dany got pregnant with Drogo's child.

Viserys would have never tolerated Aegon. Fear and paranoia would have overshadowed the bond of family between them. He would have looked at the boy as his own Usurper. It would be better to keep them separate. No need for Viserys to poison Aegon with his influence or worst... kill him so that he would be the only male in the line of succession.

If Viserys had known early on that he was not actually the new King, it may have been different. Even if Viserys would have still been a problem, once it became clear Viserys was crazy, which seems to have happened fairly early, doesn't it make more sense than ever to plan a Dany-Aegon union and move Viserys to the side (or kill him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but after 36 pages it seems to me that we have covered everything in this discussion. See you all when TWOW or the next D&E are out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some of the things I've seen you argue in this thread to either support your claim or refute other poster's claims.

Your list is full of lies and misinformation. Something I've come to expect, but something that's certainly grown extremely annoying.

1. Targaryens are immune to fire and sickness. (this has been disproved by the text and the author himself.)

I conceded that Targaryen's are prone to sickness, but Daenery's has been in direct contact with fire on two separate occasions and escaped both without harm to her being. The first instance being the birthing pyre, and the second being when her head was aflame in the dragon pit.

2. Whether or not someone is part of the royal line has an effect on their genetics. (but Blackfyre theorists are the ones making stuff up)

My statement was that the only Targaryen's of the royal line to have ever had brown hair were Baelor(whose mother was Dornish) and Rhaenys(whose mother was Dornish).

3. Females cannot carry on the family line. (completely false-we see that Maege Mormont's daughters have the surname Mormont and are the heirs to Bear Island)

I know I'm engaged in banter with a Blackfyre theorist when I'm bashed for being correct. :dunno:

When a female marries she takes on the name of her husband, as do her children. Hence the reason Ramsay and Tyrion didn't become Starks, but the Starks they married a Bolton and Lannister respectively. The Mormont's of Bear Island are a unique and peculiar case, as Jorah's exile is responsible for the unusual construction of their House. Maege inherited the Island from her nephew, and her daughters are all un-wed. Should that change and her heir decides to take on a husband, she'll take her spouses name, and her children after her, and Bear Island will know a different name.

4. Jaehaerys I and Alysanne might be bastards because we don't know who their mother was.

Are there reasons to assume their mother was Targaryen? I asked this the first time as well, but my points, questions, and arguments are usually ignored when they have merit. Lets see if you're up to the task of answering.

5. Jon being the trueborn son of Rhaegar is a baseless theory.

And now you're distorting my arguments.

My actual statement was that the "Rhaegar and Lyanna Stark were married" theory was baseless and unfounded.

6. Varys' little birds have no tongues and therefore cannot communicate with anyone. (so Varys reads their minds then?)

Lets provide context, shall we?

Blackfyre theorist: Varys was speaking to Kevan about Aegon because he wanted his little birds to hear, that way Varys could have one of his little birds caught by the Tyrells. The little bird will then tell the Tyrells about Aegon, and that will make the Tyrells join Aegon against the Lannisters.

Me: You know Varys little birds have no tongues, right?

Blackfyre theorist: They can write!

Me: They're from Essos.

Blackfyre theorist: *crickets*

7. Illyrio knew Dany would hatch dragons when he gave her petrified stone eggs.(So if I gave you five dollars and you use it to buy a lottery ticket and win a million dollars, does that mean I gave you a million dollars?)

This is why I've grown so weary of engaging in discussion with Blackfyre theorist, the fabrications and intentional distortion of my arguments is ridiculous.

I never claimed Illyrio knew Daenerys would hatch her eggs. Not once.

So how is it that your argument has stronger merits than anyone elses argument?

You're obviously incapable of following my arguments, until that changes, lectures on their merit should cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your list is full of lies and misinformation. Something I've come to expect, but something that's certainly grown extremely annoying.

Seriously, people, stop replying to this person. I know I'm guilty to, but it's obviously going nowhere and these kinds of insults are apparently all he's capable of. Let this thread go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which chapter was the sign story in again? I want to read it again, because either I'm remembering it wrong or people are greatly misusing the word prophecy. I thought it was a story being told as something that happened, which would indicate foreshadowing from the author. A prophecy is VERY different. Unless you guys all meant the House of the Undying, but I seem to remember someone calling the sign story a prophecy before.

It wasn't a prophecy, just a story. Like Meera's story, or one of Old Nan's or the many stories told of Ser Arthur Dayne. Nothing more than world building that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the primary plot of the story. At best, it was foreshadowing.

If it were a prophecy, wouldn't Aegon have landed on Quest Isle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, people, stop replying to this person. I know I'm guilty to, but it's obviously going nowhere and these kinds of insults are apparently all he's capable of. Let this thread go.

And this is exactly what I mean.

Bash me for posting because you don't agree with my arguments, plead with people in my own thread to stop responding to me despite this being a topic of my creation.

Reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a prophecy, just a story. Like Meera's story, or one of Old Nan's or the many stories told of Ser Arthur Dayne. Nothing more than world building that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the primary plot of the story. At best, it was foreshadowing.

Meera's story about the Knight of the Laughing Tree gave a great deal of insight into the history of Ned, Ashara, Rhaegar, Lyanna, etc. It most certainly does have "bearing" on the primary plot. Same goes for Old Nan's stories — the Rat Cook parable is a blatant tie-in to the abomination the Freys committed by perpetrating the Red Wedding, for example. And yes, it is foreshadowing — it foreshadows that Aegon is a bloody goddamn fake.

If it were a prophecy, wouldn't Aegon have landed on Quest Isle?

We're not saying it's a prophecy. It's textual symbolism that, if you can pick up on it, offers a clue about part of the story.

Bash me for posting because you don't agree with my arguments, plead with people in my own thread to stop responding to me despite this being a topic of my creation.

I'm not bashing you because I disagree with you, I called you out for insulting another poster and accusing them of making things up and lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the weekend, me and my husband vanquished a monstrous bougainvillea plant that was taking over our yard. It was painful, difficult work. The plant was about 5 meters high and about 3 meters wide. Its long, cane-like branches whip around and slap you and the inch-long barbs grab hold of everything (including most of the flesh from my legs, hands and arms!). The cut branches tangle together and moving the pile of cuttings to our compost heap was like trying to pry apart a dangerous and stubborn sort of puzzle.

I mention this only because this thread is the literary equivalent of that damned bougainvillea! After reading it, I now feel as mentally lacerated and exhausted as I do physically from my yard work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[MOD]

A reminder that personal attacks are not acceptable folks.

Criticism of an argument is not a personal attack.

Further comments directed at the poster and not the post will result in suspensions.

[/MOD]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meera's story about the Knight of the Laughing Tree gave a great deal of insight into the history of Ned, Ashara, Rhaegar, Lyanna, etc. It most certainly does have "bearing" on the primary plot. Same goes for Old Nan's stories — the Rat Cook parable is a blatant tie-in to the abomination the Freys committed by perpetrating the Red Wedding, for example.

And that's all Septon Meribald story was, insightful. Your claims that "everything means something", and that stories aren't told for the sake of world building are patently false. Beyond even Old Nan and Meera, Osha often told stories, we've heard Ygritte's tale of Gendel's children, and Mance's story of Bael the Bard. Of Nymeria and her 10,000 ships, the Smiling Knight, Arthur and Ashara Dayne, of Bran the Builder, Brightflame, of Aemon the Dragonknight and Baelor the Blessed, of Alysanne and Sliver-Wing, etc.

We're not saying it's a prophecy. It's textual symbolism that, if you can pick up on it, offers a clue about part of the story.

Sure, if that's what you want to believe. The key evidence for your theory is a casual anecdote in the mold of several other anecdotes told throughout these novels.

We're not saying it's a prophecy. It's textual symbolism that, if you can pick up on it, offers a clue about part of the story.

Aegon landing at Connington's castle and not washing ashore Quest Isle is a clear indication that Meribald's "foreshadowing" is fallible, if not meaningless.

I'm not bashing you because I disagree with you, I called you out for insulting another poster and accusing them of making things up and lying.

He was making things up and lying, as my response illustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, I told myself I wouldn't respond to Bravely Done, but I just can't resist.

I conceded that Targaryen's are prone to sickness, but Daenery's has been in direct contact with fire in two separate occasions and escaped both without harm to her being. The first instance being the birthing pyre, and the second being when her head was aflame in the dragon pit.

It has already been repeatedly pointed out to you that Daenerys' hands were blistered from her struggle with Drogo in the fighting pits, so she was not unscathed. It has also been repeatedly pointed out to you that the author explicitly stated that what happened to Daenerys on Drogo's pyre was a one-time thing. Why can't you admit you're wrong?

My statement was that the only Targaryen's of the royal line to have ever had brown hair were Baelor(whose mother was Dornish) and Rhaenys(whose mother was Dornish).

Yes, and it's still not entirely clear why the "of the royal line" distinction even matters.

I know I'm engaged in banter with a Blackfyre theorist when I'm bashed for being correct. :dunno:

When a female marries she takes on the name of her husband, as do her children. Hence the reason Ramsay and Tyrion didn't become Starks, but the Starks they married a Bolton and Lannister respectively. The Mormont's of Bear Island are a unique and peculiar case, as Jorah's exile is responsible for the unusual construction of their House. Maege inherited the Island from her nephew, and her daughters are all un-wed. Should that change and her heir decides to take on a husband, she'll take her spouses name, and her children after her, and Bear Island will know a different name.

No, you're completely wrong on this. As has been pointed out, the Starks descend from a female-line Stark, according to the story of Bael the Bard. Now, it's possible it's been fabricated, (though I doubt it) but we may nonetheless infer from it that female line descendants can take their family name, for one simple reason: Jon, who vehemently tries to convince Ygritte that the story isn't true, doesn't bother to prove it by pointing out that female line descendants can't keep their family names.

Are there reasons to assume their mother was Targaryen?

No, but MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious wasn't saying their mother was definitely a Targaryen (funny how you accuse people of distorting arguments when you yourself can't get other people's arguments right). What he/she was saying was that Jaehaerys and Alysanne were not bastards, which is true.

And now you're distorting my arguments.

My actual statement was that the "Rhaegar and Lyanna Stark were married" theory was baseless and unfounded.

Yes, but the evidence for the theory was pointed out to you, and you didn't even bother to address it. Yet another thing that you accuse your critics of.

Lets provide context, shall we?

Blackfyre theorist: Varys was speaking to Kevan about Aegon because he wanted his little birds to hear, that way Varys could have one of his little birds caught by the Tyrells. The little bird will then tell the Tyrells about Aegon, and that will make the Tyrells join Aegon against the Lannisters.

Me: You know Varys little birds have no tongues, right?

Blackfyre theorist: They can write!

Me: They're from Essos.

Blackfyre theorist: *crickets*

Well, first of all, the little birds can at least understand Westerosi, and can probably write in it as well. But even if they can't, they can nonetheless be taught to write in Westerosi.

Second of all, as long as we're talking about arguments not addressed, I seem to recall refuting your claim that Maelys was the grandson of Daemon Blackfyre. Your response? *crickets*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys, I told myself I wouldn't respond to Bravely Done, but I just can't resist.

Dragonfish, I'd prefer you place me on ignore or not address my points at all if you're going to continue to ignore my rebuttals. Every point you made below, you've made before and I addressed them, only to have you ignore my responses.

It has already been repeatedly pointed out to you that Daenerys' hands were blistered from her struggle with Drogo in the fighting pits, so she was not unscathed.

The harm to her hands came from Drogon's blood, not fire. Moreover, you continue to sidestep the fact that Daenery's head was aflame, yet her face and head came away unscathed. If the latter doesn't suggest a degree of fire resistance, what is it suggesting?

It has also been repeatedly pointed out to you that the author explicitly stated that what happened to Daenerys on Drogo's pyre was a one-time thing.

Again, Dragonfish, this is what Martin wrote in ADWD:

Daenery's: Only the birth of her dragons amidst the fire and smoke of Khal Drogo’s funeral pyre had spared Dany herself from being dragged back to Vaes Dothrak to live out the remainder of her days amongst the crones of the dosh khaleen. The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not touch me. It had been the same in Daznak’s Pit. That much she could recall, though much of what followed was a haze.

One time thing eh? Either he didn't really say that, forgot he said it, or decided to change things up.

Yes, and it's still not entirely clear why the "of the royal line" distinction even matters.

The implication matters because of the physical distinctions. We've already gone over this.

No, you're completely wrong on this. As has been pointed out, the Starks descend from a female-line Stark, according to the story of Bael the Bard.

The story of Bael the Bard was told by Mance to spite Jon. Nothing suggest it were true or that it should be taken as anything other than the gloating of a Wildling.

Now, it's possible it's been fabricated, (though I doubt it) but we may nonetheless infer from it that female line descendants can take their family name, for one simple reason:

You're misrepresenting the story to advance your agenda, again.

Per the story; Brandon Stark, upon his death, was unaware that his wife was heavy with Bael's child. She kept it a secret, and her son grew up a Stark.

This is not evidence of family lines being carried by females, it isn't evidence of anything really. This kin to Cersie sleeping with Jamie behind Robert's back and birthing her brothers children, yet her children, instead of carrying the name of Lannister, are Baratheon's.

No, but MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious wasn't saying their mother was definitely a Targaryen (funny how you accuse people of distorting arguments when you yourself can't get other people's arguments right). What he/she was saying was that Jaehaerys and Alysanne were not bastards, which is true.

Excuse me, they weren't bastards, but their mother was unknown, which is important to the context of the discussion you and I were having.

Yes, but the evidence for the theory was pointed out to you, and you didn't even bother to address it. Yet another thing that you accuse your critics of.

This isn't the thread to discuss whether or not Rhaegar was married to Lyanna, but if that's that discussion that interest you, there's a search function.

Well, first of all, the little birds can at least understand Westerosi, and can probably write in it as well.

Why are you assuming they can write in the common tongue if it were never established? They're from Essos, as is Varys. The latter are familar with the languages of the free cities, whereas the Westerosi nobels they're spying on aren't. In which case, the safest means of tranfering information would be to do so in a foriegn tongue.

Second of all, as long as we're talking about arguments not addressed, I seem to recall refuting your claim that Maelys was the grandson of Daemon Blackfyre. Your response? *crickets*

My response was a Family Tree which you pretended were fake, despite it being accurate.

Rememember I asked you to point out the inaccurasies and causes for concern? *crickets*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonfish, I'd prefer you place me on ignore or not address my points at all if you're going to continue to ignore my rebuttals. Every point you made below, you've made before and I addressed them, only to have you ignore my responses.

I have addressed each and every one of the responses you have presented here, except for a few, which are new.

The harm to her hands came from Drogon's blood, not fire.

So? It's still heat.

Moreover, you continue to sidestep the fact that Daenery's head was aflame, yet her face and head came away unscathed. If the latter doesn't suggest a degree of fire resistance, what is it suggesting?

I never side-stepped it, I specifically addressed it in another post. I pointed out that other posters have offered anecdotes where they burned their hair but the rest of their scalp was fine.

Also, while Daenerys does have a higher tolerance of heat than most people, that does not equate to fire immunity.

Again, Dragonfish, this is what Martin wrote in ADWD:

Daenery's: Only the birth of her dragons amidst the fire and smoke of Khal Drogo’s funeral pyre had spared Dany herself from being dragged back to Vaes Dothrak to live out the remainder of her days amongst the crones of the dosh khaleen. The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not touch me. It had been the same in Daznak’s Pit. That much she could recall, though much of what followed was a haze.

One time thing eh? Either he didn't really say that, forgot he said it, or decided to change things up.

Or he is employing unreliable narrator again. What Dany says about Daznak's Pit being just like Drogo's pyre is objectively wrong. On the pyre, she was entirely engulfed in flames. In the pit, she wasn't. This has also been pointed out to you before.

The implication matters because of the physical distinctions. We've already gone over this.

Yes, we have gone over this. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

What does being of royal lineage have to do with genetics or physical characteristics?

The story of Bael the Bard was told by Mance to spite Jon. Nothing suggest it were true or that it should be taken as anything other than the gloating of a Wildling.

No, it was Ygritte who told it to him.

And you've completely side-stepped the point that if females cannot carry on the family name, then Jon could have used that as proof that the story wasn't true.

You're misrepresenting the story to advance your agenda, again.

Per the story; Brandon Stark, upon his death, was unaware that his wife was heavy with Bael's child. She kept it a secret, and her son grew up a Stark.

This is not evidence of family lines being carried by females, it isn't evidence of anything really. This kin to Cersie sleeping with Jamie behind Robert's back and birthing her brothers children, yet her children, instead of carrying the name of Lannister, are Baratheon's.

Wow. You have completely gotten the story wrong.

The Stark girl was Brandon Stark's daughter, not wife. That fact alone completely demolishes your argument here.

Who's misrepresenting things, now?

Excuse me, they weren't bastards, but their mother was unknown, which is important to the context of the discussion you and I were having.

Yes, and I don't want to rehash it. I was just pointing out that you yourself were misrepresenting your opponents' argument.

This isn't the thread to discuss whether or not Rhaegar was married to Lyanna, but if that's that discussion that interest you, there's a search function.

Don't be patronizing, I already know where the thread to discuss it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that you keep saying the theory is baseless and crackpot, without actually offering an argument as to why. Evidence has been offered to you that Jon was born legitimate, but your response was not to challenge the logic or evidence for the argument, your response was to dismiss it out of hand.

Why are you assuming they can write in the common tongue if it were never established?

They might not necesssarily know how to write in Westerosi, but it's still possible, even likely, IMO. Remember, part of their jobs in Essos was to sneak into people's rooms, read secret documents, then report their contents to Illyrio. If they are employing this same tactic in King's Landing, then they must know how to read Westerosi.

My response was a Family Tree which you pretended were fake, despite it being accurate.

No, I never said it was fake. I said you were reading it wrong, and you still are. And you have absolutely no basis for saying it's even accurate, because that tree does not cite a single source from the books.

Rememember I asked you to point out the inaccurasies and causes for concern? *crickets*

I addressed that too. Did you even bother to read my last post on this subject? I said that the burden of proof is on you to provide the documentation from the books or Martin's statements that Maelys was definitely Daemon's grandfather. What was your response to that? *crickets*

ETA: Seriously, here was what I last said on the subject, which is almost exactly what I've said in this post:

"You are completely misreading that family tree. It doesn't say that Maelys was the son of one of Daemon's sons, it says he was descended from Daemon's sons. That's why there's a dotted line between the box "3 Unknown Blackfyres" and "Maelys Blackfyre."

And even if it did say Maelys was Daemon's grandson, it doesn't cite a source for it, and it's not my job to disprove it. The burden of proof is on you to provide direct documentation, either from the books or from GRRM's statements, that Maelys is indeed Daemon's grandon. And IMO, I think you'll fail to find it, because I recall absolutely nothing from the books that says explicitly who Maelys' father was."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The harm to her hands came from Drogon's blood, not fire. Moreover, you continue to sidestep the fact that Daenery's head was aflame, yet her face and head came away unscathed. If the latter doesn't suggest a degree of fire resistance, what is it suggesting?

Dany's head was not aflame, only her hair. We know definitively that no part of her body was aflame because her clothing is still in tact. Hair does not automatically cause the rest of one's skin to ignite. I know this personally as my hair caught on fire when I was young and surprise, surprise, my skin did not get burned. I'm sure you can find videos on youtube of people who've caught their hair on fire. There's also a thread floating around somewhere that includes chemists how and why burnt hair will not affect the body. I think it's titled "Public Service Announcement". Do a search.

No Targaryen, including Dany, is immune to heat, fire, hot weather, etc. No Targaryen, including Dany is even a little bit resistant to heat, fire or hot weather.

Again, Dragonfish, this is what Martin wrote in ADWD:

Daenery's: Only the birth of her dragons amidst the fire and smoke of Khal Drogo’s funeral pyre had spared Dany herself from being dragged back to Vaes Dothrak to live out the remainder of her days amongst the crones of the dosh khaleen. The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not touch me. It had been the same in Daznak’s Pit. That much she could recall, though much of what followed was a haze.

One time thing eh? Either he didn't really say that, forgot he said it, or decided to change things up.

Try googling "unreliable narrator". Martin employs this tool quite liberally throughout the series. The most well-known example is Sansa's memory of a kiss with Sandor that we know didn't happen.

If you go back and read a few lines before the quote you pulled out in Dany's last chapter, you'll notice that she herself notes that the events that happened in the pit and flying away are pretty fuzzy. Her narration is not reliable.

The implication matters because of the physical distinctions. We've already gone over this.

Dany's parents may have been brother and sister but her grandparents were not. So what's your point?

The story of Bael the Bard was told by Mance to spite Jon. Nothing suggest it were true or that it should be taken as anything other than the gloating of a Wildling.

It was told by Ygritte.

But if you want to argue that there is nothing to suggest stories are true, then by your logic there is nothing to suggest Varys' story to Kevan is true.

You're misrepresenting the story to advance your agenda, again.

Per the story; Brandon Stark, upon his death, was unaware that his wife was heavy with Bael's child. She kept it a secret, and her son grew up a Stark.

Again, you do not know your facts. It was his daughter. Her son went on to carry on the Stark line.

This is not evidence of family lines being carried by females, it isn't evidence of anything really. This kin to Cersie sleeping with Jamie behind Robert's back and birthing her brothers children, yet her children, instead of carrying the name of Lannister, are Baratheon's.

Two examples of females carrying on the family name are House Darry and House Hayford. Ermesande Hayford is married to Tyrek Lannister. Their children will be Hayfords. Amerei Frey is the daughter of Mariyah Darry. Ameriei is married to Lancel Lannister. Before he turned out spiritual and shit, he became Lord Darry. If they had children, they would be Darry.

It would be unreasonable to assume that for thousands of years there was always a male in the house to carry on the name.

Why are you assuming they can write in the common tongue if it were never established? They're from Essos, as is Varys. The latter are familar with the languages of the free cities, whereas the Westerosi nobels they're spying on aren't. In which case, the safest means of tranfering information would be to do so in a foriegn tongue

Why are you assuming they can write in any language if it wasn't explicitly established? It also wasn't explicitly established that these tongueless children from Essos could understand the common tongue, but it's heavily implied considering they are crawling through tunnels and spying on conversations. Furthermore, it's also not established that there is no Tyrell who can not understand a language from Essos.

.....crickets.....

The fact that the OP can't spell Dany's name right eliminates any and all credibility from his opinion.

This is really unfair. Most of the names in the series are uncommon and/or use odd spellings. Point out poster's poor arguments, not their misspellings or poor grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Targaryen, including Dany is even a little bit resistant to heat, fire or hot weather.

Sorry, don't mean to turn on an ally in this argument, but it turns out that this is actually incorrect. I found this SSM the other day that sheds some light on this subject:

Shaw: Are all the Targaryans immune to fire?

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire. The thing with Dany and the dragons, that was just a one-time magical event, very special and unique. The Targaryans can tolerate a bit more heat than most ordinary people, they like really hot baths and things like that, but that doesn't mean they're totally immune to fire, no. Dragons, on the other hand, are pretty much immune to fire.

The rest of what you said was solid, though. :)

ETA: Oh, and here is that PSA on Targ fire immunity you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing thread for length. Other people take breaks for important sports matches, you know. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×