What happened to make Aerys lose respect for Tywin around 270-275AL?

[UnmaskedLurker]

Proposition (by the other dude): "I don't believe in "three heads = three dragonriders" theory."

Your question: "OK--what do you think the three heads of the dragon means?"

My answer (although you didn't ask me): The three heads vision in the HotU was a signal by the George that the reader should be expecting another Targaryen character to be revealed or introduced. The most dramatic introduction of such a character since the HotU was Aegon at the Bridge of Dream. While I do believe Jon, Daenerys and Aegon will ride dragons, I believe we'll also see other riders and Daenerys and Jon will ride Drogon in succession.

Got it--sorry for being dense.

[UnmaskedLurker]

The WoIaF discussion linked in the spoiler below has some interesting information relevant to this discussion:

In the discussion

here, I think there is additional evidence that Aerys either seduced or raped Joanna around the time of the ten-year celebration of his coronation, when she was at KL, which was potentially about the time of the conception of Tyrion.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The WoIaF discussion linked in the spoiler below has some interesting information relevant to this discussion:

In the discussion

here, I think there is additional evidence that Aerys either seduced or raped Joanna around the time of the ten-year celebration of his coronation, when she was at KL, which was potentially about the time of the conception of Tyrion.

Yes!!! Can everyone see my OP? That is exactly what I posited had happened a long time ago.

So right here, at this point in the timeline, Aerys decides to lower Tywin in a way that can never be undone. He impregnates Joanna with a Targaryen. Tyrion was born in late 272 or early 273. Which means that at some point in early to mid 272 Joanna was at Kings Landing for some reason. What that reason is? We dont know yet....Maybe it was a wedding or a birth in court. But far more likely, IMO it was the 10 year anniversary party of Aerys' reign as KIng. He became king in 262, so it would stand to reason he would have a 10 year anniversary party in 272 and his Hand Tywin would obviously be there, and since Joanna and Rhaella were friends it make absolute sense that Joanna would be there with Tywin to celebrate Aerys, whom she has also known and been friends with most of her life.

This is what happened. Joanna and Aerys were int he same location in 272, 9 months before TYrion was born. An affair is confirmed between the 2, and it is also confirmed that Joanna was not at court when she got pregnant with the twins. The Twins are 100% Tywins, but Tyrion is most likely the bastard of Aerys.

It's all right there in WOIAF for us all to see, everyone please adjust their ideas accordingly and stop giving us this 'there's barely any evidence' crap, because now we have parents in the same place at time of conception and a confirmed affair 3 years before the twins were born.BAM

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I would also like to say that if anything in my OP was true about Jon it would 100% be used as evidence towards R+L=J.

If Jon had 5 separate dreams of dragons (prophetic or not) it would be posted in the OP of R+L=J, but when I use it for Tyrion it is brushed aside as casual talk.

Think about the OP with no bias, don't consider what you would prefer to true, just see what is clearly hinted in the text over and over and over. Tyrion is the last bastard of house Targaryen, a house famous for its extremely attractive, yet horny, members. All these guys got around, Aerys included, there have been hundreds of Targ bastards littered throughout their line, Tyrion is simply the last one.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Yes!!! Can everyone see my OP? That is exactly what I posited had happened a long time ago.

This is what happened. Joanna and Aerys were int he same location in 272, 9 months before TYrion was born. An affair is confirmed between the 2, and it is also confirmed that Joanna was not at court when she got pregnant with the twins. The Twins are 100% Tywins, but Tyrion is most likely the bastard of Aerys.

It's all right there in WOIAF for us all to see, everyone please adjust their ideas accordingly and stop giving us this 'there's barely any evidence' crap, because now we have parents in the same place at time of conception and a confirmed affair 3 years before the twins were born.BAM

I have to admit I am impressed that you figured out the event at KL that led to the conception long before confirmation from WoIaF. As you know, I basically agree with your theory (maybe not every single detail, but more or less I agree with the gist). The level of vehement opposition to this theory is startling to me. There are a lot of crackpot theories that get dismissed by people, but do not seem to cause anger. This theory seems to cause anger--and I think it might be because deep down, these people realize it is not a crackpot theory--it is just a theory they don't like because they got used to the idea of Tyrion as a Lannister and don't want another "secret Targ" to pop up. But their objections that we are engaged in wishful thinking is just projection--they are the ones engaged in wishful thinking. I don't care at all which way it goes--I just want to have been "correct" in figuring out the clues. So I fight any wishful thinking to try to make sure that I am more likely to have made the right conclusion.

Don't let the "haters" get you down. Nothing will convince them until GRRM reveals the truth in the series one way or the other--but I count on you to keep fighting the good fight.

[Mladen]

It's all right there in WOIAF for us all to see, everyone please adjust their ideas accordingly and stop giving us this 'there's barely any evidence' crap, because now we have parents in the same place at time of conception and a confirmed affair 3 years before the twins were born.BAM

And before adjusting, just to add the obviously forgotten little detail: Aerys publicly humiliated Joanna commenting her breasts. In front of her children.

I suppose one can see that as some sort of foreplay, but I don't. Unless Aerys, of course, didn't rape her.

Two persons being at the same time =/= have a child... By that logic, IDK, Sansa would be pregnant of Royce's child...

I thought that the piece of evidence confirmed that they were at the same place, but, not necessarily. The gap could have been more than 9 months, or she could have been pregnant at time too. The WOIAF simply doesn't state that they were at the same place during conception. Only gives a time frame for that possibility.

edit: spoiler alert

[Suzanna Stormborn]

And before adjusting, just to add the obviously forgotten little detail: Aerys publicly humiliated Joanna commenting her breasts. In front of her children.

I suppose one can see that as some sort of foreplay, but I don't. Unless Aerys, of course, didn't rape her.

Two persons being at the same time =/= have a child... By that logic, IDK, Sansa would be pregnant of Royce's child...

I thought that the piece of evidence confirmed that they were at the same place, but, not necessarily. The gap could have been more than 9 months, or she could have been pregnant at time too. The WOIAF simply doesn't state that they were at the same place during conception. Only gives a time frame for that possibility.

If you have a theory about Sansa and Royce I would love to see it, otherwise statements like that add nothing to the discussion. We are talking about Aerys/Joanna and Tyrion, which is why Aerys and Joanna being in the same location 9 months before he is born is HIGHLY important to this theory.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I have to admit I am impressed that you figured out the event at KL that led to the conception long before confirmation from WoIaF. As you know, I basically agree with your theory (maybe not every single detail, but more or less I agree with the gist). The level of vehement opposition to this theory is startling to me. There are a lot of crackpot theories that get dismissed by people, but do not seem to cause anger. This theory seems to cause anger--and I think it might be because deep down, these people realize it is not a crackpot theory--it is just a theory they don't like because they got used to the idea of Tyrion as a Lannister and don't want another "secret Targ" to pop up. But their objections that we are engaged in wishful thinking is just projection--they are the ones engaged in wishful thinking. I don't care at all which way it goes--I just want to have been "correct" in figuring out the clues. So I fight any wishful thinking to try to make sure that I am more likely to have made the right conclusion.

Don't let the "haters" get you down. Nothing will convince them until GRRM reveals the truth in the series one way or the other--but I count on you to keep fighting the good fight.

THANKS!!!!!

I knew it must have been something some event they would both HAVE to be at, it is the only thing that would make sense.

Yes the posters who argue the hardest against this theory reject it based on their personal desires. And you will also find that most who push against it the hardest are known Targaryens haters, they dont want anyone to be a Targaryen, so naturally they would dismiss this theory. Which is not a very astute way to come up with ideas or theories, to only support those which you approve.

Anyway Tyrion is still not a Targ, he is a HIll and he was raised by Lannisters, that makes him a Lannister with some blood from Aerys.

[Mladen]

If you have a theory about Sansa and Royce I would love to see it, otherwise statements like that add nothing to the discussion. We are talking about Aerys/Joanna and Tyrion, which is why Aerys and Joanna being in the same location 9 months before he is born is HIGHLY important to this theory.

Suzanna, does it say it is nine months before Tyrion's birth? No. It could be between 6 and 22 months, for all we know. WOIAF didn't say that they were at the same place at the time of conception, but gives a time frame that it is possible.

ETA: The comparison with Sansa and Royce is there to actually show that the two persons being at same place doesn't immediately mean they are having sex.

[UnmaskedLurker]

And before adjusting, just to add the obviously forgotten little detail: Aerys publicly humiliated Joanna commenting her breasts. In front of her children.

I suppose one can see that as some sort of foreplay, but I don't. Unless Aerys, of course, didn't rape her.

Two persons being at the same time =/= have a child... By that logic, IDK, Sansa would be pregnant of Royce's child...

I thought that the piece of evidence confirmed that they were at the same place, but, not necessarily. The gap could have been more than 9 months, or she could have been pregnant at time too. The WOIAF simply doesn't state that they were at the same place during conception. Only gives a time frame for that possibility.

Of course WoIaF is not going to out-right confirm that Aerys is the biological father of Tyrion. The point is that during all of the past debates about this issue, one of the arguments repeatedly made was that we have no evidence that Joanna and Aerys were in the same location at a time that could have been Tyrion's conception--that Joanna was as CR and Aerys at KL, and so there should be a hint that they could have been at the same location at the relevant time if A+J=T. So now we have that confirmation. It knocks away one of the significant arguments being made against the theory. It is not just a piece of evidence in isolation. It is a piece of evidence that counters one of the main points of opposition to the theory--and it adds to the list of clues for A+J=T.

Why does GRRM add this piece of information (or approve it being included in WoIaF)? Is he just trolling people like me and SS? He could have killed the theory by stating that after Joanna's dismissal by Rhaella, Joanna never came back to KL and never saw Aerys again. If WoIaF included such a quote, you would be screaming that it proved A+J=/=T--and you would have a point. But the book does the opposite--it lays down another clue in favor of the theory. Does it definitively "prove" the theory? Of course not. But it is a clue that makes the theory more likely than it appeared prior to learning this information.

At this point, I think there are only two reasonable possibilities--either A+J=T or GRRM intentionally threw in these clues as a red herring to hint that A+J=T to throw people off. The chance that the clues are unintended coincidence (a previous third possibility) just got downgraded to virtually zero by this revelation. So if it is a red herring--for what purpose? Usually a red herring is to hide the real culprit. What does this red herring hide? What is the real information that the reader is supposed to be distracted from by this red herring that GRRM wants to be the real surprise? I don't get how this really functions well as a red herring. So if it is not just a bunch of coincidences in writing and does not really function well as a red herring--then . . . ?

[Mithras]

Something I posted in another thread;

It looks like Aerys and Doran's mother were possibly at the same place before the births of Oberyn and Elia. We have two "sickly" siblings and a kickass one. Arianne commented on how Doran was made from a weaker seed. Oberyn was the Daemon Targaryen of the current era. Aerys chose Elia over Cersei or other possible brides (perhaps hoping that she was his daugher too). Dornish women are "open minded".

Here is a theory about Aerys + Doran's Mother = Oberyn, which is as convincing as A+J

[UnmaskedLurker]

Suzanna, does it say it is nine months before Tyrion's birth? No. It could be between 6 and 22 months, for all we know. WOIAF didn't say that they were at the same place at the time of conception, but gives a time frame that it is possible.

ETA: The comparison with Sansa and Royce is there to actually show that the two persons being at same place doesn't immediately mean they are having sex.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course if they only give the years, it could be shorter or longer than 9 months. The point is that it provides another clue that A&J could have been together 9 months prior to birth of T. It also could be they were at KL 9 months prior to birth and they did not have sex at that time. The book is not going to answer those questions. The point is that this is fiction writing--where clues add up. This information serves as another clue to the theory.

And the point about Sansa and Royce is a nonsense comparison--as straw-man argument. If SS had argued that anytime two people are known to be in the same place, they are having sex, then your point would be relevant. But SS never implied any such thing. Rather, she suggested that there are many clues to A+J=T, but one of the "holes" had been whether they had the opportunity. Now we know how they might have had the opportunity. There are no other clues that Sansa and Royce had sex, so the comparison is irrelevant.

[Mladen]

Of course WoIaF is not going to out-right confirm that Aerys is the biological father of Tyrion. The point is that during all of the past debates about this issue, one of the arguments repeatedly made was that we have no evidence that Joanna and Aerys were in the same location at a time that could have been Tyrion's conception--that Joanna was as CR and Aerys at KL, and so there should be a hint that they could have been at the same location at the relevant time if A+J=T. So now we have that confirmation. It knocks away one of the significant arguments being made against the theory. It is not just a piece of evidence in isolation. It is a piece of evidence that counters one of the main points of opposition to the theory--and it adds to the list of clues for A+J=T.

I have already stated that the fact Joanna and Aerys weren't living at the same place is neither main or viable argument. As GRRM once stated for Ashara, and has been seen here, people do travel, they are not nailed to one place. I agree, but we can't take this as confirmation of a theory. This just gives a window for the time frame in which the theory is possible. And as I said, having two persons in the same place doesn't mean sex.

Why does GRRM add this piece of information (or approve it being included in WoIaF)? Is he just trolling people like me and SS? He could have killed the theory by stating that after Joanna's dismissal by Rhaella, Joanna never came back to KL and never saw Aerys again. If WoIaF included such a quote, you would be screaming that it proved A+J=/=T--and you would have a point. But the book does the opposite--it lays down another clue in favor of the theory. Does it definitively "prove" the theory? Of course not. But it is a clue that makes the theory more likely than it appeared prior to learning this information.

At this point, I think there are only two reasonable possibilities--either A+J=T or GRRM intentionally threw in these clues as a red herring to hint that A+J=T to throw people off. The chance that the clues are unintended coincidence (a previous third possibility) just got downgraded to virtually zero by this revelation. So if it is a red herring--for what purpose? Usually a red herring is to hide the real culprit. What does this red herring hide? What is the real information that the reader is supposed to be distracted from by this red herring that GRRM wants to be the real surprise? I don't get how this really functions well as a red herring. So if it is not just a bunch of coincidences in writing and does not really function well as a red herring--then . . . ?

Many times I have said that we should differentiate some clues... I believe that GRRM is intentionally connecting Tyrion with dragons, because I believe the aim is to make him a dragon-rider. That simply, at least for me, wouldn't directly mean that he is Targaryen. I believe that we have at hand non-existing equivalency about dragonriders=Targaryens, and that signs get messed up in the process.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course if they only give the years, it could be shorter or longer than 9 months. The point is that it provides another clue that A&J could have been together 9 months prior to birth of T. It also could be they were at KL 9 months prior to birth and they did not have sex at that time. The book is not going to answer those questions. The point is that this is fiction writing--where clues add up. This information serves as another clue to the theory.

And the point about Sansa and Royce is a nonsense comparison--as straw-man argument. If SS had argued that anytime two people are known to be in the same place, they are having sex, then your point would be relevant. But SS never implied any such thing. Rather, she suggested that there are many clues to A+J=T, but one of the "holes" had been whether they had the opportunity. Now we know how they might have had the opportunity. There are no other clues that Sansa and Royce had sex, so the comparison is irrelevant.

No, I am not being obtuse... OP behaves like this utterly confirms a theory as a fact which is simply wrong conclusion. It is a clue, not confirmation of theory so it should be noted and differentiated that way.

As for opportunity, it always existed... I explained it in this very post.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

No, I am not being obtuse... OP behaves like this utterly confirms a theory as a fact which is simply wrong conclusion. It is a clue, not confirmation of theory so it should be noted and differentiated that way.

As for opportunity, it always existed... I explained it in this very post.

Just because I personally see this as the crown that proves the theory, doesnt mean everyone does. ANyway is that what you really want to discuss on this forum? Whether or not I believe in a theory? Why don't you post some counter arguments that disprove A+J=T, if you really want to discuss.

Yes I believe Tyrion is Aerys' bastard, I have believed it since the first time I read DwD. WOIAF confirming that not only were they in the same place at the time of conception (probably) but that they definitely had an affair previously, and had a history together. I realize you have a desire to tell me I am wrong, my conclusions are wrong, but in this case you are the one who is wrong. You have been telling me since I first posted this thread last year that this theory has no evidence, is 'baseless', and that I am incorrect. Well all of that has been disproven and you should accept it and move on instead of being deliberately obtuse as UL suggested above.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Something I posted in another thread;

It looks like Aerys and Doran's mother were possibly at the same place before the births of Oberyn and Elia. We have two "sickly" siblings and a kickass one. Arianne commented on how Doran was made from a weaker seed. Oberyn was the Daemon Targaryen of the current era. Aerys chose Elia over Cersei or other possible brides (perhaps hoping that she was his daugher too). Dornish women are "open minded".

Here is a theory about Aerys + Doran's Mother = Oberyn, which is as convincing as A+J

Please feel free to start your own thread with that theory.

[Mladen]

Just because I personally see this as the crown that proves the theory, doesnt mean everyone does. ANyway is that what you really want to discuss on this forum? Whether or not I believe in a theory? Why don't you post some counter arguments that disprove A+J=T, if you really want to discuss.

Yes I believe Tyrion is Aerys' bastard, I have believed it since the first time I read DwD. WOIAF confirming that not only were they in the same place at the time of conception (probably) but that they definitely had an affair previously, and had a history together. I realize you have a desire to tell me I am wrong, my conclusions are wrong, but in this case you are the one who is wrong. You have been telling me since I first posted this thread last year that this theory has no evidence, is 'baseless', and that I am incorrect. Well all of that has been disproven and you should accept it and move on instead of being deliberately obtuse as UL suggested above.

Do I really need to explain that discussing offered clues is discussing theory? And I am not into discussing what you or anyone believe in, nor have I expressed desire to it. I was just stating how we can't take this as the ultimate confirmation of the theory.

Since I have no intention of explaining what I have written for 1000th time, I will just state that this theory is still far from confirmed. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.

And following the advice you have given to Antz, if you want to discuss me and my posts, open a thread, don't go off-topic in this one :)

[Dr. Pepper]

Two persons being at the same time =/= have a child... By that logic, IDK, Sansa would be pregnant of Royce's child...

That's absurd Mladen. I think the more likely scenario is that Tywin is the father of at least one of Rhaella's dead babies. They were in the same place quite often. Plus, Tywin never publicly humiliated Rhaella. Rhaella probably wanted to get back at Aerys and Joanna for the cheating thing. I'm 100% sure that Tywin was the father of Viserys. Because, you know, all that matters is that potential parents are in the same place at the same time.

[Lord Freypie]

Actually I have seen many discussion about A+J=T ended (or rather people trying to end them) with the arguement "Joanna was living in CR so Aerys had no access to her". It was probably the most used arguement by A+J=T detractors in all the threads.

So Suzanna is right that having a proof Joanna and Aerys were at KL around the date where Tyrion was conceved is a big element in favor of the theory. Opponents should find a completely different arguements if they want to disprove it now (and I've seen none that can be considered of same magnitude in the 60 or so pages of threads I've read on the issue).

But it's not because the main argument of autority the supporters of the T&J=T theory had was proven wrong, that A&J=T is necessarily right . After all Tywin was in KL too (as well as many other courtiers).

So debate should just continue, on a new basis, where none of the two theories can be easily dismissed by a one liner, which can only make those discussions more interesting (if only both sides could resist describing their views as proven).

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Do I really need to explain that discussing offered clues is discussing theory? And I am not into discussing what you or anyone believe in, nor have I expressed desire to it. I was just stating how we can't take this as the ultimate confirmation of the theory.

Since I have no intention of explaining what I have written for 1000th time, I will just state that this theory is still far from confirmed. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.

And following the advice you have given to Antz, if you want to discuss me and my posts, open a thread, don't go off-topic in this one :)

Well you have argued with me on this from the very beginning, calling the whole thing baseless. Now that you see I was in fact right about a few things which highly contribute to the theory, you could have said something nice to me, like 'good job, you totally called that' or 'i'm sorry for saying it was baseless all this time, I see now that it's not.' But instead it has to go the other way. Whatever dude.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Do I really need to explain that discussing offered clues is discussing theory? And I am not into discussing what you or anyone believe in, nor have I expressed desire to it. I was just stating how we can't take this as the ultimate confirmation of the theory.

Since I have no intention of explaining what I have written for 1000th time, I will just state that this theory is still far from confirmed. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.

And following the advice you have given to Antz, if you want to discuss me and my posts, open a thread, don't go off-topic in this one :)

Mladen--I really just have one question for you. I tried to put forth this question above, but I don't think you really addressed it directly. Before I ask the question, I will admit that I agree with you that we don't have absolute proof of A+J=T. Unlike R+L=J, where certain things in the text just would not really make any sense otherwise, each clue in favor of A+J=T might on an individual basis be chalked up to coincidence. With that "throat clearing" out of the way, here is my question:

Why do you think GRRM bothered to put in so many clues that A+J=T if it is not true?