Crackpot Theory: Power in Jon's blood?

[The Red Melli]

I meant no offense to Melisandre or her fans, I honestly can't think of instance where she was right in some important matter (visions like the death of the kings don't count, because they are things she saw, not her opinions). If you prove me wrong, I will stand corrected

On top of my head.

She predicts the deaths of the three rangers of the watch.

She predicts Davos' plan to kill her.

She predicts the girl on a dying horse, though not who it was. But I assume it was to gain Jon's trust.

Sure she was wrong on some predictions but that's understandable IMO.

Melisandre has made mistakes on her interpretations, but what she's seen in the fires has never been wrong. There are many examples of this, and I don't think it's necessary to list them now (or I'm too lazy?).

[Frozentree]

On top of my head.

She predicts the deaths of the three rangers of the watch.

She predicts Davos' plan to kill her.

She predicts the girl on a dying horse, though not who it was. But I assume it was to gain Jon's trust.

Sure she was wrong on some predictions but that's understandable IMO.

Melisandre has made mistakes on her interpretations, but what she's seen in the fires has never been wrong. There are many examples of this, and I don't think it's necessary to list them now (or I'm too lazy?).

Uhm, did you read what I wrote? Knowing something she saw in the flames is not "being right", no more than knowing where you are is "being right".

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

On top of my head.

She predicts the deaths of the three rangers of the watch.

She predicts Davos' plan to kill her.

She predicts the girl on a dying horse, though not who it was. But I assume it was to gain Jon's trust.

Sure she was wrong on some predictions but that's understandable IMO.

Melisandre has made mistakes on her interpretations, but what she's seen in the fires has never been wrong. There are many examples of this, and I don't think it's necessary to list them now (or I'm too lazy?).

She doesn't predict anything. She sees visions and interprets them to fit her agenda. She saw the three kings deaths and put on the big burning leech show in order to manipulate Stannis. Jojen relays what he sees without trying and interpret what he sees. That is the difference between the two.

[LordStoneheart]

I meant no offense to Melisandre or her fans, I honestly can't think of instance where she was right in some important matter (visions like the death of the kings don't count, because they are things she saw, not her opinions). If you prove me wrong, I will stand corrected

"It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you. Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold."

This was pretty spot on

[Frozentree]

"It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you. Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold."

This was pretty spot on

Oh, OK, I change my statement to "she is very rarely right about something", thank you for pointing out this one.

[Faydra]

Honestly, I find the king's blood concept to be fishy, to put it mildly. What exactly does qualify as being "king's blood"? Valyrian ancestry? Subordinates proclaiming the person in question to be king? Actually sitting the throne?

That does not mean that Melisandre won't try anyway, though

I'm also leery of the idea of king's blood, given that just about everyone in any major family in Westeros has king's blood in them somewhere. We have also seen non-king's blood do some incredible things, like Mirri's blood sacrifice. On the other hand, there was loads of king's blood at Summerhall, and nothing. So that suggests to me that there's something else going on there, maybe even a mistranslation or a misreading.

I don't know why so many people seem to be against it :stunned:. I find it intriguing and I had fun trying to explain it to myself.

This king's blood spell looks like a riddle to me and it will probably be left as an unsolved mystery(like Varys' riddle). I think the author let it there on purpose, to keep people wondering.

IMO king's blood is just a metaphorical way of saying a great sacrifice. It's about pleasing the gods. They did nothing for Aegon V, because his sacrifice was dull (he went there willingly and died by accident, probably he was even seen as a commoner due to his upbringing with Dunk. Mance was lowborn, but he raised as a king, why not reverse it for Egg?). Dany smothered her husband and killed her firstborn son (both of them very important people), that's why it worked for her.