#did i use another quote from this book for aegon? yes yes i did

[corporalicent]

house of the dragon (2022-) / the viscount who loved me, julia quinn (2000)

[very-straight-blog]

In my opinion, one of the main problems of HOTD is that the screenwriters decided to tell the story instead of showing it. Visual storytelling is very important in cinema, this is literally its essence, but in the series we see over and over again how the characters describe themselves and each other verbally, even when it's not necessary. I want to discuss this on the example of Aegon.

He appears to us as a controversial character - at the most basic level, the creators were able to show this even in the miserable eight minutes of his screen time. On the one hand, he is sarcastic, he likes to piss people off, he is kinda arrogant, but at the same time he is lonely, depressed, feels isolated in his own family, although he undoubtedly loves them. He is prone to hedonism in the most unhealthy manifestations, and also, apparently, to self-destruction. The problem is that we mostly get to know about everything that I've named from the words of himself or other characters, as well as from interviews with the actors and creators of the series.

Let's start with his relationship with Viserys. We can see Viserys spending time with Aegon during his birthday in the third episode and it looks pretty sweet, but then timeskips take place and the story of their relationship remains behind the scenes. Yes, we have just one diaogue in Driftmark, which doesn't give us much - it doesn't relate specifically to Aegon and his relationship with his father. In fact, we don't know anything about them at all and we only have Aegon's words:

And the screenwriters seem to think that this is enough, although his father's dislike is implied to be one of the main factors that shaped Aegon's character and personality.

Next, he talks about his relationship with Alicent and Viserys in this scene:

Again, the words - screenwriters don't show the audience in any way what exactly he's trying to do, how he's trying to meet the expectations of his parents. An ideal opportunity to reveal this quote would be to study his relationship with Helaena and their family - he didn't want to marry her, but did it anyway for the sake of duty, because that's what his mother wanted. As a result, I'm not sure that the audience even realized that they were married at all.

At the same time, the screenwriters decided to show Aegon's tendency to cruelty (here I won't make comparisons with books, this is a topic for another post). We have two cases - the first one with Dyana:

The whole episode of violence is completely left behind the scenes, the word "r*pe" is not even mentioned in the dialogue. (I'll also talk about how poorly this episode fits into Aegon's character in another post, otherwise this one will never end.)

The second one is this:

And again, they tell us about Aegon's cruelty, but don't show it.

Anyway, we have some examples of good visual storytelling, such as the coronation scene, where Aegon goes from this:

To this:

And we see how important love and recognition are to him, even if they come from strangers - from the crowd. Such moments only demonstrate all the wasted potential of this series.

[bl00dlight]

i saw this ask on another blog and then recently i came across a reddit post abt this exacttt thing. but it did make me wonder, cause I know u got some opinions but, what do u think about Aemond being a blood supremacist? alot of team greens deny it but idk... he literally says it in the show? the blog also disagreed I think to. also love love love ur fic nd I like how u haven't made aemond and visenya like besties. cause I agree with ur other rant to, there is soooo much soft, Mary Sue stuff with aemond and it dosent really fit him as a character at all.

First of all thank you sm for reading the fic. I literally just cracked open my mother fucken laptop one day and was like "IM OVER IT!!!". But yes, I agree, so many fics really like project an idealised version of Aemond. Which is totally fine, no hate no hate but, I just prefer canon accurate characterisation with everything.

But to answer your question, I feel like it's pretty straightforward and I'm also really surprised this a debate? Yes, Aemond is obviously a valryian supremacist. Almost all the Targs are to some degree and the Velaryons. But Aemond quite literally references the importance of keeping their valyrian blood pure and is deeply obessesed with dragons. "It would keep our Valyrian blood pure." Coming from a 13 year old boy is like a clear indicator that, yes homie is pro-targ supremacy. He is also the mirror of Daemon... who is also pro-targ supremacy.

I don't believe that Aemond commented on Helaena in ep7 just to display how "dutiful" he is. We know for a FACT Aemond is not dutiful, he is ambitious/power hungry. That is his whole arc, especially in Fire + Blood. Homeboy is dutiful in the same way Daemon is. It's not about actually caring for what is right or wrong, it's about his own proximity to power. I think alot of people really misinterpret Aemond's lines regarding duty as being a display of dedication. When in reality, it's narcissistic grandiosity lol. Like straight up. His envy of Aegon isn't "ugh I'd be a much better King because I care about protecting the realm, helping the smallfolk, maintaining order, doing what is right." It's "ugh, I'd me a much better King because I'm BETTER." We can see that in ep 9 when he literally gives out a list to Cole, why he would make a superior King to Aegon. Not once does he mention anything outside of what he perceives as his own brilliance. This is a book Aemond quote when he becomes Prince Regent and wears Aegon the Conqueror's crown "It looks better on me than it ever did on him,". So here we have another indicator that this isn't about being a good dutiful brother, this is about him living out his Rogue Prince fantasy.

I feel like people may bring up Alys Rivers as a counterpoint but again, I don't see why? Because remember, Aemond literally slaughtered her entire House because he hated the Strongs. He would make fun of Jace and Luke's appearance in Fire and Blood for like lack of Valyrian features. He left Alys alive so he could take her as a "prize" to use as a 'bedmate' / 'paramour'. This wasn't recorded as a consensual reltionship, and of course Alys went with it because what else is she gonna do? Fight him? He just slaughtered her entire bloodline, just BECAUSE of their blood. She's on thin ice. By today's standards she was put into sexual slavery. (unfortunately fire & blood is an unreliable text and it was written to be contradictory, so literally there is no actual canonical understanding of their relationship) Also a significant amount of fire and blood was written by those from the Greens side, and there are claims she bewitched him etc etc so that he wouldn't kill her. Regardless, the point is, Aemond fucking Alys isn't a marker of his progressive belief that Targaryen's aren't superior? If anything it reinforces it because he has literally chosen a woman who in every single way is completely socially 'inferior' to himself. Again, it's about power and vengeance. Him taking Alys is saying "look at me, I can do whatever the fuck I want. I can burn the Riverlands down, I can slaughter an entire House and then, I can fuck the last very last woman left because I CHOSE TO KEEP HER ALIVE." And he did it again, he abandoned Alys at one point and left her captive to another mother fucker just to get more vengeance on the Blacks after Helaena's last child dies (i can make a post on the suspicious Helaena x Aemond parallels in fire and blood) and then eventually came back to get her again. He don't really give that much of a fuck, in my opinion. She is not an example of him not being a bigot. And we see this in the real world too. Powerful bigots have historically sexually enslaved whom they oppress. *cough cough, literally ww2*. Sex is a power exchange in many ways, and Aemond taking Alys to fuck, after he spent his entire life loathing her family and KILLING THEM, is not some star-crossed lover shit. It's him continuing his reign of abuse on the Strongs. He kept one of them alive, just to fuck. That is an active example of his supremacist beliefs. There is also speculation Alys got pregnant, but it's never confirmed. However, his son would be another Strong bastard. And it wouldn't mean shit to him, because is that not the ultimate "haha im superior" to interject himself into the Strong line? To be the one which controls it's survival?

Also again, we see it time and time again with Targ men. They believe in Targ supremacy, actively want to participate in their 'traditions', while also wanting booty calls. Daemon does the same thing, homie fucks women left and right, yet still loved /married Rhaneyra because she was a Targaryen like him. Viserys iii also, fucked other women, yet canonically wanted to marry Daenerys once he assumed the throne to continue their bloodline.

Because marriage is very different from sex in this universe. Marriage and sex are two completely separate ideas. So it makes sense for Aemond to believe that Targaryen's should maintain their Valyrian blood through marriage because it is a marker of supremacy; while he also wants to exclaim is dominance through having sex with a woman who is 'beneath' him. Aemond is also an actual misogynist in the books too. So again? In what world does he look at Alys as his equal?

Thus, why marriage/love/legitmate children is reserved for Targaryen women, and sex is reserved for prostitutes, bedmates etc. People be forgetting, in this society women are used at the whims of men, LAWFULLY - like it's their right to do so, and women are very much given social status based on how men view them sexually. Madonna/Whore complex.

Which is kinda interesting if we even go further to talk about Helaena and Aemond...

Funnily enough, this exact topic will come up in my fic. Anyway, that's my take on it. That's kinda why the strong niece fics never made sense to me, because it is so contradictory to the motives behind what he does.

[sweetestpopcorn]

Hi there Anon 😊 and once again so sorry for this delay!

Hum... I would say yes and no. And a big no to “yet all the time we see her in any of those matters, she performs as poorly as possible.”First, we do see examples of Rhaenyra being involved in Politics, we aren't just told. She attended Small Council meetings from the time she was seven, and when she was 16 she took possession of Dragonstone and ruled it for the next 16 years. During these 16 years we have no reports of anyone there complaining about Rhaenyra - which they would if she didn't know what she was doing.

In fact, Rhaenyra was quite popular amongst the people of King's Landing, Dragonstone, and Westeros. Certainly much more than her half-brothers, and like I already mentioned, the only ones who seemed to have an issue with her three eldest sons were the Greens (though their biggest issue remained the fact that Rhaenyra had no 🍆). Hells, when she takes King's Landing the people are happy in the beginning, "relieved" that they were free from Aegon and Aemond - who unlike Alicent, Helaena, and Daeron were not popular.

“Neither Aegon nor his brother, Aemond, had ever been much loved by the people of the city, and many Kingslanders had welcomed the queen's return... but love and hate are too faces of the same coin (...)" (Fire and Blood, pg. 466-467)

We do see other examples, especially in the beginning of her reign, of her actually displaying an ability to rule and making good decisions. For instance, more than once Daemon and Corlys are at odds with each other and suggest completely opposite things. Rhaenyra always takes a diplomatic approach and weights the argument of both men. In one example she finds a middle ground between her consort and her Hand, in another, she actually goes against Daemon's advice and follows Corlys’s advice.

"It was the fear of losing the support of such lords, Munkun asserts in True Telling, that led the queen to decide in favor of Lord Corlys rather than Prince Daemon.” (Fire and Blood, pg. 465)

"It fell to the queen herself to choose between her consort and her Hand. Rhaenyra decided to steer a middle course.” (Fire and Blood, pg. 479)

Note: You can read more about the particulars of both situations in the pages I just quoted. This is from the hardcover version of the book, the pages in the other edition change a little. 

Would you not agree that this is what a good ruler does? Hear both sides and try to weigh out each and come up with the best solution?

While we are later told - only later - that she was a terrible ruler, this is not accurate in the beginning of her reign. We see Rhaenyra hearing advisors and trying to do the best with what she was given - which was utter sh:t and I would love to hear experts say what they would have done so differently -> not by means of writing a fanfiction in my notes though thank you, especially showGrangreen fans who go between book and show for whatever tickles their dirties. Moreover, some of the taxes Celtigar imposed in the beginning were actually similar to those imposed at the start of Jaehaerys’s reign. And again, rather than decide herself, she called someone who supposedly knew about this. If they did a good job at it or not - answer is not - that is up for the question. What Rhaenyra did, though, was what her father had always done, and had gotten good results from it.

The thing about Rhaenyra’s reign, Rhaenyra herself, and much of what is written in Fire and Blood is that you have to actually read it carefully and make up your own mind with what is there.

People can write whatever meta they want, some even write fanfictions adding the Rogares into the mix as if this holds any ground in canon 😂, but unless they use actual proof from the books, it’s worth nothing. And, the danger of reading what others write as opposed to the actual books is that people a lot of times twist and turn their notions and do not back it up with actual book material. A lie told many times runs the risk of becoming the truth, and this is so frequent in this fandom. 

Now, to hit some on the old man, I will agree that he could have gone into much more detail of how Rhaenyra ruled Dragonstone, yes. He ought to have named concrete things she did, that she learned growing up. We are indeed left to read in between the lines in many cases and “guess”. Be that as it may, it is unfair to say that we are told and not shown and that the two do not match. We are shown things, but we only have to pay close attention otherwise we will miss much 😉

And just to clarify something else, the "show don't tell" approach is not something I have ever seen Turtle Man advocate for. This is just a general writing advice to make the read more engaging. I do argue, however, that Turtle Man has too many instances in Fire and Blood of just this: a tell instead of a show. He has many others when it is the contrary, however, he shows but doesn't tell, and I argue that is where his writing in Fire and Blood is more successful. However, he trusts his audience a bit too much at times and he should have added some little tell with the big show... then again in this fandom you can have sh:t black on white and still people question it. So... I don't know. Moreover, it’s also important to mention that the Dance was written with an end in sight. It was plot driven not character driven and as a consequence a lot of time the characters suffer from it. I have mentioned this before and I consider it one of the biggest flaws of George’s “fake history”, though I still absolutely love it 🥰

All the best to you 😺

PS: Everything I write concerns only the asoiaf canon and the books. Gangreen Redacted fans who use book and show for whatever idea they are trying to push are henceforth welcomed to go back to the trash can they came out of 🤗 there are two canons bestie, and you can't decide you want x for this and y for that. Take it all or don't take anything, but don't try to join book discussions.

[queenaryastark]

I don't like Rhaegar Targaryen. I'm an anti where he's concerned. That's why it's so annoying when people say such untrue and illogical things about him that even a Rhaegar-anti has to defend him. But the fact is:

No. Rhaegar did not abandon his wife and children. He left them at home on Dragonstone with servants and guards. If that's abandonment then both Catelyn and Ned abandoned Robb, Bran, and Rickon when they left them at their home in Winterfell. Robb also abandoned Bran and Rickon when he left them in Winterfell. Cat continued that "abandonment" during ACOK by refusing to return to Winterfell. The fact of the matter is, people who are high ranking aren't the primary caregivers of the children in their family. Royals in the real world usually had separate residences for their children, which wasn't considered abandonment. So if Rhaegar and/or Elia left their kids at home or sent them with caregivers to another residence that wouldn't be abandonment.

No. There's no evidence that Elia was humiliated at Harrenhal or that she wasn't allowed a voice in her own marriage. We get very, very little info on her. What we do get is that moving to Dragonstone was a joint decision between her and Rhaegar and that her countrymen were in his inner-circle suggesting that she was in his inner-circle as well since they would take her lead. We don't know how she felt about Harrenhal but we do know that acts of public chivalry were often more political than personal. For example, Alysanne, the first Princess Daenerys, Aegon IV's mistress, etc were crowned Queen of Love and Beauty by men they weren't romantically linked to. Plus, TWOIAF speculates that the crowning of Lyanna was politically motivated but wasn't received well by the Starks. There is no canon reference to Elia's feelings. Any claim to the contrary is fanon. And I'm not saying the crowning WAS politically motivated. The point is that this gesture usually isn't romantic, just as courtly love in the real world was more political.

No. Fanfic quotes (GOT included) cannot be used in canon discussions. That means Oberyn never speaks against Rhaegar in the books and we don’t know how Elia fought or didn't fight during the Sack of King's Landing. She also didn't walk through vipers without being bitten. That's a myth about Baelor Targaryen.

Yes. Rhaegar is the father of Rhaenys and Aegon. House Martell doesn't give either of them the right to the Iron Throne since the Martells are Targs descended from a distant female line. Their claim comes from Rhaegar. That's why Aegon/Young Griff barely mentions Elia (that and bc he was raised by Elia-hating JonCon) but asks about Rhaegar and uses being Rhaegar’s son in his speech to gain the Golden Company's support. Wanting these kids to be 100% Martell while also wanting them to get Targaryen accessories like the Iron Throne and dragons doesn't make any sense.

[kellyvela]

Hi! I wanted to ask you something. Jon and Sansa thinking about having children and having domestic life with their respective partners is a strong foreshadowing for jonsa. Then there was Jeyne W who also told Cat that Robb was going to name their firstborn after Ned. While Robb is dead, it's not sure if jeyne is pregnant. Sansa didn't married to Willas and Jon will not gonna steal Val. Do you think it's foreshadowing something?

Before actually answering your question, I think we can't compare Robb and Jeyne, who willingly married, actively tried to have a baby, and were arguably in love, to Sansa and Willas (they never met, they never married, they weren't in love), and Jon and Val (they never had sex, they never married, they weren't in love).

Also, while having the wish to name their children after their late father and siblings, Sansa couldn't stop thinking about Loras, not Willas; and Jon wished Ygritte were alive so he could marry her instead of Val.

And Loras is a stand in for Jon the same way Ygritte is an stand in for Sansa.

. . .

"A king must have an heir."

Jeyne Westerling told Catelyn that Robb was going to name their firstborn after Ned???

Are you talking about this passage???

"Jeyne," she called after, "there's one more thing Robb needs from you, though he may not know it yet himself. A king must have an heir."

The girl smiled at that. "My mother says the same. She makes a posset for me, herbs and milk and ale, to help make me fertile. I drink it every morning. I told Robb I'm sure to give him twins. An Eddard and a Brandon. He liked that, I think. We . . . we try most every day, my lady. Sometimes twice or more." The girl blushed very prettily. "I'll be with child soon, I promise. I pray to our Mother Above, every night."

—A Storm of Swords - Catelyn III

Because it was Jeyne who told Catelyn that she (Jeyne) was sure to give Robb twins to be named Eddard and Brandon, and that she thought Robb liked her idea (Jeyne's idea).

We don't know if Jeyne Westerling was, at some point, pregnant or not.

With all the Tully super fertility references, Jeyne could have been pregnant, but, as you can read in the quote above, her mother Sybell Spicer was giving her an abortifacient all the time, and sadly, that's what happened to Lysa Tully in the past... That's why a guilty Hoster Tully repeats "Tansy" in his sickbed several times, since "Tansy" was an ingredient of the abortifacient that Lysa took all those years ago...

The Lannister not only plotted to kill the King in the North, but also to prevent that said king have an heir... Sybell Spicer and the abortifacient were part of the plot.

And if there was still the slightest chance that Jeyne was pregnant with Robb Stark's heir, the Lannister would not hesitate to kill the unborn child and the mother, if necessary.

Actually, I'm afraid that in the next Book Jeyne Westerling will die anyway...

Now, Robb also used the same phrase "A king must have an heir." while later talking with Catelyn about the North's Succession, and guess who were the ones actively mentioned during that conversation? Any thoughts?

The answering is, a "Lady Lannister" (lol) and a "bastard Snow". Let's see:

"I had hoped to leave Jeyne with child . . . we tried often enough, but I'm not certain . . ."

"It does not always happen the first time." Though it did with you. "Nor even the hundredth. You are very young."

"Young, and a king," he said. "A king must have an heir. If I should die in my next battle, the kingdom must not die with me. By law Sansa is next in line of succession, so Winterfell and the north would pass to her." His mouth tightened. "To her, and her lord husband. Tyrion Lannister. I cannot allow that. I will not allow that. That dwarf must never have the north."

"No," Catelyn agreed. "You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son." She considered a moment. "Your father's father had no siblings, but his father had a sister who married a younger son of Lord Raymar Royce, of the junior branch. They had three daughters, all of whom wed Vale lordlings. A Waynwood and a Corbray, for certain. The youngest . . . it might have been a Templeton, but . . ."

“Mother.” There was a sharpness in Robb’s tone. “You forget. My father had four sons.”

She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. “A Snow is not a Stark.”

“Jon’s more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell.”

“Jon is a brother of the Night’s Watch, sworn to take no wife and hold no lands. Those who take the black serve for life.”

“So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows.”

He is set on this. Catelyn knew how stubborn her son could be. “A bastard cannot inherit.”

“Not unless he’s legitimized by a royal decree,” said Robb. “There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath.”

“Precedent,” she said bitterly. “Yes, Aegon the Fourth legitimized all his bastards on his deathbed. And how much pain, grief, war, and murder grew from that? I know you trust Jon. But can you trust his sons? Or their sons? The Blackfyre pretenders troubled the Targaryens for five generations, until Barristan the Bold slew the last of them on the Stepstones. If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again. Should he wed and breed, any sons you may have by Jeyne will never be safe.”

“Jon would never harm a son of mine.”

“No more than Theon Greyjoy would harm Bran or Rickon?”

Grey Wind leapt up atop King Tristifer’s crypt, his teeth bared. Robb’s own face was cold. “That is as cruel as it is unfair. Jon is no Theon.”

“So you pray. Have you considered your sisters? What of their rights? I agree that the north must not be permitted to pass to the Imp, but what of Arya? By law, she comes after Sansa … your own sister, trueborn …”

“… and dead. No one has seen or heard of Arya since they cut Father’s head off. Why do you lie to yourself? Arya’s gone, the same as Bran and Rickon, and they’ll kill Sansa too once the dwarf gets a child from her. Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North. I had hoped you would support my choice.”

“I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this … this folly. Do not ask it.”

“I don’t have to. I’m the king.” Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.

—A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

As you can see from the quote above, Robb and Catelyn were pushing to prevent Sansa or Jon from inheriting Winterfell and the North after Robb. For Robb, the problem was that Sansa was "Lady Lannister," and for Catelyn, the problem was that Jon was a bastard "Snow," and a brother of the Night's Watch.

Ironically, Robb ended up losing Winterfell and the North, and it will be precisely Sansa (the Lannister by marriage) and Jon (the bastard Snow) the ones retaking the ancestral seat and all the lands of House Stark, and I suspect they will do it together.

Indeed, Robb and Catelyn's conversation is also very telling because Robb said: "By law Sansa is next in line of succession, so Winterfell and the north would pass to her". But since Sansa was married to Tyrion Lannister, Robb had to name another heir, Jon.

Robb's reasoning is a contrast to Jon's reaction to the offer of getting Winterfell and the North.  Stannis Baratheon used the same argument (Sansa's marriage to Tyrion Lannister) to convince Jon to accept his offer to become a legitimized Stark and Lord of Winterfell, Stannis even called Sansa “Lady Lannister”, but no matter what, Jon didn’t accept Stannis's offer.

And what was Jon's answer?

“By right Winterfell should go to my sister Sansa.”

—A Dance with Dragons - Jon I

Jon said, “Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa.”

—A Dance with Dragons - Jon IV

Beautiful, isn't it?

And Jon and Sansa could also produce a new generation of Starks, honoring their late relatives by naming their children Eddard, Robb and Catelyn, the ones that are actually dead, because fortunately Arya, Bran and Rickon are still alive, even if Jon and Sansa believe they are all dead.

She pictured the two of them sitting together in a garden with puppies in their laps, or listening to a singer strum upon a lute while they floated down the Mander on a pleasure barge. If I give him sons, he may come to love me. She would name them Eddard and Brandon and Rickon, and raise them all to be as valiant as Ser Loras. And to hate Lannisters, too. In Sansa's dreams, her children looked just like the brothers she had lost. Sometimes there was even a girl who looked like Arya.

—A Storm of Swords - Sansa II

I would need to steal her if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister's son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly's boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We'd find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance's son and Craster's would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

—A Storm of Swords - Jon XII

Be still my beating heart!

. . .

So if you're wondering if the sad fate of Jeyne Westerling and Robb, who had a similar wish to Sansa and Jon's wishes, to name their children after their late father and siblings, could mean something negative for Jon and Sansa in the future. The answer is no.

[une-nuit-pour-se-souvenir]

"Originally published in 1925, Fire and Blood (Feuer und Blut) is Ernst Jünger's third book, where he further elaborates on his experiences in the First World War."  Ernst was a nazi officer. Also there was a slogan for Nazis called 'Soil and Blood' regarding pure breeding. The Ghiscari culture is also built on 'Brick and Blood'.  Do you think it's coincidence for grrm to use those quotes in Dany arc? I think you have mentioned about the Ernst Junger book in your post. What do you think?

Yes, I have mentioned all three. From the top of my head, as I have not looked into any of this in years.

Ernst wasn't a nazi officer, but he was a known hero from WWI. Additionally to "Fire and Blood", he also wrote a book named "Storm of Steel", both accounting the brutal and gritty details of trench warfare of WWI. It's written in such a way that glorifies and mistifies violence and war. Hitler had a copy of this book in his library, along with millions of other books, but what made this one special was that certain poignant passages had his annotations. Hitler was obsessed with World War I and he shared the same views on the glorification of war, so it's natural this would interest him.

In this case, "Fire and Blood" refers exactly to violence. Which is of course, the same as the Targaryen motto "Fire and Blood", which means Aegon's Conquest of Westeros through violence and war by using the dragons. We can extend such a motto to every Targaryen that came after that used dragons. Similarly, the same argument can be made for "Storm of Steel" which is incidently close to "Storm of Swords", GRRM's "second part" of the more brutal phase of the War of the Five Kings.

Astapor is said to have the motto "Brick and Blood" and the text directly links to the idea that Astapor was built (bricks) through slaves (blood), meaning that suffering and violence built the city. Then there's a parallel made between "Brick and Blood" and "Fire and Blood" being basically the same just in other words. Just like the Targaryens conquered Westeros (violence) through tyranny, just like the Valyrians built their empire through slaves. There's the same concepts applied over and over again: Valyria, Slaver's Bay, even Westeros under Targaryen rule. These are all founded through violence they put others through.

The "poetry" of (for example) "Storm of Steel" is akin to GRRM using "dancing" to describe a duel. The use of flowery language to describe violence and war in an almost mystical way isn't exclusive to Ernst or GRRM however, as it's a well used literary device. That's why I don't think it's a coincidence. GRRM might not have ever heard of Ernst, but that kind of literary device is used often.

"Soil and Blood" is different, it has nothing to do with war. It notes a certain race of people (blood) being entitled / linked to a certain area (soil). That motto was tied to the concept of "Lebesraum", which predates the nazis and was in broad strokes, an expansionist project. The nazis took it and added being entitled to more land as they believed they were racially superior.

Another nazi slogan was "Blood and Honour" It noted that the aryan "race" should be perserved (honour), therefore no procreating with the "scum". As a sidenote, the "aryan race" is often a misunderstood concept (the "hitler wasn't blond" argument comes from this). The nazis believed the aryan was the masterace but didn't consider themselves aryan, they were descendants of aryan that had been misced with lower races. The objective of their breeding programs (ew) was not to remain pure, but to not soil themselves further and to somehow purify themselves.

So, from "Soil and Blood" and "Blood and Honour" we can clearly see the insistence that "Blood" means blood purity. The first is similar to the Targaryens believing themselves to be entitled to Westeros due to Aegon conquered it (this is even more flagrant with Danerys, who refuses to acknowledge that Bobby B basically did the same). The second is similar to the Targaryens / Valyrians practicing incest to keep the Valyrian blood pure or "repurifying" it (in the case of Jahaerys marrying his kids against his father's wishes).

Incidently, there was a certain nazi flag that was called "Blood Flag", a relic of sorts. It was said this nazi flag was soaked with the blood of associates that died at the beer hall failed coup. Such, there are two ways we can look at "Blood". It's both about blood purity as well as glorifying sacrifice for the cause. The latter is more akin to how "Fire and Blood" "Brick and Blood" is used in ASOIAF.

Much like "Blood and Fire", these are all well used devices. The whole concept of eugenics is synonym with blood purity after all, but blood sacrifice is a ritual where something is killed and used as an offering in hopes for pandering to a cause. So, I don't believe it's a coincidence. Not because GRRM might have heard about any of this, but these concepts are universally used in this fashion.

[janiedean]

Book!Theon is Azor!Ahai, not Jon. It makes no sense narratively for Jon to be AA, and it’s the most stereotypical thing ever, and he’s already stereotypical, he’s the red flag for the audience. Theon’s chapters are full of hints, he has the perfect salt/smoke/stars/dragons thing at the end of ACOK, when he “dies”. His story is about destroying death, his entire narrative, with things that come from mythology and ancient literature, points to that. The show is trash, but don’t you think that it’s a little weird that Theon is there at the end and then Arya comes out of nowhere and becomes AA? And what ending does she get? Exploring the unknown SEA with SHIPS? Being free and on her own? Maybe it doesn’t make sense for her because it’s not for her. D&D already took everything else from Theon, they took this too. And even if he’s not AA, he’s still clearly connected to magic and all of that, he didn’t go though so much for nothing, he didn’t take his name back for the first time in his life, his name that literally means “godly”, for nothing. He has something big to do, and it’s about himself, not Robb and the Starks. And he’s also so clearly connected to the politics of the north and of the iron islands, a villain was literally created for him, so I don’t understand how can you say he’s not really important and all he’s got left to do is retire in a house and be sad. Of course he has a lot of trauma and that’s important, but I don’t like how people reduce him to that and act like just because those things happened, he can’t do anything else

anon with no ill will and I swear I don't want to sound pedantic or anything but I, uh, never came to the conclusion you say I came from - that said let's go in order even if I think I already went through all the reasons why it makes literally no sense if it's anyone but jon, but let's start with one thing:

It makes no sense narratively for Jon to be AA, and it’s the most stereotypical thing ever, and he’s already stereotypical, he’s the red flag for the audience.

it's stereotypical.... to us maybe, but it is not to westeros. like, you're looking at it through audience-lens because it has been years and the show confirmed r+l=j and we all figured that shit out, but to westeros, the idea that the prince that was promised is a bastard guy serving on the wall aka a state-sponsored prison where people go to not die and is filled to non-desirables to society is... the least likely option in existence? no really, but again:

first thing that should quiet all doubts, when melisandre asks r'hollor to see azor ahai bc she wants to see stannis, r'hollor shows her jon snow and instead of going like 'uh wait why am I seeing another dude' she's like 'I want to see stannis but r'hollor shows me jon snow there must be some disturbance on the line', like she doesn't even consider for a second that it might be jon;

no one else has brought WITHIN THE NARRATIVE jon up as a likely candidate - they said stannis, they said dany, they said whoever but no one ever said hey jon snow might be AA, because again no one even suspects that it might be jon;

other matter that you're overlooking here: if theon is azor ahai.... it means that the rebellion basically was for nothing? because like the entire shtick with rhaegar targaryen's bad life choices™ is that he was apparently a swell dude, then he read a book where somehow it was exactly explained how the apocalypse was gonna happen, he deduced that he was the guy who had to father AA/the prince that was promised and in order - first he doesn't care about fighting but suddenly after that he starts getting learned; - he immediately worries over having THREE children from which we can deduce from the narrative that as far as he knows in order to fight when the wights come he has to have three kids for three dragons and one of them is azor ahai; - the moment his wife can't have more than two even if he's sure that he already had the right one (aegon) he still runs off with lyanna to make sure he has the third because it's that important that HE rhaegar targaryen fathers the three heads of the dragon... to the point of starting a civil war and most likely giving arthur orders to make sure that the kid lives at all costs even if he thinks lyanna's kid is NOT AA; - let's remember that the entire schtick is also that 'he is the ptwp and his is the song of ice and fire' which means that this kid of rhaegar's is the person these books are titled after.

now, let's look again at tyrion's infamous quote which I always bring up in these cases but let's refresh our memory here Prophecy is like a half-trained mule. It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head now: given this, we can absolutely assume that no single prophecy in this book goes the way the person at the end of it interprets it... which means that rhaegar was wrong on a lot of accounts, but guess what, the thing is that one out of three of his kids is dead (if we count aegon as trueborn, if he's not then two on three but I think he's trueborn) and the one who hatched the eggs/has the dragon is DANY so he already was wrong on head of the dragon #1, and he can absolutely be wrong on aegon being tptwp which would mean mistake #2 and we should know about the prophecy, but one of his children being AA and his being the song of ice and fire looks a bit too much of a stretch to be incorrect and have AA being someone else's son also would be.... but if AA is jon ie the one he had for last that he was sure was not AA and who doesn't even have the targ name (nor the stark one) and no one suspects having that kinda ancestry then yes it fits exactly all the parameters and it still allows for rhaegar to have partially misinterpreted the entire thing even in large chunks but not enough to make it look like he was completely making shit up, which... I mean the long night is coming I don't doubt he had very good reasons to want to stop it; also, anon not to beat the dead horse, but: - jon's death fits all the prophecy parameters already there's the bleeding star, the smoking wound and the salt of the tears which btw is not obvious nor something you'd immediately do 2+2 about... which fits perfectly with the above - jon died and came back to life in the godforsaken show like he's literally the only idiot who resurrected in it and we're supposed to handwave it the way dnd did? - jon has a valyrian steel sword that he can handle while theon atm really doesn't - we could argue that ygritte could be a possible nissa-nissa contender though I mean maybe it could also be that he and val get hot and bothered and it turns out it's her or someone else and that hasn't happened yet but surely there's more evidence for that with jon than with theon - theon has like... povs in two books for a total amount of less than fifteen chapters, jon has at least ten chapters per book or so on, which just mathematically makes jon a main fiver character while theon is not and like I understand deconstruction and all but you don't make your ace in the hole mystical prince hero character someone who has had fifteen chapters total at most unless I remember wrong the amount he had in acok in comparison to someone who was a main throughout the entire thing - like guys I say it as someone whose third-fave char is theon, theon is not a main fiver™ character and that's okay that's not the point, and with that I don't mean he's not important, I mean that he's not one of the five main ones that have most of the plot stuff on their shoulders and he's not THE main character, because if theon is AA then these books are named a song of theon greyjoy and considering that the main five are jon tyrion arya dany and bran I think it's highly not probable that at the end of it theon is the one character to rule them all

and that was for how jon fit the criteria, but theon doesn't fit them because again he doesn't have a number of chapters/povs that justifies such a plot twist, balon is certainly not rhaegar and I don't see how rhaegar reads a prophecy wrt balon and thinks it's about him, the heads of the dragon should be three and theon had three siblings two of which are dead and asha has no tie to the dragon storyline, this means that theon should be able to ride/command a dragon and we know that in theory just targs can and there's already three of them around - dany jon and aegon - and if anyone who's not a targ has a narrative reason to ride a dragon is tyrion not theon... and tyrion is a main fiver too, also there's the nissa-nissa/burning sword angle and as it is theon could absolutely use a bow again but a longsword with his hands maimed like that and no muscle mass would be a bit implausible, in order for the reborn prophecy to actually make sense it means his last adwd chapter should have smoke, salt and the bleeding star which it doesn't but jon's has so there's that

now, re what you said wrt theon:

Theon’s chapters are full of hints

not really? he doesn't have a tie to the magical storyline beyond his connection to bran. they have hints for a lot of things but that he's AA? idt so

he has the perfect salt/smoke/stars/dragons thing at the end of ACOK, when he “dies”

okay but then I could use the same argument for saying that AA could be davos when he survives blackwater because he says he woke up in wreckage of smoke in salty water, and then stannis has equally valid arguments bc he has the shiny sword and he's in dragonstone etc and we all know it's not stannis, also an AA death at the ending of acok when the topic has barely been introduced in dany's vision is entirely too early for me to drop that bomb

his story is about destroying death, his entire narrative, with things that come from mythology and ancient literature, points to that.

his story is about overcoming trauma and abuse and not dying in the process (which is why I think the show was trash) and okay but everyone in these books has something that comes from a mythology or ancient literature, like jaime brienne and c. all have arthuriana roots same as bran, doesn't make any of them a viable AA candidate

The show is trash, but don’t you think that it’s a little weird that Theon is there at the end and then Arya comes out of nowhere and becomes AA?And what ending does she get? Exploring the unknown SEA with SHIPS? Being free and on her own? Maybe it doesn’t make sense for her because it’s not for her.

considering that maisie williams was shocked that arya was AA and she also thought it made no sense and that dnd never thought theon had his own storyline while I can agree on the fact that it fits more for him as an ending than for arya, I don't think that means it makes him AA, same as I think that they gave sansa his storyline and possibly his confrontation with ramsay and I'm not 100% convinced on the last part anyway but that just means they didn't realize theon doesn't exist for the starks' storyline, also like.. in the show everyone but c. was in WF and theon was already dead when arya did her thing and honestly idt the battle of the long night will ever go like that anyway so idt even partially show truthing is bringing us anywhere

and even if he’s not AA, he’s still clearly connected to magic and all of that, he didn’t go though so much for nothing, he didn’t take his name back for the first time in his life, his name that literally means “godly”, for nothing

I never said it was for nothing which I'll elaborate in a second and ofc he's connected to the magic storyline... because he's connected with bran's storyline and his last round of atonement has to happen through bran in the sense that since he was the one basically forcing bran out of wf now he most likely has to facilitate bringing him back or smth (surely not dying for him), but like whatever magical stuff he has going on it has to do with bran dot, not with AA which I still think he doesn't have a stricter text connection to than davos has for that matter and idt davos is AA as I think I made clear

He has something big to do, and it’s about himself, not Robb and the Starks.

never said he didn't, and I also said that I wasn't going to speculate in detail about what theon has to do because I don't think there are enough text elements to say it now but there will be when wow comes out for sure, but like again I don't want to make predictions when I don't have the elements and wrt theon's themes/possible canon ending etc I always said that he most likely isn't going to inherit the islands but that he'll do something huge before the books are done which is gonna be tied to the northern storyline and possibly to bran because he has to go specular to acok - acok is his downfall, adwd is 'I'll find myself again', wow+ados have to be what would theon do if he decides his own thing while being his own person, or recycling my old THEON HAS HEGELIAN THEMES IN HIS STORYLINE acok = thesis, adwd = antithesis, wow+ados = synthesis so obviously he has something huge in the plans.... I just don't think it means he's AA

And he’s also so clearly connected to the politics of the north and of the iron islands, a villain was literally created for him, so I don’t understand how can you say he’s not really important and all he’s got left to do is retire in a house and be sad

aaand here we get to the point which is that... I never said that? I honestly never said that? I said he has to overcome his trauma and live and thrive and be happy after that. if he retires in a house at the end of ados after he does whatever he has to do in the main plot it's going to be because it's what he wants to do and most likely he and jeyne are going to be adorbs while doing it together or smth or if he goes back to the islands and advises asha then he's going to be happy doing that too, but like... the entire point of theon's sl is that he overcomes that horrendous abuse while not being a perfect good victim™ throughout and still be happy after and gain his redemption? that's what I always said. I never said that now he can just retire and be sad. trauma recovery is becoming happy after getting over your trauma. not being sad. and like.... sometimes not getting amazing mythological things but just being happy by yourself is actually a goal? again, grrm is a lapsed catholic. if I know that breed and I do, he doesn't think redemption and happiness are in shortage at the supermarket. and in order for theon to have narrative importance/weight/relevance he doesn't have to do magical mythological IMPORTANT™ things (even if I think he does have something cooked up as I said above), but like the entire point of his sl is the trauma recovery. he's there for that. that's literally his point in the plot and the fact that grrm created a villain for him means that he thinks it's an important thing to explore.

also I personally think that theon's arc is the best written thing in those books so like I don't want to undermine its importance, I just don't think that in order to be important™ then theon has to be dragged kicking and screaming into main fiver territory because there isn't the need.

. Of course he has a lot of trauma and that’s important, but I don’t like how people reduce him to that and act like just because those things happened, he can’t do anything else

I don't like that either esp. when coming from dnd who didn't even let him have it fully, but: and when did I ever do it? I never said that theon is only his trauma. my standing opinion wrt theon is that he's grrm's best written/constructed character (along with jaime) and his most innovative one (jaime following but theon wins it) because theon deconstructs the backstabber trope which I already went on about but:

again usually ppl who backstab the good protagonist™ get caught and punished and you never hear their pov

theon has all the povs

he's the main char in that storyline not robb

he has entirely understandable reasons that ppl decided aren't sympathetic just bc they don't want to admit that in his position they'd have done the same thing

the audience hates him for having contributed to robb's downfall but then he gets a comeuppance that's completely not what anyone would deserve for that and he gets the spotlight/the sympathy again

he gets narrative redemption saving jeyne so you can see he's not an asshole at all

has to get through horrific abuse for his entire life not just with ramsay, he's not a good victim™ but he's still written in a way that makes you want to root for him and at the end he actually comes through so you want him to keep on succeeding

which is smth that with the backstabber trope never happens

now the thing is that theon's there bc a) identity issues b) trauma recovery storylines that then get tied to bran's main one but like idg why just having the recovery storyline would make him lesser - saying he's not a main fiver doesn't mean he's not important, it means he's not a MAIN™ character... which in asoiaf doesn't matter bc even ppl without povs are important to the narration and are there to drive a point (see sandor and stannis), and I don't see why saying that the most important part of his sl/the one grrm wants to stick with the readers is the survivor part of it rather than whichever heavy magic related plot thing he has to play in the future means undermining his importance. and while I think he has that role, idt it's the most important one he has bc being a survivor is what sells his storyline/the entire arc of his character.

then if come wow I'm wrong I'll be like okay I fucked up, but: honestly, imvho there is no way that azor ahai is not jon snow, the fact that collectively as a fandom we think it's obvious doesn't mean people in westeros do, each single point of evidence is at jon and if occam's razor is a thing then it's jon and that's okay because as deconstructed chosen one as he is, jon is still the protagonist of these books and regarding the prophecy above, it makes a lot more sense that this series is titled a song of jon snow and not a song of theon greyjoy and I say this as someone who vastly prefers theon as a character. also, if smth is well-written, readers should see it coming, so the fact that jon is AA isn't predictable if it's true, it's grrm.... knowing how to write a book and plant his hints because if everyone guessed right then if he makes it suddenly someone else bc jon is too predictable then it's dnd making it arya bc SURPRISE WE NEEDED YOU TO GO LIKE WTF HAS JUST HAPPENED INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE NARRATION TO ITS NATURAL CONCLUSION, not 'it's too predictable' or the audience red herring the way jaime being the valonqar is an audience red herring. jon being AA should be absolutely obvious for the reader who paid attention and a total surprise for the other characters in the narration, the audience red herring is more dany than anyone else imvho and I'm dying on that hill for now, thanks for coming to my ted talk but like I don't see how it's anyone but jon personally X°D

[yeniayofnymeria]

Answers for Jonerys

The arguments put forward for the X theory are level by level. Level 1 arguments often contain the strongest sign. Second level arguments support level 1, but alone have only "thought-provoking" effects. Third level arguments, on their own, have no effect, and are additional arguments that support level 1 and 2.

> Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars. A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly. A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness… . mother of dragons, bride of fire …

The strongest argument naturally ranks first. In fact, the whole theory is based on this argument.  There are two problems with this argument. 

The first problem is that this is the only level 1 argument. No other level 1 argument was presented, whereas a strong theory must have more than one level 1 argument. (It is not completely necessary, though.)

The second problem is the misinterpretation of this quote.

We need to understand what a shipper theory is. Both sides have to fall in love with each other, have a relationship together, and something (even if it doesn't end with a happy ending) at the end of the day.

For example, one-sided love or forced coexistence can never be a shipper theory. Or something like a one-night romance. (An example is Arya and Gendry on the show. This is not a ship.)

Let's go back to the argument. When interpreting this argument, Jonerys fandoms overlook a fact.  

Dany is warned by the Undying Ones. They told her that some events would happen and that it would be her disaster. Dany didn't understand the jigsaw words. So Dany asked them to explain and show her and they did.

This vision is an image shown to explain those disasters. To show Dany things and people that will hurt in the future ... The blue flower on the ice is Jon Snow. This flower emits sweet scent into the air. This is not a "love" sign, but a "death" sign. In books, the word "sweet" appears to be a sign of death in weight (or to face death). In addition, the word sweet and death are used side by side. So we need to pay attention to the places where this word is used.

For example, Sweet Raff, nicknamed "sweet", shows that GRRM sentenced this person to death. He died in his Mercy POV. Dany remembers Sir Willem smelling "sweet" when he was on his death bed. (Sickness)+dead=sweet We see that later. Bran's fall. Before fall he felt sweet pain in his body and also he used "sweet peach" word and he almost died, he was in coma. Who gave poison to Jon Arryn? "A sweet old friend."(Lysa and LF). Varys calls Lancel as "sweet boy" And Tyrion too in second book. He almost died in Battle of Blackwater and he may die in the future. Dany's wine was described as "sweet" The wine was poisonous. Drogo's wound smeel "sweet" He died. Jorah even gave Dany a sweet peach. Just like the Renly and Stannis scene (both brothers are dead, will die) (These are just a few examples, more dozens. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/cr8me0/a_death_mark_in_asoiaf_sweet_spoiler_main/ )

If we pack it all up, Jon Snow will have a direct or indirect stake in Dany's death in the future. So, Jon Snow = dead for Dany.

No one can draw ship theory from such a fate.

> These quotes make a subtle connection between Dany and Val. Jon as we know is very attracted to Val. He first describes Val’s hair as pale silver; Dany of course has pale silver hair. In fact it is one of the most distinguishing features about her. So the connection here is that Val is a substitute for Dany. Also, note that the moon is mention, which as we know is strongly connected symbolically to Dany throughout the series, ex. “Moon of my Life”.

Val's hair is blond. Just once looked like silver hair because of moon. Okay, this is a second level argument. Available.

Dany's contact with the moon covers her relationship with Drogo only in book 1. No one except Drogo calls him "my moon" and has no reference to the moon in the future. So we cannot say that there is a "very strong" moon reference. Ned also calls Arya "the moon" in the first book. By showing this; Can we say Arya = Moon? No, this alone cannot be used. However, for 5 books, Arya has many moon references, unlike Dany. (https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/eo3ghb/arya_stark_and_braavos_moon_and_water_spoiler/ )

This alone does not matter. The word moon shows signs similar to death as the word "sweet".Even though it does not cover all the words of the moon, there has been a death many times before or after the moon appears. Moon Door is a dead place, the moon and moonlight are mentioned all over the place in AGOT’s prologue. The Others appear after a half-moon rises, and there are multiple references to the moonlight reflecting off the Other’s blade. There is a moon icon all over the FM house, even at the door. FM = death. Braavos is a moon city from the beginning. They are enemy of Valyria and dragon lords, and probably all Braavos played a role in the Doom of Valyria (with FM) So Drogo called Dany all the time “my moon” and Dany killed him with a pillow.

That's why it's hard to use the Val and Jon scene for Dany and Jon. At least we can't use it for Jonerys.

What does the moon and sweet weather mean for Val? Death. Twice a death mark. (Jon smelled sweet in book 5 before he died.)

> In these quotes we find a connection between a dream lover of Dany and Jon Snow. In her dream/vision Dany’s lover is a comely young man whose face is hidden in shadows. Jon is described by Ygritte as having a sweet face (comely) and in the two additional quotes below we see Jon describe himself as being in the shadows and we see Mel describe his face as hidden in shadows. These descriptions associate the young lover Dany sees with Jon Snow.

Maybe it's available but I'm not so sure. This sound a bit like a pushing.

The word dream used in the quote of Dany is not a dream seen asleep. This word is a dream used to imagine. Something you do consciously while awake. Here, Dany naturally (awake) dreams of a younger and handsome man for herself. Jorah is old and ugly for him. The word shadow comes naturally from Dany not thinking about a particular man. Because there is no type of man she desires around. Already later she met Daario and found the man she desired. That shade now has a face, and Dany fell in love with him. She constantly thinks about him, and we even see Dany thinking about him in her last POV. (Just like Jon thinks about Arya and Rhaegar thinks about Lyanna. ;) )

> Although the timeline is unclear, Jon was stabbed and presumably killed within the same time that Dany found herself alone in the Dothraki sea. Dany hearing the wolf howl could be the author making a connection between Jon’s death and how Dany would feel about it.

>If Dany knew who Jon was to her, his death would be incredibly sad but most importantly it would be lonely. Jon of course is Dany’s last living relative, although she does not know this. That this wolf howl brought such strong emotions to Dany is definitely something of interest.

Jonsa fandoms also used the same argument. Sansa heard a howl of wolf, and they interpreted it for the same thing. Which of you is correct to interpret?

I'll say it. None of you. There is one to four months between Jon's death and the scenes of these two characters. Another important detail is that in the scene where Jon is dead, the Ghost is not howling in any way and making a sad voice.

In the second book, Jon has the Bran scene, and the Ghost is howling sad and long. A few chapters later, Arya hears the howl of the wolf, which is described in the same words while in Harrenhall. (Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/5cw18j/spoilers_extended_something_strange_about_aryas/d9zw29r/ )

> There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper’s dogs had murdered her��brother’s son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him. “

Yes, Young Griff is probably is fake Targaryen and Rhaegar’s son is Jon. But this level 3 argument doesn't mean anything for the Jonerys ship alone.

Dany is not talking about a love subject here, but a traditional “political” Targ marriage. We also see in the same book that Rhaegar's son has a character named Aegon, and he is(was) coming to her to marry Dany. So it's all about the two character stories that Dany and we think are real Aegon ... We will not see a happy marriage anyway, as we know Dany's arc end. So this argument is invalid for Jonerys in any way. (Even if we assume that Jon is in psychology who can marry his aunt)

Most likely, all that is done is the GRRM throwing a fishing rod to us(Dany-Aegon.. or not and we can see those two can marry, maybe, i do not know. Not sure when i think about Euron, whatever).

> Here the author winks and nods at us as Jon is wishing for the very same thing Dany has, three dragons.

> “He might as well wish for another thousand men, and maybe a dragon or three.”

Yes, I smile when I read this scene. I just couldn't understand how you interpreted this for Jonerys. It's hard to say even a level 3 argument. It seems a little bit of pushing again.

Jon asked for 1000 men and then he took it, Jon also asked for 3 dragons. Maybe he will take all Dany's dragons? He's a Targaryen and probably a powerful warg. He can take it all for himself. Or as a matter of "alliance" for the danger of the Other, it is more correct to accept it as a weapon. Already, at first, Jon wanted 1000 men for defense, just as he wanted to defend all three dragons. There is no romantic reference from this.

> Finally, this pair of quotes is both a parallel and a connection between Dany and Jon. Both find themselves laying next to the person they love/are attracted to, as Jon ponders his lost of Ghost and Dany wakes from her nightmare not even the presence of these people they care about can drive the deep loneliness that they both feel.

Parallel scenes can be used as arguments. Sometimes level 2, level 3 ... However, they do not make sense on their own.

Remember, level 2 arguments are to support level 1 strong arguments, but there is no level 1 argument. You put forward one, but that is also completely misinterpretation.

Parallel scenes do not mean anything by themselves, because logically all characters have parallel scenes, life stories. Jon and Arya; Arya and Dany; Jon and Tyrion; Dany-Tyrion-Jon and Dany-Arya ... this is how it goes. For example Arya and Dany   https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/ew2z2y/ice_and_fire_two_sides_of_a_coin_spoiler_main/ and even Dany and Davos: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/gj1wnp/spoilers_extended_a_big_parallel_between_davos/ Should we call a new ship “Daverys”? :D 

Parallel scenes may be a reference, but never a FS. “You are going to marry a King...” This can be FS. “My heart sometimes like a stone...” (Cat) is a FS. Sweet and Moon signs maybe can be a FS.

If this is the case, we can produce ship theories for all characters by looking at all these parallel scenes. There are too many parallel scenes between Arya and Bran. Shall we write another incest ship theory? For example, we can make a very crazy romantic ship theory between Dany and Arya, their life stories and their psychological developments are so similar to each other .. it's almost hard not to say their fate is one. Jon and Arya have similar parallel events too. If we can say Jonerys, we can say JonArya, right? How many characters will Jon have a romantic relationship with? I hope I was able to explain what I mean?

I have read the pov of Jon and Dany many times. I could not see a FS that there would be a romantic relationship between these two. If something is going to happen between two important characters, we cannot say that GRRM does not mark it. He does that. When I read Sansa povs, many signs for SanSan are laid before me without the need for a search. Or Jonarya signs.

First of all, it is necessary to wait for an infrastructure for a love relationship. Foreshadowing sentences are a sign for events that will happen, but is there any meaning unless there is character and story development?

In his speech, Jon and Ygritte, we saw that Jon had no problem with his love affair with foster sibling if he had no blood ties. So have we seen Jon volunteer to have a relationship with his own aunt? No. He can never be comfortable with incest because he wasn't raised that way.

This could happen without Jon knowing his identity, you might think. Just like in the show ... Possible. But we know that Dany will come in the 7th book, and they will probably meet in the middle of the book at the earliest. If you especially believe that the 2nd Dance will be between Dany and Aegon, the other kind seems hard to me.

So I'm asking, when will Jon learn about his real identity? At the end of the book? It is not possible. He needs to learn either at the end of Book 6 or at the beginning of Book 7. For his other danger, Jon is the real weapon and leader ... His family history will be his strength and superiority in this war. That's why he needs to know. Lord Reed knows everything, he will warn and inform Jon about everything. So when Jon meets Dany, he will either have learned his identity or will learn soon after meeting. So it's hard to wait for Jon to have a romantic relationship with a Dany. Another issue is that when these two characters meet, there is no suitable environment and time to form a love relationship between the two. Others have come and war has begun, death is everywhere and will these two find time to fall in love? Will it be possible to develop a story in this way? How? This book is not written by D&D, so let's not expect a disgrace like the show's script.

Thank you for read(Sorry for may bad English).

[intrepid-fictioneer-7]

On Whether the Books of A Song of Ice and Fire Will Have the Same Ending As the TV Show Game of Thrones

No.

Or rather, maybe, maybe not.

Seriously, we have no actual way to tell. For years, even before Season 8, many loved to proclaim, especially smugly if said to book readers that came to dislike GoT, that the show will obviously have the real ending out before the books ever finish, because GRRM told the showrunners the details of everything and how it will end in case the show overtook the books. And so you, the one critical of the show, will have to resign yourself that you will only get to see the canonical ending through the show.

And then the post-Season 3 changes piled up way too much for the showverse looking much like the books, reassuring the readers that the show had clearly become its own thing. And then Season 7 and Season 8 rolled around, and book readers felt vindicated, while show viewers were disappointed, saddened, or angry at how yet another the most popular show on television ended so badly.

Nowadays, not many still hold the old belief, most hoping that GRRM do something different. But many others still believe the endings will be the same, if only not with joy but with resignation this time.

After all, say some, didn't Isaac Hempstead Wright just confirm King Bran was a future plot development that GRRM told D&D? Making it one of the 3 twists GRRM told D&D (“three holy sh— moments” to quote them) that will definitely make it into the books, the other being Shireen's burning and Hodor's origin? Meaning many if not most things from the show's final season and ending will end up in the books?

I personally don't think so. Of course, the exact same ending has always been an unbelievable hyperbole, but even thinking most major plot points will be the same has me in doubts. As said earlier, a lot of storylines have been completely changed to the point that they are unrecognizable. Sansa's for example is vastly different from her show counterpart's due to taking another character's role and removing the central elements of her Vale storyline (notably Harry the Heir). The plotline of Aegon and the Golden Company has been completely cut when it would necessarily affect many major and minor characters. Arianne was cut and the Dorne storylines were butchered beyond recognition. The show created the character of the Night King.

So much has changed between the two, stating that the endings will share similar beats would be the same as saying the MCU's Infinity War/Endgame duology/pseudo-finale is the same ending as the ending to the Marvel comics' Infinity Gauntlet storyline simply because in both the Snap is undone. Which is ridiculous: both worlds have changed far too much for one to simply be a copy-paste of the other anymore.

The show and the books have become two completely separate universes, a "Westeros 1" and a "Westeros 2", as Bryan Cogman put it.

But what also makes me doubt are the dubious statements on the ending. So I have compiled many quotes on the ending of the series, from GRRM and D&D, to show just how not so clear-cut it is.

It should be noted that, as far as I can see, only Benioff really implied the ending would be the same:

Luckily, we’ve been talking about this with George for a long time, ever since we saw this could happen, and we know where things are heading. And so we’ll eventually, basically, meet up at pretty much the same place where George is going; there might be a few deviations along the route, but we’re heading towards the same destination. I kind of wish that there were some things we didn’t have to spoil, but we’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. The show must go on […] and that’s what we’re going to do. I think the thing that's kind of fun for George is the idea that he can still have surprises for people even once they've watched the show through to the conclusion. There are certain things that are going to happen in the books that are different in the show, and I think people who love the show and want more—want to know more about the characters, want to know more about the different characters who might not have made the cut for the show—will be able to turn to the books. So that's where we stand.

—David Benioff (x)

And even then there are caveats about there being differences.

There is even more circumspection about the two endings in other interviews:

You’re now at a point where you’ve caught up with the books. What does that mean for the future? Benioff: [...] We’ve had a lot of conversations with George, and he makes a lot of stuff up as he’s writing it. Even while we talk to him about the ending, it doesn’t mean that that ending that he has currently conceived is going to be the ending when he eventually writes it. Weiss: It’s like looking at a landscape and saying, “OK, there’s a mountain over there, and I know that I’m getting to that mountain.” There’s an event that’s going to happen, and I know that I’m moving in the general direction of that event, but what’s between where I’m standing now and that thing off on the horizon, I’m not totally sure. I’ll know when I get there, and then I’ll see what the terrain looks like around me and I’ll choose my path once I get closer to it. He figures a lot of this stuff as he goes. He always says he’s a gardener, not an architect.

(x)

Benioff and Weiss always knew this would happen. So they met with the novelist in 2013, between Seasons 2 and 3, to sketch out what Martin calls “the ultimate developments” after the books and show diverge. The upshot, they say, is that the two can coexist. “Certain things that we learned from George way back then are going to happen on the show, but certain things won’t,” says Benioff. “And there’s certain things where George didn’t know what was going to happen, so we’re going to find them out for the first time too.”

(x)

From George himself, I have only ever seen more nuanced and ambiguous statements about the books' ending vs. the show's:

Let me reiterate what I have said before. How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have? Three, in the novel. One, in the movie. None, in real life: she was a fictional character, she never existed. The show is the show, the books are the books; two different tellings of the same story. There have been differences between the novels and the television show since the first episode of season one. And for just as long, I have been talking about the butterfly effect. Small changes lead to larger changes lead to huge changes. HBO is more than forty hours into the impossible and demanding task of adapting my lengthy (extremely) and complex (exceedingly) novels, with their layers of plots and subplots, their twists and contradictions and unreliable narrators, viewpoint shifts and ambiguities, and a cast of characters in the hundreds. There has seldom been any TV series as faithful to its source material, by and large (if you doubt that, talk to the Harry Dresden fans, or readers of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, or the fans of the original WALKING DEAD comic books)... but the longer the show goes on, the bigger the butterflies become. And now we have reached the point where the beat of butterfly wings is stirring up storms, like the one presently engulfing my email. Prose and television have different strengths, different weaknesses, different requirements. David and Dan and Bryan and HBO are trying to make the best television series that they can. And over here I am trying to write the best novels that I can. And yes, more and more, they differ. Two roads diverging in the dark of the woods, I suppose... but all of us are still intending that at the end we will arrive at the same place. In the meantime, we hope that the readers and viewers both enjoy the journey. Or journeys, as the case may be. Sometimes butterflies grow into dragons.

—GRRM (x)

So when you ask me, "will the show spoil the books," all I can do is say, "yes and no," and mumble once again about the butterfly effect. Those pretty little butterflies have grown into mighty dragons. Some of the 'spoilers' you may encounter in season six may not be spoilers at all... because the show and the books have diverged, and will continue to do so. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL FIVE SEASONS AND READ ALL FIVE BOOKS, STOP HERE! Just consider. Mago, Irri, Rakharo, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Pyat Pree, Pyp, Grenn, Ser Barristan Selmy, Queen Selyse, Princess Shireen, Princess Myrcella, Mance Rayder, and King Stannis are all dead in the show, alive in the books. Some of them will die in the books as well, yes... but not all of them, and some may die at different times in different ways. Balon Greyjoy, on the flip side, is dead in the books, alive on the show. His brothers Euron Crow's Eye and Victarion have not yet been introduced (will they appear? I ain't saying). Meanwhile Jhiqui, Aggo, Jhogo, Jeyne Poole, Dalla (and her child) and her sister Val, Princess Arianne Martell, Prince Quentyn Martell, Willas Tyrell, Ser Garlan the Gallant, Lord Wyman Manderly, the Shavepate, the Green Grace, Brown Ben Plumm, the Tattered Prince, Pretty Meris, Bloodbeard, Griff and Young Griff, and many more have never been part of the show, yet remain characters in the books. Several are viewpoint characters, and even those who are not may have significant roles in the story to come in THE WINDS OF WINTER and A DREAM OF SPRING.

GAME OF THRONES is the most popular television series in the world right now. The most pirated as well. It just won a record number of Emmy Awards, including the ultimate prize, for the best drama on television. It's an incredible production with an incredible cast and crew.

WINDS OF WINTER should be pretty good too, when it comes out. As good as I can make it, anyway. Which is a long way of saying, "How may children did Scarlett O'Hara have?" Enjoy the show. Enjoy the books. 

—GRRM (x)

WINDS will be different in some ways, but will parallel the show in others. At this point, there are probably a dozen characters who are dead on the show but alive in the books, so it would be impossible for the two to remain the same. (Also, of course, there are characters in the books who have never even existed on the show, like Victarion Greyjoy, Jon Connington, Penny, Arianne Martell... )

—GRRM (x)

The showrunners note that they’re not entirely sure of Martin’s future storylines anyway (“George discovers a lot of stuff while he’s writing,” Benioff says). But more surprising is that Martin is likewise somewhat in the dark on the show’s ending. “I haven’t read the [final-season] scripts and haven’t been able to visit the set because I’ve been working on Winds,” Martin reveals. “I know some of the things. But there’s a lot of minor-character [arcs] they’ll be coming up with on their own. And, of course, they passed me several years ago. There may be important discrepancies.”

(x)

Benioff and Weiss had to carve their own course for the past couple of seasons, after outpacing Martin’s writing. “I’ve been so slow with these books,” Martin says, with palpable pain. “The major points of the ending will be things I told them five or six years ago. But there may also be changes, and there’ll be a lot added.”

(x)

Anderson Cooper: When it clear they were catching up, you told them over-- a kind of an overarching future of where you saw the-- the last two books going in terms of plot? George R.R. Martin: Yes. And, you know, the major beats. I mean, obviously, we're talking here about a-- several days of story conferences taking place in my home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. But there's no way to get in all the detail, all the minor characters, all the secondary characters. The series has-- has-- been extremely faithful, compared to 97 percent of all television and movie adaptations of literary properties. But it's not completely faithful. And-- and it can't be. Otherwise, it would have to run another five seasons. Anderson Cooper: And in essence, what's-- by the time the series is finished and your other two books are finished, y-- essentially it's gonna be two se-- different-- George R.R. Martin: Yeah. Anderson Cooper: Two different versions. George R.R. Martin: But, you know, I think that's true of every adaptation. We got all these Spidermen. Is it Stan Lee's Spiderman from the comic books? They're-- they're similar, but they're also different. Things happen to one that never happen to the other. Things are resolved differently. The girlfriends are shuffled and reshuffled. The-- the primary beats are there, the character is there, but it's a question of-- what are the choices you make to tell the story, which are partially dictated by your-- your medium. Anderson Cooper: I mean, do you worry that some fans will have Dan and David's ending in-- in their mind's eye? Would that-- would that-- you know, would that be a disappointment to you? George R.R. Martin: I don't think Dan and Dave's ending is gonna be that different from my ending because of the conversations we-- we did have. But they may be on certain secondary characters, there may be big differences. And, yeah, some of the people will have that. There will be a debate, I'm sure. I think a lot of people, who-- say, "Oh, Dan and Dave's ending is better than the one George gave us. It's a good thing they changed it." And there will be a lot of people who say, "No. Dan and Dave got it wrong. George's ending is better." And they will all fight on the internet. And there will be debate. And-- that's fine. I mean, it-- you know, the worst thing for any work of art, be it a movie or a book is to be ignored. (LAUGH)

(x)

How will it all end? I hear people asking. The same ending as the show? Different? Well… yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. I am working in a very different medium than David and Dan, never forget. They had six hours for this final season. I expect these last two books of mine will fill 3000 manuscript pages between them before I’m done… and if more pages and chapters and scenes are needed, I’ll add them. And of course the butterfly effect will be at work as well; those of you who follow this Not A Blog will know that I’ve been talking about that since season one. There are characters who never made it onto the screen at all, and others who died in the show but still live in the books… so if nothing else, the readers will learn what happened to Jeyne Poole, Lady Stoneheart, Penny and her pig, Skahaz Shavepate, Arianne Martell, Darkstar, Victarion Greyjoy, Ser Garlan the Gallant, Aegon VI, and a myriad of other characters both great and small that viewers of the show never had the chance to meet. And yes, there will be unicorns… of a sort… Book or show, which will be the “real” ending? It’s a silly question. How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have? How about this? I’ll write it. You read it. Then everyone can make up their own mind, and argue about it on the internet.

—GRRM (x)

There is a general sense that things may be subject to change and that the ending, besides certain points, is not set in stone. Definitely not the certain "same ending" some say it will be.

We will also recall that, as mentioned in some of the quotes above, in an interview with The Guardian in 2011, GRRM described himself as a "gardener" type of writer who works out the story as he goes, as opposed to an "architect," who plots out all the details ahead of time, a characteristic which may also play out in changes in the ending notes he gave D&D ("George discovers a lot of stuff while he’s writing"). We can see this in how, for example, he came up recently with a big twist about a non-show character while writing Winds.

So I hope, in having written all this, that I have given some hope to the most pessimistic about the series' end, because I have seen many, especially in light of how the show wrote Daenerys, decide to repudiate the book series and accuse GRRM of what D&D did. While I want to make clear that I don't think GRRM is flawless, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt based on his strong writing throughout the books series, so that at the very least he be judged on his own merits and own faults whenever Winds (tentatively 2020?) and Dream come out. I urge people to not conflate GRRM and D&D.

And most importantly:

Q: "Early on, one critic described the TV series as bleak and embodying a nihilistic worldview, another bemoaned its “lack of moral signposts.” Have you ever worried that there’s some validity to that criticism?"

GRRM: "No. That particular criticism is completely invalid. Actually, I think it’s moronic. My worldview is anything but nihilistic."

(x)

The number one question people ask me about the series is whether I think everyone will lose—whether it will end in some horrible apocalypse. I know you can’t speak to that specifically, but as a revisionist of epic fantasy—
 GRRM: I haven’t written the ending yet, so I don’t know, but no. That’s certainly not my intent. I’ve said before that the tone of the ending that I’m going for is bittersweet. I mean, it’s no secret that Tolkien has been a huge influence on me, and I love the way he ended Lord of the Rings. It ends with victory, but it’s a bittersweet victory. Frodo is never whole again, and he goes away to the Undying Lands, and the other people live their lives. And the scouring of the Shire—brilliant piece of work, which I didn’t understand when I was 13 years old: “Why is this here? The story’s over?” But every time I read it I understand the brilliance of that segment more and more. All I can say is that’s the kind of tone I will be aiming for. Whether I achieve it or not, that will be up to people like you and my readers to judge.

[...]

I think you need to have some hope…we all yearn for happy endings in a sense. Myself, I’m attracted to the bittersweet ending. People ask me how Game of Thrones is gonna end, and I’m not gonna tell them … but I always say to expect something bittersweet in the end,” he said. “You can’t just fulfill a quest and then pretend life is perfect.

(x)

I urge my readers to have some hope. I know I will.

[tomakeitbeautifultolive]

Hi, I first heard of N+A=D from your page. Ever since then I was wandering through internet to find more evidence on this theory. But the only thing I cannot digest is the lack of any concern in Ned's PoV. Honestly the only way it could've worked is with Ned not knowing about Ashara's child. Maybe Ashara was angry with him , or she wanted the best for him and spare hum the pain, either way she asked her family to keep the existence of the child's alive status a secret.Maybe that's (1)

(2) why Dany was sent away. Because Ashara wanted to keep her knowledge away from Ned. It's not you or me we are talking about here, it's Ned Stark the most honourable man in the entire solar system! In any way I can't possibly imagine any other scenario in which Ned doesn't even think about his former love and child that is alive. What do you think???

___________________________________________________

Hello! Thanks so much for the question! I definitely lean "Ned has no idea" - and that it's actually Jon Arryn who has been working behind the scenes with Ashara on his (unwitting) behalf.

While there are a few fishy things about Ned (like his weird connection to the Searlord of Braavos) that raise some questions, based on what we get in his POV - it's safest to assume that if he thought he was the father of Ashara's child, that that child died in stillbirth and Ashara, in suicide. Which is exactly why, over a decade later, he's not actively thinking of either in his POVs (I like to use myself as an example - my first boyfriend died in a car accident a little over a decade ago. I almost never think of him. So to me, it's not weird that Ned isn't dwelling on the death of his first love because he has a wife and children and the whole North and now all of the Seven Kingdoms to concern himself with).

Even people who don't believe this theory tend to speculate whether or not Ashara faked her death. Many people assume she is Septa Mordane. To which I always wonder... but why? For a casual reader who believes Ashara faked her death, what is the motivation there?

Meanwhile, I have my theory: Ashara faked her death and the death of her child to protect not just the man she loved, but the 'prince that was promised', Jon. After all, the Daynes have a heavy hand in Jon's birth, as detailed with Arthur guarding the prince and Starfall lending their milkmaid. As a lady of the court under Elia Martell and in close proximity to Rhaella, with Jon Arryn's help, it would be quite easy to fabricate a different origin story for the baby girl who donned very prominent Dayne features - which so happen to look Targaryen.

And before I get any retort about what a terrible idea that was? Yes, I get that Daenerys and Viserys ended up "on the run" at some point - but that was never the plan. Many, many children across Westeros are fostered with other families (Ned and his brother Brandon included, might I add). Daenerys was always meant to live a nice, safe, relatively cushioned life until she made it back to Dorne to wed Quentyn Martell (the pact signed by Oberyn, himself - who, based on context clues, happens to be a friend to Ashara). While Robert would’ve loved the death of the Targaryen children, it was Jon Arryn who protected them for years and years, as confirmed by Renly. So long as Jon Arryn lived, Daenerys was safe.

I'm absolutely willing to bet that prior to Brandon's death, many things were supposed to unfold differently. Such as Ned marrying Ashara. But the Rebellion happened, and Ned was forced to marry his brother's intended upon his death.

While readers have the impression that Ned is 'the most honorable man in the solar system', remember that those across Westeros had seemingly no problem buying these rumors about Ned and Ashara (Harwin, Cersei, etc) as well as his having fathered a bastard (Jon). (I mean, Cersei even tried to seduce Ned at one point!). To me, Ned is one of the most misunderstood characters in the series! Here’s why:

Honor has two different meanings, really. For modern readers, we relate it to integrity and morality, but from what I can glean from Westerosi expectations, it's more about prestige and respect, honoring one's king or duty first, even above what's morally right (that's why you see so many characters, such as the Cleganes, rewarded with gold and prestige for heinous, immoral acts).

Consider Ned's honor again while reading this quote from Aemon to Jon:

Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?

Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said… ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."

Jon hesitates. He wants to believe his father's honor is unimpeachable. Yet what he says is that Eddard would do what was right - and that's true. Ned did not choose the honorable path when he chose to save Jon's life that day - he did what was right:

Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love?

This hint is twofold - that there isn’t anything special about Ned, he’s subject to the same emotions as any man, especially when it comes to a certain woman’s love... and that there is a clear difference between honor and love, that they do not go hand-in-hand as many readers/viewers assume.

What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms... or the memory of a brother's smile?

Duty would've been to Ned’s king - handing over his nephew upon his discovery. Duty would've been telling his wife the truth. Instead, the most important thing to Ned - even above his own life - was the love and memory of his sister. Which is why, even if he's completely oblivious to his bastard daughter's identity - he cannot stomach the death of another innocent child at the hands of his king. He knows what will happen to Jon if ever the secret comes out, because he had witnessed it with Aegon and Rhaenys. Likewise, the life of one innocent child - Daenerys - means more to him than does his honor, which is why he quits his position as Hand. Ned is not the pinnacle of honor nor has he ever been, but he strives to be the pinnacle of morality and justice, often at the cost of his honor and respect.

I'll leave you with this, as I might've just had a tiny little revelation. When first asked about whether or not the books would end differently from the show, GRRM decides to give us a strange comparison:

"Book or show, which will be the 'real' ending? It's a silly question. How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have?"

This subtle suggestion might actually insinuate something huge - that perhaps a certain character will have more children in the books than their show counterpart... 🤔 Such an insignificant detail in one series could result in shockwaves in another.

Combining that with GRRM's latest comments about the books having a different ending, it's certainly food for thought! And, assuming Daenerys is Ned's bastard daughter, this force of power that uses her moral compass to guide her all the way back home to save the world... what would the perfect ending be for such a character? Becoming queen or going mad? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Considering there has been much more foreshadowing for Daenerys pining for a simple life and for love rather than queenship or madness (🙄)... I still say her perfect ending is to do what her father, in this case, never could - choosing love over honor.

Thanks again for the question, it’s been my honor to indulge in my favorite theory once again! 🌠🐺

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

How can you like daenerys

Quite a lot of reasons, actually. For the sake of my time, I’ll limit my answer to ten of them.

1. She tolerates disrespect in her own court.

“We are all dead, then. You gave us death, not freedom.” Ghael leapt to his feet and spat into her face. 

Strong Belwas seized him by the shoulder and slammed him down onto the marble so hard that Dany heard Ghae’s teeth crack. The Shavepate would have done worse, but she stopped him.

“Enough,” she said, dabbing at her cheek with the end of her tokar. “No one has ever died from spittle. Take him away.”

How many leaders and rulers in ASOIAF would have tolerated being spat on in their own court? Not many, I’m sure. 

2. She’s witty.

“Little girl, another woman once tried to geld me with her teeth. She has no teeth now, but my sword is as long and thick as ever. Shall I take it out and show you?”

“No need. After my eunuchs cut it off, I can examine it at my leisure.”

3. She’s a creative and resourceful ruler, despite having never received any sort of training, unlike the majority of other leaders.

“Not a hole. A ditch, to bring water from the river to the fields. We mean to plant beans. The beanfields must have water.”

Ser Barristan remained. “Our stores are ample for the moment,” he reminded her, “and Your Grace has planted beans and grapes and wheat. Your Dothraki have harried the slavers from the hills and struck the shackles from their slaves. They are planting too, and will be bringing their crops to Meereen to market. And you will have the friendship of Lhazar.”

4. One of, if not the most, compassionate ruler in ASOIAF who is determined to take care of her people, despite what her advisors might say.

“Ser Jorah, you say we have no food left. If I march west, how can I feed my freedmen?”

“You can’t. I am sorry, Khaleesi. They must feed themselves or starve. Many and more will die along the march, yes. That will be hard, but there is no way to save them. We need to put this scorched earth well behind us.”

Dany had left a trail of corpses behind her when she crossed the red waste. It was a sight she never meant to see again. “No,” she said. “I will not march my people off to die.” My children. 

It was time, though. A girl might spend her life at play, but she was a woman grown, a queen, a wife, a mother to thousands. Her children had need of her.

Daenerys considers the people under her rule her children. That says enough about her compassion for others.

5. She’s pragmatic and a great military strategist, again despite having no formal training in these matters.

“Ser Jorah Mormont scowled. “You told the sellswords-”

“-that I wanted their answers on the morrow. I made no promises about tonight. The Stormcrows will be arguing about my offer. The Second Sons will be drunk on the wine I gave Mero. And the Yunkai’i believe they have three days. We will take them under cover of this darkness.”

“They will have scouts watching for us.”

“And in the dark, they will see hundreds of campfires burning,” said Dany. “If they see anything at all.”

“Khaleesi,” said Jhogo, “I will deal with these scouts. They are no riders, only slavers on horses.”

“Just so,” she agreed. “I think we should attack from three sides. Grey Worm, your Unsullied shall strike at them from right and left, while my kos lead my horse in wedge for a thrust through their center. Slave soldiers will never stand before mounted Dothraki.” She smiled. “To be sure, I am only a young girl and know little of war. What do you think, my lords?”

The following is describing Daenerys’ conquest of Meereen. Meereen’s walls have no weak points, the Harpies heads can squirt hot oil, and all the trees were burned by the slavers to prevent Daenerys from being able to build weapons. Daenerys doesn’t want to order the Unsullied to assault the wall directly because it would lead to pointless loss of their lives (courtesy of the boiling oil from the Harpies heads). So instead:

“Aegon the Conqueror had won Westeros with three dragons, but she had taken Meereen with sewer rats and a wooden cock, in less than a day. Poor Groleo. He still grieved for his ship, she knew. If a war galley could ram another ship, why not a gate? That had been her thought when she commanded the captains to drive their ships ashore. Their masts had become her battering rams, and swarms of freedmen had torn their hulls apart to build mantlets, turtles, catapults, and ladders. The sellswords had given each ram a bawdy name, and it had been the mainmast of Meraxes-formerly Joso’s Prank-that had broken the eastern gate."

6. She's willing to and makes an effort to learn, and learn she does.

Dany reined in her mare and looked across the fields, to where the Yunkish host lay athwart her path. Whitebeard had been teaching her how best to count the numbers of a foe. “Five thousand,” she said after a moment.

“A queen must listen to all,” she reminded him. “The highorn, and the low, the strong and the weak, the noble and the venal. One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be found.” She had read that in a book.

7. She’s brave. Anyone who has the balls to face a dragon with only a whip is far more courageous than a considerable number of characters. And before anyone says,“the dragons wouldn’t hurt her no matter how angry they get, she’s their mother,” yes they would. Drogon tried to kill her.

His head turned. Smoke rose between his teeth. His blood was smoking too, where it dripped upon the ground. He beat his wings again, sending up a choing storm of scarlet sand. Dany stumbled into the hot red cloud, coughing. He snapped.

“No” was all that she had time to say. No, not me, don’t you know me? The black teeth closed inches from her face. He meant to tear my head off. The sand was in her eyes. She stumbled over the pitmaster’s corpse and fell on her backside.

8. Her idea of what it means to rule is extremely idealistic, even after all the exploitation she’s suffered. By intentions alone Daenerys is already a far better candidate as ruler than most other leaders in the books.

“I was alone for a long time, Jorah. All alone but for my brother. I was such a small scared thing. Viserys should have protected me, but instead he hurt me and scared me worse. He shouldn’t have done that. He wasn’t just my brother, he was my king. Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”

“Some kings make themselves, Robert did.”

“He was no true king,” Dany said scornfully. “He did no justice. Justice... that’s what kings are for.”

She would rather have drifted in the fragrant pool all day, eating iced fruit off silver trays and dreaming of a house with a red door, but a queen belongs to her people, not to herself.

She believes it’s her duty as a queen to protect her people and bring justice. In Dany’s eyes, a queen must put her people first, herself second. You’d think someone who suffered under the hand of her cruel and abusive older brother, who she also considers her king, and then exploited and sold like an animal by him to a barbarian tribe, would make a thirteen-year-old girl quite jaded about rulers. But Daenerys still wholeheartedly believes that rulers should be selfless, protect their people, and bring justice, though the people who had power over her in the past did none of those things for her.

9. She’s intensely self-critical.

That morning she summoned her captains and commanders to the garden, rather than descending to the audience chamber. “Aegon the Conqueror brought fire and blood to Westeros, but afterward he gave them peace, prosperity, and justice. But all I have brought to Slaver’s Bay is death and ruin. I have been more khal than queen, smashing and plundering, then moving on.”

“You have brought freedom as well,” Missandei pointed out.

“Freedom to starve?” asked Dany sharply. “Freedom to die? Am I a dragon, or a harpy?” Am I mad? Do I have the taint?

“A dragon,” Ser Barristan said with certainty. “Meereen is not Westeros, Your Grace.”

“But how can I rule seven kingdoms if I cannot rule a single city?” He had no answer to that. Dany turned away from them, to gaze out over the city once again. “My children need time to heal and learn. My dragons need time to grow and test their wings. And I need the same. I will not let this city go the way of Astapor. I will not let the harpy of Yunkai chain up those I’ve freed all over again.” She turned back to look at their faces. I will not march.”

What sort of mother lets her children rot in darkness?

If I look back, I am doomed. Dany told herself... but how could she not look back? I should have seen it coming. Was I so blind, or did I close my eyes willfully, so I would not have to see the price of power?

Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought. Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the world? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without dragons, how could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros? I am the blood of the dragon, she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.

There is blood on my hands too, and on my heart, We are not so different, Daario and I. We are both monsters.

Bless me, Dany thought bitterly. Your city is gone to ash and bone, your people are dying all around you. I have no shelter for you, no medicine, no hope. Only stale bread and wormy meat, hard cheese, a little milk. Bless me, bless me.

Now we must keep in mind that Daenerys’ chapters are told from her POV. They are not objective by any means. The fact that she’s so self-critical in these quotes (and more) does not mean she can never be a good ruler. It’s a human thing to magnify your failures and judge yourself much more harshly than the others around you, and this is well-communicated on Dany’s POV. 

Daenerys was trying to change a system that has been in place and served as the economic foundation of Slaver’s Bay for countless years. It’s an extremely radical - even revolutionary - change. There’s not a single character that would have been able to work that situation out smoothly and without bloodshed. Yet Daenerys never takes this into consideration, she simply blames herself.

The fact that she’s so self-deprecating reveals a lot about Daenerys. For one thing, she clearly doesn’t attempt to mentally shift the blame off of herself when things go awry. This means that she’s self-aware and willing to take responsibility for her actions. Being self-critical is also something I can very much relate to, so I empathize with Daenerys here.

10. She freed slaves.

I can already hear the storm of antis crowing that she did an awful job, which is ridiculous and I dare them to do any better. When such a revolutionary change is brought about, there is simply no way it’s going to go smoothly. Like I said before, there isn’t one character in ASOIAF who would have flawlessly handled the situation Dany was in.

The “white savior” argument is also something I find odd, because slavery in ASOIAF is not race-based. Among the slaves Daenerys liberated, there were Lyseni, who are blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

I love the fact that Daenerys, despite being a queen, empathizes with the lowborn. She’s experienced the same things they have - mistreatment, fear, exploitation, to name a few - in a time that she had no say about what happened to her, like them. When she does gain power, she does her best to use it primarily to help others. 

“I will not let the harpy of Yunkai chain up those I’ve freed all over again.” She turned back to look at their faces. “I will not march.”

“Enough.” Dany slapped the table. “No one will be left to die. You are all my people.” Her dreams of home and love had blinded her. “I will not abandon Meereen to the fate of Astapor. It grieves me to say so, but Westeros must wait.”

[minmeemaw]

That was Rhaegar's dagger?It is confirmed?I hope so because that battle was weird

Hello Anon, Thanks for the ask & sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve been grappling with my disappointment with s8e3.

First of all, am a woman who isn’t misogynist and isn’t troubled by the fact that Arya Stark was the one to kill the Night King.

Her show avatar has proven herself to be very capable and I think the spar between her and Brienne in season 7 was meant to hint at it. Also, we’ve seen through various seasons in the show that every chance Arya got, she practiced her water-dancing moves. And then when she was in Bravos, she eventually learned stealth & moves that she exhibited during the fight. This book quote about her:

“Swift as a deer. Quiet as a shadow. Fear cuts deeper than swords. Quick as a snake. Calm as still water.”

isn’t unfounded and would perhaps be even more relevant to her character arc in the books. So yeah, she could well deliver the final blow to the Night King.

What troubled me the most are these questions:

1. What was the Night King about? Was he simply suicidal and wanted someone to just kill him? (I’m trying my best to not include sarcasm here but you can assume..)

2. What was Jon’s entire character arc about?

Is his destiny the Iron Throne? Yes, perhaps. But is that the most important thing about him? To gain political power & sit the Iron Throne? If so, the SHOW did a very bad job of proving him capable. They’ve shown him being a sad, unwilling person who is constantly thrust into positions of power and get killed or nearly get killed on various occasions. (I’ll stick to the show version due to REASONS)

3. Imagine what if Jon had remained dead?

- NO ONE WILL BE BOTHERED ABOUT THE ARMY OF THE DEAD.

- Daenerys will at some point return to Westeros and claim & win the Iron Throne.

- Winterfell will remain in the hands of Boltons’ and if by some miracle, the Starks win it back, they’ll bend the knee the moment they see 3 dragons and the six kingdoms marching on them. Cersei’s “no one can hold the North” was in light of the absence of dragons but Dany has 3 of them so… it’s just common sense really.

Sidenote: Dany, a monarch, is listening to snide remarks and taking so much bullshit only because of her respect(love) for Jon. She would not even be there if it weren’t for him. Also, normally, when the KING bends the knee, every twat with a tongue doesn’t get to go behind him and question the Queen whom the said King bent the knee to. I don’t know what the show is trying to convey.

- (Continuing from what if Jon wasn’t resurrected…) If Dany never went beyond the Wall, she won’t lose a dragon & it would have to be Bran’s crossing of the Wall that’ll be its downfall & not an undead dragon.

- Eventually, there would be a war and it might end up the same way. With Arya making the final kill right before everything is seemingly lost.

Also, I haven’t mentioned f(?)Aegon storyline here because even if he’s a Blackfyre, dragonseeds can ride a dragon & Dany might still find a 2nd dragon rider. Besides, I’m trying to think in the show-only-universe.

4. As for the dagger that killed the Night King, the showrunners explicitly stated that Arya hit him in the same place in his chest where the children embedded the dragonglass. First of all, how did she know where to stab him and why was there a gap in the armor (mind you, the Others’ armor has magic is not the regular steel thing, its Ice magic)? Did someone tell Arya where to hit him or was it coincidental?

Fluke of luck, I’d say!

6. Why did Theon have to die? Bran literally asked him to run to his certain death. Like… wtf?!!!

5. To top it all, D&D saying that they did it for shock value/unpredictability was a bit of a wtf moment for me. We’ve HAD 7 seasons and 2 episodes of unpredictability and now was the time for ANSWERS!!! If Bran had spoken SOMETHING instead of sitting and warging into ravens of the Raventree hill (dead tree reminded me of it lol), explained everyone’s role without giving away the ending perhaps but in a way that it would have made sense in the end, I’d be okay really. Something like, “Jon, you’re a watcher, you go watch! Arya, you be NO ONE.” I know, so lame but I didn’t get 2 years to write the scene!!!

For all these reasons and more (but that’s not the point of this ASK, I just realized), you have to forgive me for being critical of the WRITING for this episode.

Now, coming back to the actual ask - why I think the dagger was Rhaegar’s

We saw this image in s7:

The text reads:

When Aegon the conqueror forged his Seven Kingdoms, he and his descendants would often decorate their blades with dragonglass feeling a kinship with the stone. The royal fashion for dragonglass ornamentation soon spread throughout the Seven Kingdoms to those wealthy enough to afford it. Hilts and pommels were and are the most common decoration for dragonglass if too brittle to make a useful crossguard. Indeed, its very brittleness is what relegate it to the great houses and the most successful merchants.

The dagger is Valyrian steel with a dragonbone hilt (black colored) and a ruby embedded in it. Needless to say, it belonged to the Targaryens. We know of only one recent Targaryen who was all about rubies – Rhaegar Targaryen.

“Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman’s name.”

In season 7, when Littlefinger(LF) gave the dagger to Bran, he confirmed it’s the same catspaw dagger that was sent to kill Bran and so Bran should have it. And Bran passed it on to Arya.

This catspaw dagger, as you must surely remember, was taken by Catelyn to King’s Landing where LF vouched that he owned it at one point but he had lost it to Tyrion when Tyrion lost a bet against Jaime.

In books, there’s a very famous Tyrion quote (which leads me to believe in Tyrion-traitor theories)

“Whatever you may believe of me, Lady Stark, I promise you this – I never bet against my family.”

Long story short, Tyrion tried convincing Catelyn of his innocence but she wouldn’t listen and took him hostage.

There’s another Jaime chapter in books where he’s trying to discuss with Cersei who would’ve sent the assassin after Bran and then said that it “used to be” in Littlefinger’s possession but he actually lost it in a bet to Robert Baratheon.

Now before I share my views about how Robert got his hands on that dagger, we have to think how Littlefinger got his hands on that precious heirloom of the Targaryen dynasty. He just took it from the armory.

Robert didn’t really care for gold - where it came from or how it was spent as long as he had enough to support his “lifestyle” (drinking & whoring). And I believe Littlefinger has not only been stealing coins or diverting funds from the Crown, but he was stealing other tangibles assets as well.

“His last letter mentions the rebels only briefly before beseeching me to ship him some old tapestries of Robert’s.”- Cersei: (ADWD)

Here, LF had sent her a request for Robert’s “old” tapestries. OLD? Robert just died, like less than 3 years ago and Baratheons still ruled the Seven Kingdoms even if it’s just in name.

Petyr laughed. “Perhaps I shall. Or better still, to our sweet Cersei. Though I should not speak harshly of her, she is sending me some splendid tapestries. Isn’t that kind of her?”

In this context, I think “old” really meant Targaryen era tapestries that can be found lying neglected in some basement underneath the Red Keep. Which implies, most of their relics are up for taking only if one knew where to look. So, in my opinion, Littlefinger took the catspaw dagger from the royal armory at some point and gave it back to Robert in a public setting where everyone could see it exchange hands & conclude that Petyr was NOT the owner.

Finally, I think that Rhaegar Targaryen possessed the dagger on his person when he rode into the battle at the Trident. I believe it was a combat necessity to carry both- a dagger and a sword. Surely Rhaegar, the Dragon Prince would have carried his Valyrian Steel dagger with him.

As for Robert, he took it from Rhaegar as a winner’s trophy when Rhaegar fell but due to his deep-rooted scorn for Targaryens, never really cared for it afterward.

I hope this makes sense because I’m not really the one for writing metas. I’ve tried to answer your question but I’m too impatient. Lol Lemme know if you have any follow-up questions.

[cbrownjc]

Child of Three: Princess Daenerys and the First Blackfyre Rebellion

There has been talk about the Rule of Three/Child of Three narrative going on with Daenerys’ story for a bit. Per Fire and Blood we now know that there is now a Princess Daenerys who was the daughter of King Jaehaerys I and Queen Alysanne. Alysanne wanted Daenerys to be the heir, since she was the oldest (after her eldest brother Aegon died as a baby). Jaehaerys, however, wasn’t so keen on that since Daenerys was a girl, and he himself came to the throne because three female claimants (who all has stronger claim positions than he did) were passed over in favor of him. Any tension about this, however, was ended when Princess Daenerys died at the age of six; and the next two people in line for the throne after her were boys, her brothers Aemon and Baelon. 

However, I want to take a quick look at the second Daenerys in the line up, the one who - until Fire and Blood - was thought to be the only Daenerys before the current one, but also the one the current one was named after. We know some about her, thanks to the World of Ice and Fire book, but it’s particularly this quote from George R. R. Martin himself that I want to focus in on:       

Despite Daemon and Daenerys being in love, her brother the king, Daeron the Good, was more concerned with matters of state than matters of love. There had been many years of fighting with Dorne, and failure to bring them into the Seven Kingdoms while not being able to keep them from harassing the Seven Kingdoms. So he realized that where violence failed, perhaps marriage could bring an end to hostilities and so he uses his sister to make an alliance with the prince of Dorne. It's a political marriage, pure and simple, a convenient marriage to guarantee a union between Dorne and the Seven Kingdoms. And also, he prefers to give his sister to the prince of Dorne over a bastard bother with whom he'd already had a few clashes and whom too many people were looking one as a legitimate claimant to the throne or rightful king. That was the straw that broke the camel's back, and helps lead to Daemon becoming the first Blackfyre Pretender.

                                                                     ( - George R. R. Martin, 07/2012 ) 

This is a quote from George R. R. Martin about Princess Daenerys, now per Fire and Blood the second Princess Daenerys in the Targaryen Royal Family. There are some discrepancies about if Daemon Waters/Blackfyre rebelled because he was denied her given the timeline of when the first Blackfyre Rebellion happened, but I hope Fire and Blood, Volume II clears it up. And I don’t hesitate to guess that Martin might make it clear that yes, even if was something not widely spoken, or took some years to finally happen it was because Daemon was denied his Daenerys (after being promised her) that he rebelled. Because of Martin’s love for the narrative Rule of Three, especially when it comes to current Daenerys’ storyline. 

The second Daenerys lived, unlike the first Daenerys who died at the age of six. The second Daenerys might have been a Queen if she could have chosen love over duty, and Daemon had won his rebellion. But she couldn’t, and he didn’t. In having to do her duty however, she did help to bring Drone into the fold of the Seven Kingdoms, helping to unite all the kingdoms as one. And I haven’t read anything that said her political marriage ended badly for her or anything. It seem that she was more or less happy, loyal to her husband (he built the Water Gardens that are there for her), and the people of Dorne seemed to like her very much too. 

However . . . her denied love being a bastard Targaryen who was legitimized by his father and seen by many as a legit claimant to the throne, if not the rightful heir? Come on.

So this is what we have - 

Daenerys I: supposed to be Queen, dies at the age of six. 

Daenerys II: lives, denied her love, who was a bastard but made legitimate. Remains a princess, though maybe could have been a Queen under different choices and circumstances. 

Daenerys III:  . . . (Do I really have to spell this out?)

What is also interesting about all of this is that House Blackfyre, which was established by Daemon, went on to found The Golden Company. I still wonder why the show is bringing them in so late in the story. There has to be a reason, and I wonder if the above connections are why. The Golden Company are loyal to the Blackfyres, not the Targaryens and - with fake!Aegon adapted out of the show - there has to be another reason why they are showing up. 

I mean, IMO, it’s kind of a time waste/sink for them to just show up, fight for Cersei/against the AOTD and that’s it. You could have used any sellsword company just for that. The Second Sons have already been established to the audience via Darrio, it would have been easy to use them. (And bring back Darrio as well if they wanted some drama). However, Cersei hiring the sellsword company that was committed to putting a Blackfyre on the throne of Westeros? Because the first Blackfyre rebelled over a denied love? The love who the current Targaryen claimant is named after? Hmm.

Or, who knows. Maybe The Golden Company just have the Valyrian steel sword Blackfyre still in their possession secretly, and that sword is somehow needed for the endgame or whatever.     

[julibf]

Sansa and Arya will be Queens

So, I have this theory that BOTH Sansa and Arya will end this story as Queens. If we go back to book 1, George left us a foreshadowed hinting that both girls would have a very special ending in this story.

“Brandon. Yes. Brandon would know what to do. He always did. It was all meant for Brandon. You, Winterfell, everything. He was born to be a King’s Hand and a father to queens. I never asked for this cup to pass to me.”

AGOT - Catelyn

That was my first hint. This quote from the books always stayed with me. At the time I didn’t know how this could be possible, but I don’t believe George writes quotes like those just to filled up pages. I saw it as a foreshadowed for an ending.

 SANSA FORESHADOW TO BE A QUEEN.

Season 1 Episode 4 - Septa Mordane and Sansa in the Throne Room discussing Sansa’s future as queen and the future of her children.This scene was written especially for the show, it is not in the books, and it seems to foreshadow Sansa’s future. “Someday your husband will sit here and you will sit by his side.”

________________________________________________________________

"You," Ned said, kissing her lightly on the brow, "will marry a king and rule his castle, and your sons will be knights and princes and lords and, yes, perhaps even a High Septon."

Arya screwed up her face. "No," she said, "that's Sansa." She folded up her right leg and resumed her balancing. Ned sighed and left her there.

AGOT - Eddard

_______________________________________________________________

“Another lesson you should learn, if you hope to sit beside my son. Be gentle on a night like this and you’ll have treasons popping up all about you like mushrooms after a hard rain. The only way to keep your people loyal is to make certain they fear you more than they do the enemy.”

“I will remember, Your Grace,” said Sansa, though she had always heard that love was a surer route to the people’s loyalty than fear. If I am ever a queen, I’ll make them love me."

ASOS – Sansa

________________________________________________________________

“ She is good at this, he thought, as he watched her tell Lord Gyles that his cough was sounding better, compliment Elinor Tyrell on her gown, and question Jalabhar Xho about wedding customs in the Summer Isles. His cousin Ser Lancel had been brought down by Ser Kevan, the first time he’d left his sickbed since the battle. He looks ghastly. Lancel’s hair had turned white and brittle, and he was thin as a stick. Without his father beside him holding him up, he would surely have collapsed. Yet when Sansa praised his valor and said how good it was to see him getting strong again, both Lancel and Ser Kevan beamed. She would have made Joffrey a good queen and a better wife if he’d had the sense to love her. ”

ASOS - Tyrion

 _______________________________________________________________

ARYA’S FORESHADOW AS A QUEEN

The wolf symbolism.

Arya named her wolf Nymeria as a homage to Queen Nymeria who was the warrior-queen who led the Rhoynar refugees to Dorne a thousand years ago. She is an ancestor of House Martell and House Dayne, and is seen as the founder of Dorne as a unified realm under Martell rule.

Arya and FAegon parallels:

Varys description of FAegon to Kevan Lannister fits Arys to a t. Arya has lived among the small people, she was educated on both religions of Westeros, she can hunt and fish; she sees the North as her duty, not her birth right. She has was shaped by life to be a queen.

“He reads and writes, he speaks several tongues, he has studied history and law and poetry. A septa has instructed him in the mysteries of the Faith since he was old enough to understand them. He has lived with fisherfolk, worked with his hands, swum in rivers and mended nets and learned to wash his own clothes at need. He can fish and cook and bind up a wound, he knows what it is like to be hungry, to be hunted, to be afraid. Tommen has been taught that kingship is his right. Aegon knows kingship is his duty, that a king must put his people first, and live and rule for them.”

ADWD

Arya and Egg Targaryen  parallels:

Both are made to chase small animals to make them quicker; Both regularly shave their heads during certain period of their life; Both are being repeatedly mistaken for stable boys. Both live for some time among smallfolk. Both traveled around Westeros alongside a hedge Knight/soldier. Both are last in line to inherit among their sibling. Both serve as cupbearers at some point. Both are insolent and witty in their responses. Both are adventure seekers. Both are implicated in an incident of "assaulting" a member of the royal family, though Arya does the deed herself while Egg calls for Dunk's intervention.  Both were unlikely to end up as King or Queen.

 Now, as many of you may know. I believe that Jon Snow will be the King by the end of this story and will marry his cousin Sansa Stark. And I think this marriage will unite the Kingdom, bringing peace to a nation destroyed by years of wars.But I dont believe the North will ever bend the knee to the south again. The North independence has been a topic since book 1 and it is still a important issue in the story. I believe the North will be reunited with the rest of the Westeros by a marrigae alliance, like Dorne was in the past. And the kingdom will be able to keep part of their independence and the Tittles of King and Queen in the Norh, like Dorne was able to keep in the past the titles of Princes and Princesses. 

“Its the dragons that we married and the dragons are all dead.”

Catelyn XI - AGOT

_______________________________________________________________

You might have knelt, damn you. Would it have been so bloody hard to bend those stiff Stark knees of yours and let me keep a little dignity?

ASOS - Tyrion

Littlefinger season 5:

“Marrying his son to the last of the Starks, gives him more legitimacy in the North than any alliance with a hated southern House.”

This union of Aegon Targaryen and Sansa Stark, would not only reunite the realm, but also give mroe legitimacy to Jon’s claim to the Throne. Which is what happened to Elizabeth of York and Henry Tutor. 

Thats how I believe Sansa will be the Queen of Westeros and Arya will be the Queen in the North by the end of this tale. 

[queenaryastark]

George RR Martin: dragons are weapons of mass destruction, they're symbols of destruction and not of rebuilding, it's why the targaryens lost their power because their rule was built on fear and when the dragons died it only took a small spark to cause a rebellion, daenerys should read fire and blood so she can learn how not to use dragons daenerys herself: dragons plant no trees, If they are monsters than so am I Yall: i cant read suddenly i dont know

LMAO! I can’t even call that paraphrasing since this jumble of out of context gibberish completely misinterprets GRRM’s words and intent. 

First off, no one said dragons weren’t weapons of mass destruction. Them being powerful weapons is pretty obvious. Them being weapons does not erase the violence and cruelty of characters who do not have them. The mass destruction the Starks and Lannisters have wrought against the Riverlands and Westerlands was done without the aid of dragons. So was the mass destruction the Greyjoys and Boltons wrought on the North. The Tyrells were able to commit mass murder by cutting off food supplies, which led to mass starvation, which was their specific intent. 

Dragons are dangerous. Obviously. So are people, as George R. R. Martin goes out of his way to tell us in every chapter of his work. The man literally depicts Robb, Stannis, Balon, and Joffrey as equally as violent toward the common people and the land of Westeros. He even gives Dany this metaphoric image of the four of them:

“In one room, a beautiful woman sprawled naked on the floor while four little men crawled over her. They had rattish pointed faces and tiny pink hands, like the servitor who had brought her the glass of shade. One was pumping between her thighs. Another savaged her breasts, worrying at the nipples with his wet red mouth, tearing and chewing.” -- A Clash Of Kings

And that is far from the only time he frames them in an equally negative light given their level of mass destruction.

when the dragons died it only took a small spark to cause a rebellion, daenerys should read fire and blood so she can learn how not to use dragons

You think Dany should read Fire and Blood? I agree. I hope she gets a copy once she arrives to save Westeros from the warlords, opportunistic politicians, and the Others. Though you should probably try to find someone who can read it to you and explain what all the big words mean. If you look in that book, you will see that the Targaryens became extremely popular and loved. They decreased the amount of war and destruction, they streamlined the laws, they established roads, and they removed a couple of the abuses that were the norm. They were far from perfect. But in that imperfection, Dany could learn from them too. 

As for a “small spark” causing a rebellion as soon as they didn’t have dragons... *sighs* If you don’t know about a topic, that’s fine. Not everyone can be an expert on every topic. But you Sansa stans (yes I know you’re a Sansa stan and you probably have that hideous image of ST with her trademark vacant expression and that ugly ferret crown as your icon) should actually fact check yourselves before trying and failing to present yourselves as an authority on anything. The last dragon died in 153 AC. The Targaryens were overthrown in 283 AC. Even before 153 AC, the dragons that lived either weren’t under their control, were pretty young, or were deformed. In other words, they continued to rule Westeros without dragons for a significant amount of time. In that time, not only did they rule, but they were able to bring Dorne into the realm peacefully. 

Even the wars they had were far fewer than the amount of constant wars that happened while the kingdoms were separate. The Blackfyre Rebellions were sparked by Westerosi racism and xenophobia against the Dornish, as well as the greed and opportunism from the Andal/First Men supporters of the Blackfyre claimant. Notice how in those rebellions the people of Westeros supported either the Targaryens or the Targaryen blooded Blackfyres? No matter which side the lords took, they were supporting a Targaryen because they support that family. Like in real life civil wars, they just supported different members of that same royal line. It wasn’t because they feared them. They wanted their rule. They just wanted the rule of a specific claimant over another based on their own values or what they thought they could gain from a change in Targaryen leadership.

Even with the Baratheon rebellions, they were still Targaryen blooded claimants. With Lyonel Baratheon, he felt his family was insulted when an engagement between the crown prince and his daughter was broken so the prince could marry a peasant. This might seem like a “small spark”, but this would have been considered hugely offensive by the classist nobility. Note how this rebellion was resolved incredibly easily to the point where I don’t even think it warrants being labeled an actual rebellion. It seems more like it was set up for the next Baratheon rebellion since it resulted in that House gaining even more Targaryen blood than it already had. That’s the thing, the nobility wanted their children to marry Targaryens. Doesn’t sound very fearful, does it?

Robert’s Rebellion wasn’t set off by a “small spark”. The kidnapping and rape of the Lord of Winterfell’s daughter and the betrothed of the Lord of Storm’s End is not insignificant. It also didn’t set off the rebellion. The murders of multiple lords and their heirs is also not a small thing. It didn’t set off the rebellion either. What set it off was the combination of those two events with the demand for the executions of the new Lord of Winterfell and the Lord of Storm’s End. Those events taken separately are not small sparks and they certainly aren’t small when put together. It took something HUGE to make a big part of the realm turn on the Targaryens. Even still, the rebels were in the minority since most of the other regions either stayed out of the conflict waiting to see how it played out or stayed loyal to the Targaryens. If Tywin had continued to stay out of the conflict, the Rebellion could have lasted indefinitely with either side winning since the Crown’s forces outnumbered them and occupied the Stormlands. 

You also seem to miss the fact that quite a few people in Westeros are still Targaryen Loyalists and want to restore them to the throne. You even miss the fact that Robert, Joffrey, and Tommen’s claim comes from their Targaryen blood. 

So no, the Targaryen rule was not based purely on fear. They clearly retained loyalty and love without the benefit of dragons as weapons.

daenerys herself: dragons plant no trees, If they are monsters than so am I

It’s funny how you can try to quote the book while having no understanding of the passage you’re quoting. Here’s the paragraph you’re referring to:

Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought.Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the world? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without dragons, how could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros?I am the blood of the dragon, she thought.If they are monsters, so am I. -- ADWD

This takes place in Dany’s second chapter of A Dance With Dragons after she has captured and chained two of her dragons and failed to capture the third. Why is she trying to chain them? Because Drogon killed one (1) child. That’s right. Not only is Dany compensating the people for the sheep her dragons were eating. She has no tolerance for them killing innocents. The quote above is not her glorying in the destructive power of the dragons. Nor is she going around without an ounce of guilt for terrorizing, maiming, and murdering innocents the way Robb, Balon, Stannis, Joffrey, Tyrion, Cersei, and every other leader in Westeros does. That is what this passage is PROVING. Seriously, using the “If they are monsters, so am I” quote is proving that Dany has guilt over the life her dragon has taken and that she has taken steps to prevent that from happening again. Compare that to Tyrion’s complete lack of care when it comes to the mass murder his family is causing:

"A lordling down from the Trident, says your father's men burned his keep, raped his wife, and killed all his peasants."

"I believe they call that war." -- Tyrion, ACOK

While Dany is trying to preserve lives, the mass murdering leaders of Westeros see murder and rape as the norm and completely acceptable. Even the noble Robb Stark tried to move the carnage that he and Tywin were inflicting on the Riverlands into the Westerlands and was upset that his plan to do so was partly thwarted by Edmure. His issue wasn’t with the common people suffering and dying. He just wanted the suffering and dying to happen to the common people of the Westerlands (the ones who hadn’t been forced into service as arrow fodder by the Lannisters yet) instead. Yet, you’re trying to use Dany’s guilt at one (1) child being killed by her dragon as proof of...something?

As for Dany not planting trees, yes, she fears that’s something Targaryens can’t do. But the text shows that her ancestors could and did. Dany is also planting trees in ADWD and was in the process of making Vaes Tolorro bloom in ACOK before she was invited to Qarth. The Golden Company (who wants to put her and Aegon on the Iron Throne as a pair) are even upset because they think she’s only interested in planting trees in Meereen.

When analyzing a literary work you have to understand that what the characters fear and the guilt they feel are not signs of their permanent situations. They’re signs of their internal obstacles that will be overcome in their arcs. Dany fears her dragons and fears herself and fears that she won’t be able to achieve peace and positive societal growth. Its good that she fears these things because this shows she acknowledges these issues so they can be overcome. The current Westeros leadership don’t see the issue in their mass murdering, which is an issue all on it’s own. 

Its alright if this series is above your comprehension level. There are books out there for you to read that are better suited for your capabilities, like Hop on Pop or Green Eggs and Ham. It’s probably best if you stick to those.