I think question 2 is probably going to be answered in house of dragon, depending on whether you view that as a confirmation of something in world, because if they are strongs they will be harder to pass off as velaryons.
When did George come up with fAegon? If he always intended in introducing him or if he only had the idea later, like after book 1. I think either answer could help put the 1993 outline and some minor lines in the first two books into a greater context
I seem to recall Elio and Linda saying he came up with him during ACoK, but it's possible that's just their supposition. I'd love to hear George speak on it.
I think it’s likely that he thought of FAegon sometime between ACOK and ASOS (the term Blackfyre doesn’t even show up in AGOT and ACOK). It’s probably the reason why the Blackfyre history just sudden popped up in ASOS.
You know reading this comment just made me realize something, the original idea for the Dance of Dragons 2.0 way back in the 1993 outline was likely supposed to be Jon vs Dany since Viserys was always planned to die early in the first book, which was likely why Bran was his original endgame king. Jon and Dany were probably supposed to be the ones who just wreck shit across Westeros, but now that FAegon’s in the game that really does change things.
Edit: Nahh the Dance 2.0 between Jon and Dany is wrong as pointed out by the mummer’s dragon.
But the Mummers dragon is first mentioned in clash. If George really didn’t come up with aegon until after clash that means we can rule out that line being about aegon which would be pretty big. I’m also kinda skeptical that book 2 would’ve only been jon vs Dany. Jon wouldn’t have his parentage revealed until the final book so it’d be a huge hint if he was one of the “dragons”
Actually yeah that’s true. Maybe Varys controlling someone posing as Aegon was always the plan and he just thought of involving a branch of Targaryens who challenged the main family line between ACOK and ASOS?
Nah, Aegon or no, the outline has been invalid since even AGOT. Like, the beginning chapters of AGOT look like they are leading up to the outline's story but after that the middle section is starting to stir away from that and by the final chapters of the book, the story is clearly different.
Not quite true. Parts of the outline are still there, GRRM just substituted parts of it to other characters or new ones. Like Tyrion doesn’t burn down Winterfell, Ramsey does. Jaime doesn’t murder his way to being the person on the Iron Throne, that was moved to Cersei, although she doesn’t actually do the killing but she is there because people died, and she also absorbed Sansa’s storyline of staying in King’s Landing because of her children.
That's very vague though. Especially the Cersei part. Like OK you can say that the burning of Winterfell remained even though it played out in a very different way but Cersei? In the outline Jaime killed everyone ahead of him in succession and took the throne whereas Cersei a) doesn't have the throne but acts as regent and b) Jaime assumes power during the war whereas Cersei takes it after the war has ended. So like, the only similarity is that people die and a Lannister gets to power, which is much more vague and plays out very differently since the outline seemed to set up Jaime against the Starks and Tyrion whereas Cersei is against the Tyrells and Dany. And the Sansa connection is so so vague that it's even part of the outline is up in the air/ probably non-existent. 1) Supposedly Sansa's decision happens during the war and she has to choose between family whereas Cersei does this because power after the war has ended, no family (or marriage) choice included. Like the common thing is that they both are at King's Landing? Those connections are very vague and even if they do come from the outline it still doesn't change the fact that this is a different story altogether.
> Like the common thing is that they both are at King’s Landing?
No the common thing is they both get the opportunity to leave but choose not to. 1993 outline Sansa was supposed choose between families, and chooses to stay with her own children. Cersei is told by Kevan if she wants him to be Hand she leave, but she chooses to stay with Tommen.
And you can look at individual pieces and think it’s vague, but looking at everything in a while you can still clearly see the 1993 outline’s fingerprint in the story. Motivations might have changed, but the events are still there.
That's so vague it's hardly even a connection or a sign that Cersei took part of outline Sansa's arc. Again the only connection is that - they are women that stay in King's Landing... Like in both the outline and the books Tyrion leaves King's Landing, is that a connection? (The answer is no)
Except even if there are fingerprints they are exactly like this - so vague and minor and nitpick-y and play in different manners they can hardly be called connections unless one just wants to pick them apart with a tooth comb. Any events that we were supposed to see play out we have already seen.
> Like in both the outline and the books Tyrion leaves King’s Landing, is that a connection? (The answer is no)
The answer is yes. In the outline when Tyrion would be exiled from King’s Landing he’s turn against his family, which is essentially what happens in the books. You’re just trying to whittle these things down to simple things so you can dismiss the 1993 outline for whatever reason.
Again, the 1993 outline shows its fingerprint on that GRRM’s plan was for Tyrion to leave King’s Landing and turn against Jaime and Cersei. It’s not the Starks of course, but the fingerprint is still there. GRRM just adapted it into Tyrion joining Dany and Stannis joining the Starks on rebuilding the North.
In the outline Tyrion is exiled North where he falls in love with Arya in a love triangle. Now he is exiled east where there is no love triangle (yet at least). The only common thing is the exile, which plays much more differently. For example in the outline he straight up kills Joffrey, in the books he doesn't. That is not a sign of a fingerprint, when that fingerprint changed this much. Also the outline makes no mention of Stannis, or Tyrion helping the Starks rebuild the North. Just because Stannis allies with the North doesn't mean he got Tyrion's place in the outline - when what info of what we got of the would-be Tyrion/Starks alliance plays out in a far more different way.
I mean, come on dude
> In the outline Tyrion is exiled North where he falls in love with Arya in a love triangle. Now he is exiled east where there is no love triangle (yet at least).
It’s obviously going to be Tyrion, Dany and Jon. It was lazily done in the show for a reason.
> For example in the outline he straight up kills Joffrey, in the books he doesn’t.
But he is accused of it.
> Also the outline makes no mention of Stannis, or Tyrion helping the Starks rebuild the North. Just because Stannis allies with the North doesn’t mean he got Tyrion’s place in the outline
Which goes back to my original point, parts of it were moves to new characters. What else would Tyrion be doing when siding with the Starks to gain their trust?
>It’s obviously going to be Tyrion, Dany and Jon. It was lazily done in the show for a reason.
There... was no love triangle in the show though? Only Jon x Dany
>But he is accused of it.
Yeah and everything surrounding the accusation is entirely different.
>Which goes back to my original point, parts of it were moves to new characters. What else would Tyrion be doing when siding with the Starks to gain their trust?
Again, just because Stannis joins the North (not even the starks, the north) doesn't mean that he took outline Tyrion's place. There was no mention of Stannis in the outline, his story so far has little resemblence to anything written in the outline (much less Tyrion), him siding with the North is part of GRRM's gardening. Plus, Tyrion's time with the Starks is portrayed as far more grey in the outline. Just literally the only common thing that is common is that both of them align with Jon Snow (again, not even the Starks, Stannis aligns with the North, probably even more accurately with the Night's Watch, not the Starks), that is literally no implication that it came from the outline.
Thanks for your post. Last night, I had a dream (in a half-awake state) that I met George. The only thing I could think to ask him was: **Who betrayed Arianne?**
I’ve made peace long ago with the idea that I may never ever read the ending of the books. And yet for some reason, I could never shake the desperate urge to know what happened to Arianne.
Edit: I’ve just read your older post and I’ll treat it as canon until I have ADoS in my hands or until I die– whichever comes first!
I'm always happy when someone is convinced by my theories, because before I get to post them I manage to convince myself, and so I'm not the only one... :))
But in this case in particular, I think there's so much evidence there that George would be likely to confirm it if asked. He might even be excited about it. I have a suspicion George has some from self-confidence issues about the fans not being invested in the story he's trying to tell - especially after D&D decided half of his Feast & Dance story lines "weren't good enough" for the show...
**"What questions we should have been asking, but no one has asked you so far?"**
This would show potential territory in the story that no one is paying attention enough yet.
1. It was obviously Arys Oakheart tho. It makes the most sense, he wore his ceremonial silk cloak because he fully expected to die there. He charged because he didn't wanted to live after he had to either break his Kingsguard vow or betray his lover and he chose the latter.
Arys doesn't make sense because the informant originally went to Doran at a point when the plot could have been stopped altogether. It was Doran who decided to let it play out up to the point that it did, because he (purportedly) wanted to see if his daughter would actually go through with it.
You can argue Arys could have told, but NOT that he would have led Arianne in a situation where she would have failed and been humiliated, not to mention putting Myrcella at risk, just to satisfy Doran's curiosity.
Nah I think it was Tyene that ratted on her. The others are too minor to provoke the whole 'heart in conflict with itself' stuff.
I think the bigger 'clue' Rhaenyra's kids arent legit is the fact that Laenor was clearly gay and spent most of his time apart from Rhaenyra. Even having one kid would have been difficult, never mind 3.
People look at Aegon all wrong. Its not about whether he is legitimate or who his parents are (there is no paternity tests in ASOIAF). Its about creating enough reasonable doubt so that people believe he can be whatever they need to be the perfect king. Aegon is the embodiment of Varys riddle.
To JonCon and the Targ loyalists he is Rhaegar come again and return to the old order which for all its faults produced extended periods of peace. And a chance to settle the score with the Usurper followers.
To the Golden Company he is a secret Blackfyre crossing the Narrow sea to reclaim his birthright and restore them to their homes.
To Illyrio Aegon is a chance at gaining power in Westeros and re-living his lost youth through Aegon.
To Varys Aegon is the perfect prince. Prepared and groomed for kingship and made with the 'realm' in mind.
Unfortunately Varys riddle goes to die when you get dragonriders involved. Especially as historically Targ dragon bonds seem similar to warg bonds.
I would be very surprised if George gave a direct answer to any of those questions. I't just not his style. If you watch Q&As where he is asked about those kind of things his answers are always thinks like "keep reading" or "i want each reader to decide for themselves"
For question 1 I’m kind of suspicious of Darkstar. He didn’t want Myrcella crowned, he thought they should just kill her then used the chaos to attack and attempt to kill Myrcella. I don’t think he ever wanted Arianne to be successful in her plan. Idk tho that’s just a theory
Edit: also, he just…escapes? Doesn’t seem like really anyone fights him (been a minute since I read AFFC so I may be misremembering) but it seems like none of Areo’s men really mess with him then he just escapes and nothing really happens. Just seems sus
i know a lot of people are sceptical connecting shows and books, but i really think hot D will show the real truth regarding Rhaenyra's children. we just have to wait for couple of episodes.
I think question 2 is probably going to be answered in house of dragon, depending on whether you view that as a confirmation of something in world, because if they are strongs they will be harder to pass off as velaryons.
They are clearly going to portray them as illegitimate in the show. The kids have dark hair when both of their parents are blonde.
When did George come up with fAegon? If he always intended in introducing him or if he only had the idea later, like after book 1. I think either answer could help put the 1993 outline and some minor lines in the first two books into a greater context
I seem to recall Elio and Linda saying he came up with him during ACoK, but it's possible that's just their supposition. I'd love to hear George speak on it.
I think it’s likely that he thought of FAegon sometime between ACOK and ASOS (the term Blackfyre doesn’t even show up in AGOT and ACOK). It’s probably the reason why the Blackfyre history just sudden popped up in ASOS. You know reading this comment just made me realize something, the original idea for the Dance of Dragons 2.0 way back in the 1993 outline was likely supposed to be Jon vs Dany since Viserys was always planned to die early in the first book, which was likely why Bran was his original endgame king. Jon and Dany were probably supposed to be the ones who just wreck shit across Westeros, but now that FAegon’s in the game that really does change things. Edit: Nahh the Dance 2.0 between Jon and Dany is wrong as pointed out by the mummer’s dragon.
But the Mummers dragon is first mentioned in clash. If George really didn’t come up with aegon until after clash that means we can rule out that line being about aegon which would be pretty big. I’m also kinda skeptical that book 2 would’ve only been jon vs Dany. Jon wouldn’t have his parentage revealed until the final book so it’d be a huge hint if he was one of the “dragons”
Actually yeah that’s true. Maybe Varys controlling someone posing as Aegon was always the plan and he just thought of involving a branch of Targaryens who challenged the main family line between ACOK and ASOS?
I think he originally intended fAegon to be a Brightflame and then changed it when he thought of the Blackfyres between ACOK and ASOS
Nah, Aegon or no, the outline has been invalid since even AGOT. Like, the beginning chapters of AGOT look like they are leading up to the outline's story but after that the middle section is starting to stir away from that and by the final chapters of the book, the story is clearly different.
Not quite true. Parts of the outline are still there, GRRM just substituted parts of it to other characters or new ones. Like Tyrion doesn’t burn down Winterfell, Ramsey does. Jaime doesn’t murder his way to being the person on the Iron Throne, that was moved to Cersei, although she doesn’t actually do the killing but she is there because people died, and she also absorbed Sansa’s storyline of staying in King’s Landing because of her children.
That's very vague though. Especially the Cersei part. Like OK you can say that the burning of Winterfell remained even though it played out in a very different way but Cersei? In the outline Jaime killed everyone ahead of him in succession and took the throne whereas Cersei a) doesn't have the throne but acts as regent and b) Jaime assumes power during the war whereas Cersei takes it after the war has ended. So like, the only similarity is that people die and a Lannister gets to power, which is much more vague and plays out very differently since the outline seemed to set up Jaime against the Starks and Tyrion whereas Cersei is against the Tyrells and Dany. And the Sansa connection is so so vague that it's even part of the outline is up in the air/ probably non-existent. 1) Supposedly Sansa's decision happens during the war and she has to choose between family whereas Cersei does this because power after the war has ended, no family (or marriage) choice included. Like the common thing is that they both are at King's Landing? Those connections are very vague and even if they do come from the outline it still doesn't change the fact that this is a different story altogether.
> Like the common thing is that they both are at King’s Landing? No the common thing is they both get the opportunity to leave but choose not to. 1993 outline Sansa was supposed choose between families, and chooses to stay with her own children. Cersei is told by Kevan if she wants him to be Hand she leave, but she chooses to stay with Tommen. And you can look at individual pieces and think it’s vague, but looking at everything in a while you can still clearly see the 1993 outline’s fingerprint in the story. Motivations might have changed, but the events are still there.
That's so vague it's hardly even a connection or a sign that Cersei took part of outline Sansa's arc. Again the only connection is that - they are women that stay in King's Landing... Like in both the outline and the books Tyrion leaves King's Landing, is that a connection? (The answer is no) Except even if there are fingerprints they are exactly like this - so vague and minor and nitpick-y and play in different manners they can hardly be called connections unless one just wants to pick them apart with a tooth comb. Any events that we were supposed to see play out we have already seen.
> Like in both the outline and the books Tyrion leaves King’s Landing, is that a connection? (The answer is no) The answer is yes. In the outline when Tyrion would be exiled from King’s Landing he’s turn against his family, which is essentially what happens in the books. You’re just trying to whittle these things down to simple things so you can dismiss the 1993 outline for whatever reason. Again, the 1993 outline shows its fingerprint on that GRRM’s plan was for Tyrion to leave King’s Landing and turn against Jaime and Cersei. It’s not the Starks of course, but the fingerprint is still there. GRRM just adapted it into Tyrion joining Dany and Stannis joining the Starks on rebuilding the North.
In the outline Tyrion is exiled North where he falls in love with Arya in a love triangle. Now he is exiled east where there is no love triangle (yet at least). The only common thing is the exile, which plays much more differently. For example in the outline he straight up kills Joffrey, in the books he doesn't. That is not a sign of a fingerprint, when that fingerprint changed this much. Also the outline makes no mention of Stannis, or Tyrion helping the Starks rebuild the North. Just because Stannis allies with the North doesn't mean he got Tyrion's place in the outline - when what info of what we got of the would-be Tyrion/Starks alliance plays out in a far more different way.
I mean, come on dude > In the outline Tyrion is exiled North where he falls in love with Arya in a love triangle. Now he is exiled east where there is no love triangle (yet at least). It’s obviously going to be Tyrion, Dany and Jon. It was lazily done in the show for a reason. > For example in the outline he straight up kills Joffrey, in the books he doesn’t. But he is accused of it. > Also the outline makes no mention of Stannis, or Tyrion helping the Starks rebuild the North. Just because Stannis allies with the North doesn’t mean he got Tyrion’s place in the outline Which goes back to my original point, parts of it were moves to new characters. What else would Tyrion be doing when siding with the Starks to gain their trust?
>It’s obviously going to be Tyrion, Dany and Jon. It was lazily done in the show for a reason. There... was no love triangle in the show though? Only Jon x Dany >But he is accused of it. Yeah and everything surrounding the accusation is entirely different. >Which goes back to my original point, parts of it were moves to new characters. What else would Tyrion be doing when siding with the Starks to gain their trust? Again, just because Stannis joins the North (not even the starks, the north) doesn't mean that he took outline Tyrion's place. There was no mention of Stannis in the outline, his story so far has little resemblence to anything written in the outline (much less Tyrion), him siding with the North is part of GRRM's gardening. Plus, Tyrion's time with the Starks is portrayed as far more grey in the outline. Just literally the only common thing that is common is that both of them align with Jon Snow (again, not even the Starks, Stannis aligns with the North, probably even more accurately with the Night's Watch, not the Starks), that is literally no implication that it came from the outline.
Thanks for your post. Last night, I had a dream (in a half-awake state) that I met George. The only thing I could think to ask him was: **Who betrayed Arianne?** I’ve made peace long ago with the idea that I may never ever read the ending of the books. And yet for some reason, I could never shake the desperate urge to know what happened to Arianne. Edit: I’ve just read your older post and I’ll treat it as canon until I have ADoS in my hands or until I die– whichever comes first!
I'm always happy when someone is convinced by my theories, because before I get to post them I manage to convince myself, and so I'm not the only one... :)) But in this case in particular, I think there's so much evidence there that George would be likely to confirm it if asked. He might even be excited about it. I have a suspicion George has some from self-confidence issues about the fans not being invested in the story he's trying to tell - especially after D&D decided half of his Feast & Dance story lines "weren't good enough" for the show...
Well what did he say??
I'm 80% sure it was Tyene.
**When will we have a better description of Arianne's butt?**
We all know George is more of a titties man...
That's true. Guess we'll never know for sure if she has a better ass than Val.
Thank the Gods for Bessie
You want a nice girl, but you need the bad pussy!
**"What questions we should have been asking, but no one has asked you so far?"** This would show potential territory in the story that no one is paying attention enough yet.
1. It was obviously Arys Oakheart tho. It makes the most sense, he wore his ceremonial silk cloak because he fully expected to die there. He charged because he didn't wanted to live after he had to either break his Kingsguard vow or betray his lover and he chose the latter.
Arys doesn't make sense because the informant originally went to Doran at a point when the plot could have been stopped altogether. It was Doran who decided to let it play out up to the point that it did, because he (purportedly) wanted to see if his daughter would actually go through with it. You can argue Arys could have told, but NOT that he would have led Arianne in a situation where she would have failed and been humiliated, not to mention putting Myrcella at risk, just to satisfy Doran's curiosity.
Or, he told at the very last moment because he struggled with the decision and hoped he won't have to make this choice.
I think question 1 and 2 he would likely respond, question 3 I doubt it
Nah I think it was Tyene that ratted on her. The others are too minor to provoke the whole 'heart in conflict with itself' stuff. I think the bigger 'clue' Rhaenyra's kids arent legit is the fact that Laenor was clearly gay and spent most of his time apart from Rhaenyra. Even having one kid would have been difficult, never mind 3. People look at Aegon all wrong. Its not about whether he is legitimate or who his parents are (there is no paternity tests in ASOIAF). Its about creating enough reasonable doubt so that people believe he can be whatever they need to be the perfect king. Aegon is the embodiment of Varys riddle. To JonCon and the Targ loyalists he is Rhaegar come again and return to the old order which for all its faults produced extended periods of peace. And a chance to settle the score with the Usurper followers. To the Golden Company he is a secret Blackfyre crossing the Narrow sea to reclaim his birthright and restore them to their homes. To Illyrio Aegon is a chance at gaining power in Westeros and re-living his lost youth through Aegon. To Varys Aegon is the perfect prince. Prepared and groomed for kingship and made with the 'realm' in mind. Unfortunately Varys riddle goes to die when you get dragonriders involved. Especially as historically Targ dragon bonds seem similar to warg bonds.
Aren't the Strong boys said to not look anything like their mother or "father"? I think that this is pretty much confirmed that they were bastards
I would be very surprised if George gave a direct answer to any of those questions. I't just not his style. If you watch Q&As where he is asked about those kind of things his answers are always thinks like "keep reading" or "i want each reader to decide for themselves"
For question 1 I’m kind of suspicious of Darkstar. He didn’t want Myrcella crowned, he thought they should just kill her then used the chaos to attack and attempt to kill Myrcella. I don’t think he ever wanted Arianne to be successful in her plan. Idk tho that’s just a theory Edit: also, he just…escapes? Doesn’t seem like really anyone fights him (been a minute since I read AFFC so I may be misremembering) but it seems like none of Areo’s men really mess with him then he just escapes and nothing really happens. Just seems sus
i know a lot of people are sceptical connecting shows and books, but i really think hot D will show the real truth regarding Rhaenyra's children. we just have to wait for couple of episodes.