The Witcher wiki now has a light themed alternative for the wiki skin. To check it out, go to Special:Preferences, then choose the "Appearance" tab and click on the radio button next to "Hydra".

Talk:Auberon Muircetach

From Witcher Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Alway loved that twist than in saga her father (Emhyr Deithwen) and even great-ancestor (Auberon) wanted to fu*k her. Game of Thrones is nothing to compare with this kind :D --— Juraj103 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Auberon rather didn't want... at least physically :P — SMiki5five (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
But you know it still kinda blows. And both time it was like ´´incest to save the world´´ XD --— Juraj103 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
And both times something went wrong (happily) :P
Though... you know, Ciri is technically only 1/256 of Auberon's blood. Hard to say if it is still incest, I've never heard about incesting with someone's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather o_O — SMiki5five (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Auberon is really the father of Lara? "luned" is often used in novels but that does not always confirm a family ties.--— Gwynbleidds (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • He said that Ciri had had Shiadhal eyes - so he had knew Shiadhal, Lara's mother
  • When he was dying, he said something like "Shiadhal? Good to see you here. You know, they said you are dead" - so he was clearly in really good relationship with her.
  • And, finally (thinking that Ciri is Lara): "Caemm a me, luned. Come to me, daughter. Caemm a me, elaine"
For me, it rather clearly suggests his parentship... — SMiki5five (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know all these details, you can also add that Auberon has the same hair color as Ciri but for me, it is only an interesting theory. I do not think that Sapkowski speaks in the dynastic descriptions about it. --— Gwynbleidds (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Only some notes are told from perspective of the omniscient narrator. There are several sentences "little is known about XYZ" or "there are not any details on ZYX" - so the absence of specific informations isn't the proof of falsehood of these informations.
But maybe I should clarify info in the article a bit. — SMiki5five (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I includes very well your point of view SMiki5five. Otherwise I have never said that it was false but for my part, I need a little more proofs. :p (apologize for my poor English)--— Gwynbleidds (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My English isn't better, I suppose :P — SMiki5five (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)