98 replies to this topic

[PatrickStormborn]

I do think it's an interesting theory with regards to how the events at Summerhall played out, but I don't think the stone dragons refer to Targaryens. The prophecy seems to be "The dragon who was promised" (translated to prince), and I think that is the dragon that means "Targaryen". But the dragon who was promised has to wake dragons from stone, so I don't think both of them will be referring to Targaryens.

ETA: I'd like to add that, even if the prophecy refers to Targaryens instead of dragons, Dany is the only Targ to have been "woken" as of yet. Just before she stepped into the pyre, she had a dream where she literally became the last dragon, thereby waking the dormant (stone) dragon within her.

Edited by PatrickStormborn, 25 January 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 25 January 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

I do think it's an interesting theory with regards to how the events at Summerhall played out, but I don't think the stone dragons refer to Targaryens. The prophecy seems to be "The dragon who was promised" (translated to prince), and I think that is the dragon that means "Targaryen". But the dragon who was promised has to wake dragons from stone, so I don't think both of them will be referring to Targaryens.

ETA: I'd like to add that, even if the prophecy refers to Targaryens instead of dragons, Dany is the only Targ to have been "woken" as of yet. Just before she stepped into the pyre, she had a dream where she literally became the last dragon, thereby waking the dormant (stone) dragon within her.

Anything for it to be Dany, huh.

I also want to point out that there are seven (and possibly more) books in this series, so it would probably behoove you to take into consideration that, you know, something else might happen. Dany might be the hare, but I think there's a tortoise lurking somewhere behind her.

Edited by Apple Martini, 25 January 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[corbon]

Just to point out, there are plenty of stone dragons on Dragonstone...

[Sevumar]

Apple Martini, on 25 January 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

That same day, Rhaegar was born to Rhaella and had a deep-seated melancholic connection to Summerhall for the rest of his life. Rhaegar was the dragon that hatched out of Summerhall.

Interesting post, Apple Martini. I wish we knew more about the relationship between the Ghost of High Heart and the recent generations of Targaryens. I want to talk about the Ghost for a bit before getting into the theory itself. Was she only as close to Aegon as she seemed to be because of Duncan Targaryen's close ties to Jenny of Oldstones?

The Ghost herself strikes me as someone with potentially strong ties to the First Men or the Children of the Forest. Barristan mentions that Jenny of Oldstones made the claim that the Ghost was one of the Children, though the physical description doesn't line up with what we see in Bran's PoV. With her gift for dreams, visions, and prophecies and her red eyes, there's a good chance she might be a greenseer (but then Bloodraven wouldn't be the last one). In some ways, she seems to be much older than even her physical age would suggest.

The majority of the prophecies the Ghost gives are very dark, portending suffering, death, and sadness. For that reason, it might make sense to suspect that whatever she told Aegon might have been similarly dark or prone to misinterpretation. Alternatively, the darkness in her visions could have occurred as a result of the tragedy of Summerhall. Does her previous involvement with the Targaryen royal family tell us anything useful about what her recent prophecies might mean, or whether there's more going on with her than it seems?

Quote

Other than being a theory as to how and why the Summerhall tragedy occurred, what does this matter? I think it's threefold: It would be yet another instance of "dragons" in prophecy referring to a Targaryen and not a literal dragon (which I believe has implications for AA/PTWP), it broadly shows the danger of taking any prophecy at literal value, and it further illustrates that when it comes to literal dragons, the Targaryens are unstable and prone to nuttiness, even a saner one like Aegon.

I think your idea is plausible, but I also wonder if there's any significance to the designation of "dragon" in the Targaryen line. Most Targaryens like to invoke dragon imagery to describe themselves, their heritage, their tempers, and their belief in their special status among mortal men. The dragon symbolizes the Targaryen family as a whole, but it's pretty clear that not all individual members are "the dragon." When Viserys dies, Dany tells us he wasn't a dragon. Rhaegar is described as the last dragon. In your post, it seems likely Aegon V was also a dragon. In a way, the desgination seems a bit like the Targaryen version of the Sword of the Morning, reserved for exceptional members of the family.

In the sense of the story, what does a human "dragon" get us? Is it any more than just an expression of Targaryen conceit? Does it tell us something special about the individual bearing the title? Does it mark that person as potential candidate for the PtwP or Azor Ahai reborn? Rhaegar seemed like had the potential to be a great man in many regards, ranging from his interest in prophecy to his prowess as a warrior and his promises of reform. He never really had the chance to deliver on any of it before his life and his dynasty came to an end. What do all these people have in common and what does the concept tell us about the story and the nature of events in Westeros over the past centuries?

[Apple Martini]

Really interesting questions and ideas. I myself tend to agree with the tack you (I believe?) take in your second part: that much of the interest and obsession with dragons on the part of the Targs has to do with conceit and some, possibly mad and/or irrational, desire to be "greater than" they really are.

I like the idea that not all Targs are "dragons" in the "exceptional" sense. The two "known" dragons in the Dunk & Egg stories, according to the visions, are Baelor Breakspear and Aegon. Baelor stands up for Dunk and fights his own nephew because he knows that Dunk's cause is just; this leads to his death. Aegon likewise sees the merit in an otherwise ordinary person and seems to rule benevolently and well. He came to the throne more or less by accident and to my knowledge was never power-hungry or otherwise ambitious. If Rhaegar is indeed a third dragon, you could make the case that he had a genuine desire to "save the world" and correct the wrongs of his father. All three of them are tied together by virtue of championing or wanting to protect/defend other people and by demonstrating some levels of selflessness and/or basic common decency, apparently in short supply in that family. Oh, and each of these three men died tragically. Just tossing it out there.

Edited by Apple Martini, 26 January 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[Know Face Man]

Apple Martini i have to agree with most everything you have to say. I do believe the way GRRM writes these books he intends on all of us to take the details a little bit different.

[Lady Candace]

Apple Martini, on 26 January 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

Really interesting questions and ideas. I myself tend to agree with the tack you (I believe?) take in your second part: that much of the interest and obsession with dragons on the part of the Targs has to do with conceit and some, possibly mad and/or irrational, desire to be "greater than" they really are.

I like the idea that not all Targs are "dragons" in the "exceptional" sense. The two "known" dragons in the Dunk & Egg stories, according to the visions, are Baelor Breakspear and Aegon. Baelor stands up for Dunk and fights his own nephew because he knows that Dunk's cause is just; this leads to his death. Aegon likewise sees the merit in an otherwise ordinary person and seems to rule benevolently and well. He came to the throne more or less by accident and to my knowledge was never power-hungry or otherwise ambitious. If Rhaegar is indeed a third dragon, you could make the case that he had a genuine desire to "save the world" and correct the wrongs of his father. All three of them are tied together by virtue of championing or wanting to protect/defend other people and by demonstrating some levels of selflessness and/or basic common decency, apparently in short supply in that family. Oh, and each of these three men died tragically. Just tossing it out there.

Dragons protect their treasure, that's a common theme in some mythologies. The other main conception from folklore we get is that dragons are to be slayed usually by the grand efforts of some heroic person.

Anyhow, I very much like what you've put together here, Apple Martini.


Jon died tragically. Even Bowen Marsh was sobbing like a little girl while he stabbed him.

[Apple Martini]

Lady Candace, on 26 January 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

Dragons protect their treasure, that's a common theme in some mythologies. The other main conception from folklore we get is that dragons are to be slayed usually by the grand efforts of some heroic person.

Anyhow, I very much like what you've put together here, Apple Martini.


Jon died tragically. Even Bowen Marsh was sobbing like a little girl while he stabbed him.

If an untimely and somewhat icky death is what it means to be a dragon, Dany can have it.

[Lady Candace]

Apple Martini, on 26 January 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

If an untimely and somewhat icky death is what it means to be a dragon, Dany can have it.

If there are more chapters like those in ADWD forthcoming, I might begin to agree... *nod*

[Revan Baratheon]

I hope Sansa gets eaten by the dragon

[Lady Candace]

I don't think you'll get your wish..

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 25 January 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Anything for it to be Dany, huh.

I'm just making sure there's a fair balance. As I've said before, I honestly don't care who the prophecy is about -- I just want Dany to be queen. But if I see a thread about it, I will always make my point because at the moment she's the leading candidate.

Quote

I also want to point out that there are seven (and possibly more) books in this series, so it would probably behoove you to take into consideration that, you know, something else might happen. Dany might be the hare, but I think there's a tortoise lurking somewhere behind her.

I always take that into consideration. But, right now, Dany is far and away the ONLY candidate. And, as I've said in other threads, I think it would be a bit cheap from a literary perspective to have both Dany and Stannis as fake prophetic figures, only for the real one to be revealed right near the end when he discovers he's actually Rhaegar's son...

[ARYa_Nym]

Sevumar, on 26 January 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

Interesting post, Apple Martini. I wish we knew more about the relationship between the Ghost of High Heart and the recent generations of Targaryens. I want to talk about the Ghost for a bit before getting into the theory itself. Was she only as close to Aegon as she seemed to be because of Duncan Targaryen's close ties to Jenny of Oldstones?

The Ghost herself strikes me as someone with potentially strong ties to the First Men or the Children of the Forest. Barristan mentions that Jenny of Oldstones made the claim that the Ghost was one of the Children, though the physical description doesn't line up with what we see in Bran's PoV. With her gift for dreams, visions, and prophecies and her red eyes, there's a good chance she might be a greenseer (but then Bloodraven wouldn't be the last one). In some ways, she seems to be much older than even her physical age would suggest.

The majority of the prophecies the Ghost gives are very dark, portending suffering, death, and sadness. For that reason, it might make sense to suspect that whatever she told Aegon might have been similarly dark or prone to misinterpretation. Alternatively, the darkness in her visions could have occurred as a result of the tragedy of Summerhall. Does her previous involvement with the Targaryen royal family tell us anything useful about what her recent prophecies might mean, or whether there's more going on with her than it seems?

She has the red eyes of a greenseer. It's possible that she is just glamoring herself. Leaf told Bran that they live among humans to learn and observe and I imagine that they must be able to change their features in order to do this.



On another note I think the three heads of the dragon refers to people because in an SSM GRRM said that the 3rd head didn't necessarily have to be a Targaryen. I think that means that the other two are with Dany obviously being one. & Dany told Quentyn that there was still hope for him because the dragon has three heads.

I think the three heads don't have to be the only dragon riders. Balerion for example outlived Aegon so he had other riders.

[Apple Martini]

ARYa_Nym, on 26 January 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

On another note I think the three heads of the dragon refers to people because in an SSM GRRM said that the 3rd head didn't necessarily have to be a Targaryen. I think that means that the other two are with Dany obviously being one. & Dany told Quentyn that there was still hope for him because the dragon has three heads.

I think the three heads don't have to be the only dragon riders. Balerion for example outlived Aegon so he had other riders.

I might be reaching here, but if there's something to my idea that it's three facets of the same person, then at least one of the heads wouldn't be Targaryen — it'd be whatever other facet(s) end up fitting. Using Jon as an example, one "head" would be his Stark identity and one would be his Night's Watch identity. Neither of those is, strictly speaking, Targaryen.

Edited by Apple Martini, 26 January 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[Cydal]

Apple Martini, on 25 January 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

As some of you who've read my interpretations of prophecies before know, I hew to the idea that "dragons" in prophecy are not literal dragons, but refer to Targaryens.

We've seen visions unfold this way a couple of times in the Dunk and Egg stories:

1. In "The Hedge Knight," Daeron Targaryen (Egg's brother) has a vision of a large dead red dragon falling on top of Dunk, but he survives. The "red dragon" ends up being Baelor Breakspear, who took a blow to the head in a Trial of Seven.

2. In "The Mystery Knight," a fiddler (Daemon II Blackfyre) tells Dunk that he's seen a dragon hatching out of an egg at Whitewalls. This turns out to be Egg/Aegon V, who comes through a Blackfyre Rebellion with new fierceness and maturity.

In both of these cases, even though the dragons in the visions were actual dragons, when the prophecies unfold, the "dragons" are Targaryens.

Flash forward to Aegon V's reign. Jenny of Oldstones brings the Ghost of High Heart to court. We know that she was the one who told Aegon V that the Prince That Was Promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line. Not only does this set up the ASOIAF narrative, it sets a precedent for Aegon holding the woman's visions in high regard and listening to her.

We know that Aegon, Dunk, Duncan the Small and (I presume?) Jenny died in a fire at Summerhall and that the tragedy more than likely had something to do with hatching a dragon's egg. We're told that it was Aegon's decision to let his sons marry for love that culminated in the tragedy (I believe it's referred to as sorcery, fire and treason in varying combinations). I think this is a nod to Duncan the Small (the Prince of Dragonflies) falling in love with Jenny of Oldstones, which caused him to give up his crown for her (why would he have to? question for another time) and inadvertently led to the Ghost of High Heart's presence at court and her visions being taken seriously/literally. When Arya encounters her, the Ghost tells her that she's tasted grief at Summerhall, suggesting that at the very least, she was involved, and might even harbor some culpability.

So what happened? (Edited for clarity because apparently it's not that obvious that this is a theory) I hypothesize that The Ghost of High Heart told Aegon V that she saw a dragon hatching out of Summerhall, maybe even "out of a fire" at Summerhall. Like the earlier examples of dragons in prophecy, this vision would have shown its seer a literal dragon, but not actually referred to one. Having already listened to the Ghost's advice about Rhaella and Aerys' marriage, Aegon again took her at her word — her literal word — and attempted to  hatch an actual dragon at Summerhall. It obviously failed, the keep burned to a ruin and a lot of people died.

That same day, Rhaegar was born to Rhaella and had a deep-seated melancholic connection to Summerhall for the rest of his life. Rhaegar was the dragon that hatched out of Summerhall.

Other than being a theory as to how and why the Summerhall tragedy occurred, what does this matter? I think it's threefold: It would be yet another instance of "dragons" in prophecy referring to a Targaryen and not a literal dragon (which I believe has implications for AA/PTWP), it broadly shows the danger of taking any prophecy at literal value, and it further illustrates that when it comes to literal dragons, the Targaryens are unstable and prone to nuttiness, even a saner one like Aegon.

I'm pretty sure that the Dunk and Egg stories will end with the Summerhall tragedy, so this should be either confirmed or debunked in good time. I think it's interesting that, within these novellas, we've already had multiple instances where "dragon" equals "Targaryen." Those instances could be a setup for the Summerhall narrative in this particular set of novellas, as well as a clue as to how to interpret dragon prophecies in the main ASOIAF storyline.

I'm going to have to disagree with you for a number of reasons but the biggest is this... Yes it is true that on a number of occasions, Dragons in dreams and visions have turned out to be Targs but all those instances do not herald the return of magic or have any special significance regarding the coming war. Dragons in all these instances herald Dragons that turned out to be people, saying a Dragon egg will hatch or that a Dragon will fall on someone (as it was in the Dunk & Egg stories) is not the same as saying a chosen person will bring back the return of Dragons.

One speaks to Dragons while the other refers specifically to a person that will bring back dragons.

By your logic, the AA prophecy would mean a chosen person would hatch three Targs from stone or something like that, Surely that doesn't exactly follow.

The other visions prophecy as to the hatching of Dragons, while the AA predicts a PERSON that will hatch Dragons. The AA prophecy says that someone will raise dragons from stone, but we know Dragons are need for magic to return, and we know magic is needed to fight the oncoming battle. I think that the Dragons in the AA prophecy are most likely literal.

Edited by Cydal, 26 January 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[Apple Martini]

Cydal, on 26 January 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

By your logic, the AA prophecy would mean a chosen person would hatch three Targs from stone or something like that, Surely that doesn't exactly follow.

Why not? Could this person not help others uncover or embrace a Targaryen identity? I think there's a good case to be made that the Azor Ahai prophecy has been passed around so much and filtered through a culture that has very little to do with either Westeros or Old Valyria, and as such can possibly be read more loosely.

I'm not saying that presence of literal dragons is unimportant or insignificant, just that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with these prophecies. It's incidental.

Edited by Apple Martini, 26 January 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[Theo1]

I think we should consider that the tragedy at Summerhall was an act of sabotage by Faceless Men and/ Maesters in an attempt to keep dragons from reentering the equation.  Could this be part of the treason?

[Apple Martini]

Theo1, on 26 January 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

I think we should consider that the tragedy at Summerhall was an act of sabotage by Faceless Men and/ Maesters in an attempt to keep dragons from reentering the equation.  Could this be part of the treason?

I think that's a perfectly viable idea, until we learn what exactly the "treason" was. My only thing with that is, it's "known" that treason was committed. A Faceless Man who isn't a Westerosi citizen couldn't commit treason against the Targaryens. And if the maesters were involved and the treason was known, I think that the order would have been put under more scrutiny and/or a wider dragon-preventing conspiracy would have been uncovered. So in that regard, I think it makes more sense for the treason to have been committed as a one-off thing, without a connection to anything "bigger," if that makes sense.

[redriver]

I agree that Rhaegar was the Dragon hatched from Summerhall,it's logical because no real dragons were hatched in the tragedy.

But I don't think it's logical to assume all prophecies relating to Dragons just mean Targs.After all we have three real Dragons as foretold by Rhaegar himself.It's the identity of the three heads that's missing.

We have prophecies and visions from various characters to work on,but it seems to me we are missing one.The one that made Rhaegar lay down his books and take up the sword.The one where he learns of the "Prince who was promised" who's song is of Ice and Fire.

When that prophecy is revealed it must contain references to Dragons and the Ice threat and both Targs and Starks to judge by his behaviour before he died.

[Lady Candace]

When I read about the "treason" what I assumed was some 'changes in the succession' if you catch my meaning.