ElanaK Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Quaithe tells Daenerys that she is a "child of three". What if that meant that Rhaegar and Lyanna actually had triplets= Daenerys, Jon and "Aegon". Rhaegar was dead at this point, so Lyanna (with the help of Varys? Arthur Dayne?) conspired to keep the children alive. They were afraid that if the Targaryen loyalists (Darry, Connington etc) were to know that the kids were half Stark, they might turn against them, prefering Viserys of the more pure Targaryen line. Therefore assumingly, Varys told Connington that the Aegon who was killed, was really a peasant baby that he had switched, and the real Aegon was alive, but actually the baby Connington got was triplet 1. He told Darry that Rhaella had been pregnant and died in childbirth, and gave him triplet 2= Daenerys, together with Viserys (maybe Rhaella was never even pregnant, or if she was, the baby died with her). He had the hardest time coming up with a scenario for Jon given his un-Targaryen appearance, so he left him with Lyanna who was ill after childbirth until he could find a solution. Before he did, Ned Stark found them and claimed the child. Varys might not even know what happened to the third baby. "Child of three"= triplets. They are the three heads of the Dragon. With all of my affection for Tyrion, Arya, Bran etc, there is really no reason they should be a head of a dragon. They aren't Targaryens, and aren't related. I think they have other roles to play. The only thing that doesn't fit with this theory is Jon getting burned........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houseHB Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 She is a child of three, Dany, Viseryes, and Reaghar was her brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphail Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 With all of my affection for Tyrion, Arya, Bran etc, there is really no reason they should be a head of a dragon. They aren't Targaryens, and aren't related. I think they have other roles to play. The only thing that doesn't fit with this theory is Jon getting burned........How did I miss this! Jon got burned disproves R+L=J. I wonder why Targ loyalists didn't just set their new kings on fire to be sure they were Targaryens.I think your theory might be a bit of a stretch. HouseHB is correct as well. And Martin has said that the third head would not need to be a Targaryen.ETA: sorry, I didn't realize you were newer to the boards. My comments were dickish. Martin has said that Dany not being burned was a one time event. She has burned herself since, and we shouldnt' expect her to demonstrate the ability again. Also, Targs burning themselves occurs all the time in history.Also I can't spell today.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I wish! I would have loved it if they had a pretty little girl and a boy who looks like Rhaegar.As for the fire thing Jon did say that the flames felt like a kiss while he was getting burned so he at least like fire. Non-Targs like fire too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lojzelote Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Rhaegar was dead at this point, so Lyanna (with the help of Varys? Arthur Dayne?) conspired to keep the children alive. They were afraidWith all of my affection for Tyrion, Arya, Bran etc, there is really no reason they should be a head of a dragon. They aren't Targaryens, and aren't related. I think they have other roles to play. The only thing that doesn't fit with this theory is Jon getting burned........Apple Martini is coming. :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Lady Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It would be interesting. But, I think like @HouseHB, " child of three " : Daenerys, Viserys, Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Jeez I'm not that bad, am I? :P Would it be better to let people persist in their false ways of thinking?!To the OP ...1. As houseHB said, Dany is herself a child of three, having two brothers.2. Targs are not immune to fire and extreme heat. They're just not. Ask Aegon V, Duncan the Small, Aerion Brightflame, Rhaenyra Targaryen, Viserys Targaryen and a bunch of poor unfortunate cousins who no doubt got roasted by dragons in the Dance of the Dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stop Rhaegar HAMMERTIME! Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 lol its a nice theory but nope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zared Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I've just been doing a reread myself and I thought the same thing as the OP. I know there is no real evidence the the theory, but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's just the sort of thing GRRM would do. I think the child of three means more, and is more important than for it to just mean Dany, Viserys and Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Aemon I Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 One of the best theories I heard... And I don't believe that a child of three is for Viserys and Rhaegar, that is too plain and meaningless for an Immortal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night's Prince Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Sigh. Viserys got burned too and we know for a fact he was full Targaryen so stop about Jon getting burned. You have no case against R+L=J in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thendel Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Dany has been confirmed to be younger than Jon (he was born at the time of the Sack of KL, she was born when Stannis came with his ships to get her). Moreover, Aegon is at more or less one year older than Jon, so there's no conceivable way that the three are triplets.The "child of three" line could either be a reference to her parents having three children, or more likely IMO, the scion of a family that has a connection with the number 3 (e.g. Aegon I and his two dragonriding sisters, the dragon on their sigil having three head). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhound Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 . He told Darry that Rhaella had been pregnant and died in childbirth, and gave him triplet 2= Daenerys, together with Viserys (maybe Rhaella was never even pregnant, or if she was, the baby died with her). Darry was with Rhaella and Viserys when they fled to Dragonstone, and she gave birth there. There's no opportunity for a baby swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal GoGo Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The dragon has 3 heads- Daenerys is one of 3 major characters all of who may or may not be a 'child', it doesn't have to mean she's directly related to them all. And of course she is also literally a child of 3 with Rhaegar and Viserys as her siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tori Targaryen Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Sigh. Viserys got burned too and we know for a fact he was full Targaryen so stop about Jon getting burned. You have no case against R+L=J in that respect.Agreed. And I'm pretty certain that I read a quote of G RR Martin stating that Dany being 'unburnt' was exclusive to her. Not all Targaryens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya Nymeria Stark Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 She is a child of three, Dany, Viseryes, and Reaghar was her brother.We know that as of now, but I'm starting to think that arrangement is just gonna lead to a plot twist/family-ties twist involving the Starks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 The child of three does not reference her number of siblings it references that she is born not of two people (like everyone else) but she is born of three. She is the child of her parents and of Rhaegar's spirit (also known as "the dragon" or AA or TPTWP) which she inherited from Rhaegar in the womb when he died on the Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElanaK Posted November 13, 2012 Author Share Posted November 13, 2012 Darry was with Rhaella and Viserys when they fled to Dragonstone, and she gave birth there. There's no opportunity for a baby swap. Unless he was in the birthing room there could always have been a swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElanaK Posted November 13, 2012 Author Share Posted November 13, 2012 She is a child of three, Dany, Viseryes, and Reaghar was her brother. Wouldn't that be a bit obvious and mundane for GRRM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerLaughingStorm Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I don't know; I like the theory but how many birthing swaps can one story have?I agree with this:The dragon has 3 heads- Daenerys is one of 3 major characters all of who may or may not be a 'child', it doesn't have to mean she's directly related to them all. And of course she is also literally a child of 3 with Rhaegar and Viserys as her siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.