Daenerys is one of the 3 heads

[jenerationx]

Actually they are on similar timelines since feast and dance are supposed to be one book.

True but ADWD does go beyond the timeline of AFFC. Do we know where in the timeline Mel sees her vision vs when Aemon makes his statement?

In any case, a character outright stating "Dany is TPTWP" is different from Jon having a dream: The former is explicit; the latter requires interpretation. No one in the text has outright stated that he is AA or is TPTWP.

Also what AM said here:

As for the word "prince," I wouldn't take it too literally (as in, it's missing the forest for the trees debating whether Jon qualifies as a prince). The gender thing comes in because prince and dragon are apparently the same word in Valyrian, and dragons are genderless. But if you read it as "the dragon that was promised," all it really has to mean is, "the Targaryen that was promised."

Which goes along with what I was saying about semantics earlier, though this is better, being an actual text-based reason.

Edited for clarification.

[Northbound]

Actually, many people do say Jon is "obvious." Why his "obviousness" is different from Dany's is because you first have to glean that he's a Targaryen, which is something you come to after having put many clues together in the text. Everything about Dany is explicit. That's the biggest difference between the two.

Actually the only people I know of, who think Jon is now the obvious choice; are people who come on boards like this one. With the eleven people, I personally know; that have read the book casually, all but one have no clue who Jon is. More over, the people I know, who just watch the show; have no clue about Jon. For the casual reader, Jon isn't anywhere near as obvious as Dany. You know, the chick who lived through an inferno, hatched three dragons, sacker of massive cities, mother of slaves, gatherer of massive armies and the one that a now dead Targ, called the tPtwP!

RED HERRING RED HERRING RED HERRING

[Audrey Arryn]

Same can be said for Dany...

Of course :P

[Audrey Arryn]

True but ADWD does go beyond the timeline of AFFC. Do we know where in the timeline Mel sees her vision vs when Aemon makes his statement?

In any case, a character outright stating "Dany is TPTWP" is different from Jon having a dream: The former is explicit; the latter requires interpretation. No one in the text has outright stated that he is AA or is TPTWP.

Also what AM said here:

Which goes along with what I was saying about semantics earlier, though this is better, being an actual text-based reason.

Edited for clarification.

That makes sense

[Audrey Arryn]

Actually the only people I know of, who think Jon is now the obvious choice; are people who come on boards like this one. With the eleven people, I personally know; that have read the book casually, all but one have no clue who Jon is. More over, the people I know, who just watch the show; have no clue about Jon. For the casual reader, Jon isn't anywhere near as obvious as Dany. You know, the chick who lived through an inferno, hatched three dragons, sacker of massive cities, mother of slaves, gatherer of massive armies and the one that a now dead Targ, called the tPtwP!

RED HERRING RED HERRING RED HERRING

Depends who the readers are, I know people who don't think Dany is obvious aswell as people who don't think Jon is obvious. Aswell as people who think Jon /Dany are obvious.

[Northbound]

Depends who the readers are, I know people who don't think Dany is obvious aswell as people who don't think Jon is obvious. Aswell as people who think Jon /Dany are obvious.

Just my opinion. But im guessing the majority of those people have read the books more than once. They are like us, damn aSoIaF junkies. :-) But for the vast majority of people, that have read the books only once; this is not the case. Now, im not saying, that some don't or cant pick it up in a single read through. But those people are few and far between, IMHO. I do like your spin on the theory. I just think otherwise.

[raegal_targaryen]

let me just say i dont really care who the three headed dragon is or if its one or three people........but one thing u cant call a person king without being crowned like a king. there is a ritual u have to do all kings do it for a reason.....so jon aint a king even if a crow calls, him. that dany has crowned her self jon hasnt, jon isnt a king even if he is the only one who can inherit the throne. period

[Northbound]

let me just say i dont really care who the three headed dragon is or if its one or three people........but one thing u cant call a person king without being crowned like a king. there is a ritual u have to do all kings do it for a reason.....so jon aint a king even if a crow calls, him. that dany has crowned her self jon hasnt, jon isnt a king even if he is the only one who can inherit the throne. period

Sooo. Just because Dany crowned herself queen and doesn't currently hold the IT and is half a world away, is ok? Is that what you are saying? Dany wants the Throne and she will try and take it. Jon, has no clue who he is and when he does, I doubt he will seek the IT. The only way, he ever becomes King, is if the people crown him or he sees taking it, is an act of duty. Big difference, between him and Dany, who thinks she is entitled to it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Jon had a dream holding a flaming sword aswell.

My point stands: Jon, unlike Dany, has had nobody say explicitly in the books that he is AA/TPTWP.

[raegal_targaryen]

Am freakin saying unless u get crowned u wont get to be a king or queen thats what am saying u can call jon a prince....not a king unless he gets crowned. thats how u become a king thats the official making of a king. and that dany is half a world away who cares...stannis hasnt even sat on the it himself and everyone calls him a king....He was even crowned omg.

[PatrickStormborn]

Sorry, I just don't buy the "3 heads = 1 person" theory. Heads symbolise not just individual identities, but individual thoughts, motivations, fears, aspirations... and united under one body, they all have one shared destiny and purpose. The heads may hate each other; one head may be stronger than the others; one head may be smarter than the others; but they're all equally important.

The idea of unity and forced co-operation(*) is totally lost by having one individual be all three heads, which is why I'm opposed to the theory regardless of whether it is Jon or Daenerys (and I also think it has ridiculously little textual basis, but that doesn't stop anyone on this forum).

(*) If the three heads are Jon, Dany and Tyrion, that is GOLDEN material right there. The Starks fought the Lannisters and the Targaryens, the Lannisters betrayed the Targaryens (and Tyrion may even side with Aegon in the dance of the dragons), Tyrion married Jon's sister, Dany may be Jon's aunt, Dany may be responsible for Cersei's downfall, Tyrion's brother killed Dany's father, etc.

I know there's a backlash to these three as the heads of the dragon because it's "too obvious" (i.e. GRRM has appropriately foreshadowed it), but I think - given the way GRRM has handled the series so far - it would be by far the most satisfying conclusion to this story of conflict and betrayal.

[raegal_targaryen]

Sorry, I just don't buy the "3 heads = 1 person" theory. Heads symbolise not just individual identities, but individual thoughts, motivations, fears, aspirations... and united under one body, they all have one shared destiny and purpose. The heads may hate each other; one head may be stronger than the others; one head may be smarter than the others; but they're all equally important.

The idea of unity and forced co-operation(*) is totally lost by having one individual be all three heads, which is why I'm opposed to the theory regardless of whether it is Jon or Daenerys (and I also think it has ridiculously little textual basis, but that doesn't stop anyone on this forum).

(*) If the three heads are Jon, Dany and Tyrion, that is GOLDEN material right there. The Starks fought the Lannisters and the Targaryens, the Lannisters betrayed the Targaryens (and Tyrion may even side with Aegon in the dance of the dragons), Tyrion married Jon's sister, Dany may be Jon's aunt, Dany may be responsible for Cersei's downfall, Tyrion's brother killed Dany's father, etc.

I know there's a backlash to these three as the heads of the dragon because it's "too obvious" (i.e. GRRM has appropriately foreshadowed it), but I think - given the way GRRM has handled the series so far - it would be by far the most satisfying conclusion to this story of conflict and betrayal.

i agree with u on that, and it will be a little more bitter to the fans also cause it will be a conflict on who deserves what.

[Mladen]

My point stands: Jon, unlike Dany, has had nobody say explicitly in the books that he is AA/TPTWP.

And that is, for those that need explanation, a clear distinction in obviousness between Jon and Dany being AAR/TPTWP

Sorry, I just don't buy the "3 heads = 1 person" theory. Heads symbolise not just individual identities, but individual thoughts, motivations, fears, aspirations... and united under one body, they all have one shared destiny and purpose. The heads may hate each other; one head may be stronger than the others; one head may be smarter than the others; but they're all equally important.

As someone said, it's all about perspective, Targaryen sigil clearly speaks of one, not three dragons... And I imagine that prophecy that comes from Targaryens would have that in mind.

[raegal_targaryen]

Sooo. Just because Dany crowned herself queen and doesn't currently hold the IT and is half a world away, is ok? Is that what you are saying? Dany wants the Throne and she will try and take it. Jon, has no clue who he is and when he does, I doubt he will seek the IT. The only way, he ever becomes King, is if the people crown him or he sees taking it, is an act of duty. Big difference, between him and Dany, who thinks she is entitled to it.

dany is entitled to the throne per se...as jon and everyone else think he is just a bastard and one can make dubious claim about aegon, while dany no one can question her right to the throne in terms of legitimacy. i agree with u on that.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

As someone said, it's all about perspective, Targaryen sigil clearly speaks of one, not three dragons... And I imagine that prophecy that comes from Targaryens would have that in mind.

Speaking of the sigil, it has occurred to me that perhaps the original three conquerors thought the prophecy referred to them in the same way that Rhaegar thought it was him and then Aegon (and possibly his other children). It might explain their motivation to invade Westeros when they did, if they thought they were fulfilling a prophecy. The Targaryen sigil is used all the time to justify "three heads, three people," but the link between the prophecy and the sigil has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly established. Even if it is established, who's to say that Aegon and Co. didn't get it "wrong," too? Meaning, the sigil based on three people may ITSELF be based on an incorrect interpretation.

[raegal_targaryen]

Speaking of the sigil, it has occurred to me that perhaps the original three conquerors thought the prophecy referred to them in the same way that Rhaegar thought it was him and then Aegon (and possibly his other children). It might explain their motivation to invade Westeros when they did, if they thought they were fulfilling a prophecy. The Targaryen sigil is used all the time to justify "three heads, three people," but the link between the prophecy and the sigil has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly established. Even if it is established, who's to say that Aegon and Co. didn't get it "wrong," too? Meaning, the sigil based on three people may ITSELF be based on an incorrect interpretation.

i dont think aegon the dragon invaded westeros because of a prophecy....he did it because he could, and essos is to large for just 3 dragons to hold valyrians had many more thats why i think he invaded westeros because they hadnt faced dragons.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

i dont think aegon the dragon invaded westeros because of a prophecy....he did it because he could, and essos is to large for just 3 dragons to hold valyrians had many more thats why i think he invaded westeros because they hadnt faced dragons.

We actually don't know exactly why Aegon invaded when he did when the Valyrians had more or less left it alone. Any guess is just that, a guess.

But if you're so certain the prophecy had nothing to do with it, that just furthers my case that the "dragon has three heads" thing doesn't actually have anything to do with the Targ sigil. And as such, saying they must be interpreted in the same way (three heads, three people) is baseless.

[MoIaF]

Good theory!

I personally tend to lean towards the idea that the dragon with 3 heads is in reference to three different people, however, I can see where the groundwork has been put in place for both theories to be proven either way. Having said that, I don’t believe GRRM has been writing a story about a ONE true hero.

Going back to Dany, I think it’s undeniable her importance within the story. To many the signs are too obvious, but also as mention earlier in the post, the signs of Jon’s future greatness have been obvious as well. I think objectively deciding which clues are more obvious than others is really impossible because it's up to the reader to decide. GRRM I believe has purposely left that open, allowing readers to choose who they want to root for and leaving clues for readers to support who they believe the tru hero is.

As Audrey mentioned Dany is the child of three, basically that’s the theme of her story. A pet (crackpot) theory of mine is that the order of her birth (third child) will play and important role in the future of the story. Jon is also a third child, as well as the hopefully very non-Targ Tyrion. If you look at their family composition there is something very curious about it:

Cersei Jaime Tyrion - Second son (girl, boy, boy)

Rhaenys Aegon Jon - Second son (girl, boy, boy)

Rhaegar Viserys Daenerys - First/Only daughter (boy, boy, girl)

One daughter, two sons. Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means but I find it curious that the the composition of the families is the same. Even more curious is that, Dany is both the last of her siblings to be born as well as the last of the group (encompassed by the Tyrion, Jon, Dany trifecta) to be born. GRRM doesn't really do coincidences, so there must be something to this. Which seems to point to her importance as a central figure of the story. On the other hand, having the same family composition can mean that they're all equally important.

Anyhow, there is something there, I don’t think that Dany is a red hearing. I believe GRRM has something in mind that we just have not guest at.

ETA: Spelling

[PatrickStormborn]

The idea that Aegon thought himself to be the Prince who was Promised is certainly not a new one, and it's one I consider basically canon at this point - there was certainly no other reason to conquer Westeros.

In that case, it would make most sense if the reason they were wrong the whole time was because of patriarchal customs that led to only males being considered as the Prince (or dragon) who was Promised.

As someone said, it's all about perspective, Targaryen sigil clearly speaks of one, not three dragons... And I imagine that prophecy that comes from Targaryens would have that in mind.

It speaks of a dragon with three heads, and as I already posted, heads symbolise individuals. For a modern example look at the three-headed eagle; it symbolises the three individual branches of the government. Another example from Greek mythology is Cerberus, whose three heads symbolise the three individual units of time (or age/life).

If it was a dragon with three faces, I'd agree with you. But it isn't.

[raegal_targaryen]

We actually don't know exactly why Aegon invaded when he did when the Valyrians had more or less left it alone. Any guess is just that, a guess.

But if you're so certain the prophecy had nothing to do with it, that just furthers my case that the "dragon has three heads" thing doesn't actually have anything to do with the Targ sigil. And as such, saying they must be interpreted in the same way (three heads, three people) is baseless.

in my opinion the targ sigil defines aegon and his sisters,one king three heads why is it a red dragon signifies there blood on black field. but thats just my opinion i dunno if aegon created the sigil or if it dates back to valyria.