Suzanna Stormborn

[Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.3

801 posts in this topic

I'm still skeptical about the spoilers, but it seems a bit off for Rhaegar or Lyanna to suddenly name Jon --> Aegon when he already has a true born son Aegon from Elia. Suddenly Jon Targ is "legit" It's almost like the show creators are erasing Aegon VI from the show (when he's Young Griff in the books) It bothers me so much.  

But that's what happens when you adapt a 4-thousand page book and make it into a series. Things are bound to change or rewrite to fit the tv series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Heileen said:

I'm still skeptical about the spoilers, but it seems a bit off for Rhaegar or Lyanna to suddenly name Jon --> Aegon when he already has a true born son Aegon from Elia. Suddenly Jon Targ is "legit" It's almost like the show creators are erasing Aegon VI from the show (when he's Young Griff in the books) It bothers me so much.  

But that's what happens when you adapt a 4-thousand page book and make it into a series. Things are bound to change or rewrite to fit the tv series. 

I am still holding out hope that his real name will be revealed as "Aemon" (as I have long believed) and not Aegon (they sound pretty similar so possible to be confused). But even if Jon is Aegon in the show, he still might be Aemon in the books. For a host of reasons (discussed in detail in other threads over the years), Aemon makes the most sense to me -- but for reasons that are pretty much only relevant in the books and not so much on the show. On the show, I think they can merely erase the existence of Rhaegar's son Aegon (don't think he was ever actually mentioned on the show) and use the name Aegon for Jon -- as Aegon is the name of Kings in Westeros. So for show watchers, maybe Aegon is a simpler name to get across the intent of Jon to be destined to rule. But in the books, it would make little sense (as Aegon, son of Rhaegar, would still have been alive when Rhaegar and Lyanna would have chosen names -- and the clues in favor of Aemon are strong in the books), so no matter what Targ name Jon has on the show, I will not assume it is the same in the books (unless his show name is Aemon, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone over on the Previously.tv forum boards raised an interesting point about the implications of the show re: Book Sandor:

On the 6x07 commentary, Bryan Cogman said that although GRRM hinted in the books that Sandor was still alive, the writers weren't sure what GRRM was going to do with it so they came up with the non-book 6x07 storyline with Ray:

Quote

Cogman admits that the Brother Ray character was a blend of a couple different characters Brienne meets in A Feast for Crows, which we figured. Interestingly, he also says that, while it’s hinted that the Hound is still alive in the books, they weren’t sure where George R.R. Martin was going to take it. “We took that kernel and fashioned this storyline.” So who knows if anything like this will show up in the books? (WIC.net)

It seems like Cogman is admitting here that the writers have no clue what happens to Sandor after AFFC.

Assuming his statement can be taken at face value and that he's not lying, that's...kind of a big deal, I think.

This would mean that Sandor is not part of the broad strokes of the ending GRRM communicated to D&D back in the 2013 meeting, since otherwise they would have a rough idea of what happens to him. I think Werthead posted elsewhere on the boards about how GRRM in the 2013 meeting didn't even know the endings for many lower level characters. It's possible that he hadn't decided in 2013 what he was going to do with Sandor. Heck, it's possible that he still hasn't decided what he's going to do with Sandor.

This would also mean that whatever happens to Sandor in the show is likely a show-only invention that's not predictive of the books, since the writers would be flying blind when it comes to Sandor. So if he dies in the show, it doesn't necessarily mean that he dies in the books, and likewise if he lives in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2017 at 9:03 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

I am still holding out hope that his real name will be revealed as "Aemon" (as I have long believed) and not Aegon (they sound pretty similar so possible to be confused). But even if Jon is Aegon in the show, he still might be Aemon in the books. For a host of reasons (discussed in detail in other threads over the years), Aemon makes the most sense to me -- but for reasons that are pretty much only relevant in the books and not so much on the show. On the show, I think they can merely erase the existence of Rhaegar's son Aegon (don't think he was ever actually mentioned on the show) and use the name Aegon for Jon -- as Aegon is the name of Kings in Westeros. So for show watchers, maybe Aegon is a simpler name to get across the intent of Jon to be destined to rule. But in the books, it would make little sense (as Aegon, son of Rhaegar, would still have been alive when Rhaegar and Lyanna would have chosen names -- and the clues in favor of Aemon are strong in the books), so no matter what Targ name Jon has on the show, I will not assume it is the same in the books (unless his show name is Aemon, of course).

I think your taking the prophecy of "The dragon must have three heads" far to literally. It's not a reference to dragon riders at all, its a reference to an alliance. Stark/Targ/Lannister. Jamie will be every bit as key (if not more so) than Tyrion in the battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm starting to believe that the third head of the dragon is Aegon. It kinda fits if you think that Cersei is taking part of his role on the show. Cersei is posed to stab Jon and Dany in the back, in the books it may be Aegon. He could be a Visenya to their Aegon and Rhaenys.

 

I'd give up the idea that any other character than Dany will ever control Drogon. They have always been conected, even before they properly bonded. Drogon came to her in a dream, long before he hatched. He's also a symbolical stand in for Drog,o and no one else has a connection to Drogo.

Edited by lojzelote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ice Spider said:

I think your taking the prophecy of "The dragon must have three heads" far to literally. It's not a reference to dragon riders at all, its a reference to an alliance. Stark/Targ/Lannister. Jamie will be every bit as key (if not more so) than Tyrion in the battle. 

 

31 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Frankly, I'm starting to believe that the third head of the dragon is Aegon. It kinda fits if you think that Cersei is taking part of his role on the show. Cersei is posed to stab Jon and Dany in the back, in the books it may be Aegon. He could be a Visenya to their Aegon and Rhaenys.

 

I'd give up the idea that any other character than Dany will ever control Drogon. They have always been conected, even before they properly bonded. Drogon came to her in a dream, long before he hatched. He's also a symbolical stand in for Drog,o and no one else has a connection to Drogo.

I disagree with both of the posts above. To be clear, I agree that the "dragon must have three heads" does not mean three dragon riders. I don't think I ever said that it did (and the specific quote of mine reprinted has to do with Jon's name as Aemon and does not ever mention Tyrion, so I am not sure which statement is actually being referenced). I am not confident that Tyrion rides a dragon (although I think it possible if Dany dies in battle). I believe that the "dragon has three heads" is talking about three Targs needed to come together as "war generals" to save humanity. I believe those three Targs are Dany, Jon and Tyrion. The Starks are wolves and the Lannisters are lions -- so the dragon having three heads cannot be a reference to a Stark and a Lannister being two of the three heads. I also highly doubt that Jaime has much of a critical role to play in the endgame -- I tend to doubt he even survives to the endgame. I tend to think that the most important aspect of to Jaime is as the valonqar and after killing Cersei, I am not sure he has much of a role left to play in the story. Tyrion and NOT Jaime will be critical to defeating the Others.

As to Aegon (or fAegon) being the third head -- not a chance. He is not even a character in the show -- so he cannot be critical to the endgame. He is introduced in book 5 -- he is not given much "screen time" in the books. It would make absolutely no sense for Aegon to team up with Jon and Dany as the big triumvirate to defeat the Others. GRRM has been setting up who are the main characters since book 1 -- Aegon (or fAegon, as I think more appropriate) is absolutely not one of them. The three heads of the dragon are allies -- so while your suggestion that Cersei is playing some of the role of Aegon in the show may be correct, that is actually evidence that Aegon is NOT the third head, as Cersei certainly is not going to be an ally in the war against the WW (Visenya did not betray Aegon and Rhaenys in the war to conquer Westeros).

As for Drogon never bonding with anyone but Dany -- who knows what Drogon might do if Dany dies? Certainly as long as Dany is alive, that conclusion is correct. If Dany dies -- who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

 

I disagree with both of the posts above. To be clear, I agree that the "dragon must have three heads" does not mean three dragon riders. I don't think I ever said that it did (and the specific quote of mine reprinted has to do with Jon's name as Aemon and does not ever mention Tyrion, so I am not sure which statement is actually being referenced). I am not confident that Tyrion rides a dragon (although I think it possible if Dany dies in battle). I believe that the "dragon has three heads" is talking about three Targs needed to come together as "war generals" to save humanity. I believe those three Targs are Dany, Jon and Tyrion. The Starks are wolves and the Lannisters are lions -- so the dragon having three heads cannot be a reference to a Stark and a Lannister being two of the three heads. I also highly doubt that Jaime has much of a critical role to play in the endgame -- I tend to doubt he even survives to the endgame. I tend to think that the most important aspect of to Jaime is as the valonqar and after killing Cersei, I am not sure he has much of a role left to play in the story. Tyrion and NOT Jaime will be critical to defeating the Others.

As to Aegon (or fAegon) being the third head -- not a chance. He is not even a character in the show -- so he cannot be critical to the endgame. He is introduced in book 5 -- he is not given much "screen time" in the books. It would make absolutely no sense for Aegon to team up with Jon and Dany as the big triumvirate to defeat the Others. GRRM has been setting up who are the main characters since book 1 -- Aegon (or fAegon, as I think more appropriate) is absolutely not one of them. The three heads of the dragon are allies -- so while your suggestion that Cersei is playing some of the role of Aegon in the show may be correct, that is actually evidence that Aegon is NOT the third head, as Cersei certainly is not going to be an ally in the war against the WW (Visenya did not betray Aegon and Rhaenys in the war to conquer Westeros).

As for Drogon never bonding with anyone but Dany -- who knows what Drogon might do if Dany dies? Certainly as long as Dany is alive, that conclusion is correct. If Dany dies -- who knows?

Well, who's saying that the third head of of the dragon has to be a POV we have known from the start? It could be we are supposed to view him as the third wheel of a bicycle and ultimately a betrayer of the characters we care about. I also don't believe GRRM intends for fully fitting parallels. I don't think it matters that Visenya betrayed decades later. The present day story is not going to spin so long that we will see Jon and Dany in their seventies. If a part of the parallels between now and then is the third head betraying the other two, it will happen sooner rather than later. Aegon can work with them, but backstab them when the tide is turning.

I don't greatly care either way, but I'm open to possibilities.

That's the thing. I'm confident that if Dany dies, Drogon dies with her. Like Meraxes died when Rhaenys fell. I don't believe anything else would make sense from the storytelling perspective. Drogon bonding to anyone else would be lackluster in comparison to his exceptional bond to his human mother. It took them quite a long time to get together in the proper way, and if some guy out of nowhere jumps at Drogon and controls him with realtive easiness and quickness, then it devalues their relationship that has been very important since early on in AGoT.

Edited by lojzelote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, who's saying that the third head of of the dragon has to be a POV we have known from the start? It could be we are supposed to view him as the third wheel of a bicycle and ultimately a betrayer of the characters we care about. I also don't believe GRRM intends for fully fitting parallels. I don't think it matters that Visenya betrayed decades later. The present day story is not going to spin so long that we will see Jon and Dany in their seventies. If a part of the parallels between now and then is the third head betraying the other two, it will happen sooner rather than later. Aegon can work with them, but backstab them when the tide is turning.

I don't greatly care either way, but I'm open to possibilities.

That's the thing. I'm confident that if Dany dies, Drogon dies with her. Like Meraxes died when Rhaenys fell. I don't believe anything else would make sense from the storytelling perspective. Drogon bonding to anyone else would be lackluster in comparison to his exceptional bond to his human mother. It took them quite a long time to get together in the proper way, and if some guy out of nowhere jumps at Drogon and controls him with realtive easiness and quickness, then it devalues their relationship that has been very important since early on in AGoT.

The "dragon must have three heads." The prophecy is about how to save humanity. If one of the heads is a betrayer -- the prophecy makes no sense. Victory depends on there being three heads of the dragon. I don't see how one of the heads betraying the other two can be fulfilling the prophecy of three heads fighting together to save humanity. Aegon (or fAegon or YG -- whatever) is set up as a foil to be a rival to Dany. YG might form an alliance with Dany and Jon -- and then break that alliance. So he might perform some of the roles that Cersei plays on the show. But then he would NOT be the third head. After finding out about any such betrayal -- YG will be dispatched -- and then the three heads (Jon, Dany and Tyrion) will be left to fight the Others. I just don't understand how a betrayer can be the prophetic third head necessary to save the world.

As to Drogon having to die with Dany or the "relationship is ruined" -- I just don't agree. Drogon can be even more motivated to avenge her death -- and bonding with Tyrion may be the only way to do it. I am not stating that I am predicting this will happen. As I have said repeatedly, the prophecy works even if Tyrion NEVER rides a dragon but is in some way critical to defeating the Others as part of a team with Jon and Dany. But Tyrion having Targ blood in some way does have to be critical -- I just don't assume that I know for sure how (although riding Drogon after Dany's death certainly would be one way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The "dragon must have three heads." The prophecy is about how to save humanity. If one of the heads is a betrayer -- the prophecy makes no sense. Victory depends on there being three heads of the dragon. I don't see how one of the heads betraying the other two can be fulfilling the prophecy of three heads fighting together to save humanity. Aegon (or fAegon or YG -- whatever) is set up as a foil to be a rival to Dany. YG might form an alliance with Dany and Jon -- and then break that alliance. So he might perform some of the roles that Cersei plays on the show. But then he would NOT be the third head. After finding out about any such betrayal -- YG will be dispatched -- and then the three heads (Jon, Dany and Tyrion) will be left to fight the Others. I just don't understand how a betrayer can be the prophetic third head necessary to save the world.

As to Drogon having to die with Dany or the "relationship is ruined" -- I just don't agree. Drogon can be even more motivated to avenge her death -- and bonding with Tyrion may be the only way to do it. I am not stating that I am predicting this will happen. As I have said repeatedly, the prophecy works even if Tyrion NEVER rides a dragon but is in some way critical to defeating the Others as part of a team with Jon and Dany. But Tyrion having Targ blood in some way does have to be critical -- I just don't assume that I know for sure how (although riding Drogon after Dany's death certainly would be one way).

Why? We have very little idea what the prophecy exactly says. It can simply say that three dragon heads of a single body will be instrumental in fighting the darkness that overwhelms the world (which could this scenario mean three members of the Targaryen family/bloodline). I doubt says anything about the heads being on good terms or remaining truthful and loyal to each other throughout their life. Aegon can still be important in saving the world even if he doesn't last till the end of the war and uses the situation to get the upper hand.

To me it would be like Sansa bonding with Nymeria if Arya dies. Or Bran inheriting Ghost. Some relationships better remain swan-like.

Anyway, there's no guarantee that Tyrion has Targaryen blood. It is a possibility, but it is not a certainty. I wouldn't reject other alternatives out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The "dragon must have three heads." The prophecy is about how to save humanity. If one of the heads is a betrayer -- the prophecy makes no sense. Victory depends on there being three heads of the dragon. I don't see how one of the heads betraying the other two can be fulfilling the prophecy of three heads fighting together to save humanity. Aegon (or fAegon or YG -- whatever) is set up as a foil to be a rival to Dany. YG might form an alliance with Dany and Jon -- and then break that alliance. So he might perform some of the roles that Cersei plays on the show. But then he would NOT be the third head. After finding out about any such betrayal -- YG will be dispatched -- and then the three heads (Jon, Dany and Tyrion) will be left to fight the Others. I just don't understand how a betrayer can be the prophetic third head necessary to save the world.

As to Drogon having to die with Dany or the "relationship is ruined" -- I just don't agree. Drogon can be even more motivated to avenge her death -- and bonding with Tyrion may be the only way to do it. I am not stating that I am predicting this will happen. As I have said repeatedly, the prophecy works even if Tyrion NEVER rides a dragon but is in some way critical to defeating the Others as part of a team with Jon and Dany. But Tyrion having Targ blood in some way does have to be critical -- I just don't assume that I know for sure how (although riding Drogon after Dany's death certainly would be one way).

 The "three heads" refer to three heads of powerful households. Who, where, or when a person rides a dragon is irrelevant. As to whether or not they have targ blood is also irrelevant.  Simply put, Jon's and Dany's forces combined are not enough to defeat the WW's, enter Jamie's importance. Tyrion, while important in his own right, does not bring a lot to the table in the battle against the others. Post war Westeros would be his forte. The prophecy is quite clearly about an alliance of necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Why? We have very little idea what the prophecy exactly says. It can simply say that three dragon heads of a single body will be instrumental in fighting the darkness that overwhelms the world (which could this scenario mean three members of the Targaryen family/bloodline). I doubt says anything about the heads being on good terms or remaining truthful and loyal to each other throughout their life. Aegon can still be important in saving the world even if he doesn't last till the end of the war and uses the situation to get the upper hand.

To me it would be like Sansa bonding with Nymeria if Arya dies. Or Bran inheriting Ghost. Some relationships better remain swan-like.

Anyway, there's no guarantee that Tyrion has Targaryen blood. It is a possibility, but it is not a certainty. I wouldn't reject other alternatives out of hand.

I don't mean to reject alternatives out of hand. I merely am analyzing the information we have and making my best assessment of what I think it means and what seem to be the more or less likely scenarios to me. GRRM is the author and can write whatever he wants to write. I merely am looking at the clues he has left the readers and trying to figure out what I think GRRM means by them.

I am not following how YG can be instrumental in the victory against the WW, but nevertheless not last to the battle and have betrayed Jon and Dany in this endeavor. I read the words from you, but I don't understand a scenario where such events can play out in a way that would make sense to the readers that YG was the third head and was instrumental in the victory. Of course, such a view merely might be a failure of imagination on my part. But when Rheagar says that the dragon must have three heads and appears to look at Dany in suggesting that there must be one more -- I don't take his advice as being one that will lead to betrayal. I can see Dany being tricked into thinking that YG is a head of the dragon -- but his betrayal would serve as evidence that he is not.

As to the dragon bonding -- there is an important difference. GRRM has spent no time giving readers details of how bonding with a dire wolf works. Such a bonding does not appear to have the same "magical" elements that dragon binding had. This sort of bonding seems more ordinary, along the lines of a "real" human being bonding with a pet dog. But GRRM spends much time (admittedly mostly in side books and not the main series) explaining how dragons and riders are bound for life -- but if one dies, the survivor can bond with another. To me, that information is a clue that the process of dragon binding -- PLUS -- the ability to bind a dragon after the death of the original rider -- might become critical to the plot. So while you might not like such a plot development -- it might be exactly where GRRM is going -- because it might be where he thinks he has to go to make the plot work in the way he needs the endgame to work (remember that "bittersweet" ending is critical to GRRM's view of how this story needs to end -- he has admitted as much in numerous interviews). So in this regard (relating to Drogon bonding with Tyrion after Dany's death), perhaps you are the one who is rejecting an alternative out of hand. Just remember that bonding with a dragon is NOT like bonding with a pet (even a dire wolf). The bond is a "magical" bond formed by a Targ with the "right drop of blood" jumping on the back of the dragon. The dragon does not need to have any affection for the rider -- the dragon really has no choice.

Oh, and I agree that Tyrion as Targ bastard is not a guarantee. I merely have looked at all the evidence and still think that the clues in favor of this theory are fairly compelling. But these clues are not so definitive as to leave no doubt. But the clues -- combined with lack of a better alternative for the third head (and as I explained, I don't consider YG a very good alternative) -- I still tend to think Tyrion likely is the biological son of Aerys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ice Spider said:

 The "three heads" refer to three heads of powerful households. Who, where, or when a person rides a dragon is irrelevant. As to whether or not they have targ blood is also irrelevant.  Simply put, Jon's and Dany's forces combined are not enough to defeat the WW's, enter Jamie's importance. Tyrion, while important in his own right, does not bring a lot to the table in the battle against the others. Post war Westeros would be his forte. The prophecy is quite clearly about an alliance of necessity.

Here is the exact quote:

He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."

Based on this quote, I cannot see how the three heads can be from three houses. Rhaegar states that the DRAGON has three heads. A wolf cannot be a head of a dragon. A lion cannot be a head of a dragon. The prophecy is talking about a three-headed dragon. Which to me can only mean three characters with a Targ parent (i.e., of the dragon) coming together to lead to victory. Your proposition that the dragon having thee heads can somehow mean three separate houses coming together simply makes no sense to me. To propose that the prophecy is about "three heads of powerful households" simply ignores that the prophecy refers to the three heads as being head of the DRAGON. I am just not seeing where you get that a dragon's three heads can be heads of non-dragon households.

And while Jaime is more of a warrior than Tyrion, pure warrior skills are not going to make the difference in the War for the Dawn 2.0. Jaime is not one of the big 5 or big 6 (depending on whether one includes Sansa) in the story -- so he is not going to be more important than Tyrion in the end. This book is about the remnants of the Stark and Targ families. The Lannisters are adversaries -- not allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I don't mean to reject alternatives out of hand. I merely am analyzing the information we have and making my best assessment of what I think it means and what seem to be the more or less likely scenarios to me. GRRM is the author and can write whatever he wants to write. I merely am looking at the clues he has left the readers and trying to figure out what I think GRRM means by them.

I am not following how YG can be instrumental in the victory against the WW, but nevertheless not last to the battle and have betrayed Jon and Dany in this endeavor. I read the words from you, but I don't understand a scenario where such events can play out in a way that would make sense to the readers that YG was the third head and was instrumental in the victory. Of course, such a view merely might be a failure of imagination on my part. But when Rheagar says that the dragon must have three heads and appears to look at Dany in suggesting that there must be one more -- I don't take his advice as being one that will lead to betrayal. I can see Dany being tricked into thinking that YG is a head of the dragon -- but his betrayal would serve as evidence that he is not.

As to the dragon bonding -- there is an important difference. GRRM has spent no time giving readers details of how bonding with a dire wolf works. Such a bonding does not appear to have the same "magical" elements that dragon binding had. This sort of bonding seems more ordinary, along the lines of a "real" human being bonding with a pet dog. But GRRM spends much time (admittedly mostly in side books and not the main series) explaining how dragons and riders are bound for life -- but if one dies, the survivor can bond with another. To me, that information is a clue that the process of dragon binding -- PLUS -- the ability to bind a dragon after the death of the original rider -- might become critical to the plot. So while you might not like such a plot development -- it might be exactly where GRRM is going -- because it might be where he thinks he has to go to make the plot work in the way he needs the endgame to work (remember that "bittersweet" ending is critical to GRRM's view of how this story needs to end -- he has admitted as much in numerous interviews). So in this regard (relating to Drogon bonding with Tyrion after Dany's death), perhaps you are the one who is rejecting an alternative out of hand. Just remember that bonding with a dragon is NOT like bonding with a pet (even a dire wolf). The bond is a "magical" bond formed by a Targ with the "right drop of blood" jumping on the back of the dragon. The dragon does not need to have any affection for the rider -- the dragon really has no choice.

Oh, and I agree that Tyrion as Targ bastard is not a guarantee. I merely have looked at all the evidence and still think that the clues in favor of this theory are fairly compelling. But these clues are not so definitive as to leave no doubt. But the clues -- combined with lack of a better alternative for the third head (and as I explained, I don't consider YG a very good alternative) -- I still tend to think Tyrion likely is the biological son of Aerys. 

I can imagine it quite easily. Westeros is a clusterfuck, the Others finally invade, the warring sides make a truce for the time being and join against the Others. At some point Aegon sees the chance to get rid of his rival and takes it, but it isn't successful. I'm not saying it's a given by any means, but it's hardly an unimaginable scenario. They would be three leaders of Targaryen descend who fight in the war against the Others. It doesn't go against any information we have.

We have seen Dany and Drogon's relationship develop through four (and more) books. They have had a strong connetion since the time Drogon had been a mere egg. No I simply can't imagine that some other guy will ride Drogon during the last hundred pages of the entire series. She is the Mother of Dragons and she always has had a special tender spot for Drogon (it has always been clear to me he will be her dragon since he was the one brought up most often, while Rhaegal and Viserion usually came together almost like an afterthought).

But, of course, it never stopped people claiming that Drogon will go to Jon, because, of course, the biggest, baddest, blackest dragon must go to a male character, can't have a petite girl have such a cool steed. Now people theorize about Dany dying, so Tyrion or Bran can get him. *sigh* I wonder why no one theorizes that Jon will die and leave Rhaegal to one of them? We aren't even sure he will ride Rhaegal in the first place, so perhaps he could stay faithful to Ghost, while Rhaegal goes straight to Tyrion or Bran. As opposed to Tyrion, Jon would actually have a clear role in the war even without a dragon.

Warging is both magical and genetical - Bloodraven downright says that one person in a thousand is born a skinchanger - not everybody can do it. Skichanging may be more common in comparison to dragoriding, but it isn't mundane and can't be learned by someone born without the potential. Besides, you think that the six direwolf pups and one of them apart in the old gods coloring is a coincidence? No, these wolves had been intended specifically for the Stark children. Their number, the distribution of male and female sex, the one set apart, their nature (Ghost being the mysterious quite one, Ghost and Grey Wind the same size as Jon and Robb are the same age, Lady being the smallest and sweetest etc.)... that's not a coincidence, though only the old gods know how they have done it.

Varamyr could have also stolen Ghost from Jon - he certainly seems sure it would have been possible - but it doesn't mean Borroq will warg Ghost once Jon is dead or any other person will if Ghost makes it and Jon does not. The same goes for Drogon and Dany. It may be possible in theory, but it will never happen. They are sacred cows from the storytelling perspective. I am willing to bet they will have each only one human.

If there are any dragons that may change humans a couple of times, it will be Rhaegal (and Viserion, at least in the books). They don't seem to have a special pre-existing connection to anyone.

Edited by lojzelote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lojzelote--

I won't belabor the Drogon issue -- I think we have gone back and forth as far as the discussion can go. I want to clarify, however, what I mean about YG not being a head of the dragon. You paint a plausible scenario. I have no problem believing that such a scenario might happen. I never meant to suggest otherwise. I simply don't believe that if that scenario happens, that any reader would conclude that YG is the third head of the dragon. A betrayer who does not make it to the endgame is not one of the heads of the dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Here is the exact quote:

He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."

Based on this quote, I cannot see how the three heads can be from three houses. Rhaegar states that the DRAGON has three heads. A wolf cannot be a head of a dragon. A lion cannot be a head of a dragon. The prophecy is talking about a three-headed dragon

 

 

 

They most certainly can. Again, your taking the prophecy much to literally. Your also totally ignoring the pre-text, that of the long night. Are you suggesting that only targaryen forces were instrumental in the original defeat of the others? Three heads of the dragon, Three allies, come together to fight a common evil, it really is that simple. No targ blood needed. Why the wight hunt? Why the exhibition? Because Dany need to add the third head. When they all come together for a common cause, the Cause itself is the "dragon". Fire vs ice. Night Vs Day. Tyrion's role will be to kill Cersei. Leaks have Jamie leaving KL, I believe he will gather remnants of the remaining forces of Westeros to fight the others. 

 

 

3 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The prophecy is talking about a three-headed dragon. Which to me can only mean three characters with a Targ parent (i.e., of the dragon) coming together to lead to victory.

No no no

3 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

 

Your proposition that the dragon having thee heads can somehow mean three separate houses coming together simply makes no sense to me. To propose that the prophecy is about "three heads of powerful households" simply ignores that the prophecy refers to the three heads as being head of the DRAGON. I am just not seeing where you get that a dragon's three heads can be heads of non-dragon households.

And while Jaime is more of a warrior than Tyrion, pure warrior skills are not going to make the difference in the War for the Dawn 2.0. Jaime is not one of the big 5 or big 6 (depending on whether one includes Sansa) in the story -- so he is not going to be more important than Tyrion in the end. This book is about the remnants of the Stark and Targ families. The Lannisters are adversaries -- not allies.

It ignores no such thing, and nowhere has it ever been said that the three heads must have targ blood. Furthermore, not all Targs where dragon riders, so the connection between a dragon and its rider is magical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13. 1. 2017 at 3:01 PM, UnmaskedLurker said:

 

I disagree with both of the posts above. To be clear, I agree that the "dragon must have three heads" does not mean three dragon riders. I don't think I ever said that it did (and the specific quote of mine reprinted has to do with Jon's name as Aemon and does not ever mention Tyrion, so I am not sure which statement is actually being referenced). I am not confident that Tyrion rides a dragon (although I think it possible if Dany dies in battle). I believe that the "dragon has three heads" is talking about three Targs needed to come together as "war generals" to save humanity. I believe those three Targs are Dany, Jon and Tyrion. The Starks are wolves and the Lannisters are lions -- so the dragon having three heads cannot be a reference to a Stark and a Lannister being two of the three heads. I also highly doubt that Jaime has much of a critical role to play in the endgame -- I tend to doubt he even survives to the endgame. I tend to think that the most important aspect of to Jaime is as the valonqar and after killing Cersei, I am not sure he has much of a role left to play in the story. Tyrion and NOT Jaime will be critical to defeating the Others.

As to Aegon (or fAegon) being the third head -- not a chance. He is not even a character in the show -- so he cannot be critical to the endgame. He is introduced in book 5 -- he is not given much "screen time" in the books. It would make absolutely no sense for Aegon to team up with Jon and Dany as the big triumvirate to defeat the Others. GRRM has been setting up who are the main characters since book 1 -- Aegon (or fAegon, as I think more appropriate) is absolutely not one of them. The three heads of the dragon are allies -- so while your suggestion that Cersei is playing some of the role of Aegon in the show may be correct, that is actually evidence that Aegon is NOT the third head, as Cersei certainly is not going to be an ally in the war against the WW (Visenya did not betray Aegon and Rhaenys in the war to conquer Westeros).

As for Drogon never bonding with anyone but Dany -- who knows what Drogon might do if Dany dies? Certainly as long as Dany is alive, that conclusion is correct. If Dany dies -- who knows?

What does being Targ has to do with saving humanity and being general in that sense? Pretty sure Jaime, Brienne and others will play a part and as we know Tyrion is Dany's hand but she makes her decision, likely with Jon from onwards. Both will ride a dragons. Tyrion can play a big part with war against white walkers but does he have to be Targaryen for that? No and literally there is no point of including this.

Show pretty much put this Tyrion is a Targ away because it doesn't serve narrative and story. With Jon's reveal to everyone in the story will already prove to be major point. Other reveal would only diminsh Jon's reveal and for that matter Tyrion's. If Dany dies Drogon will go with her and let's be honest one of Jon and Dany will live ...  and likely be a ruler of Seven Kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2017 at 8:01 AM, UnmaskedLurker said:

As to Aegon (or fAegon) being the third head -- not a chance. He is not even a character in the show -- so he cannot be critical to the endgame.

I'm not sure about this. The dragon having three heads was never mentioned in the show. The show has always had the tendency to merge multiple storylines into a single character for brevity. Gendry and Edric into just Gendry, all the KL prostitutes into Ros, I'm pretty sure Jon inherited Stannis' storyline in the North, and so forth. It's entirely possible that Dany is inheriting (f)Aegon's storyline. The sudden resolution to the Mereenese knot and along with the equally sudden pairing up with Dorne and the Reach lead me to believe this. If she ends up landing in the Stormlands next season I'll be all but certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2017 at 3:04 AM, Lord Friendzone said:

What does being Targ has to do with saving humanity and being general in that sense? Pretty sure Jaime, Brienne and others will play a part and as we know Tyrion is Dany's hand but she makes her decision, likely with Jon from onwards. Both will ride a dragons. Tyrion can play a big part with war against white walkers but does he have to be Targaryen for that? No and literally there is no point of including this.

Show pretty much put this Tyrion is a Targ away because it doesn't serve narrative and story. With Jon's reveal to everyone in the story will already prove to be major point. Other reveal would only diminsh Jon's reveal and for that matter Tyrion's. If Dany dies Drogon will go with her and let's be honest one of Jon and Dany will live ...  and likely be a ruler of Seven Kingdoms.

The idea that three people with Targ blood with be central to saving humanity is based on my interpretation of the statement by Rhaegar that the prophecy dealing with the Battle for the Dawn 2.0 includes the proposition that the Dragon must have Three Heads. I interpret that statement to mean that in order to win the war, three Targs must work together as a team to prevail. Of course others will assist (I think that Stark children will be more central than Jaime or Brienne, but whatever, the point remains that 3 Targs won't do everyone alone without any help from others -- and I never intended to suggest otherwise). Others are free to disagree with my interpretation of that part of the prophecy. I simply find it hard to make sense of that part of the prophecy any other way. And if three character of Targ ancestry are going to be central to the battle, Tyrion is the only realistic candidate for the third Targ.

Your statement that somehow the show has precluded Tyrion a Targ because it would somehow diminish Jon's reveal as a Targ makes no sense to me. I see the opposite. The show has had a relatively long and slow build up to the reveal of Jon as Targ (at this point, anyone watching the show who has not figured out that Jon is Targ is not paying attention -- and the actual reveal to Jon will probably happen at the beginning of season 8 -- so another entire season will go by without Jon finding out, I think). So Jon's reveal will be long and tortuous. Whereas Tyrion's reveal -- if I am correct -- will be more sudden and unexpected. I don't see such a reveal, however, undermining the other. Such an approach is entirely consistent with the style of storytelling that D&D are using. They like "shock" reveals -- and Jon's won't be a shock by the time of its reveal -- Tyrion's reveal would.

As to the assertion that if Dany dies, that Drogon must die as well -- there is no evidence for such an assertion. As to the supposition that one of Jon or Dany likely will live -- I agree -- and I suspect it is more likely to be Jon than Dany -- but it could go either way. But one surviving has nothing to do with the likelihood of Tyrion being revealed as being son of Aerys.

18 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

I'm not sure about this. The dragon having three heads was never mentioned in the show. The show has always had the tendency to merge multiple storylines into a single character for brevity. Gendry and Edric into just Gendry, all the KL prostitutes into Ros, I'm pretty sure Jon inherited Stannis' storyline in the North, and so forth. It's entirely possible that Dany is inheriting (f)Aegon's storyline. The sudden resolution to the Mereenese knot and along with the equally sudden pairing up with Dorne and the Reach lead me to believe this. If she ends up landing in the Stormlands next season I'll be all but certain.

FAegon not being on the show actually is not the biggest reason by any stretch for why I don't consider him to be a serious contended as a head of the dragon (it is a reason -- but not a main reason). The biggest reason is that YG simply is not a main character -- and the 3 heads I believe must end up all being main characters. I also think that YG seems to be pretty clearly inserted into the story as a "plot device" to be a source of struggle or adversary to main characters (mainly Dany, but also possibly Cersi and KL generally). Turning YG into a critical player in the endgame battle just does not fit based on my understanding of how GRRM is designing the structure of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3. 3. 2017 at 9:52 PM, UnmaskedLurker said:

The idea that three people with Targ blood with be central to saving humanity is based on my interpretation of the statement by Rhaegar that the prophecy dealing with the Battle for the Dawn 2.0 includes the proposition that the Dragon must have Three Heads. I interpret that statement to mean that in order to win the war, three Targs must work together as a team to prevail. Of course others will assist (I think that Stark children will be more central than Jaime or Brienne, but whatever, the point remains that 3 Targs won't do everyone alone without any help from others -- and I never intended to suggest otherwise). Others are free to disagree with my interpretation of that part of the prophecy. I simply find it hard to make sense of that part of the prophecy any other way. And if three character of Targ ancestry are going to be central to the battle, Tyrion is the only realistic candidate for the third Targ.

Your statement that somehow the show has precluded Tyrion a Targ because it would somehow diminish Jon's reveal as a Targ makes no sense to me. I see the opposite. The show has had a relatively long and slow build up to the reveal of Jon as Targ (at this point, anyone watching the show who has not figured out that Jon is Targ is not paying attention -- and the actual reveal to Jon will probably happen at the beginning of season 8 -- so another entire season will go by without Jon finding out, I think). So Jon's reveal will be long and tortuous. Whereas Tyrion's reveal -- if I am correct -- will be more sudden and unexpected. I don't see such a reveal, however, undermining the other. Such an approach is entirely consistent with the style of storytelling that D&D are using. They like "shock" reveals -- and Jon's won't be a shock by the time of its reveal -- Tyrion's reveal would.

As to the assertion that if Dany dies, that Drogon must die as well -- there is no evidence for such an assertion. As to the supposition that one of Jon or Dany likely will live -- I agree -- and I suspect it is more likely to be Jon than Dany -- but it could go either way. But one surviving has nothing to do with the likelihood of Tyrion being revealed as being son of Aerys.

I was thinking with three-headed dragon prophecy that these three people or two Dany must trust, but as it was Tyrion was among all those people kraken, wolf etc. Clearly show is not going this way hence the spoilers. Why else would we have such a third dragonrider and events to happen to dragons next season. Didn't it just killed your theory? Btw I beliebves in it until they reveal these spoilers.

Many people does not understand meaning of last season and hence why we're getting another flashbacks to make it clear who are Jon's parents. They seem to be making this priority. Also, when you noticed Jon, Dany and Night King are the big three, always surrounded by these symbols Golden Ration, Phi etc. When you build season for it and then well there is another one kind lost it's purpose. Shocking is that who is third rider as

Night King

Dragon do not bond with many people, unless they die and so far I haven't see or think that Jon or Dany will die before the end so we can have Tyrion being targ confirmed, since people thinks dragons reaction are signal to it.

There is literally no storytelling or narrative purpose unless both Jon and Dany die so Targ restoration is in place, but then kid is likely expected from Jon and Dany.  I think there is someone who is going to be and should even more central to it and doesn't have to be Targaryen and that is Bran, because I haven't see evidence that being a Targ has something to do with War of Dawn or defeating them. Dany and Jon are special, touched by magic much like NK. In my opinion Bran is more important than Tyrion, Jaime, other Starks or even maybe the ultimate decider and not Jon or Dany to this war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Friendzone--

I had a little trouble understanding your last post, but I will try my best to address what I think are your points (although I may end up just repeating some of what I said above).

First, I don't think that the spoilers from the upcoming season eliminate Tyrion as a Targ. Tyrion as a Targ can be important even if there are never three Targs that ride three different dragons at the same time.

Second, I simply don't agree that a late reveal of Tyrion as Targ in any way diminishes or loses the purpose of the Jon reveal. I am not sure there is much more to say than what I said above -- I simply don't agree and don't think that you have sufficient evidence to make this conclusion. This conclusion is based on your personal estimation of whether an additional reveal would undermine the prior reveal -- but I simply am going by the clues. I cannot get into GRRM's head to know whether he would consider the later reveal as losing the significance of the prior reveal -- so I simply cannot make such an assumption.And the clues tell me that Tyrion likely is a Targ.

Third, I have conceded many times that a dragon can only bond to one person at a time. You don't need to keep making the point -- I agree with you. I think your assumption that both Jon and Dany survive to the end of the big battle is not based on anything other than your personal preference. I have no idea whether one might die, but one of them dying (seems more likely Dany) and then Tyrion riding the dead Targ's dragon is not implausible. GRRM has set up this eventuality in the way in which he has described the rules surrounding dragons. You simply assert that both Jon and Dany will survive -- without any evidence to support your theory. One surviving is enough for a Targ restoration (if that is the way the story is going, not 100% sure it is). I have no idea why you are so certain that both will survive to the end.

Fourth, I agree that Bran will be critical to winning the war. I just don't see how he can be classified as a "head of the dragon" given that he has no Targ blood. Bran is "above the rest" I would think -- but not directly one of the heads of the dragon -- Bran's actions will be taken from more of a distance -- but I agree will be critical. Nevertheless, based on how the term "dragon" has been used in the series, Bran cannot be a head of the dragon.

Finally, you indicated that you don't see that a Targ has something to do with winning the "War of Dawn" (as you put it). To me, I see no other way to understand the prophecy that Rhaegar described. The prophecy discusses TPTWP who will come from the Aerys/Rhaella line and that the dragon must have three heads (presumably TPTWP and two other Targs to work with TPTWP). Why must the dragon have three heads? The only answer I can see is that three people "of the dragon" (i.e., of Targ blood) must come together to defeat the forces that are threatening the world (i.e., the War for the Dawn 2.0 -- i.e., the Others or White Walkers). If you have a plausible alternative interpretation of the prophecy, I am eager to hear it. I have not heard of any plausible alternative explanations for the basic meaning of the prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.