WhiteOwl18 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I always thought (I could be wrong) that the quote was "Three heads HAS the dragon."To me...that implies one dragon with three heads. Which is why I think it is Jon."The dragon has three heads", yes. Not three dragons, but one dragon with three heads. I also think that's Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Winters Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 "The dragon has three heads", yes. Not three dragons, but one dragon with three heads. I also think that's Jon.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I always thought (I could be wrong) that the quote was "Three heads HAS the dragon."To me...that implies one dragon with three heads. Which is why I think it is Jon.Yep, same. I actually noticed this while reading the HotU stuff a few days ago. It's a singular dragon, with three heads.If it were three dragons, why not have the prophecy worded as such? You could argue the Targ sigil, but what does that actually have to do with the prophecy, if anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finger Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Some Targ loyalist who was NOT a member of the Kingsguard, as very explicitly established. If Viserys had actually been their king, they would have gone to him. But they didn't, because he wasn't the king. I sincerely do not understand why this is so confusing.No, they didn't because they weren't there, as starters.They said it clearly: "Then or now" (they'd covered the royal escape, but they'd never fled.)A KG is known, he'd only draw other people's attention, He can only give his life for his king's.And yes, I find it very easy, not at all confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 No, they didn't because they weren't there, as starters.They said it clearly: "Then or now" (they'd covered the royal escape, but they'd never fled.)A KG is known, he'd only draw other people's attention, He can only give his life for his king's.And yes, I find it very easy, not at all confusing.Given what you keep trying to argue, I'm not convinced of this. They didn't flee to Dragonstone with Viserys because he wasn't their king. The "fleeing" part has to do with Viserys NOT being the king, it's not a general statement. Meaning, if they had gone to Dragonstone WITH THE KING, it wouldn't have been fleeing. And they're not fleeing from the Tower of Joy either, because Jon is there and he's their king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finger Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I always thought (I could be wrong) that the quote was "Three heads HAS the dragon."To me...that implies one dragon with three heads. Which is why I think it is Jon.I think there's a SSM about it. That's why I think the dragon is formed by three people :dunno:The original three headed dragon of Targ's sigil were Aegon and his two sisters/wives. Three heads = three people.Ned served Robert, who had already allowed Aegon and Rhaenys to be killed and was going to deny Jon his kingship. There's no bargaining there. What's downright stupid is stashing your two heirs in the same place, which is what would have been the case if Aegon were alive and at the Tower. But he wasn't alive and at the Tower, because he's dead.In the end, it boils down you think Aegon died in the sack, and I don't.I think we agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foothill Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 No, they didn't because they weren't there, as starters.They said it clearly: "Then or now" (they'd covered the royal escape, but they'd never fled.)A KG is known, he'd only draw other people's attention, He can only give his life for his king's.And yes, I find it very easy, not at all confusing.Just my two cents...If you look at Gerold Hightower, who stood by Aerys as he butchered the Starks and how he told Jaime it was not there place to judge him, you can tell Gerold is all about duty and honor.So why would Gerold remain at the tower if ge is all about duty and protecting the king?To me it is obvious that that is EXACTLY what he was doing at the ToJ...protecting Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think there's a SSM about it. That's why I think the dragon is formed by three people :dunno:The original three headed dragon of Targ's sigil were Aegon and his two sisters/wives. Three heads = three people.And how can we be certain that this prophecy has anything at all to do with the Targaryen sigil?In the end, it boils down you think Aegon died in the sack, and I don't.I think we agree to disagree.Based on WHAT, Varys's say-so? Do better, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think there's a SSM about it. That's why I think the dragon is formed by three people :dunno:The original three headed dragon of Targ's sigil were Aegon and his two sisters/wives. Three heads = three people.In the end, it boils down you think Aegon died in the sack, and I don't.I think we agree to disagree.And the prophecy might older than the Conquest. Maybe Aegon and his sisters also misinterpreted it and thought that they were thre dragon with three heads. For me, this is clear: the dragon (singular) has three heads. Not three dragons, but one dragon with three heads. GRRM talked about dragon riders, not dragon heads. Again, not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finger Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Given what you keep trying to argue, I'm not convinced of this.They didn't flee to Dragonstone with Viserys because he wasn't their king. The "fleeing" part has to do with Viserys NOT being the king, it's not a general statement. Meaning, if they had gone to Dragonstone WITH THE KING, it wouldn't have been fleeing. And they're not fleeing from the Tower of Joy either, because Jon is there and he's their king.Not at all. They couldn't flee with Viserys because they weren't in KL, they were in ToJ.But they approve Willem Darry fled with Viserys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOwl18 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Not at all. They couldn't flee with Viserys because they weren't in KL, they were in ToJ.But they approve Willem Darry fled with Viserys.And if Viserys was the king, they could have left the TOJ and go to Dragonstone to protect him. They don't even try to do that or show any intention of doing it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Not at all. They couldn't flee with Viserys because they weren't in KL, they were in ToJ.But they approve Willem Darry fled with Viserys.And if they were at the Tower of Joy and thought Viserys was the king, they would go to him. That's the entire bloody point: They're still at the Tower when, given what's happened, they SHOULD be en route to Dragonstone. But they aren't and we have to figure out why. Given that Lyanna has obviously just had a baby there, the why should then be obvious: They're there for Jon, because Jon is now the king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumina Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 And how can we be certain that this prophecy has anything at all to do with the Targaryen sigil?Based on WHAT, Varys's say-so? Do better, please.The whole story is bascally, who said what.Varys is usally a reliable source and he admits in this instance that he was personally invollved. First hand information is rare in kingslanding so unless there is YET again an hidden varys plot, I must agree that is is plausible that Aegon did not die..I have my personal doubtes because i dislike the little bugger but that ask someone to ''do better'' than Varys say's so. seems foolish. The spider knows all.That they stayed with Lyanna and her bastard was no more then commen sense, they were to serve the house. They had no reason to go to a bleeding kingslanding (if they knew what had happend) and it is unknow if they knew what had occored. If they thought jon was the last one to survive from the house within their grasp,. they should defend him till death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foothill Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Not at all. They couldn't flee with Viserys because they weren't in KL, they were in ToJ.But they approve Willem Darry fled with Viserys.They approved of it because Viserys is still a prince and should be protected. But the KG does not flee from the king.Ordered to go somewhere and fleeing are very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 And the prophecy might older than the Conquest. Maybe Aegon and his sisters also misinterpreted it and thought that they were thre dragon with three heads. For me, this is clear: the dragon (singular) has three heads. Not three dragons, but one dragon with three heads. GRRM talked about dragon riders, not dragon heads. Again, not the same thing.I actually like the idea that Aegon thought it was him and his sisters and they were wrong too, it seems fitting and might also explain why and when they did what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The whole story is bascally, who said what.Varys is usally a reliable source and he admits in this instance that he was personally invollved. First hand information is rare in kingslanding so unless there is YET again an hidden varys plot, I must agree that is is plausible that Aegon did not die.. I have my personal doubtes because i dislike the little bugger but that ask someone to ''do better'' than Varys say's so. seems foolish. The spider knows all.The spider also has his own personal agenda, which includes passing off a fake for the real Aegon. Compared with the large amount of thematic and circumstantial evidence that Aegon is a fake and possibly a Blackfyre, forgive me, Varys's word isn't worth dick to me, especially when it's in his interest to pass off the lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 GRRM talked about dragon riders, not dragon heads. Again, not the same thing.As I recall, it was the opposite. GRRM mentioned that the third head need not be a Targaryen, but mentioned nothing about dragon riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finger Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Just my two cents...If you look at Gerold Hightower, who stood by Aerys as he butchered the Starks and how he told Jaime it was not there place to judge him, you can tell Gerold is all about duty and honor.So why would Gerold remain at the tower if ge is all about duty and protecting the king?To me it is obvious that that is EXACTLY what he was doing at the ToJ...protecting Jon.I'll tell the whole story.Hightower went to ToJ escorting Aegon, as a condition for Rhaegar's coming back.When things went wrong, Aegon was taken away.The HG stayed to hinder his prosecutors and die with their secret, while they attended Lyanna and Jon.We can't know what would have happened if Lyanna recovered or died. They'd be free to go away with Jon. They might join a Company in the Free Cities, :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumina Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The spider also has his own personal agenda, which includes passing off a fake for the real Aegon. Compared with the large amount of thematic and circumstantial evidence that Aegon is a fake and possibly a Blackfyre, forgive me, Varys's word isn't worth dick to me, especially when it's in his interest to pass off the lie.At the moment he highly discredited, if he should succeed in passing of the boy as Aegon it is not said it will end very well,He could simpy support dany of her jukkie brother (before.. well you know). If this is his backup plan, he would not be inforcing it with such passion.It would not be in het calculted nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foothill Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I'll tell the whole story.Hightower went to ToJ escorting Aegon, as a condition for Rhaegar's coming back.When things went wrong, Aegon was taken away.The HG stayed to hinder his prosecutors and die with their secret, while they attended Lyanna and Jon.We can't know what would have happened if Lyanna recovered or died. They'd be free to go away with Jon. They might join a Company in the Free Cities, :dunno:Why wouldnt they take Rhaenys too? If they smuggled the prince away for protection, they obviously thought KL wasnt safe. Why would Elia let them condemn her as well?Unless i am not understanding, i dont see it as plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.