Connecting the 3 Dragon Heads - Examining Unique Similarities

[Dire Dragon]

Amonra above addresses my response to some extent, but I wanted to expand. The poetic tragedy is that even though Tyrion was not the biological son of Tywin, he was the "real" son of Tywin. Tyrion was much more like Tywin than Tywin's "real" children. As much as Tyrion hated his father, he wanted to be like his father, and largely succeeded. So the irony is that the child that really took after Tywin was not even his real child. More "poetic justice" is that Jaime killed Tyrion's father (Aerys) and Tyrion killed Jaime's father (Tywin).

The idea that Tyrion being a Targ destroys that poetic arc is nonsense to me. Why does Tyrion have to be the natural born son of Tywin for the dynamic to work? Isn't the fact that Tyrion was more like Tywin than his real children irony itself? Isn't the fact that Tywin may have suspected but could not be sure Tyrion was not his add to the complexity of their relationship?

As I wrote in a different thread (that apparently not too many people wanted to discuss because it died pretty quickly), originally, GRRM was going to have the Targs be "fire dancers" (control fire) rather than have dragons. If instead of three dragon riders, we have three fire dancers, they must be Targs. If the dragon has three heads means that the three main characters will be dragon riders (or fire dancers originally) don't they have to have Targ blood. So all the debates about whether non-Targ can ride dragon, certain non-Targs could not have been fire dancers. Who else can the third main character be who would have been able to control fire other than Tyrion?

I'm not saying it can't be possible. Just like it's fine for it not to destroy the poetic arc for you, but it does for me. In a land where bloodlines are everything, it does matter that Tyrion is Tywin's natural son. [in our world it wouldn't matter nearly so much.] That betrayal is not the same betrayal if he is not family.

[Fool of a Book]

Hey all, someone in this thread referring to three baby swaps. I'd like to hear which three and what happened.

[Dire Dragon]

It depends what you believe is more important Nature vs Nurture.

If Tyrion was like Tyrion because he was molded that way by Tywin's parenting (good or bad) that could explain why he was who he was.

It somewhat also is addressed in the story with Ned's sons, both Robb and (adopted son) Jon.

Robb marries Jeyne because he has seen what Ned did (both his honor and Ned bringing home a bastard and what being a bastard meant to Jon)

Jon joins the Nights Watch because Ned had a bastard and Jon does not want to make the same mistake and create a bastard himself.

In the world of GRRM, Nature is more important than Nurture. Bloodlines are (almost) everything. Jon is not an adopted son. Whether or not he is Ned's son, he is of Ned's blood. So Ned is raising him as a bastard son.

In the "real" world, I have very different views on nature versus nurture, but in Westeros, the purity of the bloodlines is very important.

[pobeb]

In a land where bloodlines are everything, it does matter that Tyrion is Tywin's natural son. [In our world it wouldn't matter nearly so much.] That betrayal is not the same betrayal if he is not family.

Wait, what? Bloodlines are everything? How so?

You keep saying that the question of Tyrion's upbringing does not apply to "real world" circumstances, or vice versa. Why, exactly, doesn't it apply?

You're making these wild statements about behavioral ecology without providing any supporting evidence. Your posts make me doubt that you're an anthropologist or have studied anthropology, so how else am I to determine the validity of what you're saying? You don't explain your statements, you don't cite examples from the text, and you refuse to be open in your interpretation of the Tyrion/Tywin dynamic.

It's scientifically accepted that behaviors are mostly learned; and how a person behaves generally dictates who they are, i.e. Tyrion acts like Tywin because he was raised by Tywin (not Aerys). Why wouldn't this apply to a world that GRRM refers to as "second earth"? We have eyes, ears, noses, hands, feet, mouths, and hair just like the Westrosi. Some REAL people behave just like some of these fictitious characters in this story - for better or worse. The defining line between this fantasy world, and our "real" world, is just that: fantasy. And the pattern of adopted behaviors in smaller family settings or larger social settings IS NOT FANTASY - that is a legitamate and real thing, and denying the existance of it (let alone the impact it plays with Tyrion and Tywins relationship), is just wrong.

I posted a pretty personal story earlier if you need another example of how behavioral ecology works. I thought it was a pretty interesting read; you should give it a look.

[Greymoon]

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if Rhaegar is Rhaella's son. The connection is that each hero is the third child of Rhaegar, Joanna, or Rhaella. Those are the factions: Rhaegar's children, Joanna's children, Rhaella's children. I'm not sure how you're misinterpreting this.

The OP was speaking about "family factions" that to me implies one family, multiple factions – a suggestion that is strengthened by the idea that Tyrion is a secret Targ. If you take that away; there is no reason to link Joanna, to Rhaegar, to Rhaella – besides that they each had three children; that Cersei (and Hoster Tully) did too...

You can say that Rhaella and Joanna died in childbirth of course....but then, what to make of Rhaegar?

And if you do not take the J+A = T theory out of it, then Tyrion is Joanna's third -- but Aerys second son. Dany is Rhaella's third; but Aerys's fourth child...Jon would be Rhaegar's third; but Lyanna's first -- there is no true third child pattern since it becomes a matter of perspective. I see a basic inconsistency when one picks Rhaella and Joanna; but disregards Lyanna. Or when one picks Rhaegar -- but discounts Aerys.

Also; Dany and Tyrion would be half-siblings. The same way Aegon and Rhaenys would be Jon's. Hence, if Jon + Aegon + Rhaenys all rep. one faction (“Rhaegar’s children”)...why draw a line between Dany and Tyrion; when they are both “Aery’s children”? This is why imo, the first order of day is to define these "factions" in a logical way -- and to me, the OP is not offering a logical definition of what these factions should be.

imo; the term "family faction" would be inadequate if you are not speaking about any one family; and maybe this wasn't the intention, but it is how I understood it; though I get the second explanation you are given....the third child pattern exist only imo, if you speak about the fathers; and take into account that mother/wife died in childbirth; and dismiss the Tyrion = secret Targ, theory -- Jon is Rhaegar's; Tyrion is Tywin's; Dany is Aerys's.

Anyway; I believe the three heads = three main dragon riders; that a rider must have Valyrian ancestry; that dragons may have more than one rider; though not necessarily at the same time; and...that Tyrion is Tywin's son; and that Tyrion's fate is to be become the super important supreme adviser in all things dragons and battle strategy -- not a dragon rider.

thus....as dragon rider candidates I see: Dany; fAegon; Jon....Stannis; Brown Ben Plumm and even Varys...Other possibilities would include Robert's bastards and Shireen and even Aurane Waters -- just not Tyrion. Also; while I believe that three heads = three dragon riders; I do not believe that the three dragon riders = the three ultimate heroes....I think this is a Targaryen bias....nor do I believe that the three heads are necessarily linked to Azor Ahai; or the Prince that Was Promised; or the Long Night -- though that doesn't mean one cannot be dragon rider + lucky holder of AA/PtwP title.

But more to the point; I don't see how one can count Dany, Jon and Tyrion as "heroes" and dismiss Bran and Arya. Arya's future arc is difficult to guess at this point, so that is understandable; but Bran seems pretty much tied to the upcoming struggle in the north -- at this point, he’s more involved than Tyrion; and better placed than Dany.

(I propose Bran = Last Hero; Jon = PtwP; Dany = AAR...and propose also; that this will still be debated even after asoiaf is done and over with; that in the end; it will be a matter of reader interpretation -- I don't think in short; that there will ever be a single obvious candidate for any of these titles.)

[pobeb]

*takes a deep breath*

Ok, here we go:

The OP was speaking about "family factions" that to me implies one family, multiple factions – a suggestion that is strengthened by the idea that Tyrion is a secret Targ. If you take that away; there is no reason to link Joanna, to Rhaegar, to Rhaella – besides that they each had three children; that Cersei (and Hoster Tully) did too...

You can say that Rhaella and Joanna died in childbirth of course....but then, what to make of Rhaegar?

And if you do not take the J+A = T theory out of it, then Tyrion is Joanna's third -- but Aerys second son. Dany is Rhaella's third; but Aerys's fourth child...Jon would be Rhaegar's third; but Lyanna's first -- there is no true third child pattern since it becomes a matter of perspective. I see a basic inconsistency when one picks Rhaella and Joanna; but disregards Lyanna. Or when one picks Rhaegar -- but discounts Aerys.

You have got to stop placing your bias on these connections. You're looking at it paternally, or maternally, but the gender of the associated parent absolutely does not matter.

Rhaella had 3 kids, yes? Ok

Rhaegar had 3 kids, yes? Ok

Joanna had 3 kids, yes? Ok

THESE PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE THE "FACTIONS" OR "GROUPS" THAT I AM REFERRING TO

3 different parents, who each had 3 different kids, with Dany/Jon/Tyrion being the 3rd born of said kids.

These connections stand on their own, and DO NOT need the Aerys connection to make them legitimate. So what if he is or isn't Tyrion's dad? The distinguishing factor in my claim of "factions" are the parents I have listed, multiple, multiple times. What if I changed the term in the OP to read as "group"? Would that sway your opinion at all?

Also, the connection between these family groups is not contingent on who birthed the child. That connection is completely separate: Lyanna, Rhaella, and Joanna died giving birth to the theorized heroes. This absolutely doesn't need to share the connection of each child coming from 3 different family groups.

(going to skip the bulk of your post because I'm pretty sure I've addressed it above)

I don't see how one can count Dany, Jon and Tyrion as "heroes" and dismiss Bran and Arya.

Because Bran and Arya aren't connected to Dany in the way Tyrion and Jon are - as I've heavily illustrated in the OP.

[Fool of a Book]

Aerys and Rhaella had three kids and three grandkids. Their direct line means more than anything else.

[oursisthefury69]

Rhaegar would have had 3 kids by Elia, but Pycelle said she was too weak to bear a third child for what its worth

[UnmaskedLurker]

Anyway; I believe the three heads = three main dragon riders; that a rider must have Valyrian ancestry; that dragons may have more than one rider; though not necessarily at the same time; and...that Tyrion is Tywin's son; and that Tyrion's fate is to be become the super important supreme adviser in all things dragons and battle strategy -- not a dragon rider.

thus....as dragon rider candidates I see: Dany; fAegon; Jon....Stannis; Brown Ben Plumm and even Varys...Other possibilities would include Robert's bastards and Shireen and even Aurane Waters -- just not Tyrion. Also; while I believe that three heads = three dragon riders; I do not believe that the three dragon riders = the three ultimate heroes....I think this is a Targaryen bias....nor do I believe that the three heads are necessarily linked to Azor Ahai; or the Prince that Was Promised; or the Long Night -- though that doesn't mean one cannot be dragon rider + lucky holder of AA/PtwP title.

But more to the point; I don't see how one can count Dany, Jon and Tyrion as "heroes" and dismiss Bran and Arya. Arya's future arc is difficult to guess at this point, so that is understandable; but Bran seems pretty much tied to the upcoming struggle in the north -- at this point, he’s more involved than Tyrion; and better placed than Dany.

(I propose Bran = Last Hero; Jon = PtwP; Dany = AAR...and propose also; that this will still be debated even after asoiaf is done and over with; that in the end; it will be a matter of reader interpretation -- I don't think in short; that there will ever be a single obvious candidate for any of these titles.)

If the dragon riders are the three heads of the dragon, as I agree with you they are, then how can the third head of the dragon be a relatively minor character like fAegon or Brown Ben Plumm? The quote from Rhaegar was "there must be one more." This was a call that three important people would be needed to save the world? How can that not be main characters in the book as well? You really think that one of the people who is called by prophesy to unite with two other heads of the dragon will be a character we only met in book 5?

Bran and Arya (and perhaps Sansa) are main characters (or at least main secondary characters), but they have no Targ blood, so cannot be dragon riders or heads of the dragon. We already basically know Dany and Jon have Targ blood. The only other main character who could possibly align with them to be the third "hero" and who could have Targ blood is Tyrion. And if Tyrion has Targ blood, it is because Aerys is his biological father.

[UnmaskedLurker]

In the world of GRRM, Nature is more important than Nurture. Bloodlines are (almost) everything. Jon is not an adopted son. Whether or not he is Ned's son, he is of Ned's blood. So Ned is raising him as a bastard son.

In the "real" world, I have very different views on nature versus nurture, but in Westeros, the purity of the bloodlines is very important.

Wait! You think in the world that GRRM has created that bloodlines are everything? I think maybe we are reading different books. Bloodlines are important because special "powers" come from bloodlines in the books. But I think the books have made it clear that personality is based in large part on how one is raised. Yes, Ned is Jon's uncle, but Jon's sense of honor is based on having been raised by Ned, not biology. I think the books make that clear. GRRM very well could be making this point with Tyrion being more like Tywin than his bio kids. And remember as far as bloodlines go, Tyrion would still be 1/2 Lannister because Joanna was Tywin's cousin. So Tyrion still has Lannister blood.

[Dire Dragon]

Wait, what? Bloodlines are everything? How so?

You keep saying that the question of Tyrion's upbringing does not apply to "real world" circumstances, or vice versa. Why, exactly, doesn't it apply?

You're making these wild statements about behavioral ecology without providing any supporting evidence. Your posts make me doubt that you're an anthropologist or have studied anthropology, so how else am I to determine the validity of what you're saying? You don't explain your statements, you don't cite examples from the text, and you refuse to be open in your interpretation of the Tyrion/Tywin dynamic.

It's scientifically accepted that behaviors are mostly learned; and how a person behaves generally dictates who they are, i.e. Tyrion acts like Tywin because he was raised by Tywin (not Aerys). Why wouldn't this apply to a world that GRRM refers to as "second earth"? We have eyes, ears, noses, hands, feet, mouths, and hair just like the Westrosi. Some REAL people behave just like some of these fictitious characters in this story - for better or worse. The defining line between this fantasy world, and our "real" world, is just that: fantasy. And the pattern of adopted behaviors in smaller family settings or larger social settings IS NOT FANTASY - that is a legitamate and real thing, and denying the existance of it (let alone the impact it plays with Tyrion and Tywins relationship), is just wrong.

I posted a pretty personal story earlier if you need another example of how behavioral ecology works. I thought it was a pretty interesting read; you should give it a look.

Let me clarify as I believe you misunderstood my point about this.

In the real world, the one I inhabit the vast majority of the time, behaviours and personalities are shaped by a fascinating, complex and much debated mixture of nature and nurture or genetics and upbringing. This is pretty much what you said in your post and tried to say in mine. I wouldn't call that anthropology, a term I generally apply to the study of groups of people, but the exact term is pretty irrelevant. and, as you guessed, none of my degrees are in anthropology.

In the fantasy world created by GRRM, the rules are different. Though GRRM has not stated it outright, the narrative is clear that bloodlines are much more important. Bastards do not inherit. (They do in ours.) The eldest son gets title and lands, the younger sons get little and less. (In ours an estate is equally divided). When a leader dies the closest blood relative inherits the title and leadership (in our world we have elections for public office and a board of directors and job interviews for the rest). Those of the Stark bloodline, or maybe the first men can warg into direwolves or skinchange into people. Those of the Targarian bloodline can sometimes tame dragons. (This rarely happens in our world).

So the point that I was making is that blood matters in Westeros, more than in ours. It is everything. The family name is everything. If Tyrion is not Tywin's son by blood it matters more in Westeros than it would in the "real world".

[Toth]

In the fantasy world created by GRRM, the rules are different. Though GRRM has not stated it outright, the narrative is clear that bloodlines are much more important. Bastards do not inherit. (They do in ours.) The eldest son gets title and lands, the younger sons get little and less. (In ours an estate is equally divided). When a leader dies the closest blood relative inherits the title and leadership (in our world we have elections for public office and a board of directors and job interviews for the rest). Those of the Stark bloodline, or maybe the first men can warg into direwolves or skinchange into people. Those of the Targarian bloodline can sometimes tame dragons. (This rarely happens in our world).

So the point that I was making is that blood matters in Westeros, more than in ours. It is everything. The family name is everything. If Tyrion is not Tywin's son by blood it matters more in Westeros than it would in the "real world".

Your argument, Dire Dragon, is that blood gives people in Westeros certain distinctive abilities by inheritance. Like genetics in our world but a little more fancy with dragon taming ans such. But this doesn't mean that genetics are EVERYTHING. You are just exaggerating here. Look at the whole Theon storyline. He is in divided between him being brought up by Eddard as a father figure and Balon being his genetic father. Do you think he is an Iron Born by default? Balon would disagree big time! Theon returned to Pyke as a Northman, because he was raised with Eddards sense of honor and now tried desperately to be his was fathers son. And failed. If genetics are everything in Westeros he would have returned and be an Ironborn and wouldn't have any problems at all.

[pobeb]

I wouldn't call that anthropology, a term I generally apply to the study of groups of people, but the exact term is pretty irrelevant. and, as you guessed, none of my degrees are in anthropology.

Behavioral ecology is a branch of biological anthropology. And, I wouldn't expect the term to seem relevant to someone who's apparently ignorant of the subject.

[Mithras]

I think they all represent a facet of AAR, and lightbringer is their combined power.

I don't think this is how it works. Since your OP takes almost everything at face value, then the fact that the prophecy speaks of just one hero as stated by Tyrion himself does not comply with your theory.

It seemed to him that the prophecy that drove the red priests had room for just one hero. A second Targaryen would only serve to confuse them.

I hope you do realize that Tyrion was born almost a decade after Aerys took whatever the “liberties” he got in the bedding. Joanna stayed in the CR with her children while Tywin served as the Hand in KL. If you are looking for a biological father for Tyrion, I think Gerion is much more likely than Aerys. Tywin said “you are not my son” to Jaime too. Does that mean the twins are fathered by someone else too?

Rhaella Targaryen’s children - Daenerys, Rhaegar, Viserys

Rhaegar Targaryen’s children - Jon, Aegon, Rhaenys

Joanna Lannister’s children - Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei

The symmetry you propose is highly dependent on where you look from. First of all, in any scenario, Tyrion was not born from Aerys-Rhaella’s line as the GoHH prophesized. And why don’t you look at Jon’s mother while you are considering the mothers of Tyrion and Dany?

I think this symmetry simply does not exist and the fact that you are trying to attach an implausible Aerys+Joanna theory to it makes it worse.

- Each hero has slain a villain with their preferred weapon of choice (Daenerys slays Kraznys with Drogon, Tyrion slays Tywin with a crossbow, Jon slays Janos with Longclaw)

Tyrion killed Shae by strangulation. Jon slew the wights by burning them.

- Each hero has had a lover who has died (Drogo, Ygritte, Shae) due to a betrayal

Dany has a lover (Daario) who is still kicking. Tyrion’s first lover (Tysha) was unaccounted.

I don’t believe it’s coincidence that Tyrion so specifically swallows a form of liquid death, survives, and reflects on this specific passage in Septon Barth’s writings. Tyrion doesn’t contract greyscale because he is a dragon; death comes out of his mouth, not the other way around.

This is really a stretch. Tyrion not only swallowed the river water, he was also immersed in the river. That means some river water went into his body through other openings than mouth (such as ears, noses, even his ass). Does death not prefer those directions when approaching a dragon too?

Three fire must you light

Three mounts must you ride

Three treasons will you know

Your explanation not only misses the structure implied in the HotU visions, but it also provides some serious crackpot such as:

To Love - Catelyn giving Jon the "last kiss". This is going to need explaining:

First of all, Jon did not die as GRRM himself spoiled that he didn’t (“Oh you think he is dead do you?”).

In short, I think your OP collects the most common misconceptions about the three heads of the dragon along with stretches and contradictions as pointed by some posters.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I hope you do realize that Tyrion was born almost a decade after Aerys took whatever the “liberties” he got in the bedding. Joanna stayed in the CR with her children while Tywin served as the Hand in KL. If you are looking for a biological father for Tyrion, I think Gerion is much more likely than Aerys. Tywin said “you are not my son” to Jaime too. Does that mean the twins are fathered by someone else too?

I know the OP is not principally about whether Tyrion is really the son of Aerys, but I admit, it is the part that interests me the most. Most all of the arguments back and forth can be found in the old A+J=T thread (which has been locked but can still be found through Google). I wanted to respond, however, to the paragraph above to address your issues with whether Tyrion is the son of Aerys.

First you make the often repeated quote about "liberties" on Tywin and Joanna's wedding night. I think anyone who has been following this debate fora while knows that most everyone agrees that the statement about "liberties" is not an indication that Aerys had sex with Joanna on her wedding night. It is common agreed that it means that he acted inappropriately, for example, by groping more than one would expect in a normal bedding ceremony. The reason why this small scene is relevant is because it demonstrate the interest that Aerys has in Joanna. Anyone who support the A+J=T theory knows that Tyrion was born many years after the wedding. So raising that point is not a useful counter to the A+J=T theory because no one who takes the theory seriously believes that the wedding night "liberties" means that Aerys had sex with Joanna on her wedding night.

Your other point is that Joanna was at CR while Aerys was at KL during the time that Tyrion was conceived. How do you know that? We know very little of Joanna's movements during this period. We know that Tywin was Hand. We know that Joanna was raising Cersei and Jaime. But we do not know whether or how often Joanna visited her husband at KL. We simply have no way of knowing whether Aerys had an opportunity to rape or seduce Joanna. We know that Aerys was willing to rape his own wife.

As I noted above, the main objections really seems to be a combination of "one hidden Targ is enough" and "Tyrion and Tywin's relationship is ruined if Tyrion is not Tywin's biological son" (not the arguments you make). I don't find those arguments compelling, but if you do, fine. But if you have any interest in getting into all of the real analysis regarding this issue, go read A+J=T (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/75441-a-j-t/). In addition, if you have even more time, I developed some additional arguments for why I think Tryion might be a hidden Targ (). If after reading those threads, you still are not convinced, I can accept that. Many people who have read those threads are not convinced. But your arguments are not really the best arguments regarding this issue.

[jon rhaegar stark]

this maybe crackpot but

to go north u must go south - jon goes to south from north

to reach west u must go east- tyrion goes east hoping to get West i.e, CR

to go forward u must go backward-danny going back to vaes dothrak

[Greymoon]

I submit that the “dragon” represents the 3 different heroes of this story; heroes who come from 3 different family factions:

Rhaella Targaryen’s children - Daenerys, Rhaegar, Viserys

Rhaegar Targaryen’s children - Jon, Aegon, Rhaenys

Joanna Lannister’s children - Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei

You’ll notice I’ve bolded 3 names; one from each group. These 3 heroes represent the 3 heads of the dragon. Are they like one another? Certainly:

- Each hero slew their mother in childbirth

- Each hero is a 3rd child

Debatable -- unless Tyrion is not a Targaryen and one argues from the perspective of the fathers; only. If Tyrion is not a Targaryen; I don't believe he could ride a dragon; since I firmly believe that Valyrian blood is necessary; however little.

- Each hero is of the sibling dynamic: Male/Male/Female (a dynamic which is present in their own connection: Jon/Tyrion/Daenerys)

True for Tyrion. Sibling "dynamics" should imply that the siblings new each other however; dynamic >> interaction. Cersei/Jaime/Tyrion works. Jon/Aegon/Rhaenys doesn't; to me it is Robb/Jon/Sansa/Arya/Bran/Rickon. Similarly, there's no Rhaegar/Viserys/Dany dynamic -- only a Viserys/Dany one.

- Each hero has lived the life of an outcast (a bastard, a dwarf, and a vigilante)

Jon was a bastard yes; but he had his siblings love + Ned's; plus Jeor Mormont's guidance. He found his place at the Wall first; later with some of the free folk. Dany was an outcast, along with her brother Viserys. Then, she found her place with the Dothraki; later with her freed slaves. Tyrion's situation has only grown worse. He had Jaime for a time; and he had loyalty toward his family as well -- this is lost to him now.

- Each hero has fought to protect the innocent (Daenerys - the slaves, Tyrion - the people of King's Landing, Jon - the entire realm of man)

Did Tyrion want to save the people of KL? Or was that a context of war; and battle; and Stannis's army coming close to KL? How much is motivated by Tyrion's desire to "protect the innocent" how much, by his desire to win this battle -- so that he may yet survive? Jon has yet to fight that fight -- and Dany's intentions are honorable -- the way she goes about it less....Also what makes Tyrion's defending of KL different from...Robb's campaign in the Riverlands? or Stannis's campaign in the north? Do they not all think, they are "protecting innocents" by wanting victory?

- Each hero has slain a villain with their preferred weapon of choice (Daenerys slays Kraznys with Drogon, Tyrion slays Tywin with a crossbow, Jon slays Janos with Longclaw)

That is debatable. How many other people have slain a villain with their preferred "weapon of choice"? Arya?

- The first 3 chapters of A Dance with Dragons is of Tyrion, Daenerys, and Jon

Okay.... I do not have the first books on hands; but according to wiki. Tyrion has for now 49 chapters, counting the 2 WoW ones. Dany had 31. Jon has 42. Bran has 21; Arya has 34; Cat and Sansa have 25... overall Arya has more chapters than Dany. Cat and Ned have more chapters than any other character in GoT. Tyrion has none in Feast -- Arya has 3.

Jaime, Cersei and Brienne are the most important POV in Feast -- but then, that is normal since Feast and Dance are practically one book cut in two...Hence in Feast + Dance we have: Cersei 12; Tyrion 12; Jaime 8; Dany 10; Jon 13...nothing compares to Ned's 15 in GoT, though.... I think you are putting too much weight on the importance of the order of the first three chapters -- their order is important for the flow of the story yes; but there's not necessarily anything else behind it; like the number of chapter written from a certain POV do say something about that POV's importance true; but this importance is also relative; considering the need for certain perspective to be written (Cersei; Cat; Ned) for the purpose of advancing the plot.

To me the "Dance with Dragons" refers to Dany's struggle in Meereen (Dany = metaphorical dragon; plus her three children); Jon's struggle at the Wall (again = metaphorical dragon); fAegon's revelation; Illyrio and Varys's plot; the golden company (all of them linked to metaphorical dragons; Targaryen or Blackfyre); Quentyn's attempted dragon-napping; Drogon's misbehavior etc.... Tyrion he, is being thrown like a ball from the one camp to the other. Hence, he's "dancing" at the tunes of dragons and puppeteers, too....BR is also a "dragon." There's plenty of ways one can associate the book title to the story....without taking the order of the first three chapters as a hint for these "dragon" identities;

- Each hero's siblings are dead or soon to die (admittedly, my weakest connection)

Are you speaking about true siblings or perceived siblings? If you speak about sibling dynamics for Jon, the siblings are Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon. They are believed dead -- only Robb is though. If you are speaking about true siblings; yes Aegon and Rhaenys are dead -- but then, it makes no sense to speak of sibling dynamics (as you mention above); they never knew each other. Like Dany never knew Rhaegar... Viserys is dead....Jaime and Cersei are pretty much alive for now.

- Each hero has had a lover who has died (Drogo, Ygritte, Shae) due to a betrayl

Drogo didn't listen to MMD -- we do not know for certain the cause of his death. Dany mercy killed him herself in the end. Jon betrayed Ygritte, yes -- but he sort of stayed true to his NW vows and she did not betray him. It is both a betrayal, and not. Shae betrayed Tyrion; her death was a crime of passion... What do you make of Tysha? Where do you place Daario and Hizdahr who will probably both die soon? the criteria you are using are imo, debatable.

This next similarity is going to need some explaining:

- Each hero is a descendent of Aerys

Unless Tyrion is Tywin's son.

[...]

Outside the implications of his father being a (dragon) Targaryen, Tyrion also has multiple other connections to dragons:

Not denying that. He does. He meets Jon; is "saved" by Varys; he meets fAegon and Illyrio; and ends up near Dany. Targaryens have often been referred to as "dragons," metaphorical dragons.... though true, Tyrion has read a lot about true dragons as well; he knows how to design special saddles. He's in the perfect position to serve as adviser and pull strings behind the scene -- that is where his arc is going imo. Jon = warrior/army commander; Tyrion = politician/strategist; Dany...?

Several times throughout the series dragons, or their presence, are associated with big shadows.

A sign from the old gods, in the form of a white cyvasse dragon.

The white cyvasse Dragon to me represents JON and establishes a parallel with Jon's last chapter in Dance.

[...]

I don’t believe it’s coincidence that Tyrion so specifically swallows a form of liquid death, survives, and reflects on this specific passage in Septon Barth’s writings. Tyrion doesn’t contract greyscale because he is a dragon; death comes out of his mouth, not the other way around.

There is absolutely no proof that Targaryens are immune to illnesses. I'd say Targaryens; or generally speaking Valyrians are absolutely not immune to Greyscale -- Garin's curse.

Now that I’ve established why I think Tyrion is Aerys’ descendent, let me move on to my last couple connections between our 3 heroes:

- Each hero represents a part of each triplet given to Daenerys by the Undying:

I explain each of these in posts further down the thread:

Three fire must you light

Three mounts must you ride

Three treasons will you know

I do not agree with your interpretation, but will elaborate on this later, if you don't mind.

And last, but not least:

- They each represent the 3 things used to temper Lightbringer’s blade:

- The water used first to temper lightbringer represents the birth of Dany, born in the midst of a storm.

- The lion used to temper lightbringer represents the birth of Tyrion, born in the home of the lions - Casterly Rock.

- The love of Nissa Nissa used to temper lightbringer represents Jon, born of love in the Tower of Joy.

Okay, so what is Lightbringer? Some have said Lightbringer = dragons; or = Dawn, or = Longclaw; or = the Night's Watch; or = Jon himself; or...the whole AAR tale is a metaphor of sacrifice. So which is it?

Jon, Tyrion, and Daenerys are the 3 heads of the dragon, and will be the key players in the "war for the dawn".

UNLESS the War of Dawn is not at all what you expect. There's many uncertainties concerning WW and Children; and the promised Long Night v.2.

*takes a deep breath*

Ok, here we go:

And I said I understand your second explanation. I also said, I didn't think the term "family faction" was adequate; nor do I find that it makes sense -- it seems random. Nor do I think that three heads = three heroes. see below and see above :)

If the dragon riders are the three heads of the dragon, as I agree with you they are, then how can the third head of the dragon be a relatively minor character like fAegon or Brown Ben Plumm? The quote from Rhaegar was "there must be one more." This was a call that three important people would be needed to save the world? How can that not be main characters in the book as well? You really think that one of the people who is called by prophesy to unite with two other heads of the dragon will be a character we only met in book 5?

Bran and Arya (and perhaps Sansa) are main characters (or at least main secondary characters), but they have no Targ blood, so cannot be dragon riders or heads of the dragon. We already basically know Dany and Jon have Targ blood. The only other main character who could possibly align with them to be the third "hero" and who could have Targ blood is Tyrion. And if Tyrion has Targ blood, it is because Aerys is his biological father.

As I said; I do not think that three heads = three heroes. As I said, three heads = a Targaryen belief or bias. Not necessarily the same as AAR; or PtwP; and not necessarily the three "heroes" of the story. Hence why I see it as a possibility that the dragon riders are minor characters. I'd point out that GRRM added the dragons to the story -- we don't know when he did that exactly; but that makes me think asoiaf works without dragons too. Hence, to me, the dragons will not be the ultimate super weapon in an apocalyptic battle against the evil WW. The dragons will play a part -- but I strongly believe they'll be both a boon and a bane...in true GRRM fashion.

[UnmaskedLurker]

As I said; I do not think that three heads = three heroes. As I said, three heads = a Targaryen belief or bias. Not necessarily the same as AAR; or PtwP; and not necessarily the three "heroes" of the story. Hence why I see it as a possibility that the dragon riders are minor characters. I'd point out that GRRM added the dragons to the story -- we don't know when he did that exactly; but that makes me think asoiaf works without dragons too. Hence, to me, the dragons will not be the ultimate super weapon in an apocalyptic battle against the evil WW. The dragons will play a part -- but I strongly believe they'll be both a boon and a bane...in true GRRM fashion.

The fact that GRRM added dragons to the story actually bolsters my argument (see my OP http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/112901-theory-there-must-be-another-hidden-targ/ for a more thorough explanation). Basically, my understanding is that instead of dragons, GRRM was going to have the Targs be "fire dancers" who could control fire. So even if a non-Targ theoretically could be dragon riders, only Targs could have been "fire dancers" under GRRM's original outline, and if the dragons replace that power, then Targs must be the dragon riders in the end. While we have many potential characters with some Targ blood, none are central characters other than Jon and Dany--meaning to me there must be one more hidden Targ. I just don't see how a dragon rider can be a minor character. To clarify, minor characters, like fAegon, may ride a dragon at some point in the story (I think he will), but such characters will die before the endgame plays out (likely in DoD 2.0) and the dragon will be free to claim a new rider.

Yes, I understand that you don't think that the three heads are the same as the three heroes. I just don't know why you think that. The references we have to the three heads of the dragon are from the vision of Rhaegar saying that there must be one more because the dragon has three heads and Aemon waking up saying that the dragon must have three heads. These references lead me to believe that if the dragon must have three heads then the three heads are critical to avoiding destruction of humanity. Consider the context of the references--they are connected to prophesies. Rhaegar and Aemon are terrified that humanity will be destroyed if the three heads of the dragon do not come together to defeat whatever is coming (the Others perhaps?). The reference to the three heads is not just some random prophesy--it is a prophesy about saving the world. If the three heads are the critical pieces to survival, then they must be the three heroes in the story. Yes, I know, you don't agree--but why don't you agree? There is my evidence. My evidence is not based on Targ bias--it is based on textual analysis. Why don't you find that evidence persuasive and what is your evidence to the contrary?

[Greymoon]

These references lead me to believe that if the dragon must have three heads then the three heads are critical to avoiding destruction of humanity. Consider the context of the references--they are connected to prophesies. Rhaegar and Aemon are terrified that humanity will be destroyed if the three heads of the dragon do not come together to defeat whatever is coming (the Others perhaps?). The reference to the three heads is not just some random prophesy--it is a prophesy about saving the world. If the three heads are the critical pieces to survival, then they must be the three heroes in the story. Yes, I know, you don't agree--but why don't you agree? There is my evidence. My evidence is not based on Targ bias--it is based on textual analysis. Why don't you find that evidence persuasive and what is your evidence to the contrary?

Did Rhaegar say this?...did Aemon say this, explicitly? Where is the prophecy that the three headed dragon will save the world? Aemon speaks of the PtwP. Mel speaks of AAR and the Great Other. Rhaegar says "there must be one more" and the "dragon has three heads."... are they speaking about the same thing? we absolutely do not know.

How does that add up to "the three headed dragon will save the world?" all these things are never explicitly linked; the content of the prophecy/prophecies is never explicitly revealed. Even Aemon is not certain about its meaning....where is the evidence that a hero figure will need to save all of humanity? that "three heads" must need come together, and unite to save humanity? we are five books in -- WW are still on the margin of this story; there is much we don't know about them, and the Children, and their motivations, and their plans. And BR.... also, as of now most dead characters were killed by humans....

Aemon and Rhaegar believe there must be three heads of the dragons, for whatever reason. There is no clear indication in the books as to why they believe this or why they link this to the savior figure. Similarly, there is no clear indication in the books that the AAR prophecy = the PtwP prophecy = the "dragon has three heads" thing.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Did Rhaegar say this?...did Aemon say this, explicitly? Where is the prophecy that the three headed dragon will save the world? Aemon speaks of the PtwP. Mel speaks of AAR and the Great Other. Rhaegar says "there must be one more" and the "dragon has three heads."... are they speaking about the same thing? we absolutely do not know.

How does that add up to "the three headed dragon will save the world?" all these things are never explicitly linked; the content of the prophecy/prophecies is never explicitly revealed. Even Aemon is not certain about its meaning....where is the evidence that a hero figure will need to save all of humanity? that "three heads" must need come together, and unite to save humanity? we are five books in -- WW are still on the margin of this story; there is much we don't know about them, and the Children, and their motivations, and their plans. And BR.... also, as of now most dead characters were killed by humans....

Aemon and Rhaegar believe there must be three heads of the dragons, for whatever reason. There is no clear indication in the books as to why they believe this or why they link this to the savior figure. Similarly, there is no clear indication in the books that the AAR prophecy = the PtwP prophecy = the "dragon has three heads" thing.

OK, I think I am getting closer to understanding your position. I think I agree with everything you said--BUT I think it only indicates that the three heads might not be the three main heroes who save the world, but not why the three heads are not most likely to be the three heroes. I agree it is not explicit (of course, it likely would not be). Let's look at the references in a little more detail:

Once he [Aemon] woke up weeping, wailing:

“

the dragon must have three heads…but I am too old to be one of them. I should be with her, showing her the way, but my body has betrayed me. ^[4]

I think this shows that Aemon thinks that the dragon having three heads is very important. He wants to be able to advise Dany because he thinks that the unity of three "dragons" is very important. Important for what? It might not be to save the world, so to speak, but what else could he be referencing? So while you are correct that it is not essential that the three dragons are also the three "heroes," the text suggests that it will be the case. Saying that the text does not require something to be true is not the same as saying that the text suggests that it is not true. So I understand why you think the text does not require my interpretation, but it seems that my interpretation is the more natural reading of the text, and I don't see where in the text you think it supports the three heads not being the critical heroes in the end. Just because the text does not absolutely require this result does not mean it is unlikely to be true. I still don't know why you think it is unlikely to be true (only why you think it is not absolutely certain to be true). I have shown why I think it is more likely to be true, but you have only shown why it might not be true (but not why it is unlikely to be true).

Similarly, the vision of Rhaegar leaves me with much the same impression:

He [Rhaegar] says either to her or the woman with the baby, "There must be one more…The dragon has three heads", and he picks up a silver harp and begins to play

From this statement, Rhaegar is apparently stating that he must have a third child because the dragon has three heads. We can surmise that he thought his child with Lyanna (i.e., Jon) would be the third head with his other two children, which is one of the reasons he ran off with Lyanna. Of course he was wrong in the identity of the three heads, but the point is that he was trying to fulfill the prophesy. Why would Rhaegar risk everything to have a third child unless he thought that the dragon having three heads was critical to the final battle? What else is the point of the belief by Rhaegar (and Aemon) to the absolute critical nature of the dragon having three heads unless three heads are necessary to saving the world (which I use as short-hand for winning the big battle against whoever it is that threatens the people). So, yes, in theory, the three heads could mean something else. Rhaegar does not explicitly say, "If we do not have three heads of the dragon, then all is lost and everyone will die." Of course, GRRM would never have him say it that explicitly. But again, isn't that the more natural reading of his statements? Why else does he act so desperately to have a third child?

So my real question is what is your alternative theory? If the three heads are not central to the final battle, what is the point of the three heads? You have only demonstrated that my interpretation is not absolutely required by the text. If you were merely reserving judgment, I would understand--but you have gone beyond that--you have stated that you affirmatively think the three heads are not the critical heroes of the story. My interpretation is that the references by Aemon and Rhaegar to the three heads is most naturally understood to mean the three people who come together to win the final battle. You have not shown why a different interpretation is more likely (you have shown why it is possible, but not why it is more likely). I am very curious why you think a different interpretation is more likely.