Hatching a Dragon: My Summerhall Theory

[WhiteWalder]

The third head will presumably be the final phase of Danys development yet to come but likely being focussed around her activities in Westeros and will be characterised by:

A fire for love - I always thought this might indicate some kind of self sacrifice, either of herself or of the dragons

A mount for love - probably a person this time...maybe Jon, maybe Aegon, maybe a redeemed Jorah, who knows

A treason for love - Again just a presumption on my part but I would expect her to be betrayed by whoever it is that she loves...maybe Jon kills the dragons or takes her throne or something...

Anyway don't know if that all makes sense but would be interested to hear other people's ideas

The fire for love could have been for Drogon in the fighting pit?

The mount and treason for love could be Daario?

Although, I think the OP is probably right, I am sure hoping a real dragon was hatched at Summerhall - and Duncan the Small is hiding out with it somewhere.

[vivatforx]

While, as usual, AM has made some very strong points, I think a line of distinction has to be drawn between the period of no living dragons and three living dragons. Before those three critters hatched, it is fair to say that the "dragons" in various prophecies were indeed Targaryens, but all that may have changed with the birth of Dany's literal dragons. AM is way too dismissive of the real dragons, like someone else said before (poorly), he almost sounds like Cersei's small council when they hear about them. I think we all would agree that those in King's Landing might be wise to pay attention to the distorting possibilities of literal dragons. So should AM.

[blacken]

The fire for love could have been for Drogon in the fighting pit?

The mount and treason for love could be Daario?

Although, I think the OP is probably right, I am sure hoping a real dragon was hatched at Summerhall - and Duncan the Small is hiding out with it somewhere.

No, I don't believe any of the things for love have occurred yet. As I said in my post I think all the love things will happen in westeros and be characteristic of the next stage in dany's personal development after the mistakes and hubris of her actions in slavers bay.

[blacken]

You got me thinking about this and I'm convinced the dragon with three heads is Dany because of the prophecies she's had made about three fires she will light, three mounts she will ride, three treasons she will know. This suggests to me three different identities clearly delineated by events in Dany's life.

Therefore the first head was her girlhood which was characterised by:

The fire to life is the pyre that hatched the dragons

The mount to bed is her relationship with Drogo or possibly her horse silver which literally takes her to her bedding

The treason for blood being that of Mirri Maz Dur

The second head is her queen/conqueror phase charaterised by:

A fire for death - I've heard people theorise this as the burning of the house of the undying but it could also be some fire yet to come, maybe that one of the dragons starts at the forthcoming (presumably) battle of Meereen that kills a lot of people. Edited to add - this could be Quentyn's death by fire too

A mount to dread - Probably Drogon now that she rides him

A treason for gold - again a prophecy with a number of intepretations including Jorah's informing on her and the Second Sons going over to the Yunkai. I'm not terribly convinced it's either but it's a hard one to judge

The third head will presumably be the final phase of Danys development yet to come but likely being focussed around her activities in Westeros and will be characterised by:

A fire for love - I always thought this might indicate some kind of self sacrifice, either of herself or of the dragons

A mount for love - probably a person this time...maybe Jon, maybe Aegon, maybe a redeemed Jorah, who knows

A treason for love - Again just a presumption on my part but I would expect her to be betrayed by whoever it is that she loves...maybe Jon kills the dragons or takes her throne or something...

Anyway don't know if that all makes sense but would be interested to hear other people's ideas

Just wanted to add, with regard to the various guesses as to what the fires, mounts and betrayals yet to occur might be, from the ones we're pretty certain of so far (birth of dragons, marriage to drogo, betrayal resulting in death of drogo and unborn child), they all have pretty major consequences for dany both in terms of the development of her story and emotionally for her. This is why I'd be very surprised if Daario was her mount for love, for example, or the second sons her betrayal for gold, so far neither of these occurrences have had major plot consequences. I think both dany and we will know them for certain when they come as they won't be missable in plot terms.

[Alhazred]

As some of you who've read my interpretations of prophecies before know, I hew to the idea that "dragons" in prophecy are not literal dragons, but refer to Targaryens.

BOO! BOO! HISSS! BORING! When I read fantasy, I want literal dragons, not metaphors.

We've seen visions unfold this way a couple of times in the Dunk and Egg stories:

1. In "The Hedge Knight," Daeron Targaryen (Egg's brother) has a vision of a large dead red dragon falling on top of Dunk, but he survives. The "red dragon" ends up being Baelor Breakspear, who took a blow to the head in a Trial of Seven.

Nah! That's just a red herring. Later in the Dunk & Egg series, GRRM plans to have a literal red dragon fall on Dunk.

2. In "The Mystery Knight," a fiddler (Daemon II Blackfyre) tells Dunk that he's seen a dragon hatching out of an egg at Whitewalls. This turns out to be Egg/Aegon V, who comes through a Blackfyre Rebellion with new fierceness and maturity.

Nah. This prophesy refers to the Fire at Summerhall, when Egg will die in the flames, only to be reborn as a literal dragon.

We know that she was the one who told Aegon V that the Prince That Was Promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

She also warned them that the PtwP is really a scumbag who will bring about a Westerosi equivalent of the apocalypse. So Egg decided to turn himself into a dragon so he could eat the PtwP when the time came.

We know that Aegon, Dunk, Duncan the Small and (I presume?) Jenny died in a fire at Summerhall

Why presume Jenny?

and that the tragedy more than likely had something to do with hatching a dragon's egg.

Yes. Egg hatches, and becomes Dragon.

Having already listened to the Ghost's advice about Rhaella and Aerys' marriage, Aegon again took her at her word — her literal word — and attempted to hatch an actual dragon at Summerhall. It obviously failed, the keep burned to a ruin and a lot of people died.

It did not "obviously fail". We just don't know what became of the dragon(s) that hatched.

That same day, Rhaegar was born to Rhaella and had a deep-seated melancholic connection to Summerhall for the rest of his life. Rhaegar was the dragon that hatched out of Summerhall.

Really? THAT's the end of the Dunk & Egg saga? 3 people die to give birth to a wife-cheating scumbag? Sad! Why can't Rhaella give birth to a wife-cheating scumbag without 3 people getting burned to death?

Other than being a theory as to how and why the Summerhall tragedy occurred, what does this matter? I think it's threefold: It would be yet another instance of "dragons" in prophecy referring to a Targaryen and not a literal dragon (which I believe has implications for AA/PTWP), it broadly shows the danger of taking any prophecy at literal value, and it further illustrates that when it comes to literal dragons, the Targaryens are unstable and prone to nuttiness, even a saner one like Aegon.

So the threefold signficance of the Summerhall Tragedy is: Boring, Boring, and Boring!

[Arya kiddin']

An AppleMartini theory is not easily denied. Ye it does make sense.

[Alhazred]

An AppleMartini theory is not easily denied.

Funny. I found it quite easy.

[Dolorous Will]

Without jumping into the snakepit of snark this thread seems to have descended to, I think it bears pointing out that while Selmy's description of the effects of Aegon letting his sons marry for love does describe treason, it in no way links the treason to the events of Summerhall. Summerhall is the climax of a long series of tragedies, not necessarily the whole enchilada of woe. This period saw recurring Blackfyre rebellions culminating in their final defeat by Selmy's during the reign of Aegon. It is entirely possible that the treason sparked by Aegon's marital choices related to Maely's attempt to invade, not Summerhall.

[Old-Growth]

Funny. I found it quite easy.

Easily denied, but not so easily rebutted. I speak from experience. Be prepared to work at it :( Alas snark will not avail.

[Old-Growth]

We have multiple instances already of dragon prophecies that did not refer to literal dragons. If you choose to take the obvious road, feel free. But to act like these interpretations come out of nowhere is inaccurate.

And I don't think anything is ever "set in stone."

But some things are woken from stone. And one thing you should recall from "The Mystery Knight", is that dragon eggs are of a stone like character, otherwise the painted stone that Lord Gorman tried to use to frame young Ser Glendon Ball would have convinced no one. (What dragon eggs look like when newly laid is something we have not yet been told, though for aught I know there might be an SSM on the matter.)

And for what 'tis worth, the prophecy or prophecies concerning AAR/the Prince that was Promised is/are surely old enough to date from a time when there still were actual dragons extant. Or do you propose to challenge that as well?

Oh and you also need to rule out Dany's rebirth---if such it was---on Khal Drogo's funeral pyre as being the waking of a dragon in the metaphorical sense. But maybe that is "too obvious". Oh, and if you are are of a mind to, you could make it both Dany and Jon: that would mean dragons rather than a dragon in the metaphorical sense, although you will need two bleeding stars for that. That wouldn't be so obvious now would it :)

[Alhazred]

Easily denied, but not so easily rebutted.

What requires rebuttal? It is nothing but a speculative theory. And not one I am required to like. You speak as though his speculations have been proven.

I speak from experience. Be prepared to work at it.

Ah yes. The professor is being condescending. And giving orders.

But I am no more required to "work at" disproving his theory, than he is required to "work at" disproving mine.

Alas snark will not avail.

Snark is the only appropriate response to the nonsense you just posted. At least my post was on topic: about ASOIAF, not about the Authority of AppleMartini.

[Old-Growth]

What requires rebuttal? It is nothing but a speculative theory. And not one I am required to like. You speak as though his speculations have been proven.

Ah yes. The professor is being condescending. And giving orders.

But I am no more required to "work at" disproving his theory, than he is required to "work at" disproving mine.

First of all, Apple Martini is a she not a he. As for who bears the onus probandi in this matter, her views seem to have become something like the received view in the forum, so that burden lies upon you. As for any professorial tone, I come by that honestly, I was one. In any case I was just trying to give you a heads-up.

[Alhazred]

First of all, Apple Martini is a she not a he. As for who bears the onus probandi in this matter, her views seem to have become something like the received view in the forum, so that burden lies upon you. As for any professorial tone, I come by that honestly, I was one.

I am not interested in Apple Martini's ego, nor your ego, nor even Apple Martini's sex. I came here to discuss ASOIAF. You are the one who insists on discussing Apple Martini. I understand that you and Apple Martini collectively consider yourself to be an Authority. I don't care.

If I were Apple Martini, I would be upset and embarrassed by your attempt to put me on a higher plane than other fans here. But unlike you, I do not speak for Apple Martini.

In any case I was just trying to give you a heads-up.

Apple Martini already gave me heads up regarding her theory. And the theory was all I wanted to discuss. Not Apple Martini.

[King of Winters]

An AppleMartini theory is not easily denied. Ye it does make sense.

:agree:

It would make sense for Egg to think that a "dragon" would be born, when we've already seen dragon dreams being misinterpreted in the Dunk and Egg tales.

[Alhazred]

:agree:

It would make sense for Egg to think that a "dragon" would be born, when we've already seen dragon dreams being misinterpreted in the Dunk and Egg tales.

It seems to me that, in an ongoing story, whether or not dreams have been "misinterpreted" is an still-open question.

Does the prophesy about Sansa slaying a savage giant in a castle made of snow REALLY just refer to her battle with Sweetrobin's doll? Maybe it does, but it seems to me that such questions are still up in the air.

It also seems to me that if GRRM is going out of his way to convince us that dragon-prophesies are just boring prosaic prophesies about boring prosaic people, then he is probably setting us up for a surprise or two.

[King of Winters]

It seems to me that, in an ongoing story, whether or not dreams have been "misinterpreted" is an still-open question.

Does the prophesy about Sansa slaying a savage giant in a castle made of snow REALLY just refer to her battle with Sweetrobin's doll? Maybe it does, but it seems to me that such questions are still up in the air.

It also seems to me that if GRRM is going out of his way to convince us that dragon-prophesies are just boring prosaic prophesies about boring prosaic people, then he is probably setting us up for a surprise or two.

Did I say anything else about other prophecies in ASOIAF? No, all I mentioned was the dragon dreams, which have shown us that they are not to be taken literally, and that they are symbolic for the Targs, not real dragons.

[Alhazred]

Did I say anything else about other prophecies in ASOIAF?

No. You didn't. I did.

No, all I mentioned was the dragon dreams, which have shown us that they are not to be taken literally, and that they are symbolic for the Targs, not real dragons.

They have not shown us any such thing - not at any rate if it is to be taken as a universal rule. An ambiguous prophesy is an ambiguous prophesy. And a supposedly-fulfilled prophesy is often a red herring.

[King of Winters]

No. You didn't. I did.

They have not shown us any such thing - not at any rate if it is to be taken as a universal rule. An ambiguous prophesy is an ambiguous prophesy. And a supposedly-fulfilled prophesy is often a red herring.

The dragon dreams in Dunk and Egg have shown us Baelor's death, the second Blackfyre Rebellion and Dunk becoming the LC of the KG.

[Alhazred]

The dragon dreams in Dunk and Egg have shown us Baelor's death, the second Blackfyre Rebellion and Dunk becoming the LC of the KG.

You are of course assuming you know what the dreams "really" mean. And this is always a dangerous assumption.

But even If you are right about THOSE dreams, then GRRM may still be setting us up for a surprise. As he emphasises in FEAST, prophesies can be treacherous, and not mean what you have come to expect.

[King of Winters]

You are of course assuming you know what the dreams "really" mean. And this is always a dangerous assumption.

But even If you are right about THOSE dreams, then GRRM may still be setting us up for a surprise. As he emphasises in FEAST, prophesies can be treacherous, and not mean what you have come to expect.

I'm not talking about all the prophecies in ASOIAF. I'm just talking about the dragon dreams which are misinterpreted as being real dragons, and they are not. They are symbolic at showing us what will happen to a Targ or Blackfyre.