Heir to His House Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 We all know that GRRM loves to turn things on their heads in these stories, so it made me think: What if when Rhaegar said "The Dragon Must Have Three Heads" and saying in the same vein that he was the Prince that was Promised, he was inadvertently correct? Not that there were three actual people but that the only Dragon of his line has three metaphorical heads based upon his life experience?I'm talking of course about Jon Snow, if you believe R+L=J. Jon, who is all at once a Dragon, Wolf and Bastard. The Dragon with three heads: Targaryen, Stark & Snow.Now, there's a ton of discussion about textual evidence that Jon's the PTWP, but what if there's another prophesy gone off the rails that inadvertently is true? The Prince that was Promised is the Dragon with 3 heads, just not the way Rhaegar intended.Sort of like how Genies always twist wishes to screw the people casting them? Anyways, if in future books Jon evolves from Snow to Stark---thanks Great Northern Conspiracy!---to Targaryen at the eventual reveal of his lineage and battling against the Others, isn't that essentially the Dragon with 3 heads evolving into the Prince That Was Promised?Making Rhaegar, who was obsessed with prophecy but ultimately futile with understandig them, inadvertently a prophet of his own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I warmly recommend JQC's thread http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/86614-jon-snow-the-3headed-dragon-and-mythology/And after reading that, there are couple more:http://asoiaf.wester...-of-the-dragon/http://asoiaf.wester...-hero-jon-snow/http://ahttp://asoiaf.wester...-three-dragons/http://asoiaf.wester...-three-dragons/http://asoiaf.wester...heory-crackpot/http://asoiaf.wester...rios-er-dragon/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethermancer Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 FYI: See my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jentario Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 GRRM once said that the third head of the dragon doesn't necessarily have to be a Targaryen, which leads me to believe this theory is wrong. Also, I'd hate it if Jon would become the center of the world like some theories dictate. I'd rather have Dany, Jon and a surprise third character (please not Tyrion) be the three heads. Not that my opinion would factor into anything, though :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 GRRM once said that the third head of the dragon doesn't necessarily have to be a Targaryen, which leads me to believe this theory is wrong.Problem is, as Apple Martini cleverly noticed, that the statement you are referring to, could actually mean anything... It is one of those ambiguous, coy answers... The question is asked with supposition that there are three people who are heads of dragon. And, obviously, GRRM didn't take the bait. He simply answered that the third head doesn't have to be Targaryen. But, what about head number two? And where does it say that he explicitly meant three people? Simply, his words are used here in wrong context... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jentario Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Problem is, as Apple Martini cleverly noticed, that the statement you are referring to, could actually mean anything... It is one of those ambiguous, coy answers... The question is asked with supposition that there are three people who are heads of dragon. And, obviously, GRRM didn't take the bait. He simply answered that the third head doesn't have to be Targaryen. But, what about head number two? And where does it say that he explicitly meant three people? Simply, his words are used here in wrong context...I meant that his wording kind of implied that it was three separate people (not that one of them isn't a Targ). Obviously, it could mean nothing (like you said) but my totally biased opinion makes me believe you're wrong (until and unless you're proven right). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewingedwolf Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 It is one of those ambiguous, coy answers... In my opinion, there are about as many theories on this as there are posters on these threads. For example, someone looking at it from a religious point of view could easily relate this to the holy trinity (Father, Son and the Holy Ghost) which would certainly apply more to Jon that any other character. Others may see a more pragmatic meaning, outlining the importance of the number "3" in the serties, especially when it relates to House Targaryen (i.e. there were 3 dragons in the conquest, 3 dragons were hatched in the funeral Pyre, the 3 betrayals of Dany). The claim then that a "third" head of the dragon does not have to be a Targaryen could then simply imply that Dany does need Targaryen relatives or to marry a Targaryen to fulfill the prophecy (if she is indeed the dragon that is, and I am no way implying that I believe that).I personally think it would be very interesting to find out at which point the sigil of House Targaryen became a three-headed dragon (I would assume that having 3 dragons was a lot more meaningful in Westeros than it would have been in Valyria)?This leaves a lot of unanswered questions but I think that if we were able to establish a timeline on the nature of the sigil, it would go a long way in narrowing the number of interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I meant that his wording kind of implied that it was three separate people (not that one of them isn't a Targ). Obviously, it could mean nothing (like you said) but my totally biased opinion leads me to believe you're wrong (until and unless you're proven right).Actually, his exact wording is "Three heads of the dragon... yes... but the third will not nessesarily BE a Targaryen..."(link)The ambiguity of his words here are astonishing... I mean, classic example of answering without giving proper answer... IMHO, this is as ambiguous as you can get. Given that dragon is a singular, I can't see how three people can actually be one dragon... But, at the end, it is just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewingedwolf Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 The ambiguity of his words here are astonishing . . . I think the great thing about this prophecy in general is that the different interpretations we see here give us some great insight into the influences and mindsets of the different posters when approaching the series and attempting to interpret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jentario Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Actually, his exact wording is "Three heads of the dragon... yes... but the third will not nessesarily BE a Targaryen..."(link)The ambiguity of his words here are astonishing... I mean, classic example of answering without giving proper answer... IMHO, this is as ambiguous as you can get. Given that dragon is a singular, I can't see how three people can actually be one dragon... But, at the end, it is just my opinion...Touché. Still hate this theory, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.