The Brightfyre theory

[Paeon]

<snip>

:bowdown:

Awesome, post. However it does preclude Aerion marrying a Martell at one point to legitimize his son which is stretching a bit but I still like it.

[Bringer of Rain]

None of it is answered in the OP, what are you talking about?

Where does the OP discuss generational preservation of House Brightflame? Where does he discuss the "few" years spent in exile and the return to Westeros? Heck, the OP doesn't even distinguish between the infant son passed over and the Lyseni Bastards (which incidentally only "maybe" exist according to a SSM which is now 16 years old).

There is zero textual support to establish a Brightflame theory is more sound than pure Blackfyre.

Point 1: I largely agree with, it supports the Blackfyre theory.

Point 2: (and the one I take most issue with) has hardly any support:

The first piece of evidence is "Aerion went to Lys"... so what. So did all the Lannister men of Tywin's generation. Hey Lannisters are blond, Illyrio is blond, Illyrio = Secret Lannister? There were Blackfyre descendants all over the Free Cities too. At least the text hints that House Blackfyre survives in the female line, no such hint is made for Brightflame.

Jon's mention of Aerion. What is this evidence of, other than his existence? So Brightflame has an infant son back in 232? And then what? Again, even the OP can't seem to decide if Serra's ancestor is this son or the Lyseni-bastards.

The "bright" dragon mentioned by Moqorro is the only conceivable hint, but it could mean a million other things as well. The actual quote is "dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark." False or dark or both could apply just as easily as bright. We know that the true Dragon is Dany.

Point 3: Again, no real issue here.

Point 4:

Serra has Valyrian looks. First, no she doesn't, she has blue eyes not purple. Second, half the whores in Lys have Valyrian looks, just ask The Titans Bastard. Valyrian looks means squat. It means double squat when debating which Targ branch the person fell off.

Varys shaves his head b/c he's of Valyrian descent. Agree completely... but why does that suggest Brightflame instead of Blackfyre or Targaryen? Same as Serra, Valyrian traits mean squat when trying to decide which branch of the tree they come from.

They both have connections to Lys, again a fact that is neutral when debating Blackfyre vs. Brightflame.

The same is true of King's Blood.

Point 5:

Illyrio = Warrior therefore Illyrio= Blackfyre? Oh, so Robert Baratheon, Duncan the Tall, Barristan Selmy and Arthur Dayne are Blackfyre's too? This conclusion based on evidence is so weak I shouldn't even have to respond to it.

Using Fat and Corrupt to link Illyrio and Aegon IV, is a real stretch. Are all fat and corrupt people secret Targs, or just ones we want to fit certain theories?

Mummers and mummers... cute, but not evidence.

Ties up loose ends? Hardly, it creates more than it ties up. For instance, good luck explaining how 3 or 4 generations of Aerion's descendants have been floating around for over 75 years only to surface now. What the OP said is, "the same 'could' be said of Aerion." Lots of things could happen, not evidence.

Irony is also not evidence, nor is there any explanation as to why some combination of an exiled, rebel branch of a house gets a better claim than the trueborn daughter of the last Targaryen king.

Better explains Valyrian traits? I guess, but no more so than if two blue eyed blonds got it on.

Makes more sense thematically? That's personal opinion not evidence.

Better explains Illyrio's trust in the GC? The GC is a Blackfyre group and therefore better supports the Blackfyre theory. Aerion fought with the Second Sons and note they are nowhere near Illyrio.

As for the passed over son. We know that King Maekar took the throne in 221 and asked ALL his sons to come serve on the Small Council and we know Aemon refused. So Aerion was in King's Landing or at least Westeros from 221-232.

So where again was all this flushed out in the OP? All I saw was a bunch of maybes and could haves...

My friend, I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of foreshadowing?

[MasterJack]

I am totally sold. And dont forget the Blackfyres are just as much Targaryen than any other. They just changed their name as Stannis changed his sigil to fight against Renly. I even think if Deamon would have won, he would have ruled under the Targaryen name.He considered himself the targaryen heir since he claimed Dearon's father wasnt the king.

So fAegon would be the rightfull Targ heir from a blackfyre POV and the second in line(and arguably the first in line since he is male) known targ from the others pov.

But then, why claim he is son of Rheagar if telling the truth is just as good?

[Bringer of Rain]

I am totally sold. And dont forget the Blackfyres are just as much Targaryen than any other. They just changed their name as Stannis changed his sigil to fight against Renly. I even think if Deamon would have won, he would have ruled under the Targaryen name.He considered himself the targaryen heir since he claimed Dearon's father wasnt the king.

So fAegon would be the rightfull Targ heir from a blackfyre POV and the second in line(and arguably the first in line since he is male) known targ from the others pov.

But then, why claim he is son of Rheagar if telling the truth is just as good?

To get joncon on board and add credibility amongst other things? Plus it would be less controversial and more suport as a result as opposed to a mad mans child (as unfair as that may be look at aerys and Rhaegar for example) or a side that was in open rebellion I.e not everyone chose to support them so why would they all these years down the track

[Maester Pedant]

I am totally sold. And dont forget the Blackfyres are just as much Targaryen than any other. They just changed their name as Stannis changed his sigil to fight against Renly. I even think if Deamon would have won, he would have ruled under the Targaryen name.He considered himself the targaryen heir since he claimed Dearon's father wasnt the king.

So fAegon would be the rightfull Targ heir from a blackfyre POV and the second in line(and arguably the first in line since he is male) known targ from the others pov.

But then, why claim he is son of Rheagar if telling the truth is just as good?

Because none of the Blackfyres were ever widely recognised as the legitimate ones in the Seven Kingdoms, nor have they ever held the throne. Also, they were seen as a line of rebels and traitors. So they'd hardly get any support now, especially against a widely known legitimate Targaryen from the main line, who, on top of everything else, has dragons.

[MasterJack]

To get joncon on board and add credibility amongst other things?

Agree for JonCon but the credibility level of bringing back from the dead a baby that all the court saw dead is about the same, imo, than claiming to be what they really are.

[MasterJack]

Because none of the Blackfyres were ever widely recognised as the legitimate ones in the Seven Kingdoms, nor have they ever held the throne. Also, they were seen as a line of rebels and traitors. So they'd hardly get any support now, especially against a widely known legitimate Targaryen from the main line, who, on top of everything else, has dragons.

If Viserys and Dany existence was the problem, Illyrio could have killed them way before she got dragons. Well he could have wanted to set her as an antagonist, Robert as an incompetant who hides in his castle while the dothraki kill smallfolks, and fAegon as a blackfyre savior.

And you are right, I forgot that Brighfire is also considered (kind of)a traitor to the targ, so claiming to be from his line doesnt help much too.

[Paeon]

If Viserys and Dany existence was the problem, Illyrio could have killed them way before she got dragons. Well he could have wanted to set her as an antagonist, Robert as an incompetant who hides in his castle while the dothraki kill smallfolks, and fAegon as a blackfyre savior.

And you are right, I forgot that Brighfire is also considered (kind of)a traitor to the targ, so claiming to be from his line doesnt help much too.

Well if you assume that Illyrio is a Brightflame descendant (and Serra the Blackfyre), that would make Illyrio's true last name Targaryen, so Aegon would in fact still be Aegon Targaryen, even if he is half Blackfyre.

But if he is actually a Blackfyre in name, I don't see why Varys and Illyrio would reveal it until he actually has the throne secure.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Would explain why Varys sought out Illryrio

But I agree whose the blackfyre and whose the brightflame have to be reversed

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

To those saying that Varys & Serra are Blackfyres and Illyrio is the Brightflame: Then why are there more Blackfyre references than Brightflame references? If the father is a Brightflame, then shouldn't the son be considered more of a Brightflame than a Blackfyre?

Also, explain how Illyrio Brightflame ended up with the Blackfyre sword - though admittedly, this is only something that is probable in a draft of a Tyrion chapter and not in the actual text of aDwD.

[Lord Martin]

Veltigar, on 24 Feb 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

_ There is a certain irony in the fact that the Brightfyre theory makes Faegon’s claim even better in the sense that in unites both the older Targaryen and the BF claim, thus you could say that this trumps the claim Dany and Jon have.

Again, this doesn't say whether its the passed over son or the Lyseni-Bastards. I don't see where you get this from that text excerpt.

Lord Martin, on 24 Feb 2014 - 5:09 PM, said:

This is so silly I am starting to think you're trolling....

Then what is the significance of the word "false" here? Any theory that rests on "a false dragon is still a dragon" is dead in the water.

Sorry. How is that silly? How is that trolling?

The significance is that he is false in who he thinks and claims to be, was that not obvious? The dragon is playing everyone false. The dragon is false in being Rhaegar's son. And if this false dragon was not a false dragon, then why did Moqorro include it in the dragons Tyrion snarls in the midst of?

If something is "false" then it isn't what it is stated to be. A false dragon means a person who isn't a dragon claiming to be one. False gold isn't still gold, its something else.

The whole point of the theory is that Faegon is a true dragon, to then turn around and say he's the false dragon is inherently inconsistent.

You seem to be conflating who is the rightful heir or Rhaegar's true son with the word "dragon." Nothing was said or implied about who is the rightful heir. The question is who is a dragon, regardless of color.

[Carter209]

I like this, a lot. I'm about 90% sold, but that's just because I'm (currently) in the camp of just a Blackfyre coup.

I noticed while scrolling through that some were wondering why Illyrio wouldn't have the Blackfyre name. IMO, if we take what Illyrio says to heart about the male line having gone extinct, then Illyrio gets his Blackfyre name from his mother. However he would not technically be a Blackfyre, since he would take his father's name, Mopatis. So while his marriage to Serra Brightflame would unite the two claims, which has been said to be the better claim over the actual Targaryen one, Aegriff's surname would be one of of Mopatis, Blackfyre, and Brightflame, right? Or am I just rambling?

Something else that I saw: the possibilty that Aegriff and Arianne was the planned marriage between Varys, Illyrio, and Doran all along. Does this mean that Oberyn was not aware, since he made the contract with Willem Darry between Arianne and Viserys? Along with the trio of plotters, why send Quentyn to Dany if Aegriff was going to marry Arianne anyway? Was it just for the Martells to cover all their bases?

[Lord Martin]

Because he inherited the castration gene from his father?

ETA: If you really want to play the metaphor out, then doesn't it suggest that Varys was the younger brother of the person who cut him?

No... no one said anything about genes where did you get that from? I was running with (what I thought was) your suggestion that since Aerion often threatened to castrate Egg, it makes sense that his son might also be cruel and into castration. Targaryen madness is hereditary, but I did forget that Aerion would not have been around to rub off on his son.

As to the second question, also "no" because I do not ascribe to the proposed theory.

There's been an odd trend on the boards recently to try to shoehorn Aerion Brightflame into the story and I don't know why. But if people want to find him or his descendants somewhere, that seems a better place to look than a major character like Faegon.

[Frey family reunion]

I really don't understand why all three (Illyrio, Varys, and Serra) have to be secret Targaryens. There is really no textual evidence whatsoever that Varys ever had a sister. Isn't it enough that Varys is a secret Targ and Illyrio may have married another offshoot of the Targaryen family?

[Lord Martin]

My friend, I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of foreshadowing?

I'm very acquainted with it, like when the Stag (sigil of House Baratheon) and the Direwolf (Stark) have killed each other at the opening of the book? Or Dany's vision in the HOTU forshadowing the RW? Or Varamyrs prologue forshadowing Jon's second life in ghost?

GRRM is very very good with his foreshadowing... this is just spit balling and wild conjecture. There's no foreshadowing here...

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

Again, this doesn't say whether its the passed over son or the Lyseni-Bastards. I don't see where you get this from that text excerpt.

Bastards have no claim, so... I don't see what you do not get?

If something is "false" then it isn't what it is stated to be. A false dragon means a person who isn't a dragon claiming to be one. False gold isn't still gold, its something else.

The whole point of the theory is that Faegon is a true dragon, to then turn around and say he's the false dragon is inherently inconsistent.

"False" is not the same as "fake" in all uses of the word. False gold can be real gold. "He paid me with false gold," can mean "He paid me with gold he earned in a false manner."

You seem to be conflating who is the rightful heir or Rhaegar's true son with the word "dragon." Nothing was said or implied about who is the rightful heir. The question is who is a dragon, regardless of color.

And you conflated that "We know the true Dragon is Dany." You conflated a meaning onto "true" and "dragon" for that interpretation, no? Or did Moqorro tell us what he meant by those?

Also, Jon is true and Dany is young in more ways than I mentioned so far here, and this thread really is not about that, I don't see how this argument is relevant? Especially since it started with someone saying something how Serra would be a bright dragon too in this case - which is so but not relevant to Tyrion's snarling in the midst of them all. Same goes for if she was a Blackfyre and a dark dragon.

[Lord Martin]

Incidentally, I hope folks realize that Brightflame was Aerion's nickname, not his actual last name as was the case with Daemon Blackfyre. Aerion is Aerion Targaryen. His children wouldn't be "Brightflames."

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

Incidentally, I hope folks realize that Brightflame was Aerion's nickname, not his actual last name as was the case with Daemon Blackfyre. Aerion is Aerion Targaryen. His children wouldn't be "Brightflames."

Did you bother with the OP at all?

Serra Brightflame*

[*I’m well aware that there is no such thing as a House Brightflame, Aerion’s descendants are Targaryen but to make things go more smoothly I have opted to consistently speak about Brightflame when talking about Aerion descendants]

Everyone else (who has) has also opted to speak such.

[Dagon]

Very interesting.

[Lord Martin]

Bastards have no claim, so... I don't see what you do not get?

"False" is not the same as "fake" in all uses of the word. False gold can be real gold. "He paid me with false gold," can mean "He paid me with gold he earned in a false manner."

And you conflated that "We know the true Dragon is Dany." You conflated a meaning onto "true" and "dragon" for that interpretation, no? Or did Moqorro tell us what he meant by those?

Also, Jon is true and Dany is young in more ways than I mentioned so far here, and this thread really is not about that, I don't see how this argument is relevant? Especially since it started with someone saying something how Serra would be a bright dragon too in this case - which is so but not relevant to Tyrion's snarling in the midst of them all. Same goes for if she was a Blackfyre and a dark dragon.

So who was Aerion's wife that could beget him a trueborn son? Are we just making that up to fit the theory? And what did her family do when the infant son was passed over? Just sat idly by?

I guess I see what your saying with "false" but that's really thin and twisted, IMO. My problem with it is simple grammar. "Dragons" is the subject with six modifying adjectives. Given how they are paired, it could mean 6 unique dragons or it could mean 2 dragons, who knows.

But I didn't conflate anything, you changed the meaning of "dragon" for each adjective to get to your suggested interpretation. Dragon means dragon, red, black or any other color or it means true born child... it doesn't alternate back and forth.