The weird thing with Elia and Aegon

[King of Valyria]

While going through forums and reading fanfic I've noticed that a lot of people seem to overwhelming like Elia Martell and the idea of her son escaping but the fanbase seems split down the middle about the Aegon( young griff) that we were introduced to in A Dance of Dragons. In 2000 GRRM was asked about the possible survival of Rhaenys and Aegon and he only confirmed Rhaenys's death. since the then it was one of the most popular theory's about the series until 2011 when we were introduced to a young man who presents himself as the son of Crown-Prince Rhaegar and Princess Elia, the true heir to the Iron Throne and rightful ruler of of the Seven Kingdoms. Almost immediately after the book came out he became (F)Aegon the the Mummers Dragon the Blackfyre or Brightflame pretender. Yet the story of clever Elia some how finding a way to save her son remains popular.

So here are my questions:

1) If Aegon is revealed to be a fake would you want the real Aegon to have survived and appear in the story?

2) Why do so many people like the "Elia find's a way to save Aegon story" but not the Aegon we got?

3) (For those who don't) would you support Aegon if his reveal had been differently?.

[Mladen]

Welcome to the forum, King of Valyria... May you have nice and pleasant time here... :cheers:

I like Elia Martell... I believe that she was the brains in her marriage with Rhaegar, and I see much of Doran in her... I don't believe that her story is solely the tragic one. Now, regarding Aegon- YG. I do believe he is false. I do believe he is Blackfyre.

To answer your questions:

1. Not necessarily... It would all depend on how Martin wanted to present it to us, but overall nope. I would like that Gregor/Lorch thing never happened, but that is just idealism speaking from me.

2. I don't understand the question. Are you suggesting that Aegon is alive, but that he is not YG? If that is what you ask, then I don't see many believe in that.

3. My support to him doesn't depend on whether he is real or not. He obviously believes he is. There are different, far more important factors to consider before the issue whether he came from Rhaegar's loins.

[Good Guy Garlan]

1. No, I prefer a fake Aegon. A real one seems too far-fetched for me

2. I don't like any version of anyone saving Aegon. I guess if someone could pull the switch it would be Varys, but I still don't like it

3. As Mladen said, there are other factors more important than his legitimacy. Like, if he joins some interesting characters (like Sansa, for example) I'd support him, probably

ETA: Welcome to the forum, OP!

[King of Valyria]

Thank you for the welcome Mladen!

I like Elia to and my feeling's may be affecting my view of YG. I'm more on the fence about him I want him to be real but I'm not totally convinced and am waiting for more info about him, after all something convinced Jon Connington that he was real,.

1) Fair point

2) sorry bout that I'm actually talking about two separate thing's: I'm asking why people like the idea of Elia finding a way to save her son but(assuming he's real) what they don't like about YG

3) again fair point, on paper he seems like the perfect prince a knight and scholar combined according to vary's resume that and a superior blood claim puts him at the front of the pack of those competing for the Throne.

[Julia Martell]

While going through forums and reading fanfic I've noticed that a lot of people seem to overwhelming like Elia Martell and the idea of her son escaping but the fanbase seems split down the middle about the Aegon( young griff) that we were introduced to in A Dance of Dragons. In 2000 GRRM was asked about the possible survival of Rhaenys and Aegon and he only confirmed Rhaenys's death. since the then it was one of the most popular theory's about the series until 2011 when we were introduced to a young man who presents himself as the son of Crown-Prince Rhaegar and Princess Elia, the true heir to the Iron Throne and rightful ruler of of the Seven Kingdoms. Almost immediately after the book came out he became (F)Aegon the the Mummers Dragon the Blackfyre or Brightflame pretender. Yet the story of clever Elia some how finding a way to save her son remains popular.

So here are my questions:

1) If Aegon is revealed to be a fake would you want the real Aegon to have survived and appear in the story?

2) Why do so many people like the "Elia find's a way to save Aegon story" but not the Aegon we got?

3) (For those who don't) would you support Aegon if his reveal had been differently?.

1. No, real or fake, one is enough for one story.

2. Elia is a blank slate at this point. All we really know about her is that she was sickly and that her brother liked her. (And that she liked fart jokes.) Us aSoIaF fans tend to like strong women and not like the idea of her as an innocent victim. Having her be active in saving her children is a good way to give her some agency and not have her been the poor innocent princess who's husband left her for a younger woman.

3. The Pisswater Prince story stinks to high heaven. If he is a fake, then the reveal is fine. If he's actually a Targ, then I would have some issues. Varys and Ilyrio seem to smart to expect the lords of Westeros to buy this story. We'll see.

[Mladen]

Thank you for the welcome Mladen!

I like Elia to and my feeling's may be affecting my view of YG. I'm more on the fence about him I want him to be real but I'm not totally convinced and am waiting for more info about him, after all something convinced Jon Connington that he was real,.

1) Fair point

2) sorry bout that I'm actually talking about two separate thing's: I'm asking why people like the idea of Elia finding a way to save her son but(assuming he's real) what they don't like about YG

3) again fair point, on paper he seems like the perfect prince a knight and scholar combined according to vary's resume that and a superior blood claim puts him at the front of the pack of those competing for the Throne.

I like Elia too, but legitimacy of YG simply has little to do with that. I won't love Elia any less if he is fake. And I sincerely believe he is. As for JonCon, the boy was brought to him when he was 6. Since Jon was in love with Rhaegar, and Varys sold him the story about "restoring his silver-haired prince's child", I actually see JonCon buying that story out of very basic human emotions.

2. Even if we buy the Pisswater Prince story, the fact remains that Elia would have little with that. As the story was told, Varys did everything.

3. There is no superior blood claim. Targaryens have been dethroned and now the only way they can get the Throne is with army. Also, I take Varys' report with grain of salt... Or two... Varys' talk and Aegon's actions are not that much in harmony so we could easily buy the "enlightened monarch" story.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

<snip

So here are my questions:

1) If Aegon is revealed to be a fake would you want the real Aegon to have survived and appear in the story?

2) Why do so many people like the "Elia find's a way to save Aegon story" but not the Aegon we got?

3) (For those who don't) would you support Aegon if his reveal had been differently?.

Welcome to the forums! Nice name there. :)

Here are my answer to your questions.

1) Yes. The baby switch is totally possible, and it would be a great twist if this one is fake for the real one to be out there somewhere. Though if this is the case, I imagine Littlefinger has the kid. Because I don't see any other way for him to exist in the world and Varys isn't aware of it (unless Illyrio pulled a fast one).

2) Everyone would love for there to have been a way to save one of the kids. The second part doesn't really relate to that. There's a huge amount of Blackfyre foreshadowing in the series thus far, and right now the best candidate we have for a Blackfyre pretender happens to be young Aegon. Not the only candidate, mind you, but certainly the best one at the moment.

3. Doesn't really apply to me as I consider Aegon real until proven otherwise.

[Unbent_Unbroken]

Hi King of Valyria!

As you can probably tell by the name, I'm a Martell fan, especially Elia.

1. As much as I like the idea of Aegon surviving, I just don't think it's likely given the setting and how relatively late YG arrived in the plot. There's been a lot of foreshadowing that points towards YG being fake. That and I think that a surviving Aegon would torpedo the Jon Snow reveal, if one's coming.

2. I love the idea of a strong Elia saving her children. Children plural. If Elia was in on the plan to switch Aegon, why didn't she also do anything to save Rhaenys? Varys being in on it alone just screams fake.

3. Blood claim really doesn't mean anything at this point. I don't buy YG being the real Aegon, and I think it would be a bad story move if he was, but I don't think it'll be important in the long run.

[King of Winter-ish Stuff]

While going through forums and reading fanfic I've noticed that a lot of people seem to overwhelming like Elia Martell and the idea of her son escaping but the fanbase seems split down the middle about the Aegon( young griff) that we were introduced to in A Dance of Dragons. In 2000 GRRM was asked about the possible survival of Rhaenys and Aegon and he only confirmed Rhaenys's death. since the then it was one of the most popular theory's about the series until 2011 when we were introduced to a young man who presents himself as the son of Crown-Prince Rhaegar and Princess Elia, the true heir to the Iron Throne and rightful ruler of of the Seven Kingdoms. Almost immediately after the book came out he became (F)Aegon the the Mummers Dragon the Blackfyre or Brightflame pretender. Yet the story of clever Elia some how finding a way to save her son remains popular.

So here are my questions:

1) If Aegon is revealed to be a fake would you want the real Aegon to have survived and appear in the story?

2) Why do so many people like the "Elia find's a way to save Aegon story" but not the Aegon we got?

3) (For those who don't) would you support Aegon if his reveal had been differently?.

1) If Aegon-YG is fake, I don't think it's necessary for a real one to show up. I don't think there would be enough time to develop the real Aegon (depending on when he is introduced)

2) I think it proves that she is smarter than at first glance. Finding a way to save her children, makes her more endearing to us, since there are a number of people who believe R+L=J, and that Lyanna was meant to replace Elia, and we never meet her to see what kind of person she is.

3) It would depend on who revealed him. Since JonCon first met him when he was 4 years old, he's not a reliable source as to the true identity. Rather Varys and Illyrio are the revealers and they have a checkered history of lying to people (see their scams from Pentos)

[Hrafntýr]

Welcome, OP, great question! I always enjoy "meta" questions like this, that ask us to examine why we feel the way we do about characters and events in the books.

I think that you're pointing to a fundamental tension that is written into the books: readers are made to care about the outcome of the "game," even as we know that somehow we should also care more about core human relationships and love, that these things are more important than the "game." The tension is possibly expressed most clearly in Doran Martell's sentimental attachment to the Water Gardens and the innocence of the children playing there, even as we are also told that he's been spending his life scheming and manipulating his own children as part of the game. The other place where the tension emerges most clearly surrounds the widely believed R+L=J. On the one hand, we readers are supposed to value Lyanna's maternal love and wisdom in wanting to protect the life of her child by having him raised in secrecy, knowing that his Targ identity would put his life in jeopardy: life is more valuable than the game. At the same time, the boards are filled with speculations about how Jon's Targ identity is going to be proclaimed, how he's going to take the Throne, ride a dragon, etc.!!!

I think the same tension surfaces in thoughts about Elia and Aegon. There's more than a little gender bias here, the assumption that mothers, more than fathers, have this natural instinct to protect their children above all else (it helps that, in the cases of Rhaegar and Aerys that one daddy dies and the other is mad). I think readers like to think that Elia found a way to save her child, and knew the dangers of the "game," and therefore, in parallel to what we assume Lyanna made Ned promise, got him out altogether. The fact that the Aegon we meet in ADwD is set up to be a major piece in the game goes against this desire to see "pure maternal love" triumph over all those manipulative men who care nothing for the individual lives of children. And the fact that Varys is the chief backer of Aegon only exacerbates this issue, since he would seem to be the supreme manipulator, despite his claims of doing it all "for the children."

As for your specific questions:
1. Sure, I would want the real Aegon to have survived, because for a mother to have witnessed the murder of her baby is just horrifying. In other words, I'm just as prey to the sentiments of maternal love as anybody else! And I'll confess to having spent plenty of time thinking through Aegon survival schemes (usually involving Ashara Dayne, that poor, unwitting instrument to so many of our theories here on the board!).

2. Answered indirectly above, but I want Aegon to survive but not Varys to triumph. I don't like the Aegon we got because I'm opposed to the human assumption that we can actually manipulate all known variables and create the reality we want; the Aegon we got is doomed, because no matter how good Varys is, no one can control everything (and I LOVE Varys as a character!). I think people don't like the Aegon we got simply because they mistrust Varys, and assume that things are not as they seem.

3. I support Aegon's claim just as much as anyone else's.

[Hangover of the Morning]

1. Sure, I would want the real Aegon to have survived, because for a mother to have witnessed the murder of her baby is just horrifying. In other words, I'm just as prey to the sentiments of maternal love as anybody else! And I'll confess to having spent plenty of time thinking through Aegon survival schemes (usually involving Ashara Dayne, that poor, unwitting instrument to so many of our theories here on the board!).

Wishing Aegon to be the real does not change the fact that an innocent child has died in a brutal horrific way. In that scenario the said baby just wasn't Elia's but that doesn't make it any less gruesome.

[Hrafntýr]

Wishing Aegon to be the real does not change the fact that an innocent child has died in a brutal horrific way. In that scenario the said baby just wasn't Elia's but that doesn't make it any less gruesome.

I wasn't suggesting that it would be any less gruesome. But I do think there's a special horror attached to a mother having to witness her own child brutally murdered before her eyes. I'm just being honest. Would I be horrified and haunted to see any baby smashed to smithereens? Yes, absolutely. Would it be different if it were my own child? Yes, I think so. I realize there there are all kinds of horrible implications here about Elia, that she was willing to let another die in her child's place (a scenario that is raised quite explicitly in the GoT chapter in which Ned confronts Cersei in the godswood in KL, and he wonders if he would let another child die in place of his own). I don't really think any of this happened, I was just trying to think through the ways in which we are manipulated by the writing to think that this sort of maternal love is morally justifiable in a way that the "game" might not be.

[Kyoshi]

I personally don't care if he's real or fake. If he makes a good ruler then I'm cool with him being on the throne, regardless of whether or not he is Rhaegar's son. I don't think blood should matter.

Yeah sure Varys and Illyrio will have pulled the biggest scam ever, but who cares, no one will ever know anyway and the realm will stop bleeding. To paraphrase Tolkien, a traitor may do a good he does not intend and betray himself. Varys and his buddy will be the traitor in this case but if their lie benefits the realm then why should it matter...just my 2 cents anyway.

[Hangover of the Morning]

I personally don't care if he's real or fake. If he makes a good ruler then I'm cool with him being on the throne, regardless of whether or not he is Rhaegar's son. I don't think blood should matter.

Yeah sure Varys and Illyrio will have pulled the biggest scam ever, but who cares, no one will ever know anyway and the realm will stop bleeding. To paraphrase Tolkien, a traitor may do a good he does not intend and betray himself. Varys and his buddy will be the traitor in this case but if their lie benefits the realm then why should it matter...just my 2 cents anyway.

I agree. Unfortunately, from the little we saw of Young Griff, he doesn't seem to fit the bill of the “ideal monarch”. He definitely has the superior entitlement around him (People should bow to me because I am Rhaegar’s son) that Joffrey or Viserys had but that you would not expect in someone who has been trained to be a good ruler and who has been brought up in relatively humble conditions.

[Hangover of the Morning]

I wasn't suggesting that it would be any less gruesome. But I do think there's a special horror attached to a mother having to witness her own child brutally murdered before her eyes. I'm just being honest. Would I be horrified and haunted to see any baby smashed to smithereens? Yes, absolutely. Would it be different if it were my own child? Yes, I think so. I realize there there are all kinds of horrible implications here about Elia, that she was willing to let another die in her child's place (a scenario that is raised quite explicitly in the GoT chapter in which Ned confronts Cersei in the godswood in KL, and he wonders if he would let another child die in place of his own). I don't really think any of this happened, I was just trying to think through the ways in which we are manipulated by the writing to think that this sort of maternal love is morally justifiable in a way that the "game" might not be.

I agree and I didn't mean to imply that you would relish in the fact that a child has been murdered. If indeed Aegon was swapped, I can imagine that besides horror, Elia would feel relieved (and grateful that she went along with the scheme) after seeing what the Mountain had done with the imposter. It is only natural.

[Kyoshi]

I agree. Unfortunately, from the little we saw of Young Griff, he doesn't seem to fit the bill of the “ideal monarch”. He definitely has the superior entitlement around him (People should bow to me because I am Rhaegar’s son) that Joffrey or Viserys had but that you would not expect in someone who has been trained to be a good ruler and who has been brought up in relatively humble conditions.

I agree he didn't seem to fit the bill. Hopefully, if he ends up on the throne, he grows out of it as he gets older. And Aerys was a pretty shitty king but he had a good Hand. All was good in the end. Sometimes it's not so much the king but the dudes who actually go about running the kingdom.

[Game Of Thrones]

I don't support Aegon because what we see of him:

1. He loses a chess game and throws the chessboard at Tyrion like a 7 year old, despite him being 18 or so, and makes Tyrion pick up the pieces (maybe the Blackfyres inherited the Targaryen madness)

2. He is arrogant and decides that he can win Westeros with 10,000 sellswords, despite supposedly being good at history

3. He decides he should lead the battle against SE despite, again, him being good at history, which should tell him that once the general dies the battle is lost (the Trident), and that a good commander (STANNIS, Tywin) leads from the rear.

4. He's not the true heir, Stannis is.

[Kyoshi]

I don't support Aegon because what we see of him:

1. He loses a chess game and throws the chessboard at Tyrion like a 7 year old, despite him being 18 or so, and makes Tyrion pick up the pieces (maybe the Blackfyres inherited the Targaryen madness)

2. He is arrogant and decides that he can win Westeros with 10,000 sellswords, despite supposedly being good at history

3. He decides he should lead the battle against SE despite, again, him being good at history, which should tell him that once the general dies the battle is lost (the Trident), and that a good commander (STANNIS, Tywin) leads from the rear.

4. He's not the true heir, Stannis is.

That's what I have problem with. It should never be about heirs. Look at what the issue of heirs did during the war of the 5 kings. Blood doesn't make a good ruler.

[Game Of Thrones]

1) Nope, I like Elia but we really don't need another contender to the throne. Remember, we only have 2-3 books left to finish the story.

2) Because Aegon's a Blackfyre, so Elia didn't actually save him.

3) No, see above.

[Game Of Thrones]

That's what I have problem with. It should never be about heirs. Look at what the issue of heirs did during the war of the 5 kings. Blood doesn't make a good ruler.

It should be about heirs because that's the law. Otherwise you get might makes right, and it's not the age for democracy yet.