LyraStone Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 The spoiler by omission of Griff and young Griff is my favourite part of the shows changes to date assuming the creators are taking a shorter route to the same destination. Reading it for the first time it seemed like a particularly interesting way to get Tyrion where he was going rather than a major plot point. For such a complex narrative his last minute addition feels like an intentional misdirection. Aegon also reminds me of a watered down Visaeyrs so I'm hoping he's a red herring! Even if we set aside R + L = J, with so much wonderful character development invested in Dany, a two dimensional Targaryen climbing out of the woodwork this late in the game and supplanting her claim seems unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Mummer's dragon can be also interpreted as dragon who belongs to mummers. It might, but the point is that we first see the concept (a cloth dragon on poles) in Dany's vision, and it gets labelled as mummer's dragon later, by her when discussing the visions with Jorah. So since the very beginning, we have a stage prop, a false dragon, regardless whether it really belongs to a mummer or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Inc Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 It comes from people falling for George's easy set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GtrGbln Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 That is completely untrue. If you did your HW instead of basing your answer on assumptions you would find that the false Aegon theory has been around since before ADwD came out, posited by Apple Martini. Aegon does share resemblanced to Henry VII, and also Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, both false pretenders claiming to be slain princes. Besides, the only evidence we have of Aegon being rule are the words of two proven liars, Illyrio and Varys. The baby swap story doesn't make sense either. I don't care what people's theories say especially not around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Inc Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Cloth dragon on poles is a simple banner but a lot of people read too far into things so he did this one quite deliberately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Cloth dragon on poles is a simple banner but a lot of people read too far into things so he did this one quite deliberately Cloth dragon on poles is a cloth dragon on poles. Or do you think that Dany doesn't know what a banner looks like? Yet, she labels it as "mummers' dragon" because it doesn't look like a banner, it looks like the thing which she has seen mummers use: a puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anythingatall Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 My initial disbelief is founded in 'out of world' reasons, like how can we go four books getting to know and care about these characters and then have a surprise game changing prince dropped on our heads? Now though I don't necessarily believe him to be fake as much as I believe that he doesn't really matter one way or the other. His armies may matter, Jon Con may matter (in a supporting character way) and the greyscale may matter but the prince (as an individual) and his claim are going to be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Bastard Snow Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 That is completely untrue. If you did your HW instead of basing your answer on assumptions you would find that the false Aegon theory has been around since before ADwD came out, posited by Apple Martini. Aegon does share resemblanced to Henry VII, and also Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, both false pretenders claiming to be slain princes. Besides, the only evidence we have of Aegon being rule are the words of two proven liars, Illyrio and Varys. The baby swap story doesn't make sense either. Not to mention the whole "Some contracts are writ in ink..others in blood" in response to why the Golden Company is supporting a Targ.And the most obvious "black or red a dragon is a dragon"And how they bring up specifically that the blackfyre Male line ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashless Society Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Aren't we suppose to doubt his true identity? Illyrio going on about his wife's features, the clothes, his age, JonCon being recruited (at least) 5 years after the fact. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallam Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Any argument based on assuming a theory is true (in this case R+L=J) is inherently flawed. R+L=J is not confirmed. There are plenty of hints in book 1 that Jon is not necessarily Ned's son. Fake Aegon does not turn up until book 5 and Tyrion, the shrewdest POV character in the books thinks he might be fake. Any argument based on R+L=J is nonsense because it isn't the only or even the best theory of Jon's parentage. Any theory that leaves Jon a bastard is pointless in book terms. Show Jon is currently the Stark heir and legitimized by his brother Robb. That makes him king in the North if he leaves the watch. One possibility is that fake Aegon is actually the son of Ned and Ashara Dayne and that Jon is the son of Rheagar and Elia. If so, fake Aegon's looks would suddenly change when Jon becomes AAR. But that isn't the only possibility. GRRM introduces several mechanisms that may or may not have something to do with Jon's resurrection in the later books. One of those is warging (no please don't let it be that) and another is Mel's glamor spell. At least one of those is a red herring as far as the resurrection is concerned. I also hope that Mel herself turns out to be a red herring as far as resurrecting Jon goes. Yes D&D have returned her to the wall but that might be out of respect for not spoiling book 6. Unless of course Mel is tied to Jon's funeral pyre and that causes his resurrection. I think its worth a try at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Mostly people think that the most obvious Blackfyre candidate must by the only Blackfyre candidate. Others don't believe Varys 1) was telling the truth, or 2) Varys was capable of pulling off the switch, or 3) that a character introduced in book 5 could be legitimate. It baffles me that so many people missed the obviousness of the baby's face being smashed beyond recognition meaning he could still be alive and might show up. Doesn't make him legit, but for crying out loud GRRM set this up in book one. Writers do not just throw those things in for fun. When the identity of the victim cannot be established without reasonable doubt (or the body isn't found) there's a good chance the character is still alive. This is basic stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 That is completely untrue. If you did your HW instead of basing your answer on assumptions you would find that the false Aegon theory has been around since before ADwD came out, posited by Apple Martini. Aegon does share resemblanced to Henry VII, and also Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, both false pretenders claiming to be slain princes. Besides, the only evidence we have of Aegon being rule are the words of two proven liars, Illyrio and Varys. The baby swap story doesn't make sense either. I know you weren't addressing me--and I do agree that the comment you were addressing was in bad taste--but the Targs already had a Lambert Simnel character who was made cupbearer to Aegon III, IIRC. And Varys is not a proven liar. I don't recall Illyrio being proven a liar either but I admit it may have slipped my mind. Rather than lying, Varys is just very, very careful about what he says. It's not really his fault if people think he means something other than what he means--unless they tell him what it is they're thinking he can't correct the assumptions anyway. The baby swap story makes perfect sense. Jon pulled one off and he didn't have secret passages or time to search for a reasonable double of the baby he was saving. Varys had a network of spies, perhaps the best knowledge of anyone of the Red Keep's secrets, and the resources of the crown behind him, without the king looking over his shoulder to double check anything. The baby swap is actually the easiest part of the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Lyon Layden Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Mostly it stems from the fact that he was not introduced in the beginning.If Aegon were legit, it would be kind of like Farmair appearing in Return of the King and then having a bigger part than Frodo or Aragorn or Gandalf.In short, we just don't expect the best writer of our time to use amateur techniques like deus ex machina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallam Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Mostly people think that the most obvious Blackfyre candidate must by the only Blackfyre candidate. Others don't believe Varys 1) was telling the truth, or 2) Varys was capable of pulling off the switch, or 3) that a character introduced in book 5 could be legitimate. It baffles me that so many people missed the obviousness of the baby's face being smashed beyond recognition meaning he could still be alive and might show up. Doesn't make him legit, but for crying out loud GRRM set this up in book one. Writers do not just throw those things in for fun. When the identity of the victim cannot be established without reasonable doubt (or the body isn't found) there's a good chance the character is still alive. This is basic stuff. I thought the faces smashed beyond recognition was a tell. But I thought it more likely that the Lannisters knew that the children had survived and had done a Theon. Pretenders and changelings popping up happened fairly often back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I know you weren't addressing me--and I do agree that the comment you were addressing was in bad taste--but the Targs already had a Lambert Simnel character who was made cupbearer to Aegon III, IIRC. And Varys is not a proven liar. I don't recall Illyrio being proven a liar either but I admit it may have slipped my mind. Rather than lying, Varys is just very, very careful about what he says. It's not really his fault if people think he means something other than what he means--unless they tell him what it is they're thinking he can't correct the assumptions anyway. The baby swap story makes perfect sense. Jon pulled one off and he didn't have secret passages or time to search for a reasonable double of the baby he was saving. Varys had a network of spies, perhaps the best knowledge of anyone of the Red Keep's secrets, and the resources of the crown behind him, without the king looking over his shoulder to double check anything. The baby swap is actually the easiest part of the whole thing. That guy you mentioned is also a clue for Aegon. Varys speaks in half and partial truths, true, but that just means he's still as untrustworthy. Illyrio not a proven liar, so Illyrio's claim to Viserys that in secret people were sewing dragon banners and holding toasts in his honor awaiting his return is true? Except Elia was found clutching the infant, meaning she believed it was Aegon. Varys couldn't have pulled the switch without her knowing, and Elia would have recognized if the child wasn't hers. How many babies in Flea Bottom have Valyrian features? During the Sack, she wouldn't have been with some strange child, but with her daughter, Rhaenys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimim Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Cloth dragon on poles is a cloth dragon on poles. Or do you think that Dany doesn't know what a banner looks like? Yet, she labels it as "mummers' dragon" because it doesn't look like a banner, it looks like the thing which she has seen mummers use: a puppet. This. Quaithe later repeats it as the "mummer's dragon." "Mummer's dragon," could mean a real dragon belonging to a mummer, but the earlier vision, at the HotU, specified the mummer's dragon as a false dragon, a "cloth" dragon. I don't think it's overreading to say that these are hints Aegon isn't a real dragon (targ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Short answer: Jon Snow fans are ridiculous.And how do you explain those who aren't Jon fans and have doubts that Aegon is who he claims to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 It's pretty simple. The real Aegon was murdered about seventeen years ago and has never been seen since, while AeGriff is showing up for the first time claiming to be Aegon seventeen years later. And his claims rely on Varys and Ilyrio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 It's pretty simple. The real Aegon was murdered about seventeen years ago and has never been seen since, while AeGriff is showing up for the first time claiming to be Aegon seventeen years later. And his claims rely on Varys and Ilyrio.What's funny is that people wondered if he was alive in the years prior to Dance, but when he showed up the theories began that he was false :lol: (not saying without reason, just funny is all) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Also, note how the Pisswater Prince story doesn't tie to any small details throughout the series. We don't have a captain mentioning how glad he is that he got away from KL to Essos after the Trident. There is no brothel servant with silvery hair mentioning that any wine drowns her loss just like the arbor gold. Nothing like that. The whole story is based on, "Varys said". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.