Why is he fake?

[Morky_Pep]

Oh and id also like to say that I believe Aegon is FAKE !!!! Mummers dragon all the way baby! From a storytelling point it makes more sense, but even if hes real idc because I loved the scenes on the river with Tyrion and the Aegon group. The Sorrows was an amazing descriptive action scene and am excited to see Con Con and greyscale outbreak in Westeros. The fact that theres another Targaryan just means its going to be more intense when Dany comes back, me senses a slaughter all over the continent, and every house is going to suffer.

I've been rereading ADWD, first the Westeros POV's and now Essos, and I kinda have to admit Im enjoying Essos ALOT more the second time through. I see on here people are bitching about Dany becoming a bitch(ironic?) and Tyrion becoming a dick. I felt Danys POVs were broing before but now am genuinely interested in all the details, and dont think she has become a bitch. She is in an incredibly difficult position, and even though shes drooling about Dario, i find i can understand, she has to want something for her personal life right? And the fact that Dario is a tough dick like Drogo feels real to me, she obviously aint going to go for Quentyn. People complain that Tyrion isnt fun to read anymore and i disagree. Hes still hilarious; ill admit his humor is more dark, and his thoughts are more dark, but it makes sense right? I mean we have seen practically every other main character transform except for Tyrion, until now atleast. Hes still smart and witty and funny, but he also is haunted; I like where Martin is taking him.

[Ladywhiskers]

There are three explanations, actually. One is that he never actually says Aegon is Rhaegar and Elia's son, so he is in fact not lying to Kevan. The second explanation is that he is basically following Littlefinger's advice to Sansa/Alayne: upholding the lie even when he has no reason to do so. The third and most commonly offered explanation is the one Lummel gave: Varys is not alone with Kevan, and therefore has a reason not to reveal the truth about Aegon's parentage.

Because he doesn't want his secret to get out? It's harder to keep a secret when a bunch of people know about it.

Actually, as pointed out earlier in the thread, a number of posters have been expecting to see a fake Aegon since ACOK, due to the "mummer's dragon" and "slayer of lies" prophecies. The latest book merely confirmed what we were expecting.

I'm on the fence about this, because I do think Aegon has to be fake, but I admit I don't understand the point of lying to a bunch of mute children who already only communicate with Varys anyway, or to a dying man. Unless Varys is convinced that LF has his own spies inside the walls, which I guess is quite likely.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm on the fence about this, because I do think Aegon has to be fake, but I admit I don't understand the point of lying to a bunch of mute children who already only communicate with Varys anyway, or to a dying man. Unless Varys is convinced that LF has his own spies inside the walls, which I guess is quite likely.

I think that's probably likely, plus the tactic of keeping up with the lie even when you don't have to, which Littlefinger suggested to Sansa.

[Dragonfish]

I'm on the fence about this, because I do think Aegon has to be fake, but I admit I don't understand the point of lying to a bunch of mute children who already only communicate with Varys anyway, or to a dying man.

Why wouldn't he lie to them? What would he have to gain by letting them in on such a big secret?

Unless Varys is convinced that LF has his own spies inside the walls, which I guess is quite likely.

I definitely think that Varys can't be certain there aren't any eaves-droppers, which gives him another reason not to reveal the truth.

[MtnLion]

Another reason for Varys to spread the manure with his "little birds" is so that they can spread the word, so to speak around to others. This could be a move towards political advertising.

[corbon]

Except that Varys doesn't ever say that Aegon is Rhaegar and Elia's Aegon. He calls him by his name, yes, but it's the same sort of telling-the-truth-while-lying that Ned used when Robert asked about Wylla. Ned knew whom Robert meant and answered truthfully, while still not saying outright that Wylla was Jon's mother. Same sort of tactic.

Well, it could be. OTOH, Aegon is Aegon, so if Aegon really is Aegon then it is said exactly how you'd say it. :cool4:

Also, Varys' little birds were within hearing. So he could've been talking for their benefit, too.

A don't buy this as evidence he is lying though. By having them commit the murder he is binding them to his side even further, assuming they haven't been basically brainwashed to unbreakably his side in the first place. So whether he is telling the thruth or lying makes no difference to his relationship with them - he could equally be doing either.

And I do think (as in IMO) he can be sure Littlefinger doesn't have ears around. From what we has seen, Varys controls the secret passages and the little birds. Littlefingers 'ears' are a very different sort of network, just as Littlefinger's methods are different from Varys'.

In the end I can see that it is possible that Varys is 'lying' to Kevan, I just don't see the accumulated evidence that suggest he is or should or would.

In the end, I see that passage as proving that Aegon being real is possible (ie it gives us a workable and logical explanation that fits the evidence we already have), but not offering any 'evidence' of him being fake. It doesn't disprove him being fake, but it certainly does nothing to hint that he might be fake (and it seems to me to often be twisted around to falsely show that he is fake).

So I'm still on the fence about Aegon being real (probably 60/40 for real at this stage IMO), but I don't think this passage has any relevance in showing why he is thought false.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So I'm still on the fence about Aegon being real (probably 60/40 for real at this stage IMO), but I don't think this passage has any relevance in showing why he is thought false.

That's understandable. I hope you find it equally understandable that I don't think the passage has any relevance in showing that he's real.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

When I didn't know there was someone claiming to be Aegon, I thought for sure a baby had been switched and he was in hiding. Once YG became Aegon, I thought he was a fake, lol. So weird. I don't know why I feel that way about it all.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I posted this in the thread on the General board, but I'll put it here too.

Here's a question for posters who doubt that Aegon is fake.

If the kid is real, why the secrecy? Why not be more open about the fact that Aegon survived? Everyone knows that Viserys and Dany are still alive and no one seems to really care, insofar as trying to do them harm. Robert only put a hit on Dany when she got married and got pregnant; there's no evidence that "the Usurper's knives" were ever a real thing. Viserys was just as much the "real" Targaryen heir in exile as Aegon would have been.

If Aegon had really survived and this knowledge was out there, at best he could have been a rallying point for pro-Targaryen factions, set up a court in exile and been a constant reminder of Targaryen legitimacy in Essos. At worst, Robert probably would have ignored him the way he did Dany and Viserys. It actually seems to work against a Targaryen succession plot by waiting for the kid to "stew" before "revealing" him. It gave the Baratheons and Lannisters the time and ability to set up a dynastic foundation that will be that much harder to challenge than it would have been if Aegon had always been there, waiting in the wings, and people knew it. It also makes the reveal that much more suspicious — if Aegon is real, they're making it very easy for people within Westeros to write him off as a fraud even if that isn't a case. If the baby Aegon had been revealed from the moment he made his escape, the Kingsguard could have gone to protect him and his legitimacy wouldn't be in question because people would be able to watch him grow up.

So why do you hide the "true heir" for a decade and a half when you have no really good empirical reason to? You do it if you don't have the "true heir" and need to fudge the timeline.

ETA: Here's a crackpot theory for you. Aegon is real, and the "mummer's dragon" just refers to him being "Varys' dragon," as some people suggest. Dany doesn't believe this and in her prophecy-fueled paranoia believes that "mummer's dragon" means "fake dragon." She and Aegon go to war over it in Dance of the Dragons Part Deux. She wins and kills Aegon, only to find out somehow that he was the real thing, and now she's a kinslayer who also killed her "rightful king." I still think the little shit's a fake, but man that development would blow my mind. :D

[chrisdaw]

If Varys has any concern regarding the loyalty of his little birds or LF spies he wouldn't spontaneously decide to reveal his grand master plan Bond villain style for no reason other than to gloat. And it seems just as unlikely his tongueless spies are about to go spreading the word.

The passage contains no evidence of anything as Varys is conveying how he's engineered Aegon's emergence to be perceived by the realm, if he's legitimate or not is just not relevant.

[chrisdaw]

I posted this in the thread on the General board, but I'll put it here too.

Here's a question for posters who doubt that Aegon is fake.

If the kid is real, why the secrecy? Why not be more open about the fact that Aegon survived? Everyone knows that Viserys and Dany are still alive and no one seems to really care, insofar as trying to do them harm. Robert only put a hit on Dany when she got married and got pregnant; there's no evidence that "the Usurper's knives" were ever a real thing. Viserys was just as much the "real" Targaryen heir in exile as Aegon would have been.

Because it'd be a rediculous and unnecessary risk.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Because it'd be a rediculous and unnecessary risk.

Which is why I specifically noted that everyone knew that Viserys and Dany were alive and it didn't seem to really imperil them, until Robert sent someone to kill Dany when she married Drogo and got pregnant. As far as everyone knew, Viserys was the Targaryen heir — no less legitimate or less of the heir than Aegon, when people thought Aegon was dead and didn't know about Jon — and no one tried to really hurt him until Drogo dumped molten gold on him. And an alive Aegon would have probably had at least the Kingsguard with him (Aegon would be ahead of Jon, unlike Viserys, so if he was alive the Kingsguard would be obliged to go to him even with Jon in the picture), and possibly other Targaryen loyalists who might have gone into exile with him.

Viserys was a small child and Dany was newborn when they went into exile, so it's not like they were at some major advantage (i.e. they weren't adults) that a baby Aegon wouldn't have been.

So I ask again, if the kid's real, why keep him in hiding, when doing so only gave Robert time to cement his power and would give doubters strong cause to doubt he's real?

To use historical examples, the future Henry VII went into exile when the Lancasters were defeated, and set up a rival court. Edward IV and Richard III knew perfectly well that Henry was alive, but Jasper Tudor, Henry's uncle and caretaker, didn't take pains to hide him or fake his death. Contrast that with Perkin Warbeck, who came up out of nowhere claiming to be the long-lost Richard, Duke of York. Warbeck was a fraud.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

I do believe that "mummer" refers to the person who has produced the dragon, not necessarily that the dragon is a mummer.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I do believe that "mummer" refers to the person who has produced the dragon, not necessarily that the dragon is a mummer.

I think that it definitely could be read that way and that's why it's so maddening, from Dany's perspective.

[chrisdaw]

Which is why I specifically noted that everyone knew that Viserys and Dany were alive

Which makes it barely any less a rediculous and unnecessary risk. Opening himself up to having to report on Aegon for a decade in which everything must either be true or a lie that can not be disproven makes for an extremely anxious lifestyle, not to mention putting all his plans in the hands of Robert's whims.

When does he even reveal that Aegon lives? Does he pretend he, the master of whispers didn't know the switch was in until a later date and just hope Robert believes him? Does he reveal it up front without knowing how Robert will deal with Dany and Viserys and just things pan out? Afterwards, admitting he knew all along but neglected to mention it because....

And what does it gain him that he actually needs? There may be one doubter somewhere in the corner of Westeros who may decide their actions on the basis of the legitimacy of Aegon's claim, for everyone else it'll be based on what's in it for them.

[PatrickStormborn]

ETA: Here's a crackpot theory for you. Aegon is real, and the "mummer's dragon" just refers to him being "Varys' dragon," as some people suggest. Dany doesn't believe this and in her prophecy-fueled paranoia believes that "mummer's dragon" means "fake dragon." She and Aegon go to war over it in Dance of the Dragons Part Deux. She wins and kills Aegon, only to find out somehow that he was the real thing, and now she's a kinslayer who also killed her "rightful king." I still think the little shit's a fake, but man that development would blow my mind.

:D

Crackpot theory? That actually seems to be quite a popular theory. I do think that Dany and Aegon will go head to head, but I don't think Dany will kill him unless she's sure that he's not real. I'm leaning towards the idea of her finding out from Illyrio that Aegon is actually his son and the true Blackfyre heir. The only reason I don't buy the idea that she'll kill him without knowing if he's real or not is because everyone who suggests this seems to think that Dany has "prophecy-fueled paranoia". But this is completely strange to me, because we never see her acting paranoid despite all the prophecies she's given.

My own crackpot theory is that, after most of Westeros has allied with him and rejected Dany (calling her "the Mad King's daughter"), Aegon will end up being mad like Aerys. I actually thought he was a lot like Viserys when I read about him in ADWD, and further re-reads have done nothing to change my mind.

[corbon]

That's understandable. I hope you find it equally understandable that I don't think the passage has any relevance in showing that he's real.

It doesn't prove anything. But that wasn't what I claimed.

But it does show a believable case that can be made for how Aegon could be real - believable enough that Varys thinks Kevan and Pycelle would believe it for two. In that way, it does have relevance to the Aegon could be real argument in a way that it doesn't have relevance to the Aegon is false argument. It shows a possibility for a real Aegon, true or not. It doesn't show any hints for a false Aegon, true or not.

So no, I don't understand that staement of yours. It definitely does have relevance (relevance, not proof) in showing he's real (or rather, could be).

Which is why I specifically noted that everyone knew that Viserys and Dany were alive and it didn't seem to really imperil them, until Robert sent someone to kill Dany when she married Drogo and got pregnant. As far as everyone knew, Viserys was the Targaryen heir — no less legitimate or less of the heir than Aegon, when people thought Aegon was dead and didn't know about Jon — and no one tried to really hurt him until Drogo dumped molten gold on him. And an alive Aegon would have probably had at least the Kingsguard with him (Aegon would be ahead of Jon, unlike Viserys, so if he was alive the Kingsguard would be obliged to go to him even with Jon in the picture), and possibly other Targaryen loyalists who might have gone into exile with him.

Viserys was a small child and Dany was newborn when they went into exile, so it's not like they were at some major advantage (i.e. they weren't adults) that a baby Aegon wouldn't have been.

Well the argument for that is that Viserys and Dany were only ever the distraction in the first place. Their function was to prevent anyone looking for the real heir becoming a threat.

They can do this without ever being an actual threat, arguably even do it better if they are not a threat themselves, because they keep the focus on them (and then dismissed) rather than looking further afield.

Its like a magic trick. You show the audience one thing, which seems to be safe and normal, if a bit glamorous, nothing to worry about, and while they are relaxed about that thing you do something tricky somewhere else where they aren't even looking. Misdirection and an easing of suspicions.

Then, as the real threat draws closer to becoming active, you up the threat level inherent in the decoy to make sure that the focus is still on the wrong target.

So I ask again, if the kid's real, why keep him in hiding, when doing so only gave Robert time to cement his power and would give doubters strong cause to doubt he's real?

Robert's power was already cemented compared to Targaryen power. The kid needs time to develop and learn. Even safer and easier to do that if the Baratheon regime is a) focused on Dany and Viserys and B) pretty comfortable it has things under control with regards to Targaryen resurgence threat (because Dany and Viserys are visible and ineffective).

Your point was worth raising, but easily answered. It still fits logically.

Edit: Oh, and doubters should be convinced, for the most part, by a combination of Jon Connington, Rhaegar's friend, and Ashara Dayne, Elia's handmaid, with Varys as possible backup. Given the sophistication of the audience anyone not convinced by those three won't be convinced by anything at all.

Neither Ashara nor Jon Connington have any reason at all for wanting a false Targ on the throne. They'd both be more likely to back Viserys and Dany if they just wanted rewards etc.

[Eejit]

It's up in the air imo.

"false dragon" doesn't necessarily mean "fake" - it could be false as in untrustworthy/liar. Mummer's dragon and puppet vision could also refer to the former mummer Illyrio pulling his strings... or not,

[Bran Vras]

Which is why I specifically noted that everyone knew that Viserys and Dany were alive and it didn't seem to really imperil them, until Robert sent someone to kill Dany when she married Drogo and got pregnant.

That's a strange thing to say. When Barristan learns of the pact of marriage of Arianne and Viserys, he says that Robert would have smashed Dorne and killed everybody if he had known. Just like Barristan, Varys was in a good position to take the measure of Robert's hate for the Targaryens.

In my view, it would have made more sense from Varys to not have let another child be killed in place of Aegon (maybe there was no choice). There would be an expectation of the return of Aegon in Westeros and the cause of the legitimate prince would have been stronger.

[HyacinthGirl]

Personally, I'm certain Aegon is fake. Something isn't right there. But all the evidence has two sides to it "Mummers' dragon" means fake dragon to me, although it could also mean the Dragon (legit Targ) whose strings are being pulled by the Mummer (Varys). As for the eye colour: I think that has something to do with his heritage, I know that in real life it doesn't mean much, but throughout the whole of ASOIAF eye colour is practically as useful as identifying who someone's parents are as their last name. But it doesn't make him a Targ.

But to be honest, I don't think it really matters, because there's a sense of doom around him (or is that just me?). It's pretty obvious he isn't just going to conquer Westeros and rule happily ever after. Blackfyre, Targ, Dayne, whatever he is, I don't see a bright future for this boy.

IMO he'll get greyscale from JonCon, giving JonCon something else to feel terrible about.