468 replies to this topic

[sarah.jenice]

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

The idea of a switch is, for me, the hardest pill to swallow in all of this. About three dozen different things had to have gone right in order to pull it off convincingly, and some of those things couldn't have possibly been foreseen, only known after they'd actually happened. Gregor had to destroy Aegon's face. They had to get to and from Flea Bottom with different babies without anyone knowing. They had to find a child with Targaryen features in freaking Flea Bottom. Elia had to have been in on it, but not to the point where she would have demanded herself and/or Rhaenys also be saved. Either that or we're expected to believe that she wouldn't know her own goddamn baby. Varys had to have known a sack was coming and had enough forewarning to make the switch. Someone else had to have acted as a "drop box" for when they got the baby out; who would this have been? All it takes is one mouthy servant hoping to save his own ass or curry favor with the new regime to say he saw something for the whole thing to blow open. And I'm sorry but Connington is not reliable here — I don't take a guy who didn't see this child at all until he was like 5 years old (who raised him before then?) and who was in love with Rhaegar to be that great of a character witness. More like a stooge.

Apple Martini, I feel like he was raised in the house of Illyrio (real or not) and that's whose clothing Tyrion gets when he stays with Illyrio. Why else would Illyrio have old, musty clothes from a little boy?

[the Scorpion Knight]

the Remarkable Other, on 29 February 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

They had to give Clegane something to do? Now really I don't understand how Varys could have gotten him out int he first place, since the nursery was probably guarded and there were no secret passages in that part of the keep. .

where 's the evidende AFAIK the red keep is full of unmapped tunnels and if not varys must be quite a climber

[Apple Martini]

sarah.jenice, on 29 February 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Apple Martini, I feel like he was raised in the house of Illyrio (real or not) and that's whose clothing Tyrion gets when he stays with Illyrio. Why else would Illyrio have old, musty clothes from a little boy?

He may have been raised in Illyrio's house, sure. That doesn't mean he's real. Why was he not united with his aunt and uncle, though?

[sarah.jenice]

Dragonfish, on 29 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Who is relying on Quaithe's statement? If anything, the prophecy that most people rely on is the one from the House of the Undying, where we first heard of the mummer's dragon. Quaithe's statement is just a reminder of that vision; it is not at all required for the fake-Aegon theory to work.

One very important thing to add to this that I didn't realize until my reread of Clash that Dany is actually the first person to identify her House of the Undying Vision of a cloth dragon swinging on poles before a cheering crowd as a "mummer's dragon." Those are her exact words, and she is the one who took what she saw and tied it to the words "mummer's dragon," not Quaithe.

A Clash of Kings Page 875

Jorah - "A mummer's dragon, you said. What is a mummer's dragon, pray?"

"A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

I think what Dany says there is so important. She gives the description of the mummer's dragon, and if we add Aegon into what she says, Varys (mummer) is using Aegon (mummer's dragon) to give the hero (Dany) something to fight. Does this foreshadow what will happen between them? A battle for the throne/new Dance with Dragons?

I've asked this before and didn't get an answer, but do those of you who believe Aegon is the mummer's dragon believe Dany is the hero?

[sarah.jenice]

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

He may have been raised in Illyrio's house, sure. That doesn't mean he's real. Why was he not united with his aunt and uncle, though?

I talked about this earlier today, and I am convinced Tyrion is wearing Aegon's clothes. I don't think that says he's real or not. In fact, I think it brings up more questions as to why we has taken there

Earlier:

As I said earlier, I want to believe Aegon is real, but whether he is Illyrio's son or not, I think he stayed in Illyrio's home for 4-5 years of his life (until given to Connington). The clothes Tyrion wears in Illyrio's home belonged to a young boy, and I think that young boy was Aegon (real or fake). Why would Illyrio keep the clothes all these years unless the meant a lot to him? He could have just grown fond of Aegon after raising him from infancy, but you don't usually keep all of a little kid's clothes. I think this was meant to be a clue that Tyrion wears a young boys clothing. Illyrio had enough money to buy him clothes, but maybe that would have been suspicious.

On a side note, what age child do you guys think Tyrion would be equal to? He often comments the clothes are tight and musty, but I wonder what age kid's clothes would fit a dwarf. Five? Six? How does Tyrion measure in size to Tommen? I can't remember.

[Apple Martini]

sarah.jenice, on 29 February 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

One very important thing to add to this that I didn't realize until my reread of Clash that Dany is actually the first person to identify her House of the Undying Vision of a cloth dragon swinging on poles before a cheering crowd as a "mummer's dragon." Those are her exact words, and she is the one who took what she saw and tied it to the words "mummer's dragon," not Quaithe.

A Clash of Kings Page 875

Jorah - "A mummer's dragon, you said. What is a mummer's dragon, pray?"

"A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

I think what Dany says there is so important. She gives the description of the mummer's dragon, and if we add Aegon into what she says, Varys (mummer) is using Aegon (mummer's dragon) to give the hero (Dany) something to fight. Does this foreshadow what will happen between them? A battle for the throne/new Dance with Dragons?

I've asked this before and didn't get an answer, but do those of you who believe Aegon is the mummer's dragon believe Dany is the hero?

Good question.

1. I think that the Dance of the Dragons, like the Blackfyre Rebellion, has been name-dropped a few too many times not to come up again or be important again. They might not go full on dragon-on-dragon, but yes, I do see Aegon and Dany fighting eventually. If the "blood of the dragon" stuff is true (as far as it being necessary to tame a dragon), being a Blackfyre, he could very well have more Valyrian blood than she does.

2. I think that the cloth dragon could be for Dany to fight without her being the "hero," if that makes sense. To that end, I'll do you one better: In this society, dragons and their riders are not heroes. The heroes are the ones who slay dragons. So if someone with real dragons kills a fake one, are they a hero? I don't know.

3. Why would Jorah not know what a mummer's dragon is, but Dany does? Strikes me as odd.

Edited by Apple Martini, 29 February 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[sarah.jenice]

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Good question.

1. I think that the Dance of the Dragons, like the Blackfyre Rebellion, has been name-dropped a few too many times not to come up again or be important again. They might not go full on dragon-on-dragon, but yes, I do see Aegon and Dany fighting eventually. If the "blood of the dragon" stuff is true (as far as it being necessary to tame a dragon), being a Blackfyre, he could very well have more Valyrian blood than she does. I would have liked to see them unite, but I think Aegon taking Tyrion's advice was a big turning point for him. He will probably have a big power base if Dany ever gets to Westeros, and the people supporting him might not be pro-Dany/Dragons. I think whether real or fake, Aegon is a mummer's dragon because his moves in the Game of Thrones are going to be controlled by others (mainly Varys and Illyrio), and that is what will probably put him against Dany. He may even be married before she arrives to form an alliance. I expect the Dance with Dragons will come up again, too.

2. I think that the cloth dragon could be for Dany to fight without her being the "hero," if that makes sense. To that end, I'll do you one better: In this society, dragons and their riders are not heroes. The heroes are the ones who slay dragons. So if someone with real dragons kills a fake one, are they a hero? I don't know. Ha ha. I like your answer. I thought I remembered that you are for Aegon being the mummer's dragon but not a big Dany fan, and I love how you handled the answer. You're right about dragons not being the hero but the dragon slayer. Unless of course the Others need some fire treatment.

3. Why would Jorah not know what a mummer's dragon is, but Dany does? Strikes me as odd.The way I read the scene, and I could be totally wrong, is that this is a childish description that Dany is using, such as a kid explaining the puppets in a show to an adult who'd never seen them. And Jorah being from Bear Island, might not have seen too many performing mummers. Her use of this term makes Quaithe's wording seem so much more personal if it is not a common phrase but more of layman's terms that Dany uses. How much is Quaithe watching her?

[the Scorpion Knight]

sarah.jenice, on 29 February 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Does this foreshadow what will happen between them? A battle for the throne/new Dance with Dragons?

a Fullout civil war not but but a clash or a battle certainly

[Silmarien]

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

3. Why would Jorah not know what a mummer's dragon is, but Dany does? Strikes me as odd.

Likely because he grew up in the North, didn't witness many Mummer's shows.  While Dany grew up running around Essos as a street kid, probably would've seen some mummer's shows in her childhood.  Just my guess.

[dem]

I'm a pretty big fan of the Blackfyre theory as well. You would think all that history we get about the Blackfyre rebellions would amount to something in the present day of the story. Or else why do we need the information at all?

[kg1982]

the Scorpion Knight, on 29 February 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

I think the brattynes is mask (he listen to what tyrion said)
actually we have been forewarned the clues didn't come to us (Maester aemon, the house of the undying, melisandre prophecy that other kings will rise and take their place who will takes robb place)

No.. the brattiness is brattiness.  Tyrion didn't want Aegon to take him seriously.  He was being Tyrion and having a little fun at fake Aegon's expense.  It would have been better for him to join forces with Dany and her dragons rather than invading Westros.  I highly doubt that she is going to allow Aegon to usurp her claim to the throne.  More likely than not Aegon will become a delicious Drogon snack.

[kg1982]

FanTasy, on 29 February 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

I'm not sure Aegon is real. There are some pretty good arguments for that he is not. The bolded one in your text I wonder about though.
If Aegon turns out to be the real thing, why would this lessen the importance of Dany and Jon and their character arcs?
All three of them could have some important role to play and be very important for whatever is the endgame.
I doubt ASOIAF is a story were the climax is just based on who has Targaryen genes.
Or for that matter who will have his or her cheeks on the Iron Throne

If Rhaegar's son and the supposed PTWP shows up, that really does cheapen both Dany and Jon as the likely saviors of Westros.   I highly doubt that Westros will be one country after the Long Night, likely it will be three or four.  However, I do suspect that Dany and Jon are the ones who end up as at least "temporary" rulers to lead Westros  against the Others.  If Aegon was still king, then he'd be the main hero leading the armies against the threat.

[corbon]

Lummel, on 29 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

The other way to look at it is to ask what evidence is there that Aegon is real?
...
of course more or less convincing answers can be provided for all these questions, but the point is believing that Aegon is real isn't an ideal solution - it's problematic and there isn't much evidence for it.  Ultimately the whole thing is only potentially believable through the stroke of luck that the corpse of baby Aegon was unrecognisable.

Except that that doesn't have to be a stroke of luck. It would be trivially easy to smash the dead baby's face in after it was killed. Rampaging looters are going to go elsewhere looking for loot after killing the child. But even that wasn't necessary, since it was "Gregor Smash" doing the job.

OnionAhaiReborn, on 28 February 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

This has been discussed many times over the highlights of the Aegon is fake argument:
-Quaithe warns Dany about a 'mummer's dragon'
-In the House of the Undying Dany sees a cloth dragon
-Dany is supposed to be the 'slayer of lies'
-The Golden Company was founded by Bittersteel, a Blackfyre supporter, who vowed to one day seat a Blackfyre on the Iron Throne. The Golden Company is now supporting Aegon
-Varys is said to have contributed to Aerys' madness, leading many to suspect he is a Blackfyre trying to undermine the Targs
-If Illyrio and Varys are all about Targs, why did they do such a shitty job of helping Dany and Viserys, why didn't they reveal Aegon to them? Perhaps because they actually support the Blackfyres
-Illyrio appears to be very attached to Young Griff, suggesting that he is his child with a female Blackfyre

of course more or less convincing answers can be provided for all these questions... some of which are extraordinarily, nay ridiculously, weak (the last three) - not to form a theory on, but to form a conviction on.

Ygrain, on 29 February 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The same with me. A brand new heir to the throne in book 5, and that from the author who has carefully littered the series with hints of things past, present and future, yet we never get one of this "Aegon"? And, as if this was not enough, we get information from two, albeit not 100% reliable, sources that at some point, there will turn up a false Targ - not only Quaithe's "mummer's dragon" but also Moqorro's "dragons true and false" that he sees in the flames. I don't believe the boy is the real Aegon - and I'm not American.

But we did get clues. Enough clues that people were predicting the emergence of Aegon more than 10 years ago.

And we've already seen at least one 'false dragon', arguably, in Quentin (thought he was dragon enough to control an actual dragon), which covers Moqorro's vision.

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

The idea of a switch is, for me, the hardest pill to swallow in all of this. About three dozen different things had to have gone right in order to pull it off convincingly, and some of those things couldn't have possibly been foreseen, only known after they'd actually happened. Gregor had to destroy Aegon's face. They had to get to and from Flea Bottom with different babies without anyone knowing. They had to find a child with Targaryen features in freaking Flea Bottom. Elia had to have been in on it, but not to the point where she would have demanded herself and/or Rhaenys also be saved. Either that or we're expected to believe that she wouldn't know her own goddamn baby. Varys had to have known a sack was coming and had enough forewarning to make the switch. Someone else had to have acted as a "drop box" for when they got the baby out; who would this have been? All it takes is one mouthy servant hoping to save his own ass or curry favor with the new regime to say he saw something for the whole thing to blow open.

Look, these are easily explained. In multiple ways.
Aegon's face can be destroyed by Varys if Gregor didn't do the job.
Any baby from flea bottom was almost certainly prepared in advance and brught into the Red Keep by Varys. Not because it would be needed, but because it might be needed - either for an anti-Aerys switch or for a 'we lost the war' switch.
Getting to and from Flea Bottom, even with a baby, is trivial for Varys. he knows how to get in and out of the castle without being seen. We see him doing all sorts of similar things, switching personas, turning up in unexpected places around the city, all without anyone else knowing what he is doing or apparently seeing him. Why should this one little thing be differently harder?
If a child with Targ features was needed, it would only need to be 'close enough' to fool Aerys. A demented madman who quite possibly hated being around babies and almost never saw them. And Varys has weeks, if not months, to find this child.
Elia could be in on it, that's easy, and either as a low risk 'cover' option or as a last minute desperation option. Val gave up her baby, why not Elia? If it is either low risk stay (but spread your eggs) or impossible desperation, it is perfectly reasonable Elia could allow Aegon to be separated with ehr knowledge. Or, as mentioned earlier, it could be a last minute thing that she didn't even know about.
Varys did suspect a sack was coming, and know about it before it actually happened. He advised Aerys not let let Tywin in remember. As soon as Aerys orders the gates open, Varys goes off to make the switch...
No servant has blown their mouth about anything Varys has done yet. None even appear to know. Not about Rugen, not about his consorting with a foreign spy (Illyrio), not about getting Shae to Tyrion, not about anything. So there is no reason to expect that this situation would be any different.

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Also, and I'm not trying to be sexist here, but it seems like a lot of the people on here who are willing to buy the baby switch are men and a lot of the people who are very skeptical about it are women. Am I incorrect? I don't want to venture a guess as to why this might be for fear of offending people, but I have some ideas.

Trying to or not, the moment you bring differences of sex into it, you are being sexist. Not that I object - not all sexism is necessarily bad once we get past PC - the sexes do have differences in case a few people hadn't noticed.
But it does look very much like you're bringing this up to mean no less than 'it seems woman can see truth here and men are blinded by something they lack"?

Edited by corbon, 29 February 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

corbon, on 29 February 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

of course more or less convincing answers can be provided for all these questions... some of which are extraordinarily, nay ridiculously, weak (the last three) - not to form a theory on, but to form a conviction on.

Don't tell me convincing answers exist, give me your 'convincing answers'.

I'm not basing my opinion on any single piece of evidence here. If I had any one of these pieces alone then, yea, it would be a weak case. But all of these things taken together, plus some other things that have been dicussed in this thread, have lead me to my firm belief that Aegon is fake.

Honestly, calling this evidence ridiculously weak is itself ridiculous. You have no reason to believe that Aegon is real except that Varys says "He is here" to Kevan. That is the beginning and end of the case for his genuineness as far as I can tell. And you weigh that against all the history of the Blackfyres and GC, plus the fact that Varys' and Illyrio's plans are logically unsound if they are true Targ loyalists, plus the logical absurdity of the baby switch, and say it's an extraordinarily and ridiculously weak case to say Aegon is fake? Really?

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 29 February 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[corbon]

Ygrain, on 29 February 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Just one thing to point out about the supposed baby swap: with a one-year-old, it is not only a matter of people recognizing him, but also of the child recognizing THEM. A one-year-old knows pretty well who his people are, and would not start behaving Aegon-ish just because it's expected of him. Unless the swap happened within the last couple of minutes and the child was drugged to sleep, there is no way Elia and whoever was taking care of him can't have known.

Look, you answered it yourself... this 'problem' is not a problem. These things can be easily resolved.

atpthornton, on 29 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Apple for me the switch, or more the logistics in pulling it off not the general principle, is the hardest part for me to buy and what makes me think that it is highly improbably that Aegon is Rhaegar and Elia's baby boy.  It is not just that there are a lot of details that have to fall into place, it is that there are a lot of details OUT OF VARYS' CONTROL that have to fall into place for it to even be possible. Principally that the baby's head is smashed beyond all recognition by someone that Varys had no control of or over and Gregor admits to smashing the kid's head in (so it is not like Varys did it afterwards to make it impossible to tell that a switch had occured before Gregor got there).

And if Gregor didn't smash the baby's face in, Varys could be on hand in the same secret tunnel used to make the switch to pop out and do it for him.
Nobody is going to do a detailed questioning on the wounds of the dead children later, and even ifthey did it's not like the likely looters and murderers are likely to rmeember everything clearly. Its a low risk scenario compared to the general risk level going on in the whole Red Keep!

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

This is probably going to piss off at least one person, but here it goes.

Women either are mothers or have the capacity to be mothers or had the capacity to be mothers. As such, the idea that Elia Martell would either hand off her baby to someone like Varys — blindly trusting him that her baby would be saved — or somehow not know her own baby if he was switched or would save one child but not another is just ... unfathomable. I cannot imagine not knowing my own baby, placing a higher value on the survival of one child over another or giving up my baby to someone of dubious trustworthiness. Men, while they might have some fatherly instinct, I think might assume that babies are more ... interchangeable ... than they really are. "All babies look the same right, who would know?" They might be more willing to believe that a mother could be fooled or that a mother could part with her child more easily or be able to choose between her children or even that a fake Aegon could fool people. I'm not even sure if this theory holds water — see above, OAR is a guy who's skeptical — but it was something that occurred to me.

Congratulations, you got one. Any man who has been a father (at least a decent one) knows just as much as a mother how completely un-interchangeable babies are. What a nasty thing to imply. (Actually, only a little bit offended really, because I do understand there are men who might suffer from such an assumption - but then there are women who might do so too, if perhaps not as many.)
As for your Elia complaints, all sorts of things happen under extreme situations. It may have been the only straw Elia could grasp to save anyone. It is still possible she didn't know of the switch - Varys could have switched Aegon with a drugged baby sleeping in the corner and Elia comes into the room after, fleeing from Gregor. There are literally hundreds of scenarios that it could have gone down plausibly.

Nagisa Furukawa, on 29 February 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

In A Dance with Dragons, there's a paragraph from Dany's POV that says: "Her brother Viserys had once feasted the captains of the Golden Company, in hopes they might take up his cause. They ate his food and heard his pleas and laughed at him. Dany had only been a little girl, but she remembered." If they were truly willing to help a Targaryen get the throne they would've done so for him.

Viserys being Viserys of course they laughed at him. He would never think to offer them something they wanted, merely to command them as Westerosi and maybe bribe them with things they don't want quite so much, like gold.

What they really want, what Aegon offers them, if the chance to go 'home' to Westeros and have their own lands and castles and positions. This is the one thing that could make them break their traditions and break a contract. The chance for an end to exile, and redemption.

OnionAhaiReborn, on 29 February 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Ok here's another angle to it. Assuming Varys could somehow know the sack was coming, that the baby would be unrecognizable, and could somehow convince Elia to give him her child or trick her with a fake baby, why bother switching babies? Isn't the whole point just to smuggle the heir out? Indeed, if the heir gets away and people know it you don't have as much a problem of trying to prove later that the kid is really the heir.

What is gained by the baby-switch? Aegon gets to go off to Pentos in secret...so what? Varys has managed to secretly whisk away Jon Connington, Barristan Selmy, and Tyrion Lannister without having to set up fake stand ins to have their heads smashed in. It seems like if the idea is just to get Aegon away and keep him secret, no fake baby needs to have his head smashed in for this to happen. It looks like it would actually even be better for people to know that Aegon was never found and killed!

Because an escaped Aegon is a concentration point. He will be watched, hunted, at risk. Much like Viserys and Dany were, though they were considered low enough threats to be merely watched until Dany got married.
A dead Aegon though can be raised in much greater safety and security, and as we have seen, even operate with the strategic element of surprise because no one counted him a piece in the game.

atpthornton, on 29 February 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

No not really.  First off finding a child that looked like a Targ on the fly is basically impossible, so unless the switch was planned for a while (extremely unlikely) there would be no baby ready to replace Aegon just hanging around.  Second, the fact that Tywin wanted the kids dead doesn't change anything for two reasons.

1) Varys was as shocked as anyone and entirely unprepared for Tywin to take the city, they all thought Tywin was going to help defend KL not sack it.
2) It is the way that the child died...the fact that his skull was caved in so the only thing people could see was the hair...not just the fact that he died..that matters.  And even knowing that Tywin might not be fighting for Aerys (which Varys didn't know) there is no way to predict that Tywin would want the kid's head smashed in.  In fact if Tywin was planning it, he likely would have wanted the boy's face whole PRECISELY so someone couldn't pop up a decade and a half later and say...I'm Aegon.

The child does not need to look like a Targ if it was done on the fly. It only needs to look something Targ-like if it was part of an older plot to fool Aerys, which had potentially weeks or months in the preparation.
Varys warned Aerys not to let Tywin in. I don't know where you got the bollocks about him being as shocked as anyone at the results?


The simple truth is that both theories - Aegon being real and Aegon being Blackfyre have some reasonable support. Both have some mildly dubious sides which can easily be resolved by explanation.

Believing either is quite reasonable. It is just claiming one or the other 'tis practically concreted in that I find somewhat ridiculous (and a lot of the arguments being made to claim once side or the other is 'truth' or 'too difficult to be reasonable').

[DornishKnight]

Aegon is a real dragon in my opinion. Whether he be red or black remains to be seen.

The Dragon has three heads: Dany, Jon, Aegon.  These three will battle as the current contenders melt like ice in a flame (see Aegon's success in the Stormlands).  The final struggle, after Jon and Bran crush the others and unite the North, will be the three dragons at one another's throats.

[Number Wun Wun]

Apple Martini, on 28 February 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

I don't think he can't be, I think he isn't. Big difference there.

And Jon Connington, I'm sure, thinks he's 100% real. But that isn't really evidence of anything, given that Connington didn't meet this child until he was 4-5 years old. The problem with the switch is that it only really works in hindsight. Namely, Varys had no way to know that Gregor would make Aegon unrecognizable. Aegon was very young but still old enough to have certain distinct features (i.e. we know he had the Targ look). If Varys had made a switch and Gregor hadn't destroyed Aegon's face, the jig would've been up. The idea of a switch being plausible "because Aegon was unrecognizable" works because Aegon was unrecognizable. Meaning, Varys can retcon a baby switch and people can go, "Well yeah, it's possible because no one could've recognized Aegon's face." But at the time, it wasn't a guarantee that Aegon would be unidentifiable pulp.

I agree that the plot only works in hindsight, but the switch could still make sense. Varys had no way to know that Gregor would dash the baby's head against the wall, but if he caught wind of some kind of intrigue, he may have advised Elia to allow her son to be kept hidden to minimize losses should something happen. If the supposed fake Aegon had only been smothered and then identified, no doubt a search would have been conducted for the real deal, but Aegon would still have been hidden for a time with the possibility of escaping the rebellion. But the happenstance of fake Aegon's disfigurement would not only have allowed for real Aegon to be kept hidden for a time but also rendered his existence unknown and the plot in question possible.

Not that I believe this is actually the case. I have more questions about Varys and Illyrio. If Aegon really is Aegon, why did they keep him unaware of Dany and Viserys (and vice versa), unless they just wanted to keep multiple options open. And I don't believe Martin would introduce a seemingly weak character in the fifth book and have him take over the role of Aegon the Conqueror reborn.

If he is Aegon Targaryen, I think he will still be a cloth dragon. Dany is the real deal, and in the end I think this Aegon, pretender or not, is likely to be the kind of dragon that Viserys was--impatient, rash, deluded--and will be consumed rather than hardened by the fire.

[Sevumar]

Number Wun Wun, on 29 February 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Not that I believe this is actually the case. I have more questions about Varys and Illyrio. If Aegon really is Aegon, why did they keep him unaware of Dany and Viserys (and vice versa), unless they just wanted to keep multiple options open. And I don't believe Martin would introduce a seemingly weak character in the fifth book and have him take over the role of Aegon the Conqueror reborn.

I wouldn't have blamed Varys and Illyrio from keeping Aegon ignorant of the Targaryen children and their adventures in the Free Cities. By nature, children are unpredictable and they lack the discretion of adults. The chances that he'd give away the ruse would simply be too high. Veteran schemers like Varys and Illyrio would be making a rookie mistake by putting their plans/secrets in the hands of Aegon, even if he is their most important piece. It's just safer to let Aegon grow up in the most controlled atmosphere possible, without being too sheltered, and find out about his "relatives" later than risk him becoming too curious or doubting his claim.

Quote

If he is Aegon Targaryen, I think he will still be a cloth dragon. Dany is the real deal, and in the end I think this Aegon, pretender or not, is likely to be the kind of dragon that Viserys was--impatient, rash, deluded--and will be consumed rather than hardened by the fire.

If he is Aegon, the cloth dragon role still has meaning. We've seen evidence of bouts of temper in Aegon (in fact, that's what leads Tyrion to believe he could well have Targaryen blood after all), but I think it's a bit early to claim that he's going to become like Viserys. He is young, brash, and ignorant in a lot of ways, but he does not seem to possess Viserys's cruelty, nor his desire to control everything. Aegon seems more like a noble-born boy with the same shortcomings as other teenagers along with a burgeoning sense of entitlement.

There are signs that despite all the effort Varys and Illyrio put into his education and development, Aegon could end up blowing up in their faces when he decides to go his own way. That would be the ultimate payback for the master schemers, all their plans coming unhinged when headstrong Aegon decides to assert some autonomy. He may have grown up on a riverboat, among the common people, and knowing the value of hard work, but we've already seen that he's played the "I'm a prince" card with some success. You can't raise someone as the heir to a throne and then tell him he can't have his way as he becomes an adult. Well, you can tell him, but the chances he'll go along with it aren't all that high.

[Apple Martini]

OK, someone who believes in this baby-switching thing, answer this question for me.

If the baby was switched, why was Elia with him, in whatever room it was where Gregor killed them, instead of with her biological daughter? Elia and the baby were killed together. Rhaenys was killed in a different room, on a different floor, alone. Wouldn't Elia have handed off the fake to a maid or a governess or someone else, and gone to her daughter, especially if the sack was imminent? It's a harsh thing to contemplate, but someone pointed it out and it's stuck with me, and I don't think the action makes sense if the baby Aegon wasn't real. Like I said earlier, this doesn't mean that Elia had to toss the kid down a well or out a window or whatever, but does no one else think it's odd that she'd show seemingly more regard for a switched baby that isn't hers than for her actual daughter?

[Lord Damian]

The main problem with the switch is simply as Apple Martini says, a lot of things would have to line up right after the switch in order for it to bare fruit now. How would anyone know the Lannisters would sack King's Landing let alone slaughter Princess Ellia and her children. The fact that it seems well known that Gregor smatched baby Aegon's face/head beyond recognition gives all the opportunity someone like Varys and his friends and associates need to find a replacement and nurture him until the day/time is right to bring him forward.