468 replies to this topic

[dtones520]

Lummel, on 04 March 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

But Connington is standing at the top of his tower looking out at his lands remembering Rhaegar first.  It is only after Connington has remembered Rhaegar being up on top of his tower (double entendre intended) and his words on that occasion that Aegon barges in.

Aegon's words don't trigger the memory.  Aegon comes in afterwards  and his words "I like your castle" stand in stark constrast to Rhaegar's "your father's lands are beautiful".

You need to reread the chapter. Connington remembers it twice, once when he is on top of the tower and again after Aegon says what he says.

"Prince Aegon Targaryen was not near as biddable as the boy Young Griff had been, however. The better part of an hour had passed before he finally turned up in the solar, with Duck at his side. "Lord Connington," he said, "I like your castle."

"Your father's lands are beautiful," he said. His silvery hair was blowing in the wind, and his eyes were a deep purple, darker than this boy's. "As do I, Your Grace. Please, be seated......."


I can't figure out how to italicize font here, but the part up to where Connington speaks is in italics in the book. They go on to discuss the siege of Storms End.

Edited by dtones520, 04 March 2012 - 08:03 PM.

[dtones520]

DornishKnight, on 04 March 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Before this thread ends:
There is no reason Aegon  can't be the real deal.  It's just that there is no reason he can't be fake.

Totally agree and that's why I can't figue out why some people here are being so aggressive in their arguments. People who believe he is fake are taking things that are said at certain points over the course of five books and piecing them into one giant theory about how Aegon can't be real. Same with the Aegon is real peeps, they take what is now revealed and other hints and assume that is the truth.

In the end, I won't be surprised either way. But I do think Aegon dies in the end, sadly.

[Rhaegar Targaryen's Ghost]

dtones520, on 04 March 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

In the end, I won't be surprised either way. But I do think Aegon dies in the end, sadly.

agreed, i sure hope not though

[Screaming Knight]

Lummel, on 04 March 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

But Connington is standing at the top of his tower looking out at his lands remembering Rhaegar first.  It is only after Connington has remembered Rhaegar being up on top of his tower (double entendre intended) and his words on that occasion that Aegon barges in.

Aegon's words don't trigger the memory.  Aegon comes in afterwards  and his words "I like your castle" stand in stark constrast to Rhaegar's "your father's lands are beautiful".

Stark contrast would be if aegon said , "I don't like your castle" they both complemented his house. To me it shows how courteous the two are. I think it reminded Jon of how good it made him feel when rhaegar gave him that compliment. It shows how humble the two of them are. And, yes, aegon said it how a young' not quite fully matured teen would say it. Without the refined manner rhaegar said it. And I think that Jon thinking of rhaegar when aegon rides up is even more telling. That he has come
full circle with father and son. As if he was thinking, 'not quite the same statement, not quite the same purple eyes, but feels like yesterday this was me and his father.' now of course Jon has no reason not to believe this is rhaegars son and the thought I put in jons head is biased to what I believe but I think someone who was so close to rhaegar would know. And I think if he had suspicions or doubts he wouldn't deny them. I just really think it's him and would go as far as to say that him being fake is going to be a part of the storyline. Where he will have as many struggles proving his legitimacy than fighting for his birthright.

[unBloodraven]

All we need is DNA testing. Maybe one of the Arcmaesters will come up with it in Oldtown and we can settle who's really whom they claim to be once and for all

[7V3N]

dtones520, on 04 March 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Totally agree and that's why I can't figue out why some people here are being so aggressive in their arguments. People who believe he is fake are taking things that are said at certain points over the course of five books and piecing them into one giant theory about how Aegon can't be real. Same with the Aegon is real peeps, they take what is now revealed and other hints and assume that is the truth.

In the end, I won't be surprised either way. But I do think Aegon dies in the end, sadly.

The mummer's dragon is why. Varys' word is what we have to go off of. Two reasons why we should doubt his legitimacy.

[Faint]

I don't believe Aegon is Aegon Targaryen VI, nor do I believe he is even a Blackfyre, but for those who do believe one of the two, I have a question that came up as I was reading the chapters involving Moqorro today:

When Moqorro tells Tyrion the following . . .

Quote

"Dragons," Moqorro said in the Common Tongue of Westeros... "Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all."

. . . Who do you guys think is the false dragon? Or do you simply think Moqorro is wrong?

Edited by Faint, 12 March 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[Apple Martini]

Faint, on 12 March 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

I don't believe Aegon is Aegon Targaryen VI, nor do I believe he is even a Blackfyre, but for those who do believe one of the two, I have a question that came up as I was reading the chapters involving Moqorro today:

When Moqorro tells Tyrion the following . . .



. . . Who do you guys think is the false dragon? Or do you simply think Moqorro is wrong?

Never mind that for a sec ... Moqorro says, "Blah blah dragons. AND YOU."

Implying that Tyrion isn't counted among the dragons, i.e. Tyrion isn't a Targaryen. Unless Moqorro doesn't know that he is, in which case, why take what Moqorro says into consideration at all if he can't nail down any specifics or see a dragon right in front of him?

I'm also interested in who the "old" dragons might be (not sure if Aemon is dead by this point or not), and the "dark." Are we talking "dark" as in sigil color (i.e. Blackfyre = black dragon) or "dark" as in evil?

Edited by Apple Martini, 12 March 2012 - 12:49 AM.

[Faint]

Apple Martini, on 12 March 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Never mind that for a sec ... Moqorro says, "Blah blah dragons. AND YOU."

Implying that Tyrion isn't counted among the dragons, i.e. Tyrion isn't a Targaryen. Unless Moqorro doesn't know that he is, in which case, why take what Moqorro says into consideration at all if he can't nail down any specifics or see a dragon right in front of him?

I'm also interested in who the "old" dragons might be (not sure if Aemon is dead by this point or not), and the "dark." Are we talking "dark" as in sigil color (i.e. Blackfyre = black dragon) or "dark" as in evil?

I suppose I can take that as discounting Tyrion but, just the same, I can also read it as including him. In any case, the "old" dragon, in my opinion, is Bloodraven. The "young" is probably just referring to Daenerys and Jon (and Tyrion, if you subscribe to that theory). The "dark" dragon is really interesting. I have no clue at this point. If there is a Blackfyre in the story, I think it's Varys, so if I had to guess, it would be him. And, likewise, Jon and Daenerys would be the "light" dragons.

[voodooqueen126]

I think if Young Griff turned out to be the real deal it would render Elia's sacrifice somewhat pointless.

[hombay]

I believe we will never be explicitly told whether or not Aegon is real. However, strictly through an analytical point of view, everything in the novels point towards him being fake, ranging from the mummer's dragon to Tyrion on the boat. If a writer has so many clues regarding a characters true identity I believe it would be outrageous if he were not a Blackfyre. Martin is too good of a writer to muck that up.

[The Unborn]

voodooqueen126, on 12 March 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

I think if Young Griff turned out to be the real deal it would render Elia's sacrifice somewhat pointless.

The point of a sacrifice is to save someone (for the greater good) so I don't see how her sacrifice would be pointless.

But in anycase Elia didn't sacrifice herself.

[Peach Fuzz]

All this about the mummers dragon. Wouldnt Dany also be a mummers dragon?

[7V3N]

The Bastards Bastard, on 12 March 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

All this about the mummers dragon. Wouldnt Dany also be a mummers dragon?

How so? I don't think anyone can question that she is a trueborn Targaryen.

[Buried Treasure]

hombay, on 12 March 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

I believe we will never be explicitly told whether or not Aegon is real.

I'm not so certain. I certainly believe we have not been given enough information at this point in the story to categorically state whether or not he is real. I believe that is a narrative choice by GRRM - just as in a serialised murder mystery the author usually chooses not to reveal the murderer mid-way, but normally does so by the end.

There were hints of 'did Aegon survive?' in the first books, but this is this is the first book where it was explicitly brought up. In-story a couple of characters idly wondered whether the Aegon we met is real, but it wasn't really important as these characters had reasons to be supporting him anyway (Tyrion had nothing else, the GC want to end their exile & are being paid anyway) The question of whether he is real is likely to key to the decisions some (of the more honourable) characters make in the next book so it makes sense that George would want the reader to be asking the question at the same time.

Quote

However, strictly through an analytical point of view, everything in the novels point towards him being fake, ranging from the mummer's dragon to Tyrion on the boat. If a writer has so many clues regarding a characters true identity I believe it would be outrageous if he were not a Blackfyre. Martin is too good of a writer to muck that up.

Aegon being fake is not the same as Aegon being a Blackfyre.

I agree about the hints that point to Aegon being fake, but in your post you do not present any evidence for him being a Blackfyre. As a non-believer in Aegon = Blackfyre what I hate in arguing against it is that it is not a theory it is many different theories with a common element - and I never know which one any given Blackfyre proponent favours.

What is the scenario you believe that took the Blackfyres from the Stepstones to impersonating a dead boy? Do you believe it was through Illyrio's wife? Do you think it was coincedence that Varys was in Westeros when his bff married a Blackfye, or do you think Varys was already a Blackfyre supporter when he was hired by Aerys? Do you believe Aegon is legitimate or that he merely has Blackfyre blood? What in the books makes you think all these things?...

For the record, this is roughly what I think happened:
1)Gregor killed Aegon.
2)Varys realised that due to the manor of Aegon's death an imposter could not be absolutely disproved. A possible Aegon could prove a useful pawn at a later stage, at the very least it gives more options for new plans to be developed in the future.
3) Illyrio searched Essos for a boy of the correct age and colouring. He would not require a perfect match as there are (obviously) no photographs of Rhaegar or Elia and memory is fallible. He had about 4 years to conduct the search (time from Aegon dying to Jon C meeting fake). Illyrio took the boy in for fostering (hence his fondness) and his wife may have become the new Aegon's foster mother* (doubly explains Illyio's sadness).
4) Varys tries to manufacture proof that the new Aegon is real. He decides to recruit Jon C to raise Aegon in the belief he is really Rhaegar's son. Jon C joins Illyrio's household for a time;
- I think the clothes Tyrion wore must have been for a boy older than 5.
- Illyrio spoke as if he knew Griff.
5)Jon C & Aegon leave Illyrio's household, not sure exactly when or why. It may have been a longstanding part of the plan to raise Aegon on a poleboat for the full 'storytale prince' effect or he may have been sent away to avoid the grey plague. If they lived with Illyrio a long time then they may have not left until shortly before Illyrio took in Dany & Viserys.



*I don't believe Illyrio and Serra were married & had a son they used to fake Aegon. It would be a coincidence if he were the correct age and doesn't work with the opportunistic motive I believe Varys had. I do not know when Illyio purchased Serra but I think it may be possible that he purchased Serra & Aegon as a package deal. He may have wanted to examine the mother to help him select the right look in the child, and then fallen in love with her later.

[Buried Treasure]

d/p

Edited by Buried Treasure, 12 March 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[7V3N]

Buried Treasure, on 12 March 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

I'm not so certain. I certainly believe we have not been given enough information at this point in the story to categorically state whether or not he is real. I believe that is a narrative choice by GRRM - just as in a serialised murder mystery the author usually chooses not to reveal the murderer mid-way, but normally does so by the end.

There were hints of 'did Aegon survive?' in the first books, but this is this is the first book where it was explicitly brought up. In-story a couple of characters idly wondered whether the Aegon we met is real, but it wasn't really important as these characters had reasons to be supporting him anyway (Tyrion had nothing else, the GC want to end their exile & are being paid anyway) The question of whether he is real is likely to key to the decisions some (of the more honourable) characters make in the next book so it makes sense that George would want the reader to be asking the question at the same time.



Aegon being fake is not the same as Aegon being a Blackfyre.

I agree about the hints that point to Aegon being fake, but in your post you do not present any evidence for him being a Blackfyre. As a non-believer in Aegon = Blackfyre what I hate in arguing against it is that it is not a theory it is many different theories with a common element - and I never know which one any given Blackfyre proponent favours.

What about the crossroads inn? I don't think anybody made the connection on their first read. It seems to be major foreshadowing by GRRM. Unless you believe it to just be a red herring, but like I said, I don't think anybody picked it up on their first read. GRRM has said many times that we the fans catch things much easier than he expects, but that will not lead to any changes in the story for the sake of things being unexpected. It was too subtle to be a red herring, too fitting and uninformative to be there just for the sake of a story. I cannot see it as anything but foreshadowing, but that is an opinion since, like you said, there is no proof at all as of yet.

[protar]

Faint, on 12 March 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

I suppose I can take that as discounting Tyrion but, just the same, I can also read it as including him. In any case, the "old" dragon, in my opinion, is Bloodraven. The "young" is probably just referring to Daenerys and Jon (and Tyrion, if you subscribe to that theory). The "dark" dragon is really interesting. I have no clue at this point. If there is a Blackfyre in the story, I think it's Varys, so if I had to guess, it would be him. And, likewise, Jon and Daenerys would be the "light" dragons.

I think the dark dragon could be Bloodraven and the old dragon could be Aemon but I don't know if he'd still be alive by that point in the book. I can't remember when exactly the chapter happens.

[Apple Martini]

The Shadow Fox, on 12 March 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

What about the crossroads inn? I don't think anybody made the connection on their first read. It seems to be major foreshadowing by GRRM. Unless you believe it to just be a red herring, but like I said, I don't think anybody picked it up on their first read. GRRM has said many times that we the fans catch things much easier than he expects, but that will not lead to any changes in the story for the sake of things being unexpected. It was too subtle to be a red herring, too fitting and uninformative to be there just for the sake of a story. I cannot see it as anything but foreshadowing, but that is an opinion since, like you said, there is no proof at all as of yet.

I had already pretty much concluded that Aegon was fake, but the point about the sign at the inn clinched it for me. What other possible purpose could that little anecdote have had? Some might say that it's a red herring, and yet Martin seems to be a little more blunt with red herrings. They only really work if they're easily caught, otherwise they don't work as a distraction. The sign at the inn went over the heads of probably at least 90% of readers (I include myself in this); if it was meant to be a red herring, it didn't really work.

[Nymphetamine]

Faint, on 12 March 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

I don't believe Aegon is Aegon Targaryen VI, nor do I believe he is even a Blackfyre, but for those who do believe one of the two, I have a question that came up as I was reading the chapters involving Moqorro today:

When Moqorro tells Tyrion the following . . .



. . . Who do you guys think is the false dragon? Or do you simply think Moqorro is wrong?

How did I miss this quote. Dragons bright (Targaryen) and dark (Blackfyre).