It might arguably make sense for Aegon to be fake/a Blackfyre but there is very little textual evidence.

[Fetch me a block]

We have an offhand comment about Dragons being Dragons, whatever their colour.

We have a warning about the mummer's dragon (Varys is the mummer, but the dragon is being puppet stringed by him)

We have... of wait, that is it. Apart from the thing with the tavern dragon that the guy got really angry at and broke down.

We have Varys' monologue at the end of ADWD where he doesn't specifically call him Aegon, but he responded to Kevan when Kevan was talking about Aegon. Rather than this being evidence of Aegon being a Blackfyre it should be counted as at an absolute stretch a discrepancy. After all, if someone refers to someone in a previous sentence e.g. "Jim is such a prick" do you absolutely make clear that it is Jim you are talking about? Not necessarily. You will most likely say "Yes/No, he is/isn't a prick"

It make a lot of sense for Aegon to be fake theory-wise but people going around calling him faegon when they don't even know if he is fake is ridiculous, particularly when the textual evidence for it is weak.

I have not read the Arianne chapter in TWOW and thus there may be some textual evidence in there (don't post any TWOW stuff on this thread, I will just delete it) but it seems so far the textual evidence is weak. I don't understand why GRRM would reveal a rival claimant this late in the story only to twist it around again, which would be confusing. I doubt most ASOIAF readers know about the Blackfyres.

[eggs]

I doubt most ASOIAF readers know about the Blackfyres.

well grrm still made the three eyed crow Bloodraven.

[Fetch me a block]

well grrm still made the three eyed crow Bloodraven.

hmm. I suppose

[King of Winters]

Blackfyres do get a mention a ASOIAF when Illyrio is taking Tyrion to meet the up with Griff and his men. He says that the Blackfyres male was extinguished opening up the possibility of a female line.

I don't really care if Aegon is a Blackfyre or not. All I want is another dragon on the throne or any dragon to come to Westeros. But I think there are hints that Aegon could be (F)Aegon.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

The important thing about the mummer's dragon is that it's not just a cryptic warning by Quaithe, but also included in the Slayer-of-Lies sequence of the Undying vision (the mummer's dragon amidst a cheering crowd). "Mummer's dragon" might just mean Varys's dragon, but where would the inherent lie be in that?

Another part of evidence that should probably be listed is the contract "written in blood" that compels the Golden Company to break their contract in favour of Aegon. This being just after the story about Bittersteel and his founding the GC to place a Blackfyre heir on the throne.

Also, and for me most importantly, Varys's and Illyrio's actions seem random and at parts self contradictory if they're simply Targ loyalists or looking out only for themselves, but they make a lot of sense in the Blackfyre scenario.

Does all that prove that Aegon is a Blackfyre scion? No, but I do think it makes a very serious case.

[Manderlay]

We have Varys' monologue at the end of ADWD where he doesn't specifically call him Aegon

"Doubt, Division and Mistrust will eat the very ground beneath your boy king, Whilst Aegon raises his banner above Storm's End and the lords of the realm gather round him"

But I didn't get your point as to what you are trying to say or I have misunderstood, Varys does mention Aegon specifically

[Woftis]

It make a lot of sense for Aegon to be fake theory-wise but people going around calling him faegon when they don't even know if he is fake is ridiculous, particularly when the textual evidence for it is weak.

Saying (f)Aegon resolve this.

[Lord Freypie]

The mummer dragon may very well be Tyrion if A+J=T is true (as the first time he met Dany he is exactly a mummer).

The mummer dragon may also be Aegon even if he is not a Blackfyre, as he spent his life hiding under a secret identity.

Globally I agree with the title.

[Nictarion]

It doesn't really matter if he's a fake or not. He will make his claim and has support behind him with the GC. So he is a player either way. He has the look so some will probably believe and some won't. I personally think he will die in the second dance of dragons anyway. Tyrion probably sealed his fate when he sent him to Westeros instead of to Dany.

[V Targaryen]

I've almost finished my re-read, and I've really been looking for Aegon hints and clues throughout the books. While I'm nearing the end of ADWD, the fAegon/Aegon, all the evidence reminds me of the Theon has/has not had his cock flayed off arguments. Taken at first glance, all evidence shows a fake Aegon/manhoodless Theon.

Looked at again, the arguments could all have different meanings. Like the mummer's dragon could mean a fake Targaryen or a dragon (red or black) controlled by someone else (Varys). It could mean nothing, as prophecies are what one makes of them and are very fickle, as someone in the books (Marwyn?) points out. It could also be a lie (as Dany is told the House of Undying will show her past and future, true and false if I remember correctly) to make Dany paranoid.

Illyrio's comment of a dragon being a dragon whether red or black actually has me wondering if we will ever find the truth out about Aegon. Illyrio and Varys are the two who really know the truth, and what if both die before they can say for sure whether or not Aegon is real? Dany's going to go in screaming that he's fake, that's about 95% certain because she's been warned of the mummer's dragon. Others will certainly not believe him either.

Moqorro probably won't, as he warns of true and false dragons as well. Could be him being wrong, as both he and Mel admit that they can read the flames wrong if I'm not mistaken. Could be a fake Aegon. Could also be someone siding with either dragon who doesn't fully support that dragon/chooses to betray one or the other.

I'm siding with Aegon when it comes down to him and Dany. He'll most likely die, which I'd hate, but he's got my support, real or not.

[Mladen]

I don't understand why GRRM would reveal a rival claimant this late in the story only to twist it around again, which would be confusing. I doubt most ASOIAF readers know about the Blackfyres.

Blackfyres have been mentioned dozen of times throughout the books. And they have more importnat role in D&E stories. Blackfyre family is like Chekhov` gun. Everybody talked about them at certain point, now the time has come they to do something. Aegon is answer to that Gordian knot. And you have more evidence than you mentioned: Blackfyre`s extinct by male line, Illyrio`s behavior towards a boy, GC...

[Fetch me a block]

The important thing about the mummer's dragon is that it's not just a cryptic warning by Quaithe, but also included in the Slayer-of-Lies sequence of the Undying vision (the mummer's dragon amidst a cheering crowd). "Mummer's dragon" might just mean Varys's dragon, but where would the inherent lie be in that?

Another part of evidence that should probably be listed is the contract "written in blood" that compels the Golden Company to break their contract in favour of Aegon. This being just after the story about Bittersteel and his founding the GC to place a Blackfyre heir on the throne.

Also, and for me most importantly, Varys's and Illyrio's actions seem random and at parts self contradictory if they're simply Targ loyalists or looking out only for themselves, but they make a lot of sense in the Blackfyre scenario.

Does all that prove that Aegon is a Blackfyre scion? No, but I do think it makes a very serious case.

Exactly - it makes sense in theory but there is little textual evidence, unlike RLJ or Sandor the Gravedigger

[Fetch me a block]

I've almost finished my re-read, and I've really been looking for Aegon hints and clues throughout the books. While I'm nearing the end of ADWD, the fAegon/Aegon, all the evidence reminds me of the Theon has/has not had his cock flayed off arguments. Taken at first glance, all evidence shows a fake Aegon/manhoodless Theon.

Looked at again, the arguments could all have different meanings. Like the mummer's dragon could mean a fake Targaryen or a dragon (red or black) controlled by someone else (Varys). It could mean nothing, as prophecies are what one makes of them and are very fickle, as someone in the books (Marwyn?) points out. It could also be a lie (as Dany is told the House of Undying will show her past and future, true and false if I remember correctly) to make Dany paranoid.

Illyrio's comment of a dragon being a dragon whether red or black actually has me wondering if we will ever find the truth out about Aegon. Illyrio and Varys are the two who really know the truth, and what if both die before they can say for sure whether or not Aegon is real? Dany's going to go in screaming that he's fake, that's about 95% certain because she's been warned of the mummer's dragon. Others will certainly not believe him either.

Moqorro probably won't, as he warns of true and false dragons as well. Could be him being wrong, as both he and Mel admit that they can read the flames wrong if I'm not mistaken. Could be a fake Aegon. Could also be someone siding with either dragon who doesn't fully support that dragon/chooses to betray one or the other.

I'm siding with Aegon when it comes down to him and Dany. He'll most likely die, which I'd hate, but he's got my support, real or not.

Just out of interest, where does it imply that Theon got emasculated? I must have missed it during ADWD

[Fetch me a block]

Blackfyres have been mentioned dozen of times throughout the books. And they have more importnat role in D&E stories. Blackfyre family is like Chekhov` gun. Everybody talked about them at certain point, now the time has come they to do something. Aegon is answer to that Gordian knot. And you have more evidence than you mentioned: Blackfyre`s extinct by male line, Illyrio`s behavior towards a boy, GC...

...Or it could be a reference to D&E where Blackfyres are featured. There is a lot of theoretical solidness, but weak textual evidence. I think it is likely that Aegon is a Blackfyre, but there is little solid evidence.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Just out of interest, where does it imply that Theon got emasculated? I must have missed it during ADWD

Several references to Theon not being a man anymore (could also just be simple dehumanizing), Theon's fear of being seen naked (could also be self consciousness due to his bad shape in general), Theon protesting "but I have no ..." when asked to prepare fake Arya, Ramsay tells him to use his mouth instead (could also be intended to continue "... no right") and Theon listing what Ramsay took: x fingers, y toes, and that other thing (could also be an earlobe or whatever, but it does hint). None of them are conclusive on their own, but together they do paint a coherent picture that something happened down there.

[Lord Freypie]

About the "second dance of the dragons", I'm not that sure there will be one where Dany will fight Aegon.

The idea of a "second dance of the dragons" may be an urban legend born from on a complete misunderstanding of something Martin only said to promote the "Dance with Dragons" book (which was first named "Dance of Dragons" in his initial 3 books project).

(asked about the dance of the dragons some years ago -before ADwD was out-, Martin answered something like "the first or the second one ?", and then everyone figured he was speaking about a repeat of the inter-Targaryan wars, when he may very well have wanted to say "Are you speaking about the old targaryan history or my future book ?")

[Mladen]

...Or it could be a reference to D&E where Blackfyres are featured. There is a lot of theoretical solidness, but weak textual evidence. I think it is likely that Aegon is a Blackfyre, but there is little solid evidence.

Not solid like R+L =J, true. But, it fits perfectly. You just need to follow bread crumps left by GRRM. He won`t give you some great clue, and all of a sudden you know it`s truth. This is about searching, connecting, rereading. Why do you think he needs all this time to write the books? You need sometimes to rely on theory and logic and on what few evidence you have. Not all theories comes to frutition, but I believe this one will. Also, I believe I won`t care if he is Targaryen or Blackfyre. Comparing to Dany, he is indeed PTWP.

About the "second dance of the dragons", I'm not that sure there will be one where Dany will fight Aegon.

The idea of a "second dance of the dragons" may be an urban legend born from on a complete misunderstanding of something Martin only said to promote the "Dance with Dragons" book (which was first named "Dance of Dragons" in his initial 3 books project).

(asked about the dance of the dragons some years ago -before ADwD was out-, Martin answered something like "the first or the second one ?", and then everyone figured he was speaking about a repeat of the inter-Targaryan wars, when he may very well have wanted to say "Are you speaking about the old targaryan history or my future book ?")

Wrong. We already have hints that Dance will happen. Moqorro`s vision, Teora`s dream. They all talk about dance of dragons. And they both know soon will start another conflict. Dance with dragons is about Tyrion and beginning of his road as antihero, as someone who instigated this war.

[Fetch me a block]

Several references to Theon not being a man anymore (could also just be simple dehumanizing), Theon's fear of being seen naked (could also be self consciousness due to his bad shape in general), Theon protesting "but I have no ..." when asked to prepare fake Arya, Ramsay tells him to use his mouth instead (could also be intended to continue "... no right") and Theon listing what Ramsay took: x fingers, y toes, and that other thing (could also be an earlobe or whatever, but it does hint). None of them are conclusive on their own, but together they do paint a coherent picture that something happened down there.

Hmm. Intriguing

[lady m]

There are a lot of textual clues that have been discussed in various threads. I suggest doing a forum search instead of making a new thread, because the evidence you've given isn't nearly all that have been found or discussed. Otherwise, I agree with Nictarion, he'll make his claim and what that ultimately means is up to the author.

[jon crow]

I don't understand why GRRM would reveal a rival claimant this late in the story only to twist it around again, which would be confusing. I doubt most ASOIAF readers know about the Blackfyres.

personally, it would make even less sense to me if grrm introduced a cornerstone character so late in the story. aegon is a distraction (before i get started, i hate calling him "(f)aegon." his name is aegon regardless of whether he's a targaryen or blackfyre. you have to know his name).

there are numerous mentions of the blackfyres throughout the story, and the way grrm foreshadows, i believe this to be important. writers don't create characters they don't intend to use (note: only just saw that someone mentioned chekhov's gun, A+). if the blackfyres are insignificant to the main story, i don't believe their history would be given in such detail. the devil is in the details. the blackfyre's are extinct in the male line. why just the male line? if the blackfyres only amount to a history lesson it would be just as easy to say they are extinct. that illyrio is the one saying this is important because if the blackfyre theory holds true, he would have the best knowledge. most direct textual blackfyre evidence concerning aegon comes from illyrio but i'm not going to dig up every quote.

varys doesn't need aegon to be a targaryen. he doesn't operate that way. power lies where people believe it does. varys isn't going to waste effort on technicalities like birthright. a dragon is a dragon. it is enough that aegon is raised believing he is rhaegar's son and that he has such strong valyrian features to enhance his claim. the targaryens were not the only ones with such features.

the golden company was founded by bittersteel, another of aegon iv's legitimized bastards. the 'contract written in blood' gives the only credible reason in my mind why the company would break its contract with myr when they have never broken a contract in their entire existence. their original purpose predates the myrish contract.

here's a little bit that i find interesting and is speculative on my part. when tyrion first sees young griff, he places his age at around 15 or 16. this is about 18 years after the sack of king's landing. illyrio's son could very well have been born after the fact and no one would be any wiser. the child is not going to remember his early years and connington didn't meet him until he was a 'grown' child.