Fake Aegon... Fake?

[Usman Mir]

Hello all

This thread may have been discussed earlier as well, maybe i ve missed it.

I just want to know why everyone is saying that Aegon VI is fake because until now all the points that have been mentioned related to Aegon VI, he seems to be the same Aegon VI as it is possible for Varys to switch the Babes.

I believe once Aerys "The Mad King" Targaryen II ordered to open gates for Tywin Lannister, Varys quickly switched the babes and transported him across the Narrow Sea.

[Dead Wolf]

I think too much has been made about the mummer's dragon for Aegon to be the real Aegon, he could be a descendent of Aerion Brightflame/the Monstrous, he could be descended from one of Prince Rhaegel's twins (If they lived long enough to father/give brith to children), or the son of Serra (Blackfyre) and Illyrio. But he would still technically be a dragon if any of those were true

[The guy from the Vale]

There's a lot of reasons why I believe Young Griff isn't Aegon, but the main one for me is the following:

For the switch to work the way it is set up, Varys has to know the face of the baby would be mutilated. But he can't know that until it has happened... and then he can also claim to have switched the babys before the sack when really, he's promoting a fake.

Another point to consider is that if Varys and Illyiro really support Aegon, why did they hide him from his closest relatives? Why not bring him to Dragonstone to his grandmother and uncle, or to Dorne to his maternal relatives? Why hide him for so long, making any doubt possible in the first place? And considering Young Griff could have caught a disease and died, why did they let his heirs, Dany and Viserys, hang dry for 12 years?

[Mladen]

There are more than one reason why some of us believe Aegon is fake:

1. No one can say with certainty he is real deal. Jon Connington met the boy when he was 5.

2. Illyrio's strange devotion to the boy, that wasn't extended to other members of Targaryen family - Daenerys and Viserys

3. Strange story about baby switch... I mean, Varys found the baby exactly like Aegon in such short notice, and he couldn't save Elia and Rhaenys.

4. Mummer's dragon symbolism. Between Dany's vision at HotU, Quaithe's warning and Moqorro's vision, all suggest Dany will face false dragon

5. Foreshadowing regarding black dragon turning red at QI...

6. History of Golden Company... Their reputation speaks that they have never broke a contract. Their original contract was to bring Blackfyres to IT.

[Sordelor]

Why would Elia be with her fake son?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There are more than one reason why some of us believe Aegon is fake:

1. No one can say with certainty he is real deal. Jon Connington met the boy when he was 5.

2. Illyrio's strange devotion to the boy, that wasn't extended to other members of Targaryen family - Daenerys and Viserys

3. Strange story about baby switch... I mean, Varys found the baby exactly like Aegon in such short notice, and he couldn't save Elia and Rhaenys.

4. Mummer's dragon symbolism. Between Dany's vision at HotU, Quaithe's warning and Moqorro's vision, all suggest Dany will face false dragon

5. Foreshadowing regarding black dragon turning red at QI...

6. History of Golden Company... Their reputation speaks that they have never broke a contract. Their original contract was to bring Blackfyres to IT.

To these I'll add another symbolic easter egg in the text.

Arbor gold is repeatedly used to denote lies and deception. Varys supposedly paid off the Pisswater baby's father with Arbor gold.

And now I'll say what I always say: For all the demand for evidence that Aegon is fake, no one ever seems to stop and think that we have no good evidence that he's real. Maybe that should be the next thread topic — show me that he's real.

[Arya kiddin']

To these I'll add another symbolic easter egg in the text.

Arbor gold is repeatedly used to denote lies and deception. Varys supposedly paid off the Pisswater baby's father with Arbor gold.

And now I'll say what I always say: For all the demand for evidence that Aegon is fake, no one ever seems to stop and think that we have no good evidence that he's real. Maybe that should be the next thread topic — show me that he's real.

Hmm I see that the Food Code has been invoked. :thumbsup:

[Ser Greg of House House]

Shortly, there are a lot of clues that something shady is going on.

That and it would be incredibly stupid to tell all those boring stories about Dany only to come up with the true heir so late.

So yes, he's a fake. I'm not really one to figure out all the stuff instantly, I didn't get R+L=J in the first book. But that Aegon's fake was clear from the start.

[Jon Flowers]

And now I'll say what I always say: For all the demand for evidence that Aegon is fake, no one ever seems to stop and think that we have no good evidence that he's real. Maybe that should be the next thread topic — show me that he's real.

This seems to be a recurring problem with theory-related threads. Basically, whatever the pet theory in question may be, it's veracity is almost always taken as a starting point for further debate. It is astounding how many times I've seen someone, in all seriousness and without a hint of irony, choose to ignore evidence to the contrary and demand clear-cut "disproval" of a theory that they have failed to adequately support in the first place. It seems as though the rules of argumentation are reversed in this forum.

[Ghost's Shadow]

But guys... we have Varys' word that he's the true Aegon. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Oh, wait...

Littlefinger's a liar, Varys works with half truths.

PS: Kinda love we're going all CSI on these books. 'Aegon' enters the Game too late, let's look if he's as fake as he feels. :lol:

[Martell Spy]

I think just reading these books makes you a cynical person by the time you get to Dance. :)

And Varys just tries too hard in his speech introducing Aegon. It rings as false, especially when you start out from a cynical place. Even when Aegon is demanding to lead the charge, it seems to ring false to me. It's like he's a mummer, acting as the brave hero.

Also, it'd be a bit strange if other characters like Jon and Dany took up huge chunks of the books, but were less important to this character that shows up so late.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Another point to consider is that if Varys and Illyiro really support Aegon, why did they hide him from his closest relatives? Why not bring him to Dragonstone to his grandmother and uncle, or to Dorne to his maternal relatives? Why hide him for so long, making any doubt possible in the first place? And considering Young Griff could have caught a disease and died, why did they let his heirs, Dany and Viserys, hang dry for 12 years?

Sercurity. Keeping him away from Viserys (bad influence).

[The guy from the Vale]

Sercurity. Keeping him away from Viserys (bad influence).

But that kind of security compromises his claim precisely becaue there is no chain of custody. What you do in such a situation is set up a court in exile asap, not disappear for nearly two decades and then come back when noone who knew you before disappearing is still alive.

As for keeping him away from Viserys, by the time Varys would have made that decision, Rhaella would have been still alive; she would have been a positive influence on Aegon, and more of an influence than Viserys.

[Facebookless Man]

If Varys doesn't have an undeniable way to prove the kid is Aegon then his whole plan would make no sense. That's whether it's actually Aegon, a blackfyre, or just a random family member of his.

I guess Arianne's visit should clear things up on this matter.

[The guy from the Vale]

If Varys doesn't have an undeniable way to prove the kid is Aegon then his whole plan would make no sense. That's whether it's actually Aegon, a blackfyre, or just a random family member of his.

I guess Arianne's visit should clear things up on this matter.

I think Varys "proof" is the company of Jon Connington. As long as he doesn't tell anybody that he doesn't know about Young Griff's first five years, he is a pretty good witness... that last detail is what compromises him though.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

But that kind of security compromises his claim precisely becaue there is no chain of custody. What you do in such a situation is set up a court in exile asap, not disappear for nearly two decades and then come back when noone who knew you before disappearing is still alive.

Exactly. You really have two scenarios here: Henry VII or Perkin Warbeck.

Henry VII goes into exile. His location and custody are never in doubt. He sets up a court in exile and receives aid from Lancaster sympathizers.

Perkin Warbeck was co-opted into a plot wherein he pretended to be the murdered Richard, Duke of York. No chain of custody, no court in exile, no real proof. He just reappeared out of thin air.

One was a legitimate heir to the throne who later became a king. The other was a fraud who ended up losing his head. Which one more closely resembles Young Griff?

I think Varys "proof" is the company of Jon Connington. As long as he doesn't tell anybody that he doesn't know about Young Griff's first five years, he is a pretty good witness... that last detail is what compromises him though.

^ Exactly this. Jon Connington is the stooge to give the operation legitimacy.

[Borsabil]

He's the wrong age, he appeared out of nowhere, the only proof we have that he's the real deal is the testimony of an inveterate liar. Clearly Martin introduced him into the story as a way to get Dany over to Westeros. Which followed from the whole tedious Meereen storyline, which was an excuse to keep Dany away from Westeros while he expanded on what was originally only going to be a trilogy. GRRM has given us so many clues that he's a fake I just can't see this as even being a debate. The only real proof that he's real is Varys lecturing Kevan before he shoots him, but we can probably come up with other reasons why he'd want to lie to a man he's about to kill.

[Borsabil]

Exactly. You really have two scenarios here: Henry VII or Perkin Warbeck.

Henry VII goes into exile. His location and custody are never in doubt. He sets up a court in exile and receives aid from Lancaster sympathizers.

Perkin Warbeck was co-opted into a plot wherein he pretended to be the murdered Richard, Duke of York. No chain of custody, no court in exile, no real proof. He just reappeared out of thin air.

One was a legitimate heir to the throne who later became a king. The other was a fraud who ended up losing his head. Which one more closely resembles Young Griff?

^ Exactly this. Jon Connington is the stooge to give the operation legitimacy.

That's a great point which I hadn't thought of. Martin has based much of ASOIAF on the war of the roses, it makes total sense.

[Dead Wolf]

He's the wrong age, he appeared out of nowhere, the only proof we have that he's the real deal is the testimony of an inveterate liar. Clearly Martin introduced him into the story as a way to get Dany over to Westeros. Which followed from the whole tedious Meereen storyline, which was an excuse to keep Dany away from Westeros while he expanded on what was originally only going to be a trilogy. GRRM has given us so many clues that he's a fake I just can't see this as even being a debate. The only real proof that he's real is Varys lecturing Kevan before he shoots him, but we can probably come up with other reasons why he'd want to lie to a man he's about to kill.

This

[Bunners]

Okay, I'm not completely done reading the series yet, I'm about to start AFFC, but I know what happens because I'm extremely impatient. I just want to remind everyone with these theories about "Aegon" what you learned in grade school English all your life. Canons can't cross.

"In fiction, canon is the conceptual material accepted as "official" in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are considered to be non-canon. It is used in two slightly different meanings: 'First, "it refers to the overall set of storyline, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text".[1] In this sense, canon is "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows,"[2] or "the original media on which the fan fictions are based."[3] Second, it is used "as a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon"; thus certain incidents or relationships may be described as being canon or not.[4] "

So even though Tales of Dunk and Egg are by the same author and are set in the same universe it is STILL considered a separate canon, a separate set of literary work. You cannot cross canons unless explained in the same amount of detail in both literary works. Because if the Blackfyre theory was true, and that were to happen, at some point grrm would have to thoroughly explain the history and what the problem is to the readers in song of ice and fire. It can't be assumed that every reader of asoiaf has read the Tales of Dunk and Egg Series. That's like going to a movie that starts at the middle and you don't know what is happening because they expect you to have read the books or already know the story (ex. The new Alice In Wonderland). That may get by with movies but in literature it's a lot more strict. Literature doesn't have a lot of laws but that is definitely one of them. I can't introduce a theory from Harry Potter into a Casual Vacancy and assume that everyone knows what I'm talking about because I assume everyone has read HP.

Now grrm could very well do that, he could introduce this concept to the readers in the winds of winter but if you ask me it's a bit late in the game to be introducing new theories and new points of views, apart from what's already been foreshadowed and prophesied. Especially a theory that hasn't gotten much attention in the asoiaf canon aside from a passing conversation with Daenerys. (Remember crossing canons is illegal in the literary world). A work of literature needs to be taken for what it is. If I'm reading asoiaf then it's just that, that I include in my speculations not another series even if it is by the same author and in the same universe. It's like a court case. I can't bring in other evidence from a previous court case. I have to deal with what is given now, and what was found in my court case, and at my scene. Otherwise it's impermissible evidence, and the court will throw it out, the jury is presented with the now evidence Same with literature. Think of the reader the jury and the judge. The author as both attorneys and the plaintiff and the defense, and the court case itself as the storyline and characters. If I haven't read Tales of Dunk and Egg and my total reality is in asoiaf, in my mind Tales of Dunk and Egg doesn't exist, everything they say is outside my knowledge, just like how the jury doesn't know the defenses previous crimes or character only being able to be held accountable for the events conspired and accused of.

So basically in essence canons can't cross unless given special permission from the author. Grrm could say bugger it all and include that theory but that would never make it past his editors who are trying to help him write by literary law.

Think people, please. Especially you Americans. They don't assign us 12 years of English for no reason