a1andrew

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About a1andrew

  • Rank
    Commoner
  1. Looks like all the info is secondhand hearsay, and that the main source says he might have remembered it wrong, which is a recurring problem with hearsay and why it generally isn't allowed in a court of law I won't deny that it is meaningful evidence, but that's far from reliable evidence. At the end of the day, I'm going to assume Martin was not being sloppy and bizarre by choosing to use the one use of the title of the book series in a misdirection, and that the Aegon in the scene is alive and one of the ptwp, either as Jon Snow or Elia's Aegon. It could well be that the Aegon from the vision is dead, but if so I'd be disappointed and would find it to be a rare act of poor storytelling on his part.
  2. From what I read of the above posts, it looks like that is a HIGHLY uncertain conclusion.
  3. Really? Do you have a cite? What was the manner of confirmation? If he just said "its Aegon" that wouldn't rule out John Snow, if that was his birth name. He would have needed to say something like "that is Aegon the son of Elia" to really clear it up. If that's really what Martin meant then I believe Aegon is alive, whether the Aegon we know or a different, unnamed character is actually Aegon. The use of the soiaf line is much to powerful to be used as a headfake etc.
  4. That's as good a explanation as I've seen for why to include a massive head fake for arguably the single most significant line in the book, but to me its still very unsatisfying and sloppy. Especially when accounting for the potentially omniscient "fantasy" Rhaegar. If that's what Martin meant, and we ever actually find out, it will be a huge disappointment.
  5. I don't understand the concept of "Rhaegar was mistaken". Could he have been? Sure. But why would Martin chose to show this mistake in the ONE place in the entire series that he chooses to mention a song of ice and fire, the title of the whole series. You're telling me Martin, one of the most legendarily word conscience writers of this era, is going to chose to unveil them in the context of a mistaken belief?! Sorry, that just makes no sense. I'd believe Aegon is real before I believe that those words were not meant to apply to one of the three ptwp. Sure, there is a wall of evidence that he is fake, but that textual evidence is of incomparably lesser weight in presentation than the House of Undying scene. Regardless, under this theory, Aegon can still be Faegon and the vision can still be real.
  6. Good post, especially "days that never were" catch.
  7. I've long resisted the notion that Aegon is indeed Faegon, that he is not actually the son of Rhaegar and Elia. I don't contest that there is a good amount of textual evidence supporting it. Not nearly as much as R+L=J, though that wasn't the main reason for my reluctance. My main reason for not accepting it is the House of Undying vision Dany sees. Specifically: "'He has a song', the man replied. 'He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire'. He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. 'There must be one more', he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. 'The dragon has three heads'." That is the ONLY, and I have to repeat, ONLY time in the entire book series, the words "song of ice and fire", that is, the ACTUAL NAME OF THE ENTIRE SERIES, are mentioned, and it was by Rhaegar talking to the unspecified woman in reference to the baby that was present and named Aegon. Again, that is a huge mic drop for the entire book series. Would Martin really chose to use the ONE reference to the name of the entire series when it was simply a mistake, simply naming the wrong party? I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for that. And personally, I have always answered that question definitively "NO". However, there is quite a bit of textual support for current Aegon not being Rhaegar's son (I won't get into the details of that for brevity), and I was troubled by how to reconcile this. The first thought was that the Aegon from the vision was actually Jon Snow. But others posted that and it was quickly shot down by those pointing out that Rhaegar never had the opportunity to meet Jon Snow. The timelines couldn't work. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter, the child in that vision WAS Jon Snow. My primary reason is that it is the only way to reconcile those two powerful and otherwise competing problems:1 HUGE textual proof as to the legitimacy of the child in the vision as a prince that was promised because of the book series only reference to asoiaf vs 2. A nearly overwhelming amount of less important textual hints of modern day Aegon's illegitimacy. Both nearly equally powerful. This theory would resolve that, and allow both textual clues to be valid. However, there are other reasons as well. First, why was neither the woman nor the child physically described in the scene? Rhaegar was described. A description of the woman and especially the child would quickly resolve any ambiguity about the identity of the child. And, if it is the historical "Aegon" as is presented, then there is no need to be vague or ambiguous. That suggests Martin left the description vague intentionally in order to obscure the true identity of the child from the vision. That suggests it is not the historic Aegon, and obviously Jon Snow would be the only viable alternative. Second, what about the timeframe not matching? Well, its been largely accepted that not all of the visions she had from House of Undying were actually direct representations of past or future. Clearly, some of them were allegorical "blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice" etc. Moreover, it seems to be generally accepted that she saw a representation of the son who died in her womb as an adult and a ruler. So the visions can be altered from the direct reality. And that's what must have happened with asoiaf vision. That brings me to the third additional reason. "He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. 'There must be one more', he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say'". Why was Martin suggesting the possibility of an omnipotent Rhaegar that could speak directly to Dany. Especially, why, after uttering such a tremendously important line as soiaf? I would argue that the reason he did that was because he actually INTENDED Rhaegar to have some measure of omnipotence in the moment. This was not the Rhaegar who misread the signs of PTWP regarding his own birth, or even that of his first son named Aegon. This is a supernatural Rhaegar with the benefit of greater clarity and hindsight. He didn't exist in real life, but did exist in the envisioned world that Dany was experiencing. He was speaking directly to Dany at that moment, and was saying that his son Aegon (Jon's birth name) and Dany were two heads. There needs to be a final head to the dragon. Who that is remains to be seen.
  8. Thanks! I've visited the forum occasionally over the years but never joined before. Had to get this theory out there, though. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people are already locked in to one interpretation or another. Hopefully this will be remembered among those who aren't as locked in as a likely theory. I hope we do get a definitive answer on these prophecies one way or another from Martin. Yes, Cersei is really who I have in mind more than anyone. I guess Cersei would be a. and Tommen b. for me. I like your thoughts on Strong, especially the "no longer human" part. As far as Aegon being a Blackfyre, I've historically been more inclined to side with you in holding that he's not a Blackfyre or a fraud in general, but have kinda given up that opposition (although I wouldn't mind being wrong). I was very torn on that, mainly because of one major problem with it (also relating to House of Undying), but I have a theory on how everything makes sense. I think I'll post a new thread on that shortly.
  9. Well argued, but I just don't see it. Most indications are that Jon and Dany will be allied, probably married. Also, while you've done a good job of finding textual evidence, it still seems much more strained to me than house Lannister, represented by Robert Strong, as the Stone Beast. The burnt tower wasn't nearly as severe or as big a plot point as with Cersei in the Tower of the Hand (and especially since I suspect she will burn even more towers). The great stone beast relating to Longclaw is much more strained as representative of a "great stone beast" than a headless giant in stone armor. The other two, "takes wing" and "breathes shadow fire" are about equal to Lannister textual evidence. I doubt Jon will still be a "crow" when his claim to the throne or as the prince that was promised is revealed, and the relation of their vows, talking about fire, not shadow, and not in the context of breathing, aren't very close either. But, very little textual evidence at the moment for team Lannister for "taking wing", and zombie Mountain "breathing shadow fire" is logical but speculative. For me, the "Great Stone Beast" prophecy relates to either 1. whoever the Lannister monarch is at the time or 2. Euron Greyjoy. Jon Snow would be a distant third.
  10. That's not "established" by an means. I definitely don't think its simpler, either, it seems a more strained analogy and duplicative with the earlier Stannis reference. To each their own, though.
  11. I thought that was less difficult, I just assumed that was Daario. I only occasionally check the forums, but I thought others had speculated it was Daario too, although maybe there's a reason it couldn't be that I haven't seen. Three big clues for me 1. All have to be romantically involved with Dany, and Daario clearly was 2. On a ship, and Daario's being held captive on a ship and 3. Dead, and Daario is being held captive by a hostile power who has already executed captives, plus his time seems to be coming to a close.
  12. Thanks, hopefully we'll find out some day.
  13. That's a good argument, lthough, on the one hand you say kingship (a hereditary based system) is subjective, not factual, and later you say that Aegon is not a real Targ. Except, that also is a hereditary based system, and he appears at least likely to be a Blackfyre (hence, Targ except by subjective standards). Subjectivity can enter into anything. The main thing that stands out about both identified persons is they are a claimant to the iron throne. And again, what bigger "lie" is there than the parentage of Tommen etc. Anyway, good argument, but agree to disagree.
  14. Thanks. I think the Harrenhal Blackfyre theory is textually strained, though, and not relevant to Dany unless as a repeat of her future role in exposing Aegon, which I think Martin would be unlikely to repeat. Also, I believe the "lie" in question is that Dany will destroy the "lie" of each of the other competing claims to the Iron Throne.
  15. Thanks, I believe that's one of the ones I read, and I think I've accounted for all the theories there, but I'll look again.