bent branch

Members
  • Content count

    1,828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About bent branch

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

2,756 profile views
  1. I'm not trying to be disparaging. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Were you being disparaging of me when you were stating you didn't believe my take on the topic? Because you know, you haven't conceded on any of my points either. I don't think D&D would see this deviation as being as different as you would. They have already made major deviations in the story that they don't seem to think of as major. Being true to the storyline is mainly in the eye of the beholder and I think this deviation is one they would feel remains true to the storyline. I've tried to show you how merging Jon and Aegon's storylines would be one way of remaining true to the story. As far as Aegon being considered the VI, he will probably only get that designation if he is seen as a legitimate Targaryen. If he is seen as fake in some manner (as many like believe), then he will be given some designation that places him outside the Targaryen lineage. For example, he would be called Aegon the Fake or Aegon the Deceiver or Aegon the Interloper. You only get a number if you are part of that lineage. I say this because the Targaryens themselves will decide whether he gets a number or not.
  2. I already believe that the story is about Jon and Dany getting together. What I don't believe is that they necessarily are going to end up on the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne is not the main point of this series. The main point of this series is the War for the Dawn. I don't think it is a given that Jon and Dany will necessarily survive the War for the Dawn. I feel pretty sure that Dany won't survive the War for the Dawn and I only give Jon a 50/50 chance to survive (a 0% chance to survive if he dies and is resurrected). Aegon may end up on the throne as the last Targaryen standing (or he may die). You act like the two of them must end up on the throne when in reality neither of them may make it pass the closing acts of the War for the Dawn. Your argument remains very unconvincing to me. Peace.
  3. This is the biggest problem with the Aegon is fake default. If Aegon Targaryen becomes the king of Westeros in the novels, and then Jon becomes king in the series, these would not be the same endings. However, if they merge Jon and Aegon's storylines, then Jon becoming king on the show is the same as Aegon becoming king in the books. This is why them changing Jon's "real" name to Aegon Targaryen and making him legitimate is a huge clue to Aegon being the one who ends up on the throne. Anyway, do you really not understand how adaptations work? Of course storylines can be merged with even main characters' taking more minor characters' important plot points. That way the more minor character can be eliminated. Jon has already taken on some of Stannis' storyline (I use this as an example because it is the one that comes most readily to mind). The thing that you are refusing to acknowledge here is that Aegon Targaryen, the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen is probably going to sit the Iron Throne in the series. In the novels, there is only one Aegon Targaryen. If the only important thing that Aegon does in the whole novels is end up on the throne in the end, then his storyline can easily be given to Jon (who only has a 50/50 shot at surviving the novels) after Jon is given a name change. See? Easy peasy! As for your thematic question, I will assume that you are right that Jon's "real" name is Aegon Targaryen and the guy we know as Aegon Targaryen is only a fake. If this is true, then there will only still only be one Aegon VI. GRRM is not going to call a fake Aegon Aegon VI and then call the "real" Aegon (Jon), Aegon VII. Therefore, I think your whole seven theme is not going to happen, even if everything else you believe is true. I agree. Mostly.
  4. Okay, you think that is the most important point. I think the most important point is that, at least as far as the show is concerned, a legitimate Aegon Targaryen will be sitting on the Iron Throne. I predicted after it became apparent that they were not putting an Aegon into the story that if they made Jon Aegon, then that would probably mean Aegon was who he appeared to be. I'm not at all convinced by the weird argument that both brothers have the same name.
  5. An uncle and nephew having the same name is different than two brothers, even half-brothers, having the same name.
  6. Sadly, most of the reasoning is based on blind partisanship. The answer could be just this simple. D&D and GRRM have said that they may take different paths, but the story will end up in the same place. At this point, the show story is set to potentially end with Aegon Targaryen, the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, sitting on the Iron Throne. If Jon does take the throne, then it is a good bet that it will be a legitimate Aegon Targaryen who sits the throne at the end in the books. The people who are arguing both boys were legitimate and named Aegon, are essentially thinking this is what will happen. The people who don't like the idea of both boys being legitimate and named Aegon are resorting to calling D&D idiots. The most parsimonious answer is that the characters of Aegon Targaryen and Jon Snow have been combined and the one named Aegon Targaryen in the novels will be proven to be legitimate and it is he who will sit the Iron Throne. For some reason, the idea of Aegon being exactly who he thinks he is makes many in the fandom insane. I don't really understand why this is. The only reason I can see is the blind partisanship you mentioned. As I said above, the reason people are fighting so hard against this is that it strongly suggests the Aegon Targaryen in the books is exactly who he says he is and that he will end up on the Iron Throne. This is a far more likely outcome than both boys being legitimate and being named Aegon. Quite simply, there was no need to give Jon a "Targaryen" name at all. He could have simply been Jon Targaryen. However, if D&D wanted the story to end in the same place as the novels, and if Aegon ends up legitimate and on the throne, then they would need to make such a person exist or combine his character with someone. I personally think whatever ends up happening to Jon in the series is what will happen to Aegon in the novels.
  7. Except I'm pretty sure that is a hard g.
  8. Yes, I would say it is because they have merged Jon and Aegon's storylines. Although many people think Aegon is fake and has nothing to do in the book, the fact they didn't completely get rid of him in the show indicates Aegon does have something important to do in the story, even if his role is not large. Now, if Show-Jon ends up on the throne, I believe that Aegon is the one who is supposed to end up on the throne in the books. Well...they would think that calling Jon Aegon and having Jon sit on the Iron Throne would be the same as Aegon sitting on the Iron Throne. They've made many similar equivalencies. I so agree with you, except I would stop saying f/Aegon. Pretty sure the reason they made Jon legitimate is because Aegon is the legitimate Targaryen and that is why the characters are being merged.
  9. I can't remember what exactly I said two weeks ago, but I didn't mean that Illyrio married his first wife when Varys was in King's Landing. If you put together the conversation you're quoting and an earlier conversation about the breakup of Varys and Illyrio's criminal enterprise, you will find out that Illyrio married his princess at about the same time Varys left for King's Landing. Please show me a quote that says Varys was in King's Landing when Rhaegar married Elia. Oh, wait, don't. I'm trying to break myself from this website. Anyhow, there are two quotes in the main novels that say something about Varys coming to KL years after Steffon's death and years before the Sack. Since the way the timelines fall, those years could have only been 280 or 281. Since TWOIAF definitely states that Varys was in KL in 280, I generously allowed that Varys may have arrived in the middle 279. Even with conceding this, I still find that idea that Illyrio's young wife died less than two years after marrying him, without Illyrio mentioning her tragically youthful death. A few added months doesn't sway my opinion.
  10. Whilst definition: conjunction while While definition: conjunction during or in the time that, at the same time that While Illyrio taking his first wife and Varys going to King's Landing may not have happened on the same day, it was within a short period. That really is the only to interpret whilst. Two years is too much. Also, Steffon Baratheon died in 278. Aerys didn't send for Varys until after Steffon died. Varys arrived sometime in 279 or 280. He is mentioned for the first time in 280 in TWOIAF. There is no proof that Varys was there any earlier than that, but we can speculate in maybe the latter half of 279. Aegon is said to have been born in late 281 or early 282. This means he was conceived somewhere between February and May of 281. This would give him a date of birth around November 281 to February 282. Which would be in agreement with the date of birth figured by the wiki. Now, giving the most generous timeframe possible let's say that Illyrio married his first wife in June of 279 and Aegon was conceived in May of 281, this would give 23 months for this chain of events to occur. Illyrio would marry his maiden (read young) wife, first wife would die, Illyrio would meet Serra and get her pregnant. The timeframes only get shorter from here with the possibility of Illyrio marrying his first wife later and Aegon being conceived sooner. Such a short marriage and quick remarriage would have caused problems for Illyrio with his powerful in-laws. However, they only seem to be offended, not angry, so I doubt the first marriage was that short. When I pointed this out to the person who considered this theory theirs, they admitted that the timeframe was really tight, but that they liked the theory anyway. That's fine, as you said people can decide what they want to believe. However, this whole thread started with someone asking if there was a consensus on this theory. The answer to that is still no. It is not even the most popular theory out there.
  11. Illyrio was marrying his first wife at about the point Aegon would have to be conceived. In other words, about 19 years ago Aegon was conceived and about 19 years ago Illyrio was marrying his first wife. For Aegon to be the child of Illyrio and Serra, Illyrio's first wife would have to die within the first year and Illyrio would have to marry Serra almost immediately. Once upon a time I had worked out a timeline trying to figure out how quickly Illyrio's first wife would have to die and how quickly he would have to get Serra pregnant for Aegon to be her son. I even allowed that Illyrio could get her pregnant before he married her. Anyhow, I don't find it credible that as Illyrio's second wife, Serra could be his mother. In case you're wondering how I know when Illyrio's first marriage was, he said it was about the same time Varys went to King's Landing. I don't have all the math anymore since I convinced myself it wasn't likely and moved on.
  12. Okay, you meant no offense. However, this thread began with the question of whether there was consensus on this theory. The answer is obviously no. With such a question, it is natural that people put forward other theories that are out there. I just want to point that out. No hard feelings.
  13. We'll have to wait until Marwyn reaches Dany. I think I've squeezed every bit of the 3HotD out of the books that I can.
  14. Yeah, it is sometimes hard to know exactly what to call the various fore-tellings in the book.
  15. Illyrio only made that claim after Tyrion refused to believe that Illyrio was repaying debts of affection to Varys. If Illyrio and Serra had a child together that child would be only about 15 years old at the oldest. It is more likely that child would be even younger. Illyrio is indeed the descendant of Aegor Rivers and Calla Blackfyre. That doesn't automatically mean Aegon is his son. The statue could be of Aegon. So what? We already know Illyrio and Aegon know each other. The books could be Aegon's old books. So what? The books make it clear that Aegon lived with Illyrio when he was young. This is no secret. Tyrion knows that Aegon lived with Illyrio when young and still believes Aegon is Rhaegar's son. The fact that Aegon lived with Illyrio when young would also make it possible for Illyrio to love Aegon. People do become fond of children that are not their own. This is the reason I do not believe the theory. Every piece of "evidence" put forth has a simple counter answer. Well, first let's look at who they are. Illyrio was a poor bravo who lived in Essos. Varys was a slave that lived in Essos. In every city on the continent of Essos, there is a red temple. Every night a red priest preaches on the streets. They preach about the "savior" that will come. What are the clues that Illyrio and Varys may be followers of R'hllorism? First is the fact that R'hllorism is the religion of the slaves and poor in Essos, which classes Illyrio and Varys come from. Illyrio uses phrases from the religion that make it clear he has a good understanding of the religion. With Varys, one can imagine that as a small boy, freshly castrated, and thrown out to die, he might have drawn near the night fires of the red priests and listened and hoped. To suggest that these men would have no knowledge of Azor Ahai is to argue that Italians have no idea who the pope is. As to why they might believe it to be Aegon is because according to the prophecies Aegon is one of the few people who it could actually be. You suggest that the reason I question the whole Aegon is fake is because people won't accept my "theory". How insulting! I do not respond to these theories to argue for my theory, but to point out the weaknesses of the theory presented. I am presenting other ways of looking at the "evidence". What I say is that if Aegon is needed to fulfill prophecy, then he will be Rhaegar's son. That is not same level of insistence as the Aegon is fake crowd. It would be nice if the proponents of this theory actually responded to the issues raised rather than suggesting the people questioning the theory are poor sports. It is this attitude that has made most people back off of trying to point out the problems with the theory and makes people have to ask if that lack of debate means there is a consensus.