Aegon is real v2

[Ygrain]

We don't know who they are. So how can you conveniently claim that Varys/His sister/Illyrio/Anyone else are Blackfyres through the female line when we have no idea who their parents were.

And? We are not done with the story yet, and there is one huge piece of information missing - what vested interest Varys and Illyrio have in Westeros and why is Illyrio so fawning over a son of Rhaegar and Elia.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The "evidence" is that Varys said he's Aegon to a man he was about to kill and had no reason to lie.

The only "evidence" that he's a Blackfyre would be if it were actually impossible for Varys' story to be true. Which doesn't seem to be the case. Vague prophecies or signs make for interesting conjecture, but are far from definitive proof that Aegon is fake. It's possible - but not inevitable.

You're right that literally the only piece of evidence that fAegon is real is the claim of Varys. You're absolutely wrong that the only evidence for the Blackfyre theory is that it's 'impossible' for Varys' story to be true.

The evidence is how incredibly unlikely Varys' story is, not that it's 'impossible,' which is a standard of doubt that can't be met. In addition to the implausibility of Varys' story are a few different instances of prophecy, a very compelling bit of foreshadowing, some interesting lines from Illyrio, and knowledge of the history of the Golden Company and Blackfyres. Putting all of these things together is decidedly not conjecture, by definition, as it based on several mutually supporting pieces of evidence.

[ckal9]

I hope you all realize that no matter what you think about Aegon, nobody is right or wrong until the freaking book comes out. That's the most infuriating thing about many users/theories here, that they claim evidence for a theory because that's what they want it to be, everyone should accept it as proven fact, and everyone else is wrong.

Theories are not fact, no matter how much 'evidence' you think you have for it. Stop telling others they are wrong when you are likely wrong yourself.

[Chatty Duelist]

No it wasn't broken. Mummer's dragon is a dragon owned by a mummer, a fake dragon.

See above post.

Being a cadet branch doesn't make you a member of the main like. Karstarks aren't Starks, Jordaynes aren't Daynes, they are distand once relatives.

Senior branch, not main line. They are distant relatices now and forever. My cousin's descendants will be my relatives now and forever.

Like? When you try to refer to a source you should refer either to the books or SSM. Blackfyres are a cadet branch but that doesn't make them Targaryens. They are two different families.

See above post.

No, sorry. Varys' doesn't say that Aegon's is Rhaegar's in the quote that you have provided. Or if I missed it, give me the quote where Varys says "Aegon is Rhaegar's son".

See above post.

It didn't looked like Aegon? Says who? We know that the baby who died had Varyrian colors but it was never stated that he didn't looked like Aegon. How could that be known since the corpse was beyond recognition.

"That may be. Or not." Kevan Lannister had been here, in this very hall when Tywin had laid the bodies of Prince Rhaegar's children at the foot of the Iron Throne, wrapped up in crimson cloaks. The girl had been recognizably the Princess Rhaenys, but the boy . . . a faceless horror of bone and brain and gore, a few hanks of fair hair. None of us looked long. Tywin said that it was Prince Aegon, and we took him at his word." They aren't sure that it really is him, they just take Tywin's word for it.

And if you want to bring Tyrion, who had no idea how the real prince looked like, you should also have to mention that Tyrion says that FAegon looks younger, I think he says that he looks 16, that the real Aegon would be.

When Aegon flips over the table, Tyrion thinks "He might just be a Targaryen after all."

And that means that they don't exist?

See above post.

Once again, having someones blood doesn't make you the same. Blackfyres had Targs blood 150 years ago, like the Martells but Baratheon have Targs blood about 50-60 years ago. They have the blood, yes, but they aren't Targs.

They are descended in the female line from the Targs (Orys, Robert's grandmother).

Still, I don't see how I insulted someone.

Read your posts again and ask yourself if they're really civil.

You're right that literally the only piece of evidence that fAegon is real is the claim of Varys.

Read the OP again. The Blackfyre theory is the one that's based on supposition and prophecies that just don't happen or that can be interpreted a hundred ways.

You're absolutely wrong that the only evidence for the Blackfyre theory is that it's 'impossible' for Varys' story to be true.

See previous point.

The evidence is how incredibly unlikely Varys' story is, not that it's 'impossible,'

Read the Op again.

which is a standard of doubt that can't be met. In addition to the implausibility of Varys' story are a few different instances of prophecy, a very compelling bit of foreshadowing, some interesting lines from Illyrio, and knowledge of the history of the Golden Company and Blackfyres. Putting all of these things together is decidedly not conjecture, by definition, as it based on several mutually supporting pieces of evidence.

Again prophecies and lines that can be interpreted a hundred and one ways. Just because you consider that the cloth dragon is Aegon doesn't mean it really is him, you'll need a line from a PoV character or an SSM outright confirming it.

And? We are not done with the story yet, and there is one huge piece of information missing - what vested interest Varys and Illyrio have in Westeros and why is Illyrio so fawning over a son of Rhaegar and Elia.

The opportunity to rule Westeros through a puppet King.

[Thendel]

OP, would you deign to reply to my point on keeping it civil? I for one have some concerns for the tone you are setting in your replies.

The play in King's Landing is not meant to be the cloth dragon: First off, it is a completely meaningless incident, particularly to Daenerys. It barely fits, as the play surely didn't warrant enough attention to warrant "a crowd cheering". Moreover, the cloth dragon appears in the context of Viserys getting crowned, Rhaegar falling to his knees at the Trident, Stannis Baratheon taking up the (fake) mantle as Azor Ahai reborn and the stone beast rising from a tower breathing shadow fire. All personaly or extremely important events by themselves, yet an entirely meaningless play in King's Landing warrants a place?

And I assume the answer "Because dragons are in short supply" to be a serious one: If dragons are in short supply, Aegon being real should warrant to be represented as a true one, right?

And did you read the thread I linked to? Because your reply doesn't seem to reflect on the fact that Varys has a penchant for misleading others in conversation, hence his words should be dissected very, very carefully.

[Chatty Duelist]

OP, would you deign to reply to my point on keeping it civil? I for one have some concerns for the tone you are setting in your replies.

I apologize for my rash behavior.

The play in King's Landing is not meant to be the cloth dragon: First off, it is a completely meaningless incident, particularly to Daenerys. It barely fits, as the play surely didn't warrant enough attention to warrant "a crowd cheering". Moreover, the cloth dragon appears in the context of Viserys getting crowned, Rhaegar falling to his knees at the Trident, Stannis Baratheon taking up the (fake) mantle as Azor Ahai reborn and the stone beast rising from a tower breathing shadow fire. All personaly or extremely important events by themselves, yet an entirely meaningless play in King's Landing warrants a place?

Any of those you mentioned are a possibility yet Blackfyrists consider that Aegon being fake to be the only possibility. Why? And see my point on mundane prophecies.

And I assume the answer "Because dragons are in short supply" to be a serious one: If dragons are in short supply, Aegon being real should warrant to be represented as a true one, right?

'Twas a joke, sometime people make them.

And did you read the thread I linked to? Because your reply doesn't seem to reflect on the fact that Varys has a penchant for misleading others in conversation, hence his words should be dissected very, very carefully.

I have, twice. I accept that it could have been any Aegon.

[Lord of Dragonstone]

You're right that literally the only piece of evidence that fAegon is real is the claim of Varys. You're absolutely wrong that the only evidence for the Blackfyre theory is that it's 'impossible' for Varys' story to be true.

The evidence is how incredibly unlikely Varys' story is, not that it's 'impossible,' which is a standard of doubt that can't be met. In addition to the implausibility of Varys' story are a few different instances of prophecy, a very compelling bit of foreshadowing, some interesting lines from Illyrio, and knowledge of the history of the Golden Company and Blackfyres. Putting all of these things together is decidedly not conjecture, by definition, as it based on several mutually supporting pieces of evidence.

Just how implausible Varys' story is, or how compelling the "hints" are, is subjective, and not at all conclusive evidence one way or another, IMO.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Read the OP again. The Blackfyre theory is the one that's based on supposition and prophecies that just don't happen or that can be interpreted a hundred ways.

See previous point.

Read the Op again.

Literally your entire OP is constructed as a response to arguments made in favor of the Blackfyre theory. I've tried to get you to understand the distinction between arguing against evidence and providing evidence of your own, but you have persistently failed to show any understanding of this concept.

Again prophecies and lines that can be interpreted a hundred and one ways. Just because you consider that the cloth dragon is Aegon doesn't mean it really is him, you'll need a line from a PoV character or an SSM outright confirming it.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The above is not evidence, it's a not very good attempt to counter evidence in support of the Blackfyre theory. It's an attempt which doesn't even bother appealing to the text, but instead just says 'it could be something else.'

I challenge you to offer a single piece of evidence for fAegon being real that isn't 'Varys says so' or 'Blackfyre theory is wrong because could could could...' -you won't be able to do it.

Just how implausible Varys' story is, or how compelling the "hints" are, is subjective, and not at all conclusive evidence one way or another, IMO.

What is not subjective is the amount of evidence for either side. It's Varys' word against several distinct pieces of evidence.

I think if you took any single piece in isolation you might say it's not conclusive, but to believe that many distinct pieces in concordance with one another fails to constitute an exceptionally compelling case is to operate under an unreasonably extreme standard of doubt.

[Chatty Duelist]

Literally your entire OP is constructed as a response to arguments made in favor of the Blackfyre theory. I've tried to get you to understand the distinction between arguing against evidence and providing evidence of your own, but you have persistently failed to show any understanding of this concept.

My objective was to point out the fallacies in the Blackfyre theory, beat down on them and prove that Aegon is real in the process. The Wildfire plot worked exactly as intended.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The above is not evidence, it's a not very good attempt to counter evidence in support of the Blackfyre theory. It's an attempt which doesn't even bother appealing to the text, but instead just says 'it could be something else.'

I challenge you to offer a single piece of evidence for fAegon being real that isn't 'Varys says so' or 'Blackfyre theory is wrong because could could could...' -you won't be able to do it.

His Targaryen features.

His characteristic Targaryen impulsiveness and temper.

The Blackfyre theory also relies on could's and if's.

"Illyrio's wife could be a Blackfyre!"

"Varys's could be a Blackfyre!"

"The cloth dragon could be Aegon!"

"Aegon could be fake completely!"

"Quaithe could be talking about Aegon!"

Yet i get blamed for coming up with no inconclusive evidence yet you rely on the exact same inconclusive evidence.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

My objective was to point out the fallacies in the Blackfyre theory, beat down on them and prove that Aegon is real in the process. The Wildfire plot worked exactly as intended.

Yes, I know this is what your objective was. That's exactly what I said in response to your claim that the OP contained evidence that fAegon is real. My point, again, is that arguing against him being a Blackfyre is not an argument for him being real.

His Targaryen features.

His characteristic Targaryen impulsiveness and temper.

The Blackfyre theory also relies on could's and if's.

"Illyrio's wife could be a Blackfyre!"

"Varys's could be a Blackfyre!"

"The cloth dragon could be Aegon!"

"Aegon could be fake completely!"

"Quaithe could be talking about Aegon!"

Yet i get blamed for coming up with no inconclusive evidence yet you rely on the exact same inconclusive evidence.

Right, so what we have here are two attempts at positive evidence which aren't evidence at all (he has Valyrian features which are common in the Free Cities and we have no evidence that personality traits in fact run in families), and then you revert to attacking the Blackfyre theory, which is exactly what I'm criticizing about your method.

[Chatty Duelist]

Yes, I know this is what your objective was. That's exactly what I said in response to your claim that the OP contained evidence that fAegon is real. My point, again, is that arguing against him being a Blackfyre is not an argument for him being real.

A valid point.

Right, so what we have here are two attempts at positive evidence which aren't evidence at all (he has Valyrian features which are common in the Free Cities and we have no evidence that personality traits in fact run in families), and then you revert to attacking the Blackfyre theory, which is exactly what I'm criticizing about your method.

You got me there.

Though there is GRRM staying deliberately ambiguous on the issue of Aegon's death. Neither confirming nor denying, though not evidence; food for thought.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

See above post.

You mean the posts where other posters say that mummer's, cloth dragon as a game has no importace about Dany and actually refers to FAegon? Those posts?

Senior branch, not main line. They are distant relatices now and forever. My cousin's descendants will be my relatives now and forever.

Distand relatives yes, but you will never be the same.

See above post.

Like? Still no quote from you :) Just a reminder

"That may be. Or not." Kevan Lannister had been here, in this very hall when Tywin had laid the bodies of Prince Rhaegar's children at the foot of the Iron Throne, wrapped up in crimson cloaks. The girl had been recognizably the Princess Rhaenys, but the boy . . . a faceless horror of bone and brain and gore, a few hanks of fair hair. None of us looked long. Tywin said that it was Prince Aegon, and we took him at his word." They aren't sure that it really is him, they just take Tywin's word for it.

And where it says that they knew that it wasn't Aegon or didn't looked like Aegon?

When Aegon flips over the table, Tyrion thinks "He might just be a Targaryen after all."

Still there are 2 years missing. How do you explain that?

BTW: Tyrion has never met a Targ so everything he knows about them is stories, just like we know for example that people from X have the Y characteristics, does this means that all people with Y chracteristics are from X country? But regardless FAegon is 1-2 years younger than Aegon.

See above post.

Which one?

They are descended in the female line from the Targs (Orys, Robert's grandmother).

That means that they don't have the blood because they are from the female line? Also Orys' father was a Targ. By your logic (Blackfyres are from male line so they are Targs) the Baratheons who came from Orys' line are Targs too.

Read your posts again and ask yourself if they're really civil.

Yes I think that they are. They may be sarcastic but civil nevertheless.

[aceluby]

I hope you all realize that no matter what you think about Aegon, nobody is right or wrong until the freaking book comes out. That's the most infuriating thing about many users/theories here, that they claim evidence for a theory because that's what they want it to be, everyone should accept it as proven fact, and everyone else is wrong.

Theories are not fact, no matter how much 'evidence' you think you have for it. Stop telling others they are wrong when you are likely wrong yourself.

Exactly the reason why I always leave it to be open. The only theory that I truly accept as true is R+L=J. Aegon might be real, he might be fake, and it may never be revealed. I used to believe (f)Aegon, but after my re-read I'm back on the fence and see plenty of possibilities for either to happen.

[Chatty Duelist]

You mean the posts where other posters say that mummer's, cloth dragon as a game has no importace about Dany and actually refers to FAegon? Those posts?

The posts that say that a mummer's dragon is a Dragon though a puppet Dragon, the posts that say that she could be referring to someone else entirely or the posts saying that she could be flat out wrong entirely.

Distand relatives yes, but you will never be the same.

But relatives all the same.

Like? Still no quote from you :) Just a reminder

The fact that it's ambiguous. It could be that it refers to Aegon son of Rhaegar or another Aegon entirely.

And where it says that they knew that it wasn't Aegon or didn't looked like Aegon?

The quotes i can't find because i'm too lazy to go looking for it in the book.

Still there are 2 years missing. How do you explain that?

As if Tyrion could just go and tell the exact age of people. I dare you go and plan guess some random dude's age.

BTW: Tyrion has never met a Targ so everything he knows about them is stories, just like we know for example that people from X have the Y characteristics, does this means that all people with Y chracteristics are from X country? But regardless FAegon is 1-2 years younger than Aegon.

See above quote on Tyrion. And i can safely go and look at a man with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin and say he's from a place where blue eyed pale blondes are common so Northern Europe or Any place in the West.

Which one?

Every single one.

That means that they don't have the blood because they are from the female line? Also Orys' father was a Targ. By your logic (Blackfyres are from male line so they are Targs) the Baratheons who came from Orys' line are Targs too.

No, because Orys was a Baratheon, a half-brother to Aegon, so had some Targ blood, going from that i can safely assume that all Baratheons descended from Orys had some Targaryen blood in them. They're relatives, half-cousins.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

:agree: If Blackfyres=Red Targaryen dragons, then the stag, the sun, the seahorse are dragons too. Which is simply :bs: for me.

It was called a friggin joke, fer craps sake, that part of the post, but by all means, why not wave the BS flag some more and tell the OP and everyone else THE END, afterall it certainly seems like we need your permission to post, whether it be seriously or tongue in cheek, or both. I'm not sure why it seems that no one is allowed to discuss the possiblity, pro and con on this subject, for you. I posted more about it than the one sentence you cherry picked out of that particular post, not to mention..........more thoughts on general in different posts a little bit throughout the thread. Whatever. I'm not sure why you felt the need to pick one sentence out of the post that was obviously a joke, and then wave the BS flag at me, but......whatever.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

It was called a friggin joke, fer craps sake, that part of the post, but by all means, why not wave the BS flag some more and tell the OP and everyone else THE END, afterall it certainly seems like we need your permission to post, whether it be seriously or tongue in cheek, or both. I'm not sure why it seems that no one is allowed to discuss the possiblity, pro and con on this subject, for you. I posted more about it than the one sentence you cherry picked out of that particular post, not to mention..........more thoughts on general in different posts a little bit throughout the thread. Whatever. I'm not sure why you felt the need to pick one sentence out of the post that was obviously a joke, and then wave the BS flag at me, but......whatever.

I think that you misunderstood. I agree with you. Many characters have Targaryen blood but they are not Targs. Baratheons, Martells and Velaryon has Targaryen blood. Does this make them Targs?

[Lord of Dragonstone]

What is not subjective is the amount of evidence for either side. It's Varys' word against several distinct pieces of evidence.

I think if you took any single piece in isolation you might say it's not conclusive, but to believe that many distinct pieces in concordance with one another fails to constitute an exceptionally compelling case is to operate under an unreasonably extreme standard of doubt.

Varys has no reason to lie to a dead man, and he explicitly says Aegon is real. While technically only one piece of evidence, it is a very strong piece of evidence.

Is Varys' story impossible? No. Is it implausible? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think if Varys wanted to save Aegon, he could have pulled it off while making everyone think he was dead.

The Golden Company was originally founded by Blackfyres, but that doesn't mean that with no true Blackfyres left they'd be willing to back any dragon, black or red, in order to return to Westeros.

Beware the Mummer's Dragon- this could be referring to Aegon being played by Varys, not necessarily that his lineage is fake. Also, it might not even refer to Aegon. If Melisandre ever wakens that "stone dragon" perhaps that is what is meant by the fake dragon. Prophecy is far from clear, and until whatever it's referring to actually comes about I don't think it can be taken as evidence for one thing or another.

Also, while we're on the topic of prophecies, if the dragon indeed has three heads, assuming Dany and Jon are the first two, who would be the third, if not Aegon?

[Chatty Duelist]

Beware the Mummer's Dragon- this could be referring to Aegon being played by Varys, not necessarily that his lineage is fake. Also, it might not even refer to Aegon. If Melisandre ever wakens that "stone dragon" perhaps that is what is meant by the fake dragon. Prophecy is far from clear, and until whatever it's referring to actually comes about I don't think it can be taken as evidence for one thing or another.

Also, while we're on the topic of prophecies, if the dragon indeed has three heads, assuming Dany and Jon are the first two, who would be the third, if not Aegon?

I agree with you.

[Sordelor]

Varys has no reason to lie to a dead man, and he explicitly says Aegon is real. While technically only one piece of evidence, it is a very strong piece of evidence.

Is Varys' story impossible? No. Is it implausible? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think if Varys wanted to save Aegon, he could have pulled it off while making everyone think he was dead.

The Golden Company was originally founded by Blackfyres, but that doesn't mean that with no true Blackfyres left they'd be willing to back any dragon, black or red, in order to return to Westeros.

Beware the Mummer's Dragon- this could be referring to Aegon being played by Varys, not necessarily that his lineage is fake. Also, it might not even refer to Aegon. If Melisandre ever wakens that "stone dragon" perhaps that is what is meant by the fake dragon. Prophecy is far from clear, and until whatever it's referring to actually comes about I don't think it can be taken as evidence for one thing or another.

Also, while we're on the topic of prophecies, if the dragon indeed has three heads, assuming Dany and Jon are the first two, who would be the third, if not Aegon?

Did he ever say Aegon Targaryen? Did he have a reason to tell anything in the first place?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I hope you all realize that no matter what you think about Aegon, nobody is right or wrong until the freaking book comes out. That's the most infuriating thing about many users/theories here, that they claim evidence for a theory because that's what they want it to be, everyone should accept it as proven fact, and everyone else is wrong.

Theories are not fact, no matter how much 'evidence' you think you have for it. Stop telling others they are wrong when you are likely wrong yourself.

I totally agree with that. It could go either way, most any of them could. Yes, there are certain theories that look more likely than others, etc., but I'm not sure I understand the harm in thinking about them, and looking at the pros and cons of one idea or another, whether it be FAegon or......everyone is a secret Targ.

I will LMAO if this crap never gets answered, just sayin'!! It'd be funny as hell, and well..........sometimes I wonder why I'm even bothering to wait to read the last books, there are so many who seem willing to assure others exactly how it will all turn out. Someone contact GRRM, no need for more books, we're done? :dunno: