R+L=J v.164

[IceFire125]

Aegon or Jaehaerys is a good Targaryen name for Jon.

But I'm still of the opinion that Aemon is his name until I see it in the text saying other wise...

Maester Aemon sighed. “Have you heard nothing I’ve told you, Jon? Do you think you are the first?” He shook his ancient head, a gesture weary beyond words. “Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. By then my strength was fled, my eyes grown dim, yet that last choice was as cruel as the first. My ravens would bring the news from the south, words darker than their wings, the ruin of my House, the death of my kin, disgrace and desolation. What could I have done, old, blind, frail? I was helpless as a suckling babe, yet still it grieved me to sit forgotten as they cut down my brother’s poor grandson, and his son, and even the little children …”

Jon was helpless as a suckling babe in the tower of joy when his house fell into ruin.

[J. Stargaryen]

7 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

Aegon or Jaehaerys is a good Targaryen name for Jon.

But I'm still of the opinion that Aemon is his name until I see it in the text saying other wise...

Maester Aemon sighed. “Have you heard nothing I’ve told you, Jon? Do you think you are the first?” He shook his ancient head, a gesture weary beyond words. “Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. By then my strength was fled, my eyes grown dim, yet that last choice was as cruel as the first. My ravens would bring the news from the south, words darker than their wings, the ruin of my House, the death of my kin, disgrace and desolation. What could I have done, old, blind, frail? I was helpless as a suckling babe, yet still it grieved me to sit forgotten as they cut down my brother’s poor grandson, and his son, and even the little children …”

Jon was helpless as a suckling babe in the tower of joy when his house fell into ruin.

I've pointed out this parallel before too. If Jon's real name is Aemon then that is probably the point of this parallel. But this parallel, really the whole scene, works just as well if you read it as Maester Aemon counseling an Aegon.

[Lord Varys]

49 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Fair enough. Agreed about the first King Aemon, too. I think one of the issue with reading GRRM is that it's hard to know when he's playing it straight, and when he's being ironic. For example, when Jon thinks to himself, nor was he Aemon Targaryen. Is that irony or not? I think that line might well be a hint regarding his Targaryen name, but I don't see how we're supposed to know for sure if GRRM was playing it straight or being ironic. At least not until we know Jon's Targaryen name.

Even if he had planned for another name - if I were him and realizing the irony there I'd retroactively pick the name Aemon.

49 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

One thing I'm certain of is that Jon Snow is a placeholder for his Targaryen name, regardless of who named him. It's no coincidence that Jon Snow immediately reminds the reader of the John Doe placeholder.

That is a pretty good point. But he could still be named after Jon Connington ;-).

49 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Also, I think your arguments about Lyanna being unwilling to give Jon a Targaryen name on her own make little sense in light of the fact that she was having a Targaryen child. That constitutes motive right there. You're welcome to speculate about why you think she wouldn't have done so, but the fact still remains. And then combine that with likelihood that Jon does have a Targaryen name.

Lyanna was having Rhaegar's child. Not a Targaryen child. It may have been a bastard. Even if not, the important Targaryen in Lyanna's life was Rhaegar, not the house or the dynasty. Maester Aemon or Jaehaerys II are nothing to her. In that sense I still think that if she picked a Targaryen name on her own it would have been Rhaegar rather than Aegon.

That is why I think she and Rhaegar agreed on a name before Rhaegar returned to KL.

49 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Also, if Lyanna wanted to give the baby a Stark name, then there would have been no reason for Ned to change it to Jon. Rickard or Brandon Snow works just as well, and would have made an awful lot of sense coming from Ned.

Yeah, that's correct.

By the way, I'd laugh my ass off if Jon was another Aerys Targaryen.

[IceFire125]

23 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've pointed out this parallel before too. If Jon's real name is Aemon then that is probably the point of this parallel. But this parallel, really the whole scene, works just as well if you read it as Maester Aemon counseling an Aegon.

Likewise when he counseled Jon before leaving the wall is another parallel that befits an Aegon.  So both Aegon and Aemon does work and I can see GRRM create pathways from and for each name to be Jon's. 

[J. Stargaryen]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if he had planned for another name - if I were him and realizing the irony there I'd retroactively pick the name Aemon.

I'd say GRRM was well aware of the potential irony when he wrote that line, because he was purposely employing it. Meaning that Jon's real name is Aemon Targaryen. But he may have been playing the line straight; i.e., Jon is not an Aemon Targaryen. In which case he'd also likely be aware of the irony.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a pretty good point. But he could still be named after Jon Connington ;-).

Nah. GRRM has stated that Ned gave Jon his name.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Lyanna was having Rhaegar's child. Not a Targaryen child. It may have been a bastard. Even if not, the important Targaryen in Lyanna's life was Rhaegar, not the house or the dynasty. Maester Aemon or Jaehaerys II are nothing to her. In that sense I still think that if she picked a Targaryen name on her own it would have been Rhaegar rather than Aegon.

These aren't different things, since Rhaegar was a Targaryen. So, having Rhaegar's child means having a Targaryen child. You can't separate the two. And even if the child is a bastard, it's still a Targaryen bastard. So the motive still exists. I would agree that the motive to give Jon a Targaryen name is even stronger if he is legitimate. But regardless, the motive exists either way.

Aside from the Freys, how many cases of a child being named after the father do we have? Actually, now that I think of it, are any of Walder's sons named after him, or is it just grandsons? Also, as far as we know, has it ever happened with the Starks or Targaryens? Without any such examples, we have no reason to believe that it would happen with Jon. Further, I'm unaware of any text hinting at this possibility. Naming the child after the father just doesn't seem to be a thing that happens much, if at all, in the ASoIaF universe.

Quote

That is why I think she and Rhaegar agreed on a name before Rhaegar returned to KL.

This makes sense. But the possibility that Rhaegar incorrectly assumed the gender and role of the baby fits perfectly in line with Rhaegar's character and prior interpretations of prophecy.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

By the way, I'd laugh my ass off if Jon was another Aerys Targaryen.

That would certainly give Lyanna reason to ignore Rhaegar's wishes and choose a different name for her baby.

23 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Likewise when he counseled Jon before leaving the wall is another parallel that befits an Aegon.  So both Aegon and Aemon does work and I can see GRRM create pathways from and for each name to be Jon's. 

Completely agree. Both versions make a lot of sense for different reasons.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'd say GRRM was well aware of the potential irony when he wrote that line, because he was purposely employing it. Meaning that Jon's real name is Aemon Targaryen. But he may have been playing the line straight; i.e., Jon is not an Aemon Targaryen. In which case he'd also likely be aware of the irony.

Sure, but the thing is that we don't know when exactly he decided on Jon's true name. There is no reason to believe he had that name in his notes from the start. He likes to play around with details as long as he can. Things are only fixed when they are in print. And even then they can be changed.

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Nah. GRRM has stated that Ned gave Jon his name.

Yes, Jon Snow. But what about Jon Targaryen or Jon Sand or Jon Waters or whatever Rhaegar's son would have been named at his birth.

Ned could have just confirmed a naming choice Rhaegar/Lyanna made. Not that I consider that very likely.

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

These aren't different things, since Rhaegar was a Targaryen. So, having Rhaegar's child means having a Targaryen child. You can't separate the two. And even if the child is a bastard, it's still a Targaryen bastard. So the motive still exists. I would agree that the motive to give Jon a Targaryen name is even stronger if he is legitimate. But regardless, the motive exists either way.

We can separate these two things. People love people, not houses or dynasties, and Lyanna loved Rhaegar and may have hated Aerys II.

If I were female and we would have child I'd have, in a sense, your child but not the child of your family or house. Lyanna has no reason to think of her child by Rhaegar as a 'Targaryen child'. Especially not in light of the fact that House Targaryen was a mortal enemy of House Stark around the time that child was born.

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Aside from the Freys, how many cases of a child being named after the father do we have? Actually, now that I think of it, are any of Walder's sons named after him, or is it just grandsons? Also, as far as we know, has it ever happened with the Starks or Targaryens? Without any such examples, we have no reason to believe that it would happen with Jon. Further, I'm unaware of any text hinting at this possibility. Naming the child after the father just doesn't seem to be a thing that happens much, if at all, in the ASoIaF universe.

It happens, although you usually use variations of the name and not exactly the same name. But Lyanna's son was a special case in the sense that his father predeceased his son. Usually you don't honor a living guy by recycling the name (there aren't any Aegons who had a son named Aegon as far as I recall right now) however you do honor late family members and living grandparents in this fashion.

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

This makes sense. But the possibility that Rhaegar incorrectly assumed the gender and role of the baby fits perfectly in line with Rhaegar's character and prior interpretations of prophecy.

Nope, because it total conjecture that Rhaegar wanted to recreate Aegon and his sisters or expected there to be one male head (the promised prince) and two female dragon heads. There is no textual evidence indicating that. In fact, we don't even know who the first dragon head was supposed to be. Aegon was the second, apparently, but was Rhaenys the first? Or Viserys (as I tend to think)? Or Rhaegar himself? We don't know.

Maester Aemon think he could have been one of the dragon heads if he hadn't been so old when he learned about Daenerys. There is no reason to believe the Targaryens were as limited in their imaginations as to how this prophecy thing was to unfold as we tend to think they were.

22 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

That would certainly give Lyanna reason to ignore Rhaegar's wishes and choose a different name for her baby.

Depends. If they wanted to honor King Aerys I, the man who most likely rediscovered the prophecy about the promised prince it could work. It is not that most likeliest scenario by far but if George wanted to go down that route (and have another good Aerys in the story) he could make it work.

[J. Stargaryen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but the thing is that we don't know when exactly he decided on Jon's true name. There is no reason to believe he had that name in his notes from the start. He likes to play around with details as long as he can. Things are only fixed when they are in print. And even then they can be changed.

Sure, we don't know. But I would be very surprised if he didn't know by the time AGoT was published.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, Jon Snow. But what about Jon Targaryen or Jon Sand or Jon Waters or whatever Rhaegar's son would have been named at his birth.

Ned could have just confirmed a naming choice Rhaegar/Lyanna made. Not that I consider that very likely.

So you're saying Ned might have just come up with the "Snow" part of the name? Come on... Plus, I'm pretty sure GRRM was answering about first names. I also think the Rhaegar-JonCon relationship is a lot more one sided than some people imagine. If Rhaegar was so close to JonCon, why wasn't he with him when Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna? Not to mention, we know who Rhaegar's BFF was, Arthur Dayne. Who the hell names their kid after maybe their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best friend?

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can separate these two things. People love people, not houses or dynasties, and Lyanna loved Rhaegar and may have hated Aerys II.

If I were female and we would have child I'd have, in a sense, your child but not the child of your family or house. Lyanna has no reason to think of her child by Rhaegar as a 'Targaryen child'. Especially not in light of the fact that House Targaryen was a mortal enemy of House Stark around the time that child was born.

No, this is just wrong. Being Rhaegar's child makes Jon a Targaryen by blood, if not by right. If R&L were married Lyanna would absolutely consider Jon a Targaryen, because that's exactly what he would be by all the customs and laws of the 7K. Any argument to the contrary is both wrong, and a waste of time.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It happens, although you usually use variations of the name and not exactly the same name. But Lyanna's son was a special case in the sense that his father predeceased his son. Usually you don't honor a living guy by recycling the name (there aren't any Aegons who had a son named Aegon as far as I recall right now) however you do honor late family members and living grandparents in this fashion.

Right. There's no reason to believe that Jon's real name is Rhaegar Jr. It just doesn't happen in this universe. Or if it does it's exceedingly rare. And even then, there's no text to support that this would be the exception.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, because it total conjecture that Rhaegar wanted to recreate Aegon and his sisters or expected there to be one male head (the promised prince) and two female dragon heads. There is no textual evidence indicating that. In fact, we don't even know who the first dragon head was supposed to be. Aegon was the second, apparently, but was Rhaenys the first? Or Viserys (as I tend to think)? Or Rhaegar himself? We don't know.

It's textually supported conjecture. Rightly or wrongly, it's a commonly held belief that Rhaegar was intending on recreating the Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys trio. I don't understand how you can dismiss this textually supported line of reasoning, and then argue that Jon's real name is Rhaegar Jr.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Maester Aemon think he could have been one of the dragon heads if he hadn't been so old when he learned about Daenerys. There is no reason to believe the Targaryens were as limited in their imaginations as to how this prophecy thing was to unfold as we tend to think they were.

Yes, this is true. We don't know for sure what the prophecy means, or exactly how Rhaegar was interpreting it after Dany's HotU vision. But in more than one place the text seems to indicate, rightly or wrongly, that the THotD are a trio of Targaryens. And we also know that Rhaegar, upon having his second child, stated that There must be one more. The dragon has three heads. It's possible that it's a red herring. Or maybe it's not so much a red herring, as an indication that we have correctly interpreted Rhaegar's beliefs/intentions regarding the prophecy, but that he was mistaken in his formulation of the THotD. That is, "THotD" means a trio of Targaryens, but it's clearly not meant to be Rhaegar's children. Further, they need not be siblings, as Aegon I and his sisters were.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Depends. If they wanted to honor King Aerys I, the man who most likely rediscovered the prophecy about the promised prince it could work. It is not that most likeliest scenario by far but if George wanted to go down that route (and have another good Aerys in the story) he could make it work.

Sure, I guess that could be true.

[Lord Varys]

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Sure, we don't know. But I would be very surprised if he didn't know by the time AGoT was published.

I doubt that we'll ever know that. But I could imagine him actually discussing with himself what kind of name would suit Jon best. Just like we are doing here. And things do change.

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

So you're saying Ned might have just come up with the "Snow" part of the name? Come on... Plus, I'm pretty sure GRRM was answering about first names. I also think the Rhaegar-JonCon relationship is a lot more one sided than some people imagine. If Rhaegar was so close to JonCon, why wasn't he with him when Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna? Not to mention, we know who Rhaegar's BFF was, Arthur Dayne. Who the hell names their kid after maybe their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best friend?

Sure, I don't find that very likely, either. But using SSMs as 'evidence' isn't worth much in that context. George is not bound by them nor obligated to 'cite from scripture' in casual conversation.

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

No, this is just wrong. Being Rhaegar's child makes Jon a Targaryen by blood, if not by right. If R&L were married Lyanna would absolutely consider Jon a Targaryen, because that's exactly what he would be by all the customs and laws of the 7K. Any argument to the contrary is both wrong, and a waste of time.

But she doesn't have to care about that fact. Just as she didn't give a damn about the honor of her house and the promise to marry Lord Robert Baratheon (assuming she wasn't exactly 'abducted', actually in love with Rhaegar, and became his wife without coercion). What makes you think a woman who is willing to do such things out of love would care about the family name and bloodline of her son? In her mind her child might be Rhaegar's son and a Stark, not a Targaryen. Even more so after she realized that he looked nothing like a Targaryen.

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Right. There's no reason to believe that Jon's real name is Rhaegar Jr. It just doesn't happen in this universe. Or if it does it's exceedingly rare. And even then, there's no text to support that this would be the exception.

But it is not impossible. Especially not for an unconventional woman like Lyanna. And the point of that is that the idea to name her son after his late father must be much more powerful an idea in her head than the possibility to name him Aegon, after the son of her own rival Elia Martell.

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

It's textually supported conjecture. Rightly or wrongly, it's a commonly held belief that Rhaegar was intending on recreating the Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys trio. I don't understand how you can dismiss this textually supported line of reasoning, and then argue that Jon's real name is Rhaegar Jr.

I don't argue for Rhaegar Jr. I just entertain that idea, considering it more likely than Lyanna picking the name Aegon all by herself.

This Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys trio idea is a theory that goes back to ACoK and ASoS. Maester Aemon's words in AFfC should actually put that theory to rest because there is no hint whatsoever that anybody (Rhaegar included) ever believed the three dragon heads have to be (half-)siblings. Or be one male and two females.

56 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Yes, this is true. We don't know for sure what the prophecy means, or exactly how Rhaegar was interpreting it after Dany's HotU vision. But in more than one place the text seems to indicate, rightly or wrongly, that the THotD are a trio of Targaryens. And we also know that Rhaegar, upon having his second child, stated that There must be one more. The dragon has three heads. It's possible that it's a red herring. Or maybe it's not so much a red herring, as an indication that we have correctly interpreted Rhaegar's beliefs/intentions regarding the prophecy, but that he was mistaken in his formulation of the THotD. That is, "THotD" means a trio of Targaryens, but it's clearly not meant to be Rhaegar's children. Further, they need not be siblings, as Aegon I and his sisters were.

Rhaegar tells us in the vision that there must be one more. Now, his royal parents had been trying to have children for years and no longer had sex on a regular basis, not to mention that Rhaella was nearly forty around the time she died. If there was a guy who could continue the line of House Targaryen it was Rhaegar. Or so he may have thought. After all, the promised prince and the other dragon heads could just as well be later children by Aerys-Rhaella or even the children of Viserys. No prophecy ever said Rhaegar played an important role in all that.

Aegon, Rhaenys, and Viserys already were three guys not that far apart in age, right? What is more likely - that Rhaegar thought two of the dragon heads had to be women when it is clear that they all believed the promised prince had to be male (which might have been an error)? Or that he thought the heads were Viserys, Aegon, and the third son he wanted to have? After all, we also know from Kevan's Epilogue that Rhaegar wanted sons, plural. Why should he have wanted sons if he wanted to recreate Aegon and his sister-wives?

[Shmedricko]

A little while ago, I took the previous two posts I made on these threads about Jon's true name (Post 1, Post 2) and wrote up a much more detailed analysis on the theory that Jon's birth name is Aemon Targaryen, which I posted to Reddit. Here's the link if anyone is interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6n3sip/spoilers_extended_his_true_name_a_detailed/

There's talk about the show at the very end and in the comments, so if you're avoiding that then just stop reading once you reach "The Show" header. Everything before that is strictly about the books.

[J. Stargaryen]

3 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

A little while ago, I took the previous two posts I made on these threads about Jon's true name (Post 1, Post 2) and wrote up a much more detailed analysis on the theory that Jon's birth name is Aemon Targaryen, which I posted to Reddit. Here's the link if anyone is interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6n3sip/spoilers_extended_his_true_name_a_detailed/

There's talk about the show at the very end and in the comments, so if you're avoiding that then just stop reading once you reach "The Show" header. Everything before that is strictly about the books.

That's a really good post. It makes a very strong case for Aemon. Might be worth a link in your sig. The only thing I don't buy is about the show using a different name, but I guess it can't be ruled out. This isn't a middling character, and this won't be a middling revelation. I don't see the benefit in changing it here, whereas the other times made some sense.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I doubt that we'll ever know that. But I could imagine him actually discussing with himself what kind of name would suit Jon best. Just like we are doing here. And things do change.

Okay, let's actually talk about that for a second. Leaving aside the reasons for ruling out Aegon, especially at first glance, it is the Targaryen name. So if you have a super special male Targaryen in the story, Aegon ought to be the leading candidate for his name. Unless GRRM gives us a good reason for it not to be, which he did. But it looks to me like that reason is not nearly as solid as it would first appear to be.

Quote

Sure, I don't find that very likely, either. But using SSMs as 'evidence' isn't worth much in that context. George is not bound by them nor obligated to 'cite from scripture' in casual conversation.

Except he straight up said that Ned named Jon. And as @Shmedricko's link shows, the text even points to Ned naming Jon after his mentor, Jon Arryn. I'm not really interested in the "we don't/can't know for 100000000000000% sure" type of discussions, as that applies to everything. Unless we have a good reason to doubt a straightforward answer from GRRM, I'm not going to do so. If that turns out to be an error on my part, so be it. But I'd rather make such an error in an attempt to move a discussion forward, than play it safe and spin my wheels at the starting line.

Quote

But she doesn't have to care about that fact. Just as she didn't give a damn about the honor of her house and the promise to marry Lord Robert Baratheon (assuming she wasn't exactly 'abducted', actually in love with Rhaegar, and became his wife without coercion). What makes you think a woman who is willing to do such things out of love would care about the family name and bloodline of her son? In her mind her child might be Rhaegar's son and a Stark, not a Targaryen. Even more so after she realized that he looked nothing like a Targaryen.

Honestly, there's just nothing but rank speculation here. Nothing that remotely challenges the fact that Jon's certainly a Targaryen by blood (bastard), and quite possibly a Targaryen by rights (legitimate). Once such a clear motive has been established, which it has, I see no point in entertaining random what ifs.

Quote

But it is not impossible. Especially not for an unconventional woman like Lyanna. And the point of that is that the idea to name her son after his late father must be much more powerful an idea in her head than the possibility to name him Aegon, after the son of her own rival Elia Martell.

Working backwards, we can't say for sure if Lyanna and Elia were "rivals." But if they were, then quite a strong parallel emerges with Alicent and Rhaenyra. Bitter rivals, each with their own Aegon.

To the first point, once again naming the son after the father is just not something that happens in this universe. So you have no evidence to support this claim you are so fond of. In other words, the "idea" you suggest is completely baseless.

Quote

I don't argue for Rhaegar Jr. I just entertain that idea, considering it more likely than Lyanna picking the name Aegon all by herself.

She needn't have picked it "all by herself" though. I'd guess that Rhaegar indirectly influenced her choice. Or, maybe you were onto something when you called Lyanna and Elia rivals.

Quote

This Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys trio idea is a theory that goes back to ACoK and ASoS. Maester Aemon's words in AFfC should actually put that theory to rest because there is no hint whatsoever that anybody (Rhaegar included) ever believed the three dragon heads have to be (half-)siblings. Or be one male and two females.

Aemon is giving an opinion based on new information and circumstances. Aemon might well believe that he could have been one of the THotD simply because he was one of the only Targaryens left, and he knew Rhaegar's children couldn't be the THotD since they're dead. Much in the same way that he came to believe the PtwP could be a girl only after Dany's dragons were born. New information + new circumstances = new opinion. So what Aemon says and believes in ~300 AC doesn't tell us much about his and/or Rhaegar's beliefs some twenty years prior when a whole different set of circumstances existed.

Quote

Rhaegar tells us in the vision that there must be one more. Now, his royal parents had been trying to have children for years and no longer had sex on a regular basis, not to mention that Rhaella was nearly forty around the time she died. If there was a guy who could continue the line of House Targaryen it was Rhaegar. Or so he may have thought. After all, the promised prince and the other dragon heads could just as well be later children by Aerys-Rhaella or even the children of Viserys. No prophecy ever said Rhaegar played an important role in all that.

Rhaegar seemed to think he had a part to play in the prophecies, even if he changed his mind about which part.

Quote

Aegon, Rhaenys, and Viserys already were three guys not that far apart in age, right? What is more likely - that Rhaegar thought two of the dragon heads had to be women when it is clear that they all believed the promised prince had to be male (which might have been an error)? Or that he thought the heads were Viserys, Aegon, and the third son he wanted to have? After all, we also know from Kevan's Epilogue that Rhaegar wanted sons, plural. Why should he have wanted sons if he wanted to recreate Aegon and his sister-wives?

Because there's nothing to indicate Rhaegar thought Viserys was one of the heads in the HotU scene. The context is Rhaegar talking to his wife about the child she just bore him. I mean, if Rhaegar thought it was three males, then why not himself, Aegon and Viserys? Sorry, but I just don't see any reason to think Rhaegar believed Viserys had anything to do with the prophecies. In fact, do we ever get any indication of how Rhaegar regarded his brother?

[Maia]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys trio idea is a theory that goes back to ACoK and ASoS. Maester Aemon's words in AFfC should actually put that theory to rest because there is no hint whatsoever that anybody (Rhaegar included) ever believed the three dragon heads have to be (half-)siblings. Or be one male and two females.

Maester Aemon was speaking in very different situation and from a very different knowledge base, though - to wit, that the end of the world has arrived and that the person who most fit the "Promised Prince"  prophecy was an orphan girl with no siblings. It is no wonder that he was prepared to interpret "the 3 heads" issue much more broadly at that point and proves nothing re: Rhaegar's beliefs.

In fact, after tWoIaF I think that it is the other way round - i.e. that Rhaegar was convinced that the 3 heads _had_ to be siblings and that's what finally led him to conclusion that he wasn't TPP -  his parents inability to produce another living sibling for him. I agree that he may not have been dead-set on "2 females, one male" thing, since  he continued to consider himself TPP while having a brother. Transferring his expectations to the next generation may have re-set his views back  to the Conqueror trio, though. Or not.

Certainly, if Rhaegar foresaw having just one daughter by Lyanna, it would explain how he hoped to eventually reconcile everything without creating a Dance/Blackfyre situation.

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 After all, we also know from Kevan's Epilogue that Rhaegar wanted sons, plural. Why should he have wanted sons if he wanted to recreate Aegon and his sister-wives?

 

That was conjecture on Kevan's part, though.

 

4 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

To the first point, once again naming the son after the father is just not something that happens in this universe.

Umbers do it - GreatJon, SmallJon. Also Bastard Walder. But yea, it is rare.

4 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Because there's nothing to indicate Rhaegar thought Viserys was one of the heads in the HotU scene. The context is Rhaegar talking to his wife about the child she just bore him. I mean, if Rhaegar thought it was three males, then why not himself, Aegon and Viserys?

Indeed.

[J. Stargaryen]

10 minutes ago, Maia said:

That was conjecture on Kevan's part, though.

True. Though I've wondered in the past if it wasn't GRRM's way of priming the readers to associate Rhaegar with multiple sons. IIRC, Cersei thinks about how she would have given Rhaegar sons.

12 minutes ago, Maia said:

Umbers do it - GreatJon, SmallJon. Also Bastard Walder. But yea, it is rare.

I knew it had to have happened, and that I was likely technically exaggerating when I said it doesn't happen (at all). But I couldn't recall the specific examples with certainty. Thanks.

[Lord Varys]

Well, if we cut right down to chase then the only things speaking for the Aegon scenario are:

1. Rhaegar naming his eldest son Aegon because of the prophecy (which isn't what's said in the vision - Aegon is a name for a king, not a name for the promised prince/savior).

2. Lyanna caring for the prophecy and Rhaegar's interpretation of it (no textual evidence).

3. Lyanna knowing that Prince Aegon was dead by the time she named her son (no textual evidence).

4. Lyanna thinking Aegon would be a proper name for her child by Rhaegar (no textual evidence).

That is simply a weak case.

In fact, it is also a weak case to assume Lyanna on her own would care to choose a Targaryen name. If that was the case - which I don't think it is - then I find it much more likely she would pick the name Rhaegar (or perhaps a variation of it, like Rhaegel, Rhaegal, Rhaegor, or Rhaegon, etc.) than Aegon - or any other Targaryen. Because those Targaryens were all nothing to her.

But I don't think she made that decision all by herself. I think she and Rhaegar talked about a name before he left.

5 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Working backwards, we can't say for sure if Lyanna and Elia were "rivals." But if they were, then quite a strong parallel emerges with Alicent and Rhaenyra. Bitter rivals, each with their own Aegon.

They weren't rivals in the same sense. Aegon the Elder and Rhaenyra were rivals of the Iron Throne. Alicent was just an evil stepmother, basically. Lyanna and Elia both were giving Rhaegar children, vying for his affection, possibly both being his wives. Yet Rhaenys and Visenya didn't name both their sons Aegon, right?

5 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Aemon is giving an opinion based on new information and circumstances. Aemon might well believe that he could have been one of the THotD simply because he was one of the only Targaryens left, and he knew Rhaegar's children couldn't be the THotD since they're dead. Much in the same way that he came to believe the PtwP could be a girl only after Dany's dragons were born. New information + new circumstances = new opinion. So what Aemon says and believes in ~300 AC doesn't tell us much about his and/or Rhaegar's beliefs some twenty years prior when a whole different set of circumstances existed.

But that's the thing - we have no reason the old information favors the scenario of Rhaegar trying to recreate the Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys-trinity in any way, shape, or form. Where is there any textual evidence whatsoever indication that Rhaegar (or anyone) thought that Princess Rhaenys was special? I don't recall any such tidbit. And I've looked into that issue rather thoroughly.

What created that interpretation is the focus on Rhaegar and prophecy we get since ACoK. It is he who introduces us to the promised prince concept in ACoK. Selmy explores on the thing by telling us about Rhaegar reading a prophecy at an early age in ASoS. And then we get Aemon talking about how he and Rhaegar discussed the issue in letters, etc. in AFfC.

But ADwD and TWoIaF greatly expand on that whole issue. Suddenly we learn that the Targaryens were obsessed with this whole issue for a much longer time. That Aerys II and his sister-wife Rhaella were at the heart of the prophecy, being forced to marry each other because by the Ghost foretelling that the promised prince would be born from their line.

That broadens the entire issue. We no longer have to consider Rhaegar and his children as special but all descendants of Aerys II and Rhaella (and perhaps even more Targaryens than that because only the promised prince is supposed to be born from their line, not all the dragon heads).

Rhaegar and Aemon, etc. were justified to think Rhaegar and Rhaegar's son might be the promised prince because they were sons/grandsons of Aerys II and Rhaella.

But nothing whatsoever indicates that girls were ever considered to be important in relation to those prophecies. Not as candidates for the promised prince (obviously) but also not as the other two dragon heads.

5 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Rhaegar seemed to think he had a part to play in the prophecies, even if he changed his mind about which part.

He was justified in that as a son of Aerys II and Rhaella. But that doesn't mean he thought he also had produced the first dragon head, no?

5 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Because there's nothing to indicate Rhaegar thought Viserys was one of the heads in the HotU scene. The context is Rhaegar talking to his wife about the child she just bore him. I mean, if Rhaegar thought it was three males, then why not himself, Aegon and Viserys? Sorry, but I just don't see any reason to think Rhaegar believed Viserys had anything to do with the prophecies. In fact, do we ever get any indication of how Rhaegar regarded his brother?

Again, show me the evidence that Rhaegar thought Rhaenys were the first dragon head alongside Aegon. Don't you see what problems it causes if we think Rhaegar thought Rhaenys counted? Then there would already have been three Targaryens of the same generation - Viserys, Rhaenys, and Aegon. There would be no need for a third head.

And assuming Rhaegar just ignored his own brother in all this makes less sense than assume Rhaegar was somehow obsessed with his own importance as a sperm-donor. The prophecy of the Ghost referred to his own parents, not himself. Even more so in light of Kevan's remark.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Maester Aemon was speaking in very different situation and from a very different knowledge base, though - to wit, that the end of the world has arrived and that the person who most fit the "Promised Prince"  prophecy was an orphan girl with no siblings. It is no wonder that he was prepared to interpret "the 3 heads" issue much more broadly at that point and proves nothing re: Rhaegar's beliefs.

But nothing indicates that the Aemon/Rhaegar believed back in the 280s (or the Targaryens in general during the reign of Aerys II and Jaehaerys II) that those three dragon heads had to be siblings or would include females at all. One assumes that Aerys II and Rhaella (as well as their father) originally thought Aerys II and Rhaella would produce three healthy and strong sons and they would then fulfill the prophecy. That is why I think they so desperately wanted more children after Rhaegar (in addition to the dynastic reasons, of course). After all, the entire point of their marriage was to fulfill the Ghost's prophecy.

Now, we don't yet know what Aerys II thought about the prophecy - did he ever change his mind about Rhaegar being the promised prince? We don't know. But the whole thing could have been an important reason why he never moved against him despite the fact that grew to mistrust and fear him after Duskendale. Once Aerys II had another son and Rhaegar had produced another grandson Rhaegar was no longer really necessary to fulfill the prophecy. He could just be another placeholder or sperm-donor just as Aerys II had been.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

In fact, after tWoIaF I think that it is the other way round - i.e. that Rhaegar was convinced that the 3 heads _had_ to be siblings and that's what finally led him to conclusion that he wasn't TPP -  his parents inability to produce another living sibling for him. I agree that he may not have been dead-set on "2 females, one male" thing, since  he continued to consider himself TPP while having a brother. Transferring his expectations to the next generation may have re-set his views back  to the Conqueror trio, though. Or not.

We should not use that Visenya-Aegon-Rhaenys-trio-idea as a some kind of 'default setting' just because we are so familiar and comfortable with it. It is the first thing that springs to mind if you read the books and try to figure out the prophecies on your own, mostly because the Conqueror and his sister-wives are the most omnipresent 'old Targaryens' in the first couple of books. They are the founders of the dynasty and thus special, and Rhaegar really seems to be consciously naming his children after them.

But now we know that Rhaenys (or variations of that name) is the most common name for a Targaryen girl whereas Visenya never exactly became popular.

And the idea that the Conqueror and his sister-wives are in any way, shape, or form considered to be 'special' in relation to the prophecy is completely unfounded. Yes, the dragon has three heads, but that doesn't mean two have them have to be female like Visenya and Rhaenys were. Nor that they have to marry each other.

It may be that Dany marries both the other dragon heads, sort of mimicking the Conqueror in that respect but there is no hint that Rhaegar ever had any indication that his son Aegon was supposed to do a similar thing.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Certainly, if Rhaegar foresaw having just one daughter by Lyanna, it would explain how he hoped to eventually reconcile everything without creating a Dance/Blackfyre situation.

I don't really think Rhaegar cared about any of that. Taking Lyanna shows that he was not thinking with his head in all of that. Not at all. After all, taking her did create some sort of Dance/Blackfyre situation, no? 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

That was conjecture on Kevan's part, though.

But it is something we have to keep in mind. Kevan is well-connected enough to have known whether Rhaegar Targaryen wanted sons or not. Perhaps even more so after he saw the comet in the night of Aegon's conception but it is quite clear that he cared more about sons than Elia's health. Else he wouldn't have impregnated her as quickly as possible after she had recovered from the ordeal that was Rhaenys' birth.

[WeKnowNothing]

On 30 July 2017 at 4:27 PM, Lord Varys said:

In light of the Targearyen history it is very unlikely Rhaegar would have chosen Visenya as name for a girl. Rhaenyra was the only Targaryen to ever use that name again, and that only for a stillborn girl.

If I had to guess at a name for a girl I'm most inclined to believe that this would have been another Lyanna, or at least a Valyrian version of that name (say, something like Lyaena, or something of that sort). Rhaegar presumably loved Lyanna very much and we know that sometimes Targaryens get weirdo normal names like Joffrey or Duncan.

If he wanted a Targaryen name then he could have honored his own mother (Rhaella) or his grandmother (Shaera).

Rhaegar also named his other daughter Rhaenys - the last Rhaenys had been Princess Rhaenys 'the queen who never was,' who died in the Dance of Dragons almost 200 years ago. If Rhaegar wanted to name honour his mother or grandmother, I'm sure he would have named Rhaenys as such. But instead he picks a name that hasn't been used for over a century, meaning that just because a name hasn't been used for that long, doesn't mean that it won't be used again. Same for the name Visenya, it had last been used around the time Rhaenys had also last been used. 

On 30 July 2017 at 11:37 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Also, I think your arguments about Lyanna being unwilling to give Jon a Targaryen name on her own make little sense in light of the fact that she was having a Targaryen child. That constitutes motive right there. You're welcome to speculate about why you think she wouldn't have done so, but the fact still remains. And then combine that with likelihood that Jon does have a Targaryen name.

Also, if Lyanna wanted to give the baby a Stark name, then there would have been no reason for Ned to change it to Jon. Rickard or Brandon Snow works just as well, and would have made an awful lot of sense coming from Ned.

Maybe, maybe not. It's possible that Rhaegar was expecting a girl to be named Visenya. Maybe he was even certain of it. The same way he was certain that he was the PtwP, and then he was certain it was his son by Elia, yet was wrong about both. Maybe Lyanna realized that Rhaegar had gotten it wrong yet again, once he and his family were dead and she had given birth to a boy.

Again, maybe, maybe not. Maybe he insisted the child would be a girl, and he insisted that she be named Visenya. So certain was he that he didn't bother to pick a male name. You're welcome to assume all you'd like, but I see lots of room for possibility, even within your own guidelines.

That makes sense, assuming he picked a boy's name. Don't you think it's at least possible that Rhaegar was sure Lyanna would give him a girl? Because if he believed that, then he has no reason to hedge his bets and also choose a boy's name. Thus opening the window for Lyanna to make her own choice one she gives birth to a boy. Imagine that scenario combined with the knowledge that Rhaegar wanted his son and heir to be named Aegon.

IF Rhaegar chose a boy's name for Lyanna's child, I agree that Aemon is by far the most likely candidate. I also agree that Rhaegar would not have chosen Aegon for Lyanna's baby for the reasons you stated.

The reason why I feel Rhaegar picked both a boys name and a girls name, would be because if he wasn't the one to choose a boys name, it would have then been left to Lyanna to name the boy. Lyanna naming a boy means that it's very unlikely she would have picked a Targearyen name - the Targearyens mean nothing of importance to her (the only connection she has with them is being in love with Rhaegar) and she would have given her son a typical northern name, one of importance to her like Brandon or Rickard. Even if Rhaegar was dead and so was baby Aegon, there was still no reason for Lyanna to give him a Targearyen name. She was a Stark, and her baby part Stark, so she would have given the baby a Stark name. 

So if Jon has a Targearyen name, which we can be sure he does, then he was definitely named by Rhaegar. If Rhaegar didn't do so, then it would be left to Lyanna...and then he wouldn't have a Targearyen name at all.

we also don't know what Rhaegar expected of his child with Lyanna. He could have expected a girl, a boy, or either. It's just not enough text evidence at the moment to believe he wanted a girl in the first place. We only know he wanted a third child, but not anything about what gender he expected it to be.

Also, the belief that the Prince that was Promised being named 'Aegon' in particular doesn't make sense. Rhaegar names his first son as Aegon as it is a good name for a King. Him believing Aegon would be TPTWP was just an additional belief to whatever else he expected of his sons future. If the Targearyens really believed that TPTWP had to have the name Aegon, then they would have named Rhaegar as 'Aegon,' seeing as how they all believed Rhaegar to have be TPTWP in the first place.

[The Wolves]

Because I'll get answered faster in here, but I keep hearing that Jon is going to be a fire wight? Where did this come from and what is a fire wight? 

[SansaJonRule]

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

I have a question about succession laws in Westeros.  Once it is discovered that Jon is Sansa's cousin, and if it turns out he is a legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar, does that make his claim to heir of Winterfell stronger than Sansa's?  (In medieval Europe male cousins often if not usually were heir before a daughter.) Obviously it would mean Dany is not the last Targearyen, and Jon being the grandson of Aerys would make him the rightful Targearyen heir even over Aerys' daughter, right?

[Ygrain]

He would be an heir before Dany because the Targaryen succession placed women only after all male claimants. However, the succession in Westeros was different in this - Alys Karstark was the heir, not her uncle. Trueborn children take precedence before siblings, and thus before siblings' offspring, as well.

[Shmedricko]

5 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Because I'll get answered faster in here, but I keep hearing that Jon is going to be a fire wight? Where did this come from and what is a fire wight? 

In a recent interview with Time magazine, GRRM described Beric Dondarrion as follows:

"His memories are fading, he’s got all these scars, he’s becoming more and more physically hideous, because he’s not a living human being anymore. His heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing."

People are assuming Jon will be brought back in the exact same way as Beric, and therefore also be a fire wight, but of course that isn't necessarily the case. For one, if Jon's body were to die, his consciousness should go into Ghost for a second life just as Varamyr's consciousness went into One Eye, which wouldn't have happened with Beric. That alone could mean that Jon wouldn't be a fire wight even if Melisandre resurrected his body with the last kiss just like Thoros did to Beric (Jon's consciousness somehow being returned to his body during/after the process). But there are lots of possibilities here. For additional context, here is some more of the interview, which I will put behind a spoiler because it also contains talk about the show:

Spoiler

In my version of the story, Catelyn Stark is re-imbued with a kind of life and becomes this vengeful wight who galvanizes a group of people around her and is trying to exact her revenge on the riverlands.

[...]

So all that time I thought Gandalf was dead, and now he’s back and now he’s Gandalf the White. And, ehh, he’s more or less the same as always, except he’s more powerful. It always felt a little bit like a cheat to me. And as I got older and considered it more, it also seemed to me that death doesn’t make you more powerful. That’s, in some ways, me talking to Tolkien in the dialogue, saying, “Yeah, if someone comes back from being dead, especially if they suffer a violent, traumatic death, they’re not going to come back as nice as ever." That’s what I was trying to do, and am still trying to do, with the Lady Stoneheart character.

And Jon Snow, too, is drained by the experience of coming back from the dead on the show.

Right. And poor Beric Dondarrion, who was set up as the foreshadowing of all this, every time he’s a little less Beric. His memories are fading, he’s got all these scars, he’s becoming more and more physically hideous, because he’s not a living human being anymore. His heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing.

http://time.com/4791258/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin-interview/

[Jordan La Cabra]

5 hours ago, SansaJonRule said:

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

I have a question about succession laws in Westeros.  Once it is discovered that Jon is Sansa's cousin, and if it turns out he is a legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar, does that make his claim to heir of Winterfell stronger than Sansa's?  (In medieval Europe male cousins often if not usually were heir before a daughter.) Obviously it would mean Dany is not the last Targearyen, and Jon being the grandson of Aerys would make him the rightful Targearyen heir even over Aerys' daughter, right?

In my interpretation of it, Jon should have a better claim to Winterfell than Sansa, if he truly is the legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Despite that fact he may well be called Jaehaerys or Aemon Targaryen, as is being debated simultaneously in this thread, he is still a man of Stark blood, grandson to Lord Rickard and nephew to Lord Eddard.

To my knowledge, there was never a female Warden of the North or Queen in the North. So if Sansa was to become Lady of Winterfell instead of Jon and she was to marry someone from another house, that house would have a claim on Winterfell. As was planned with Tyrion when he married her. If they had a son together, their little Lannister baby would now be heir to Winterfell. Something I can't imagine pleasing the dead Starks down in the crypts. Then again, would they be pleased that the Mad King's nephew was Lord of Winterfell?

Luckily there is still a chance Bran could become Lord of Winterfell to save all the confusion, but after his time spent with the 3EC, whether he'd be up for it is a different matter.

[Maia]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that's the thing - we have no reason the old information favors the scenario of Rhaegar trying to recreate the Aegon-Visenya-Rhaenys-trinity in any way, shape, or form. Where is there any textual evidence whatsoever indication that Rhaegar (or anyone) thought that Princess Rhaenys was special?

 

At the time of her birth Rhaegar still considered himself to be TPP, so no, of course there is no such evidence. It was only the birth of Aegon and Rhaegar's new belief that his son, rather than himself was going to be TPP that retroactively made her special. But why did his views change? Only because of the comet? Or maybe also because at the time of Rhaenys's birth there was still  faint hope that he might get a second sibling?

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That broadens the entire issue. We no longer have to consider Rhaegar and his children as special but all descendants of Aerys II and Rhaella (and perhaps even more Targaryens than that because only the promised prince is supposed to be born from their line, not all the dragon heads).

If the Targaryens didn't believe that the dragon heads had to be from the line of Aerys and Rhaella also, then they already had a potential third head in one of the Baratheon brothers. Or Aerys could have just fathered a bastard/ aknowledged an existing one, of which there must have been some, given his youthful promiscuity and proven fertility. IMHO, it is fairly clear that they were convinced that all 3 heads had to be of A&R line - and wrong about it.

As an aside, Baratheons being unable to produce a girl must have been almost as bitter a disappointment to both Houses, as procreative difficulties of the royal couple.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, show me the evidence that Rhaegar thought Rhaenys were the first dragon head alongside Aegon. Don't you see what problems it causes if we think Rhaegar thought Rhaenys counted? Then there would already have been three Targaryens of the same generation - Viserys, Rhaenys, and Aegon. There would be no need for a third head.

 

Oh, but where is this requirement that 3 heads must be "of the same generation" come from, pray? You yourself insisted that Aemon's claims in AFFC that he could have been one of the dragon heads for Dany "proved" that he & Rhaegar didn't believe that the heads had to be siblings - well, by the same logic they also "proved" that they didn't believe that the dragon heads needed to be of the same, or even adjacent generations! . If only males counted, then with birth of Aegon Rhaegar already had his 3 Targaryen males. All from the line of A&R, even. So, why "There must be one more" then? If we are talking about spares for the other 2 dragon heads, then why fixation on only one? Why not 2 or more, just in case?

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Even more so in light of Kevan's remark. <snip> Kevan is well-connected enough to have known whether Rhaegar Targaryen wanted sons or not.

 

Kevan's remark is irrelevant, he (and Cersei) just ascribed to Rhaegar motives that made sense to them. Rhaegar was on record as a person confiding in only a few select people and those 2 - and Tywin, certainly didn't belong to his inner circle.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One assumes that Aerys II and Rhaella (as well as their father) originally thought Aerys II and Rhaella would produce three healthy and strong sons and they would then fulfill the prophecy. That is why I think they so desperately wanted more children after Rhaegar (in addition to the dynastic reasons, of course). After all, the entire point of their marriage was to fulfill the Ghost's prophecy.

Or they desperately wanted children after Rhaegar because, as we now know "dragon has 3 heads" is part of TPP prophecy and A&R didn't consider themselves qualified to be the other 2. Not to mention that having just one possible heir is extremely problematic from dynastic point of view.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, we don't yet know what Aerys II thought about the prophecy - did he ever change his mind about Rhaegar being the promised prince? We don't know. But the whole thing could have been an important reason why he never moved against him despite the fact that grew to mistrust and fear him after Duskendale.

 

Indeed. Which shows us that at this point both Aerys and Rhaegar believed that at least one of the other dragon heads could be male, since Rhaegar's lack of sisters didn't dissuade them from the notion that Rhaegar was TPP.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It may be that Dany marries both the other dragon heads, sort of mimicking the Conqueror in that respect but there is no hint that Rhaegar ever had any indication that his son Aegon was supposed to do a similar thing.

 

Rhaegar's Aegon was a second child with an older sister, just like Aegon the Conqueror, though. The Conqueror trio were the greatest Targaryens, the source of all their position and power, those who adopted the sigil of three-headed dragon in the first place. That would look very suggestive to somebody looking for signs and portents. Particularly to somebody who "failed" being TPP himself.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't really think Rhaegar cared about any of that. Taking Lyanna shows that he was not thinking with his head in all of that. Not at all. After all, taking her did create some sort of Dance/Blackfyre situation, no? 

 

"There must be one more" - he was thinking before he took Lyanna, even. And apparently he thought that he had a reason to expect only_one_ more, too. Why is that, if he didn't believe in some sort of re-play of the original trio?

And the Rebellion was in great part the result of actions of Brandon and Aerys, too. It wasn't unavoidable.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps even more so after he saw the comet in the night of Aegon's conception but it is quite clear that he cared more about sons than Elia's health. Else he wouldn't have impregnated her as quickly as possible after she had recovered from the ordeal that was Rhaenys' birth.

You don't think that Aerys's displeasure with little Rhaenys put a lot of pressure on both of them to produce a child that would meet with his approval? It was a fairly dangerous situation for Elia as well, after all.