a1andrew

Aegon as Faegon problem, Jon Snow, and House of Undying vision

62 posts in this topic

I've long resisted the notion that Aegon is indeed Faegon, that he is not actually the son of Rhaegar and Elia.  I don't contest that there is a good amount of textual evidence supporting it.  Not nearly as much as R+L=J, though that wasn't the main reason for my reluctance.  My main reason for not accepting it is the House of Undying vision Dany sees.  

Specifically:

"'He has a song', the man replied. 'He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire'.  He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. 'There must be one more', he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. 'The dragon has three heads'." 

That is the ONLY, and I have to repeat, ONLY time in the entire book series, the words "song of ice and fire", that is, the ACTUAL NAME OF THE ENTIRE SERIES, are mentioned, and it was by Rhaegar talking to the unspecified woman in reference to the baby that was present and named Aegon.  Again, that is a huge mic drop for the entire book series.  Would Martin really chose to use the ONE reference to the name of the entire series when it was simply a mistake, simply naming the wrong party?  I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for that.  And personally, I have always answered that question definitively "NO".

However, there is quite a bit of textual support for current Aegon not being Rhaegar's son (I won't get into the details of that for brevity), and I was troubled by how to reconcile this.  The first thought was that the Aegon from the vision was actually Jon Snow.  But others posted that and it was quickly shot down by those pointing out that Rhaegar never had the opportunity to meet Jon Snow.  The timelines couldn't work.

I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter, the child in that vision WAS Jon Snow.  

My primary reason is that it is the only way to reconcile those two powerful and otherwise competing problems:1 HUGE textual proof as to the legitimacy of the child in the vision as a prince that was promised because of the book series only reference to asoiaf vs 2. A nearly overwhelming amount of less important textual hints of modern day Aegon's illegitimacy.  Both nearly equally powerful.  This theory would resolve that, and allow both textual clues to be valid.

However, there are other reasons as well.  

First, why was neither the woman nor the child physically described in the scene?  Rhaegar was described.  A description of the woman and especially the child would quickly resolve any ambiguity about the identity of the child.  And, if it is the historical "Aegon" as is presented, then there is no need to be vague or ambiguous.  That suggests Martin left the description vague intentionally in order to obscure the true identity of the child from the vision.  That suggests it is not the historic Aegon, and obviously Jon Snow would be the only viable alternative.

Second, what about the timeframe not matching?  Well, its been largely accepted that not all of the visions she had from House of Undying were actually direct representations of past or future.  Clearly, some of them were allegorical "blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice" etc.  Moreover, it seems to be generally accepted that she saw a representation of the son who died in her womb as an adult and a ruler.  So the visions can be altered from the direct reality.  And that's what must have happened with asoiaf vision. 

That brings me to the third additional reason.  "He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. 'There must be one more', he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say'".  Why was Martin suggesting the possibility of an omnipotent Rhaegar that could speak directly to Dany.  Especially, why, after uttering such a tremendously important line as soiaf?  I would argue that the reason he did that was because he actually INTENDED Rhaegar to have some measure of omnipotence in the moment.  This was not the Rhaegar who misread the signs of PTWP regarding his own birth, or even that of his first son named Aegon.  This is a supernatural Rhaegar with the benefit of greater clarity and hindsight.  He didn't exist in real life, but did exist in the envisioned world that Dany was experiencing.  He was speaking directly to Dany at that moment, and was saying that his son Aegon (Jon's birth name) and Dany were two heads.  There needs to be a final head to the dragon.  Who that is remains to be seen. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why you think the vision makes Aegon the real deal.  As was just posted by someone else in another thread, Rhaegar originally thought he was TPTWP, then he thought it was Aegon, but that was only because of the Comet on the night of his conception.  He was obviously wrong both times, as it is Jon.  We the reader are able to pick up on that as Ice & Fire = Targ & Stark.  Aegon has nothing to do with Ice, just like Elia doesn't.  The line Ice and Fire is the giveaway that Jon is TPTWP, he is the only character you could reasonably describe that way.  I think given Rhaegars extreme actions in absconding with Lyanna shows that he eventually came to realize this, 3rd times the charm, just like there are 3 heads of the dragon.

I am uncertain of the order, but Dany also see's a vision of Jon, the blue flower growing in a wall of ice.

I do kinda wish you laid out all the textual evidence for Aegon being fake, because if you did you would see a wall of quotes, and I think seeing it all together would show just how strong the in text evidence is, and that is before you even consider the fact that this is a book, and as much as Martin talked about wanting to avoid literary tropes, he has completely failed at that.  In terms of a story being told, Aegon is fake.  I've never read a book that would lead me to believe Aegon was legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so hard to be sure, as w/ so many things in the series. Martin is the :devil:

You bring up a lot of very interesting points. I go back and forth on the idea that vision-Rhaegar is talking directly to Dany, but my issue is that he seems to be replying directly to a question the woman asks, "will you make a song for him?". 

I like what @Seams brought up about what Dany is told by Pyatt Pree before entering:

 

“By no means,” Pyat Pree said. “Leaving and coming, it is the same. Always up. Always the door to your right. Other doors may open to you. Within, you will see many things that disturb you. Visions of loveliness and visions of horror, wonders and terrors. Sights and sounds of days gone by and days to come and days that never were. Dwellers and servitors may speak to you as you go. Answer or ignore them as you choose, but enter no room until you reach the audience chamber.”
“I understand.”

I like the idea that this specific vision is something that might have been, but alas... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rhaegar screwed up and was mistaken. It wasn't the first time. We know he originally thought he himself was the prince that was promised. Then he thought his three children were, and that was why he needed to father another one. And his son Aegon has nothing to do with ice. The vision is pretty clear once you understand that Jon Snow was the child of Rhaegar Targaryen  and Lyana Stark. I'm utterly convinced that Aegon (with the golden company) is fAegon, and I actually think the vision reinforces that since Rhaegar already considered Rhaenys and Aegon to be heads. If Dany and Jon are prophetic dragon heads then that is already more than three.

Edited by Makk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's so hard to be sure, as w/ so many things in the series. Martin is the :devil:

You bring up a lot of very interesting points. I go back and forth on the idea that vision-Rhaegar is talking directly to Dany, but my issue is that he seems to be replying directly to a question the woman asks, "will you make a song for him?". 

I like what @Seams brought up about what Dany is told by Pyatt Pree before entering:

 

“By no means,” Pyat Pree said. “Leaving and coming, it is the same. Always up. Always the door to your right. Other doors may open to you. Within, you will see many things that disturb you. Visions of loveliness and visions of horror, wonders and terrors. Sights and sounds of days gone by and days to come and days that never were. Dwellers and servitors may speak to you as you go. Answer or ignore them as you choose, but enter no room until you reach the audience chamber.”
“I understand.”

I like the idea that this specific vision is something that might have been, but alas... 

Good post, especially "days that never were" catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the concept of "Rhaegar was mistaken".  Could he have been?  Sure.  But why would Martin chose to show this mistake in the ONE place in the entire series that he chooses to mention a song of ice and fire, the title of the whole series.  You're telling me Martin, one of the most legendarily word conscience writers of this era, is going to chose to unveil them in the context of a mistaken belief?!  Sorry, that just makes no sense.  I'd believe Aegon is real before I believe that those words were not meant to apply to one of the three ptwp.  Sure, there is a wall of evidence that he is fake, but that textual evidence is of incomparably lesser weight in presentation than the House of Undying scene.  Regardless, under this theory, Aegon can still be Faegon and the vision can still be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, a1andrew said:

Good post, especially "days that never were" catch.

That's what @Seams brought up, it was her/his catch. :)

(I like it too)

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene has no bearing on if (F)Aegon is real or not. The scene isn't for Aegon or Rhaegar, the scene is for Dany. She's your star here. What the scene establishes is that Rhaegar was having children for the purpose of prophesy and that their birth is not a joyous occasion, rather it seems kind of sad, he seems rather sad. Great is his woe and great his sorrow.

Think why that might be, and why it could become relevant to Dany in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, a1andrew said:

"'He has a song', the man replied. 'He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire'.  He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. 'There must be one more', he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. 'The dragon has three heads'." 

That is the ONLY, and I have to repeat, ONLY time in the entire book series, the words "song of ice and fire", that is, the ACTUAL NAME OF THE ENTIRE SERIES, are mentioned, and it was by Rhaegar talking to the unspecified woman in reference to the baby that was present and named Aegon.  Again, that is a huge mic drop for the entire book series.  Would Martin really chose to use the ONE reference to the name of the entire series when it was simply a mistake, simply naming the wrong party?

My reasoning for GRRM dropping series name inside the story only in that one time is because that was the only time it made sense. Ones that concerned with the prophecy are religious figures, mysticists or scholars and they are only focusing on TPTWP as a warrior and/or savior but Rhaegar had an artisan in him. So only him speaking about song of ice and fire made sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Rhaegar was mistaken about the identity of the Prince that was Promised or whatever, it doesn't lessen that scene's dramatic weight. 

We know Martin likes his little deconstructions here and there. In a traditional fantasy, the moment where the hero is told his destiny for the first time is treated as a solemn, momentous occasion. In MartinLand, it's more like:

"YER A WIZARD, HARRY!"

"I'm a...what?"

*HAGRID'S HEAD EXPLODES LIKE A WATERMELON BEFORE HE HAS A CHANCE TO REPLY. BEHIND HIM, UNCLE VERNON STANDS WITH THE STILL-SMOKING SHOTGUN*

It's perfectly in line with Martin's style to have Rhaegar go "Eureka! I solved this shit" and then have him be wrong. It's also a nice way to remind us that Rhaegar could also be a flawed human being who made mistakes on occasion instead of the perfect golden god of Cersei's and JonCon's fantasies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar was having children because he thought they'd be needed to sacrifice to wake the dragon. That's what he believes the prince that was promised and the dragon has three heads means, they're sacrifices, hence why he's emo and sad at Aegon's birth and writes songs about death of those he loves.

It is relevant to Dany because her dragons are going to get fucked up and she's going to be in the same position again as needing dragons to save the world. How to get them? Same way she did the first time, the same way Rhaegar thought he'd have to, those same sacrifices.

The ice and fire line comes because it will be Jon's and Dany's child on the block this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't let yourself be led astray. The child in that scene is indeed Aegon. GRRM has confirmed this. Therefore, any conclusion you come to must be in agreement with that baby being Aegon. That is only logical.

Here is how I interpret that scene. Dany sees a vision in which Rhaegar talks about not only the PTWP, but also the dragon with three heads. In the scene, Rhaegar is basically telling Dany to find two people to join with her in being one of the three heads of the dragon. If Aegon is alive (and there is a 50/50 shot he is), then the vision is telling Dany to find Aegon and "one more" (Jon). If Aegon is not alive, then Dany has to find two unspecified individuals. These are probably most likely Jon and Tyrion.

Just remember, the PTWP must be a descendent of Aerys and Rhaella. In this story there is only Dany, Jon and possibly Aegon. If all three heads must be descendants of Aerys and Rhaella (and there is a 50/50 shot they do need to be), then Aegon is definitely the son of Rhaegar and Elia. It is the only possible answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Don't let yourself be led astray. The child in that scene is indeed Aegon. GRRM has confirmed this. Therefore, any conclusion you come to must be in agreement with that baby being Aegon. That is only logical.

Here is how I interpret that scene. Dany sees a vision in which Rhaegar talks about not only the PTWP, but also the dragon with three heads. In the scene, Rhaegar is basically telling Dany to find two people to join with her in being one of the three heads of the dragon. If Aegon is alive (and there is a 50/50 shot he is), then the vision is telling Dany to find Aegon and "one more" (Jon). If Aegon is not alive, then Dany has to find two unspecified individuals. These are probably most likely Jon and Tyrion.

Just remember, the PTWP must be a descendent of Aerys and Rhaella. In this story there is only Dany, Jon and possibly Aegon. If all three heads must be descendants of Aerys and Rhaella (and there is a 50/50 shot they do need to be), then Aegon is definitely the son of Rhaegar and Elia. It is the only possible answer.

We are told that PTWP was born of their line, not that all three heads of the dragon are.  We don't really have any knowledge as to what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just to add that we actually have a close reference to "a song of ice and fire" in the "pact of ice and fire".

So, if the "song of ice and fire" is an actual story within the planetos universe it makes sense that for the characters it is related to house stark and targaryen. Therefore it makes sense for rhaegar to link it to jon because he is the union of those 2 houses. On the other hand how can rhaegar link it to his first Aegon? We haven t seen any connection between Aegon and ice elements...

In addition, if we consider that D&D aren t complete idiots and decided to 

Spoiler

name jon Aegon because it is a cool targ name

then there is more evidence that jon might actually be the baby described in the pictury. Besides, if I am not mistaken elia was bedridden for several months after Aegon was borne and rhaegar was galivating shortly after Aegon was borne (in order to conceive jon) so is it even possible to be elia in the scene? I am pretty sure this must have been discussed a thousand times so is there a concensus?

 

The biggest problem in the Aegon in the vision being jon ends up being that rhaegar's speech about needing another head doesn t make much sense (he would have his 2 previous kids+jon)... The most I can think is that the vision isn t a real scene and is used to show danny that jon is Aegon and is the second head and that she must find the third head.

Edited by divica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Don't let yourself be led astray. The child in that scene is indeed Aegon. GRRM has confirmed this. Therefore, any conclusion you come to must be in agreement with that baby being Aegon. That is only logical.

 

And what if jon's true name is also Aegon? Do you have the exact quote from grrm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bent branch said:

The child in that scene is indeed Aegon.

Hey, do you recall where that SSM is? I can never find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, divica said:

And what if jon's true name is also Aegon? 

Two half-brothers with the exact same name? That's strange. The alternative would be Lyanna learning about baby Aegon's death and telling Ned to name her child like his dead half-brother, which would also be very weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lockjaw of House Boltagon said:

Two half-brothers with the exact same name? That's strange. The alternative would be Lyanna learning about baby Aegon's death and telling Ned to name her child like his dead half-brother, which would also be very weird. 

There was an Aegon the Elder and an Aegon the Younger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

If all three heads must be descendants of Aerys and Rhaella (and there is a 50/50 shot they do need to be), then Aegon is definitely the son of Rhaegar and Elia. It is the only possible answer.

How do you come up with this being a 50/50?

57 minutes ago, divica said:

And what if jon's true name is also Aegon? Do you have the exact quote from grrm?

Why would it be Aegon? I guess it is not possible to prove it's impossible, but I don't think it likely nor have I seen a single argument with any evidence to point towards it. I'm not saying this is definite proof in the negative, but GRRM did answer this around 15 years ago...

5. Since all of their mothers died, who gave Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen and Tyrion Lannister their names?

Mothers can name a child before birth, or during, or after, even while they are dying. Dany was most like named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, Jon by Ned.

from http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1202/

If the promise was to raise Jon as his bastard child (to protect him from Roberts possible wrath) it would make perfect sense to name the child after his good friend and former father figure Jon Aryn. I don't see why he would need a targ name at all.

Edited by Makk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Makk said:

How do you come up with this being a 50/50?

Why would it be Aegon? I guess it is not possible to prove it's impossible, but I don't think it likely nor have I seen a single argument with any evidence to point towards it. I'm not saying this is definite proof in the negative, but GRRM did answer this around 15 years ago...

5. Since all of their mothers died, who gave Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen and Tyrion Lannister their names?

Mothers can name a child before birth, or during, or after, even while they are dying. Dany was most like named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, Jon by Ned.

from http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1202/

If the promise was to raise Jon as his bastard child (to protect him from Roberts possible wrath) it would make perfect sense to name the child after his good friend and former father figure Jon Aryn. I don't see why he would need a targ name at all.

the jon name was certainly by ned, but while lyanna was pregnant she and rhaegar certainly discussed names and decided in a name for a boy and another for a girl...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now