Jojen Dayne-Reed

(f)Aegon consensus ?

72 posts in this topic

I think that the Targs were chess pieces in the hands of Braavos whose plan was to control Westeros in the same way they control Pentos. Aegon was meant to act as a support role, a Targ/Blackfyre who could convince the GC to march into battle in Visery's favour + an extra body to marry to a noblewoman bringing soldiers and stability to the region. By the time the Targs marched to Westeros they would be humbles enough to accept their overlords rule without asking questions. That include accepting cousin Aegon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jojen Dayne-Reed said:

HA!  You guys are great.  A simple "yes" would have worked.  But this is much more fun. 

In your next thread, you should ask whether everyone agrees that Sansa betrayed House Stark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

In your next thread, you should ask whether everyone agrees that Sansa betrayed House Stark. 

That's it! This confirms it. You are the great eeevil that is the Great Other :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

In your next thread, you should ask whether everyone agrees that Sansa betrayed House Stark. 

Such a bad, bad man! :P

 

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

That's it! This confirms it. You are the great eeevil that is the Great Other :devil:

Agree! :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to view any fan theory (at this point that includes show plot points) as canon or even near canon. When the author tells me that Aegon isn't Aegon after telling me it is Aegon I'll believe it. Same for Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

 Anyhow Baby Aegon would hardly even much of an exception, since he evidently looked MORE Targaryen, in a relative sense, than his older sister did.

Why yes, that is literally what the theory/code suggests. 

49 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I don't know what GRRM's purpose is here, so there is no reason for me to suppose he is laying down some kind of hard rule that brooks no exceptions.  

It hides a Targ child in plain sight. Somewhat of a key mystery to the whole story. 

There are two exceptions as noted in the main theory write up. And the reasons why they are the exceptions are also noted, to which George specifically asked me about and he specifically said, "yes, there is an identity crisis going on there." 

Or it doesn't and I am telling fibs about the whole thing :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

43 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Why are you trying to imply that I'm accusing you of telling fibs? 

I say an identity crisis exception would fit my theory, and you imply I'm accusing you of lying about the identity crisis exception.  WTF.

Perhaps you should reread your comments to me and others about this when this conversation happened a week or so ago. So, it's up to you whether you think George was feeding me a line (word it however you want) or that I am somehow not being honest in anyway. 

If an identity crisis fits your theory, great! George has said there were two (at least from what was covered). I'm not sure that means Jon has a secret younger sister with silver hair... but hey, maybe? Write your theory up and we book fans can discuss it. :cheers:

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 6:46 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Oh, come off it.  GRRM gave a politely-noncommittal answer where he praised the questioner for hard work.  

This is what I was referring to. The proverbial "pat on the head". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Indeed, maybe.  That's my point.   I'm not sure either.  We don't know the purpose behind the pattern, so we don't know how universal it has to be.

It doesn't have to be universal, we do have 300 years of Targ family tr... uh, twisty thorn bush to show us a "code".  That is what matters most because it has to do with the current story. The world building history we get in the main books and the companion books are there to hint at events in the near future of now (if that makes sense). I wouldn't dwell too much on the universal or it will eat you up like a gator. 

I am thinking you may be thinking Dany is the younger sister to Jon or Aegon? Well, that would definitely create the template for another Dance of dragons. I say make a thread about it and see where it goes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:24 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But there are two big problems with your time line. First and more importantly, like I said before Illyrio did not marry his wife "whilst" Varys was in KL. He married her whilst whispers of Varys talents spread to the ears of Aerys. We really have no idea how much time passed between Aerys first hearing about Varys and actually summoning him to KL.

Second, it is implied (because the book content is basically chronological) that Varys was already in KL by the time Rhaegar got married in early 279, so really, even if Illyrio waited until Varys was in KL to marry his wife (which there is no implication of) that could have been a full year earlier than your proposed time line.

Also, fAegon could potentially be younger than Aegon. Obviously not too much younger or they couldn't fool JonCon, but certainly a few months at least.

I can't remember what exactly I said two weeks ago, but I didn't mean that Illyrio married his first wife when Varys was in King's Landing. If you put together the conversation you're quoting and an earlier conversation about the breakup of Varys and Illyrio's criminal enterprise, you will find out that Illyrio married his princess at about the same time Varys left for King's Landing.

Please show me a quote that says Varys was in King's Landing when Rhaegar married Elia. Oh, wait, don't. I'm trying to break myself from this website. Anyhow, there are two quotes in the main novels that say something about Varys coming to KL years after Steffon's death and years before the Sack. Since the way the timelines fall, those years could have only been 280 or 281. Since TWOIAF definitely states that Varys was in KL in 280, I generously allowed that Varys may have arrived in the middle 279. Even with conceding this, I still find that idea that Illyrio's young wife died less than two years after marrying him, without Illyrio mentioning her tragically youthful death.

A few added months doesn't sway my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is mo conclusive proof at this time in the text. Except...he has no dragons.

yes mo.

Edited by jthurman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bent branch said:

I can't remember what exactly I said two weeks ago, but I didn't mean that Illyrio married his first wife when Varys was in King's Landing. If you put together the conversation you're quoting and an earlier conversation about the breakup of Varys and Illyrio's criminal enterprise, you will find out that Illyrio married his princess at about the same time Varys left for King's Landing.

Please show me a quote that says Varys was in King's Landing when Rhaegar married Elia. Oh, wait, don't. I'm trying to break myself from this website. Anyhow, there are two quotes in the main novels that say something about Varys coming to KL years after Steffon's death and years before the Sack. Since the way the timelines fall, those years could have only been 280 or 281. Since TWOIAF definitely states that Varys was in KL in 280, I generously allowed that Varys may have arrived in the middle 279. Even with conceding this, I still find that idea that Illyrio's young wife died less than two years after marrying him, without Illyrio mentioning her tragically youthful death.

A few added months doesn't sway my opinion.

Lol OK I won't find that quote for you. But it's not just a few months. Your timeline is potentially off by a few years, which would totally nullify the logic you used to come to your conclusion.

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