Why does everyone think Aegon is fake v.2

[Carey Snow]

most think Aegon is a fake because they just cant bear the thought of Jon not being the king on the iron throne in the end, it is personal bias, for all the people of westeros know dany might not be dany? i mean what evidence do they have to prove she is not a fake? she thinks she is who she is because viserys told her who she was, its the same thing with aegon really, Aegon and rhaegar are too prominent in the series to not have an important storyline rhaegar told dany that aegon is TPTWP that is evidence right there that he has to be important, i dont think it makes much sense for GRRM to constantly reference aegon and rhaegar throughout for him to show up and only be a fake, rhaegar is spoke of more than the mad king! again i truly believe that most fans just cannot come to grips with the fact that Jon may not be rhaegars heir.

Dany has dragons so the family tree is all square with her. It is Aegon who has to prove the family ties. Aall accounts are that Aeagon was witnessed dead by many witnesess. While, everyone agrees that Dany is Dany.

[mrlukeduke]

I think fAegon is actually who we think he is, but it will surprise you and very, very many others, when the truth comes out.

Can you elaborate on this please? I suspect a dual meaning here but maybe I'm looking too deeply!

[MtnLion]

Can you elaborate on this please? I suspect a dual meaning here but maybe I'm looking too deeply!

GRRM is not the only one that can bury a dual meaning. ;) I don't believe that Aegon is Rhaegar's true son, and Varys doesn't know.

ETA: This is in spite of the Blackfyre (red herrings) hints.

[LordHall]

Dany has dragons so the family tree is all square with her. It is Aegon who has to prove the family ties. Aall accounts are that Aeagon was witnessed dead by many witnesess. While, everyone agrees that Dany is Dany.

i agree with you, but what i am saying is it is crazy fans have been talking about aegon and baby swap theories for 10+ years since ACOK's and now that he shows up in ADWD's everyone thinks he is a fake? there were even so spake martin questions about if the children were alive, its like saying after all these years of saying R+L=J that when it is finally revealed in the books the fans will start saying it is a lie as well????? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PEOPLE!

[cybroleach]

once again, people who claim to understand the visions in that scene have no answer for why that scene exists, except to make the absurd suggestion that a character in a fiction novel is wrong.

It's really pretty simple as i see it. With Raega,r Dany is given a show of the past ie what really happened. The others are prophacies about the future its all made pretty clear in the book.

[cybroleach]

i agree with you, but what i am saying is it is crazy fans have been talking about aegon and baby swap theories for 10+ years since ACOK's and now that he shows up in ADWD's everyone thinks he is a fake? there were even so spake martin questions about if the children were alive, its like saying after all these years of saying R+L=J that when it is finally revealed in the books the fans will start saying it is a lie as well????? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PEOPLE!

Well your just nievly ignoring that for 10+ years their have been Faegon theories as well.

[gingerpunk]

I have a hard cover of Eragon, too. :P Yes, I am looking forward to the release of the full set in a single volume, and hope that the Kindle version is released. Kindle has turned into my favorite reading position since I had to make do with a hardcover A Dance with Dragons.

I agreed with your original post, and it was so well done with the exception that I noted. I wouldn't bet on any of the theories, not as long as GRRM is writing the story, but I think I know some secrets of the story. I have been correct too many times in the past to give up my theories on this one. ;)

I'm gonna go off topic to just state that I didn't hear about Eragon until I saw the horrible 2006 movie, and commented to one of my friends how bad it was. He responded by handing me a copy of Eragon and a copy of Eldest and told me I owed the story a reprieve. Needless to say, it got one.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if mentioning Varys' possible role as the mummer of mummer's dragon ventured too far into the realms of speculation, but I felt it was worth mentioning, nonetheless. Should've added a disclaimer.

[gingerpunk]

No. LordHall is correct. People are invested emotionally in Dany and Jon and do not like the idea of someone they don't know suddenly taking over.

Also, the fake-istas tend to "overlook"or disregard that part of the hotu where Rhaegar holds up Aegon and then says the title of the series. All the while they put utmost significance and a wholly ambiguous scene from the same page.

i dunno, but the clear vision of rhaegar and aegon and the phrase "his is the song of ice and fire" kinda seems important.

I'm pretty emotionally invested with the characters, but I tend to think neither Jon nor Dany will sit the Iron Throne at the end of the novels, regardless of Aegon's legitimacy. I kind of always tended to connect the House of the Undying vision concerning Rhaegar and Aegon to Jon Snow, since he also proclaims, "There must be one more. The dragon has three heads." This doesn't say anything on whether or not Aegon is the same child from the vision, just stating that I, as someone who leans toward the idea that Aegon is a fraud, haven't particularly disregarded this. I just don't consider it as concrete enough proof that Aegon is alive.

[Grizzly Mormont]

I don't either, and I'm not citing it as such. I'm merely asking why one part of that series of visions is "wrong" while another is proof?

I don't pretend to know what those scenes mean. I don't even try to interpret. But it seems obvious that the one scene on the whole series so far that mentions the title of the series might be important.

[MtnLion]

I don't either, and I'm not citing it as such. I'm merely asking why one part of that series of visions is "wrong" while another is proof?

I don't pretend to know what those scenes mean. I don't even try to interpret. But it seems obvious that the one scene on the whole series so far that mentions the title of the series might be important.

Rhaegar is not making the prophesy, he is the past being revealed. Therefore Rhaegar being correct in the vision is not a given, the meaning of that vision is to allow us to know that Rhaegar took another wife after Elia could not have any further children.

[Grizzly Mormont]

It has to have some significance beyond that. We already knew he was wrong: he got his chest smashed in. Dany knew that too.

Additionally, if he's wrong about Aegon, he is just as likely to be wrong about there having to be another.

[LordHall]

Well your just nievly ignoring that for 10+ years their have been Faegon theories as well.

really? there were Faegon theories before young griff appeared in ADWD, you are seriously trying to tell me that someone predicted before ADWD that a fake aegon would show up at some point and claim to be rhaegars son? I find that hard to believe, young griff may be fake but in my opinion he is not, most peoples problem with him is that he is introduced so late in the series, but if you read the series as a whole the timeline is only a few years and it makes sense, besides GRRM keeps adding to the series book total for all we know aegon may have originally been meant to be introduced in the second book when it was supposed to be a 3 book series and as it stands now if it was for the geographical split in AFFC and ADWD he would have been in the fourth book.

[LordHall]

Well your just nievly ignoring that for 10+ years their have been Faegon theories as well.

please link these theories i would love to read them

[MtnLion]

It has to have some significance beyond that. We already knew he was wrong: he got his chest smashed in. Dany knew that too.

Additionally, if he's wrong about Aegon, he is just as likely to be wrong about there having to be another.

And that matters how? Only to those that are looking for three. But the prophesy for three was long before the Targaryens invaded Westeros.

ETA: Of my three, fAegon is not one.

[Grizzly Mormont]

Again, I'm not interpreting those scenes. You are. And I'm happy to read the interpretations. But it's disingenuous to dismiss the Aegon is the song of ice and fire scene and then place utmost importance on the Chinese New Year celebration scene.

[MtnLion]

Again, I'm not interpreting those scenes. You are. And I'm happy to read the interpretations. But it's disingenuous to dismiss the Aegon is the song of ice and fire scene and then place utmost importance on the Chinese New Year celebration scene.

Umm, who is dismissing the Aegon scene? I noted the relevance, and why it is important. I also noted that Rhaegar can be incorrect, and that showing events in the past need to show fallacies, as well as explain actions. I believe that Rhaegar will be more wrong in that scene than just the song part. The future events are more symbolic than portrayals of past events. Blue-eyed King with a glowing sword that casts no shadow, a cloth dragon on poles surrounded by a cheering crowd, and a great stone beast that takes to the air breathing shadow fire are all future things which Daenerys will prove how they are false in some manner.

I weary of playing this game anyway, since there seems to be a lack of real argument beyond what has already been discussed.

[Toccs]

really? there were Faegon theories before young griff appeared in ADWD, you are seriously trying to tell me that someone predicted before ADWD that a fake aegon would show up at some point and claim to be rhaegars son? I find that hard to believe,

There were indeed plenty of Faegon theories going around well before aDwD came out. The noted unrecognizable nature of the corpse combined with Dany's visions of the cloth dragon already had many people theorizing that an Aegon imposter would be showing up at some point.

A Dance with Dragons merely confirmed for many people what was already suspected, and provided many of the clues that point to Aegon's Blackfyre heritage.

[gingerpunk]

I don't either, and I'm not citing it as such. I'm merely asking why one part of that series of visions is "wrong" while another is proof?

I don't pretend to know what those scenes mean. I don't even try to interpret. But it seems obvious that the one scene on the whole series so far that mentions the title of the series might be important.

I don't know that people are claiming the Rhaegar vision to be wrong, but perhaps they are dismissing it too quickly as a vision from the past. As I stated, the way I saw it, this vision served to introduce Danaerys to the prophecy of the Promised Prince and also introduced the mantra, "The dragon has three heads." The prophecies and visions can tend to be a bit skewed, and we can interpret for fun, but we really never know the way they're to play out or exactly what to expect. It's just a bit of foreshadowing to keep us guessing, I suppose. As I said with the vision regarding the mummer's dragon, if it were to play out in a somewhat figurative manner, there would be no doubts that Aegon is a false dragon, but for the scene to happen in a literal manner could, but does not necessarily, mean something different. So, we're pretty much all up in the air where vision and prophecy are concerned, even though we cite them as evidence of what's to come.

Rhaegar is not making the prophesy, he is the past being revealed. Therefore Rhaegar being correct in the vision is not a given, the meaning of that vision is to allow us to know that Rhaegar took another wife after Elia could not have any further children.

Well, we don't technically know that Rhaegar took another wife after Elia, but the implication is there.

It has to have some significance beyond that. We already knew he was wrong: he got his chest smashed in. Dany knew that too.

Additionally, if he's wrong about Aegon, he is just as likely to be wrong about there having to be another.

What we know is that A Song of Ice and Fire is the title of the series, and I believe the only mention of the series' title in the book comes from Rhaegar in this vision. So all this vision really tells me is that the Song of Ice and Fire is the song of the Prince that was Promised, and that would mean that the story we're all reading is the story of the Prince that was Promised. Verdict is still out on who that is, though.

And that matters how? Only to those that are looking for three. But the prophesy for three was long before the Targaryens invaded Westeros.

ETA: Of my three, fAegon is not one.

Is it a prophecy, or is it a recreation of the past? Aegon the Conqueror conquered The Seven Kingdoms with his two sisters on three dragons. Is there some kind of trinity attached to the prophecy about the Promised Prince? I don't feel we have enough information about that particular Westerosi prophecy yet. We know more about Azor Ahai, really, and that's foreign to Westeros. As Maester Aemon was dying, he seemed to reiterate Melisandre's assertions on AA in relation to TPtwP, but I still don't quite know what to make of it. With AA, we have a backstory and a handful of guidelines regarding origins and actions, but I really don't feel we have much regarding TPtwP.

Also, I don't believe at all that Aegon will be a head of the dragon, even if he is real. I could be wrong, though. It's happened before.

GRRM is not the only one that can bury a dual meaning. ;) I don't believe that Aegon is Rhaegar's true son, and Varys doesn't know.

ETA: This is in spite of the Blackfyre (red herrings) hints.

Your theory has to do with Ashara and Aerys, and an earlier baby swap with Elia, right? I haven't specifically addressed this one, because I'm not entirely clear on the timelines or what hints were dropped. I do feel that the evidence for Aegon being a Blackfyre is plausible, simply because there's nothing specific in the text that can really debunk it. There is also nothing specific in the text that can debunk the idea that Aegon is exactly who he says. But for me to entirely be able to understand your theory is going to take a whole new reread of the series! Unfortunately, AGoT is on loan again, too. But I do want to see the evidence, and discuss it at length once I can. I'm really intrigued by every possibility.

[MtnLion]

Your theory has to do with Ashara and Aerys, and an earlier baby swap with Elia, right? I haven't specifically addressed this one, because I'm not entirely clear on the timelines or what hints were dropped. I do feel that the evidence for Aegon being a Blackfyre is plausible, simply because there's nothing specific in the text that can really debunk it. There is also nothing specific in the text that can debunk the idea that Aegon is exactly who he says. But for me to entirely be able to understand your theory is going to take a whole new reread of the series! Unfortunately, AGoT is on loan again, too. But I do want to see the evidence, and discuss it at length once I can. I'm really intrigued by every possibility.

I would welcome this discussion. The timeline is pretty clear that Harrenhal Tourney preceded the fall of King's Landing by about 21 months. I have my favorite, and if that is not proven out I lean toward a Blackfyre. For my theory, Ashara was dishonored by a Targaryen at Harrenhal, and Barristan says that when Aerys decided to go to the tourney that everything went sour. If Barristan knew that it was Aerys who dishonored Ashara he would not admit it to himself, so the failure to identify the one who did the dishonor is understandable. It is pretty likely Elia and Ashara came to term at the same time. If Elia's last child was another girl, she would be heartsick that she did not give Rhaegar an heir, if it is a stillborn girl, worse. Ashara's child of a dishonor (essentially rape in literary terms) would be raised a bastard, and even though being born of noble parents, live in the gutters. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they swapped babies, and Ashara claimed the stillborn girl. Rhaegar would then have an heir. The only ones that would know would be dead Elia and Ashara.

[joluoto]

Not really sure myself whether Aegon is a false Dmitri or not. He think he is the prince, and so does Connington. And for Varys and Illyrio the important thing is that their "Prince who was Promised" (not that they call him that, but it's what's implied) is perfect, not that he necessarily is a real prince. He might be the real deal though. We don't know what the Mummer's Dragon really mean yet, and we have Moqorro talking about false dragons too. But on the other hand we might have the three heads of the dragon in Jon, Daenerys and Aegon.