Why does everyone think Aegon is fake v.2

[Meddler]

I wonder if Aegon's legitimacy really matters at all. Whether or not he is Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar Targaryen, he's been under the influence of Varys from his infancy and has been moulded into the kind of king Varys wants the realm to see. Wouldn't this make Aegon "The Mummer's Dragon", legit or no? It also begs the question, how much influence will Varys have over the reign of "Aegon", assuming his campaign is successful? While he may know of the eunuch's role in his survival and success, how indebted will he feel to Varys if he does take the Iron Throne, and will he be a puppet to the masters who shaped him into what he is? We know too little of him to do much else but speculate, but, from what I know of him, he doesn't seem as though he'd be a bad ruler at all. Varys, however, is not to be trusted, we all understand.

So, did Varys and company spirit baby Aegon out of King's Landing before The Mountain arrived to kill him? Was the child that Elia was raising her baby, or was it the baseborn son of Ashara Dayne who was raped by Aerys? Is Young Griff a random child that Varys found; a child who fits the description of Aegon Targaryen, and therefore can be used as a pawn in the game of thrones? Is he the son of Illyrio and his potentially Blackfyre wife, Serra? I think that when it comes down to it, even though we all really want to know the answers, they don't matter, because Aegon/YG, regardless of birth, has been raised to believe he is Rhaegar's son, and his schooling has indefinitely been overseen by Varys and Illyrio. YG is their power play in the game of thrones...

I would be inclined to believe that Littlefinger should be involved in this conspiracy, except it seems to me that if he were, he'd be arranging Sansa's marriage to Aegon instead of to Harry the Heir.

This, completely agree. Add in that we've been given no indication that there's additional evidence out there one way or another, or that the reader how been emotionally invested in finding out the truth of Aegon's legitimacy (such as we have with the truth of John Snow's parentage).

[SicBoy]

In regards to Varys loyalties I find the sadness that he speaks with here interesting.

“Rhaenys was a child too. Prince Rhaegar’s daughter. A precious little thing, younger than your girls. She had a small black kitten she called Balerion, did you know? I always wondered what happened to him. Rhaenys liked to pretend he was the true Balerion, the Black Dread of old, but I imagine the Lannisters taught her the difference between a kitten and a dragon quick enough, the day they broke down her door.” Varys gave a long weary sigh, the sigh of a man who carried all the sadness of the world in a sack upon his shoulders. “The High Septon once told me that as we sin, so do we suffer. If that’s true, Lord Eddard, tell me … why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones."

[TheKingwithTheSword]

Gingerpunk, totally agree. People try to argue that since Mummer has been used previously it cant be used in a different context. It cant be possessive it has to be descriptive. Makes sense right? Fuck no.

And as far as the gentics of Aegon go.

Daeron the Good married Myriah Martell.

Targ features Vs Dornish features.

Baelor breakspear had a dark complexion but Aerys and Maekar had strictly targaryen features.

therefore the Dornish carry the recessive gene in them, most like as a shared ancestry with the Andals. The Rhoynish came later who are of a much deeper complexion. So even if all Dornish cunt beans are born with dark complexions they still carry the nondominate gene.

Maekars sons were split as well. Daeron the drunkard was dark and Aerion and Egg were fair.

[A Bear covered in Fluff]

Which is why Robert spent so much time hunting Viserys and Dany ... oh he didn't?

...... vis and dany ran their entire lives.

they were hunted by Robert

Wow... seriously... It doesnt matter if Aegon is real or not.

"black or red, a dragon is a dragon"

[Tini]

Not his heir, but Rhaegar's heir. He had already sent his own heir to Dragonstone. Why would Aerys be concerned for his son's heir that he had not had a chance to become close to? None.

Are you talking about Viserys here? Viserys was not Aerys heir while Rhaegar or Rhaegar's son Aegon were still alive. Inheritance passes through the oldest son and his line. When Rhaegar died, little Aegon took his father's place in the succession. He became Aerys' heir.

If Aerys wanted Viserys to inherit, Aegon had to die. Bute we have no indication that this was Aerys plan when he sent Viserys to Dragonstone while keeping Aegon in King's Landing.

[MtnLion]

Are you talking about Viserys here? Viserys was not Aerys heir while Rhaegar or Rhaegar's son Aegon were still alive. Inheritance passes through the oldest son and his line. When Rhaegar died, little Aegon took his father's place in the succession. He became Aerys' heir.

If Aerys wanted Viserys to inherit, Aegon had to die. Bute we have no indication that this was Aerys plan when he sent Viserys to Dragonstone while keeping Aegon in King's Landing.

This is true, but Aerys had been tutoring Viserys. Aegon was about a year old when Aerys decides:

Send his own wife and Viserys to Dragonstone

Keep Jaime

Keep Elia and her children

That is spelled out in the books, when they know what happened at the Trident. It makes no sense for Aerys to decide to send Aegon to an indefensible tower in the middle of nowhere, after making the above decisions. Aerys does not care about Rhaegar, and is very suspicious of him, but he does care about Viserys. He has no bond with Aegon, and only views him as a coin to be played to keep Dorne on his side.

[MtnLion]

My only problem with this theory is that I can't even really piece together a motive for it that makes sense, even just a speculative one. Ashara wasn't in King's Landing during the Sack . . .

I wonder if Aegon's legitimacy really matters at all. Whether or not he is Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar Targaryen, he's been under the influence of Varys from his infancy and has been moulded into the kind of king Varys wants the realm to see. . . .

First, I assembled all of the clues that we had surrounding the time period of Harrenhal through the Tower of Joy. Then in Dance with Dragons Varys speech to Kevan surprised me. I know that fAegon is a fake, that is the meaning of the visualization that Daenerys defines as “Mummer’s Dragon”. But, it seems that Varys actually believes that he is not fake. Backing up for just a second, Varys may mislead by not telling the whole truth, but he doesn’t fabricate. So, I went to assuming that Varys believes that he rescued fAegon from the nursery just before the Mountain took care of Tywin’s business.

Barristan notes that Ashara was dishonored (seduced or raped) at Harrenhal. He wishes that he had been able to give her the crown so that she would have sought his support instead of a Stark’s. (True reading of the lines, since the crown was awarded at the end of the Tourney, the reason Ashara would have looked to Stark for was after the Tourney.) He also notes that she had a stillborn daughter, so it is reasonable that he and she are in the same general area 9 months later. We know that the tourney was held in the year of the false spring. We know that fAegon was about a year old at the end of the war. That would make Harrenhal’s Tourney to be about 21 or more months before the end of the war. So, because of the impassability of the Prince’s Pass during winter, I believe that Ashara remained in King’s Landing through her term. Further, it seems to me that Elia would be likely to deliver a stillborn daughter, and that she and Ashara would both have motivation to switch babies. The stillborn daughter that Barristan recalls could very well have been Elia’s.

If Elia and Ashara had switched babies, it would be treason if they were discovered, so they would definitely protect this secret from everyone including Varys. Ashara returns to Starfall when it is safe to travel (possibly in the company of Rhaegar and Lyanna) and the war breaks out. Ned may have learned from Ashara where her brother was. It certainly seems as though Ned went directly to the tower, with Jon being born within a month of the fall of King’s Landing, and Lyanna dying of puerperal fever. The fight ensues, and Ned returns Dawn to Starfall. While there Ashara may have been told by Ned of fAegon’s death, which combined with her brother’s death and Ned not being able to restore her status (looked to) may have caused her severe grief. It seems that Ashara’s grief was enough to have made her suicide a predictable outcome, at least to the point that no one seems to suspect otherwise.

Varys may, as he says, have smuggled fAegon out of King’s Landing to a ship to Essos. He may have been sent to Illyrio, and Varys hearing of Ashara’s losses may have arranged transportation for her from Starfall to Essos to raise the child. Ashara would jump at the opportunity, but she needed to keep her dark mood until she disappears into the sea.

True it is a lot of conjecture, but it is not contrary to any known facts, and explains a few. The other option is that fAegon is purely manufactured, but that makes Varys speech a stretch, even for him.

[Meddler]

First, I assembled all of the clues that we had surrounding the time period of Harrenhal through the Tower of Joy. Then in Dance with Dragons Varys speech to Kevan surprised me. I know that fAegon is a fake, that is the meaning of the visualization that Daenerys defines as “Mummer’s Dragon”. But, it seems that Varys actually believes that he is not fake. Backing up for just a second, Varys may mislead by not telling the whole truth, but he doesn’t fabricate. So, I went to assuming that Varys believes that he rescued fAegon from the nursery just before the Mountain took care of Tywin’s business.

Barristan notes that Ashara was dishonored (seduced or raped) at Harrenhal. He wishes that he had been able to give her the crown so that she would have sought his support instead of a Stark’s. (True reading of the lines, since the crown was awarded at the end of the Tourney, the reason Ashara would have looked to Stark for was after the Tourney.) He also notes that she had a stillborn daughter, so it is reasonable that he and she are in the same general area 9 months later. We know that the tourney was held in the year of the false spring. We know that fAegon was about a year old at the end of the war. That would make Harrenhal’s Tourney to be about 21 or more months before the end of the war. So, because of the impassability of the Prince’s Pass during winter, I believe that Ashara remained in King’s Landing through her term. Further, it seems to me that Elia would be likely to deliver a stillborn daughter, and that she and Ashara would both have motivation to switch babies. The stillborn daughter that Barristan recalls could very well have been Elia’s.

If Elia and Ashara had switched babies, it would be treason if they were discovered, so they would definitely protect this secret from everyone including Varys. Ashara returns to Starfall when it is safe to travel (possibly in the company of Rhaegar and Lyanna) and the war breaks out. Ned may have learned from Ashara where her brother was. It certainly seems as though Ned went directly to the tower, with Jon being born within a month of the fall of King’s Landing, and Lyanna dying of puerperal fever. The fight ensues, and Ned returns Dawn to Starfall. While there Ashara may have been told by Ned of fAegon’s death, which combined with her brother’s death and Ned not being able to restore her status (looked to) may have caused her severe grief. It seems that Ashara’s grief was enough to have made her suicide a predictable outcome, at least to the point that no one seems to suspect otherwise.

Varys may, as he says, have smuggled fAegon out of King’s Landing to a ship to Essos. He may have been sent to Illyrio, and Varys hearing of Ashara’s losses may have arranged transportation for her from Starfall to Essos to raise the child. Ashara would jump at the opportunity, but she needed to keep her dark mood until she disappears into the sea.

True it is a lot of conjecture, but it is not contrary to any known facts, and explains a few. The other option is that fAegon is purely manufactured, but that makes Varys speech a stretch, even for him.

I mean, it works, but it violates Ockham's Razor at virtually every turn. Far be it from me to accuse Martin of avoiding over-complication, but what does any of this do for the narrative? How would this impact the story at large in a profound enough way to justify such a complicated solution? The only person it would seem to have a profound impact for would be Lemore, if you assume she is Ashara, which is also quite a stretch. She's the wrong age and the physical description doesn't really jive either. So it's plausible, but it just seems like a lot of added lines of explanation for somewhat minimal payoff.

The much simpler explanations are either that Aegon is Aegon, or that Varys was lying to Kevan. While I understand that Varys speech to Kevan seems genuine, and he has no inherent reason to lie in this situation, he also has no inherent reason to tell the truth. Sure, he throws some apologies and compliments Kevan's way, but he's not some comic-book villain likely to reveal his master plan to a beaten opponent. The best way to maintain a lie is to repeat it, practice it, to come as close to convincing yourself that it's true as possible.

[MtnLion]

I mean, it works, but it violates Ockham's Razor at virtually every turn. Far be it from me to accuse Martin of avoiding over-complication, but what does any of this do for the narrative? How would this impact the story at large in a profound enough way to justify such a complicated solution? The only person it would seem to have a profound impact for would be Lemore, if you assume she is Ashara, which is also quite a stretch. She's the wrong age and the physical description doesn't really jive either. So it's plausible, but it just seems like a lot of added lines of explanation for somewhat minimal payoff.

It has a huge impact if everyone believes that Aegon is Rhaegar's son, and follows him into battle based upon that belief. (The crowds around the cloth dragon are cheering.) ETA: Lemore is approximately of the correct age, and Tyrion never precisely identifies her age. The description fits, especially if she has "laughing purple" eyes. All we get are a love struck celibate's POV of her appearance, and a dour dwarf's POV of her appearance, when we know the dwarf's prefereances are somewhat different.

The much simpler explanations are either that Aegon is Aegon, or that Varys was lying to Kevan. While I understand that Varys speech to Kevan seems genuine, and he has no inherent reason to lie in this situation, he also has no inherent reason to tell the truth. Sure, he throws some apologies and compliments Kevan's way, but he's not some comic-book villain likely to reveal his master plan to a beaten opponent. The best way to maintain a lie is to repeat it, practice it, to come as close to convincing yourself that it's true as possible.

In what ways do we see Varys lying? Does he lie about the dagger, as Littlefinger does? Does he lie to Ned? No, he seems to come across as honest, though he does limit the information to what he wants to deliver. I never found an instance of Varys fabricating any of his responses. So, he misdirects rather than overtly lie when he needs to. That is precisely why I re-examined all of the stories.

[MtnLion]

As far as Occam's Razor:

• applied to Varys, he believes that Aegon is Aegon
  
• applied to Barristan, the stillborn daughter is really Elia's, he was misinformed
  
• applied to Aegon, he is Ashara's son of rape or seduction at Harrenhal
  
• applied to the Mummer's Dragon (Daenerys defines this to Mormont in the book, so read her definition before you object) Aegon is not Rhaegar's son and is fake
  

[scholar]

First I would just like to say that I'm not someone particularly well versed in a Song of Ice and Fire. I've read all the books, but only once through. I did not study them as I would a textbook, I merely enjoyed reading it. I didn't even know that this site existed until I got a reference from a game forum. That said, I would like to give my opinion on this matter:

I had heard about Aegon being fake before I even read A Dance with Dragons (oh the spoilers). I never knew why, but a lot of people seemed to buy into that idea. When I read through the book I never once got the feeling that this Aegon wasn't the real Aegon, except for once where it was mentioned that Rhaegar's eyes were a darker color than Aegon's. What does this mean on its own? Virtually nothing. Two brown eyed parents can give birth to a blue eyed baby, there's no inherent structure in our beings that says all our traits must come from the immediate father. Most people should readily see that just by looking at their own parents. My eyes, in particular, are more green than my father's, and my hair a little lighter in hue.

Now I'm not saying that Aegon is Aegon Targaryen, just that I never doubted it when it was told to us.

Since there are some complaints about it reeking of Deus ex Machina I'd like to just step back and take a look at this. Let's assume that George R.R. Martin described Aegon's death in such a way that would allow him to bring back the character for future use in later novels. They still have a dead body, its head was destroyed to the point well beyond recognition. Elia and the others are still dead. If one did not want to retcon this, but still wanted Aegon alive how would he do it? Rhaegar left his son in Kings Landing, and it was there that 'Aegon' was killed and his broken body delivered in front of the courts. The only way to make it so that Aegon was still alive would be for him not to have been killed at Tywin's command. He's in King's landing, he's all but doomed to be killed, how does he get out without damaging the current continuity?

You have someone else take Aegon's place.

Who is the most likely person to be capable of doing this?

Varys.

Where would Aegon go after the switch?

Far, Far away and under a different name to protect him.

If one were to write Aegon back into living existence there's really no better way to do it other than say 'The boy killed wasn't Aegon, Aegon was taken away from Kings landing in secret by the person most capable of doing so, and the boy had to be kept a secret or otherwise he would die'. It might be the only way to do it without going into a tale too fantastic to truly believe, given that its already been established that Aegon was dead by all the Lords in the Realm and that continuity is already in place.

Jon Connington was a Knight of the King's Guard, he knew Rhaegar and most likely knew his children. We don't know how long it took for him to be reunited with Aegon, but Connington would most likely recognize the face of a member of the royal family he was sworn to protect. If it was only a matter of months to a few years then it would have been impossible to fool Connington. For Aegon not to be Aegon, Connington would have to be completely fooled. Yet, of all the features Aegon posses, it is only the eyes, and only the color being lighter, that is mentioned to be different from Rhaegar.

There are three ways to go about Varys's story: 1. He is telling the truth and Aegon is Aegon. 2. He is not telling the truth, but Aegon is still Aegon. 3. He is not telling the truth and Aegon is not the real Aegon. Even if Varys wasn't telling the truth, Aegon could still be Aegon Targaryen.

Now I'm sure others more well versed in the story will have something to add or object to that could throw my own argument out of the window, but I hope my views make some sense.

[Meddler]

It has a huge impact if everyone believes that Aegon is Rhaegar's son, and follows him into battle based upon that belief. (The crowds around the cloth dragon are cheering.)

That's not unique to any of your theories though, this is the same impact under any situation in which Aegon is fake.

ETA: Lemore is approximately of the correct age, and Tyrion never precisely identifies her age. The description fits, especially if she has "laughing purple" eyes. All we get are a love struck celibate's POV of her appearance, and a dour dwarf's POV of her appearance, when we know the dwarf's prefereances are somewhat different.

Tyrion's guess is that she's 5-10 years older than Ashara would be (Ashara would be no older than mid to late 30s, while Tyrion assumes Lemore is in her 40s). Granted this is a guess, but beyond it, you're using absent evidence. There is no description that "fits," just omitted elements that don't not fit. You're assuming these omitted elements of the description might fit. Is it possible that she has "Laughing purple" eyes? I guess, but it would be tacky writing for GRRM to have Tyrion intentionally omit such an explicitly unique characteristic in this instance just so he could hide Lemore's identity. By this logic she could just as easily have red eyes, wear a rubee around her neck, and be Melisandre's long lost twin sister.

In what ways do we see Varys lying?

Off the top of my head I can come up with five instances of Varys outright lying:

1. He tells Robert that he agrees with his position that Dany should be killed during the Small Council Meeting.

2. He tells Ned it's too late to prevent Dany's assasination.

3. He tells multiple people Shae is a kitchen wench, and gives her a false background.

4. He tells multiple people Shae is a hand maid, and gives her a false background.

5. He convinces at least one person, Renifer Longwaters, that his name is Rugen and that he is an undergaoler of the Black Cells.

While he may not be as prone to the bold-faced lie as, say, Littlefinger, it's hardly something he's above.

As far as Occam's Razor:

• applied to Varys, he believes that Aegon is Aegon
  
• applied to Barristan, the stillborn daughter is really Elia's, he was misinformed
  
• applied to Aegon, he is Ashara's son of rape or seduction at Harrenhal
  
• applied to the Mummer's Dragon (Daenerys defines this to Mormont in the book, so read her definition before you object) Aegon is not Rhaegar's son and is fake
  

Ockham's Razor: Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

Point by point

1. "applied to Varys, he believes that Aegon is Aegon" [implied: Aegon is not Aegon]

The fewest number of posits to arrive at a viable explanation here is simply that "Aegon is Aegon". One posit. "Aegon is not Aegon" and "Varys believes Aegon is Aegon" is two posits. "Aegon is not Aegon" and "Varys does not believe Aegon is Aegon" also has only two posits. Stating that "Varys was lying to Kevan" is not an additional posit, because it is entailed by the posit "Varys does not believe Aegon is Aegon." Just as "Varys is telling the truth to Kevan" is implied by the posit "Varys believes Aegon is Aegon". Varys lying to Kevan only requires another posit if you need to explain why he would lie to Kevan, which isn't necessary because there's no established reason he would tell the truth either under the assumption that Aegon is fake and Varys knows it.

2. "applied to Barristan, the stillborn daughter is really Elia's, he was misinformed"

There is no way this doesn't violate Ockham's Razor. The posits here are "Ashara had a healthy child," "Elia had a stillbirth," "Ashara's child replaced Elia's," "Barristan was misinformed." There are many ways Barristan's belief that Ashara had a stillbirth can be explained with fewer posits, such as "Ashara did have a stillbirth," or "Ashara did not have a stillbirth," "Barristan was misinformed" or "Ashara had a healthy child," "Ned Stark took the child," "Barristan was misinformed". Adding Elia having a stillbirth and switching babies is about as classic an example of violating Ockham's Razor as you can get. This doesn't invalidate the premise, it just means that without knowing what happened, there are many many ways of creating an equally potent explanation while invoking far less plurality, and thus generating greater likelihood.

3. "applied to Aegon, he is Ashara's son of rape or seduction at Harrenhal"

Again, here the simplest posit is "Aegon is Aegon." If you assume that can't be true (note: this statement hasn't been factually invalidated, there have merely been hints it might not be true, so we're working hypothetically here, see below of discussion on said hints), there are still many explanations requiring fewer posits, such as "Aegon is the child of a Lyseni whore" or "Illyrio and Serra had a child," "Illyrio and Serra's child is Aegon". Your claim requires the posits "Aerys raped Ashara at Harrenhal," "Ashara got pregnant by Aerys" "Ashara gave birth to Aerys child," "Elia had a stillbirth," "Ashara's child was taken to King's Landing in place of Elia's," "Ashara's child is Aegon".

4. "applied to the Mummer's Dragon (Daenerys defines this to Mormont in the book, so read her definition before you object) Aegon is not Rhaegar's son and is fake"

I'm not really sure you can apply Ockham's Razor to a crypticism like this, the point of this type of statement is that it's meant to have some ambiguity, to not have an obvious or single plausible explanation. Still, if we do apply it, I agree, the simplest posit that explains the Mummer's Dragon is "Aegon is not Aegon," which contradicts the simple posit "Aegon is Aegon," and why we spend so much time discussing this issue. Really, what the "Mummer's Dragon" ambiguity does is force us to add posits to explain the statement "Aegon is Aegon" with respect to it, thus making it so that backing up the "Aegon is Aegon" claim requires a similar level of explanation to the claim "Aegon is not Aegon," and making both claims seem similarly viable. There are still a number of ways of more simply explaining the claim "Aegon is not Aegon" than this one though (Lyseni whoreson, Illyrio and Serra's, etc.).

Also note that Dany is not the one who makes the prophecy of the Mummer's Dragon, she just guesses as to what it might mean, the same way she guesses about the three treasons and the perfumed seneschal. Quaithe is the one who makes the prophecy (and possibly Moqorro as well), so Dany's interpretation here is fallible.

[Meddler]

First I would just like to say that I'm not someone particularly well versed in a Song of Ice and Fire. I've read all the books, but only once through. I did not study them as I would a textbook, I merely enjoyed reading it. I didn't even know that this site existed until I got a reference from a game forum. That said, I would like to give my opinion on this matter:

I had heard about Aegon being fake before I even read A Dance with Dragons (oh the spoilers). I never knew why, but a lot of people seemed to buy into that idea. When I read through the book I never once got the feeling that this Aegon wasn't the real Aegon, except for once where it was mentioned that Rhaegar's eyes were a darker color than Aegon's. What does this mean on its own? Virtually nothing. Two brown eyed parents can give birth to a blue eyed baby, there's no inherent structure in our beings that says all our traits must come from the immediate father. Most people should readily see that just by looking at their own parents. My eyes, in particular, are more green than my father's, and my hair a little lighter in hue.

Now I'm not saying that Aegon is Aegon Targaryen, just that I never doubted it when it was told to us.

Since there are some complaints about it reeking of Deus ex Machina I'd like to just step back and take a look at this. Let's assume that George R.R. Martin described Aegon's death in such a way that would allow him to bring back the character for future use in later novels. They still have a dead body, its head was destroyed to the point well beyond recognition. Elia and the others are still dead. If one did not want to retcon this, but still wanted Aegon alive how would he do it? Rhaegar left his son in Kings Landing, and it was there that 'Aegon' was killed and his broken body delivered in front of the courts. The only way to make it so that Aegon was still alive would be for him not to have been killed at Tywin's command. He's in King's landing, he's all but doomed to be killed, how does he get out without damaging the current continuity?

You have someone else take Aegon's place.

Who is the most likely person to be capable of doing this?

Varys.

Where would Aegon go after the switch?

Far, Far away and under a different name to protect him.

If one were to write Aegon back into living existence there's really no better way to do it other than say 'The boy killed wasn't Aegon, Aegon was taken away from Kings landing in secret by the person most capable of doing so, and the boy had to be kept a secret or otherwise he would die'. It might be the only way to do it without going into a tale too fantastic to truly believe, given that its already been established that Aegon was dead by all the Lords in the Realm and that continuity is already in place.

Jon Connington was a Knight of the King's Guard, he knew Rhaegar and most likely knew his children. We don't know how long it took for him to be reunited with Aegon, but Connington would most likely recognize the face of a member of the royal family he was sworn to protect. If it was only a matter of months to a few years then it would have been impossible to fool Connington. For Aegon not to be Aegon, Connington would have to be completely fooled. Yet, of all the features Aegon posses, it is only the eyes, and only the color being lighter, that is mentioned to be different from Rhaegar.

There are three ways to go about Varys's story: 1. He is telling the truth and Aegon is Aegon. 2. He is not telling the truth, but Aegon is still Aegon. 3. He is not telling the truth and Aegon is not the real Aegon. Even if Varys wasn't telling the truth, Aegon could still be Aegon Targaryen.

Now I'm sure others more well versed in the story will have something to add or object to that could throw my own argument out of the window, but I hope my views make some sense.

I don't think anyone's objection to Aegon being real is that this device is in itself Deus ex Machina. The reason for the doubts has to do with two separate prophetic statements--first Quaithe's "Mummer's Dragon," and second Moqorro's "Dragons, young and old, true and false". Both of these suggest the possibility that there is a "fake dragon". The only living people or creatures we know of that can be described as Dragons at the moment are Dany, Viserion, Rhaegal, Drogon, and Aegon. Of these, the only one where any viable doubt towards its legitimacy can even be raised is Aegon. Thus, the questions.

I personally think this is a designed ambiguity that will be expanded on in TWoW, when Aegon reaches Westeros, and suddenly presents himself to an entire contient of people who have spent nearly 20 years thinking he was dead. Whether he's Aegon or not, many of these people won't believe him, and they'll be able to make some pretty strong arguments that he might be a fraud. After all, the only real evidence that he is who he claims to be is the testimony of Varys, which is hardly iron clad.

There's lot's of discussion for what those arguments might be here, so I won't go into them, but this is where the Dues Ex Machina might become an issue--Aegon himself isn't the Dues Ex Machina, but there's very little hard evidence that can either validate or falisify his claim. There's no Howland Reed who we've been told knows the truth. All we have is Varys word that Aegon survived against Tywin's word that he was killed. Anything that could prove the issue one way or another would have to be incredibly subtley imbedded in the narrative, or so out of nowhere it would essentially be a Dues Ex Machina explanation for who Aegon really is.

Thus, my guess is we never find out for certain, and that it'll be left ambiguous to the reader, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

[MtnLion]

Also note that Dany is not the one who makes the prophecy of the Mummer's Dragon, she just guesses as to what it might mean, the same way she guesses about the three treasons and the perfumed seneschal. Quaithe is the one who makes the prophecy (and possibly Moqorro as well), so Dany's interpretation here is fallible.

As a foundation, I must disagree with this statement. (Fallible) Daenerys never guesses what the vision means, but puzzles over it with some angst. We as readers have interpretted the vision, described in Daenerys' POV chapter, and later detailed as definition to Jorah when he asks what "mummer's dragon means". Moqorro also suggests a fake dragon, so we can be fairly assured that we will be introduced to a fake dragon at some point in the story. Note: I believe that Aemon was still alive at the time of Moqorro's reading of "young and old".

Of course, if we can't settle on that, there is not much point in continuing the discussion as saying that there is no fake dragon is a posit from my perspective.

[Meddler]

As a foundation, I must disagree with this statement. (Fallible) Daenerys never guesses what the vision means, but puzzles over it with some angst. We as readers have interpretted the vision, described in Daenerys' POV chapter, and later detailed as definition to Jorah when he asks what "mummer's dragon means". Moqorro also suggests a fake dragon, so we can be fairly assured that we will be introduced to a fake dragon at some point in the story. Note: I believe that Aemon was still alive at the time of Moqorro's reading of "young and old".

Of course, if we can't settle on that, there is not much point in continuing the discussion as saying that there is no fake dragon is a posit from my perspective.

Oh I'm not saying that we're not meant to puzzle over what the "mummer's dragon" means, I'm just saying we're not meant to have a definitive interpretation of it. There was no way one could have predicted that the Freys would murder Rob and sew Grey Wind's head onto his after Dany's vision in the House of the Undying, or that the Pale Mare would have been a disease, so I don't think we're meant to have a definitive answer on any of these prophecies before they're literally fulfilled. I certainly agree that with the information presented, Aegon is the most likely candidate, and if you put a gun to my head and asked whether I thought he was for real or he was fake, I'd probably say fake, but I don't buy the theory that he's Ashara's child through Aerys' rape and that he was switched with Elia's stillborn child before ever reaching King's Landing. It just seems to be adding a lot of unnecessary steps of explanation, and even more steps that don't seem to yield any kind of significant narrative payoff.

[scholar]

I don't think anyone's objection to Aegon being real is that this device is in itself Deus ex Machina. The reason for the doubts has to do with two separate prophetic statements--first Quaithe's "Mummer's Dragon," and second Moqorro's "Dragons, young and old, true and false". Both of these suggest the possibility that there is a "fake dragon". The only living people or creatures we know of that can be described as Dragons at the moment are Dany, Viserion, Rhaegal, Drogon, and Aegon. Of these, the only one where any viable doubt towards its legitimacy can even be raised is Aegon. Thus, the questions.

The thing about prophecy is that its a difficult thing to work with, with the right twists and turns Quentyn Martell was the False Dragon (the Dragon has three heads was in his mind before he was burned) and Aegon is the Mummer's Dragon (in that Varys is a mummer).

Ben Plumm can also fit into this, claiming two drops of Dragon's blood in him. Rhaegar Frey is also a possibility, as we see Manderly's reaction to a Frey holding a Dragon's name. Hell, even Viserys can be construed as the False Dragon, as I remember Daenerys saying after he was dead that he was no true dragon as "fire cannot harm a Dragon". While we could say that the character is dead already, he does come back in one of Daenerys's dreams at the end of the book, and may appear some more in the future.

[Meddler]

The thing about prophecy is that its a difficult thing to work with, with the right twists and turns Quentyn Martell was the False Dragon (the Dragon has three heads was in his mind before he was burned) and Aegon is the Mummer's Dragon (in that Varys is a mummer).

Ben Plumm can also fit into this, claiming two drops of Dragon's blood in him. Rhaegar Frey is also a possibility, as we see Manderly's reaction to a Frey holding a Dragon's name. Hell, even Viserys can be construed as the False Dragon, as I remember Daenerys saying after he was dead that he was no true dragon as "fire cannot harm a Dragon". While we could say that the character is dead already, he does come back in one of Daenerys's dreams at the end of the book, and may appear some more in the future.

That's true, but what do you think, say, Cersei Lannister, or even Stannis Baratheon, is going to say when Aegon lands and goes "Oh, hey guys. Remember how you thought I was killed a couple decades ago? Well as it turns out, I wasn't, Varys, that guy who is always deceiving and conniving and none of you trust, he took me away and replaced me with a different baby, and I've been hanging out with this foreign nobleman for the last 18 years. Sorry I didn't tell you sooner, they told me to keep it a secret. See, check out my hair and eyes? Don't I look like Rhaegar? So, um, whose got my crown?" They're not going to buy it, and really, even beyond the threat he represents, can you blame them? If Aegon was alive this whole time, wouldn't you think the people supporting him would want some evidence beyond the word of a master spy and thief? If he's a fraud, it would be pretty convenient that there isn't any additional evidence to support or deny his claim.

Aegon's story is highly reminiscent of the real life story of Lambert Simnel. Simnel was a commoner who bore a striking resemblance to the sons of Edward IV. A priest named Richard Symonds noticed the resemblance, and attempted to pass him off as the Earl of Warwick, who would have had a legitimate claim to the throne had he not died during imprisonment in the Tower of London. Symonds spread a rumor that the Earl of Warwick had not died but escaped, and gathered an army to try to seat Simnel on the throne as the dead boy, but most of the nobility eventually rejected the claim, Simon's forces were defeated, and Simnel was revealed as a pretender. Simnel himself was pardoned, as he was a child and primarily a puppet.

Unlike Simnel, even if Aegon is not truly Aegon Targeryen, he may actually believe is. The question of whether he is or not doesn't much matter. The questions that matter are:

1. How much support can he gain from the Westerosi nobility? Will Dorne rise for him? Might he be able to pry the Reach away from the Lannisters? Can he find a way to convince Stannis he's for real and make common cause with him? What's Melisandre going to think?

2. What are Varys and Illyrio playing at? What's their motive? What's their endgame? It's far too simplistic to assume they're doing this out of some idealistic sense of loyalty or sentimentality. Illyrio flat out rejects the notion he's doing it for a lordship or a seat on the small council, so what's his stake in this?

3. Want is Daenerys going to do when she hears about him? Will she accept him? Reject him? Join him? Oppose him? Her relationship to Aegon could go a number of different ways depending on how a variety of different and delicate situations break.

All of these questions are relevant whether Aegon is the real Aegon Targaryen or not, and they're going to be much more important to the overall story than his actual, true legitimacy.

And just to be clear--I'm not saying I think it's patently obvious that Aegon is the "Mummer's Dragon." In fact, I do think this interpretation may even be a bit simplistic, given how other prophecies have turned out. But I do think there's plenty of reason to question Aegon's legitimacy regardless, that his legitimacy is going to be explicitly called into question in TWoW, and it ultimately won't matter if he's legitimate or not.

[scholar]

Well, let's look at it this way. Of the three POV characters that we have had that are privy to the knowledge of Aegon we find three characters that either believe he is Aegon (Jon Connington) or are inclined to believe that Aegon may in fact be alive (Kevin and Tyrion Lannister). It may be that no one belives he is Aegon beyond the mere musing, but that's not what I would argue for or against.

My main points are only that the prophecies do not truly support the notion that Aegon is not a Targaryen, and that from the avaialble information I never personally doubted that Aegon was Aegon Targaryen. That if George R.R. Martin was to bring the character back to life the scenario given to us, this is one of the better ways to go about it. That Jon Connington adds legitimacy to Aegon in that Jon knew Rhaegar and would have known Aegon as he was sworn to protect the royal family.

The notion that it was just some boy of High Valaryan features doesn't work. How people look as newborns does not reliable show how they will grow into adulthood. It seems much more unlikely that Varys would find the perfect boy on the streets of the free cities who would still be in the craddle and know for a fact that he would look like Rhaegar and develop the same silvery hair as he grew older, and do so quickly after 'Aegon' was killed. The plan would need to have been hatched immediately after Kings Landing in order for the child to be taken while he was still young enough that you could erase all memory and images of their true parentage. Even children who are about a year old will recognize faces and gurggle words, words that would have a language attached to them, dialects and characteristics. And then there's Connington, who doesn't strike me as a fool that would believe any person with valaryan features is the son of Rhaegar, so long as he is of a similar age.

There's also the False Dmitris' of Russia, which could be also be the basis for this.

As for the questions:

1. Only Melisandre's opinion on this will matter, and that is only for her flames which are often vague and can be misinterpreted. The rest do not reflect Aegon's true origins, but the political mechanations of Westeros. The same political mechanations that say Tommen Baratheon is, well, a Baratheon and the son of Robert. They may even have doubts, or outright believe that Tommen isn't a Baratheon, yet they still uphold him officially. And if and when they do change their official views it will be for politics, not because they truly believe it or not.

2. This doesn't actually reflect much, no offense. Since we don't know what the motives are we can only speculate, and regardless of what we speculate there are ways to make it so that it will still work regardless of whether or not Aegon is Aegon, a Targaryen byblow or byblow descendant, or a boy off the streets. Then we only grasp at straws and make random guesses that 'feel right' and are ultimately without substance.

3. This doesn't actually reflect on whether or not he is a Targaryen. How many fathers have rejected women with children who claim that they are the father? How many fathers were tricked into thinking that the children were, in fact, their own? Immediate recognition by kin helps, but Daenerys wasn't even born yet when Rhaegar died, what would she know of his looks or his kin? Barriston Selmy's recognition or dismissal would be worth a hundred times more than Daenerys'.

---

As I said before, this is me only explaining why I never once personally doubted Aegon was who he claimed to be. That the prophecies can be taken this way or that way without being wrong. Now I don't dismiss the idea that Aegon may be fake, that's a possibility. I just look at what we have and think that its unlikely from my point of view. Like everyone who has read these books should know: PoVs are fallible.

[Meddler]

Well, let's look at it this way. Of the three POV characters that we have had that are privy to the knowledge of Aegon we find three characters that either believe he is Aegon (Jon Connington) or are inclined to believe that Aegon may in fact be alive (Kevin and Tyrion Lannister). It may be that no one belives he is Aegon beyond the mere musing, but that's not what I would argue for or against.

My main points are only that the prophecies do not truly support the notion that Aegon is not a Targaryen, and that from the avaialble information I never personally doubted that Aegon was Aegon Targaryen. That if George R.R. Martin was to bring the character back to life the scenario given to us, this is one of the better ways to go about it. That Jon Connington adds legitimacy to Aegon in that Jon knew Rhaegar and would have known Aegon as he was sworn to protect the royal family.

The notion that it was just some boy of High Valaryan features doesn't work. How people look as newborns does not reliable show how they will grow into adulthood. It seems much more unlikely that Varys would find the perfect boy on the streets of the free cities who would still be in the craddle and know for a fact that he would look like Rhaegar and develop the same silvery hair as he grew older, and do so quickly after 'Aegon' was killed. The plan would need to have been hatched immediately after Kings Landing in order for the child to be taken while he was still young enough that you could erase all memory and images of their true parentage. Even children who are about a year old will recognize faces and gurggle words, words that would have a language attached to them, dialects and characteristics. And then there's Connington, who doesn't strike me as a fool that would believe any person with valaryan features is the son of Rhaegar, so long as he is of a similar age.

There's also the False Dmitris' of Russia, which could be also be the basis for this.

As for the questions:

1. Only Melisandre's opinion on this will matter, and that is only for her flames which are often vague and can be misinterpreted. The rest do not reflect Aegon's true origins, but the political mechanations of Westeros. The same political mechanations that say Tommen Baratheon is, well, a Baratheon and the son of Robert. They may even have doubts, or outright believe that Tommen isn't a Baratheon, yet they still uphold him officially. And if and when they do change their official views it will be for politics, not because they truly believe it or not.

2. This doesn't actually reflect much, no offense. Since we don't know what the motives are we can only speculate, and regardless of what we speculate there are ways to make it so that it will still work regardless of whether or not Aegon is Aegon, a Targaryen byblow or byblow descendant, or a boy off the streets. Then we only grasp at straws and make random guesses that 'feel right' and are ultimately without substance.

3. This doesn't actually reflect on whether or not he is a Targaryen. How many fathers have rejected women with children who claim that they are the father? How many fathers were tricked into thinking that the children were, in fact, their own? Immediate recognition by kin helps, but Daenerys wasn't even born yet when Rhaegar died, what would she know of his looks or his kin? Barriston Selmy's recognition or dismissal would be worth a hundred times more than Daenerys'.

---

As I said before, this is me only explaining why I never once personally doubted Aegon was who he claimed to be. That the prophecies can be taken this way or that way without being wrong. Now I don't dismiss the idea that Aegon may be fake, that's a possibility. I just look at what we have and think that its unlikely from my point of view. Like everyone who has read these books should know: PoVs are fallible.

Fair enough. I do think that's probably what Martin intended, that the reader is leaning towards believing Aegon's story. And again, my perspective isn't necessarily that I believe he's fake, my opinion is that it's meant to be ambiguous, the ambiguity is bound to be expanded, and that the truth in this instance isn't actually going to wind up being that important, if we ever even learn it for certain one way or another.

The whole point of those three numbered questions was that they're relevant regardless of whether Aegon was real or not, not that they're probative towards his legitimacy. Those are the questions I'm saying do matter as opposed to the question "Is Aegon really who he claims to be?". They're the questions that will come up in TWoW, and no, they're not answerable yet, that's the point. I'm much more interested in how TWoW handles those questions though than the question of Aegon's legitimacy.

As to the points about his appearance--the problem you state works both ways. Hypothetically, let's say he's fake. How do they know that the dead one year old child would have shown Valyrian features as he aged? Rhaenys didn't. They'd have no idea what the "real" Aegon would have looked like anyway. They would just need a child that plausibly could be the one year old who supposedly had his head dashed against the wall in the Red Keep, so all they would be looking for is a child showing Valyrian features at an early age. If he's hypothetically real, but his development had veered away from Valyrian features, that would have been equally problematic with so little additional evidence of his legitimacy. Either way, a child who looked Valyrian at one years old, either the real Aegon or not, came out looking Valyrian. It's narrative license that can be explained by simple fortunate happenstance. And I don't understand why you don't think they could have used a child who was slightly older? Either way, real or fake, he's been across the narrow sea from a very young age. He's bound to pick up non-Westerosi linguistic tics, or memories of a non-Westerosi life. If he complains of flashes of a strange Lyseni, high Valyrian looking woman, she could just be explained as his wetnurse or something.

And as to the point regarding the POVs, as you say, each is fallible, and each is in a situation where they have incentive to accept the story to different degrees. Jon Connington was madly in love with Rhaegar, and didn't meet the child until he was a bit older. Kevan was panicked and dying. He didn't really have an opportunity to have an internal debate about the validity of the claim. Tyrion has no special information, and while he seems to accept the company line, it's as much an amusement for him to puzzle out what his companions are up to and what the strategy for their campaign might be as anything.

But again, to reiterate, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think it's plausible he's real, and I think it's plausible he's fake, and more than anything, I think it doesn't matter. I actually agree that Martin wants the reader to be leaning towards his legitimacy through ADwD, and the Mummer's Dragon could be something else entirely or even a red herring, but it's at least meant to cast a shadow of doubt. Either way, real or fake, the actual set of conflicts and issues that he's going to have to face are going to be about the same, if not identical, regardless.

[Lady Owl]

This is my first post, in fact my first venture onto a forum. I have just finished binging on the ASOIAF books and I am having serious withdrawals. I have had a read of some of these threads and reading all of these great theories and ideas has really helped with my jonesing for the Seven Kingdoms!

Anyway this particular thread I find fascinating because although I tend to believe that Aegon is legit there is plenty of room for speculation.

The only thing I have disagreed with though while reading the arguments is that there will be no way of knowing for sure that Aegon is the real deal. Fair enough Varys is hard to quote as an impeccable source due to no POV and his nature of manipulation (although personally I think his actions are quite consistant with being a Targ supporter). But I don't think the lack of a Howland Reed equivalent means that we'll never know.

If Aegon does meet up with Dany and forms a bond with a dragon who allows Aegon to ride him...If that happens and Aegon had a relationship with a dragon the way Dany does with Drogon, then for me I think that would be proof enough that he was one of the dragon's three heads.

Also on the matter of Dany and Viserys's part in Varys and Illyrio's plan I think its possible that they wanted to wait and see how they turned out as adults. Have I got it right that it is often said that half the Targs were brilliant and the other half mad? Maybe Varys and Illyrio sincerely want the best for the realm and were hedging their bets?

I'm scared to press the post button! I know I'm such an amateur, not just forum wise but with these books as I'm such a new fan. These are just my lame opinions and ideas, if I've totally missed some obvious points I hope you won't hold it against me as I love reading all these ideas!