Aegon is real v2

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

With regards to foreshadowing, visions, prophesies, etc, you can't exactly count them as evidence until the events they describe have been revealed in the book, since there is plenty of those that are hard to explain (what are the four dwarves raping a beautiful woman?) , those that can be interpreted in various ways (The whole "born amidst salt and smoke" and those that simply failed to take place (Stallion that mounts the world).

That is not to say that Aegon isn't a fake, or that he isn't a Blackfyre, he could be that or something else for all we know.

Evidence is something unambiguous, which most visions of future and foreshadowing are.

For instance, there is a lot of clues that point to R+L=J, Lannister siblings being sired by Aerys, etc, but that doesn't make the theories solid until these are revealed by GRRM. Really bugs me when theories, no matter how plausible are treated as semi-canon or even canon.

I haven't read all the first thread, but what are your thoughts/explanation on the ammount of Blackfyre foreshadowing? (ie Dunk and Egg, dragon sign on the quiet isle etc).

With regards to foreshadowing, visions, prophesies, etc, you can't exactly count them as evidence until the events they describe have been revealed in the book, since there is plenty of those that are hard to explain (what are the four dwarves raping a beautiful woman?) , those that can be interpreted in various ways (The whole "born amidst salt and smoke" and those that simply failed to take place (Stallion that mounts the world).

That is not to say that Aegon isn't a fake, or that he isn't a Blackfyre, he could be that or something else for all we know.

Evidence is something unambiguous, which most visions of future and foreshadowing are not.

For instance, there is a lot of clues that point to R+L=J, Lannister siblings being sired by Aerys, etc, but that doesn't make the theories solid until these are revealed by GRRM. Really bugs me when theories, no matter how plausible are treated as semi-canon or even canon.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

A "mummer's dragon" can be interpreted as a dragon that belongs to a mummer. Varys was a mummer and has supported Aegon for years.

My sticking point is Moqorro when he says dragons young and old, true and false. Who are these dragons? Is Jon both the young and true dragon? Is Aegon the false one? Is BR the old dragon? Does he really know that one of the dragons is false, or does he simply think that because in the flames he sees Dany declaring him a false dragon?

Another thing, is the only dragon that Moqorro is looking for is the one that HE thinks is The One for all his damn beliefs and prophecies. Like Tyrion realized, the Red Priests only have room for one dragon, not two?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

My theory has evidence backing in case you hadn't noticed.

No, it doesn't. It has, as I said in my first post, pure conjecture in response to the evidence and arguments of the Blackfyre theory. It's reactive, negative conjecture, not evidence.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Oh there's another thread. Huh.

[Chatty Duelist]

No, it doesn't. It has, as I said in my first post, pure conjecture in response to the evidence and arguments of the Blackfyre theory. It's reactive, negative conjecture, not evidence.

If this isn't evidence, then your Blackfyre "evidence" is also pure conjecture and supposition.

Another thing, is the only dragon that Moqorro is looking for is the one that HE thinks is The One for all his damn beliefs and prophecies. Like Tyrion realized, the Red Priests only have room for one dragon, not two?

It could be Jon that's the One dragon, it could Dany that's the One, or might even be Aegon who's the PTWP

P.S. Speaking of which are the characters that are explicitly referred to as Dragons?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

If this isn't evidence, then your Blackfyre "evidence" is also pure conjecture and supposition.

No, it's not. There are actual arguments and pieces of textual evidence provided to support the Blackfyre theory. Arguing against this evidence is not by itself evidence. It's purely negative, you have failed to provide a single piece of positive evidence for Aegon being real. But it's obvious you either can't or won't see the distinction, so I give up.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I've said this a thousand times and i'll say it again:

Varys = Mummer

Aegon = Dragon

Mummer's Dragon = Aegon is Varys's puppet.

It could be Vary's mummer,fake, dragon. Not a real dragon.

Targaryens and Blackfyres have the same blood in case you forgot.

No they don't. They had once the same blood, Aegon IV's blood, but not anymore.

There was a cloth dragon in KL in AFfC IIRC, 'twas a play that the crowd loved.

Your point is? A cloth dragon means someone who wears dragon's clothes aka mask. Once again not a real dragon.

Read the the post above you that you ignored.

And if you won't, i'll taunt you again.

I refer only to facts from the books. But if I am wrong please remind me you says, except JonCon who may not know the truth, that Aegon is Rhaegar's son?

[Chatty Duelist]

No, it's not. There are actual arguments and pieces of textual evidence provided to support the Blackfyre theory. Arguing against this evidence is not by itself evidence. It's purely negative, you have failed to provide a single piece of positive evidence for Aegon being real. But it's obvious you either can't or won't see the distinction, so I give up.

Except your "evidence" is ambiguous, sentences and prophecies and visions that could be interpreted a hundred ways if you try hard enough. If you want to give up, give up.

It could be Vary's mummer,fake, dragon. Not a real dragon.

What?

No they don't. They had once the same blood, Aegon IV's blood, but not anymore.

Let me direct you to this. "House Blackfyre is a cadet branch of House Targaryen" (AKA The Same Dynasty with a different name and sigil).

Also the Blackfyre started because Aegon IV fucked his cousin who let me remind you, is also a Targaryen born of incest, which means they have the same blood.

Your point is? A cloth dragon means someone who wears dragon's clothes aka mask. Once again not a real dragon.

A cloth dragon could be a puppet that is used for a play (AKA the play in KL in AFfC).

I refer only to facts from the books. But if I am wrong please remind me you says, except JonCon who cannot know the truth, that Aegon is Rhaegar's son?

Varys can verify considering the fact that he's the one that snuck Aegon out in the first place.

[Ygrain]

A "mummer's dragon" can be interpreted as a dragon that belongs to a mummer. Varys was a mummer and has supported Aegon for years.

My sticking point is Moqorro when he says dragons young and old, true and false. Who are these dragons? Is Jon both the young and true dragon? Is Aegon the false one? Is BR the old dragon? Does he really know that one of the dragons is false, or does he simply think that because in the flames he sees Dany declaring him a false dragon?

The phrase can, not the vision, which clearly showed a fake while the cheering crowd took it for real.

It could be Jon that's the One dragon, it could Dany that's the One, or might even be Aegon who's the PTWP

Are you familiar with Babylon 5? Namely, the part called Babylon Squared? The One Who Was, The One Who Is, The One Who Will Be?

[Chatty Duelist]

The phrase can, not the vision, which clearly showed a fake while the cheering crowd took it for real.

Well actually it was just a play in KL, so the HotU aren't as reliable as you think?

Are you familiar with Babylon 5? Namely, the part called Babylon Squared? The One Who Was, The One Who Is, The One Who Will Be?

No?

[Ygrain]

All the visions were related to Dany herself and/or to important events, like the Red Wedding. The play does not fit. At. All.

My point was the the One might actually be three persons :-)

[Jon's Queen Consort]

What?

Mummer's dragon=fake dragon. You don't have to be nuclear physicist to understand that 1+1=2.

Let me direct you to this. "House Blackfyre is a cadet branch of House Targaryen" (AKA The Same Dynasty with a different name and sigil).

Also the Blackfyre started because Aegon IV fucked his cousin who let me remind you, is also a Targaryen born of incest, which means they have the same blood.

Wrong. Daena was Aegon's cousin but her mother was a Velaryon not a Targaryen. Does Karstarks and Starks have the same blood? They had once but not anymore.

Also the fact that you refered to wikia is just lol.

A cloth dragon could be a puppet that is used for a play (AKA the play in KL in AFfC).

A cloth dragon is a puppet black dragon dressed as a red dragon.

Varys can verify considering the fact that he's the one that snuck Aegon out in the first place.

So no one in the books, except of JonCon, has stated that Aegon is Rhaegar's. I see.

Ans you failed to explain:

When Maelys the Monstrous died upon the Stepstones, it was the end of the male line of House Blackfyre.

Some contracts are writ in ink, and some in blood. I say no more

especially when it comes with:

Beneath the gold, the bitter steel

Because you know bitter steel aka Aegor Rivers fought against the Targs.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

It could be Jon that's the One dragon, it could Dany that's the One, or might even be Aegon who's the PTWP

P.S. Speaking of which are the characters that are explicitly referred to as Dragons?

Lots of characters with Targ blood, LOL

Now you might just send me on a hunt for anyone non Targ, non Blackfyre, ever referred to as a dragon. Afterall, there is an example of the reverse, it was pointed out in the text that Viserys was no TRUE dragon.

The true and false of Moqorro has always been a pitstop for me on this equation, but honestly, Tyrion could have answered it so easily, the Red Priests or at least Moqorro, who has cottoned on to Dany, only have room for ONE TRUE DRAGON in their/his plots and dreams.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

All the visions were related to Dany herself and/or to important events, like the Red Wedding. The play does not fit. At. All.

My point was the the One might actually be three persons :-)

That's true, too. I've seen that one around in many fashions, the One actually needed three to be complete. Interestingly, the sigils always are one dragon with three heads itself. Yes, there are the three OG Targs and dragons that conquered Westeros, but still, why not put three dragons on their damn sigil?

For me, I just think too much, LOL, and other than R+L=J, I don't buy much of this or that theory being set in stone.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Lots of characters with Targ blood, LOL

:agree: If Blackfyres=Red Targaryen dragons, then the stag, the sun, the seahorse are dragons too. Which is simply :bs: for me.

[Chatty Duelist]

Mummer's dragon=fake dragon. You don't have to be nuclear physicist to understand that 1+1=2.

Uh no, Mummer's dragon = Dragon that belongs to a mummer, it's not rocket science

Wrong. Daena was Aegon's cousin but her mother was a Velaryon not a Targaryen. Does Karstarks and Starks have the same blood? They had once but not anymore.

What? They're a cadet line, they're the exact same dynasty with a different name and sigil, it's not rocket science.

Also the fact that you refered to wikia is just lol.

So what? You're going to bash me because i used a source you don't like? It's not rocket science to recognize a double standard.

So no one in the books, except of JonCon, has stated that Aegon is Rhaegar's. I see.

And Varys. And Tyrion. It's not rocket science to read the books.

Ans you failed to explain:

especially when it comes with:

Because you know bitter steel aka Aegor Rivers fought against the Targs.

Is Bittersteel alive? No. He's dead, and Bittersteel isn't the leader of the GC. The commander of the GC in AFfC is the far more pragmatic Harry Strickland. It's not rocket science to inform yourself.

And how do you go from "Lots of people with Targ blood" with "Lots of people are Dragons"? That's like saying a cat is black because his distant cousin thrice removed is.

:agree: If Blackfyres=Red Targaryen dragons, then the stag, the sun, the seahorse are dragons too. Which is simply :bs: for me.

Oddly childish how you use smiley's to empathize your point. And no, the Baratheons are related by the female line, it's not rocket science to know dynastic succession laws and genetics.

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

Keep drinking that Arbor Gold and believing the lie about Aegon being Rhaegar's son. That is all I came here to say.

[finger]

That's true, too. I've seen that one around in many fashions, the One actually needed three to be complete. Interestingly, the sigils always are one dragon with three heads itself. Yes, there are the three OG Targs and dragons that conquered Westeros, but still, why not put three dragons on their damn sigil?

For me, I just think too much, LOL, and other than R+L=J, I don't buy much of this or that theory being set in stone.

To have us discussing, for sure. :laugh:

Aemon said very clearly that the three head od the dragon meant three people. Well...

Dragon = House Targaryen

Heads = actual Targs

At the beginnig it was Aegon I and his two sisters. :dunno:

[Ygrain]

Uh no, Mummer's dragon = Dragon that belongs to a mummer

Mummer's dragon is Dany's description of a cloth dragon on a pole. A fake dragon. Not a real dragon led by a mummer.

[Ygrain]

Keep drinking that Arbor Gold and believing the lie about Aegon being Rhaegar's son. That is all I came here to say.

:drink:

ETA: Sorry, my PC's messed at the moment and I can't get the smiley right.