Aegon is real v2

[Chatty Duelist]

Did he ever say Aegon Targaryen? Did he have a reason to tell anything in the first place?

Ambiguous impliance.

I totally agree with that. It could go either way, most any of them could. Yes, there are certain theories that look more likely than others, etc., but I'm not sure I understand the harm in thinking about them, and looking at the pros and cons of one idea or another, whether it be FAegon or......everyone is a secret Targ.

I will LMAO if this crap never gets answered, just sayin'!! It'd be funny as hell, and well..........sometimes I wonder why I'm even bothering to wait to read the last books, there are so many who seem willing to assure others exactly how it will all turn out. Some contact GRRM, no need for more books, we're done? :dunno:

That would be ridiculous (if this issue is never resolved by GRRM).

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Varys has no reason to lie to a dead man, and he explicitly says Aegon is real. While technically only one piece of evidence, it is a very strong piece of evidence.

I don't agree that it's a strong piece of evidence, but I don't care to hash this over again atm. The fact remains that it is the only piece of evidence.

Is Varys' story impossible? No. Is it implausible? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think if Varys wanted to save Aegon, he could have pulled it off while making everyone think he was dead.

The Golden Company was originally founded by Blackfyres, but that doesn't mean that with no true Blackfyres left they'd be willing to back any dragon, black or red, in order to return to Westeros.

Beware the Mummer's Dragon- this could be referring to Aegon being played by Varys, not necessarily that his lineage is fake. Also, it might not even refer to Aegon. If Melisandre ever wakens that "stone dragon" perhaps that is what is meant by the fake dragon. Prophecy is far from clear, and until whatever it's referring to actually comes about I don't think it can be taken as evidence for one thing or another.

Also, while we're on the topic of prophecies, if the dragon indeed has three heads, assuming Dany and Jon are the first two, who would be the third, if not Aegon?

But think about the fact that each one of your points (minus the last, which I'll get to) has to cast doubt on a separate piece of positive evidence in favor of fAegon being a Blackfyre in order to claim he's real. Just look at the number of separate pieces of evidence (and there are more even than you've argued against here) that are all pointing in the same direction. All of them reinforce one another by virtue of the fact that they point in the same direction. The idea that all of these things will turn out to be red herrings is exceptionally difficult to believe, especially when the counterpoints to them are not particularly compelling even taken in isolation.

wrt 'the dragon has three heads' GRRM has confirmed not all dragonriders have to be Targaryen.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The posts that say that a mummer's dragon is a Dragon though a puppet Dragon, the posts that say that she could be referring to someone else entirely or the posts saying that she could be flat out wrong entirely.

I will agree with those who say that mummer's dragon equals a cloth dragon equals a black wanted to be red which seem logical to me. Thank you very much.

But relatives all the same.

If they are 150 years back then I don't think that you can call them the same. The Blackfyre line doesn't have the same blood as Rhaegar. At some point 150 years ago they had the same ancestor but since they have intermarried with different families they don't have the same blood. They just have a dash of Targ blood. Does anyone, but Rickard himself, call Robb kinslayer? They were relatives after all.

The fact that it's ambiguous. It could be that it refers to Aegon son of Rhaegar or another Aegon entirely.

So no actual quote. Then we come back to the fact that no one, except JonCon, says that FAegon is Rhaegar's. Do you really base your theory on the words of a man who hasn't seen the child until he was 5 or 6?

The quotes i can't find because i'm too lazy to go looking for it in the book.

I don't think that there are any quotes. All that Kevan say is that they believed Tywin when he said that he was Aegon. It was never said that Aegon was not Aegon or that he didn't looked like Aegon. After all how could Kevan or Tywin knew how Aegon looked like?

As if Tyrion could just go and tell the exact age of people. I dare you go and plan guess some random dude's age.

Challenge accepted.

See above quote on Tyrion. And i can safely go and look at a man with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin and say he's from a place where blue eyed pale blondes are common so Northern Europe or Any place in the West.

Actually no. I have 5 friend who are from Mediterranean country where people use to have dark hair and dark eyes, my country, and they have blonde hair blue eyes without Northern DNA, just like I know 2 Northern people that they look more Mediterranean than me.Your assumption is that because he was hot tempered, like Brandon or Lyanna, doesn't make him Targaryen or Stark.

Every single one.

Point them because I can't find them.

No, because Orys was a Baratheon, a half-brother to Aegon, so had some Targ blood, going from that i can safely assume that all Baratheons descended from Orys had some Targaryen blood in them. They're relatives, half-cousins.

And Aegon was half Velaryon. Your point is? Baratheons aren't Targaryen, just like Blackfyres aren't Targaryen. They are relatives but they are not the same blood that is what I am trying to say.

When Illyrio says that black or red the dragon is a dragon, doesn't mean that they are the same.

[Michael Herman]

One of the major reasons people seem to believe he is a blackfyre is they doubt we would know so much about the blackfyres unless it is directly relevant.

I disagree:

1. George needs wars within recent history to flesh out Westeros and give major characters (blackfish and Barristan) real military achievements. Being an incredibly detailed writer he gives us a lot of information about these wars over the books.

2. We get plenty of useless information, why did we need to know about the history of the Wolf's den or the three sisters? We don't, it's just part of the world Martin has built.

While I don't know exactly who Aegon is, I don't think we should be forming any sort of consensus at this point (something which many seem to have done with the Blackfyre theory). Apart from potential dragon riding (would Blackfyre's be comparable to Targaryen's in that regard?) it don't matter whether he is real or not, only whether the character's believe he is real.

"Power resides only where men believe it resides."

That quote sums up perfectly the Aegon debate, our opinion's don't matter, nor does the truth, only the opinions of the characters. BTW I really want him to be a Targ but I'm not sure whether he is legitimate or not.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Wow, this thread is going fast as well! It's nice to see quotes of myself in the OP of this version :)

As to what I want to add:

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).

If you list all of those you want answered, I suggest you post them here, and we'll give it our best go :)

Let's see the facts.

If he is fake:

Some of the evidences:

Quaithe's prophecy.

Quote

and griffin, the sun's son and the mummer's dragon.

The Golden Company=Blackfyre

Quote

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

Beneath the gold, the bitter steel

Illyrio

Quote

Did anyone ever consider that "writ in blood" could mean that actual blood is used for signing the contract? Tyrion does it when signing with Brown Ben Plumm, iirc.

Quote

I said before, but I'll say it again. This could also mean that "No matter that there are no black dragons (Blackfyre's) left anymore. There still are red dragons (Targaryens). It's better than nothing, there are no black dragons left to take us (the GC) home."

House of the Undying

Quote

If he is real:

Nothing more than JonCon's words who saw him when he was 5 or 6. Varys never says that Aegon is Rhaegar's son.

Actually, Varys does. The conversation between Varys and Kevan is viewed from Kevan's POV. It is important to remember the POV. Kevan, when saying "Aegon? Dead. He's dead." is referring to Aegon Targaryen. And Varys knows this. And so he answers. "No. He's here." practically saying "No, Aegon isn't death. He's alive and he's here in Westeros.".

Also, perhaps an interesting note. Varys' voice changes notabily when he says this. He also does this when he is telling Tyrion about how he got cut. An emotional event for him, so perhaps Varys' voice sometimes betrayes his emotions? When's it's a very emotional thing he's talking about then. I mean, Varys has been plotting for 17 years, and his plans are finally going to the next stage.

See bolded parts.

:agree:

It didn't need fixing.

Starks=Starks, Karstarks have Starks' blood but they are not Starks. They are not the same house. They may come from them but they are not the same.

Wiki is not always right.

And where it is stated that he is Rhaegar's?

Seriously now. How could Tyrion know the truth?

There is the female line of the Blackfyres or you missed Illyrio's word's that only the male line is dead?

What I am saying is that the Baratheons, the Martells and the Velaryon (at least) have Targs blood but that doesn't make them dragons. Just like the Blackfyres, once they had Targs blood but not anymore.

I don't see how I insulted someone.

And where it is stated that he is Rhaegar's? -> like I said above, during the conversation between Kevan and Varys.

What I am saying is that the Baratheons, the Martells and the Velaryon (at least) have Targs blood but that doesn't make them dragons. Just like the Blackfyres, once they had Targs blood but not anymore. -> Actually, the Martells and Baratheons do have Targaryen blood. The Velaryons, however, don't. The Lord of the Driftmark that married a Targaryen Princess died after his son and his grandchildren. His bastard son became the new Lord of the Driftmark. No Targaryen blood in that one there. Nu further marriages between a male Velaryon and a female Targaryen have been known since that one. But the Martells and Baratheons both still have dragon blood. That part of the heritage doesn't suddenly disappear. The same goes for the Blackfyre's.

We get a lot of information about food. Sometimes it's important (honeyed locusts, Bran's dream about Freys and Maester Luwen). Sometimes, it means nothing

Exactly. Remember that GRRM will add (at first sight) contradictory information to throw us off track. If we could see everything at the first read, the story would become a lot less fun to read.

I just think you have to go back ~10 years when Aegon reappears at age 4. There's a big difference in the plausibility of the theories if you go back to that point. What was Illyrio doing at that point.

1) they have the real Aegon and hire JonCon to tutor his squire's son

2) they have a random Blackfyre, who they know can pass for Rhaegar's son in 10 years, and begin raising him as a Targ with a lifelong Targ supporter as tutor.

3) Illyrio's son is a Blackfyre. So he gives up his only son, to make a charade about him being the Targ heir to the IT. And who can pass for being Rhaegar's son. And who is given a lifelong Targ supporter as tutor.

4) they just start raising a kid pretending he is Rhaegar's son. Hoping he will look like Rhaegar in 10 years.

2 and 3 make so little sense. But they have to be the case for the Blackfyre theory to be true. 4 is pretty out there, because they can't predict the state of the IT 10 years in the future.

Back to present day: if the GC are supporting Aegon because he is a Blackfyre, how in the world can they keep that a secret from him and JonCon? It's already been months.

I still don't get why everyone assigns "griffin" as JonCon and not Aegon. Why would JonCon deserve to be so important as to warrant inclusion in the prophecy? He's a nobody basically.

and finally, saving Aegon in KL doesn't depend on them not identifying the body. Even a few hours confusion would be enough. And as I have said before, they (Bob, Ned, and the Lannisters) would not want to admit they let Aegon escape them at that point.

Do you know any other candidate for the Griffin part of the prophecy? Because if you do, it might add something to the discussions :)

You mean the posts where other posters say that mummer's, cloth dragon as a game has no importace about Dany and actually refers to FAegon? Those posts?

Distand relatives yes, but you will never be the same.

Like? Still no quote from you :) Just a reminder

And where it says that they knew that it wasn't Aegon or didn't looked like Aegon?

Still there are 2 years missing. How do you explain that?

BTW: Tyrion has never met a Targ so everything he knows about them is stories, just like we know for example that people from X have the Y characteristics, does this means that all people with Y chracteristics are from X country? But regardless FAegon is 1-2 years younger than Aegon.

Which one?

That means that they don't have the blood because they are from the female line? Also Orys' father was a Targ. By your logic (Blackfyres are from male line so they are Targs) the Baratheons who came from Orys' line are Targs too.

Yes I think that they are. They may be sarcastic but civil nevertheless.

Still there are 2 years missing. How do you explain that? -> Tyrion is a smart guy, but seriously, he can't guess everyone's age. There are children who look younger than they are, and there are those who look older than they are. Tyrion can't always be right about everything. This could be such a situation.

Edit:

On the death of the child in the Red Keep:

Of course Varys couldn't have known that Aegon's face would be smashed beyond recognition. I would never try to argue that. The fact that the babe's head was smashed beyond recognition was just a coincidence, I guess. Luck for Varys.

But the child only needed to look enough like Aegon. Remember that not Tywin, nor Ned or Robert had never seen Aegon before, and even Jaime had most likely never seen the babe close by enough to look at the eye colours. I doubt anyone would have looked at the eye colour. And if, after Tywin had had the child killed, noticed the eye colour was off, and got a confirmation from Pycelle, he wouldn´t have needed to tell Robert.

But the most important thing: the decoy child was needed to create confusion. Once Aegon was safely out of KL, it wouldn't have mattered if any of the rebels discovered the murdered child wasn't real. Aegon would be at a safe distance away, he would have disappeared in the crowd of Essos, and they wouldn't hear about him for seventeen years. The fact that they all believed he was in fact death, only helped Varys and Illyrio along.

Varys would need time to get Aegon out of KL. The rebels would have thought they had captured Aegon during the taking of the city. By the time it was discovered they had a decoy, Varys would have gotten the real Aegon out of the city already.

But, Tywin reached the city first, so the rebels believed the babe death. Had there been enough left to identify, than the same scenario as above would have taken place: Varys would have gotten the child out before the deceit was discovered, before the rebels would start searching again. Yet now, with the rebels believing Aegon to be death, because they can't tell otherwise (or, as Kevan had put it "no of us looked long"), Varys has gotten a lot more time, and a very relaxed situation, to raise and train Aegon in.

[Chatty Duelist]

The cavalry has arrived! :commie: :commie: :commie: :commie: :commie:

ETA: Added more horses for the cavalry.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Ambiguous impliance.

That would be ridiculous (if this issue is never resolved by GRRM).

Sorry, I have a bit of a twisted sense of humor, LOL

I'm not certain either way. There is part of me that thinks GRRM likes Tyrion too much. He's supposed to be smart about everything but his own personal life, soooooooooo.......here we have his supposed admitted favorite character figuring the Aegon thing out. That worries me. Moqorro calling a dragon FALSE worries me because the Red Priests only seem to have room for ONE TRUE DRAGON anyway, and whoa be their chosen dragon who doesn't do exactly what they want, I don't think that point is hard to miss.

Still, it's a bit of longshot, I'm not sure it's even 50/50 that Aegon is real, but it is not beyond the scope of possiblity. The 'cloth' dragon and Dany's discussion of it could go many ways, I've given some of my own thoughts on it in both of these threads as have others, and I'm too posted out to go into it again. With Quaithe and the trust no one on her list.......I'm not sure that even makes sense. While maybe none of them were on the complete up and up (for example, Quentyn is supposedly on his LOVE QUEST, but honestly, The Martells have played a more than decade long game for FIRE AND BLOOD) but as we know from POVs, all of those people weren't out to harm her, just reach her. Not trusting people fully is something Dany already has going on, but it's not as if that list of Quaithe's was necessarily a list of enemies. So, I find that a bit vague, too.

Some of the postings in the first thread were interesting, unbiased, and I was interested in looking at some of the ideas pro and con on the issue of The Young Blue Haired One. Still, if we never get an answer, I will laugh, sick sense of humor and all that.

[thetitansbastard]

I hope you all realize that no matter what you think about Aegon, nobody is right or wrong until the freaking book comes out. That's the most infuriating thing about many users/theories here, that they claim evidence for a theory because that's what they want it to be, everyone should accept it as proven fact, and everyone else is wrong.

Theories are not fact, no matter how much 'evidence' you think you have for it. Stop telling others they are wrong when you are likely wrong yourself.

I know. Circles, dog. CIRCLES. Although its worth noting once again even when the freaking book comes out, most likely we are still looking at a situation where nobody is right or wrong.

[Chatty Duelist]

I will agree with those who say that mummer's dragon equals a cloth dragon equals a black wanted to be red which seem logical to me. Thank you very much.

Then revel in the close-mindedness.

If they are 150 years back then I don't think that you can call them the same. The Blackfyre line doesn't have the same blood as Rhaegar. At some point 150 years ago they had the same ancestor but since they have intermarried with different families they don't have the same blood. They just have a dash of Targ blood. Does anyone, but Rickard himself, call Robb kinslayer? They were relatives after all.

They were very distant relatives. Same blood, different persons. I'm not calling them the same, i'm saying that the blood is similar.

So no actual quote. Then we come back to the fact that no one, except JonCon, says that FAegon is Rhaegar's. Do you really base your theory on the words of a man who hasn't seen the child until he was 5 or 6?

Read @Rhaenys_Targaryen's post.

I don't think that there are any quotes. All that Kevan say is that they believed Tywin when he said that he was Aegon. It was never said that Aegon was not Aegon or that he didn't looked like Aegon. After all how could Kevan or Tywin knew how Aegon looked like?

Because Tywin was Aerys's hand for 20 years? And lived in the Red Keep with the King?

Challenge accepted.

Actually no. I have 5 friend who are from Mediterranean country where people use to have dark hair and dark eyes, my country, and they have blonde hair blue eyes without Northern DNA, just like I know 2 Northern people that they look more Mediterranean than me.Your assumption is that because he was hot tempered, like Brandon or Lyanna, doesn't make him Targaryen or Stark.

I recall saying that Northern Europeans are more likely to be blue eyed, pale and blond than other places. And i know what people in the Mediterranean look like, i lived there.

Point them because I can't find them.

And Aegon was half Velaryon. Your point is? Baratheons aren't Targaryen, just like Blackfyres aren't Targaryen. They are relatives but they are not the same blood that is what I am trying to say.

A hilarious strawman.

I never said the Baratheons were Dragons, you planted that notion yourself, i said that the Baratheons are related to the Targaryens.

When Illyrio says that black or red the dragon is a dragon, doesn't mean that they are the same.

They're descended from the same person.

[Ragnorak]

I have to thus conclude, that Aegon can be Real, despite what forum says.

The argument has never been about whether or not Aegon can be real. If one starts with the premise that Varys is lying and Aegon is fake that would mean that Varys would have to craft a cover story-- a credible cover story. Proving that a baby swap doesn't violate the laws of physics doesn't do anything to advance the likelihood that it happened. If Varys is trying to foist a bogus heir on the Seven Kingdoms, his cover story also has to be plausible. Proving that Aegon could be real doesn't do anything to prove that he is real. The same "could be" arguments can be applied equally to make the case that Varys crafted a plausible cover story. This is Varys; he isn't exactly what someone we would call inept at this type of intrigue so of course any fake story he comes up with is going to at least be possible. Where are the textual indications that the possible is what actually happened?

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

I'm not trying to be snide but I hadn't noticed.

Evidence would be a line from the text that could be construed to indicate that a baby swap did in fact happen not that it could have happened. Again "could have" is a prerequisite for both a real and a fake Aegon.

There have been six foreshadowing threads. Not a single post has pointed to the foreshadowing of a real Aegon. A line of foreshadowing that points to or reasonably could point to a real Aegon could qualify as evidence. A reference to a ship that was missing from Kings Landing after the sack could help build the case. We don't have one. We don't have Davos recalling a smuggler in KL who escaped during the sack, we don't have Jaime recalling Lannister guards killing the Gold Cloaks by the harbor, or any other similar recollection from any character to possibly hint at such an event taking place. Is there a story or a song about a hidden heir returning that fits with a real Aegon?

Things like that would be evidence. That isn't exactly a high threshold. Asking for a reference to the harbor during the sack or any reference of ships related to the sack or a nursemaid in Kings Landing that might have gone with Aegon or any remotely related detail ancillary to such a plot is an extremely wide net to cast-- a net that comes up empty.

Is there a compelling motivation for Varys ignoring Viserys and Dany while attempting to prepare a real Aegon to rule? Why would a careful planner like Varys put all his eggs in the Aegon heir basket and ignore the spare he had in Viserys? Ignore the possible marriage alliance a Dany could offer? Questions like these need answers. Offhanded vague answers like a "maybe he wanted Robert to feel safe on his throne" don't fly. These questions need to be woven into a comprehensive theory that explains what Varys did. The answers can't be dismissive of the actions but rather need to embrace them as proofs of the hypothesis such that they serve to bolster the idea that Varys saved the real Aegon son of Rhaegar.

You don't need to feel bad at having fallen short of that. No one else has been able to do it yet either.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The argument has never been about whether or not Aegon can be real. If one starts with the premise that Varys is lying and Aegon is fake that would mean that Varys would have to craft a cover story-- a credible cover story. Proving that a baby swap doesn't violate the laws of physics doesn't do anything to advance the likelihood that it happened. If Varys is trying to foist a bogus heir on the Seven Kingdoms, his cover story also has to be plausible. Proving that Aegon could be real doesn't do anything to prove that he is real. The same "could be" arguments can be applied equally to make the case that Varys crafted a plausible cover story. This is Varys; he isn't exactly what someone we would call inept at this type of intrigue so of course any fake story he comes up with is going to at least be possible. Where are the textual indications that the possible is what actually happened?

I'm not trying to be snide but I hadn't noticed.

Evidence would be a line from the text that could be construed to indicate that a baby swap did in fact happen not that it could have happened. Again "could have" is a prerequisite for both a real and a fake Aegon.

There have been six foreshadowing threads. Not a single post has pointed to the foreshadowing of a real Aegon. A line of foreshadowing that points to or reasonably could point to a real Aegon could qualify as evidence. A reference to a ship that was missing from Kings Landing after the sack could help build the case. We don't have one. We don't have Davos recalling a smuggler in KL who escaped during the sack, we don't have Jaime recalling Lannister guards killing the Gold Cloaks by the harbor, or any other similar recollection from any character to possibly hint at such an event taking place. Is there a story or a song about a hidden heir returning that fits with a real Aegon?

Things like that would be evidence. That isn't exactly a high threshold. Asking for a reference to the harbor during the sack or any reference of ships related to the sack or a nursemaid in Kings Landing that might have gone with Aegon or any remotely related detail ancillary to such a plot is an extremely wide net to cast-- a net that comes up empty.

Is there a compelling motivation for Varys ignoring Viserys and Dany while attempting to prepare a real Aegon to rule? Why would a careful planner like Varys put all his eggs in the Aegon heir basket and ignore the spare he had in Viserys? Ignore the possible marriage alliance a Dany could offer? Questions like these need answers. Offhanded vague answers like a "maybe he wanted Robert to feel safe on his throne" don't fly. These questions need to be woven into a comprehensive theory that explains what Varys did. The answers can't be dismissive of the actions but rather need to embrace them as proofs of the hypothesis such that they serve to bolster the idea that Varys saved the real Aegon son of Rhaegar.

You don't need to feel bad at having fallen short of that. No one else has been able to do it yet either.

Is foreshadowing really necessary for something to happen? Things happened in these books without foreshadowing for those events.

Also, the Sack was a very chaotic event. A ship could go missing, a man could disappear without ever being noticed as missing.

[aceluby]

I don't agree that it's a strong piece of evidence, but I don't care to hash this over again atm. The fact remains that it is the only piece of evidence.

And there's no evidence supporting he's fake. Visions and prophecy are not evidence.

The argument has never been about whether or not Aegon can be real. If one starts with the premise that Varys is lying and Aegon is fake that would mean that Varys would have to craft a cover story-- a credible cover story. Proving that a baby swap doesn't violate the laws of physics doesn't do anything to advance the likelihood that it happened. If Varys is trying to foist a bogus heir on the Seven Kingdoms, his cover story also has to be plausible. Proving that Aegon could be real doesn't do anything to prove that he is real. The same "could be" arguments can be applied equally to make the case that Varys crafted a plausible cover story. This is Varys; he isn't exactly what someone we would call inept at this type of intrigue so of course any fake story he comes up with is going to at least be possible. Where are the textual indications that the possible is what actually happened?

I'm not trying to be snide but I hadn't noticed.

Evidence would be a line from the text that could be construed to indicate that a baby swap did in fact happen not that it could have happened. Again "could have" is a prerequisite for both a real and a fake Aegon.

There have been six foreshadowing threads. Not a single post has pointed to the foreshadowing of a real Aegon. A line of foreshadowing that points to or reasonably could point to a real Aegon could qualify as evidence. A reference to a ship that was missing from Kings Landing after the sack could help build the case. We don't have one. We don't have Davos recalling a smuggler in KL who escaped during the sack, we don't have Jaime recalling Lannister guards killing the Gold Cloaks by the harbor, or any other similar recollection from any character to possibly hint at such an event taking place. Is there a story or a song about a hidden heir returning that fits with a real Aegon?

Things like that would be evidence. That isn't exactly a high threshold. Asking for a reference to the harbor during the sack or any reference of ships related to the sack or a nursemaid in Kings Landing that might have gone with Aegon or any remotely related detail ancillary to such a plot is an extremely wide net to cast-- a net that comes up empty.

Is there a compelling motivation for Varys ignoring Viserys and Dany while attempting to prepare a real Aegon to rule? Why would a careful planner like Varys put all his eggs in the Aegon heir basket and ignore the spare he had in Viserys? Ignore the possible marriage alliance a Dany could offer? Questions like these need answers. Offhanded vague answers like a "maybe he wanted Robert to feel safe on his throne" don't fly. These questions need to be woven into a comprehensive theory that explains what Varys did. The answers can't be dismissive of the actions but rather need to embrace them as proofs of the hypothesis such that they serve to bolster the idea that Varys saved the real Aegon son of Rhaegar.

You don't need to feel bad at having fallen short of that. No one else has been able to do it yet either.

What if the 'dragons both true and false' points to Aegon being the true dragon and someone else being the false one? What if the 'mummer's dragon' is possessive, and the dragon is true, but Dany is interpreting wrong?

Fact is that while the foreshadowing thread is interesting, it's really just picking the text and making guesses on what it 'could' mean. It's very difficult to pick out foreshadowing of events that have yet to happen. GRRM is very good at false foreshadowing, and because of that, without knowing what we are foreshadowing, it's simply another spot to flesh out theories on what it could mean and typically idea starters for threads such as this.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Did anyone ever consider that "writ in blood" could mean that actual blood is used for signing the contract? Tyrion does it when signing with Brown Ben Plumm, iirc.

It could be if their unofficial motto wasn't beneath the gold the bitter steel. So no.

I said before, but I'll say it again. This could also mean that "No matter that there are no black dragons (Blackfyre's) left anymore. There still are red dragons (Targaryens). It's better than nothing, there are no black dragons left to take us (the GC) home."

You mean the same dragons that they fought against? Again as it seems they honor Aegor, who was a Blackfyre supporter. And let's say that what you said could happen, then why they aren't with Dany who has better chances that FAegon?

Actually, Varys does. The conversation between Varys and Kevan is viewed from Kevan's POV. It is important to remember the POV. Kevan, when saying "Aegon? Dead. He's dead." is referring to Aegon Targaryen. And Varys knows this. And so he answers. "No. He's here." practically saying "No, Aegon isn't death. He's alive and he's here in Westeros.".

Also, perhaps an interesting note. Varys' voice changes notabily when he says this. He also does this when he is telling Tyrion about how he got cut. An emotional event for him, so perhaps Varys' voice sometimes betrayes his emotions? When's it's a very emotional thing he's talking about then. I mean, Varys has been plotting for 17 years, and his plans are finally going to the next stage.

Still he never says "Aegon Targaryen" or "Rhaegar's son".

What I am saying is that the Baratheons, the Martells and the Velaryon (at least) have Targs blood but that doesn't make them dragons. Just like the Blackfyres, once they had Targs blood but not anymore. -> Actually, the Martells and Baratheons do have Targaryen blood. The Velaryons, however, don't. The Lord of the Driftmark that married a Targaryen Princess died after his son and his grandchildren. His bastard son became the new Lord of the Driftmark. No Targaryen blood in that one there. Nu further marriages between a male Velaryon and a female Targaryen have been known since that one. But the Martells and Baratheons both still have dragon blood. That part of the heritage doesn't suddenly disappear. The same goes for the Blackfyre's.

I think you mean the Plumms. Eleana's children were with her cousin Oakenfist.Rhaenyra had married a Velaryon too. Yes their children died but that doesn't mean that "there. Nu further marriages between a male Velaryon and a female Targaryen have been known since that". Also there is the small matter that we don't know all the Targs and their families.

Still there are 2 years missing. How do you explain that? -> Tyrion is a smart guy, but seriously, he can't guess everyone's age. There are children who look younger than they are, and there are those who look older than they are. Tyrion can't always be right about everything. This could be such a situation.

When someone claim that the fact that Aegon was hot blooded make him a Targ, then I have to ask how the fact that FAegon is younger makes him Aegon and how much Tyrion knew about Targs, except the stories he has read or listened.

Then revel in the close-mindedness.

I think that is called: I don't believe what people say and I prefer to exam them.

They were very distant relatives. Same blood, different persons. I'm not calling them the same, i'm saying that the blood is similar.

Actually what you said was:

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

You said the same blood, not me. And no they don't have the same blood. Blackfyres have some Targaryen blood but not the same blood as the main branch.

Read @Rhaenys_Targaryen's post.

to quote myself: Still he never says "Aegon Targaryen" or "Rhaegar's son".

Because Tywin was Aerys's hand for 20 years? And lived in the Red Keep with the King?

And Tywin had left KL before Aegon's birth. So he didn't knew how he looked like. Also is the small matter that no one could recognise Aegon's body.

I recall saying that Northern Europeans are more likely to be blue eyed, pale and blonde than other places. And i know what people in the Mediterranean look like, i lived there.

What you said is that because he was hot blooded he was a Targaryen. Logic fails

I never said the Baratheons were Dragons, you planted that notion yourself, i said that the Baratheons are related to the Targaryens.

Same with the Targs. They have Targs blood but they are not red dragons.

They're descended from the same person.

That doesn't mean that they have the same blood.

[Chatty Duelist]

It could be if their unofficial motto wasn't beneath the gold the bitter steel. So no.

What does their motto have to with blood? Or anything for that matter?

You mean the same dragons that they fought against? Again as it seems they honor Aegor, who was a Blackfyre supporter. And let's say that what you said could happen, then why they aren't with Dany who has better chances that FAegon?

Because ®Aegon's claim is stronger?

Still he never says "Aegon Targaryen" or "Rhaegar's son".

Denial is a powerful thing. Kevan is thinking of Rhaegar's son. Read it again.

I think you mean the Plumms. Eleana's children were with her cousin Oakenfist.Rhaenyra had married a Velaryon too. Yes their children died but that doesn't mean that "there. Nu further marriages between a male Velaryon and a female Targaryen have been known since that". Also there is the small matter that we don't know all the Targs and their families.

Nor do we know about all the Blackfyres and their families.

When someone claim that the fact that Aegon was hot blooded make him a Targ, then I have to ask how the fact that FAegon is younger makes him Aegon and how much Tyrion knew about Targs, except the stories he has read or listened.

He reads history books a lot, something i don't expect you do much.

I think that is called: I don't believe what people say and I prefer to exam them.

Oh the irony.

Actually what you said was:

You said the same blood, not me. And no they don't have the same blood. Blackfyres have some Targaryen blood but not the same blood as the main branch.

to quote myself: Still he never says "Aegon Targaryen" or "Rhaegar's son".

Reread that quote.

And Tywin had left KL before Aegon's birth. So he didn't knew how he looked like. Also is the small matter that no one could recognise Aegon's body.

What you said is that because he was hot blooded he was a Targaryen. Logic fails

Same with the Targs. They have Targs blood but they are not red dragons.

And?

That doesn't mean that they have the same blood.

My brother and i had the same father, going by your logic, me and my brother do not have the same blood.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

And there's no evidence supporting he's fake. Visions and prophecy are not evidence.

How are they not evidence? This is literature, literature in which visions and prophecy have proven to be true.

Also, you could throw out every bit of evidence that comes from prophecy and still make a compelling case. Saying there is 'no evidence' is absolutely ridiculous, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how someone could earnestly make that comment.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

It could be if their unofficial motto wasn't beneath the gold the bitter steel. So no.

You mean the same dragons that they fought against? Again as it seems they honor Aegor, who was a Blackfyre supporter. And let's say that what you said could happen, then why they aren't with Dany who has better chances that FAegon?

But Aegor isn't alive anymore, nor are there any descendants of Aegor or the Blackfyre's in the GC. That they didn't change their motto, could be simply because they didn't want to lose credibility, since they relied on fractions hiring them for work.

And Dany is a woman. Supporting her could be seen as handing the reign of the Kingdoms to whoever marries her.

I think you mean the Plumms. Eleana's children were with her cousin Oakenfist.Rhaenyra had married a Velaryon too. Yes their children died but that doesn't mean that "there. Nu further marriages between a male Velaryon and a female Targaryen have been known since that". Also there is the small matter that we don't know all the Targs and their families.

I didn't mean the Plumms.

Corlys married a Targaryen Princess and had one son who could continue the line. He did, indeed by marrying another Targaryen princess, and they had three sons. All three sons died before having children of their own. Corlys' son died as well. Corlys had no further sons with his Targaryen wife.

Until Addam and Alyn have been proven to have been Laenor's bastards, we have to assume that they were Corlys' bastards, which would bring the amount of dragon blood in their veins to zero. Alyn continued the line, and had two bastards with a Targaryen Princess. But those weren't Velaryons, they were Waters (Longwaters, later on). So the Velaryon line contains no dragon blood.

The Plumm line obviously does, since there was a Targaryen mother involved.

When someone claim that the fact that Aegon was hot blooded make him a Targ, then I have to ask how the fact that FAegon is younger makes him Aegon and how much Tyrion knew about Targs, except the stories he has read or listened.

I don't really understand this, but I assume you ask how can Aegon be fAegon if the boy appears to be younger than Aegon should be? Since children could seem younger. They can be small for their age. And Tyrion isn't right about every age he guesses. He could be off by two years.

[Chatty Duelist]

How are they not evidence? This is literature, literature in which visions and prophecy have proven to be true.

Also, you could throw out every bit of evidence that comes from prophecy and still make a compelling case. Saying there is 'no evidence' is absolutely ridiculous, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how someone could earnestly make that comment.

This is GRRM, prophecies and visions can be interpreted a hundred and one ways, may mean something else entirely, or plain made up.

[Ygrain]

Is foreshadowing really necessary for something to happen? Things happened in these books without foreshadowing for those events.

Also, the Sack was a very chaotic event. A ship could go missing, a man could disappear without ever being noticed as missing.

If you want to avoid making a major plot twist a deus ex machina, then yes, foreshadowing is necessary.

What if the 'dragons both true and false' points to Aegon being the true dragon and someone else being the false one? What if the 'mummer's dragon' is possessive, and the dragon is true, but Dany is interpreting wrong?

Please. The mummer's dragon is DANY'S OWN description of what she saw in HotU. It is a descriptive term.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This is GRRM, prophecies and visions can be interpreted a hundred and one ways, may mean something else entirely, or plain made up.

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it when we have several firm examples of prophecy and visions coming true. In fact there are visions from the House of the Undying itself that we know came to pass. Most of the referents in Quaithe's warning are easily discernible, so we know we can glean firm meaning from that too. The idea that prophecy has no predictive value in ASoIaF is silly.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

How are they not evidence? This is literature, literature in which visions and prophecy have proven to be true.

Also, you could throw out every bit of evidence that comes from prophecy and still make a compelling case. Saying there is 'no evidence' is absolutely ridiculous, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how someone could earnestly make that comment.

Even in Asoaif prophecies and visions don't always come true, which I have pointed earlier in the the thread, otherwise Rhaego son of Drogo would have been mounting the asoiaf world as we speak. Plus, it's possible that prophecy could be interpreted wrongly. A prophecy is like a treacherous woman, after all.