Aegon is real version 4

[DrunkSister]

Yes, but not the kind of dragon that he claims to be.

The poster I responded to claimed that he is not a dragon at all.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Dragon sign by no means represent the Golden Company. The three headed dragon is the sigil of house Blackfyre and House Targaryen

any attempt to transform that into the GC, is IMO way too weak.

Either its foreshadowing (f)Aegon or a coincidence. Or something else.. The golden Company symbol is the golden skulls.. If GRRM wanted to use foreshadowing about the golden Company he would choose the skulls. As he does later:

The dragon sign going from black to red (not red covering up the black) is simply chemistry, actually. And it´s not supposed to represent the Golden Company, but the side the GC fights for. Once that were the Blackfyres (black), but the black has been replaced by red (the Targaryens), who they are fighting for now.

Lol I see. So this is the nth time I've asked you this, where is the evidence that Aegon is who he claims to be? We're 5 pages into the 4th iteration of this thread, and I've yet to see any.

Like I promised yesterday, I will type it all into one post. However, I have college work to do as well, and that does have my priority.

I'm working on it right now, though it is quite a large piece of text at the moment. I might not even be able to finish it tonight (and since I have no idea in which part of the world you live, it's later in the evening here), in which case I will post it tomorrow. I do want to try and put as much as I possibly can in it in one go, and try and forget as little as possible.

Be patient a little while more, but do please keep the discussion going :)

[Fool of a Book]

A candidate for a fake Aegon is a Hightower baby, father unknown. It would make sense.

/crackpot

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

Lol I see. So this is the nth time I've asked you this, where is the evidence that Aegon is who he claims to be? We're 5 pages into the 4th iteration of this thread, and I've yet to see any.

ST refuses to answer because there is not any (or much) and claims there is no need to because it is not a theory and there is no burden of proof on those who claim Aegon is Rhaegar's.

However, those who have that point of view also fail to defend why there is no burden of proof. I have laid out why there is and no one has sufficiently replied to those posts, so I'll quote one here:

What if a second boy of Valyrian features and of the right age said that, no, it is he who is Aegon. Are they both Aegon until someone can falsify one of their claims? (edit: and say, this boy has someone who was a servant in the Red Keep to support a plausible story of him being the real Aegon)

But if that does not satisfy you, I already laid out why the burden of proof is on those who claim he is Rhaegar's, if you want to hold to that this is not so, please respond to this:

Occam's razor says it is more likely that Varys got a baby with Valyrian features afterward and lied that he made the baby-swap, and it is less likely that Varys had actually known beforehand to plot it all out, got a baby with Valyrian features, and did the baby-swap.

We also have been told for 4 books that Aegon is dead, and the claim that he is alive in the fourth book ultimately go back to two known liars, and the claim (by JonCon) is doubted by characters in the book.

Be patient a little while more, but do please keep the discussion going :)

I'll be patient. But keeping on the discussion when no one provides evidence that Aegon is Rhaegar's is almost pointless, imo.

[Paeon]

Or it could be foreshadowing that someone is not who they claim to be, which also appears to be the case with the visions Moqorro sees in his flames. From Tyrion VIII, ADWD:

“Someone told me that the night is dark and full of terrors. What do you see in those flames?”

“Dragons,” Moqorro said in the Common Tongue of Westeros. He spoke it very well, with hardly a trace of accent. No doubt that was one reason the high priest Benerro had chosen him to bring the faith of R’hllor to Daenerys Targaryen. “Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all.”

Who would be a better candidate for the false dargon than the boy that shows up nearly 20 years after he was proclaimed dead? Let's not forget Dany's visions of the mummer's dragon from the House of the Undying. While "a cloth dragon on poles" could mean that he is merely Vary's puppet (which is true regardless of his legitimacy), "a cloth dragon on poles" isn't a real dragon.

Regarding Moqorro's statement, he is describing the dragons he sees in his flames (or at least how he interprets them). First, being a Blackfyre would mean that you are still a "dragon", so the fact that the "false" dragon is referring to Aegon being a Blackfyre is very weak.

And again to reiterate for emphasis, he is talking about dragons which is mean't to refer to those of Valyrian/Targ blood. So how can a person of actual Valyrian ancestry be false?

Instead, I believe true/false refers to the dragon's personality (for lack of a better term I can think of right now). False can be used to describe Viserys, who was 100% a Targaryen (so he is a dragon), but was a fool. Dany remarked that he wasn't a true dragon upon his death. She states explicitly that it was because dragons don't burn but we know that is not true (from an SSM that has been qouted a million times on this forum). Instead I believed it implied that he did not have the powerful authoritative personality of a "dragon". Later in the novels, we see Dany's own struggle with her "floppy ears" which she finally decides to discard in order to become a "true" dragon. The true/false statement may have both referred to her as well (or her dual nature of mother/ conqueror).

Also regarding the "A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." prophecy, the crowd could be celebrating Aegon's return as most people believe, but the cloth dragon can just be a prop or banner in the crowd to give us some context to know that they are celebrating a "dragon". Also, the cloth dragon was "admist" rather than being at the head of the crowd.

[Paeon]

ST refuses to answer because there is not any (or much) and claims there is no need to because it is not a theory and there is no burden of proof on those who claim Aegon is Rhaegar's.

However, those who have that point of view also fail to defend why there is no burden of proof. I have laid out why there is and no one has sufficiently replied to those posts, so I'll quote one here:

I'll be patient. But keeping on the discussion when no one provides evidence that Aegon is Rhaegar's is almost pointless, imo.

Evidence: It was stated explicitly. That in itself is alot more evidence for Aegon being a Blackfyre since that theory is built solely on speculation, and most pretty weak speculation as I pointed out in the above post.

Edit: Even if it is stated by characters who people claim are liars.

[ghosts in winterfell]

The poster I responded to claimed that he is not a dragon at all.

That poster was me. a cloth dragon on poles = A false dragon. Presenting himself as the son of a red dragon, if it is not true, would make him a false dragon.

Like I promised yesterday, I will type it all into one post. However, I have college work to do as well, and that does have my priority.

I'm working on it right now, though it is quite a large piece of text at the moment. I might not even be able to finish it tonight (and since I have no idea in which part of the world you live, it's later in the evening here), in which case I will post it tomorrow. I do want to try and put as much as I possibly can in it in one go, and try and forget as little as possible.

Be patient a little while more, but do please keep the discussion going :)

Take your time, it's not that serious. It's just that SuperTechmarine keeps insisting that it is a fact that Aegon is Rhaegar's son but continually fails to provide any evidence that would prove their statements true, and they have now accused me of "twisting" evidence that casts doubt on their claims.

[ghosts in winterfell]

Regarding Moqorro's statement, he is describing the dragons he sees in his flames (or at least how he interprets them). First, being a Blackfyre would mean that you are still a "dragon", so the fact that the "false" dragon is referring to Aegon being a Blackfyre is very weak.

And again to reiterate for emphasis, he is talking about dragons which is mean't to refer to those of Valyrian/Targ blood. So how can a person of actual Valyrian ancestry be false?

I didn't say it was evidence of Aegon being a Blackfyre, I said it could be foreshadowing that he is not who he claims to be, i.e. Rhaegar's son. Not being who he claims would make him false.

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

Evidence: It was stated explicitly. That in itself is alot more evidence for Aegon being a Blackfyre since that theory is built solely on speculation, and most pretty weak speculation as I pointed out in the above post.

Edit: Even if it is stated by characters who people claim are liars.

We are not here to talk about the Blackfyre theory. Only to discuss if Aegon is Rhaegar's or not.

And it is explicitly stated that it could be a sellsword's trick. That it is stated by Varys and Illyrio is evidence, we acknowledge that, but that is the only evidence, as we have been stating, and is pretty weak.

[DrunkSister]

That poster was me. a cloth dragon on poles = A false dragon. Presenting himself as the son of a red dragon, if it is not true, would make him a false dragon.

It is not a red cloth dragon on poles, just a cloth dragon. A false red dragon=/= false dragon.

[Paeon]

That poster was me. a cloth dragon on poles = A false dragon. Presenting himself as the son of a red dragon, if it is not true, would make him a false dragon.

Take your time, it's not that serious. It's just that SuperTechmarine keeps insisting that it is a fact that Aegon is Rhaegar's son but continually fails to provide any evidence that would prove their statements true, and they have now accused me of "twisting" evidence that casts doubt on their claims.

The point that a few people have made is that currently in the novels, Aegon was explicitly stated to be who he is. I'm sure Rhaenys_Targaryen will put together an extensive OP giving this evidence, but I am sure it is very long as it is not based on speculation from prophecies.

It's just alot easier to recall the Blackfyre evidence as there are only a few points, and until recently I believed in that theory. But after taking a closer look at the Blackfyre evidence I think I've been swayed (not completely as I dont believe in considering theories as fact).

But I agree, there is room to believe Aegon is not who he says he is as he was just introduced to us. I think GRRM included Tyrion questioning Aegon for a moment to mess with our heads until WoW which he has accomplished very well!

[Ellfoy]

Well I just assumed it can be due to having some Martell dark eye genes as well.

Yeah but the quote implies that this Aegon has a lighter shade than Rhaegar's eyes which is weird if he is Elia's son. She had probably dornish dark eyes. So dark eyes + dark purple = light purple -> strange.

Anyway, I don't think Aegon is fake just because of that but because of all the other clues, just wanted to point this out.

[J. Stargaryen]

<snip>

The biggest obstacle to any theory is the disparity of treatment between Aegon and Dany/Viserys. His actions there either rule out any pro-Targ motivation or require some other explanation that so far has not been produced. Even Varys as a disciple of prophesy indifferent to the Targ cause in general, who believes in Aegon TPTWP as Rhaegar did, would require "three heads" and again throws the Dany/Viserys treatment into an inexplicable dilemma. Varys with a Brightfire connection falls under the pro-Targ category and again requires the Dany/Viserys explanation. Why does Varys care? Why does he care about Aegon but not Dany or Viserys? Why does he care about Aegon to the point that he doesn't want to exploit the fertile ground Robert's rule has left as we see LF and so many others doing? Why is Aegon winning seemingly more important than Varys winning with a non-Aegon pawn? The lack of plausible answers to all these questions are in fact evidence against Aegon being real. A real Aegon theory that answers them would be welcome.

I thought this entire post was spot on with the exception of the bold. Considering that he was passed over in the succession, I don't think that Brightflame's son would necessarily be pro-Targ.

---

The argument from the Aegon-is-real apologists that the Clanking Dragon story refers to the GC is an asspull of epic proportions.

It's funny too, because they're acknowledging a clear cut link to the Blackfyres in that story, but also want you to believe that Aegon isn't one of them. Cognitive dissonance.

[Paeon]

I didn't say it was evidence of Aegon being a Blackfyre, I said it could be foreshadowing that he is not who he claims to be, i.e. Rhaegar's son. Not being who he claims would make him false.

You got me there ghosts, but as I pointed out it doesn't have to be the only interpretation.

[DrunkSister]

The point that a few people have made is that currently in the novels, Aegon was explicitly stated to be who he is. I'm sure Rhaenys_Targaryen will put together an extensive OP giving this evidence, but I am sure it is very long as it is not based on speculation from prophecies.

My gripe is that so far all the evidence rests on Varys and Illyrio saying it is so to JonCon, they are liars.

There is the passage where Varys kills Kevan and V very specifically avoids saying anything that would put all this speculation to rest ('No, he is here... Aegon has...').

Now, on a purely meta-level why didn't GRRM make it more clear? Is he deliberately giving us things to speculate in between the books?

Then again, the arguments that Aegon is fake have a lot to do with motives like Arbour Gold for lies, metaphors like the inn-sign-dragon and finding holes in Varys' story and his motivations than they do with 'solid evidence' that would be conclusive. I guess I will sit on the fence when it comes to this for a longer while yet.

I am eagerly waiting for RT's OP.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

My gripe is that so far all the evidence rests on Varys and Illyrio saying it is so to JonCon, they are liars.

So wouldn't it be ironic if this was one time they were telling the truth?

[Ragnorak]

I thought this entire post was spot on with the exception of the bold. Considering that he was passed over in the succession, I don't think that Brightflame's son would necessarily be pro-Targ.

Thank you.

Agreed. Well he'd be pro-himself as a Targ but not necessarily pro the family lineage that stole his father's/greatgrandfather's throne. I suspect this is the most fruitful path to follow for some kind of comprehensive Aegon is Real theory. The problem is that it works much more readily as a fake Aegon alternative to the Blackfyre theory where we substitute Brightfire for Blackfyre and tweak the details.

A Brightfire would still need a reason to care about Aegon differently than he cares about Dany and Viserys though which hits the same wall as the pro-Targ angles. It is at least a closer family angle without multiple civil wars that might have some chance of making a distinction between Aegon and his aunt and uncle. If somehow a distinction gets made between Aerys' children and Rhaegar's children with a Brightfire take that still calls into question why only Aegon and not his sister was saved. In the end I don't see how it could work, but even a bad Brightfire based Aegon is Real Theory is better than "it could have happened ergo it is proven."

[No Song so Sweet]

There are several distinct pieces of evidence which suggest he is fake. There is the word of Varys(Varys, ffs!) to suggest he's real.

I claim that there is no evidence that suggests that. Its mostly the prophecies (which is no evidence), Tyrion's guess of Aegon's age (where Tyrion believes he is probably Aegon and he is also bad at calculating ages) and the Occam's Razor theory that Varys would not be able to swap babies. Oh and the fact that Aegon is presumed dead, but that is also not evidence. Where is the evidence that he is fake? Again, i am not saying that he MUST be real, i am just saying that it is a very big possibility that he is real and thats what i find more compelling to believe.

You mean they (the characters who learn about Aegon) are trying to hide that they believe Aegon is real?

I mean they dye his hair blue to hide the fact(?) that he is real. That wasn't very clear the way i said it you are right.

I was convinced that Aegon was not Rhaegar's son the moment i read this:

The eye color means nothing. Children can have a different shade of color of eyes than their parents.

(Please do not reply to me like you did inside the quote. It makes it very annoying to reply back again to)

But they did not make the swap, or if they did, why is this not the story given? Why does Varys lie about it? Why does Gregor lie about it?

And btw both do not have the same amount of assumptions. Varys lies. Or, Varys knows/plots something beforehand, a baby is swapped (and if it is your story, Varys lies in this one too), Aegon is smuggled across the Narrow Sea.

Sort of like Jon? Oh, but if Aegon is Rhaegar's, then this is not so. And it would be shit writing if over halfway through the books we get this boy "returned to claim his birthright," and that be the story.

I did not say that would happen. I asked what if that were to happen. Or, do you just do your best not to answer a hypothetical question that proves you wrong?

(And to add to the question then, what if this second "Aegon" had a few servants from the Red Keep to say he is legitimate and some minor lordlings behind him?)

I do not take the prophecies into account. Since mummer's dragon = Varys's dragon, and I just ignore Moqorro's spiel on dragons even if it serves as a good hint.

To disprove him, one need only accept that there is still a burden of proof on those who claim he is real, and that look at all the hints pointing all of them in one direction.

Sorry about the way i answered b4. Gregor lies about it because he wouldn't be all right if the lie was exposed and he messed up.

I still don't think that Occam's Razor applies here. Its not something convoluted that you have to make additional assumptions, it is a true or false question. For example when Jon Arryn died, you could say that Occam's Razor proves that he died of natural causes, because it would be one additional assumption that poison caused his heart to fail (or whatever killed him). So it doesn't apply.

I answered your hypothetical question. Its not just that Aegon claims he is Aegon, he seems to be Aegon and he is a point of the plot that was kind of expected. A second claimant to the throne, unsupported by any known characters would be a completely retarded twist on Martin's behalf. But i think since Martin has played the card once, it doesnt mean that Aegon is automatically false unless you PROVE he is real. Rather, the opposite is true. He may as well be real: why do you think he is false? prove it.

Also note that, even if the burden of proof falls on the "Real Aegon" supporters, still you haven't disproven anything. Let's not make this a discussion like the ones that are about if god exists: people shifting the burden of proof and talking about Occam's Razor and stuff. This leads nowhere. At least here we talk only about certain books that have a writer and will definately end this way or that way. If you want to end up somewhere, lets just agree that there really isn't hard evidence either way and Aegon could be true just as much as he could be false, or that there is around the same probability.

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

I still don't think that Occam's Razor applies here. Its not something convoluted that you have to make additional assumptions, it is a true or false question. For example when Jon Arryn died, you could say that Occam's Razor proves that he died of natural causes, because it would be one additional assumption that poison caused his heart to fail (or whatever killed him). So it doesn't apply.

It applies in so far that it means there is a burden of proof for those who claim Aegon is Rhaegar's.

I answered your hypothetical question. Its not just that Aegon claims he is Aegon, he seems to be Aegon and he is a point of the plot that was kind of expected. A second claimant to the throne, unsupported by any known characters would be a completely retarded twist on Martin's behalf. But i think since Martin has played the card once, it doesnt mean that Aegon is automatically false unless you PROVE he is real. Rather, the opposite is true. He may as well be real: why do you think he is false? prove it.

You did not answer my question. I am not saying GRRM will do it, it obviously would not be a good twist. I am asking if. So I'll ask it again:

What if a second boy of Valyrian features and of the right age said, "no, it is I who is Aegon, son of Rhaegar!" Are they both Aegon, son of Rhaegar, until someone can falsify one of their claims?

(And say, this boy has someone who was a servant in the Red Keep to support a plausible story of him being the real Aegon)

Also note that, even if the burden of proof falls on the "Real Aegon" supporters, still you haven't disproven anything. Let's not make this a discussion like the ones that are about if god exists: people shifting the burden of proof and talking about Occam's Razor and stuff. This leads nowhere. At least here we talk only about certain books that have a writer and will definately end this way or that way. If you want to end up somewhere, lets just agree that there really isn't hard evidence either way and Aegon could be true just as much as he could be false, or that there is around the same probability.

I sort of agree with what is bolded. There is obviously not going to be hard evidence either way, because GRRM has wrote it that way. So since we lack hard evidence, we must look at hints and clues and prophecies, and the such. And looking at these (many pointing toward one direction: Blackfyre, but let's not discuss that here), there is not around the same probability of Aegon being Rhaegar's or not.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I claim that there is no evidence that suggests that. Its mostly the prophecies (which is no evidence), Tyrion's guess of Aegon's age (where Tyrion believes he is probably Aegon and he is also bad at calculating ages) and the Occam's Razor theory that Varys would not be able to swap babies. Oh and the fact that Aegon is presumed dead, but that is also not evidence. Where is the evidence that he is fake? Again, i am not saying that he MUST be real, i am just saying that it is a very big possibility that he is real and thats what i find more compelling to believe.

It's silly to say the prophecies aren't evidence, but even without them there is good reason to believe fake and a Blackfyre and several pieces of evidence to support this. The prophecies are definitely not 'most' of the evidence. If you search the forum you'll find plenty of threads with these many distinct pieces. I'm not going to get into listing them here because this thread claims Aegon is real, and I don't want to take up any space that I'm sure will, at any moment, be filled up with presenting evidence to support the claim that he's real.