Plausible Aegon at the Tower of Joy (Theory / Experiment)

[Ser Duncan the Small]

And as I said before, GRRM reveals stuff when he wants/needs to. Maybe it wasn't the time... it would have opened up another whole plotline, and we know he's saving certain things for a big reveal.

As for the while Elia/Ashara/traded babies/switching babies/wetnurse availability/the practices of breasfeeding in Westeros - lots of blanks to fill in, but also lots of scenarios that are plausible.

I'm on the fence about Ashara/Lemore but GRRM went out of his way to tell us she had the stomach of a woman who had given birth in the past. Strange clue for a random Septa.

A nice catch regarding her stomach. She is also referred to as Lady Lemore if I'm remembering correctly...

[Little Member]

My thought on fAegon: when Bittersteel was exiled after the Blackfyre rebeliion, he swore to come back with an army to put a Blackfyre on the throne. He established the Golden Company with other exiled Lords loyal to the Blackfyres. He had his head dipped in gold upon his death to be carried into Westeros when they retake the throne. It is a continuous practice still of the Company. JonConn believes the plan to put Aegon on the throne is a well guarded secret between him and Myles Toyne. Tyrion mentions the blood oath of the Golden Company against the Targaryans. Illyrio states " Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon." but Illyrio contradicts his first statement,"Some contracts are written in ink, and some in blood." Illyrio realizes he might be revealing too much with the latter quote and tries to mislead Tyrion with the former. The Golden Company's blood oath to put a Blackfyre on the throne overrides all other contracts. The Company knew the plan from the beginning was to put fAegon on the throne. JonConn was being used from the start. They never believed Dany was to meet them at Volantis. This is a rouse to get JonConn to believe fAegon was real. The question is did Tyrion puzzle it out too and help the Company out by putting it in fAegon's mind the decision was his?

[JNR]

I agree, I'm a R+L=Jer, there are many holes in that theory but we wouldn't be discussing it if we had 100% proof it was true.

Now this is a position I can respect. Reminds me of the similar response I got from Butterbumps in recent PMs on the subject (she's a skilled thinker).

Here's a point I haven't often seen discussed; I wonder what you'll make of it.

We're often told that the three Targ-loyal KG are bound by their vow to attend the king, in the post-Sack timeframe, because it's their first and primary duty.

OK. This being the case, Ned should certainly be aware of that situation as well.

So, as he leaves King's Landing after the Sack, off to lift the siege at Storm's End, he should be thinking something like:

I wonder where those three missing KG have been all this time? Well, let's see. Clearly, they're bound by their vow to attend the Targaryen heir (king). We know that for sure. All the other Targs are dead except the two at Dragonstone, Rhaella and Viserys. Of those two, Viserys is the clear heir. The KG can, therefore, only be at Dragonstone, attending Viserys.

But this is simply not what Ned thought at that time.

We know this because he tells us what he thought:

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Most curious. Ned was certain that the KG were not at Dragonstone, but were in fact at Storm's End. Which was a place with no Targs. Certainly no Targ kings. Which means Ned should never have expected to find the KG there.

It seems that either there was no requirement for at least one KG to be attending the king... or if there was, Ned wasn't aware of it.

Now, I've read MtnLion's analysis, of course, but it focuses rather oddly on the knee-bending; MtnLion interprets what Ned's saying here as an offer to let the three KG at the Tower bend the knee to Robert.

But there's really no such reference in the dialogue. Ned is simply talking about his certainty of finding them at Storm's End, which was frustrated by their absence. And that certainty in his mind seems... odd.

[Ser Duncan the Small]

Now this is a position I can respect. Reminds me of the similar response I got from Butterbumps in recent PMs on the subject (she's a skilled thinker).

Here's a point I haven't often seen discussed; I wonder what you'll make of it.

We're often told that the three Targ-loyal KG are bound by their vow to attend the king, in the post-Sack timeframe, because it's their first and primary duty.

OK. This being the case, Ned should certainly be aware of that situation as well.

So, as he leaves King's Landing after the Sack, off to lift the siege at Storm's End, he should be thinking something like:

I wonder where those three missing KG have been all this time? Well, let's see. Clearly, they're bound by their vow to attend the Targaryen heir (king). We know that for sure. All the other Targs are dead except the two at Dragonstone, Rhaella and Viserys. Of those two, Viserys is the clear heir. The KG can, therefore, only be at Dragonstone, attending Viserys.

But this is simply not what Ned thought at that time.

We know this because he tells us what he thought:

Most curious. Ned was certain that the KG were not at Dragonstone, but were in fact at Storm's End. Which was a place with no Targs. Certainly no Targ kings. Which means Ned should never have expected to find the KG there.

It seems that either there was no requirement for at least one KG to be attending the king... or if there was, Ned wasn't aware of it.

Now, I've read MtnLion's analysis, of course, but it focuses rather oddly on the knee-bending; MtnLion interprets what Ned's saying here as an offer to let the three KG at the Tower bend the knee to Robert.

But there's really no such reference in the dialogue. Ned is simply talking about his certainty of finding them at Storm's End, which was frustrated by their absence. And that certainty in his mind seems... odd.

I am not certain, but Ned does offer that he maybe thought since they were not at Storms End with the rest of the Royal forces then they must be with the Queen and Crown Prince at Dragonstone with Ser Darry's brother, Ser Darry (had to include this cause tehehe) and they do express that Ser Darry is a good man and true, but not of the KG.

ETA: Thus he is very much surprised as to what the KG are doing away from the royal family

[A Bastard Snow]

I am not certain, but Ned does offer that he maybe thought since they were not at Storms End with the rest of the Royal forces then they must be with the Queen and Crown Prince at Dragonstone with Ser Darry's brother, Ser Darry (had to include this cause tehehe) and they do express that Ser Darry is a good man and true, but not of the KG.

ETA: Thus he is very much surprised as to what the KG are doing away from the royal family

Yes the KG during the war were either with the royal family (King,Prince) or out leading the military forces of the crown.Not sitting in the middle of some desert.Either they would have been with Rhaegar fighting at the Trident at King's Landing protecting the King at Storms End commanding the siege of the castle or at Dragonstone protecting the new King.

Instead 3 members of the KG are at the Tower of Joy.And they say "We swore A Vow" singular meaning the most important vow of the KG to serve and protect the King.

[WeaselPie]

With all due respect to the current posters, the question is why/how did Ned happen upon the ToJ... which was a random tower, not knowingly named so.

Some good thoughts about Ned's thinking before then, however.

[MtnLion]

Like there is no precedence of KG being places the king is not. Jaime is at Riiverrun, is the king? Arrys Oakheart was in Sunspear, was the king? Is Balon Swann off to Snspear because that's where the king is? Let's give it a rest that KG only means the king is there! There are seven members of KG at anytime. So, why aren't the other four there too, if KG must be in the presence of the king at all times?

It is not the Kingsguard presence, but their actions and words that tell us that the king is present.

[MtnLion]

Now, I've read MtnLion's analysis, of course, but it focuses rather oddly on the knee-bending; MtnLion interprets what Ned's saying here as an offer to let the three KG at the Tower bend the knee to Robert.

But there's really no such reference in the dialogue. Ned is simply talking about his certainty of finding them at Storm's End, which was frustrated by their absence. And that certainty in his mind seems... odd.

It is not just the mention by Ned of the surrender of the Tyrell host, but also the mention by the Kingsguard that they do not surrender so easily. What are the Kingsguard saying? The Kingsguard does not flee (from its duty to protect King Aerys) then or (from its duty to protect Jon) now, because (explained) we swore a vow.

[MtnLion]

With all due respect to the current posters, the question is why/how did Ned happen upon the ToJ... which was a random tower, not knowingly named so.

Some good thoughts about Ned's thinking before then, however.

The answer, in my opinion, is made up of the party that Ned takes with him. Ned takes four skilled commanders and fighters with him. I can understand Howland insisting on joining the party, because he felt that he owed a debt to Lyanna. But Ethan Glover, only a squire, and one that had been held in the Black Cells for more than a year. He is in no condition to be accompanying a party on a long trek, let alone fighting. What is his purpose? It must be to guide the party. How Ethan knows the way is open for speculation. ETA: A hint might be that Ned knows that Rhaegar named the place "tower of joy".

[addicted to snow]

An „old dream about a tower long fallen and Lyanna in her bed of blood“, regardless whether the content of the dream was exactly the same or not, establishes the connection between Lyanna and ToJ way before the fever dream. In one of the recent RLJ threads, I believe it was 98 or 99, I posted a short comparison between the elements of the dream and reality of Ned's memories. If you can't find it, PM me and I'll send it over. Or PM me right away.

Yes, I do type in rather a hurry and try to be brief, which apparently came at the expense of clarity. So, to elaborate:

1. If I'm getting you right, you propose that Varys acted on Rhaegar's urging. However, that's not what YG says – he never mentions Rhaegar's involvement in his rescue. From his version, it seems that Varys acted on his own, and given that he had ratted Rhaegar at least once, I don't think the Prince would entrust him with something that would further provoke Aerys against him.

2. You're talking with hindsight here – and besides, until the very end after Rhaegar was dead, there is not a single hint that Aerys ever actually harmed Elia or the children.

3. The wiki refers to AWOIAF as the source, and it is certainly not a non-issue as Martell, Darry, Selmy and Jaime are all accounted for but there is zero mention how Hightower returned with Rhaegar and was sent away again (not to mention the issues of a KG bound to tell Aerys where Lyanna was and his penchant for fire and hostages)

The same issue as above – Rhaegar realizing that Aerys' unstability could cause harm to his own blood, and sending the child across the whole continent instead of somewhere closer or taking a ship. The Pisswater Prince story has this right – use the closest means available and the shortest route, which doesn't make it necessarily true, though. - BTW, why the difference? Why doesn't YG say that he was sent to Starfall and shipped to Essos from there when the situation went south for the Targs? Plus, why the tedious and long land route, instead of a ship to Dorne, just like Myrcella did? In a country torn by civil war, land routes are notoriously unsafe.

It is the same point that you are relying on – the KG are not concerned with Viserys because he is not king; his claim does not matter because it is beaten by someone else's, and that person is at ToJ. If there is no king (i.e., a legitimate son of Rhaegar who would precede Viserys in the line of succession) at ToJ, with Viserys unprotected and no other KG available for his protection, the three KG are in dereliction of their first duty. Ned might still respect Dayne for carrying out an order but that doesn't make him the finest Kingsguard that Ned ever knew because Dayne's fight and death at ToJ had nothing to do with protecting Viserys. However, Ned thinks that Aegon is dead, so there must have been another person with a valid claim in the tower, another son of Rhaegar's who was either born legitimate or legitimized, so that Dayne died a true Kingsguard and best of all.

A story being complex doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the basic recipes for building a narartive. You already have a mystery, R+L, subtly hinted at, if you want another mystery, you give it its own hints and you don't have it clash with the first one. If R+L was advertised more clearly, it could serve as a red herring to divert attention from the true royal child in the tower, but this is not the case. The only hint that might tie Aegon to ToJ is the KG presence signifying someone with the highest claim to the throne at ToJ but all the other hints point towards Lyanna, blue roses and bed of blood as being the mystery.

You cannot take only a piece of the story and claim your theory as credible without exploring the entirety of its connections and ramifications, that's cherrypicking and works only on the surface.

BTW, what's unsatisfactory with the KG first staying at ToJ on Rhaegar's order, as suggested in that SSM, and continuing their stay after the Sack because the succession line changed?

I think that you are very clearly more than just a little bias...

Aegon @ ToJ -- has logistical challenges, but nothing that GRRM could not easily explain or overcome in future books...

R + L = J -- has a very significant issue with Jon's Legitimacy, but nothing that GRRM could no write into future books...

--

Personally, I don't see there being a snowball's chance in hell of Jon Snow's character ever sitting the Iron Thrown or ruling the Seven Kingdoms in any capacity… Maybe if GRRM was a 3rd Grader, but he's not… No one is going to get their fairy tale ending, I don't see any need for Jon to be legitimate in the first place…

[daskool]

Now this is a position I can respect. Reminds me of the similar response I got from Butterbumps in recent PMs on the subject (she's a skilled thinker).

Here's a point I haven't often seen discussed; I wonder what you'll make of it.

We're often told that the three Targ-loyal KG are bound by their vow to attend the king, in the post-Sack timeframe, because it's their first and primary duty.

OK. This being the case, Ned should certainly be aware of that situation as well.

So, as he leaves King's Landing after the Sack, off to lift the siege at Storm's End, he should be thinking something like:

I wonder where those three missing KG have been all this time? Well, let's see. Clearly, they're bound by their vow to attend the Targaryen heir (king). We know that for sure. All the other Targs are dead except the two at Dragonstone, Rhaella and Viserys. Of those two, Viserys is the clear heir. The KG can, therefore, only be at Dragonstone, attending Viserys.

But this is simply not what Ned thought at that time.

We know this because he tells us what he thought:

Most curious. Ned was certain that the KG were not at Dragonstone, but were in fact at Storm's End. Which was a place with no Targs. Certainly no Targ kings. Which means Ned should never have expected to find the KG there.

It seems that either there was no requirement for at least one KG to be attending the king... or if there was, Ned wasn't aware of it.

Now, I've read MtnLion's analysis, of course, but it focuses rather oddly on the knee-bending; MtnLion interprets what Ned's saying here as an offer to let the three KG at the Tower bend the knee to Robert.

But there's really no such reference in the dialogue. Ned is simply talking about his certainty of finding them at Storm's End, which was frustrated by their absence. And that certainty in his mind seems... odd.

You're missing the point. The fact that the KG were NOT either guarding the King's family or fighting his wars but rather loitering in a nondescript keep in the middle of friggin Dorne is the surprise, especially as we know that the only role for a KG is to guard the King and his family and erm fighting his wars.

Also how did Ned know that Lyanna was at the ToJ?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Sorry for the delay in answering recent posts. I've been waiting for a chunk of time when I can sit down and respond thoughtfully. Hope to find that sometime this afternoon or evening. Meanwhile, I am enjoying most of the discussion!

So, you are basing this entire thought on just two points? The first one is explained by Jon Targaryen's presence, in addition to what you are suggesting. So, that point has no bearing whatsoever on your unanswered questions.

Point two is even more questionable. Melisandre claims that Stannis is Azor Ahai, or the Prince that was Promised. Cersei claims that her children are also Robert's children. The Manderlys claimed that Davos had been executed and his hands and head nailed to the gates to White Harbor. Theon, well you get my point.

MtnLion - just before you began posting to this thread (the above being your first post here), you responded to my questions and invitation to discussion over in RLJ v100 with the following comment:

"There are so many flaws with Aegon at the tower theory that it really does not merit any thought, at all."

In light of that comment, you'll please forgive me for feeling that your participation here is a bit disingenuous.

This is a thread devoted entirely to "thought" on an "Aegon at the tower" theory. While I value honest and considered disagreement, I don't appreciate the idea that you joined the discussion merely to object to a theory that you've already dismissed out of hand.

If that is not your intention... if you've changed your mind regarding the amount of thought merited by this theory... then please let me know. And by all means, let's talk. Otherwise, I'd ask you to respect this space and leave the thread for others more interested in the topic.

[Ygrain]

Sorry for the delay in answering recent posts. I've been waiting for a chunk of time when I can sit down and respond thoughtfully. Hope to find that sometime this afternoon or evening. Meanwhile, I am enjoying most of the discussion!

MtnLion - just before you began posting to this thread (the above being your first post here), you responded to my questions and invitation to discussion over in RLJ v100 with the following comment:

"There are so many flaws with Aegon at the tower theory that it really does not merit any thought, at all."

In light of that comment, you'll please forgive me for feeling that your participation here is a bit disingenuous.

This is a thread devoted entirely to "thought" on an "Aegon at the tower" theory. While I value honest and considered disagreement, I don't appreciate the idea that you joined the discussion merely to object to a theory that you've already dismissed out of hand.

If that is not your intention... if you've changed your mind regarding the amount of thought merited by this theory... then please let me know. And by all means, let's talk. Otherwise, I'd ask you to respect this space and leave the thread for others more interested in the topic.

Then I am leaving, as well. I also think that the theory holds no water, and adressing the poster instead of the objections doesn't make it any more appealing for me. If an echo chamber is what you wish, then by all means, have it your way.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

ETA to my last thought, Aegon being at the ToJ also explains the multiple promises Ned made. Maybe Lyanna asked Ned to promise to keep Aegon safe as a ward. And he obviously didn't. Say he sent him off somewhere "safe" and simply hoped he lived unmurdered. He wouldn't send ravens and letters and spies to check on him, that would be idiotic.

That doesn't make sense for various reasons. For example Lyanna was dying why she would carte for a nobody and not for her child? How Elia was with a nobody and not with her child? We know that Ned kept his promise to Lyanna and those promise cost him dearly. If he had sent him away he wouldn't know if he was safe so he wouldn't had kept his promise.

[wolfmaid7]

Then I am leaving, as well. I also think that the theory holds no water, and adressing the poster instead of the objections doesn't make it any more appealing for me. If an echo chamber is what you wish, then by all means, have it your way.

Mtlion off the bat saying "There are so many flaws with Aegon at the tower theory that it really does not merit any thought, at all." is the very meaning of wanting an echo chamber. It's one thing to be a constructive and active participant vs knocking down a theory simply because it conflicts with your own. It seems that anyone that even questions any inaccuracy is met with feverent opposition.That's not cool.

Sorry for the delay in answering recent posts. I've been waiting for a chunk of time when I can sit down and respond thoughtfully. Hope to find that sometime this afternoon or evening. Meanwhile, I am enjoying most of the discussion!

MtnLion - just before you began posting to this thread (the above being your first post here), you responded to my questions and invitation to discussion over in RLJ v100 with the following comment:

"There are so many flaws with Aegon at the tower theory that it really does not merit any thought, at all."

In light of that comment, you'll please forgive me for feeling that your participation here is a bit disingenuous.

This is a thread devoted entirely to "thought" on an "Aegon at the tower" theory. While I value honest and considered disagreement, I don't appreciate the idea that you joined the discussion merely to object to a theory that you've already dismissed out of hand.

If that is not your intention... if you've changed your mind regarding the amount of thought merited by this theory... then please let me know. And by all means, let's talk. Otherwise, I'd ask you to respect this space and leave the thread for others more interested in the topic.

Snowy i just stumbled on this you holding out buddy. Anyways i'm glad you posted this it is a very interesting read and i'm just trying to catch up on what others said as well.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

The Varys story is extremely believable on its own. Arya escaped the city having been there less than a year with everyone looking for her. Varys is the most knowledgeable of the corridors under the Red Keep and has already plainly smuggled Tyrion out too. Aegon is real, folks.

The baby swap working doesn't guarantee this Aegon is THE Aegon--though I think there's a decent chance that he is.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Then I am leaving, as well. I also think that the theory holds no water, and adressing the poster instead of the objections doesn't make it any more appealing for me. If an echo chamber is what you wish, then by all means, have it your way.

I didn't ask MtnLion to leave, I asked him to tell us if he's changed his mind about his willingness to consider this theory on its own merits. I'd be glad if he stayed to talk. But this is not an RLJ thread, and I did not post my OP to solicit opinions about how RLJ theories fill gaps in the text. There is another place available for anyone who'd like to have that discussion - and MtnLion certainly knows where it is.

I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive or unappealing, Ygrain, and I'll be disappointed if you decide to leave the conversation. I don't need folks to agree with me or my theories, but I do appreciate genuine, considered, and considerate feedback - and I think that's what you've been offering here. That said, if you're telling me that's not true - then yes, you probably should just drop it.

Hoping you'll decide to stay - I'll respond to a few of the points made in your last post...

Yes, I do type in rather a hurry and try to be brief, which apparently came at the expense of clarity. So, to elaborate:

1. If I'm getting you right, you propose that Varys acted on Rhaegar's urging. However, that's not what YG says – he never mentions Rhaegar's involvement in his rescue. From his version, it seems that Varys acted on his own, and given that he had ratted Rhaegar at least once, I don't think the Prince would entrust him with something that would further provoke Aerys against him.

3. The wiki refers to AWOIAF as the source, and it is certainly not a non-issue as Martell, Darry, Selmy and Jaime are all accounted for but there is zero mention how Hightower returned with Rhaegar and was sent away again (not to mention the issues of a KG bound to tell Aerys where Lyanna was and his penchant for fire and hostages)

Thanks for the clarification. Some thoughts:

1. It's probably worth revisiting just how little information Young Griff actually provides about his rescue. He mentions Varys by name. He talks about the tanner's son from Pisswater Bend. He does not say whether Varys acted on his own initiative, or under orders - or much of anything else at all, for that matter. Certainly if Rhaegar ordered him to remove Aegon from the city, and to conceal the child's absence, Varys would have acted on those orders. Varys himself confesses that it is not his role (or in his interest) to defy power - so it's possible he might have revealed that information had Aerys asked about it specifically. But what is the basis for your idea that Rhaegar mistrusted Varys? (I mean, more than anyone usually mistrusts Varys.) I assume you're referring to Selmy's comment connecting Varys' whispering in the king's ear, and Aerys' decision to attend the tourney at Harrenhal? But maybe that's not it. Is there a more reliable source for that idea?

3. Interesting. What's funny to me is that I actually went to the App looking for this information, and couldn't find it because there is no entry for Gerold Hightower. (Which I find very curious, by the way, considering that there are entries for both Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent.) Using your pointer here, I went to the wiki and looked to the footnote - and the App entry cited for this information turns out to be Rhaegar's. So that answers that question. Though to be honest - it is my opinion that neither the App nor the wiki are is a reliable source for analysis Martin's text. I recommend that you always go back to the text.

The same issue as above – Rhaegar realizing that Aerys' unstability could cause harm to his own blood, and sending the child across the whole continent instead of somewhere closer or taking a ship. The Pisswater Prince story has this right – use the closest means available and the shortest route, which doesn't make it necessarily true, though. - BTW, why the difference? Why doesn't YG say that he was sent to Starfall and shipped to Essos from there when the situation went south for the Targs? Plus, why the tedious and long land route, instead of a ship to Dorne, just like Myrcella did? In a country torn by civil war, land routes are notoriously unsafe.

Here is the entirety of what Young Griff says about his rescue:

"That [dead child] was not me. I told you. That was some tanner's son from Pisswater Bend whose mother died birthing him. His father sold him to Lord Varys for a jug of Arbor gold. He had other sons but had never tasted Arbor gold. Varys gave the Pisswater boy to my lady mother and carried me away." (5.22, TYRION)

No information whatsoever is provided about the departure from KL, the route, or the means of transportation. So the question is not why YG doesn't say he was sent to Starfall... the question is why YG doesn't say anything at all beyond the fact that Varys found a child sacrifice to take his place.

Interesting not only the topic but the response to it . With one type you manage to fire up the FAegon people and the R+L=J people.Aegon being at the TOJ does not invalidate Jon being the son of Rhaegar . Now the topic it's plausible ,Save the heir , crown him if he dies (the same orders left by Stannis when he marched on Deepwood Motte) , raise the realm for him if they fail that would be his orders to Arthur and Gerold .Did he forget Rhaenys ? Yes hindsight is always 20/20 , Eddard during his arrest forgot about Jon.

Well, I didn't set out to fire anyone up - but I see what you mean. Generally, my sense is that not a lot of attention has been devoted to possible ramifications of the idea that Aegon actually survived. It's just too tempting (or too easy) to write off Young Griff as an imposter, given how much work had gone into making everything else cohere before ADWD was ever released. But there he is... Martin put him into the story anyway. So I think we have to consider the possibility that he's the real deal.

Septa Lemore= Lady Ashara? I've heard this and thought about it. I feel like it would have been revealed with the piecing together of Jon Connington and Aegon being alive though.

...I'm on the fence about Ashara/Lemore but GRRM went out of his way to tell us she had the stomach of a woman who had given birth in the past. Strange clue for a random Septa.

I do think the Ashara/Lemore connection is still on the table. Here's the hint from the text that there might be something more to Lemore. It's just before Young Griff's statement about Varys and the Pisswater prince:

...Lemore had changed out of her septa's robes into garb more befitting the wife or daughter of a prosperous merchant. Tyrion watched her closely. He had sniffed out the truth beneath the dyed blue hair of Griff and Young Griff easily enough, and Yandry and Ysilla seemed to be no more than they claimed to be, whilst Duck was somewhat less. Lemore, though… Who is she, really? Why is she here? Not for gold, I'd judge. What is this prince to her? Was she ever a true septa? (5.22, TYRION)

[Ygrain]

@The Snowfyre Chorus, I always provide genuine feedback even if I think the theory is crap. So does MtnLion.

1. This cuts both ways. Got a proof that Rhaegar trusted Varys? Something at least as suggestive as those hints why he shouldn't have?

I was under an impression that YG mentions somewhere that he was shipped to Essos from KL. I'll do some search when I have the time.

3. The text tells me that Hightower was originally at KL after Rhaegar disappeared but there is no mention of him after Rhaegar's return even though the actions of Selmy, Darry, Martell and Jaime are accounted for, and the next time he is heard of is ToJ. And while the App as a semi-canon source is in concord with these bits from the text (and stated on a page that GRRM was bound to have checked by himself), the text provides zero clue about Hightower transporting Aegon anywhere.

Either way, have a nice discussion.

[MtnLion]

I will check out, since you don't want to have any criticism, but prefer the company of "yes"-people. It was interesting how you avoided my points, but so long.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

1. This cuts both ways. Got a proof that Rhaegar trusted Varys? Something at least as suggestive as those hints why he shouldn't have?

Nope. No proof. I'm not arguing that my theory is proven or provable, only that it is possible/plausible given what little we know. To that extent, the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary supports my case.

What we know is that Young Griff claims to be Aegon Targaryen, and claims Varys assisted in his successful escape from King's Landing. Assuming this to be true, it appears Rhaegar and Varys had a common interest. And the safety of Rhaegar's son actually was entrusted to Varys.

I was under an impression that YG mentions somewhere that he was shipped to Essos from KL. I'll do some search when I have the time.

Young Griff does not mention routes or means of transport. Tyrion fills in those gaps for us rather dismissively, immediately after YG mentions Varys and the tanner's son. But Tyrion knows no more than we do - and he doesn't really care. He doesn't ask for more detail, and nobody offers him any.

Connington later tells us that Rhaegar did finally recognize his father's madness before the end. And Jaime recalls that Rhaegar intended to "make changes" upon his return from the Trident. So my suggestion is that Rhaegar sent Aegon away from Aerys as a precaution, because the king was unstable and had already threatened harm to the child. But he would not have sent his son far - because he expected that he himself would return to the city.

Clearly, the situation would have changed with the crown prince's death. Once Aerys received word of the defeat at the Trident, he closed off the city. If young Aegon hadn't crossed the Narrow Sea by that point in time - and there's no reason he would have - then boats to Essos were probably hard to come by.

3. The text tells me that Hightower was originally at KL after Rhaegar disappeared but there is no mention of him after Rhaegar's return even though the actions of Selmy, Darry, Martell and Jaime are accounted for, and the next time he is heard of is ToJ... the text provides zero clue about Hightower transporting Aegon anywhere.

Agreed. That's the same thing the text tells me - and pretty much what I put in my OP. :)

Either way, have a nice discussion.

Thanks!