Thoughts on the second Dance and the point of the whole thing

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but again - here they credit George for the whole thing. They don't do this with other stuff they have invented.

No, it's not about the credit. Remember, this was ep 509 (or was it 508?), shortly after 506, which had caused some backlash. So they go on and say, "it was George, not us!" before anyone has had a chance to say anything. At the very least, the circumstances leading up to it will be so hugely different that it's not even funny. Which would, of course, mean that they were hiding behind Martin's back all the same. 

[Lord Varys]

@Lost Melnibonean:

Well, I think you can find that stuff in one of the videos they did discussing Bloodraven.

The idea that Bloodraven existed before the three-eyed crow did is ridiculous, by the way. The Blackfyre Rebellion and Bloodraven are not mentioned in THK. Brynden Rivers actually could have accompanied Baelor and Maekar, you know. But the three-eyed crow is a character in AGoT, first introduced in the third Bran chapter.

Your ideas about the Blackfyres, Great Bastards, etc. all being part of the story from early lack textual evidence.

10 minutes ago, Therae said:

Not trying to be contrary, I just really never got a sense of any motherlove from Selyse, just a whole lot of religious fervor with a healthy dose of royal entitlement. However, I have to agree with your point that Selyse would certainly support Shireen as queen.

She kisses her on the cheek in ADwD. And she actually interacts and talks to her, not necessarily in an unkindly manner.

Quote

And, as I said, I don't really expect it won't be Stannis' decision; I just found the idea of Shireen burning after his death intriguing and I was spitballing possibilities. 

Keep in mind that Stannis is supposed to break eventually, at least if we take Donal Noye as giving us some foreshadowing. What is going to break Stannis? Some defeat in battle? He is expecting that and can deal with that. The revelation that he isn't the savior? He never truly believed that. He doesn't even believe in R'hllor, just in Mel's powers and that visions can be a thing.

But if he burns his only child and heir he is done. He won't be able to continue thereafter. He even had difficulty dealing with Renly's murder. But the man was a traitor. Shireen is his daughter and an innocent. That's a completely different case.

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, it's not about the credit. Remember, this was ep 509 (or was it 508?), shortly after 506, which had caused some backlash. So they go on and say, "it was George, not us!" before anyone has had a chance to say anything. At the very least, the circumstances leading up to it will be so hugely different that it's not even funny. Which would, of course, mean that they were hiding behind Martin's back all the same. 

Do you think they recorded those interviews after people watched the episodes? I expect them have made those things during the production process.

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Lost Melnibonean:

Well, I think you can find that stuff in one of the videos they did discussing Bloodraven.

The idea that Bloodraven existed before the three-eyed crow did is ridiculous, by the way. The Blackfyre Rebellion and Bloodraven are not mentioned in THK. Brynden Rivers actually could have accompanied Baelor and Maekar, you know. But the three-eyed crow is a character in AGoT, first introduced in the third Bran chapter.

Your ideas about the Blackfyres, Great Bastards, etc. all being part of the story from early lack textual evidence.

She kisses her on the cheek in ADwD. And she actually interacts and talks to her, not necessarily in an unkindly manner.

Keep in mind that Stannis is supposed to break eventually, at least if we take Donal Noye as giving us some foreshadowing. What is going to break Stannis? Some defeat in battle? He is expecting that and can deal with that. The revelation that he isn't the savior? He never truly believed that. He doesn't even believe in R'hllor, just in Mel's powers and that visions can be a thing.

But if he burns his only child and heir he is done. He won't be able to continue thereafter. He even had difficulty dealing with Renly's murder. But the man was a traitor. Shireen is his daughter and an innocent. That's a completely different case.

Do you think they recorded those interviews after people watched the episodes? I expect them have made those things during the production process.

Could be. But if those are shot during production/filming, why are there so many bloody mistakes? They film those segments months before they air and no one watches them to check for mistakes or any other issues? But you may be right, they may be of the opinion that they can do no wrong.

 

[Therae]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That's where I think it is going at least now. Since 1993-1996 a lot has altered with regards to plot development and expectations. Since several years step 1 - human conlict; step 2 - outright human war; step 3 - survivors come to their senses, stick together and unite to beat the big bad foe has pretty much come the expected standard. Over a decade ago such overall arc, but told in a gritty way, would still work for high fantasy. By now it is actually rather predictable. 

So, yes, I think it's highly likely that the Dance of Dragons will happen while the Others invade Weteros and thirteen heroes do what needs to be done to save the realm.

I think something like this, with something of the illustration from Going Postal mentioned upthread. Right about now is looking like a pretty opportune time for the Others to invade: the seven kingdoms are a mess and two Lord Commanders in a row have been assassinated by their own men, it doesn't seem like there is anyone qualified to replace them, there isn't even a maester at Castle Black; this has to be getting pretty close to the NW not remaining true. The only king who believes in snarks and grumpkins is busy at Winterfell, so add an all-out war to the south (with extra added dragons) and this should be the moment for the Wall to come down. The Others could probably make it to the Neck before Dany and Aegon (and anyone not in the north) even noticed.

[Lost Melnibonean]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Lost Melnibonean:

Well, I think you can find that stuff in one of the videos they did discussing Bloodraven.

The idea that Bloodraven existed before the three-eyed crow did is ridiculous, by the way. The Blackfyre Rebellion and Bloodraven are not mentioned in THK. Brynden Rivers actually could have accompanied Baelor and Maekar, you know. But the three-eyed crow is a character in AGoT, first introduced in the third Bran chapter.

Your ideas about the Blackfyres, Great Bastards, etc. all being part of the story from early lack textual evidence.

Textual evidence? Hello? Is there anybody in there? Did you read the actual question that was asked the response the George actually gave? 

Quote

I wanted to ask about your process in creating the series, through a specific example from A Dance with Dragons. To dance around it a bit, lets say that we learn more about the story of the three-eyed crow, a figure first glimpsed in a very early Bran chapter. Were these details something you knew all along? Or was it a situation where you knew you'd need more information to go with this mystical figure, but figured you'd just come across those details organically later on in the series?

I wouldn't say I knew right from the start, but I've certainly known the details for a long, long time. From the very start, I didn't even really know what this story was. As I've said before, when the first chapter came to me, I was in the midst of writing a science fiction novel, Avalon, when I started writing this story about wolf pups being found in the snow. So, you know, some point very early on, before A Game of Thrones was published, I had started filling in these details. We're talking 1994 or 1995.

There was a point early on, relatively early in the writing of the series, where I stopped writing and did a spate of world building. I didn't do it before I started, like Tolkien, but I was writing the book and I was getting in and starting to refer to history. So I stopped and started to formalize it, drawing the maps, working out the genealogies, the list of the Targaryen rulers and the dates of their reigns, and so on. But of course, as you know -- because you're one of the ones that pointed it out back then -- it didn't all necessarily jive with what I wrote in "The Hedge Knight". But in any case, I was starting to think about all of these things as I did it, and I had little hints about their stories through the nicknames I gave the kings. So Maegor the Cruel, Jaehaerys the Conciliator, and the Young Dragon, and so on. So the seeds of a lot of the history were planted when I drew up that list.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/5431/

The interviewer (Ran?) asked if the George had the details of the three-eyed crow's backstory before Dance was written. The George told him that he had started filling in those details in 1994 and 1995. 

Get it? 

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Could be. But if those are shot during production/filming, why are there so many bloody mistakes? They film those segments months before they air and no one watches them to check for mistakes or any other issues? But you may be right, they may be of the opinion that they can do no wrong.

Well, usually promotional material is shot during the production process. And those things 'Behind the...' clips and stuff are promotional material. These people all have very tight schedules.

11 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Textual evidence? Hello? Is there anybody in there? Did you read the actual question that was asked the response the George actually gave? 

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/5431/

The interviewer (Ran?) asked if the George had the details of the three-eyed crow's backstory before Dance was written. The George told him that he had started filling in those details in 1994 and 1995. 

Get it? 

That isn't the interview I'm talking about.

[Lost Melnibonean]

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, usually promotional material is shot during the production process. And those things 'Behind the...' clips and stuff are promotional material. These people all have very tight schedules.

That isn't the interview I'm talking about.

Oh well. You can see what he actually said in this one. 

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

On 27/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, Therae said:

I think something like this, with something of the illustration from Going Postal mentioned upthread. Right about now is looking like a pretty opportune time for the Others to invade: the seven kingdoms are a mess and two Lord Commanders in a row have been assassinated by their own men, it doesn't seem like there is anyone qualified to replace them, there isn't even a maester at Castle Black; this has to be getting pretty close to the NW not remaining true. The only king who believes in snarks and grumpkins is busy at Winterfell, so add an all-out war to the south (with extra added dragons) and this should be the moment for the Wall to come down. The Others could probably make it to the Neck before Dany and Aegon (and anyone not in the north) even noticed.

Right. But then what happens? Dany and Aegon set aside their differences? Join up and fight the true enemy? That, to me, is cliche - and redundant. If that's the endgame, then GRRM could've just had the Starks and Lannisters set aside their differences during the Wot5K.

That's the classic shape of that story: part 1, people fight amongst themselves, thus allowing the true enemy to win; part 2, people unite against the true enemy and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. You've seen it a million times. It crops up in some form or another in Harry Potter, Star Wars (prequels), Sons of Anarchy, Terminator 2... I'm drawing a blank but there's loads more. Maybe I'll check TV Tropes, see if they have a name for it.

[Edit: they call it Divided We Fall, click here for lots of examples.]

Anyway, the point is, Daenerys is an extra element in the mix. She's surplus to requirements, so either she's redundant, or that's not the shape the story's really taking. Perhaps her purpose is something more interesting? I live in hope.

[Lost Melnibonean]

59 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Right. But then what happens? Dany and Aegon set aside their differences? Join up and fight the true enemy? That, to me, is cliche - and redundant. If that's the endgame, then GRRM could've just had the Starks and Lannisters set aside their differences during the Wot5K.

That's the classic shape of that story: part 1, people fight amongst themselves, thus allowing the true enemy to win; part 2, people unite against the true enemy and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. You've seen it a million times. It crops up in some form or another in Harry Potter, Star Wars (prequels), Sons of Anarchy, Terminator 2... I'm drawing a blank but there's loads more. Maybe I'll check TV Tropes, see if they have a name for it.

[Edit: they call it Divided We Fall, click here for lots of examples.]

Anyway, the point is, Daenerys is an extra element in the mix. She's surplus to requirements, so either she's redundant, or that's not the shape the story's really taking. Perhaps her purpose is something more interesting? I live in hope.

At the risk of sounding like a Dany hater (I really do dig the gal) and a sexist (hey, I didna write it), I think Daenerys is the Mother of Dragons (the fire-breathing kind and a future little Blackfyre-Targaryen heir), the principal protagonist of the story's second main conflict, and a giant red herring (for the prince that was promised). 

[Lord Varys]

If there is a red herring to all of this it is the prophecy of the promised prince itself, not any of the main characters of the books. Especially since one of the prophecy experts of the series (Marwyn) gave us a good reason to not put all that much faith into prophecy.

1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Right. But then what happens? Dany and Aegon set aside their differences? Join up and fight the true enemy? That, to me, is cliche - and redundant. If that's the endgame, then GRRM could've just had the Starks and Lannisters set aside their differences during the Wot5K.

The series and its main conflicts were laid out back in the 1990s. It doesn't have to be all that complex and new, and there are hints that it actually isn't.

And the important twist most likely will turn out to be that Dany, Jon Snow, Bran, Tyrion, and a bunch of other crucial characters (and their deeds/knowledge, etc.) will be crucial in the fight against the Others. The idea that Robert, Ned, Tywin, and Viserys could have defeated the Others if they had all worked together is, quite frankly, not very likely.

However, less civil war and infighting and more cooperation at a certain point definitely would have helped people. Perhaps the fall of the Wall (now pretty much a given, I think, since the North's power has been greatly reduced) could have been prevented and our heroes would be able to defeat the Others on their own turf. That could possibly have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Now the humanity will have to pay a much larger toll.

[Lost Melnibonean]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If there is a red herring to all of this it is the prophecy of the promised prince itself, not any of the main characters of the books. Especially since one of the prophecy experts of the series (Marwyn) gave us a good reason to not put all that much faith into prophecy.

Should Marwyn's warning cause us to question prophecies themselves, or the interpretation of prophecies, especially since we have seen prophecies come true, just not in ways expected by readers and characters? 

[Aegon VII]

On January 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Perhaps that's what this whole thing is coming down to: the winds of winter are just as bad as the dancing dragons...

I'm a big supporter of this. The only reason we view the others as bad is because we can't coexist with them. I don't view them as evil. Us viewing them as evil is akin to some animal species viewing humans as evil because we hunt them and destroy their homes. It's all just different life forms fighting to survive, simple Darwinism 

Similarily the dragons are presented as good and magical, yet we have a ton of people in world who view them as so dangerous they should be killed. Their power led to the slave lords of valaryia and the faceless men and possibly the doom. They and they alone gave dany  an almost cheat mode path to power. She reflects on this after being dropped off by dragon at the end of Adwd.

Dragons are nukes (all powerful weapon, unnatural) and others are plague/ climate change (mass death caused by nature). Obviously that's an oversimplification but the parallels are there.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Should Marwyn's warning cause us to question prophecies themselves, or the interpretation of prophecies, especially since we have seen prophecies come true, just not in ways expected by readers and characters? 

Do we actually know what the prophecy of a reborn Azor Ahai (Asshai'/R'hllorian tradition) and the prophecy of a promised prince of the House Targaryen (Valyrian/Targaryen tradition) actually say?

No we don't. And thus we cannot even try to correctly interpret those prophecies.

3 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

I'm a big supporter of this. The only reason we view the others as bad is because we can't coexist with them. I don't view them as evil. Us viewing them as evil is akin to some animal species viewing humans as evil because we hunt them and destroy their homes. It's all just different life forms fighting to survive, simple Darwinism.

Considering that it seems not unlikely that the Others are not, in fact, normal biological creatures but rather abominations created by magic makes it unlikely that they are not evil. They might be biological weapons created by the Children of the Forest to wipe out all humanity on the planet. They might be the cure to the sickness of humanity.

3 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

Similarily the dragons are presented as good and magical, yet we have a ton of people in world who view them as so dangerous they should be killed. Their power led to the slave lords of valaryia and the faceless men and possibly the doom. They and they alone gave dany  an almost cheat mode path to power. She reflects on this after being dropped off by dragon at the end of Adwd.

Dragons are nukes (all powerful weapon, unnatural) and others are plague/ climate change (mass death caused by nature). Obviously that's an oversimplification but the parallels are there.

Dragons aren't celebrated as some great creatures in and out of themselves. But they are pretty impressive magical animals. That's it. They are also not nukes. They don't give you absolute power, either. Just look how the Dornish brought down Meraxes (the second largest Targaryen dragon) during the First Dornish War and how Prince Aemond completely sucked as a leader during the Dance despite the fact that he was the rider of the largest dragon alive. 

Dany's dragons will never reach the size of the dragons during the Conquest. We won't see Dany burning castles, cities, or armies to the ground during some campaigns just with dragonfire. That is out of the question. Especially in winter. The fire of young dragons doesn't even burn that hot. They might not even be able to incinerate thatched roofs that are full of snow and ice.

[Sea Dragon]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Do we actually know what the prophecy of a reborn Azor Ahai (Asshai'/R'hllorian tradition) and the prophecy of a promised prince of the House Targaryen (Valyrian/Targaryen tradition) actually say?

No we don't. And thus we cannot even try to correctly interpret those prophecies.

Considering that it seems not unlikely that the Others are not, in fact, normal biological creatures but rather abominations created by magic makes it unlikely that they are not evil. They might be biological weapons created by the Children of the Forest to wipe out all humanity on the planet. They might be the cure to the sickness of humanity.

Dragons aren't celebrated as some great creatures in and out of themselves. But they are pretty impressive magical animals. That's it. They are also not nukes. They don't give you absolute power, either. Just look how the Dornish brought down Meraxes (the second largest Targaryen dragon) during the First Dornish War and how Prince Aemond completely sucked as a leader during the Dance despite the fact that he was the rider of the largest dragon alive. 

Dany's dragons will never reach the size of the dragons during the Conquest. We won't see Dany burning castles, cities, or armies to the ground during some campaigns just with dragonfire. That is out of the question. Especially in winter. The fire of young dragons doesn't even burn that hot. They might not even be able to incinerate thatched roofs that are full of snow and ice.

Drogo is big enough for Daenerys to ride and the other two are not far behind. Viserion burned Quentyn alive and fully engulfed him in flame. The old Targaryens also named their dragons after their gods which they say are dragons. Sorry, my books are packed away at the minute so I don't have access to the quotes right now. I guess I would not underestimate the power of these dragons when they come to Westeros because it only takes burning a few people for other people to submit. Also, I forget who said it, but someone said that the days of the archers is gone and it is now the days of the sword (or something close) and that would mean there are not too many archers to take out a flying, flame breathing dragon now.

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Drogo is big enough for Daenerys to ride and the other two are not far behind. Viserion burned Quentyn alive and fully engulfed him in flame. The old Targaryens also named their dragons after their gods which they say are dragons. Sorry, my books are packed away at the minute so I don't have access to the quotes right now. I guess I would not underestimate the power of these dragons when they come to Westeros because it only takes burning a few people for other people to submit. Also, I forget who said it, but someone said that the days of the archers is gone and it is now the days of the sword (or something close) and that would mean there are not too many archers to take out a flying, flame breathing dragon now.

Quentyn was actually burned by Rhaegal, not Viserion. And unlike the really big dragons he didn't eat him, nor did he rip him to pieces at once (as Drogon did in Daznak's Pit).

My point is that Dany's dragons are way too small right now to be anything but a flying propaganda tool that can also be used as an airborne scout and, perhaps, in some small skirmishes. If Dany or any of her dragonriders would actually attack a veritable army with her dragons she would lose if she didn't have a strong army herself. A small group of people certainly might be intimidated by the dragons but these kind of beasts also cause people to come up with means and ways to kill them. Keep in mind that five dragons - two of them large and formidable beasts - were killed during the Storming of the Dragonpit. Dragons can kill people, but people can also kill dragons, especially if they are chained up.

Young dragons are quicker than older ones but their armor isn't as strong, which means they can be hurt and killed by arrows and bolts as well as spears and swords. You see this with Drogon in Daznak's Pit. He was nearly killed there. If the spear had pierced him properly or injured his wings it would have been over. He wouldn't have gotten away. Hizdahr would have laughed, and they would have ripped him to pieces, and Dany with him.

Spoiler

Think of Euron in his Valyrian steel armor.

I can easily enough see him killing either one of Dany's dragons. If that armor protects him against dragonfire and if also has a Valyrian steel sword he would cut the dragons to pieces in close combat.

[The Fresh PtwP]

 "Maddened by the smell of dragon, horses below reared in terror, lashing out with iron-shod hooves. Food stalls and palanquins alike were overturned, men knocked down and trampled. Spears were thrown, crossbows were fired. Some struck home. The dragon twisted violently in the air, wounds smoking, the girl clinging to his back. Then he loosed the fire.

It had taken the rest of the day and most of the night for the Brazen Beasts to gather up the corpses. The final count was two hundred fourteen slain, three times as many burned or wounded." -ADWD Queensguard,

Multiply that by three, add some direction and focus and i'm of the opinion that the dragons are a legit military threat. Much more than scouts and skirmishes.

Also morale is a huge factor in war, nobody is going to fight to the last man after watching hundreds get bathed in dragonfire. People are going to break...and break hard.

[Shmedricko]

@Lost Melnibonean: I think this is what @Lord Varys is referring to:

Quote

Elio: The thing is I recall asking George, we did an interview with him, and I asked him outright, did he always know that the Three-Eyed Crow was Bloodraven? His answer was that he always knew that he would be tied to the Targaryens, basically. He may not have had the specifics of which Targaryens and how, but he always kind of knew that there was going to be a connection there. And so you’re thinking back in 1994, when he’s resuming writing this-

Linda: This is a long game.

Elio: It’s a long game. He waited a long time [Linda: for that reveal.] Before Dunk and Egg existed in his mind, Egg obviously was in the trees, but Dunk and that whole line of the story. Obviously I think probably when he had Aegon the Unworthy he knew he'd have bastards and he must have thought maybe one of them, I don't know.

Linda: Well, he knew in '98 certainly, cause we have those ancient notes which include the bastards.

Elio: Yeah, so '98 at least he definitely had it all fleshed out, but apparently all along at least he had this notion the Three-Eyed Crow was not going to be a child of the forest; it was going to be someone, a Targaryen or something like that, anyways.

-Westeros.org on Game of Thrones: Episode 10, "The Children" (1:32:14)

Quote

Elio: The thing is, if you look at this story [The Hedge Knight] and compare it to the later stories, the main element that changes, suddenly it appears out of nowhere, is the Blackfyre Rebellion. It is nowhere in sight when he wrote this story. I think it’s pretty clear that George, in 1997, had not yet come up with this whole concept. I think related concepts, ideas connected to the whole Song of Ice and Fire, were there, I think, but the specifics of a Targaryen bastard leading to generations of strife wasn’t there.

Linda: We know of course, for our own part, that when we got those old notes that we've mentioned before from George, that was in '98, '99 I think -- and those have the seed of the Blackfyres which obviously starts with Aegon the Unworthy and his legitimizing all his bastards including Daemon Blackfyre and giving him this Blackfyre Sword. So there, some time after the Hedge Knight maybe while working on A Clash of Kings, although there's no hint-

Elio: No, no, no, he was done with A Clash of Kings.

Linda: Yeah, so it's after A Clash of Kings that he goes back, and not only decides that this is going to be more books, well he's already decided that it's not a trilogy, but it's going to be even more than that, and there needs to be more history. At some point there, he fleshes out some of the kings. We know from conversations we had for The World of Ice and Fire, for the kings that he didn’t end up writing fully for the book, the later Targaryens, that he has a lot of notes for the period that Dunk and Egg future stories are going to play out. But all of this comes after the first two novels and the first novella.

Elio: Yeah, absolutely, cause in the first novel that really features the Blackfyre stuff is of course A Storm of Swords, is when it was first mentioned by Catelyn about the Blackfyres who troubled the realm for five generations and so on. And obviously for those who follow the novels currently you know there’s a lot of talk about Blackfyres, are certain people Blackfyres, are they connected to the Blackfyres. That was not part, in that form, of the original conception of the story.

-Westeros.org Discusses... A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms (Part 1) (4:08)

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

2 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

@Lost Melnibonean: I think this is what @Lord Varys is referring to:

 

Well done, sir! So, it would be fair to assume, that by the time he was putting the finishing touches on Game and the better part of Clash (which was done but held back from publication in the first book), he was going to have a pretender and the three-eyed crow come out of Aegon the Unworthy's bastards, but he was still working on the details? 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Well done, sir! So, it would be fair to assume, that by the time he was putting the finishing touches on Game and the better part of Clash (which was done but held back from publication in the first book), he was going to have a pretender and the three-eyed crow come out of Aegon the Unworthy's bastards, but he was still working on the details? 

That would be far too much for my taste. The three-eyed crow is part of the story from a very early part, the third Bran chapter. We even see a reflection of the Bran magic story as early as the original outline.

It could very well be that Bloodraven/the royal bastard who would be the three-eyed crow came first, long before the idea of some bastard trying to steal the throne came up. After all, the story about Queen Naerys and the Dragonknight is part of the AGoT appendix, but the Blackfyre Rebellion isn't. If George had already come up with that back story at the time of the publication of AGoT he most certainly would have put it in there, especially if it was supposed to be important. Most likely the Blackfyre Rebellion idea grew out of the idea of the Naerys-Aemon love story rumors. After all, if the king's son is perhaps not the king's seed then another son of the king by another woman might fancy himself the king.

The idea of Prince Aegon grew out of the Varys-Illyrio story in AGoT and we cannot know when it got connected to the Blackfyre thing (if it is). It could easily enough have begun as the idea of an Aegon impostor. Such a person doesn't have to have any royal blood whatsoever. It might be that George played for quite some time with the idea that Varys and Illyrio are just going to prop up a child of theirs as a new Targaryen king. The idea that it would make more sense for them to actually have some (distant) connection to the dynasty to make their motivation more plausible might have come later.

Aegon's origins don't have to be determined for George to write the Varys-Illyrio conversation or even the House of the Undying. And Daemon Blackfyre is first mentioned only in ASoS.

But the three-eyed crow clearly was a part of the story since the very beginning, and it would have been part of it even in the original trilogy setting. And it was always supposed to be some guy with Targaryen connections.