Aegon Blackfyre or Aegon Targaryen

[spauldo17]

30 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Well, it's not like the reveal must happen on the first page of TWOW, right? With two more books to go, there's enough space to base the reveal on more infodumps.

True, it GRRM develops the backstory of the Blackfyres a little more than I could see it happening. I just think that, literarily speaking, if an author writes in a twist, especially of the "____ is actually ____ " variety, they are generally revealed to be someone with whom people are very familiar, thus widening the shock value.

I do think he could be a Blackfyre I suppose, I just think it needs more developing.  Out of curiosity, what reasons, other than the "mummer's dragon" do you point to as evidence for the theory?  The Golden Company joining him means little, in my opinion, seeing as how they are a band of sell swords and their loyalty is notoriously fickle.  Not only that but the Golden Company swears allegiance to him BECAUSE he is Aeron Targaryen, so clearly they aren't solely loyal to the Blackfyres.

There are references to him looking like and even acting like a Targaryen, and a perfectly believable and plausible back story to suggest how he came to be.  I'm curious as to how all of this "Faegon" stuff actually started.  Even the description in Kevan Lannister's inner monologue of the baby boy wrapped in crimson casts doubt.  Note that he says there were "a few hanks of fair hair"  which is significant I think.  A hank is a measurement of something like string or rope, and doesn't not necessarily imply that the hair was attached but rather separate.  Which it would be if it had been placed there to deceive.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

54 minutes ago, spauldo17 said:

Honestly I don't think he's a Blackfyre simply because the reveal would be underwhelming.  The vast majority of GoT fans don't really know who the Blackfyres are.  It's a name that's maybe mentioned a handful of times, but not enough to make the reveal meaningful. Most GoT fans don't spend their time on forums like this and therefore aren't as versed in the history as we all are.

  I love the books and have read them multiple times but I didn't even know much about the Blackfyre rebellion until I started spending time on this forum and reading up more about it online.

I think it would go like this:  *he's revealed as a Blackfyre*  15% of GoT fans (forum users)  I FACCCKKIN KNEEEEW ITT! ........85% of fans (everybody else)  "ummmm who?  he's a what?  is that like wyldfire?"

So it will be an added bonus for those who bought the novellas.

Look at it this way: the Three-Eyed Crow was revealed to be Lord Bloodraven, Brynden Rivers. It didn't bother the casual readers none (probably even went over their head), but it was a bone thrown to the geekiest.

Griff is Jon Connington. Another "WTF?" character. Before that reveal, Jon Connington was been mentioned, I think, counting only the series proper, five times (less even than House Blackfyre). Yet he is who he is.

[spauldo17]

1 minute ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

So it will be an added bonus for those who bought the novellas.

Look at it this way: the Three-Eyed Crow was revealed to be Lord Bloodraven, Brynden Rivers. It didn't bother the casual readers none (probably even went over their head), but it was a bone thrown to the geekiest.

Griff is Jon Connington. Another "WTF?" character. Before that reveal, Jon Connington was been mentioned, I think, counting only the series proper, five times (less even than House Blackfyre). Yet he is who he is.

Fair point.

[Lion of the West]

I think that Aegon is a Targaryen but at the end of it, it don't really matter to me very much. He's a claimant trying to cash in on the Targaryen name and that's story with him. If he is successful I would expect him to be accepted as Rhaegar's heir while if he is defeated he will probably be renounced as a fake. All regardless of his actual descent. 

But it would be pretty ironic in a way if Tommen was usurped by a guy cashing in a name similar to how Tommen is cashing in on the Baratheon name. So if we think that GRRM will throw us a ironic parallel story here, then Aegon could well be either a Blackfyre or just some Valyrian kid.

[Sea Dragon]

Blackfyres are Targaryens. Red or black, a dragon is a dragon. 

[Sea Dragon]

13 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Rhaegar's line was disinherited.  That's the logical thing for Aerys to do to prevent the grandson of someone he doesn't like from a family he doesn't like or trust from inheriting his throne.  He made Viserys his heir and he has the authority to do that.  Viserys became King Viserys III when Queen Rhaella crowned him on Dragonstone.  Rhaenys, Aegon, and any other child of Rhaegar got kicked out of the line of inheritance.

 

I agree that Daenerys is the rightful queen, but I don't remember exactly when in the books that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar and his children. I guess I forgot? Do you have the quote so I can go back and read it again? 

[Lion of the West]

8 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Blackfyres are Targaryens. Red or black, a dragon is a dragon. 

Forgive my nitpicking but I think you are wrong here. Blackfyres are Valyrians, just like the Targaryens, but while they share an ethnicity the two of them are two different social and political Houses. The Blackfyres and Targaryens are not more the same thing than Lannisters and Arryns are the same because both of them are counted as Andals.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

18 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Forgive my nitpicking but I think you are wrong here. Blackfyres are Valyrians, just like the Targaryens, but while they share an ethnicity the two of them are two different social and political Houses. The Blackfyres and Targaryens are not more the same thing than Lannisters and Arryns are the same because both of them are counted as Andals.

Awful analogy.

Daemon Blackfyre was the son of Aegon IV Targaryen. House Blackfyre is a cadet branch of House Targaryen. Your analogy with the Lannisters and the Arryns is way off, more accurate would be the "red apple" Fossoways and the "green apple" Fossoways (the split happened roughly at the same time).

[Lion of the West]

3 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Awful comparison.

Daemon Blackfyre was the son of Aegon IV Targaryen. House Blackfyre is a cadet branch of House Targaryen. Your comparison with the Lannisters and the Arryns is way off, more accurate would be the "red apple" Fossoways and the "green apple" Fossoways (the split happened roughly at the same time).

Yes the comparison might have been off but I think that the Fossoways are not really such a great treat either since they share the same name and have not nearly the rift between them that the Targaryens and Blackfyres had.

How about the Starks and Greystarks/Karstarks as a comparison? There's conflict between these line similar to what's between the Targaryens and Blackfyres.

[Sea Dragon]

Sorry, the quote box stopped working for some reason.

21 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Forgive my nitpicking but I think you are wrong here. Blackfyres are Valyrians, just like the Targaryens, but while they share an ethnicity the two of them are two different social and political Houses. The Blackfyres and Targaryens are not more the same thing than Lannisters and Arryns are the same because both of them are counted as Andals.

The Blackfyres are Targaryens that came from Targaryen bloodlines in Westeros in recent history. It is like calling all Japanese people in America all Japanese just because they look Asian, but they are Americans because they were born and raised here.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Just now, LionoftheWest said:

Yes the comparison might have been off but I think that the Fossoways are not really such a great treat either since they share the same name and have not nearly the rift between them that the Targaryens and Blackfyres had. How about the Starks and Greystarks/Karstarks as a comparison? There's conflict between these line similar to what's between the Targaryens and Blackfyres.

The difference is time. For the Targ-Blackfyre split, it's roughly a hundred years, five generations ago. For Stark-Karstark, it's a thousand years.

[Lion of the West]

Just now, Sea Dragon said:

Sorry, the quote box stopped working for some reason.

The Blackfyres are Targaryens that came from Targaryen bloodlines in Westeros in recent history. It is like calling all Japanese people in America all Japanese just because they look Asian, but they are Americans because they were born and raised here.

No problem.

That makes no sense. Japanese are an ethnicity, just like the Valyrians, while both Blackfyre and Targaryen are a Westerosi political and social structure called "House". I must ask you to explain how this even toches on the subject?

[spauldo17]

3 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Sorry, the quote box stopped working for some reason.

The Blackfyres are Targaryens that came from Targaryen bloodlines in Westeros in recent history. It is like calling all Japanese people in America all Japanese just because they look Asian, but they are Americans because they were born and raised here.

also Japanese because, be proud of your heritage.

[Lion of the West]

Just now, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

The difference is time. For the Targ-Blackfyre split, it's roughly a hundred years, five generations ago. For Stark-Karstark, it's a thousand years.

The principles would be the same. The two have through time in one case and conflicts in another case diverted from each other to form distinct Houses separate from each other. The Blackfyres may well hail as a cadet branch but they've eveloped into their own House.

[Sea Dragon]

2 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No problem.

That makes no sense. Japanese are an ethnicity, just like the Valyrians, while both Blackfyre and Targaryen are a Westerosi political and social structure called "House". I must ask you to explain how this even toches on the subject?

Because they Blackfyres are Westeros people because they were born and raised in Westeros. The Blackfyres are also directly descended from Targaryen blood in recent times and it was just an optional name change (I forget the full details), but they are the same. Just like Brynden Rivers is still a Targegaryen.

[Lion of the West]

6 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Because they Blackfyres are Westeros people because they were born and raised in Westeros. The Blackfyres are also directly descended from Targaryen blood in recent times and it was just an optional name change (I forget the full details), but they are the same. Just like Brynden Rivers is still a Targegaryen.

When I first read it, it made no sense to me. But then I figured that perhaps you think that when I designate the Targaryens and Blackfyres as Valyrians I don't think that these two would be Westerosi.

Well, that's not what I think. In regards to the Blackfyres and Targaryens they would be, as I see it, Andalized Valyrians and Westerosi (without knowing how the lives in the Golden Company might have affected identity and culture among the Blackfyres as the years rolled past). I do not think that the Valyrians are foreigners to Westeros nor that there is a contradiction between being Valyrian and being Westerosi. An example of what I mean is that the Arryns and Lannisters are Andals and Westerosi, but if there are Andals left in old Andalos in Essos they would also be Andals but presumably not Westerosi.

If there's any unclear parts or things you wonder about please tell me and I'll try to elaborate on it.

[Sea Dragon]

2 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

When I first read it, it made no sense to me. But then I figured that perhaps you think that when I designate the Targaryens and Blackfyres as Valyrians I don't think that these two would be Westerosi.

Well, that's not what I think. In regards to the Blackfyres and Targaryens they would be, as I see it, Andalized Valyrians and Westerosi (without knowing how the lives in the Golden Company might have affected identity and culture among the Blackfyres as the years rolled past). I do not think that the Valyrians are foreigners to Westeros nor that there is a contradiction between being Valyrian and being Westerosi. An example of what I mean is that the Arryns and Lannisters are Andals and Westerosi, but if there are Andals left in old Andalos in Essos they would also be Andals but presumably not Westerosi.

If there's any unclear parts or things you wonder about please tell me and I'll try to elaborate on it.

I guess I know what you mean. Like Westerosi of Andal descent? That makes sense, but I am not so sure about two or three at the same time.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, spauldo17 said:

I do think he could be a Blackfyre I suppose, I just think it needs more developing.  Out of curiosity, what reasons, other than the "mummer's dragon" do you point to as evidence for the theory?  The Golden Company joining him means little, in my opinion, seeing as how they are a band of sell swords and their loyalty is notoriously fickle.  Not only that but the Golden Company swears allegiance to him BECAUSE he is Aeron Targaryen, so clearly they aren't solely loyal to the Blackfyres.

The Golden Company is known to be different from other sellswords and they hadn't broken a contract before. Also, there are no more known Blackfyres around, so Targaryen is the next best thing to their original loyalties (and who knows what Miles Toyne might have known?) Then there is this peculiar line about contracts written in blood, which means some stronger ties than gold. It also provides a motive for Varys' and Illyrio's involvement with Westeros - Varys fuelling Aerys' paranoia and driving a wedge between the incapable king and his capable son doesn't exactly scream "acting in the best interests of House Targaryen", more like to its detriment. If he was a Blackfyre himself, or allied with one, it would be a great motive. Add to it Illyrio's rather uncharacteristic sentiment for YG and the boy clothes found in his house, which might point to the boy being his son, most likely by Serra. There was a theory that Varys and Serra were the last Blackfyre descendants in the female line and that this is the reason why Varys was cut (whether to prevent him from procreating or for a ritual involving kingsblood). Indeed, one hell of a motive: taking revenge on the Targs and finally achieving the Blackfyre claim.

1 hour ago, spauldo17 said:

There are references to him looking like and even acting like a Targaryen, and a perfectly believable and plausible back story to suggest how he came to be.  I'm curious as to how all of this "Faegon" stuff actually started.  Even the description in Kevan Lannister's inner monologue of the baby boy wrapped in crimson casts doubt.  Note that he says there were "a few hanks of fair hair"  which is significant I think.  A hank is a measurement of something like string or rope, and doesn't not necessarily imply that the hair was attached but rather separate.  Which it would be if it had been placed there to deceive.

First of all, I don't find the backstory plausible at all. It has absolutely none corroborating details from any other PoVs - compare it with the way we learn bits of Harrenhal, RR, Rhaegar, Aerys etc. here and there, scattered across the pages and sometimes it takes very close reading to realize that a seemingly random bit of information actually points to events that the PoV character has no idea about. Yet, with the supposed baby swap, there is nothing. How did Varys get a Valyrian-looking baby at the Flea Bottom? Who did the child inherit the features from, and why don't we get a mention of an old drunkard boasting of having once drunk a barrel of arbor gold all by himself or something like that? And why did Varys bother with a substitute at all when the whole city along with the Red Keep was to go in flames? Jaime acting against his vows was pretty much a wild card, no-one would have known that a baby was missing among all those charred bones. And, if Varys was such a Targ loyalist, why didn't he make use of the time to save Elia and Rhaenys, as well? With all the secret passages, it would have been a piece of cake if he really cared what happened to Rhaegar's family.

Plus, a meta point - or two, in fact: 1) the War of the Roses had its impostors while we haven't had one yet, and 2) there is no use for two princes in hiding in a story, and that post is already occupied by Jon.

I might remember some more later but I was not among those contributing with this theory, so I guess I have forgotten most details.

 

 

[Bael's Bastard]

3 hours ago, spauldo17 said:

Honestly I don't think he's a Blackfyre simply because the reveal would be underwhelming.  The vast majority of GoT fans don't really know who the Blackfyres are.  It's a name that's maybe mentioned a handful of times, but not enough to make the reveal meaningful. Most GoT fans don't spend their time on forums like this and therefore aren't as versed in the history as we all are.  I love the books and have read them multiple times but I didn't even know much about the Blackfyre rebellion until I started spending time on this forum and reading up more about it online.

I think it would go like this:  *he's revealed as a Blackfyre*  15% of GoT fans (forum users)  I FACCCKKIN KNEEEEW ITT! ........85% of fans (everybody else)  "ummmm who?  he's a what?  is that like wyldfire?"

The Blackfyres are mentioned about a dozen times over the last three books, either mentioned or thought about by eleven different characters in chapters of nine different POV characters. Perhaps not a ton of times, but the mentions are there, from diverse sources, and are usually pretty dramatic. I think Aerion is mentioned even less times, and his ancestry could be involved as well. Connington is first mentioned in the same book the Blackfyres are, and Young Griff isn't introduced until the fifth book, though he is being claimed to be a character who is mentioned earlier in the series.

[Lord Varys]

There is no difference between the Blackfyres and the Targaryens that matters. The Blackfyres are just Targaryens who took another name, something George most likely only came up with to make things easier for people (and he actually made things worse that way, because now people think there is a difference there where there is none). We see this perfectly expressed by Bloodraven when he points out in TMK that the Blackfyres basically share all the characteristics of the Targaryens, and vice versa (when he discusses the prophetic dreams of Daemon II).

One should also keep in mind that due to the marriages of Daeron II, Maekar, and Aegon V the Blackfyres up to Maelys the Monstrous might actually have been purer Targaryens than Aegon V's descendants.

But Prince Aegon isn't a Blackfyre. He is at best a Blackfyre descendant. House Blackfyre is extinguished in the male line. Just as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn, Aegon isn't a Blackfyre if he is Illyrio's son. He would be a Mopatis, assuming Illyrio was actually married to Aegon's mother.

But this doesn't matter. Aegon's story is a story about a fake Targaryen if he is not Rhaegar's son. This is not a Targaryen vs. Blackfyre story but a story how certain people created a fake Targaryen pretender. The whole Blackfyre agenda might be connected to the whole thing to a degree but this is not everything that's going on there.

The story we are going to get is how Dany and other characters deal with Aegon's claim to be Rhaegar's son. That is the potential for conflict. The Blackfyre background will not get all that much space there, and neither will the whole revenge thing. The War of the Ninepenny Kings was forty years ago. Both Aegon and Dany are going to use the much fresher wounds of Robert's Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings to draw people to their causes. The Blackfyre cause was essentially already dead during the Fourth Rebellion, and that was in 236 AC, over sixty years ago.