Why is Jon's name Aegon?

[Hajk1984]

Maybe as a nod to book readers. In the books Dany has a vision of Rhaegar holding a baby and saying that this is the Prince that was Promised and his name is Aegon.

[falcotron]

12 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

Also while D&D have pretty much gone off the rails with the show as of late, they know how the books will end so for them to take such a leap in making Rhaegar annul his marriage with Elia and naming Jon "Aegon", perhaps all that is not too far from the book's canon.

I think there are cases where we can predict that they are going to deviate from the books—and I think you just gave the perfect one, with the annulment. The idea that Jon is legitimate is probably one of the important points that GRRM gave them from the books, but there are other ways to get there. And I can give a very convincing argument (well, very convincing to me…) for why the books would be likely to go with Targaryen bigamy, and why the show would be likely to change it to annulment.*

I don't know whether it's the same case with the name Aegon. Of course it would be a huge leap to assume that Aegon must be such a change without making such a case. But if someone does have a good case, like the one for the annulment, it's not a leap at all.

And that's basically why I started this thread. I think there might be a good case, but I know the case I have isn't nearly solid enough, and it's quite possible that I'm wrong and there isn't one. (J. Stargaryen hasn't convinced me yet, but I'm a lot less firm than when I started…)

---

* I don't think anyone's interested in going over that whole argument again, but if you want my version, let me know and we can either find an old thread or start a new one.

[Regular John Umber]

18 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

They've always said that they're working towards the same end game despite making changes along the way. So I don't think those "changes along the way" can be used as proof that they are not working towards the same end game as GRRM.

 Yes, absolutely, but the nature of the changes makes me question the eventual similarity. The more changes that get made, the less specific the similarity will be, because if at the end 'the good guys win after a big fight' in both books, then it's technically the same end game. I guess all I'm saying is that I remain skeptical.

[bent branch]

31 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Again, this whole idea that they're going to merge the stories of one of their two main characters and thereby alter his end game simply doesn't fit with what we've been told by D&D. They're working towards the same end game as GRRM. Merging Jon with reAegon means a different end game for one of the two main characters.

I think your attempts to be disparaging are indicative of the quality of your arguments. Say what you will, but I'm not the one who is arguing that D&D will contradict themselves by altering the story's end game. My argument makes the humble assumption that Jon's named Aegon in the show because he's named Aegon in the books. I've also provided explanations for my argument that don't require D&D to contradict themselves. Unfortunately for you, your arguments are entirely based on this premise.

No, he won't. fAegon probably will though, as Aegon VI. Then Jon can follow him as Aegon VII.

No, it doesn't because it alters the destiny (re: end game) of one of the two main characters.

Disagree.

Pray tell, how do you know this? YG being crowned king is one of the more commonly held theories in fandom. If that does happen, he will, in fact, be Aegon VI, regardless of his true birth. Joffrey and Tommen's claims are both based on lies about who their father is. So I'm not sure why you think a lie about YG's parentage would disqualify him from being crowned as Aegon VI. There's precedent for GRRM doing that. Like, right now precedent.

I'm not trying to be disparaging. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Were you being disparaging of me when you were stating you didn't believe my take on the topic? Because you know, you haven't conceded on any of my points either.

I don't think D&D would see this deviation as being as different as you would. They have already made major deviations in the story that they don't seem to think of as major. Being true to the storyline is mainly in the eye of the beholder and I think this deviation is one they would feel remains true to the storyline. I've tried to show you how merging Jon and Aegon's storylines would be one way of remaining true to the story.

As far as Aegon being considered the VI, he will probably only get that designation if he is seen as a legitimate Targaryen. If he is seen as fake in some manner (as many like believe), then he will be given some designation that places him outside the Targaryen lineage. For example, he would be called Aegon the Fake or Aegon the Deceiver or Aegon the Interloper. You only get a number if you are part of that lineage. I say this because the Targaryens themselves will decide whether he gets a number or not.

[falcotron]

6 minutes ago, bent branch said:

As far as Aegon being considered the VI, he will probably only get that designation if he is seen as a legitimate Targaryen. If he is seen as fake in some manner (as many like believe), then he will be given some designation that places him outside the Targaryen lineage. For example, he would be called Aegon the Fake or Aegon the Deceiver or Aegon the Interloper. You only get a number if you are part of that lineage. I say this because the Targaryens themselves will decide whether he gets a number or not.

No, that's not how regnal numbers work, at least not in real-world Europe, and Westeros doesn't seems to be any different (e.g., the Baratheon kings use the same naming scheme as the Targaryens).

"Aegon VI" is just short for "Aegon, King of the Andals, the First Men, and the Rhoynar, sixth of his name", and that literally just means what it says—he was the sixth person named Aegon to be crowned as King of the Andals, etc. It doesn't say he's part of the Targaryen lineage or dynasty or anything. So he'll remain Aegon VI unless he or his surviving supporters sign a peace treaty like Rhaenys's retroactively uncrowning him.

And yes, of course he will probably get an unpleasant epithet, but just as Aegon the Unworthy is still Aegon IV, Aegon the Deceiver will still be Aegon VI. After all, they need some unambiguous regnal name and number to list as the one king under the "False Targaryen Restoration" dynasty.

[Daske]

17 hours ago, tugela said:

When I was researching my family tree, one couple among my ancestors had three sons named Christian, and two named Mathias. The reason being that those were family names, and as one died, they just gave the name to the next son who came along.

I found the same thing when researching my family tree. Infant mortality was very high not so very long ago. It used to be a lot more common practice than people realise.

 

[J. Stargaryen]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Agreed. If Aegon sits the throne, he'll probably be counted as Aegon VI—meaning the next Aegon will be Aegon VII—even if he's proven not to actually be Rhaegar's son. At least in the real world, it's very rare for a king to be removed from the list retroactively because he was later discovered/declared to be a bastard, an impostor, or even non-existent.* I don't see any reason why Westeros would be any different.

But there is one way he could be stricken: If part of the peace treaty between Dany and Aegon stipulates that he was never king, then he's not on the lists, and Aegon VI gets used for the next Aegon to come along. Which is exactly what happened to Rhaenyra in the first Dance. There are real-life examples, too: e.g., Matilda of England is nearly identical (no coincidence, since the Dance is based on the Anarchy), but Jane Grey is probably most famous.

---

* Like at least 6 of the first 13 Eriks in Sweden.

I agree that it could happen. All of this seems possible to me, but I'm guessing it won't happen because GRRM needs a sixth Aegon before Jon can become the seventh. For one reason or another YG will end up counting as Aegon VI.

2 hours ago, Regular John Umber said:

 Yes, absolutely, but the nature of the changes makes me question the eventual similarity. The more changes that get made, the less specific the similarity will be, because if at the end 'the good guys win after a big fight' in both books, then it's technically the same end game. I guess all I'm saying is that I remain skeptical.

Some differences between the respective endings are unavoidable, that is true. And we don't know exactly how specific "same end game" is. But it would have to pretty vague if it meant they were going to change the ultimate fate of one of the two main characters. Not to mention the name as well.

2 hours ago, bent branch said:

I'm not trying to be disparaging. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Were you being disparaging of me when you were stating you didn't believe my take on the topic? Because you know, you haven't conceded on any of my points either.

 

Calling my argument weird and asking if I understand how adaptations work, are what I had in mind. I don't mind if you disagree with me.

2 hours ago, bent branch said:

I don't think D&D would see this deviation as being as different as you would. They have already made major deviations in the story that they don't seem to think of as major. Being true to the storyline is mainly in the eye of the beholder and I think this deviation is one they would feel remains true to the storyline. I've tried to show you how merging Jon and Aegon's storylines would be one way of remaining true to the story.

1

The thing is, even if you were right that they had decided to graft YG's destiny onto Jon it wouldn't necessitate a name change. You pointed out that Jon has likely acquired some of Stannis's story. Well, why wasn't he revealed to be named Stannis? Why hasn't Gendry changed his name to Edric yet? Because a name change isn't really part of the deal.

2 hours ago, bent branch said:

As far as Aegon being considered the VI, he will probably only get that designation if he is seen as a legitimate Targaryen. If he is seen as fake in some manner (as many like believe), then he will be given some designation that places him outside the Targaryen lineage. For example, he would be called Aegon the Fake or Aegon the Deceiver or Aegon the Interloper. You only get a number if you are part of that lineage. I say this because the Targaryens themselves will decide whether he gets a number or not.

 

In principle this makes sense, but it also assumes that the Targaryen decision will be based entirely on merit. I don't think we can count on that. Just as an example, I could see Dany and/or Jon defeating YG after he is crowned Aegon VI, and agreeing to recognize his reign in return for the loyalty of his remaining armies and bannermen. They might come in handy in the battle against the dead. Any remaining Blackfyre loyalists would likely find official recognition of a Blackfyre king satisfying. I'm not arguing that I think this will happen mind you, just as an example of how Targaryen judged merit might not be the only factor.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Daske said:

I found the same thing when researching my family tree. Infant mortality was very high not so very long ago. It used to be a lot more common practice than people realise.

 

It's a real practice, indeed, except Lyanna might not have any idea that Aegon died. The Kingsguard seemed to be aware of what happened, but I can't imagine Lyanna was really in the mood for updates while she was in labour.

[TwiceBorn]

Annulment. First child with former wife was rendered bastard. Case closed.

[King Ned Stark]

16 hours ago, NexivRed said:

My thoughts are, why call him Aegon in the show if he's not Aegon in the books. There's no need to change his name. 

So if his name IS Aegon in the books as well, why? 

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Jon is not Rhaegar's "third head of the dragon". He's his first, with the proper wife he is only able to make his fire/ice children with, and thereby fulfilling the prophecy he was so obsessed with. 

So Jon is his new Aegon, and he was intending on having two more children with Lyanna to get his three heads. His children by Elia were "mistaken prophecy" children, and although there's nothing to suggest he'd have abandoned them in any way, he was basically starting afresh. So copying names was not really a concern. 

I agree, somewhat.  My latest thoughts is that Jon is all three heads of the dragon, and that Rhaegar was wrong about needing 3 people, or, that the vision of Rhaegar with baby Aegon was a "day that never was", and the baby that may or may not have died in KL during the sack, was never Rhaegar and Elia's son to begin with.  The timeline, while possible, seems suspect to me.

16 hours ago, bent branch said:

Sadly, most of the reasoning is based on blind partisanship. The answer could be just this simple. D&D and GRRM have said that they may take different paths, but the story will end up in the same place. At this point, the show story is set to potentially end with Aegon Targaryen, the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, sitting on the Iron Throne. If Jon does take the throne, then it is a good bet that it will be a legitimate Aegon Targaryen who sits the throne at the end in the books. The people who are arguing both boys were legitimate and named Aegon, are essentially thinking this is what will happen. The people who don't like the idea of both boys being legitimate and named Aegon are resorting to calling D&D idiots. The most parsimonious answer is that the characters of Aegon Targaryen and Jon Snow have been combined and the one named Aegon Targaryen in the novels will be proven to be legitimate and it is he who will sit the Iron Throne.

For some reason, the idea of Aegon being exactly who he thinks he is makes many in the fandom insane. I don't really understand why this is. The only reason I can see is the blind partisanship you mentioned.

As I said above, the reason people are fighting so hard against this is that it strongly suggests the Aegon Targaryen in the books is exactly who he says he is and that he will end up on the Iron Throne. This is a far more likely outcome than both boys being legitimate and being named Aegon.

Quite simply, there was no need to give Jon a "Targaryen" name at all. He could have simply been Jon Targaryen. However, if D&D wanted the story to end in the same place as the novels, and if Aegon ends up legitimate and on the throne, then they would need to make such a person exist or combine his character with someone. I personally think whatever ends up happening to Jon in the series is what will happen to Aegon in the novels.

Okay, I see why some would rail against the idea, I know some are particular about pet theories (not saying you're one).  Like everyone I have my own theories, but if I read something compelling I rethink and adjust.  Fairly recently a poster on this board changed my ideas on why Rhaegar did what he did at Harrenhal, and that led me to go back and read some things, which lead to Aegon and back to the forum.  As I said above in this post to NevixRed, I'm starting to have my suspicions about Aegon, because he is another piece in the Harrenhal-Rhaegar&Lyanna puzzle.  I think, for now, that it might not be so important if Aegon is a true Targaryen, a Blackfyre, Brightflame, or a pisswater prince.

[Juliet Burke]

Bran and Sam learned that Jon's real name is Aegon. But will he change his name? Everybody knows him as Jon, he has been living with this name for years. And it was the name given by Ned. What will his reaction be?

[UnmaskedLurker]

14 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

 

If this is your biggest problem with my logic it's a sign that my logic works just fine. You have no basis to make such a claim. It's an assertion without evidence and therefore can be dismissed without evidence. However...

It's certainly a mystery for the fandom, and a hotly debated one at that. I don't see any basis for assuming GRRM wouldn't have been able to anticipate his readers' curiosity to this small extent. 

That's not the only clue I have. Please take a look at my recent posts. Though, in defense of that point, I'd say it's a lot more solid than assuming the line, "Nor was he Aemon Targaryen" is ironic. 

Aegon is the Targaryen name. I think we have to remember in situations like these that it was GRRM who ultimately gave Jon his real name. If Jon is the hero we think he is, and a Targaryen like we know he is, then what should his name be? Personal bias aside, what should his name be? Because as @UnViserion said, Aegon is the greatest Targaryen name, and Jon is the greatest Targaryen. He's their prophesied prince. Perhaps it just took a wild Northern girl to realize that. 

I respect you, and I respect your opinions. That said, I'm not interested in engaging with opinions on this topic. You start off by saying that you don't think GRRM would view Jon's name as a mystery. But that's just your opinion projected onto GRRM masquerading as an argument. If you have a question about how I think something works or is likely to work, please ask. If you think you've found a hole in my argument, feel free to point it out. If you want to compare evidence, I'm game.

I know there are a lot of people who think Aemon is Jon's real name. I think it's a compelling and emotionally satisfying answer. I'm also very confident that the case for Aegon is strong, which is odd if you think about it. There shouldn't be any evidence for Aegon. It's not as if GRRM is using it as a red herring. I don't think last night's revelation is proof, but it's meta evidence.

We all do the same thing with the show, right? We have an idea that the show uses and we take it as confirmation. "See, I was right!" Or, the show contradicts our idea and we dismiss it as something that was changed during the adaptation. How many of us RLJers are doing that right now with the annulment and secret marriage? Most of us think the former was changed while the latter was confirmed.

OK -- so I probably should not have stated that the issue of the name not being a real mystery was my biggest problem -- because it really is not my biggest problem. I was just reading a post of yours in which you were going on and on about how the name Aegon would be a perfect name for GRRM to have used given the nature of his mysteries -- and I just though the analysis was kind of silly. What I mean is that, as I noted in my prior post, I just don't see how the name really could have been something GRRM expected readers to contemplate. Who is Jon's mother? Yes. Who is the Valonqar? Yes. And of course, one of my favorites, might Aerys really be the father of Tyrion? Apparently, Yes. But what is Jon's real Targ name? I don't see it because it only gets asked if a reader already figured out that Rhaegar is Jon's father -- and that Rhaegar and Lyanna would have named Jon (given that neither lived to what would have been Jon's name day). While GRRM might have seen people looking that forward and trying to figure out the name -- I tend to doubt it. More likely is that GRRM intended the name ultimately to be revealed and have significance -- and he probably left some clues for people to look back and catch -- but GRRM is not setting up the name as a big mystery for readers to try to uncover before the reveal.

So what are my real reasons for my skepticism regarding the proposition that Jon's name in the books will be revealed as Aegon. There are two people who could have reasonably be understood to  have given Jon his Targ name, Rhaegar or Lyanna. I will take each in turn and show why I have trouble with the logic that either could have selected Aegon as Jon's real name.

Obviously, the biggest obstacle to Jon being named Aegon is that his half-brother's name was Aegon (for purposes of this post I will call him rAegon for the "real" Aegon). But before going into that issue in detail, I want to review the relevant facts that I believe we know from the books.

We know that Rhaegar died before rAegon died. We know that Rhaegar named rAegon and stated that Aegon is a good name for a king. We know that at the time of rAegon's birth, Rhaegar thought that rAegon was TPTWP. Rhaegar never states that TPTWP must have the name Aegon. In fact, we know that the prophecy does not give a name to TPTWP -- the prophecy actually does not even give a definitive gender -- as Maester Aemon stated that Dany might be TPTWP because apparently the prophecy in ancient Valaryrian actually reference the "dragon" that was promised -- and dragon not having an actual gender but when translated has been understood to mean "prince" (although the real importance obviously is that "dragon" actually is a reference to House Targ -- but that was confirmed by the woods witch who indicated that TPTWP would come from the Aerys/Rhaella line). Oh, and while some people do not seem to accept as fact that Lyanna knew of rAegon's death before she told Ned Jon's real name -- I actually think we can be pretty sure that she knew this information given that the KG during the ToJ confrontation with Ned seemed to confirm that the KG were aware of the events in KL before Ned arrived. So while the text does not give 100% confirmation that Lyanna would have known about rAegon's death, the likelihood seems quite high that she did (a fact perhaps in your favor, but I am trying to give your argument every benefit to determine its plausibility). Oh, and one final "fact" that is potentially relevant (and one that I have seen some -- not you but other -- suggest is not a "fact") -- Rhaegar did not expect to die in the war -- the evidence being that he told Jaime that he would deal with the situation by calling a council after the war was won -- so Rhaegar expected to beat the rebels and return to KL presumably to become reagent (although unclear exactly what Rhaegar thought the council would do -- but the important point is that Rhaegar did not have a vision confirming his own death at the Trident).

So now on to my analysis. Would Rhaegar have decided to name Jon as Aegon. I am not sure that even you are arguing for this proposition, but I will analyze it for thoroughness. Rhaegar left ToJ to help in the war effort. Rhaegar had no reason to believe that he -- and by extension his children -- would die in the War. So the notion that Rhaegar would decide to name two of his children Aegon would have been virtually unthinkable. Rhaegar would have been essentially rejecting his other two children by Elia and making the aftermath of the War even that much trickier with Dorne. Given that Dorne seems to be helping Rhaegar and Lyanna (or at least the Whent family was), Rhaegar does not seem to be in a state of mind to offend Dorne and reject his other children. So the theory that Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for Jon is quite weak. Only by assuming that Rhaegar wanted to disown his other two children would this theory make any sense. And the evidence from the text does not support Rhaegar disowning his other two children. On the contrary, the best evidence is that Rhaegar thought that his three children would be the three heads of the dragon.

Now moving to the theory that Lyanna named Jon as Aegon after the death of Rhaegar and rAegon. I just do not follow the logic for why Lyanna would have done so. Why? Because Lyanna would have had no apparent reason to do so and a very good reason not to do so. At the point that Lyanna would have been naming Jon Aegon, Lyanna would have known that Jon was never going to be king (as rAegon only died at the time that Robert and the rebels took KL and killed Aerys, Elia and the children), giving Jon a "good name for King" would be pointless. Even if we assume that Lyanna came to believe the prophecy as much as Rhaegar (no evidence for this -- but we have huge gaps in our knowledge of what happened between them, so possible), the prophecy does not give a name to TPTWP. Rhaegar does not believe that TPTWP needs to be named Aegon (he originally thought that he himself was TPTWP -- and his name is not Aegon), and his contact with Maester Aemon does not suggest any belief that the name Aegon has any connection to TPTWP. And of course, Rhaegar's understanding of TPTWP is that it is a "prince" and not "king" so TPTWP does not need a King's name. We also would need to assume that Lyanna and Rhaegar never decided on a boy's name. Given that Rhaegar could not know how long he would be away from ToJ, Rhaegar would have wanted to name his child, so he almost certainly would have discussed the matter with Lyanna and chosen names -- and as noted above, Aegon would would not have been one of them.

So the logic would have to be that either for some reason Rheagar and Lyanna did not discuss names (or were so CERTAIN that Jon would be a girl that they only discussed a girl's name) or they did and Lyanna switched names after rAegon's death. While either is possible, they are both a bit of a stretch. But even if we get past that obstacle, why choose Aegon? If Lyanna wanted to honor Rhaegar, she would have named Jon Rhaegar. Even if Lyanna determined that Rhaegar would have considered Jon to be TPTWP, as noted above, nothing in the prophecy indicates that the name of TPTWP is Aegon. Lyanna was not rAegon's mother. If she were, perhaps she might take this step after the death of rAegon. But to pick this name -- a name that she would have known could never become known to anyone other than Ned and maybe one day Jon himself -- makes no sense. What is the point? Either use the name that Rhaegar picked, if he picked a name, and if he did it was not Aegon. Or name the child Rhaegar, after his late father. But the name Aegon would be pointless under these circumstances and requires Lyanna to go through a thought process that is nonsensical.

Here are the elements that seem unlikely. First, either Rhaegar and Lyanna never chose a boy's name or they chose a name and Lyanna changed it. While the former is possible, it seems unlikely as Rhaegar would not have been able to be certain the baby would be a girl and knew he might not return until after the birth so he would have picked a name -- possible he did not but unlikely. If they picked a name, then Lyanna would have had to decide not to use that name and choose a different name. Or if no name was picked, Lyanna would have had to decide on her own to pick Aegon. Why would Lyanna do either when rAegon was named Aegon -- even if already dead? How would changing the name honor Rhaegar? If no name was picked, how would choosing Aegon be a plausible pick? Given that the prophecy does not name the promised prince, why would Lyanna believe Jon needed to or should be named Aegon?

Finally, what serves the story? How does naming Jon Aegon serve the story? If only the main series books are considered, only a few Targ male names are prominent -- Aerys, Viserys, Rhaegar, Aemon and Aegon. I don't consider Aerys to be a possibility, and Viserys is possible only on the theory that Rhaegar was naming his three children after the original three Targs (which is possible, but not that likely). I don't consider any other Targ name to be plausible as the vast majority of readers would have no connection to the name. So what name would have the most impact on the readers -- and on Jon as a character. The two that seem most impactful would be Rhaegar (as the name of his dead father) or Aemon (the name of his mentor). No one is suggesting that Jon's real name is Rhaegar. So that leave Aemon. Why not Aegon? What does it serve in the story? The theory seems to be that Aegon the Conqueror is the greatest Targ in history, so Jon being the greatest Targ ever should have the same name. While that rationale is possible -- it seems quite a bit weaker than Jon realizing that the only Targ he knew and someone he greatly admires is the person for who Jon was named. That choice has a bigger impact and is more meaningful to both Jon and the readers than Aegon. There is not and has never been an Aegon in the main books with whom the readers identify. GRRM has left numerous hints that readers can go back and see after the reveal that support Jon as Aemon (you know the clues -- from the number of Aemons in Targ history who were brothers to an Aegon to Jon wanting to be Aemon the Dragonheart as a child to Jon stating that he is no Aemon Targaryen -- and probably some others). While I understand there also are hints to Jon being Aegon, those clues seem more aligned to hints that Jon will be a great leader.

Sorry this post got so long, but after being a little flippant in my last post, I wanted to be thorough this time. Also apologies for any typos, I am too tired and busy to go back and proofread this post.

[UnViserion]

2 hours ago, Daske said:

I found the same thing when researching my family tree. Infant mortality was very high not so very long ago. It used to be a lot more common practice than people realise.

 

That's interesting. There's really no reason to believe Lyanna and the KG wouldn't have gotten word from the capital of what happened to Aegon VI and Rhaenys. 

Could have been what Lyanna was thinking by naming him Aegon. 

[Ingelheim]

I always thought his name was Aemon, not Aegon, but it makes sense too, specially if he considered that TPTWP was his son with Lyanna and not with Elia.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

Annulment. First child with former wife was rendered bastard. Case closed.

That's for the show. As for the books, Well, Aegon the conquerer was married to both his sisters. So why shouldn't Rhaegar do the same?

Anyway, back to the thread question. It's not really that surprising, in Dany'S vision she saw a a man (presumably) Rhaegar and woman (either Elia or Lyalna (more likely)). His name will be Aegon, his is the song of Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen).

Dany will probably run into the Stark crypt and see the statue of Lyanna, and will recognize her as the woman from her vision.

So it's really not a Benioff and Weiss idea.

[Jon and Dany Targaryen]

IMO, the stage was set. Bran said that Robert's Rebellion was a lie. Not only did lyanna love Rhaegar to choose a Targaryen name but this maybe was indirectly to get back at Robert and take what was rightfully theirs. Maybe she hoped her son would once again CONQUER the 7 kingdoms and take down Robert for what he did to her and her love!

 

After the original episode, it did seem that she said Aegon to me from reading her lips but didn't believe it.

[UnmaskedLurker]

5 minutes ago, Notone said:

That's for the show. As for the books, Well, Aegon the conquerer was married to both his sisters. So why shouldn't Rhaegar do the same?

Anyway, back to the thread question. It's not really that surprising, in Dany'S vision she saw a a man (presumably) Rhaegar and woman (either Elia or Lyalna (more likely)). His name will be Aegon, his is the song of Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen).

Dany will probably run into the Stark crypt and see the statue of Lyanna, and will recognize her as the woman from her vision.

So it's really not a Benioff and Weiss idea.

In the books, the HotU vision of Rhaegar is not a vision of Lyanna. The woman is holding a baby that Rhaegar refers to as Aegon. Rhaegar died before Jon was born, so the baby cannot be Jon. The baby must be the only son that Rhaegar had while alive -- his son by Elia -- which means that the woman must be Elia.

I don't think the show even had this vision at all, so it won't be a factor on the show.

[Tucu]

4 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

In the books, the HotU vision of Rhaegar is not a vision of Lyanna. The woman is holding a baby that Rhaegar refers to as Aegon. Rhaegar died before Jon was born, so the baby cannot be Jon. The baby must be the only son that Rhaegar had while alive -- his son by Elia -- which means that the woman must be Elia.

I don't think the show even had this vision at all, so it won't be a factor on the show.

That vision could be of a failed potential timeline similar to the vision of grown-up Rhaego.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Thank you.

[Khal Al]

Sorry if someone has suggested this before. Is it possible that Elia's children weren't Rhaegars? This could explain why the marriage was annulled and Rhaegars use of the name Aegon again.