Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

falcotron

Why is Jon's name Aegon?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Maybe he wanted an Aegon of Ice (the Northern one) and an Aegon of Fire (how often have we heard Dorne described as fiery)?

Well, one of them has a Dornish mother, but the other one was born in Dorne.

(But then this is a problem with every "fire and ice" theory, even the ones the show seems to be explicitly endorsing—Jon is already both fire and ice in himself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tucu said:

Naming children after death siblings was/is not that unusual in some cultures. Wikipedia has an article on this and sites Salvador Dali, Ludwig van Beethoven and Vincent Van Gogh as examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronym)

Sure, but if Rhaegar chose the name, his kids weren't dead the last time he talked to Lyanna, and if she chose the name, they were dead but she didn't know that, so either way, they're not naming the child after a dead sibling, but a live one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writers probably though calling him Viserys/ion would be a bit on the nose considering the scene that was about to follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I can't see any reason why Rhaegar would want to delegitimize his first two kids, so most likely the annulment left them still Targaryens, but we can't be sure.

Can we even be sure their marriage was annulled? Rhaegar wouldn't be the first Targaryen to have two wives, and annulling a marriage to a powerful house at a time of open rebellion would not be good politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Sure, but if Rhaegar chose the name, his kids weren't dead the last time he talked to Lyanna, and if she chose the name, they were dead but she didn't know that, so either way, they're not naming the child after a dead sibling, but a live one.

We don't know who chose the name. Rhaegar was not there at the moment of birth and the KGs probably received news of what happened in KL before Ned arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of clues in the story about Jon's name being Aegon. At least as many as there are for the most popular choice, Aemon. The biggest obstacle is actually a clue. The fact that Jon's older half brother is already named Aegon. (Btw, recall that GRRM has promised us a second Dance of the Dragons, and that in the first there were two Aegons. Now, I don't believe YG is really Rhaegar's son, but his name is Aegon, and that's all that really counts here.) Think of it like this, when we read that Ned Stark is Jon's father, the first woman most people logically would have ruled out as a possibility for his mother was Lyanna Stark. It's almost like there's a pattern to how GRRM lays out his mysteries. He's using the same trick in both instances to hide an otherwise obvious truth.

So, because Jon's older half-bro is named Aegon, it's the one and only name that we automatically rule out as a possibility. But imagine for a second that this wasn't the case. We all know that Aegon is the Targaryen name. With that in mind, it's very obvious that this should be Jon's real name. Unless GRRM provided some pretty strong reason for us to think otherwise. Which he does in the form of Jon's older half brother by Elia. However, Rhaegar and his other family are all dead by the time Jon is born, and it's pretty obvious from Ned's ToJ dream that everyone at the ToJ knows this. It's why the fight takes place, and it's why Lyanna extracts the promise from Ned. Because she knows that Rhaegar's other children have been murdered simply for being Rhaegar's children. 

What is the exact reason Lyanna chooses the name Aegon? I can't pin it down for certain, but I'm sure she was influenced by Rhaegar. In the HotU scene, he asks Elia, "What better name for a king?" Which he had already answered by naming his son and heir Aegon. Perhaps Lyanna wanted to honor his wishes by naming Rhaegar's only remaining son and heir Aegon. Perhaps it had something to do with the prophecy, which Rhaegar is describing in that scene. 

Speaking of, has anyone ever noticed how often people mistakenly believe that scene is of R+L=J? There's a reason for that. It's because of the prophecy stuff, PtwP and SoIaF, which better fits Jon than R+E=Aegon. I do not believe that is a coincidence. I believe that GRRM was hinting at Jon's true name here. That is, also Aegon.

I've given some other answers and evidence in my recent posts if anyone wants to check them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the show runners are merging f/Aegon in the books with Jon's character. I don't know why, but it seems like they are. Makes me hopeful that Aegon in the books actually has a somewhat important role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Valyrian Fyrewyrm said:

Can we even be sure their marriage was annulled? Rhaegar wouldn't be the first Targaryen to have two wives, and annulling a marriage to a powerful house at a time of open rebellion would not be good politics.

 

17 minutes ago, Valyrian Fyrewyrm said:

In the books I mean. I'm not surprised that the show would shy away from bigamous marriage.

No, we definitely don't know their marriage was annulled in the books. And bigamy isn't even the only other possibility. For example, Rhaegar could not even marry Lyanna, and instead leave an explicit decree legitimizing his bastard with her. Or he might not even care about Jon's legitimacy, just about him having the right blood. I think the bigamy is the most likely possibility, but I wouldn't bet too much on it.

Anyway, the reason to change it to annulment for the show is not just that fans might not like bigamy, or that they might have a hard time understanding why anyone would expect it to be legal (without dumping a whole lot of background that nobody's mentioned except briefly in season 2), but also that it complicates things.

The last time the Targs had a showdown with the Faith over bigamy, the Faith won. So, if Jon's legitimacy is based on a bigamous marriage, his claim is questionable. I could see this being a plot point in the novels, where Dany explicitly chooses not to question his claim, because she's learned that it isn't about who has the better claim. But I can't see this being a plot point on TV, where they have to get the whole Jon-Dany-claims conflict over in maybe three Dany-Jon and/or Dan-Tyrion conversations. It's simpler just to make Jon unambiguously legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

There are lots of clues in the story about Jon's name being Aegon. At least as many as there are for the most popular choice, Aemon. The biggest obstacle is actually a clue. The fact that Jon's older half brother is already named Aegon.

I've given some other answers and evidence in my recent posts if anyone wants to check them out.

Thanks; this is the first real answer I've gotten—and it's exactly what I was looking for. I'll have to do some rereading, but at least you've convinced me that it's not prima facia stupid as it seemed when I saw the episode, and I'm always happier to learn that I may be wrong than to assume the show is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Thanks; this is the first real answer I've gotten—and it's exactly what I was looking for. I'll have to do some rereading, but at least you've convinced me that it's not prima facia stupid as it seemed when I saw the episode, and I'm always happier to learn that I may be wrong than to assume the show is stupid.

 

:cheers: Definitely check out ADwD, Jon II. The part where Maester Aemon gives Jon the same advice he gave his brother. "It takes an Aegon to rule," "Kill the boy," etc. 

ETA: Regarding the bold, that's exactly the trick GRRM is using to distract us from the otherwise obvious truth. The only name we really rule out for Jon is Aegon. He doesn't rule out Aemon or Jaehaerys. Just Aegon. But it turns out it's not as much of an obstacle as it first appears to be. In fact, there's a good amount of evidence supporting it. Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

This may well turn out to be a show innovation. The books already have an Aegon Targaryen in them. It's a fair shout that D&D are merging book Aegon's role with Jon's, and the name could simply be a reflection of that. The fun thing is figuring out which parts of show Jon's story will turn out to be book Jon's, and how much will turn out to be book Aegon's. 

Yes, I would say it is because they have merged Jon and Aegon's storylines. Although many people think Aegon is fake and has nothing to do in the book, the fact they didn't completely get rid of him in the show indicates Aegon does have something important to do in the story, even if his role is not large. Now, if Show-Jon ends up on the throne, I believe that Aegon is the one who is supposed to end up on the throne in the books.

2 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

Because D&D are idiots

Well...they would think that calling Jon Aegon and having Jon sit on the Iron Throne would be the same as Aegon sitting on the Iron Throne. They've made many similar equivalencies.

3 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

I think the show runners are merging f/Aegon in the books with Jon's character. I don't know why, but it seems like they are. Makes me hopeful that Aegon in the books actually has a somewhat important role.

I so agree with you, except I would stop saying f/Aegon. Pretty sure the reason they made Jon legitimate is because Aegon is the legitimate Targaryen and that is why the characters are being merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Yes, I would say it is because they have merged Jon and Aegon's storylines. Although many people think Aegon is fake and has nothing to do in the book, the fact they didn't completely get rid of him in the show indicates Aegon does have something important to do in the story, even if his role is not large. Now, if Show-Jon ends up on the throne, I believe that Aegon is the one who is supposed to end up on the throne in the books.

Well...they would think that calling Jon Aegon and having Jon sit on the Iron Throne would be the same as Aegon sitting on the Iron Throne. They've made many similar equivalencies.

I so agree with you, except I would stop saying f/Aegon. Pretty sure the reason they made Jon legitimate is because Aegon is the legitimate Targaryen and that is why the characters are being merged.

I could see that and agree with you, but once the book confirms it I will stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about it last night and was trying to think of a plot reason it may have made sense. 

We know that Elia Martell was sickly, and its been said more than once about how difficult childbirth was for her--- Aegon supposedly nearly killed her. What I was thinking was maybe she miscarried  Aegon during that difficult childbirth and the "Aegon" she had was actually a fake to keep people confident in them having a male successor (I could see this being more of a Mad King plan  since I believe he expressed some concern with the lack of male heirs in their family, but maybe Rhegar's plan, who knows). Alson, while IRL children can inherit multiple aspects of coloring from their parents- in GOT world- the Targs pretty frequently seem to take on dark haired features rather than light if marrying out of the bloodline. Aegon is specifically mentioned to have Fair hair like his father--- this is genetically possible, but doesn't seem as likely considering Rhaenys is dark featured, and wasn't there some other Dornish/Targs in Dunk and Egg that stayed dark haired? Maybe they just found a random Valyerion bastard with fine hair thinking that would be a more convincing replacement if you're wanting to encourage confidence in the continuity of the Targ line. 

If that was the case- that Rhegar had no legitimate male off spring, and childbirth would kill Elia--- then that may have been a legitimate reason for an annulment and reason that Rhegar would need another wife. 

If this is the case the "F(Aegon)" of the books is a fake whether the mountain killed him or if we was a replacement. I mean... it would suck to be a fake FAKE Aegon. 

Just some early morning speculation. (omg... I can't spell this early). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed it was going to be Aegon.  Aegon -->Gon---> Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what really trips people up about Jon being named Aegon is that everyone assumes Rhaegar was involved in the naming. Imagine for a second he wasn't. Now imagine that Lyanna also knew that Rhaegar's family in KL had been murdered. Bear in mind that there is evidence to support both hypotheticals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arataniello said:

I always assumed it was going to be Aegon.  Aegon -->Gon---> Jon.

Except I'm pretty sure that is a hard g.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Except I'm pretty sure that is a hard g.

Yep, it is.  But Ned would have adapted the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, falcotron said:

Why not Jon Targaryen, or Jaehaerys Targaryen, or Rickard Targaryen? Or, since it seems like he was never going to get an official naming ceremony and Ned was going to put him in hiding right away, why not just (unnamed boy) Targaryen, who will have to choose his name if he's ever revealed as Rhaegar's heir?

They've already told us that Rhaegar's first son—who, as far as I know, Lyanna should at this point believe is still alive and well—is named Aegon. At least Thoros referred to him by name in season 3, and I think there are a couple of others.

If there were some compelling reason for D&D to reuse the name, maybe it would be worth it anyway, but I can't figure out what that reason might be. Are they drawing a connection to one of the five kings named Aegon? Or planning to drop a prophecy next season that names Rhaegar's son Aegon by name, and the big secret is that it means Jon rather than his brother? All I can think is that they deliberately wanted us—and by us, I mean the book readers—to connect him to the other Aegon as a winking nod to the Little Griff story they cut. But they have to know that book snobs will be unhappy with that, and nobody else will get it.

In-universe, it's much the same question, but I suppose there might be a different answer to "what were D&D thinking" and "what was Lyanna thinking".

As you may know, there's been a LOT of talk on these boards about Jon's real Targaryen name, and a lot of people do seem to favor "Aegon."

I don't.  I think it makes very little sense for Rhaegar and/or Lyanna to have named him Aegon when, as you basically point out, he had (or possibly still did have) a half-brother named Aegon.  But I guess some people like that.  As I recall, the former heavyweight champion boxer George Foreman has 5 sons, and named all 5 of them "George."

The other thing I don't like about the name Aegon is that...there have already been SO many that anything that used to be special about it has been diluted.  Oh, gee.  Another Aegon.  Exciting.  Yeah.  Wow.

If I was naming him, I would have given him something unique to reflect his VERY unique role in history, and something with the word "jon" in it, so that Ned, his family, and we have actually been calling Jon a nickname derived from his real name all along.

I really don't understand how people can get excited over yet ANOTHER (7th, at this point) Aegon in the story, but whatever.  Of course it is HIGHLY subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×