Jump to content

Archived

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

falcotron

Why is Jon's name Aegon?

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


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

No, he probably wouldn't. That's not the way annulment works in most modern countries, it's not the way it usually worked in the medieval world, it's not the way it seems to work in the few examples we have from Westeros, and it's not even a common idea in other fantasy or historical fiction. If you actually want the kids to be delegitimized, you generally get a separate decree to that effect, in addition to the annulment.

Why do so many fans assume otherwise, and seem so dead certain of something they clearly didn't do even basic research into? I'd like to believe there's a better answer than "blinded by burning partisan hatred of Rhaegar" or "blinding by burning hatred of the show and need to find a 173rd thing to criticize in the episode", but I can't come up with one, and nobody I've asked has responded.

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.

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

Isn't it better to exhaust all possibilities before jumping to a conclusion that D&D just threw it in there for spite, or stupidity?  Martin did collaborate with D&D, after all, and to dismiss theories or plots on the assumption that the show writers changed it for no good reason seems to be painting oneself into a corner.

IMHO, it's better to operate under the assumption that if it's in the show (and not clearly debunked by the books) then indeed it could very well be apart of Martin's story. 

So if Martin writes it that way, how can he write that Lyanna (& possibly Rhaegar) naming their child Aegon when there supposedly already is an Aegon (or was and he died), while keeping people like Rhaegar and Lyanna in character?

From what we know of Rhaegar he would not disinherit his children, or father a bastard, or potentially start a succession crisis.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Show-Jon's name is Aegon because D&D wanted to do an eyeblink to fAegon plot in ADWD. 

They would not have the audience confused about Targaryens and shit, so they gave him the basicgaryen first name.

(any other explanation regarding Rhaegar or Lyanna naming him Aegon makes does not make sense, so...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sand11751 said:

I could buy that, except that's amazingly crass for Lyanna to name the new baby the same name as the dead baby of the woman the new husband had just left her for. Sort of like dissolving a perfectly good and consummated marriage, and potentially bastardizing your children or taking them out of the succession, right before they're murdered. I can believe Lyanna's choice of a traditional Targ name on her own; she didn't know Rhaegar wasn't going to come back from the Trident and it's doubtful she would have picked a northern name in the interim. The choice is mystifying from the perspective of what-it; what if all Rhaegar's kids had lived. "Which son of yours named Aegon are you referring to, sire?" Maybe season 8 will reveal a deeper side of asshole behavior from Lyanna and Rhaegar. Even assuming someone got a raven out of KL to inform them that his kids were basically pulp, regardless of who chose the name, it still makes no sense considering the existence of never-to-be Aegon VI. Also, I see no mythos around the name Aegon to begin with; some of them were complete shits. 

Well, if you're unconvinced that Lyanna knew that Rhaegar's family was dead, then I would direct your attention to the time shortly before the Dance of the Dragons. Rhaenyra had a brother named Aegon, yet she named her own son by Daemon Aegon. You probably recall how upset that made Queen Alicent. What was the point of that? I believe Rhaenyra was essentially asserting the primacy of her line. 

4 hours ago, UnViserion said:

Because it's the greatest Targaryen name and he's the greatest Targaryen.

This. At the risk of repeating myself, if GRRM hadn't presented some really good reason for us to think otherwise, it would be obvious that Jon's real name was Aegon.

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I have a few problems with this logic -- biggest being that Jon's name has no reason to be viewed as a GRRM mystery. Keep in mind that from GRRM's point of view, the readers are still supposed to believe that Jon is Ned's son (and presumably GRRM picked out Jon's name when he wrote the first book, and at that time GRRM did not believe that a lot of people would figure out RLJ before being revealed in the books). Only people who have figured out RLJ will think to ask Jon's real name -- and GRRM is not going to consider something to be a mystery when it is only a mystery after someone has uncovered another mystery.

 

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. 

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Presumably, around the time that RLJ is confirmed, Jon's name will be revealed. I consider his "real" name to have some significance in the "reveal" -- but not as a mystery for readers to try to figure out. There is no reason for GRRM to consider Jon's name ever to be a mystery that readers are supposed to figure out -- just a name that after being revealed, a reader can go back and see the clues and understand the significance. But because a reader cannot be expected to be looking for any clues until RLJ is revealed, I doubt GRRM is trying to misdirect on this issue be "excluding" Aegon as a possibility. The misdirect is the "fact" that Jon is Ned's son and Ned named his son Jon.

But even if GRRM does consider the name to be a mystery -- the clues for Aemon are deeper than for Aegon -- and make more sense (you know all the clues -- and the only one you have for Aegon is the Aemon statement about needing an Aegon and not an Egg).

 

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. 

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Basically, there are two reasons that Aegon as Jon's name is not persuasive to me. First, the explanations for how Lyanna would decide after finding out the Elia's son, Aegon, died that Lyanna would name her son as Aegon seems incredibly strange and unlikely. Why would Lyanna name Jon after he husband's child by another woman? How is GRRM going to make this decision seem plausible? Why would GRRM want Jon to have the name Aegon in this context?

 

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. 

2 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The second reason is the impact on Jon himself. Finding out his real name is Aemon seems like it would have a bigger impact on Jon's internal view of himself and his role as a Targ than Aegon. Jon admired Aemon -- Jon never knew any Aegon.

So while possible that GRRM has planned Jon to be Aegon -- I find the evidence weak and unpersuasive -- but I acknowledge the possibility. 

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.

Share this post


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

Because as @UnViserion said, Aegon is the greatest Targaryen name

Here's the thing: Aegon I is described as "an enigma", and the Maesters argue that he did so much good and so much bad that it's hard to come to a verdict on him. And they've already had four more Aegons, and none of them were great Targaryens. Aemon the Dragonknight, on the other hand, is a legendary hero who's beloved by everyone in the realm more than a century after his death.

And if we're talking out-of-universe instead of in-universe, for the show, Aegon is just a guy we've heard about a few times, and a guy who has parallels to not Jon but Dany, while Aemon is a beloved character who was Jon's mentor for half the series.

So, while I understand the point, I'm not sure I can buy it.

But then I may be blinded by the fact that I like the idea of Aemon, and I like the idea of GRRM lining up the in-universe and out-of-universe reasons, and I think the show may have changed it as a misguided effort to make fans like me happy by nodding to Little Griff rather than for a better reason, and so on. Again, I still need to go over all the arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sand11751 said:

I could buy that, except that's amazingly crass for Lyanna to name the new baby the same name as the dead baby of the woman the new husband had just left her for. Sort of like dissolving a perfectly good and consummated marriage, and potentially bastardizing your children or taking them out of the succession, right before they're murdered. I can believe Lyanna's choice of a traditional Targ name on her own; she didn't know Rhaegar wasn't going to come back from the Trident and it's doubtful she would have picked a northern name in the interim. The choice is mystifying from the perspective of what-it; what if all Rhaegar's kids had lived. "Which son of yours named Aegon are you referring to, sire?" Maybe season 8 will reveal a deeper side of asshole behavior from Lyanna and Rhaegar. Even assuming someone got a raven out of KL to inform them that his kids were basically pulp, regardless of who chose the name, it still makes no sense considering the existence of never-to-be Aegon VI. Also, I see no mythos around the name Aegon to begin with; some of them were complete shits. 

Crass? Maybe. But Rhaegar chose to name his son and heir Aegon. He really seemed to think that was the best name for his son and heir. "What better name for a king?" When Lyanna gave birth to a boy, that child became Rhaegar's only remaining son and heir. Perhaps she believed she was following his wishes. Or, perhaps she was asserting the primacy of her line. Rhaenyra does the same thing when she names her child by Daemon Aegon. Much to the consternation of Queen Alicent. That preceded the DotD, and GRRM has promised us a second Dance. Maybe there is an intentional parallel of duel Aegons.

As for you not seeing any mythos around the name Aegon, that's fine but Rhaegar seemed to think it was the best name for a king. He also seems to think his son, named Aegon, is the PtwP and SoIaF. Do those things make you think of R+E=Aegon or Jon? Probably the latter, I'm guessing. Well, I think Rhaegar was talking about Elia's son, but I think GRRM was hinting to the audience about Jon. He was telling us the name of the PtwP and the SoIaF. 

Share this post


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

Here's the thing: Aegon I is described as "an enigma", and the Maesters argue that he did so much good and so much bad that it's hard to come to a verdict on him. And they've already had four more Aegons, and none of them were great Targaryens. Aemon the Dragonknight, on the other hand, is a legendary hero who's beloved by everyone in the realm more than a century after his death.

And if we're talking out-of-universe instead of in-universe, for the show, Aegon is just a guy we've heard about a few times, and a guy who has parallels to not Jon but Dany, while Aemon is a beloved character who was Jon's mentor for half the series.

So, while I understand the point, I'm not sure I can buy it.

But then I may be blinded by the fact that I like the idea of Aemon, and I like the idea of GRRM lining up the in-universe and out-of-universe reasons, and I think the show may have changed it as a misguided effort to make fans like me happy by nodding to Little Griff rather than for a better reason, and so on. Again, I still need to go over all the arguments.

In support of @UnViserion 's point, I would say the facts are this: Aegon is the name of five Targaryen kings. No other name was used more than twice unless you count Viserys as the third of his name. And Aemon was never used. Although some people feel that's a point in favor of that idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NexivRed said:

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. 

Well, if he did in fact annul the marriage and disinherit the children, he effectively bastardized them. Which is the only thing that makes sense, in my mind, because otherwise there would be no reason to name his child with Lyanna as he did. I highly doubt that he intended to crown Elia's son. 

Share this post


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

Well, if he did in fact annul the marriage and disinherit the children, he effectively bastardized them. Which is the only thing that makes sense, in my mind, because otherwise there would be no reason to name his child with Lyanna as he did. I highly doubt that he intended to crown Elia's son. 

If Rhaegar picked a boy's name I bet it was Aemon. So I assume that he didn't. There are at least a couple of different reasons to believe he was expecting a girl, which would account for him not picking a boy's name. Meaning that Lyanna was responsible for naming her child.

Share this post


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

Maybe. But Rhaegar chose to name his son and heir Aegon. He really seemed to think that was the best name for his son and heir. "What better name for a king?"

This raises another point.

When Rhaegar named his first son, he was naming a future king.

When Lyanna named his second son, she wasn't. If she had the news that Rhaegar was dead and his entire family had been killed before she came up with the name, she knew that he would never be king—that's why she had Ned promise to hide him and never tell anyone. And if she didn't have the news, then as far as she knew her son was going to be the younger brother of King Aegon VI. So "What better name for a king?" is not a very good reason to name him Aegon, unless she wanted to be ironically cruel to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Faint said:

Well, if he did in fact annul the marriage and disinherit the children, he effectively bastardized them.

But he didn't disinherit the children. Or at least we have no reason to believe he did, except for people who don't understand how annulment works just guessing wrong.

If the show wanted to tell us that he'd disinherited the children, they would have the Maester record a decree of disinheritance, they wouldn't just hope that enough people guessed wrong that only half their audience would be confused.

Share this post


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

This raises another point.

When Rhaegar named his first son, he was naming a future king.

When Lyanna named his second son, she wasn't. If she had the news that Rhaegar was dead and his entire family had been killed before she came up with the name, she knew that he would never be king—that's why she had Ned promise to hide him and never tell anyone. And if she didn't have the news, then as far as she knew her son was going to be the younger brother of King Aegon VI. So "What better name for a king?" is not a very good reason to name him Aegon, unless she wanted to be ironically cruel to him.

 

We don't know if this is part of the promise. Perhaps Lyanna even wanted Ned to assert Jon's claim at the appropriate time. This might be why Ned thinks of "blood and broken promises." Despite everything else, it's possible she believed her son was destined for greater things...

Regarding Rhaegar, it might be important that he didn't just name his son and heir Aegon. This child was supposed to be more than just a king. He was supposed to be the PtwP and the SoIaF. In other words, he intended to name the PtwP Aegon. Perhaps Lyanna realized, or at least hoped, that Jon was meant to fulfill this role. Rhaegar could still be right after all, even if he had picked the wrong son.

Maybe the name tells us just how much Lyanna loved and believed in Rhaegar. Trying to fulfill Rhaegar's vision with one of her final acts was a proclamation of her love for him. The Rebellion was based on a lie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linda reviewed the finale and towards the very end of the video comments on Jon being named Aegon. Her take was that she used to think it wasn't, certainly, Rhaegar wouldn't have chosen it, but she and Elio both think it's possible that Lyanna named her son Aegon. 

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With what D&D said about Jon's parentage becoming a potential point of conflict with Dany, and that a second Dance of Dragons is planned(according to GRRM), could it be that Jon becomes a rider for Rhaegar and battles Dany on Drogon? Or is that promised Dance something that happens with future generations? Or even something that will only be touched on in the novels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Verily said:

With what D&D said about Jon's parentage becoming a potential point of conflict with Dany, and that a second Dance of Dragons is planned(according to GRRM), could it be that Jon becomes a rider for Rhaegar and battles Dany on Drogon? Or is that promised Dance something that happens with future generations? Or even something that will only be touched on in the novels

The second Dance is supposed to take place in the upcoming novels. I have to think with the reveal of Jon as a legitimate Targaryen that he will end up as a dragon rider on the show, at least. D&D don't seem like the types to pass up the opportunity to show Jon riding a dragon. It would trend on twitter after all. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Verily said:

With what D&D said about Jon's parentage becoming a potential point of conflict with Dany, and that a second Dance of Dragons is planned(according to GRRM), could it be that Jon becomes a rider for Rhaegar and battles Dany on Drogon? Or is that promised Dance something that happens with future generations? Or even something that will only be touched on in the novels

 

8 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The second Dance is supposed to take place in the upcoming novels. I have to think with the reveal of Jon as a legitimate Targaryen that he will end up as a dragon rider on the show, at least. D&D don't seem like the types to pass up the opportunity to show Jon riding a dragon. It would trend on twitter after all. ;) 

With six episodes left, I don't think there's enough time for Jon to fight Dany. Which leads me to believe that the  books DoD will be between Dany and Aegon. Jon can ride a dragon with or without being involved in the Dance.

Share this post


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

 

With six episodes left, I don't think there's enough time for Jon to fight Dany. Which leads me to believe that the  books DoD will be between Dany and Aegon. Jon can ride a dragon with or without being involved in the Dance.

1

Correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Crass? Maybe. But Rhaegar chose to name his son and heir Aegon. He really seemed to think that was the best name for his son and heir. "What better name for a king?" When Lyanna gave birth to a boy, that child became Rhaegar's only remaining son and heir. Perhaps she believed she was following his wishes. Or, perhaps she was asserting the primacy of her line. Rhaenyra does the same thing when she names her child by Daemon Aegon. Much to the consternation of Queen Alicent. That preceded the DotD, and GRRM has promised us a second Dance. Maybe there is an intentional parallel of duel Aegons.

As for you not seeing any mythos around the name Aegon, that's fine but Rhaegar seemed to think it was the best name for a king. He also seems to think his son, named Aegon, is the PtwP and SoIaF. Do those things make you think of R+E=Aegon or Jon? Probably the latter, I'm guessing. Well, I think Rhaegar was talking about Elia's son, but I think GRRM was hinting to the audience about Jon. He was telling us the name of the PtwP and the SoIaF. 

I make no apologies for liking logic in the things I subscribe to or read. I'm not quibbling about Rhaegar's choice except where TWO Aegons existed as his sons. If Jon's original name in show becomes canon in the books, too, I'm sure Martin will explain. I'm not so sure that will happen in any one of six TV episodes next season. Until then, let the speculation continue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Crass? Maybe. But Rhaegar chose to name his son and heir Aegon. He really seemed to think that was the best name for his son and heir. "What better name for a king?" When Lyanna gave birth to a boy, that child became Rhaegar's only remaining son and heir. Perhaps she believed she was following his wishes. Or, perhaps she was asserting the primacy of her line. Rhaenyra does the same thing when she names her child by Daemon Aegon. Much to the consternation of Queen Alicent. That preceded the DotD, and GRRM has promised us a second Dance. Maybe there is an intentional parallel of duel Aegons.

As for you not seeing any mythos around the name Aegon, that's fine but Rhaegar seemed to think it was the best name for a king. He also seems to think his son, named Aegon, is the PtwP and SoIaF. Do those things make you think of R+E=Aegon or Jon? Probably the latter, I'm guessing. Well, I think Rhaegar was talking about Elia's son, but I think GRRM was hinting to the audience about Jon. He was telling us the name of the PtwP and the SoIaF. 

An uncle and nephew having the same name is different than two brothers, even half-brothers, having the same name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sand11751 said:

I make no apologies for liking logic in the things I subscribe to or read. I'm not quibbling about Rhaegar's choice except where TWO Aegons existed as his sons. If Jon's original name in show becomes canon in the books, too, I'm sure Martin will explain. I'm not so sure that will happen in any one of six TV episodes next season. Until then, let the speculation continue!

The explanation will be that Rhaegar didn't name Lyanna's son, she did. When she gave birth Rhaegar and his family in KL were all dead. There were never two Aegons simultaneously. 

ETA: Never two simultaneous Aegons as far as Lyanna knew. (Though I'm still confident that YG is a fake. Blackfyre for sure, and maybe also descended from Aerion Brightflame as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×