Jump to content

Archived

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

falcotron

Why is Jon's name Aegon?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, bent branch said:

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

They were Aegons from different branches, which is the more important point. They were even referred to as Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger. Two Aegons with competing claims, which we might well see again during the second Dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you people ever studied history?  It wasn't uncommon for royal families to give children the same first name and different middle names especially in families that practiced inbreeding ( the Habsburgs are a good example of that ), so the Targs doing it isn't a stretch.

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 just would like to mention that it is not very rare to give same name for uncle and nephew. especially a traditional name. 

for example, Brandon and Bran, Aegon II and Aegon III, plenty of walder and walda, even Sansa planned to name her sons with Willas as Bran and Rickon (although last name will be Tyrell, but when one of them takes Winterfell, this son will likely change to Stark). They were named either for love, or for the intention to claim something or piss off step mother like Rhaenyra. 

But it is a totally different story to name two siblings same name. 

Have you ever seen an example in the whole series? Probably not. 

-------------------------------------------

but I agree that Rhaegar/Lyanna could very well name Jon as Aegon. 

Because Elia's Aegon already became Aegon Waters/Sand because of the annulment. 

There is no any conflict or confusion between Aegon Targaryen and Aegon Waters/Sand. 

And it is certainly understandable that Rhaegar wants to name his firstborn trueborn son as Aegon, because Aegon is king's name and his firstborn trueborn son (Jon) will be the king one day after he dies.

And I bet if he gets a daughter from Lyanna, he would name her Rhaenys as well. Because Rhaenys is already a Waters/Sand.  

 

 

Share this post


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

They were Aegons from different branches, which is the more important point. They were even referred to as Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger. Two Aegons with competing claims, which we might well see again during the second Dance.

Okay, you think that is the most important point. I think the most important point is that, at least as far as the show is concerned, a legitimate Aegon Targaryen will be sitting on the Iron Throne. I predicted after it became apparent that they were not putting an Aegon into the story that if they made Jon Aegon, then that would probably mean Aegon was who he appeared to be. I'm not at all convinced by the weird argument that both brothers have the same name.

Share this post


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

Have you people ever studied history?  It wasn't uncommon for royal families to give children the same first name and different middle names especially in families that practiced inbreeding ( the Habsburgs are a good example of that ), so the Targs doing it isn't a stretch.

We are talking about Westeros history here, which is partially based on history but still different. 

In the history of Westeros, it does not look like two siblings share same name (first name and last name).

Jon can be named as Aegon, only when the first Aegon became Aegon Waters/Sand,

Then their last names are different.,which is the whole point of annulment. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I just hate that his name is Aegon, regardless of the reason. How silly to presume that people would either not remember Elia's Aegon or would believe that Rhaegar would have been happy to have two sons named Aegon. How would he distinguish between them: by referring to one as Cold Aegon and the other as Hot Aegon? This was a silly moment in an otherwise solid episode. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

We are talking about Westeros history here, which is partially based on history but still different. 

In the history of Westeros, it does not look like two siblings share same name (first name and last name).

Jon can be named as Aegon, only when the first Aegon became Aegon Waters/Sand,

Then their last names are different.,which is the whole point of annulment. 

 

 

My point was, if it could happen in real history, why can't people get their heads around it happening in fiction?

Share this post


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

Okay, you think that is the most important point. I think the most important point is that, at least as far as the show is concerned, a legitimate Aegon Targaryen will be sitting on the Iron Throne. I predicted after it became apparent that they were not putting an Aegon into the story that if they made Jon Aegon, then that would probably mean Aegon was who he appeared to be. I'm not at all convinced by the weird argument that both brothers have the same name.

Cool. I am not at all convinced by the weird argument that D&D decided to merge one of the main characters' stories with that of someone left out of the show. Your idea makes even less sense when considering D&D have repeatedly stated that they're working towards the same end goal as GRRM. Probably kind of hard to accomplish that when one of your main two characters adopts someone else's end game storyline. And even if that were the case, that's still no reason to change Jon's real name to Aegon from whatever it really was. You've concocted a conspiracy theory that doesn't even necessitate the change it was devised to explain.

Let me ask you this. What makes more sense to you thematically, the books ending with Aegon VI or Aegon VII ruling? Seven kingdoms, seven gods, six Aegons?

Share this post


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

Honestly, I just hate that his name is Aegon, regardless of the reason. How silly to presume that people would either not remember Elia's Aegon or would believe that Rhaegar would have been happy to have two sons named Aegon. How would he distinguish between them: by referring to one as Cold Aegon and the other as Hot Aegon? This was a silly moment in an otherwise solid episode. 

 

Because Rhaegar didn't name him, Lyanna did. And she didn't do so until after Rhaegar and his family in KL were all dead, which she would have known. If not from the KG, then from Ned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the end of the episode I was in my cups pretty well and thought they said his name was Edgar Targ. A nice Ned name drop Targ hybrid, the type of thing D&D would have thought was so clever. It had me all worked up lol. I suppose having 2 sons named Aegon is, less dumb, I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

I just would like to mention that it is not very rare to give same name for uncle and nephew. especially a traditional name. 

for example, Brandon and Bran, Aegon II and Aegon III, plenty of walder and walda, even Sansa planned to name her sons with Willas as Bran and Rickon (although last name will be Tyrell, but when one of them takes Winterfell, this son will likely change to Stark). They were named either for love, or for the intention to claim something or piss off step mother like Rhaenyra. 

But it is a totally different story to name two siblings same name. 

Have you ever seen an example in the whole series? Probably not. 

-------------------------------------------

but I agree that Rhaegar/Lyanna could very well name Jon as Aegon. 

Because Elia's Aegon already became Aegon Waters/Sand because of the annulment. 

There is no any conflict or confusion between Aegon Targaryen and Aegon Waters/Sand. 

And it is certainly understandable that Rhaegar wants to name his firstborn trueborn son as Aegon, because Aegon is king's name and his firstborn trueborn son (Jon) will be the king one day after he dies.

And I bet if he gets a daughter from Lyanna, he would name her Rhaenys as well. Because Rhaenys is already a Waters/Sand.  

9

Your points might make sense for the show. We don't know for sure if the annulment definitely disinherited Rhaegar's children. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, my intention is explaining how and/or why Jon being named Aegon makes sense in the books. Elio and Linda had a video about how there is not any kind of precedent for an annulment in the books for a situation like this. So I'm not really addressing that angle, as I don't think it is what happened in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Jon can be named as Aegon, only when the first Aegon became Aegon Waters/Sand,

Then their last names are different.,which is the whole point of annulment. 

The first Aegon did not become Aegon Waters. Not only is that not the whole point of an annulment, it's not even something that normally happens in an annulment. The first Aegon is still Aegon Targaryen.

At best, he's the late Aegon Targaryen, in which case we may have a little bit of in-universe precedent rather than none at all, and much stronger real-world precedent.

9 minutes ago, Tywinelle said:

My point was, if it could happen in real history, why can't people get their heads around it happening in fiction?

For one thing, it happened in real history in cultures that made heavy use of middle names. And of course this makes sense—it's easy to distinguish Leopold Wilhelm from Leopold Albert, but much harder to distinguish Henry from Henry. You can even see that when a branch of the Ivrea house assimilated into Spanish culture by dropping middle names, they immediately stopped having two children with the same first name.

So, in Westeros, a culture where apparently nobody has middle names at all, Aegon and Aegon is not like Leopold Wilhelm and Leopold Albert, it's like Henry and Henry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, falcotron said:

The first Aegon did not become Aegon Waters. Not only is that not the whole point of an annulment, it's not even something that normally happens in an annulment. The first Aegon is still Aegon Targaryen.

At best, he's the late Aegon Targaryen, in which case we may have a little bit of in-universe precedent rather than none at all, and much stronger real-world precedent.

For one thing, it happened in real history in cultures that made heavy use of middle names. And of course this makes sense—it's easy to distinguish Leopold Wilhelm from Leopold Albert, but much harder to distinguish Henry from Henry. You can even see that when a branch of the Ivrea house assimilated into Spanish culture by dropping middle names, they immediately stopped having two children with the same first name.

So, in Westeros, a culture where apparently nobody has middle names at all, Aegon and Aegon is not like Leopold Wilhelm and Leopold Albert, it's like Henry and Henry.

It's a non issue.  There are way bigger problems with the writing than naming two sons Aegon.

Share this post


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

It's a non issue.  There are way bigger problems with the writing than naming two sons Aegon.

I don't mean to be rude, but why are you even in this thread, if all you have to contribute is to make some stuff up, then, as soon as someone responds, say "Doesn't matter, the show sucks"?

Share this post


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

I don't mean to be rude, but why are you even in this thread, if all you have to contribute is to make some stuff up, then, as soon as someone responds, say "Doesn't matter, the show sucks"?

If I could attempt to answer your questions I would say that those points are moot because Lyanna knew, or at least believed, that R+E=Aegon was dead. There weren't going to be co-existing Aegons, just her son.

Share this post


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

I don't mean to be rude, but why are you even in this thread, if all you have to contribute is to make some stuff up, then, as soon as someone responds, say "Doesn't matter, the show sucks"?

What did I make up?  Don't misquote me.

Share this post


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

Your points might make sense for the show. We don't know for sure if the annulment definitely disinherited Rhaegar's children. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, my intention is explaining how and/or why Jon being named Aegon makes sense in the books. Elio and Linda had a video about how there is not any kind of precedent for an annulment in the books for a situation like this. So I'm not really addressing that angle, as I don't think it is what happened in the books.

I do not think Jon is named as Aegon in the book. Show watchers might likely forget Aegon son of Elia. But in the book it is just impossible to forget him. 

But there is a slim chance in the book that Rhaegar told Lyanna before he left for war that: if my son Aegon dies during war, then he is not the prince that was promised and his song is not song of ice and fire. In this case, name your son as Aegon. in other words, Prince that was promised will not die before his time. If it dies, then it must be someone else. 

I can see Rhaegar thinks in this way. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now non book readers should realize how much of a piece of shit Rhaegar truly is. He abandons his sick wife Elia Martell and runs away with Lyanna. They tell nobody, everyone else rightfully thinks she was kidnapped. Her farther Rickard and older brother Brandon go to Kings Landing to confront them and they get burned alive, starting the rebellion. Did Lyanna care that her dad and bro were tortured? Robert is pissed, Ned is pissed, they go to war on this lie and many lives get altered for the worse...Ned finds out Lyanna's secret and he STILL keeps a promise to her even though he didnt have to, and it affected his life forever afterwards, regarding Catelyn etc...Rhaegar didnt even leave his best Kingsgaurd with Elia...so she gets raped and murdered only after she has to watch her children murdered...and then she gets raped with the brain matter of her baby still on the Mountains hands...Rhaegar doesnt care though. ALL targs are messed up. The last TRUE king in the North was Robb. I cannot support a Targ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, of man and wolf said:

I cannot support a Targ.

Nobody cares whether you support Jon or not.

How is this relevant to the question of why Jon's name is Aegon on the show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×