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, falcotron said:

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?

Glad someone said it. I personally find the Rhaegar haters to be annoying, but they have every right to express their opinions in the appropriate places. This isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it posted a few times that Rhaegar "disinherited" Aegon and Rhaenys with his anullment. I'm wondering how exactly that's the case..? I feel like Jon would have still come behind Aegon for the succession. 

Lets pretend for a moment Rhaegar survives and the Targaryens keep the iron throne. Rhaegar would have some fucking gall trying to seat the fruit of his union with Lyanna, which started this whole thing (a point some argue but cmon), ahead of his first-born children in line for the iron throne. 

Aegon and Rhaenys would marry and become king and queen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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. 

 

Well there is precedent of two concurrent Aegons being around, and they were known as Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger, though they didn't share a parent in this case. It was taken as a deliberate diss/powerplay even at that time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, UnViserion said:

I've seen it posted a few times that Rhaegar "disinherited" Aegon and Rhaenys with his anullment. I'm wondering how exactly that's the case..? I feel like Jon would have still come behind Aegon for the succession. 

Lets pretend for a moment Rhaegar survives and the Targaryens keep the iron throne. Rhaegar would have some fucking gall trying to seat the fruit of his union with Lyanna, which started this whole thing (a point some argue but cmon), ahead of his first-born children in line for the iron throne. 

Aegon and Rhaenys would marry and become king and queen. 

The simple fact is, no-one knows how annulments work in Westeros, since there has never been one for a clearly consummated and fruitful marriage. Kings and princes who wanted some on the side always went for either polygamy (Targs) or various degrees of publicly acknowledged paramours/mistresses (or just whoring around like Robert).

They probably just chose that in the show because they felt it would be an easier sell to the audience than a complicated explanation about polygamy, and only a few semi-obsessed people even care (the books will likely be very different here).

In the show, Rhaegar's other kids are dead, and no-one cares about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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?

I failed to understand your point. 

Plenty of things could happen in real history, true, but this does not mean they could also happen in this certain fiction. This universe has its own history and lore which we should follow. Among thousands of characters and family trees, there is no single case that two siblings share same name. Therefore we can safely assume it would not happen that Jon and Aegon both were named as Aegon Targaryen. 

Sure, you could say Rhaegar might decide he should be the first one in this universe who names his two sons with same name, but why? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Well there is precedent of two concurrent Aegons being around, and they were known as Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger, though they didn't share a parent in this case. It was taken as a deliberate diss/powerplay even at that time though.

There are plenty of concurrent Walder/Walda Frey/Rivers around as well. But you do not have two siblings have same name. The former can not prove the latter. 

 

 

Share this post


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

There are plenty of concurrent Walder/Walda Frey/Rivers around as well. But you do not have two siblings have same name. The former can not prove the latter. 

 

 

Didn't say it could. Just that there was a precedent of sorts for "double Aegon" in-universe. It's different because they're not siblings, but it's still kinda relevant since they were both Targaryens (and both were princes, and both ended up being crowned King Aegon at some point).

But yeah, it's weird and I'm having a hard time guessing how the books will eventually justify it, if Jon's "real name" in the books turns out to be Aegon, too. The show has clearly decided to pretend Rhaegar's first children didn't exist (and Elia gets a throwaway annulment probably never to be mentioned again) so there it's less of an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

Well there is precedent of two concurrent Aegons being around, and they were known as Aegon the Elder and Aegon the Younger, though they didn't share a parent in this case. It was taken as a deliberate diss/powerplay even at that time though.

Exactly. Good chance this is relevant since GRRM promised us a second Dance of the Dragons, which I think will double as a Blackfyre Rebellion. What will that make it, six?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bent branch

@Shmedricko posted a couple of interviews with HBO/Got Director Alan Taylor in another thread. I've underlined the most important parts but included the rest for context.

DEADLINE: With over 10 million viewers watching the 9 PM broadcast and growing each week, plus all those on the other platforms, I think it’s pretty clear they are going to stick around, if for nothing else to see what brews up between Jon and Dany…

TAYLOR: (Laughs) There’s been an inevitability to the two of them coming together. It’s been foreshadowed over and over again, and those who know the books know it’s inevitable, but that doesn’t tell you anything about how it’s going to play out or how it’s going to go. I remember when I was doing Season 1 and we were on location in Malta, and George R. R. Martin came to visit. He was sitting in a chair, and he was being really quite open about things that were to come…

DEADLINE: About Jon and Dany or Game Of Thrones in general?

TAYLOR: Bit of both, but it was early days and nobody was paying attention to the show. We didn’t really know what a phenomenon it was going to be, and I think he was being less guarded than we’ve become since then. Anyways, he alluded to the fact that Jon and Dany were the point, kind of. That, at the time, there was a huge, vast array of characters, and Jon was a lowly, you know, bastard son. So it wasn’t clear to us at the time, but he did sort of say things that made it clear that the meeting and the convergence of Jon and Dany were sort of the point of the series.

So, I was happy that a big step forward was taken in the episode I got to do this season is where he has fallen for her both, you know, emotionally and politically I think. He recognizes what she’s capable of, and is ready to bend the knee as soon as his knees bend. There’s still a step further to go with them in terms of the romantic side of things and a lot more to play out in terms of how the politics and the power struggle will work, but it was at least a sort of solid step forward in that major arc. - Link

---

Jon and Daenerys are growing closer together. What's that like for you to see and be involved in bringing to life, given your view of the series as someone who's been involved since the very first season?

It's funny, it really did have a real scale to it for me. I remember being on location in season one, on location in Malta with George R.R. Martin, when he was visiting. At the time, we had no idea what the show was going to turn into. We hadn't gone public yet. He was quite open about what his plans were, in a way we certainly haven't been since, since the show has become a big deal and has to be kept secret. But even then, in that first season, when there were 100 characters and we were finding out who was important and who was going to last, and no one knew if Robb Stark was going to wind up being king or something — even then, he said very early on that this was going to be about Dany and Jon Snow. It was a revelation to hear so early on, because they were secondary characters, or at least they were characters among many other characters, and it wasn't clear yet where the story was going to head. From the beginning, he knew this relationship was going to be the focus. The actors have known about it for a long time, and seeing them together, they've played beautifully off each other. They know each other so well that it's almost effortless in terms of their performance. - Link

---

In case it's not clear, I think this revelation makes your argument seem even more unlikely than it already was for reasons I explained in my response to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon was also some king, not just Rhaegar's 2 yr old who died.  They told us that in 702 when Cersei gathered the lords against Dany's impending army..

Share this post


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

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?

This is the biggest problem with the Aegon is fake default. If Aegon Targaryen becomes the king of Westeros in the novels, and then Jon becomes king in the series, these would not be the same endings. However, if they merge Jon and Aegon's storylines, then Jon becoming king on the show is the same as Aegon becoming king in the books. This is why them changing Jon's "real" name to Aegon Targaryen and making him legitimate is a huge clue to Aegon being the one who ends up on the throne.

Anyway, do you really not understand how adaptations work? Of course storylines can be merged with even main characters' taking more minor characters' important plot points. That way the more minor character can be eliminated. Jon has already taken on some of Stannis' storyline (I use this as an example because it is the one that comes most readily to mind). The thing that you are refusing to acknowledge here is that Aegon Targaryen, the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen is probably going to sit the Iron Throne in the series. In the novels, there is only one Aegon Targaryen. If the only important thing that Aegon does in the whole novels is end up on the throne in the end, then his storyline can easily be given to Jon (who only has a 50/50 shot at surviving the novels) after Jon is given a name change. See? Easy peasy!

As for your thematic question, I will assume that you are right that Jon's "real" name is Aegon Targaryen and the guy we know as Aegon Targaryen is only a fake. If this is true, then there will only still only be one Aegon VI. GRRM is not going to call a fake Aegon Aegon VI and then call the "real" Aegon (Jon), Aegon VII. Therefore, I think your whole seven theme is not going to happen, even if everything else you believe is true.

2 hours ago, UnViserion said:

I've seen it posted a few times that Rhaegar "disinherited" Aegon and Rhaenys with his anullment. I'm wondering how exactly that's the case..? I feel like Jon would have still come behind Aegon for the succession. 

Lets pretend for a moment Rhaegar survives and the Targaryens keep the iron throne. Rhaegar would have some fucking gall trying to seat the fruit of his union with Lyanna, which started this whole thing (a point some argue but cmon), ahead of his first-born children in line for the iron throne. 

Aegon and Rhaenys would marry and become king and queen. 

I agree. Mostly.;)

Share this post


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

@bent branch

@Shmedricko posted a couple of interviews with HBO/Got Director Alan Taylor in another thread. I've underlined the most important parts but included the rest for context.

DEADLINE: With over 10 million viewers watching the 9 PM broadcast and growing each week, plus all those on the other platforms, I think it’s pretty clear they are going to stick around, if for nothing else to see what brews up between Jon and Dany…

TAYLOR: (Laughs) There’s been an inevitability to the two of them coming together. It’s been foreshadowed over and over again, and those who know the books know it’s inevitable, but that doesn’t tell you anything about how it’s going to play out or how it’s going to go. I remember when I was doing Season 1 and we were on location in Malta, and George R. R. Martin came to visit. He was sitting in a chair, and he was being really quite open about things that were to come…

DEADLINE: About Jon and Dany or Game Of Thrones in general?

TAYLOR: Bit of both, but it was early days and nobody was paying attention to the show. We didn’t really know what a phenomenon it was going to be, and I think he was being less guarded than we’ve become since then. Anyways, he alluded to the fact that Jon and Dany were the point, kind of. That, at the time, there was a huge, vast array of characters, and Jon was a lowly, you know, bastard son. So it wasn’t clear to us at the time, but he did sort of say things that made it clear that the meeting and the convergence of Jon and Dany were sort of the point of the series.

So, I was happy that a big step forward was taken in the episode I got to do this season is where he has fallen for her both, you know, emotionally and politically I think. He recognizes what she’s capable of, and is ready to bend the knee as soon as his knees bend. There’s still a step further to go with them in terms of the romantic side of things and a lot more to play out in terms of how the politics and the power struggle will work, but it was at least a sort of solid step forward in that major arc. - Link

---

Jon and Daenerys are growing closer together. What's that like for you to see and be involved in bringing to life, given your view of the series as someone who's been involved since the very first season?

It's funny, it really did have a real scale to it for me. I remember being on location in season one, on location in Malta with George R.R. Martin, when he was visiting. At the time, we had no idea what the show was going to turn into. We hadn't gone public yet. He was quite open about what his plans were, in a way we certainly haven't been since, since the show has become a big deal and has to be kept secret. But even then, in that first season, when there were 100 characters and we were finding out who was important and who was going to last, and no one knew if Robb Stark was going to wind up being king or something — even then, he said very early on that this was going to be about Dany and Jon Snow. It was a revelation to hear so early on, because they were secondary characters, or at least they were characters among many other characters, and it wasn't clear yet where the story was going to head. From the beginning, he knew this relationship was going to be the focus. The actors have known about it for a long time, and seeing them together, they've played beautifully off each other. They know each other so well that it's almost effortless in terms of their performance. - Link

---

In case it's not clear, I think this revelation makes your argument seem even more unlikely than it already was for reasons I explained in my response to you.

I already believe that the story is about Jon and Dany getting together. What I don't believe is that they necessarily are going to end up on the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne is not the main point of this series. The main point of this series is the War for the Dawn. I don't think it is a given that Jon and Dany will necessarily survive the War for the Dawn. I feel pretty sure that Dany won't survive the War for the Dawn and I only give Jon a 50/50 chance to survive (a 0% chance to survive if he dies and is resurrected). Aegon may end up on the throne as the last Targaryen standing (or he may die). You act like the two of them must end up on the throne when in reality neither of them may make it pass the closing acts of the War for the Dawn. Your argument remains very unconvincing to me.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that Rhaegar saw the future of Elia and their kids being murdered or somebody told it to him as a prophecy. So it could be that by knowing the fate of his family ahead of time and thinking he was unable to change the future, this motivated him to make such drastic decisions like annulling his marriage with Elia, casting aside their children and naming the son he will have with Lyanna “Aegon”. This could have been one of those self perpetuated prophecies except and Rhaegar's case he was trying to prepare for it rather than try to change it.

Share this post


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

This is the biggest problem with the Aegon is fake default. If Aegon Targaryen becomes the king of Westeros in the novels, and then Jon becomes king in the series, these would not be the same endings. However, if they merge Jon and Aegon's storylines, then Jon becoming king on the show is the same as Aegon becoming king in the books. This is why them changing Jon's "real" name to Aegon Targaryen and making him legitimate is a huge clue to Aegon being the one who ends up on the throne.

1

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.

Quote

Anyway, do you really not understand how adaptations work? Of course storylines can be merged with even main characters' taking more minor characters' important plot points. That way the more minor character can be eliminated. Jon has already taken on some of Stannis' storyline (I use this as an example because it is the one that comes most readily to mind). The thing that you are refusing to acknowledge here is that Aegon Targaryen, the legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen is probably going to sit the Iron Throne in the series. In the novels, there is only one Aegon Targaryen. If the only important thing that Aegon does in the whole novels is end up on the throne in the end, then his storyline can easily be given to Jon (who only has a 50/50 shot at surviving the novels) after Jon is given a name change. See? Easy peasy!

 

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.

Quote

As for your thematic question, I will assume that you are right that Jon's "real" name is Aegon Targaryen and the guy we know as Aegon Targaryen is only a fake. If this is true, then there will only still only be Aegon VI.

GRRM is not going to call a fake Aegon Aegon VI and then call the "real" Aegon (Jon), Aegon VII. Therefore, I think your whole seven theme is not going to happen, even if everything else you believe is true.

I agree. Mostly.;)

1

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.

Share this post


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

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.

 

 

 While I get where you're coming from, I'm not sure if this is 100% correct anymore. I think that they started out that way, but the nature of the show and the audience has potentially changed that. For instance, their love of Indira Varma and Lena Heady changed Dorne and Cersei completely. Then they introduce the Night's King, who essentially is the end game on the show, and is a character that we have no reason to believe exists. Then there's Tyrion's completely different characaterisation, and Sansa's completely alternate storyline; no Mance, no Aegon, no Magic-based Euron.

 It's entirely possible that they started out believing they'd finish it the way GRRM wants to, but that they changed their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

I have a feeling that Rhaegar saw the future of Elia and their kids being murdered or somebody told it to him as a prophecy. So it could be that by knowing the fate of his family ahead of time and thinking he was unable to change the future, this motivated him to make such drastic decisions like annulling his marriage with Elia, casting aside their children and naming the son he will have with Lyanna “Aegon”. This could have been one of those self perpetuated prophecies except and Rhaegar's case he was trying to prepare for it rather than try to change it.

I assume you're talking specifically about the show here. But the show has almost nothing about Rhaegar and prophecies. And the show just went out of its way to give us Rhaegar and Lyanna giddily in love with each other at their wedding, which doesn't look at all like what you'd expect to see from a man grimly trying to make the best of a horrific situation like knowing his wife and kids are about to be murdered.

And even in the books, Rhaegar wasn't seeing fire visions of specific events, he was reading generic prophecies about the PtwP and the SoIaF and the three heads of the dragon, and trying to figure out how to interpret them. This just doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd be likely find in those prophecies. It's not impossible, but it's a big assumption, and an unwarranted one.

Share this post


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

I assume you're talking specifically about the show here. But the show has almost nothing about Rhaegar and prophecies. And the show just went out of its way to give us Rhaegar and Lyanna giddily in love with each other at their wedding, which doesn't look at all like what you'd expect to see from a man grimly trying to make the best of a horrific situation like knowing his wife and kids are about to be murdered.

And even in the books, Rhaegar wasn't seeing fire visions of specific events, he was reading generic prophecies about the PtwP and the SoIaF and the three heads of the dragon, and trying to figure out how to interpret them. This just doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd be likely find in those prophecies. It's not impossible, but it's a big assumption, and an unwarranted one.

I'm pretty sure like many other members of his family Rhaegar did have dragon dreams. One popular theory is that he saw himself die at the Trident which was why he was always so melancholy, knowing his wife and kids will also die may have contributed to his sadness. But that doesn't mean he must be in a sour mood all the time and he must have genuinely loved Lyanna and was happy to marry her which gave him some consultation for the bad things that were inevitably going to take place. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Regular John Umber said:

 

 

 While I get where you're coming from, I'm not sure if this is 100% correct anymore. I think that they started out that way, but the nature of the show and the audience has potentially changed that. For instance, their love of Indira Varma and Lena Heady changed Dorne and Cersei completely. Then they introduce the Night's King, who essentially is the end game on the show, and is a character that we have no reason to believe exists. Then there's Tyrion's completely different characaterisation, and Sansa's completely alternate storyline; no Mance, no Aegon, no Magic-based Euron.

 It's entirely possible that they started out believing they'd finish it the way GRRM wants to, but that they changed their mind.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×