Fire and Blood Vol 1, the second round

[Lord Varys]

The first thread:

@J. Stargaryen

Sure, Prince Aegon will ascend the throne as King Aegon VI Targaryen - if he ascends the throne. But I don't see why we should limit ourselves to official numbers if we talk about symbolic numbers in the books.

The number three in relation to Dany is significant.

But the number seven not so much.

@DanaKz

I prefer Rogar. Robar is a pretty common name, whereas the Baratheons are (supposedly) descended from a Targaryen bastard and thus of Valyrian descent. It makes sense that this is more reflected in their naming patterns in the first century than it is later on.

Still a pity that Orys Baratheon didn't turn out to have prototypical Valyrian looks. That would have been fun and made it (even more) clear that the 'dark looks' magic is in the 'divine' Durrandon blood.

[The Grey Wolf]

I prefer Robar. Rogar is to close to Rogare for me.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I slightly preferred Robar, but simply because the name was used in released materials more frequently than Rogar by now. (And was the name he was introduced by). In the end, the fact that it is Rogar instead of Robar doesn't matter much it is just a pity that there's one more thing in my copy of twoiaf that is not correct.

I do hope that the first print of F&B will have less of these issues!

 

@J. Stargaryen

Who is the seventh?

[Lord Varys]

@Ran should definitely make some sort of official statement when the edition of TWoIaF including FaB related changes is out. Then those who care can actually try to get a copy with all the corrections. This is becoming somewhat of a never-ending story ;-).

And then things of that sort should be over. If they want to change more, they should make a proper second edition. One could add a lot more stuff to the history of the Seven Kingdoms and, perhaps, combine such a project to a proper 'Historical Atlas of Martinworld' project.

 

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

In Sons of Dragon, we got all names of thirteen people participated in Trial by Seven. So we will definitely get all claimants' names participated in Great council of 101 AC. But I find number of claimants quite high. It is possible that  candidates from the same branch participated like Stannis-Renly thing. 

 

[The Grey Wolf]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they want to change more, they should make a proper second edition. One could add a lot more stuff to the history of the Seven Kingdoms and, perhaps, combine such a project to a proper 'Historical Atlas of Martinworld' project.

 

I would give my eyeteeth for that.

[The Fattest Leech]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Ran should definitely make some sort of official statement when the edition of TWoIaF including FaB related changes is out. Then those who care can actually try to get a copy with all the corrections. This is becoming somewhat of a never-ending story ;-).

I am down with this idea. Good suggestion  

 

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I am down with this idea. Good suggestion  

Bought my girlfriend the 'Dinotopia' books last birthday. That's a great way to properly depict a fictional world.

[The Fattest Leech]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bought my girlfriend the 'Dinotopia' books last birthday. That's a great way to properly depict a fictional world.

Ya know what, that’s a great gift. I really enjoyed those stories. I down not get to finishing  the series , but really got in to them as they came out way back in dinosaur days.

There was a tv series as well. That was pretty ok. It hit the genre market I was working in at the time. 

[J. Stargaryen]

10 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Who is the seventh?

The hypothetical seventh Aegon? Jon Snow, of course.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the number seven not so much.

Are you saying the number seven isn't significant in the story? I'm confused. 

[Bael's Bastard]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The first thread:

@J. Stargaryen

Sure, Prince Aegon will ascend the throne as King Aegon VI Targaryen - if he ascends the throne. But I don't see why we should limit ourselves to official numbers if we talk about symbolic numbers in the books.

The number three in relation to Dany is significant.

But the number seven not so much.

I think it is likely that AeGriff will ascend the Iron Throne as King Aegon VI Targaryen. But I am skeptical that there will be any King Aegon after him, whether Jon Snow or another. In general, I would disagree with an assertion that the number seven is not symbolic or significant in the books. But I don't see there being a seventh Aegon by the end of the books.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@DanaKz

I prefer Rogar. Robar is a pretty common name, whereas the Baratheons are (supposedly) descended from a Targaryen bastard and thus of Valyrian descent. It makes sense that this is more reflected in their naming patterns in the first century than it is later on.

Still a pity that Orys Baratheon didn't turn out to have prototypical Valyrian looks. That would have been fun and made it (even more) clear that the 'dark looks' magic is in the 'divine' Durrandon blood.

I preferred Robar, as Rogar sounded a little too close to Roger to me, a name that probably sounded much more imposing once upon a time than it does today, at least to American ears. But I am sort of warming to it. It sort of reminds me of Rhaegar like Orys reminds me of Aerys.

I like to think that Orys's black eyes have a Valyrian quality to them, though not purple, similar to the dark quality of Jon's grey eyes. And as for his hair, we see enough examples of the first child's hair taking after their mother when a Targaryen has children with a darker haired non-Targaryen.

It would be interesting if Orys had been more classically Targaryen looking, but I think it is interesting the way it is, and pertinent.

Even though Orys's own look wasn't described to us until TWOIAF, the short description of him in AGOT always seemed important to me, and pertinent to both the Baratheon paternity mystery running through AGOT, and Jon's ancestry/looks.

Even without knowing Orys's hair and eye coloring until TWOIAF, we had enough information as early as AGOT to know that he either:

- Did not have obvious Targaryen features, but was rumored to be Targaryen anyways. This would not only demonstrate that a Targaryen/non-Targaryen could produce a child that did not seem to have obvious Targaryen features (as in R+L=J), but also that the Westerosi did not automatically expect every child of a Targaryen (particularly with a non-Targaryen) to have obvious Targaryen features.

or

- Did have obvious Targaryen features, yet produced descendants that did not have obvious Targaryen features, in particular, descendants with black hair, that produced children with black hair when mating with people with light colored hair. This would also demonstrate that a Targaryen, or Targaryen-featured person, and a non-Targaryen could produce a child that did not seem to have obvious Targaryen features.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

16 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The hypothetical seventh Aegon? Jon Snow, of course.

So both of Rhaegar's sons would have been called Aegon? Not impossible, of course, but I don't consider it to be the most likely course.

It has been a while since I discussed Jon's possible birth name, so could you please remind me again of the arguments in favour of it having been Aegon?

[Bael's Bastard]

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

So both of Rhaegar's sons would have been called Aegon? Not impossible, of course, but I don't consider it to be the most likely course.

Not sure it is less likely than other possibilities, considering Rhaegar's "What better name for a king?," and the possibility that Lyanna could have received word about the deaths of Rhaegar and Aegon before she gave birth to/named Jon. I am not sure whether I think he was named Aegon, and I don't see him actually ascending the Iron Throne with the name Aegon, but it seems possible he could have been named Aegon.

[Megorova]

On 7/24/2018 at 7:05 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Who is the seventh?

37 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It has been a while since I discussed Jon's possible birth name, so could you please remind me again of the arguments in favour of it having been Aegon?

Jon Snow. His real name is Aegon. That's because he is GRRM's parallel to King Arthur Pendragon, and King Aragorn Elessar.

Similarities between them:

1. All three names are made from word dragon: Pendragon, (D)Aragorn, (Dr)Aegon.

2. All three were wielders of magic fire-related sword.

Arthur - Excalibur (it had two chimeras on its hilt, "when the sword was unsheathed what was seen from the mouths of the two chimeras was like two flames of fire, so dreadful that it was not easy for anyone to look").

Aragorn's sword was reforged from broken sword of his ancestor, Narsil - Red and White Flame, into Andúril - Flame of the West.

Jon/Aegon - Lightbringer/Dawn of Daynes (even though it could be wielded only by Daynes, Jon is 1/8 Dayne, thru his ancestor, Queen Dyanna Dayne).

3. Jon was raised at Winterfell, by his uncle, Ned Stark.

Aragorn was fostered in Rivendell by his relative - King Elrond, who was twin-brother of Aragorn's ancestor, Elros.

Arthur was fostered by Merlin.

All three future Kings didn't knew, who were their real parents.

4. Aragorn's wife, Arwen, was his great great many times great great-aunt.

Even though King Arthur married with Guinevere, they didn't had children; mother of Arthur's child (Mordred) was his half-sister, Morgause.

If Jon is parallel to those two Kings, then he will have a child with his aunt, Daenerys Targaryen.

That way, all three had (will have) children, born from incestuos unions.

5. All three are "star-related".

Jon is Azor Ahai, who will appear/awake under The Bleeding Star comet. Dawn sword is forged from meteorite ore. If my theory, about where Lyanna and Rhaegar went, after the kidnapping, is correct, then Jon was conceived at Starfall, in late December/on Christmas Eve of 282, so he was conceived in place, where thousands years ago has fallen piece of The Bleeding Star, from which was forged Dawn.

Arthur's father, Uther, has chosen for himself name Pendragon, after he saw a dragon-shaped comet.

Aragorn served in the armies of King Thengel of Rohan, and Steward Ecthelion II of Gondor, under the name Thorongil - Eagle of the Star.

"Elven-smiths reforged the shards of Narsil into a new sword, setting into the design of the blade seven stars (for Elendil) and a crescent moon (for Isildur), as well as many runes. Aragorn renamed the sword Anduril (meaning "flame of the west" in Sindarin), and it was said to have shone with the light of the Sun and the Moon."

6. All three were part of "democratic-based military organisation": The Round Table, The Fellowship of the Ring, Night's Watch.

All three were leaders of this organisation.

Etc.

So if Jon will ever be crowned, then it will be under the name Aegon. Even if he will never sit on Iron Throne, maybe he will be crowned after his death, for saving 7K from the Others.

[dmfn]

@Megorova

I love that you have ideas

I wish you had point-based conclusions instead of leap of faith conclusions

[Vhagar's Ghost]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bought my girlfriend the 'Dinotopia' books last birthday. That's a great way to properly depict a fictional world.

DINOTOPIA

[J. Stargaryen]

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

So both of Rhaegar's sons would have been called Aegon? Not impossible, of course, but I don't consider it to be the most likely course.

 

The issue here is that people end up asking themselves some variation of a trick question. Why would Rhaegar name both of his sons Aegon? I don't think he did. I think Lyanna named her son after the Trident and the Sack of KL. And, I think she definitely knew about those events since Ned was with her when she died. Although she might have already known before he arrived. This line of thinking is really the key to understanding how to overcome the otherwise awkward obstacle of two Aegons. I never thought to consider this until 2014, when someone posted this quote from AGoT, Jon IV:

“You can call him Lord Snow,” Pyp said as he came up to join them. “You don’t want to know what his mother calls him.”

This reads to me like a clue that his mother had called him something. If it was Lyanna who had named him, giving the timing, it definitely opens up the possibility she called her son Aegon.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It has been a while since I discussed Jon's possible birth name, so could you please remind me again of the arguments in favour of it having been Aegon?

Aegon is the Targaryen name. It's really the Targaryen version of Brandon Stark. That reason alone makes it a very strong candidate to be Jon's real name. The most important male Targaryen in the story ought to be named what—Aemon, Jaehaerys, Viserys, Aenys, or Daemon? No, of course not. Aegon is the obvious choice. My guess is, were it not for the aforementioned issue of R+E=Aegon, people would take for granted that Jon's name is Aegon nearly as much as they do his parentage.

Let's take a look back at the HotU, from ACoK, Daenerys IV:

“Aegon,” he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. “What better name for a king?”
“Will you make a song for him?” the woman asked.
“He has a song,” the man replied. “He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.” He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany’s, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. “There must be one more,” he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. “The dragon has three heads.”

We know that Dany is seeing Rhaegar, Elia, and their newborn son Aegon here. But, the scene also allows us to draw certain informative conclusions. Rhaegar thinks there is no better name for a king, so it's what he chooses to name his son and heir. Also, he thinks his son and heir, named Aegon, is destined to be the PtwP. Further, that this son and heir, named Aegon, has a song that Rhaegar calls the song of ice and fire.

One of the more common mistakes or misconceptions that I've seen in my time here is that this scene actually depicts Rhaegar, Lyanna and their newborn son. The reasons for this are obvious enough. Jon is a far better candidate than R+E=Aegon for the PtwP and the song of ice and fire. Maybe the scene is telling us the name of the PtwP and the song of ice and fire. If the name of the PtwP and SoIaF is Aegon, and Jon Snow is the PtwP and SoIaF, then Jon Snow's real name is Aegon. It's a pretty reasonable conclusion.

Then, Rhaegar appears to look up and see Dany and say, "There must be one more. The Dragon has three heads." Rhaegar has two of his three heads already, and he looks right at Daenerys while saying there needs to be one more. From Rhaegar's perspective, he's seeing, or envisioning, a girl as his third dragon head. I think it's one of the stronger hints that Rhaegar did, in fact, expect his third child to be a girl. Which provides a strong motive for Rhaegar to have only picked out a girl's name for Lyanna's child.

By the time Lyanna gives birth to a boy, Rhaegar, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys are all dead. If Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, this means that her child, her boy, was now Rhaegar's son and heir, so she named him Aegon, as per Rhaegar's intentions. What better name for a king?

---

"A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born.” The old man felt Jon’s face. “You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is a crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born.” – A Dance with Dragons, Jon II

Here's another nice hint. Maester Aemon is giving the same advice to Jon that he gave to his brother Egg. Egg and Jon Snow are boys. They must become men—Aegons—to rule.

The fact that GRRM promised us a second Dance is arguably another hint since the original had two Aegons. In fact, two Aegons who both became kings. So, if that pattern follows we could expect Young Griff to be crowned Aegon VI, and then Jon eventually as Aegon VII.

Seven and three have been such thematically important numbers throughout the series, and there's really starting to emerge the possibility that the story will have seven Aegons. It makes perfects sense to me that he'd want three Daeneryses and seven Aegons.

[Lord Varys]

This is not the place to discuss the Targaryen name of Jon Snow, but one has to admit that it would go completely against George's established naming practices if sibling or half-sibling would have been given the same name as a dead sibling. That just never happened. If that was a thing, Aerys II could have given all the sons who died the same name until one finally survived (in branches of my family that kind of ridiculous practice was common when child mortality was high, but George's characters apparently do have more decency ;-)).

And to give Lyanna 'the function' of giving a Targaryen name to her son is also pretty odd. She wasn't a Targaryen, and the idea that just because she (may have) loved Rhaegar she also shared his views and wanted to do everything the way he did in relation to the name of her son is, well, more than a little presumptuous. As is the idea that Lyanna and Rhaegar rehashed the same conversation about 'the name of kings' Rhaegar had with Elia. Aegon was Rhaegar's firstborn. He was supposed to be king and thus got 'the name of kings'. Lyanna's son wouldn't become king, and thus there is no reason to talk about 'the name of kings' with Lyanna. Not to mention that Lyanna was more than aware that her son by Rhaegar would never (and should never try to) be king. Else she would never have asked her brother to hide him.

If the boy has a Targaryen name it would have been a name Rhaegar and Lyanna chose before Rhaegar left. And then the name wouldn't have been Aegon. It could have been any name - Aemon after Maester Aemon, Jaehaerys after Rhaegar's grandfather, Aerys after Rhaegar's father, Daeron after his granduncle, etc. They could have even invented some new name or reused some obscure old one. And if Lyanna herself chose a Targaryen name she wouldn't have chosen Aegon, or Aemon, or whatever else - the Targaryen name for the boy in that scenario would have been Rhaegar. Because Rhaegar was the only Targaryen she loved.

But they could just as well have decided to honor Lyanna's family with the name, naming the boy Rickard or Brandon Targaryen.

On 7/25/2018 at 4:19 AM, J. Stargaryen said:

Are you saying the number seven isn't significant in the story? I'm confused. 

Pretty much, yeah. But I'm not all that good with the importance of numbers in stories, nor do I have a talent to look for stuff like that.

22 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I preferred Robar, as Rogar sounded a little too close to Roger to me, a name that probably sounded much more imposing once upon a time than it does today, at least to American ears. But I am sort of warming to it. It sort of reminds me of Rhaegar like Orys reminds me of Aerys.

Yeah, the Rogar name is more distinct and sort of closer to the more reminiscent of non-Targaryen Valyrian names lacking 'ae' and 'rh'. And one assumes one doesn't say 'Rogar' the way one mumbles 'Roger' ;-).

22 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I like to think that Orys's black eyes have a Valyrian quality to them, though not purple, similar to the dark quality of Jon's grey eyes. And as for his hair, we see enough examples of the first child's hair taking after their mother when a Targaryen has children with a darker haired non-Targaryen.

Sure. It was more for the fun part of it. It would have been great if the seed of the first Baratheon hadn't been 'strong'. Orys could have very well have had dark purple eyes. If Orys' mother had had Valyrian features then her son having them, too, wouldn't have 'proved' that Lord Aerion fathered him. And regardless who Orys' mother was, Valyrian features shouldn't have been uncommon on Dragonstone before the Conquest.

22 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even without knowing Orys's hair and eye coloring until TWOIAF, we had enough information as early as AGOT to know that he either:

- Did not have obvious Targaryen features, but was rumored to be Targaryen anyways. This would not only demonstrate that a Targaryen/non-Targaryen could produce a child that did not seem to have obvious Targaryen features (as in R+L=J), but also that the Westerosi did not automatically expect every child of a Targaryen (particularly with a non-Targaryen) to have obvious Targaryen features.

Since we never learn how his mother looked like - and didn't even know until George said it that Orys was supposed to be fathered by Lord Aerion and not merely the extramarital son of Lady Valaena - I don't see how this ever was a given.

22 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

- Did have obvious Targaryen features, yet produced descendants that did not have obvious Targaryen features, in particular, descendants with black hair, that produced children with black hair when mating with people with light colored hair. This would also demonstrate that a Targaryen, or Targaryen-featured person, and a non-Targaryen could produce a child that did not seem to have obvious Targaryen features.

That would definitely been the case. But I think we always thought that 'the magic' in the Baratheon features has nothing to do with them but goes back to Durran Godsgrief and his divine wife, no? I mean, that's how I always saw that. 

That not all children have to look like their fathers is established very early on in AGoT - to the highest degree with the looks of the Stark children. If Robb, Bran, Sansa, and Rickon can look like Cat rather than Ned, then Jon most definitely can look like his mother rather than his father.

Weirdo exceptions actually seem only be the Baratheons.

 

[King Ned Stark]

@J. Stargaryen, I’ve almost talked myself into a shaky, and tinfoily, conclusion that baby Aegon was never actually born to Elia and Rhaegar.  Rather he was a stand-in to stall a fragile political situation, and perhaps to lend weight from being disinherited.  It’s the closest I can come to sync up Rhaegars actions/motivations with his actual in-story reputation, as well as a very tight timeline.  Perhaps one of the reasons for all the baby swaps and hidden identities is Martin setting a backwards precedent; and to obscure Rhaegar’s motives.

[Megorova]

10 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Seven and three have been such thematically important numbers throughout the series, and there's really starting to emerge the possibility that the story will have seven Aegons. It makes perfects sense to me that he'd want three Daeneryses and seven Aegons.

There's a thread about Dany and number three. And I think, that probably Jon's number is 7.

For example:

- there was seven northerners, at the Tower of Joy, when Jon was born; seven representatives of Ice/Starks, and three Kingsguards - representatives of Fire/Targaryens;

- there was seven people in Jon's household - Ned, Cat, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Rickon;

- if Jon's real name is Aegon, and if he will ever be crowned, then he will be Aegon VII Targaryen;

- it's likely, that eventually Jon will be Barristan's seventh and final master, after his previous six - Aegon V, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Robert Baratheon, Joffrey Lannister-Baratheon, Daenerys Targaryen. Barristan's fist King was Aegon, and the last also will be Aegon (possibly);

- Jon had seven friends/supporters at Castle Black (prior he became LC) - maester Aemon, LC Jeor Mormont, Sam Tarly, Dolorous Edd, Pyp, Grenn, Small Paul.

Probably there are more 7s, connected to Jon.