Why does everybody think that Aegon is fake?

[Maester Tormund]

Bittersteel was not a Blackfyre.

This is from the wiki on Aegor Rivers, or Bittersteel:

In the Blackfyre Rebellion, he sided with his brother Daemon Blackfyre

So he wasn't a member of the Blackfyre house, but he sided with them and thus in the sense of drawing loyalties he was a Blackfyre.

Right, but what I said is that there's never been a visual symbol, like the black dragon sign or the mummer's dragon, that represents a house's supporters, at least not that I recall.

No it has been used as a visual symbol. Thoros says he sees a sea of red crashing on Riverrun, a sea of red lions. Riverrun was besieged by House Lannister and its bannermen and Hose Frey. Only one of the many houses involved had the lion as their sigil yet they were ALL referred to as lions.

Well, technically we don't know for sure what it refers to, but what I was thinking was that it referred to Aegon.

Well the theory has been put forth earlier in this thread that Aegon is in fact the "mummer's dragon", just not how you are saying it. You're saying it as in he is a fake and not real, however that would mean he isn't even a Blackfyre. A dragon is still a dragon whether it is black or red. Instead he could be the mummer's dragon since he is Varys' dragon; Varys has protected the boy and helped prepare him to rule and is a pawn of Varys, so he is then the mummer's dragon.

Sure you can. The Golden Company's new allegiance was revealed at the very beginning of Tyrion's storyline. The story of the black dragon sign was told near the end of Brienne's storyline. How could the story have possibly appeared before Tyrion's first or second chapter?

You don't know how it would have been arranged if it was in one book. GRRM has said he writes the books from each POV first then arranges it together, so it would depend on how he broke it all up. Also as you said it could have been added after the fact.

Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. Why foreshadow something that is revealed in short order and with little fanfare at the beginning of the next book, especially when the foreshadowing is so easy to miss? Foreshadowing doesn't just hint at something revealed later, it builds anticipation, which is later resolved through the revelation of what the foreshadowing hints at. Under your interpretation, that anticipation doesn't so much get resolved as it peters out with an anti-climax.

Sorry, but every time I see someone say that something is a red herring, without any cause for thinking so, all I hear is, "I'd rather just ignore this piece of evidence."

As I have said before, as a red herring. If we take every sentence GRRM writes and look for secret meanings and make theories well we would have a billlion theories. A good amount of people are now convinced that Aegon has to be a fake there's no way around it so when its revealed he's the real deal, well then that shows how a red herring is useful. And I have a cause for thinking it is a red herring, to throw readers off to make the fact that he is actually real that more dramatic.

We find out they're going to join with Dany at the beginning of the next book.

I didn't say join with Dany, I said come over with Aegon. In my mind Aegon and Dany aren't included together, in fact I see them being a threat to each other.

[Dragonfish]

This is from the wiki on Aegor Rivers, or Bittersteel:

So he wasn't a member of the Blackfyre house, but he sided with them and thus in the sense of drawing loyalties he was a Blackfyre.

Right, he was a Blackfyre supporter, like the rest of the Golden Company. His example doesn't bolster your claim in any way.

No it has been used as a visual symbol. Thoros says he sees a sea of red crashing on Riverrun, a sea of red lions. Riverrun was besieged by House Lannister and its bannermen and Hose Frey. Only one of the many houses involved had the lion as their sigil yet they were ALL referred to as lions.

That's a better example, thank you. Could you post a quote?

Well the theory has been put forth earlier in this thread that Aegon is in fact the "mummer's dragon", just not how you are saying it. You're saying it as in he is a fake and not real, however that would mean he isn't even a Blackfyre. A dragon is still a dragon whether it is black or red. Instead he could be the mummer's dragon since he is Varys' dragon; Varys has protected the boy and helped prepare him to rule and is a pawn of Varys, so he is then the mummer's dragon.

No, he's fake because he's not the dragon he claims to be.

And I'm sorry, but the term "mummer's dragon" very much implies more than just that he's being controlled by a mummer. There are plenty of examples where the term "mummer's" is used to imply fakeness, including one scene where Dany uses the term "mummer's tears" to refer to a man's insincere tears.

You don't know how it would have been arranged if it was in one book. GRRM has said he writes the books from each POV first then arranges it together, so it would depend on how he broke it all up.

Are you kidding? You think George would have waited to introduce Tyrion's story in the book after Brienne's storyline was almost finished? That's not in accord with how he's organized the books in the past.

As I have said before, as a red herring. If we take every sentence GRRM writes and look for secret meanings and make theories well we would have a billlion theories.

Once again, "I'd rather just ignore this piece of evidence."

A good amount of people are now convinced that Aegon has to be a fake there's no way around it so when its revealed he's the real deal, well then that shows how a red herring is useful.

Red herrings are usually a lot more obvious than that. I doubt even ninety percent of the readers even picked up on the story's importance, so I'm not sure how it could possibly count as a red herring.

And I have a cause for thinking it is a red herring, to throw readers off to make the fact that he is actually real that more dramatic.

That's not "cause." I'm talking something in the books that discredits it as foreshadowing. For instance, we have reason to think the story of the fisherman's daughter we got during Davos' chapter is false, because it is contradicted by Ned's own statements to Robert. In contrast, we have no cause to disbelieve this particular foreshadowing, other than that you'd rather not believe in its implications.

I didn't say join with Dany, I said come over with Aegon. In my mind Aegon and Dany aren't included together, in fact I see them being a threat to each other.

But the fact that they were going over to Dany at the beginning shows that they had switched their allegiance to the Targaryens, which is what you're arguing the symbolism means. That was my point.

[Maester Tormund]

Right, he was a Blackfyre supporter, like the rest of the Golden Company. His example doesn't bolster your claim in any way.

I''m arguing that him being a supporter is why he can be called a Blackfyre and as such, a black dragon. His own personal sigil contained parts of the Blackfyre sigil.

That's a better example, thank you. Could you post a quote?

Here is what Thoros says:

The red priest squatted down beside her. "My lady," he said, "the Lord granted me a view of Riverrun. An island in a sea of fire, it seemed. The flames were leaping lions with long crimson claws. And how they roared! A sea of Lannisters, my lady. Riverrun will soon come under attack."

Riverrun is then attacked by Lannisters, Freys, and other lesser houses.

No, he's fake because he's not the dragon he claims to be.

And I'm sorry, but the term "mummer's dragon" very much implies more than just that he's being controlled by a mummer. There are plenty of examples where the term "mummer's" is used to imply fakeness, including one scene where Dany uses the term "mummer's tears" to refer to a man's insincere tears.

Well you yourself just said it has been used to imply something that is fake. "Mummer's tears" are fake tears so then assuming thats the only way it can be used a "mummer's dragon" would be a fake dragon.

Are you kidding? You think George would have waited to introduce Tyrion's story in the book after Brienne's storyline was almost finished? That's not in accord with how he's organized the books in the past.

I'm saying we don't know how it would be arranged.

Once again, "I'd rather just ignore this piece of evidence."

I explained in that same little paragraph how a red herring could be used, yet you left that part out.

Red herrings are usually a lot more obvious than that. I doubt even ninety percent of the readers even picked up on the story's importance, so I'm not sure how it could possibly count as a red herring.

That's assuming the story is important.

That's not "cause." I'm talking something in the books that discredits it as foreshadowing. For instance, we have reason to think the story of the fisherman's daughter we got during Davos' chapter is false, because it is contradicted by Ned's own statements to Robert. In contrast, we have no cause to disbelieve this particular foreshadowing, other than that you'd rather not believe in its implications.

Well GRRM knew he was introducing Aegon, and I'm pretty sure he could guess that people would wonder if he's the real deal. Soooo wouldn't that constitute as a red herring?

We've had a ton of stories for who Jon's parents are. A major argument (as I know that you know) is the blue rose in the wall as symbolism for Jon Snow. So if GRRM is going to use symbolism to show who a character is then wouldn't it be a red herring to throw off the readers with that bit of symbolism?

But the fact that they were going over to Dany at the beginning shows that they had switched their allegiance to the Targaryens, which is what you're arguing the symbolism means. That was my point.

Also again, we don't know how it would be arranged if it was one book. GRRM thought it would have been only a year from AFFC release to the release of ADWD since he already had 500 pages. Yet it took 5 years showing that there was a good amount of rewriting so it could have been put somewhere else in the final cut.

[Maester Tormund]

You believe this series is low on magic? What do you read >_< cause in my opinon gods, demons, sorcerers, three eyed crows, dragons. the others,and faceless men don't seem very logical they seem quite magical! So why not varys and his birds too. He is quite formidable in getting what he wants and the info he wants.

And aegon is varys pawn and varys is a mummer so I just think him being the mummer with the mummer's dragon makes the most sense.

Here is an article where GRRM says the series is "low magic"

http://nmmagazine.com/featuredauthor_martin_sept11.php

[Dragonfish]

I''m arguing that him being a supporter is why he can be called a Blackfyre and as such, a black dragon.

Bittersteel has his own sigil. If George wanted to represent him that way, he would've used that.

Anyway, none of this matters. Your argument could just as easily apply to the the Golden Company as a whole, so Bittersteel doesn't really bolster it in any way.

His own personal sigil contained parts of the Blackfyre sigil.

No it doesn't. His sigil is a red winged stallion breathing flame. The only the two sigils share are wings. The two are hardly similar or even the same.

Here is what Thoros says:

Thanks. Now let me ask you this question: if the book presented a vision of a single lion turning into a dragon, would you be inclined to interpret that as foreshadowing of, say, a Lannister becoming a Targaryen (as some people are believe regarding Tyrion) or the Lannister bannermen going over to the Targaryens?

Well you yourself just said it has been used to imply something that is fake.

Right. He's fake because he's claiming to be Rhaegar's son, when he's not.

I explained in that same little paragraph how a red herring could be used, yet you left that part out.

Uh, no I didn't. I quoted every single piece of that paragraph, and you responded to each of my responses.

That's assuming the story is important.

Well, if it's a red herring, then it is important, even if only to throw people off. Yet it is so obscure that most people probably won't notice it. That's a pretty bad red herring.

Well GRRM knew he was introducing Aegon, and I'm pretty sure he could guess that people would wonder if he's the real deal. Soooo wouldn't that constitute as a red herring?

No, because red herrings tend to be obvious and explicitly stated. They're not usually hidden in symbolism.

We've had a ton of stories for who Jon's parents are. A major argument (as I know that you know) is the blue rose in the wall as symbolism for Jon Snow. So if GRRM is going to use symbolism to show who a character is then wouldn't it be a red herring to throw off the readers with that bit of symbolism?

I'm not following your argument here. How does the blue flower symbolism, which hints at Jon's true parentage and is not a red herring, support the notion that George would employ red herrings as symbols?

Also again, we don't know how it would be arranged if it was one book. GRRM thought it would have been only a year from AFFC release to the release of ADWD since he already had 500 pages. Yet it took 5 years showing that there was a good amount of rewriting so it could have been put somewhere else in the final cut.

Ok, fair enough. Although as I recall, the decision to split the book came pretty late in the writing process, when AFFC was pretty much done.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Targaryens = Red Dragons

Blackfyres = Black Dragons

Bloodraven = White Dragon

Bittersteel = ? Red Horse with black Dragon wings

Pegasus? Black Dragon?..Gold Dragon?

I think I use this as a topic.

[The Hungry W0lf]

I think he is fake because it has made out the main hero of the story to be either Dany or Snow throwing Aegon in 2/3 way through the story with a better claim to the throne than anyone.

Also Your father’s lands are beautiful,” he said. His silvery hair was blowing in the wind, and his eyes were a deep purple, darker than this boy’s. ” Connington about Aegon

[the average Other]

What is most important is what he told Kevan. Everyone says that he can't be trusted at all so why listen to what he is saying there, well because he has no reason to lie. He is in a room alone with Kevan, except for one very dead maester and his "little birds" so why lie? What point would there be for him to lie to him, Kevan isn't going to leave the room thats clear.

Why tell the truth? In fact, why speak at all? Why is Varys going on at length about his plans, torturing the poor dying Kevan with his yammering, and gloating like a Bond villain? What is he trying to accomplish?

When we get the answer to that, we'll know why he said what he said.

[The Sunset King]

Do people never read that full conversation? It is obvious the way it is written he is implying the Golden Company wants to go home and there are no more blackfyres for them to seat on the iron throne so Illyrio says they support them because: "Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon."

Couple that conversation with the ones heard through Jon Con at the GC's camp which were along the lines of how excited everyone was to go "home."

Given that there are multiple possible interpretations, it is obvious that people do read the context of the conversation. One possibility is that returning to lands in Westeros actually compelled the Golden Company to break its contract with Myr, however, throughout the conversation, Tyrion notices some suspicious sentences with potential doubles meanings. One is the black or red sentence, the others include the evasive response about some contracts being writ in ink and others in blood, as well as the comment about "deep affections" to be repaid. Tyrion grasps an underlying additional reason that Illyrio supports the cause beyond what he has chose to make obvious. The surface meanings are not all that is being conveyed to the reader in that conversation.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Also Your father’s lands are beautiful,” he said. His silvery hair was blowing in the wind, and his eyes were a deep purple, darker than this boy’s. ” Connington about Aegon

That is the line that made me to lose faith that he was real....I had if on CD, and listen to it, keep rewinding it, like 10 times, and just couldn't believe in him anymore.

[Maester Tormund]

Earlier I posted about a Aegon vs. Dany showdown and I found this in the SSM section just now...

FAN: Hi, short question. Will we find out more about the Dance of the Dragons in future books?

GRRM: The first dance or the second?The second will be the subject of a book. The first will be mentioned from time to time, I'm sure.

The first is obviously The Dance of the Dragons from 129 AL to 131 AL. The second however I think will be this showdown, regardless of whether Aegon ends up being a Blackfyre or a true Targaryen he will still be a dragon. Is it reasonable, based off of this statement by GRRM, that we can expect a Aegon vs. Dany showdown? Or if R+L=J then Jon vs Aegon vs Dany?

Or is there a second Dance of the Dragons that I'm forgetting here? Also wasn't this title one of the original titles GRRM wanted to use when the series was going to be a trilogy? (Not sure on that one, I can't really remember)

If that is also the case then it shows that Aegon was something he knew would happen, not something he decided to add in later. I feel like if Aegon ends up being real that that would at least make it a little better for the people that strongly believe he isn't.

EDIT:

I'm going to make a separate thread for this.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

For me, it is just the reverse. Aegon being real resolves the inconsistencies that I saw in Varys and Illyrio's indifference towards Daenerys and Viserys' fate. Why use a fake when the real deal is available to you?

That proves that Aegon was their choice for the throne, but it doesn't prove that Aegon was really a Targaryen. Meanwhile, if Aegon is really Rhaegar's son, Varys' behavior before Robert's Rebellion doesn't make a lot of sense, since he spent a lot more time undermining the Targaryen realm than anything else.

And I'm sorry, but the term "mummer's dragon" very much implies more than just that he's being controlled by a mummer. There are plenty of examples where the term "mummer's" is used to imply fakeness, including one scene where Dany uses the term "mummer's tears" to refer to a man's insincere tears.

I don't know why people keep parsing the language Quaithe used. We have the House of the Undying prophecy, in which Daenerys sees a false dragon, later identified as a mummer's dragon.

Also as someone else said, Varys trusts the children enough to see him murder two council members and to know where he would be hiding. If he gets locked away that'll really through a wrench in all of his plans because you know they won't put him in down in the dungeons, they'll kill him immediately.

I don't think that's so. If the kids let on that Varys killed Kevan and Pycelle, what happens?

-- Cersei believes that Varys was involved in a Tyrell plot to kill Lord Tywin, so she's going to draw largely the same conclusion that she would have drawn anyway.

-- Mace Tyrell is still going to replace the Lannister spots on the council with Tyrell relatives, which will alienate Lannister supporters and lend credence to Cersei's madness.

-- Mace may take the Aegon threat more seriously--although Kevan was an obstacle, not a relation, and there's reason to believe that Aegon may hold a Lannister-specific grudge--but since he's leaving after the trials anyway and the trials are in a few days, in practical terms that's not a huge difference. Regardless, Connington has to face a Tyrell host pretty soon anyway.

(Besides which, Varys has another card that he's likely going to play soon anyway: Cersei bringing a monstrosity to participate in a holy rite like trial by combat is likely to cause some kind of disorder in King's Landing, should the High Septon be informed of what exactly Ser Robert Strong is.)

-- Varys himself is at little risk of capture. For that to happen, the little bird in question would need to tell Kevan (or somebody) without Varys knowing, and then Kevan would have to launch a sudden yet coordinated response by Lannister guards without any of the other little birds discovering it or Varys himself twigging to sudden changes in the guards' routines. Varys survived this long by having a keen instinct for self-preservation.

But if Varys' little birds let word slip that Aegon is a fraud, that's much more dangerous. Even many supporters admit that Aegon's story is hard to believe. If, say, Lady Nym has a conversation with the kid (through some means) and passes it along to Doran, then Doran may well sit on his hands until the real Targaryen shows up.

[Dragonfish]

I don't know why people keep parsing the language Quaithe used. We have the House of the Undying prophecy, in which Daenerys sees a false dragon, later identified as a mummer's dragon.

Yes, I'm aware. I've brought this point up in arguments before, but people usually remain unconvinced and insist that it's just a visual metaphor for a dragon under the control of a mummer. So these days, I prefer to try a different tack.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Yes, I'm aware. I've brought this point up in arguments before, but people usually remain unconvinced and insist that it's just a visual metaphor for a dragon under the control of a mummer. So these days, I prefer to try a different tack.

Ah, gotcha. I haven't been on the board regularly in a while, so I don't know how this argument goes typically goes down.

[Lonin]

I am of opinion that he might be real. I dont think there is convincing evidence either way. I am not a fan of the "hidden prince" or the "switched baby" plot lines. I am mostly convinced that R + L = J, so I just find the thought of another hidden Targaryen suspect. Unless, GRRM is planning an Aegon I style only with female(Dany) riding one dragon and two males (Jon , Aegon) riding the other two dragons... or another dance with dragons and a Targ vs Targ fight... oh well, I am awaiting the next book to help resolve these issues.

Related to the OPs original question, I think that a poll along the lines of

1) I believe in R + L = J, I believe Aegon is fake

2) I dont believe in R + L = J, I believe Aegon is fake

3) I believe R + L = J, I believe Aegon is real

4) I dont believe in R + L = J, I believe Aego is real

would be informative.

edit to add poll

[fyrfly]

I know that G.r.r.m. has been hinting that their will be a second dance of the dragons, but I also think that Dany is not a warrior neither is Tyrion, the warriors who I pressume will fight for her against the Others are Jon Snow weilding Dark Sister, Ser Jorah with Long Claw and Aegon with Black Fyre, I find the names of the swords very interesting, the Others are cold and white and stay away from light and heat, and the sword of House Targaryen is called BlackFyre, and so are the Targaryen bastards, so even if Aegon is a fake I think he'll help Dany :)

[Dio Forel]

Its because quaithe called him the mummer's dragon. Which seems to mean fake but even more so means that aegon is one of varys' pawns in the game. Since varys was a mummer before he was the prince of theives. I do like aegon but maybe he is a faceless man or a targ bastard. I mean it seems that jon connington raised him and has alwayys believed him to be the real deal but I'm still not convinced and I'm sure grrm has a reason for this iffyness. The dragon has three heads though. So we shall see, I'm super nervous about the dreaded mount. I believe dany will have to fuck victarion.

Well...It could be called mummer's dragon because the point is Dany is supposed to be the dragon.. so anybody else is a fake... clearly Dany would need to beware since this "mummer's dragon" is looking to take over Westeros and all...

It is quite interesting that Illyrio responds with this when asked about how the Golden Company was convinced to support a Targaryen:

"Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon."

Black + red = Black + Fyre = Dragon.... As far as the Golden Company supporting a Targ... well technically Bittersteel wasnt a Blackfyre. He was a half-brother of a Blackfyre... but in actuality he was a bastard of a Targ...

Right, he was a Blackfyre supporter, like the rest of the Golden Company. His example doesn't bolster your claim in any way.

He was a Blackfyre half-brother, one of the Blackfyre Pretenders/Great Bastards alongside Bloodraven, Shiera & Daemon. Fact is the Golden Company was started by a Targ bastard that happened to be a Blackfyre supporter as well.

No it doesn't. His sigil is a red winged stallion breathing flame. The only the two sigils share are wings. The two are hardly similar or even the same.

His sigil was black winged stallion. He was one of the Blackfyre Pretenders that flew a variation of the Blackfyre sigil. It is exactly similar and the same. The black wings were a direct reference to the Blackfyre house.

[Dragonfish]

He was a Blackfyre half-brother, one of the Blackfyre Pretenders/Great Bastards alongside Bloodraven, Shiera & Daemon. Fact is the Golden Company was started by a Targ bastard that happened to be a Blackfyre supporter as well.

You are conflating the terms "Blackfyre Pretender" and "Great Bastard." They do not mean the same thing. Only one of the Great Bastards was named Blackfyre, and only he and his descendants are referred to as Blackfyre Pretenders. The others simply went by their regular names, which were Aegor Rivers, Brynden Rivers, and Shiera Seastar.

His sigil was black winged stallion.

The wings are black, but the stallion itself is red.

He was one of the Blackfyre Pretenders that flew a variation of the Blackfyre sigil. It is exactly similar and the same. The black wings were a direct reference to the Blackfyre house.

Who the hell cares? George didn't use a winged stallion in this story, he specifically used a black dragon that then became red. All this discussion about Bittersteel's sigil is getting us nowhere.

[Dio Forel]

You are conflating the terms "Blackfyre Pretender" and "Great Bastard." They do not mean the same thing. Only one of the Great Bastards was named Blackfyre, and only he and his descendants are referred to as Blackfyre Pretenders. The others simply went by their regular names, which were Aegor Rivers, Brynden Rivers, and Shiera Seastar.

The wings are black, but the stallion itself is red.

Who the hell cares? George didn't use a winged stallion in this story, he specifically used a black dragon that then became red. All this discussion about Bittersteel's sigil is getting us nowhere.

Aegor was both.... The Blackfyre Pretenders flew Blackfyre like banners... Hence the very relevant black wings. And he was a Great Bastard making him a half brother as well which is relevant considering the context of this debate. Point is theres clues pointing in several directions so no one answer is correct. Thats why its a great story... So many possibilities. We have hints nothing more...

[the average Other]

Aegor was both.... The Blackfyre Pretenders flew Blackfyre like banners... Hence the very relevant black wings. And he was a Great Bastard making him a half brother as well which is relevant considering the context of this debate. Point is theres clues pointing in several directions so no one answer is correct. Thats why its a great story... So many possibilities. We have hints nothing more...

A Blackfyre Pretender is a Blackfyre who has named himself the king. Bittersteel was not a Blackfyre, and he never pretended to be king.