Why does everyone think Aegon is fake v.2

[Toccs]

ginger punk: I agree with you that there is not enough evidence to make the determination either way, but Tyrion Varys Connington and Aegon himself all say it, and there is no reason for them all to be wrong. until there is more proof, you can't just call the books wrong.

The problem with that statement is that "the books" don't at any time say that Aegon is Rhaegar's son. Tyrion, Varys and Connington are charcaters within the books, they do not speak from an omniscient viewpoint and thus are all liable to be either wrong or lying.

[Grizzly Mormont]

also, bran is liable to be wrong or lying when he says he can't walk. Its not supported anywhere in the books, but I think he's faking it just to get into meera's pants.

Also, jojen is a blackfyre; it's possible and the books don't say he's not blackfyre.

[TheMysteriousOne]

also, bran is liable to be wrong or lying when he says he can't walk. Its not supported anywhere in the books, but I think he's faking it just to get into meera's pants.

This is invalid as Bran is not the only one who says that he is unable to walk

Also, jojen is a blackfyre; it's possible and the books don't say he's not blackfyre.

People have called Jojen a Reed, other than Jojen

[Toccs]

also, bran is liable to be wrong or lying when he says he can't walk. Its not supported anywhere in the books, but I think he's faking it just to get into meera's pants.

Also, jojen is a blackfyre; it's possible and the books don't say he's not blackfyre.

That is completely unconstructive.

[Lummel]

...I think the main reason that people believe that Aegon is a Blackfyre is because of this

He forged a new sign for the yard, a three-headed

dragon of black iron ...

No I wouldn't think so. There was doubt about Aegon, perversely enough, before AFFC was published!

Let me explain. The first suspicions that Aegon survived where floating around in the fandom date back to AGOT. On the one hand Aegon's death was well established with the corpse seen by hundreds, on the other Varys is noticable coy in his conversations with The Ned. However then in ACOK once we got the Mummer's dragon prophecy the idea grew in fandom that not only would there be an Aegon, but that he would be a fake too.

Blackfyrism got established because it gives a reasonable motivation for Illyrio and Varys' behaviour that better explains why they are doing what they are doing than pure adventurism or their being Targaryen supporters. The dragon at the Quiet Isle argument popped up, at least on this forum, well after the Blackfyre idea had been floated.

[The Manticore Knight]

One of the fAegon supporter's arguments I've seen quite often is that it is too late in the books to introduce an real Aegon.. Wouldn't it be the same for introducing a Blackfyre? I mean, in ASOIAF, we get just a few glimpses of how the Blackfyre rebellions happened, and it never seemed to be of really importance to the actual events of the series.

On the other hand, we're told a bazillion times of how the Sack of King's Landing happened and what it caused to the main events of the series, so I think it would be much more relevant in regards of plot development if Aegon is indeed Rhaegar's son.

Other feeble argument is that the Golden Company's support indicates that he is a Blackfyre. The last pretender died quite some years ago. We know of just two caracters that were alive then, Maester Aemon and Ser Barristan the Bold. One is dead and the other is 63 years old if the wiki can be trusted. I bet the majority of today's Golden Company has no ties at all with the Blackfyre lineage, and probably there are some Targaryen supporters exiled by Robert among them

[Lummel]

I think the argument is more along the lines that a major character who will replace Daenerys shouldn't be introduced in the middle of the story. But then presumably GRRM could reveal Aegon as genuine in the next book and have him die of tetanus or have him eaten by Drogon etc etc.

Really real or fake there is no reason to believe that he will survive to be a major character, that's for GRRM to decide.

With regard to the Golden Company there is something odd about a military unit that has the skulls dipped in gold of the former Blackfyre pretenders attached to their battle standard supporting a Targaryen restoration. Of course you are quite right about the ties and Illyrio says to Tyrion when he wonders about it that "Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon" ADWD Tyrion II p78. That sense of oddness is not a fact, nor an argument, more a niggling, nagging doubt that something is wrong.

I like Blackfyrism and find it an attractive theory. It explains Illyrio and Varys motivation and behaviour, it ties a lot of loose bits of information up. But no, there is no definitive proof, just doubts and suggestions. :)

On the other hand I do find it more believable than Varys' cover story which alleges something all in all that is possible but unlikely and not easy to achieve.

[The Manticore Knight]

I think the argument is more along the lines that a major character who will replace Daenerys shouldn't be introduced in the middle of the story. But then presumably GRRM could reveal Aegon as genuine in the next book and have him die of tetanus or have him eaten by Drogon etc etc.

Who said anything about replacing Daenerys?

Really real or fake there is no reason to believe that he will survive to be a major character, that's for GRRM to decide.

I don't think there is any reason to believe he will die either

[sumant30]

Yes, as far as Varys and Illyrio know. I can agree with your logic, but I think Aegon is fake because of the foreshadowing of a fake Targaryen. So, how could Aegon be fake but not in Illyrio's and Varys' view? If Aegon had been switched earlier is the conclusion I came to. That leads to a theory that Ashara's child was substituted for Elia's at birth.

The foreshadowing is about Mummer's dragon but it can be interpreted in other ways too so it cannot be consider as a solid evidence, also ashara dayne's child being switched is just a theory so we cannot come to result on basis of if's and but's.

[sumant30]

Sorry that you see it that way. It is pretty apparent that fAegon will be revealed by Daenerys as a fraud from the foreshadowing, so that is support. That Ashara had a child nine months after Harrenhal is supported. There was a stillborn girl child in the same time frame. Ample motive for the girls to switch the kids, if Elia had given birth to a stillborn girl. No, it isn't positive, and is only a possible explanation for why Varys and Illyrio would think fAegon was genuine when he really isn't. And newborn baby switches have been set on stage, so it won't be a complete surprise should we learn that is what happened

There is no solid thing which this theory can be said, you are just twisting the facts to support your theory.

[sumant30]

The point we shall keep repeating over and over again. (those of us who have read the book and stick to the facts in the book) is that all this is total nonsense some one made up.

There is absolutely no evidence of it in the book, not one line any one can quote that would even lead us to believe a thing in that entire paragraph from the book.

This is why many are boldly dismissing it as balderdash.

I agree with this because i have read the books two times and i haven't got a single line where in we could get things like blackfyres still existed or illyrio or varys are blacfyre descendants or for that matter Elia's baby was switched.

The same is true for Sansa and Tyrion's speculative children. If Sansa had inherited the North as Lady of Winterfell with Tyrion as her consort, as Tywin had planned, their children would have gotten the Stark name, not the Lannister name.

It would be the same if Ramsay and Fake Arya had any children. They would be Starks, not Boltons, because the whole point of this marriage was to put a Stark figurehead back into Winterfell.

How is that even possible because he would surely carry lannister name and the northern lords will accept him not because he just carries a stark name but actually comes from a stark line i.e has stark blood in him, that is why stannis was so sure to get jon as winterfell lord because he knew he would be accepted.

[rozemarijn]

I' dont quite buy the argument that Elia and Ashara swished baby's yet. But there might be a fact in the suicide of Ashara Dayne (not proven yet she is Lemore). She killed herself shortly after Roberts rebellion, so shortly after Aegon's head was smashed against a wall. Perhaps that could be why she killed herself. She gave her child up to Elia so it could be king one day instead of a bastard. But her trying to force a better live for her son ended up in its brutal murder. Quite a reason to jump of a tower it seems to me.

But of course when you go up that road, you may have the argument that we don't know who raped Ashara and it could have been Aerys himself.

[Lummel]

I agree with this because i have read the books two times and i haven't got a single line where in we could get things like blackfyres still existed or illyrio or varys are blacfyre descendants or for that matter Elia's baby was switched...

Well lets stick to the books.

The books give us two stories.

Story number one is that baby Aegon was murdered by Gregor Clegane. Story number two is that this was a false Aegon and the real Aegon was rescued.

Why believe one story more than another? Both boys looked as though they could be Rhaegar's son. Neither has a special birthmark, nor is there an absolutely trustworthy witness who can swear one way or the other, nor is there secret film footage. All there is, is faith. You believe one story or the other. If you believe the Varys story, you have to disbelieve the official story. If you believe the official story you have to believe Varys' story.

[sumant30]

Why believe one story more than another? Both boys looked as though they could be Rhaegar's son. Neither has a special birthmark, nor is there an absolutely trustworthy witness who can swear one way or the other, nor is there secret film footage. All there is, is faith. You believe one story or the other. If you believe the Varys story, you have to disbelieve the official story. If you believe the official story you have to believe Varys' story.

We have a POV character of Jon C who was near to rhaegar then also we have tyrion's POV when he is in the company of Aegon and we have Varys advising the mad king not to open the gates to lannister army, that is why i believe the 2nd story more.

[BlackWaterSurvivor]

My main issue with aegon being a legit targ is why would illyrio and varys even entertain the idea of helping viserys regain the iron throne in book one? Surely if they ready had the actual heir in aegon or at least knew of him and his whereabouts then why not reveal this information to dani and viserys? What I conclude/theorise from this is that he is unlikely to be aegon!

Mummers dragon and slayer of lies and all that suggest to me he is false. To be honest I think that anyone who believes that he is real is going to be proved wrong, and before anyone says it, no, this is not supported wholly by the text, this is a forum for sharing ideas NOT creating proven factual book reports!

[sumant30]

this is not supported wholly by the text, this is a forum for sharing ideas NOT creating proven factual book reports!

But ideas which can be supported from the facts in books, and not twisting the facts to prove your ideas which is actually quite a lot of people are doing.

[Lummel]

We have a POV character of Jon C who was near to rhaegar then also we have tyrion's POV when he is in the company of Aegon and we have Varys advising the mad king not to open the gates to lannister army, that is why i believe the 2nd story more.

Tyrion's POV with Aegon is pretty nuanced. I would not say that he is a full hearted believer like Jon Connington is. And it is in Jon Connington's POV that we get the contrast between his memory of Rhaegar on top of the tower of his father's castle with the rather different reality with Aegon. Sure Jon Connington believes - but why should we believe Connington? Connington first sees the boy at about age five when he is a washed out drunk obsessed by having failed the man he loved.

Varys? The man defines being economical with the truth! If he warns Aerys not to open the gates then isn't that a sign that he didn't have Aegon switched? If Aegon was switched then it didn't matter if the gates were opened because the prince had been taken to safety. Or are we meant to believe that as soon as Aerys ordered the gates opened that Varys ran away, quickly found a blond baby, rushed back to the castle and swapped the babies just before Gregor broke in?

But ideas which can be supported from the facts in books, and not twisting the facts to prove your ideas which is actually quite a lot of people are doing.

Danaerys has the vision of the Mummers dragon in ACOK. Tyrion has the conversation about the golden company and the Blackfyres with Illyrio in ADWD. Those are facts in the books. Nobody questions the authenticity of the dead baby, that is a fact in the books.

[sumant30]

Danaerys has the vision of the Mummers dragon in ACOK. Tyrion has the conversation about the golden company and the Blackfyres with Illyrio in ADWD. Those are facts in the books. Nobody questions the authenticity of the dead baby, that is a fact in the books.

The mummer's dragon vision cannot be given as a evidence about that aegon is fake, because i have seen and given different interpretations regarding that vision on this forum itself.A conversation does not prove that Illyrio can be blackfyre.Yes we do have a a dead baby in the books.

Tyrion's POV with Aegon is pretty nuanced. I would not say that he is a full hearted believer like Jon Connington is.

Actually while playing cvyasse when aegon throws the board away when he loses he actually does compare it with targarayens, and seeing his features tyrion comes to the conclusion.

[Lummel]

I didn't say that those things were definitive but it is not twisting the facts to discuss them. They are there in the books. And like most things in the books not much is certain and lots of things are open to interpretation :)

If we rule out the mummer's dragon vision because different interpretations are given about it, then we have to rule out almost everything because more than one point of view and interpretation exists about most things in this forum!

It still comes down to us having a dead baby and a live boy and if you believe Varys or not. And it's ok if you believe that Aegon is real. I don't believe that I will convert anyone to thinking that Aegon is fake because after all no one has convinced me that Aegon is real!

[sumant30]

If we rule out the mummer's dragon vision because different interpretations are given about it, then we have to rule out almost everything because more than one point of view and interpretation exists about most things in this forum!

What i wanted to say was a prophecy cannot be given as fact for Aegon's fakeness because even danny was confused about prophecies which were given to her.