Is there any doubt about {F}aegon?

[greetings mortals]

despite all the evidence, I find that I want to believe that everyone is who they believe to be, mainly cus i like the idea of ned stark being unfaithful(i find it weird too) and I like (f)aegon for who he is.

why does everyone feel the need to lie to their children?

[grand old duke of stark]

despite all the evidence, I find that I want to believe that everyone is who they believe to be, mainly cus i like the idea of ned stark being unfaithful(i find it weird too) and I like (f)aegon for who he is.

why does everyone feel the need to lie to their children?

Probably because life is complicated and even good, smart people make mistakes or occasionally do bad things. Rather than try to explain any of that, most parents want to protect their children's innocence as long as possible. For better or worse.

For what it's worth, I also like the idea of Ned having been unfaithful at least once...partly because I want Jon to actually be his son. As for fAegon, I wouldn't mind but the minute I read about him I has a strong gut feel he was an imposter. It's impossible for me to brush that conviction aside.

[Musashisamurai]

So anyways i was rereading and found a clue in Davos' chapter in White harbor. In it it, Davos is talking to peope in a shady bar. One comments:

"The old fellow made a face. “Prince Viserys weren’t the only dragon, were he? Are we sure they killed Prince Rhaegar’s son? A babe, he was.”

They also comment on Dany, although they get her name wrong, and are in no way credible. Yet I find this to be a hint the same way Patchface is. You know, a contrast with smarter, more credible peope but its the crazy/stupid answer that os correct.

on the other hand, Varys is in no way credible, the eyes' shading (although I think JonCon would have known the difference), the black dragon washing ashore on the quiet isle, and the mummer's dragon. Which could be a disguised fake-Targ or a puppet ruler.

I

[corbon]

After several rereads and listens to Dance I think we can list aegon being fake almost as sure as R+L=J. Certainly more then Tyrion being a Targ bastard.

Not even close. The evidence of his fakeness is actually really, really weak overall - the stronger points can swing for Blackfyre or Targ, the weaker points are just weak.

Not that the evidence for his realness is necessarily any stronger. Both options are still wide open.

We have the prophecy as the most iron clad proof (mummers dragon),

Which fits whether he is real or not, Blackfyre, Targaryen or other. So no, not exactly ironclad.

and another point that I look at is Ilyrio's demeanor when parting with Tyrion. Ilyrio gives Haldon and Duck candied ginger to give to Aegon, and looks almost sad according to Tyrion.

Yeah, because its not like a childless older man could actually like a charming young kid who lived in his house for a while. :rolleyes:

I believe that Ilyrio is aegons father, who found his silver haired blackfyre in a pillow house in Lys. Makes perfect sense that the daughter of an exiled Blackfyre would need to whore herself out in order to make ends meet. She doesn't have a sword to sell after all. Being a Blackfyre, Aegon would be a black dragon, as many already know.

Because despite Targ colouring being quite common in Lys, she must be a secret Blackfyre, right? :rolleyes:

Similarly, the GC plotline and related data points like the rusty sign both work whether hes true Targ or secret Blackfyre.

Look, its entirely possible, if rather badly contrived with the information we have so far, that fAegon is a Blackfyre. But its a huge huge way from being taken to the bank.

[Mladen]

Not even close. The evidence of his fakeness is actually really, really weak overall - the stronger points can swing for Blackfyre or Targ, the weaker points are just weak.

Not that the evidence for his realness is necessarily any stronger. Both options are still wide open.

Actually the fact the options are wide open speaks more of him being fake, than of him being real deal. I mean, if we were not supposed to doubt his origin, Martin would undoubtedly present him as Aegon Targaryen, with enough proofs for all of us to conclude that he can't be anything else than Rhaegar's son. This way, with options this widely open, one really has to wonder, why the ambiguity? And, IMO, the ambiguity regarding his origin is in fact one of basis of any theory of him being fake.

Second, the Blackfyre Gordian knot. Throughout ASOIAF, and even more extensively in D&E stories, Blackfyres have been mentioned. They have become this Chekhov's family gun, pointing to us that somehow they will play some role. I can't get off the feeling that Blackfyres are not just some history lesson, because TBH, none of them are, and in ASOIAF history serves as fertile land for pieces of foreshadowing. So, Blackfyres serve perfectly the purpose through Aegon, and Aegon serves wonderfully as key to end or resolve their story.

[LC Jaime Lannister]

Actually the fact the options are wide open speaks more of him being fake, than of him being real deal. I mean, if we were not supposed to doubt his origin, Martin would undoubtedly present him as Aegon Targaryen, with enough proofs for all of us to conclude that he can't be anything else than Rhaegar's son. This way, with options this widely open, one really has to wonder, why the ambiguity? And, IMO, the ambiguity regarding his origin is in fact one of basis of any theory of him being fake.

Saying that Aegon is fake due to the lack of concrete evidence suggesting that he is whom he says he is a silly logical fallacy. "Aegon" has remained hidden and undiscovered for over fourteen years, it makes sense that there is not a lot of evidence supporting his past, otherwise his identity would likely have been revealed. Seeing how the only person who can actually confirm this is Varys, and G.R.R.M. would never give us a Varys P.O.V., you cannot really assume that someone is not whom they are presented to be solely based on the lack of evidence supporting it.

There is not enough evidence to prove that Aegon is a false Targaryen, however, there is enough to suggest it. Notwithstanding, all of the available evidence can be reasonably denied by those supporting the fact that Aegon is Rhaegar's son.

There is so much going on in the world of A Song of Ice and Fire that you can draw many conclusions, true or false, from nearly anything. The only reason this works so well on Aegon is due to G.R.R.M.s use of obscurantism.

[Martini Sigil]

I am not sure either way... I'm just dying to read tWoW

[Mladen]

Saying that Aegon is fake due to the lack of concrete evidence suggesting that he is whom he says he is a silly logical fallacy. "Aegon" has remained hidden and undiscovered for over fourteen years, it makes sense that there is not a lot of evidence supporting his past, otherwise his identity would likely have been revealed. Seeing how the only person who can actually confirm this is Varys, and G.R.R.M. would never give us a Varys P.O.V., you cannot really assume that someone is not whom they are presented to be solely based on the lack of evidence supporting it.

There is not enough evidence to prove that Aegon is a false Targaryen, however, there is enough to suggest it. Notwithstanding, all of the available evidence can be reasonably denied by those supporting the fact that Aegon is Rhaegar's son.

There is so much going on in the world of A Song of Ice and Fire that you can draw many conclusions, true or false, from nearly anything. The only reason this works so well on Aegon is due to G.R.R.M.s use of obscurantism.

If you carefully read my post, you will see that I haven't made any concrete and definite statements. I do believe he is Blackfyre progeny due to may other clues, but when it comes to obscurity regarding his identity, I believe it speaks a lot in direction of him not being who he says he is.

As for the second line, I believe you are just repeating what I have said. But the problem is that while we have reasons to doubt, there is absolutely nothing to make us certain that his claims are true. And that is why theories of him being someone other than Rhaegar's son are believable.

[corbon]

If you carefully read my post, you will see that I haven't made any concrete and definite statements. I do believe he is Blackfyre progeny due to may other clues, but when it comes to obscurity regarding his identity, I believe it speaks a lot in direction of him not being who he says he is.

The point being made is that is a logical fallacy.

"We can't prove A = B, therefore probably A /= B". Ahh, no. It means only that we can't prove A=B.

Further, the point was made that its logical we cant prove A=B even if A is B. Its something that has been deliberately obscured (in story).

This also answers your contention that GRRM would make it obvious if he truly was Aegon. Huh? No, his identity has been deliberately obscured, and we only get data from our POVs, and GRRM deliberately keeps as much as he can mysterious while feeding all sorts of clues in all sorts of directions. The last thing I expect out of GRRM in this series is something he set up in book 1 being made blatantly obvious as soon as it reappears in book 5. We'll be drip feed little clues and hints that pull us in different directions until GRRM is ready to reveal (if he even does!)

[Mladen]

The point being made is that is a logical fallacy.

"We can't prove A = B, therefore probably A /= B". Ahh, no. It means only that we can't prove A=B.

Further, the point was made that its logical we cant prove A=B even if A is B. Its something that has been deliberately obscured (in story).

This also answers your contention that GRRM would make it obvious if he truly was Aegon. Huh? No, his identity has been deliberately obscured, and we only get data from our POVs, and GRRM deliberately keeps as much as he can mysterious while feeding all sorts of clues in all sorts of directions. The last thing I expect out of GRRM in this series is something he set up in book 1 being made blatantly obvious as soon as it reappears in book 5. We'll be drip feed little clues and hints that pull us in different directions until GRRM is ready to reveal (if he even does!)

It is logical fallacy, but I didn't make it.

I understand your point, as I perfectly understand the reasons behind GRRM's coyness over this issue. But our POV, unlike POVs of any character in the books is actually omniscient and omnipresent. We are those that are on every place, in every situation, therefore our POV in comparison to any individual POV is actually far more accurate. Therefore, if our omniscient POV is not certain about Aegon's identity then it is the most accurate or the closest to truth. Revealing or not, in this point, ambiguity over his identity, even though it can prove to be red herring (something I personally don't believe) is making a good case in other direction. Logically, I leave the possibility, but IMO, ambiguity is one of the reasons why those theories exist in the first place.

[corbon]

...ambiguity over his identity,

We can't prove A = B

is making a good case in other direction.

therefore probably A /= B

Sorry, I just don't see a real difference?

But our POV, unlike POVs of any character in the books is actually omniscient and omnipresent.

Err, no?

It is the sum of all the POVs (but only the parts they tell us), which makes it both stronger (its wider, over many characters, places and events) and less strong (it doesn't include anything that PoV characters know, but didn't tell us) than any individual POV.

[Mladen]

Sorry, I just don't see a real difference?

I think we are actually agreeing over this, only that we come from opposite directions...

Err, no?

It is the sum of all the POVs (but only the parts they tell us), which makes it both stronger (its wider, over many characters, places and events) and less strong (it doesn't include anything that PoV characters know, but didn't tell us) than any individual POV.

Well, you could argue that some POV characters know more than they have told us (most notably Ned and R+L=J). But also, we have to take our presence at any time seriously, but also to understand its constrictions, as you pointed out. We are not at the end of the road, most likely on 2/3 of the road, so logically, everything is open, and I accept that. It is only that regarding some theories, I feel like GRRM has "crossed Rubicon", especially about R+L=J, Dance of dragons 2.0, Aegon's legitimacy... I could be wrong, and by far my opinions are not facts, it is just how I think. I like how you think regarding possibilities and the fact you remain loyal to principles that "theories are just theories". I find it admirable, and I wish I could think that way in some cases. Alas, I don't :)

[Lord of 311]

Probably because life is complicated and even good, smart people make mistakes or occasionally do bad things. Rather than try to explain any of that, most parents want to protect their children's innocence as long as possible. For better or worse.

For what it's worth, I also like the idea of Ned having been unfaithful at least once...partly because I want Jon to actually be his son. As for fAegon, I wouldn't mind but the minute I read about him I has a strong gut feel he was an imposter. It's impossible for me to brush that conviction aside.

I thought it was pretty clear that YG was an imposter, which is exactly why I think he's real. I've learned from these books to go with the opposite of my gut feeling so until Martin says otherwise, I'm inclined to believe he's real.

Considering how much GRRM enjoys twist, I think this would be a big one. Especially since at least 75% of this forum does think he's an imposter/blackfyre.

[Free Northman]

The most solid proof is that if he was real it would make the central mystery of the series - which Martin has taken great pains to reveal bit by bit over all 5 books - utterly irrelevant.

Aegon therefore cannot be legitimate.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I have a few more doubts about this theory than some others....but I would still lay money on his being fake!

[corbon]

I think we are actually agreeing over this, only that we come from opposite directions...

? You wrote the bits quoted. They match, as best I can tell, with what you agreed was a logical fallacy.

I'm a bit confused here, but, well, never mind. The points have been made.

I like how you think regarding possibilities and the fact you remain loyal to principles that "theories are just theories". I find it admirable, and I wish I could think that way in some cases. Alas, I don't :)

I try, but I have to admit probable failings there, just as most others. They are just in different places.

The most solid proof is that if he was real it would make the central mystery of the series - which Martin has taken great pains to reveal bit by bit over all 5 books - utterly irrelevant.

Aegon therefore cannot be legitimate.

Would it?

Not everyone agrees.

[C0bR]

I am quite sure he is fake. No one is going to care about it in Westeros though when the good guy Aegon unites the South, thus becoming super popular messiah figure and later gets killed by the "evil" dragon queen.

[Belisarius09]

No way of knowing for sure until we see it in the text of the book. For now, it seems likely that he is fake, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of him being real just yet. Besides he exhibited the unique trait of douchebagery that only Targs seem to have when he threw a fit after losing to Tyrion in Cyvasse.

Real or Fake, I'd still prefer him to Dany.

[The Holy Goat]

I'm still on the fence regarding Aegon's identity. Could be real, could be fake. Neither side has brought overwhelming proof as far as I'm concerned.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Doesnt he have the taint?