Aegon and the mummer's dragon, a (hopefully) new argument

[Budj]

Anyone ever think about how bloodraven could be considered a mummer? I take it the term is used negatively towards people you dislike or that represent a different faith between hostile religions....he also disguised himself with magic in his backstory...if quaithe does have plans for dany then perhaps bloodravens plans for Jon (assuming he is half targ) are at odds. Therefore she should be wary of Jon if she meets him as he may be the figure of the or an opposing team. I don't think quaithes interest in danys conquest ends with the iron throne and if that's true she wouldn't want danys desire for family to get in the way. Crackpot maybe....but maybe new.

[Lummel]

...One other point of interest to me is that Dany explains a "mummer's dragon" as something that gives "the heroes something to fight." In Dance, Dany seems very aware and insecure over the fact that dragons are something heroes fight-- she recalls stories of dragonslayers being called great heroes in history, and she struggles with the fact that dragons are actually monsters. This is off topic here, but I find Dany's admission of "heroes" fighting dragons quite interesting- if she's got dragons, shouldn't the hero be fighting her?

This reminds me so much of the discussion we are having in another place about Daenerys' crisis of identity, who she thinks she is and what she thinks her purpose should be that I'm going to put in a completely and utterly shameless link to the thread "learning to lead: a Dany and Jon reread project".

[Ditocorto]

Firstly, your English is excellent for a non-native speaker. Kudos. Secondly, there is an error or two in your analysis.

Daenerys does not see a mummer's dragon. She sees:

A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd.

This is very, very important, because while a mummer's dragon may be interpreted as a true dragon belonging to a mummer (which personally, I think is wrong given how mummer's blank is repeatedly refers to a fake something or other, I'll address that below), something made of cloth can only be interpreted as something fake or hollow. It is then, that Daenerys describes to Mormont what a cloth dragon's purpose is:

“Perhaps,” she said reluctantly. “Yet the things I saw . . .”

“A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer’s dragon, you said.

What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?”

“A cloth dragon on poles,” Dany explained. “Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight.”

This is a really important point, because it shows both that Daenerys identifies draws a link between something that's not real, and the phrase "a mummer's dragon", something manufactured for theatre, but not actually real. The term is something Dany has heard before, and indicates a lack of genuinity. It's likely that Quaithe is simply parroting back an idiom that Daenerys knows, not giving her an innate truth about how a mummer actually owns the dragon.

Because I have a problem with assuming that "mummer's dragon" means "Varys' dragon". It doesn't really fit at all. Every other pseudonym Quaithe uses (Lion, Griffin, Dark Flame, Sun's Son) we know who they are striaght away, and the pseudonym unquestionably defines them.

But a mummer does not define Varys at all. We know Varys was apprenticed to a mummer's troupe, but he was sold to a wizard before he became an actual mummer. He know he knows tricks of mummery, but then Varys is accomplished in half a dozen other fields as well.

Quaithe more accurately could have said the Spider's Dragon, the Spymaster's dragon, the perfurmed seneschal's dragon or the Eunuch's dragon. Assuming that Quaithe is referring to Varys obliquely because of some field Varys once studied in, but less accurately describes him than any other title I gave, is not likely, since every other person she alludes to has such a clear relationship with their title. Calling Varys a mummer isn't clear, even by Quaithe's standards, and that's saying something.

Moreover, what about Illyrio? From what we see, Illyrio has as much, if not more, to do with the raising of Aegon than Varys did, and from what we know was never a mummer. Why isn't Aegon called the cheesemonger's dragon? It just doesn't seem to fit, given what we know about Aegon.

for some reasons I've seen this post only now, ok I get what you're saying but then my point is that, since a Blackfyre is still a dragon (black instead of red) IF mummer's dragon means "fake dragon" THEN Aegon is either not the mummer's dragon or not a Blackfyre, the two things can't go together

more on Quaithe, my idea is that she knows of the visions and she knows Dany used the word "mummer's dragon"to describe what she's seen, so when deecides to warn Dany she uses the same word to describe the one she thinks is the mummer's dragon of the vision. It's important to notice here that Quaithe doesn't have to be right since it's not a prophecy but a description of what she sees in the glass candle (at least that what I assumed happened, doesn't seem a prophecy to me)

[Ditocorto]

@OP: Let me state outright that I'm unconvinced by your argument, mainly due to the lack of alternatives for the mummer's dragon (who else should it be?) and the fact that Young Griff's story mirrors Perkin Warbeck quite closely.

That said, I think you make just about the best case for Young Griff not being the mummer's dragon that I've come across so far. Still, if Young Griff is a Blackfyre (something I'm quite convinced of by now), he'd be a dragon, as you stated. But at the same time, he'd be decieving everyone (and be decieved himself) about the color of that dragon, so there's still an enormous deception involved, giving the 'mummer's' characterisation additional importance: Young Griff is a Dragon, but not the kind of dragon he claims and believes to be.

yep my point is that if he's the mummer's dragon of the vision that has to change our interpretation of the vision, specifically he (the mummer's dragon) stops being a threat to dany and a lie to slain, or even a fake dragon like we thought. Moreover, even if he's revealed to be a Blackfyre (and I have no idea how that could happen) the logical reaction from Dany should be "ehi cool let's reunite the two branches of the family now that we both want to cooperate instead of killing each other" and not "OMG his grandgrandgrandfather wanted to kill my grandgrandgrandfather!", and even if she leans towards that I think both sides have good counselors (Connington and Tyrion) that are there for this specific reason: make the reunion possible. I'll go as far as to say that the whole point of the "Aegon is a Blackfyre" twist (assuming thats what is going to happen, and I'm not convinced it will) is to reunite the two branches of the Targaryen family and have the House not only go back to rule Westeros, but to become whole again.

[Ditocorto]

So why is Aegon's artificial depiction explicable by him being a puppet, and not as an actual dragon, when half of the characters above have their actions controlled by other parties too (some even by Varys/Illyrio). Saying Aegon's being controlled doesn't explain that, the answer is that showing Aegon as made of cloth speaks to his true identity.

but he's not a cloth dragon if he's a Blackfyre, and I think we can be pretty sure that he's either Targ or Blackfyre at this point right? the correct image in the vision would have been something like a black dragon painted red, unless the vision means "the dragon that the people cheer". Oh and I'll say that again: Aegon is in no way controlled by Illiryo and Varys, at best he would have a debt of gratitude with them but four or five chapters after he appears he's already changing plans and deciding for his own, so really I don't see him as a puppet

[Dragonfish]

I wanted to point this out this way, because it might be an instance where personal expectations interfere with the interpretation of a prophesy. A cloth dragon swaying on poles could be a theatrical dragon as Dany interprets it as, OR it could simply be dragon banners raised amidst a cheering crowd by a very "real" Targaryen (Blackfyre or otherwise). My point is that it is Dany who makes the leap to associate the dragon with "fake," not necessarily the vision itself.

I don't think this is accurate. A mummer's dragon is not a pictorial representation of a dragon, it is a three-dimensional facsimile of a dragon. I don't see how Dany could confuse a banner with such a thing, especially since: 1) she has seen mummer's dragons before, and 2) the sigil that would appear on the banner would have been the Targaryen three-headed dragon, which would surely not have gone unnoticed by Dany.

[Ditocorto]

It is only much later in Dance that Quaithe refers to anything as a "mummer's dragon," notably after Dany has made up her mind that the cloth dragon on poles = "mummer's dragon," and Quaithe merely regurgitating this in terms Dany believes.

I wanted to point this out this way, because it might be an instance where personal expectations interfere with the interpretation of a prophesy. A cloth dragon swaying on poles could be a theatrical dragon as Dany interprets it as, OR it could simply be dragon banners raised amidst a cheering crowd by a very "real" Targaryen (Blackfyre or otherwise). My point is that it is Dany who makes the leap to associate the dragon with "fake," not necessarily the vision itself.

One other point of interest to me is that Dany explains a "mummer's dragon" as something that gives "the heroes something to fight." In Dance, Dany seems very aware and insecure over the fact that dragons are something heroes fight-- she recalls stories of dragonslayers being called great heroes in history, and she struggles with the fact that dragons are actually monsters. This is off topic here, but I find Dany's admission of "heroes" fighting dragons quite interesting- if she's got dragons, shouldn't the hero be fighting her?

That's why I think Quaithe's mention of the mummer's dragon coming to mereen doesn't have to be a piece of evidence for anyone being the mummer's dragon, she's obviously using Dany's words to warn her of someone she (Quaithe) thinks is the mummer's dragon, and if all the others are pretty straighforward and easy to spot the mummer's dragon is the only one noone at this point can now who is, and it's basically up to anyone guesses. Quatihe thinks he (whoever she's referring to) is the mummer's dragon, but is she right? I don't think she's referring to Aegon because I don't think she knows of Varys' and Illyrio's plot, and the only thing she sees is Connington coming to Dany with Tyrion (and probably thinks "two exiled guys that try to jump on Dany's boat"), but she sees someone else coming to Mereen that makes her think of the vision (Brown Ben Plumm that pretends to have dragon blood? the Mage that she thinks is only pretending to be a Targ supporter? - she would have reasons to suspect the measters I think) and warns Dany in that way because she thinks she "cracked the code". But Quaithe is not infallible...

[Lady Storm]

but he's not a cloth dragon if he's a Blackfyre, and I think we can be pretty sure that he's either Targ or Blackfyre at this point right? the correct image in the vision would have been something like a black dragon painted red, unless the vision means "the dragon that the people cheer". Oh and I'll say that again: Aegon is in no way controlled by Illiryo and Varys, at best he would have a debt of gratitude with them but four or five chapters after he appears he's already changing plans and deciding for his own, so really I don't see him as a puppet

Or a Stark-Dayne :laugh:

But I'd put the biggest emphasis on the meaning for the term "mummer's dragon" that Dany gives to us: something for the hero to play with.

And in that context, even if he is the mummer's dragon, it's not really relevant is Aegon a fake Targ or not, but it also leaves us without most of the basis to claim that he's not a Targ.

[Ditocorto]

hmm I won't take Dany as a good interpreter of the visions, in that case the crowd is cheering the cloth dragon, how can it be the enemy in that specific play? remember that in the only puppet play we hear of in the books the dragon kills lions and wolves and go back to rule and people cheered it

[Lady Storm]

If I recall correctly, the people are cheering, but it's not said that they're cheering for the dragon.

And we have a mummer's play in D&E where the dragon is slain, causing Aerion to flip out.

[butterbumps!]

I don't think this is accurate. A mummer's dragon is not a pictorial representation of a dragon, it is a three-dimensional facsimile of a dragon. I don't see how Dany could confuse a banner with such a thing, especially since: 1) she has seen mummer's dragons before, and 2) the sigil that would appear on the banner would have been the Targaryen three-headed dragon, which would surely not have gone unnoticed by Dany.

This is purely a question: Would it be unheard of for a facsimile of a dragon to be raised? Is this cloth dragon she sees actually 3-d? We don't really have any description other than that it is a cloth dragon on poles. She's seen mummer's dragons, but she hasn't seen Westerosi style banners. Is it possible that she wouldn't realize the difference, and her mind rationalizes it as a "mummer's dragon"? Since this is a vision and she isn't spoonfed everything, is it possible that the vision may not have been so specific that the 3-headed dragon would be used, but a dragon? I don't know myself, I'm just saying that I question this a bit given that we're relying on her POV and the detail and what the images actually show.

Just a side note to the discussion. We, the readers, are the ones using "mummer" and "fake" interchangeably. Really, mummery is about "masking" something, not that it must be fake. Mummery is a presentation of something-- a "representation"-- which does not essentially need to be "fake." So, I think instead of "fake" we should be thinking of "mummer's dragon" as "disguised dragon." If Aegon is a Blackfyre posing as a Targaryen, then he is a "disguised" dragon, so I think "mummer's dragon" and "Aegon Blackfyre" can still work even if the terminology is Dany's misunderstanding.

[Bushido]

Actually,a mummer's dragon ~ false dragon is very fitting since anyone that isn't a Targaryen can be rightfully called false. Targs are dragons.

[Dragonfish]

This is purely a question: Would it be unheard of for a facsimile of a dragon to be raised?

You mean in a Westerosi battle? I've certainly never heard of it.

Is this cloth dragon she sees actually 3-d? We don't really have any description other than that it is a cloth dragon on poles.

It don't see how it could be anything but 3D. "Cloth dragon" means that it's a dragon made of cloth. I would never use the term "cloth dragon" to refer a dragon painted onto cloth, anymore than I would call a dragon painted onto a regular piece of canvas a "canvas dragon." The term itself implies that it's 3D.

She's seen mummer's dragons, but she hasn't seen Westerosi style banners. Is it possible that she wouldn't realize the difference, and her mind rationalizes it as a "mummer's dragon"?

Don't know, but I'm sure Dany would at least recognize her own family's sigil.

[butterbumps!]

Ok, so this had me curious enough to look at the good old OED.

First definition for mummer: "A person who mutters or murmurs." I didn't realize that definition, but now looking at this, this speaks precisely to Varys even beyond his alleged "mummer's days."

Other definitions: "theatrical," "mime (original)"

You mean in a Westerosi battle? I've certainly never heard of it.

It don't see how it could be anything but 3D. "Cloth dragon" means that it's a dragon made of cloth. I would never use the term "cloth dragon" to refer a dragon painted onto cloth, anymore than I would call a dragon painted onto a regular piece of canvas a "canvas dragon." The term itself implies that it's 3D.

Don't know, but I'm sure Dany would at least recognize her own family's sigil.

But, what if you'd never seen a traditional banner before? The first few times I'd read Clash I'd assumed something 3D too, but I do think it's possible that someone who's never seen a banner might rationalize it to something more familiar. I agree that if it was in fact a banner it would stand to reason that it ought to be a 3 headed dragon, but along that same line of logic I'd like to know why she wouldn't make note of the dragon's color either way (whether it's 3d or 2d). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're given very little to picture exactly what she saw, and I just wanted to look at it for a moment without too much expectation on my part.

But either way I do think Aegon is the one implicated in the vision as a "dragon," that he's a Blackfyre being set up by Varys (who I suspect may not actually have a Targ or Blackfyre restoration as an endgame), and as it pertains, I don't read "mummer" = "fake."

[Maxpey]

Actually,a mummer's dragon ~ false dragon is very fitting since anyone that isn't a Targaryen can be rightfully called false. Targs are dragons.

Interestingly enough, not all Targaryens are dragons. Viserys thought he was a dragon, but as Dany thought after he died "he was no dragon."

[Faint]

but he's not a cloth dragon if he's a Blackfyre, and I think we can be pretty sure that he's either Targ or Blackfyre at this point right?

I wonder about that assumption. I think it is fair to say that someone associated with him is a Blackfyre, Varys being the most likely suspect, but I don't think Aegon necessarily has to be a Blackfyre himself. Not that it isn't a possibility, and perhaps a strong one, but by no means is it assured. Moqorro did talk about "false dragons" being about.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

It may be worth noting that the sigil of the Golden Company is a pole with Golden skulls on top. It's tradition that the leaders of the Golden Company upon death have their skulls dipped in gold and added to the pole. Upon reading the description of the paper dragon atop a pole it occurred to me that it could simply mean a dragon at the front of the golden company, as Young Griff now is. Whether or not the paper dragon is making a claim about the validity of the dragon or rather the fact that the whole thing is a show, I'm not so sure. However, consider that the first book is called a game of thrones. All the high lords and monarchs are in effect actors in a perverse play that the peasants are forced to watch.

[Bushido]

Interestingly enough, not all Targaryens are dragons. Viserys thought he was a dragon, but as Dany thought after he died "he was no dragon."

Dany and her we-are-fire notions... Sure he was

[Jolene Brown]

Whether Aegon is a Blackfyre or not, if he is saying he is Aegon Targaryan and he is not, then he is a fraud - no one is going to care that he's actually a Blackfyre and thta Blackfyres are genetically linked to the Targaryans. His claims is based on the idea that he is Aegon.

Again and again and again in the books, mummer is used as an adjective to refer to something fake by tons of different characters. A mummer's farce, a mummer's show, mummer's tears, mummer's fart, mummer's empty smile, mummer's chance (i.e. no chance), mummer's show, mummer's mole (on Arya, a fake mole, something that does not fool cats), a mummer's ploy. Notably, it is used several times in the context of Jeyne Poole, who is pretending to be Arya. The mummer's dragon is a fake dragon. In some ways, the most solid evidence that "Aegon" is a fake is the absence at this late date of any alternative fake dragon. Not to mention that he shows up in the same book as all the other parts of that element of the prophecy - the sun's sun and so forth.

[Despot]

The only person that is mentioned by his name at the visions in the House of Undying - is Aegon. I don't know if Young Griff is really Aegon or

not, but I'm sure that Aegon - Young Griff or someone else - will have a significant role to play in a future events.

And, I'm also not convinced that Young Griff is "mummer's dragon" , but you already said enough on that matter, so I don't have anything

interesting to add :)