443 replies to this topic

[BranRaven]

You've also got to ask yourself, would GRRM really give us two Eggs? He want into great detail to flush out Aegon V in the Dunk and Egg stories, a boy who would one day be king raised with a Hedge Knight so he could learn humility and have a greater perspective on life and not end up like his spoiled brothers.

Would GRRM really give us yet another Aegon, a boy who would be king riased well and taught that being king is duty...blah blah everything Varys said to dying Kevan?

Varys and Illyrio strike me as two people who know history, it wouldn't surprise me if they recreated this 'Aegon' in the exact same way to emulate that story.

[Grizzly Mormont]

liam stark, on 12 September 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I think jon c will die before aegon makes it anywhere. But I think aegon is gunna be built up to the perfect prince/king. But then we'll learn the truth of his birth and dany will burn the cloth dragon. Slayer of lies. Its a strong possibility. The whole varys serving the realm is too good to be true. Saving the baby before he could be dashed against the wall.  I thought aerys keeping elia at court while he sent his family to dragonstone was kind of the fatal play that killed her and her children/heirs. So saving the crown prince is something too good to be true hence a mummer's dragon. Acting as a dragon looks feels and seems to be the dragon but in reality he is not the dragon but a deception used to heal the realm but might be an epic failure. He would need dany's approval to truly win. And I don't think she would ever approve I think her dragon's will hate aegon.  jon c gives the most insight for him to be real. But jon c probably knows deep down he isn't. He doenst want to believe that though. Jon c is the perfect ploy since he failed raeghar and the realm and was exiled. He so badly wants to make up for it. That a chance to place raeghar's son on the iron throne is  a good chance to make up for his pasts mistakes. I like aegon. But when have we ever saw varys not playing with mummery. That's his character full of mummer's deceptions whither it was honor with ned, a friendship with tyrion, or a dragon with jon c...I think this is his greatest mummer's trick of all time. And he's quite proud to have designed it. I don't want to make assumptions though so I just think that would be an interesting play out. A lot of clues with what we've had of varys and illyrio, this would clear up all those inconsistencies. A cloth dragon fits aegon quite well. But who really knows george might shock me again and make aegon who he says he is...

There. You're the first person to actually analyze and explain why you think Aegon is fake. I happen to agree with what youve said.

heiry and firefish: what are you so upset about? you haven't explained anything. you simply reference a line in the book and draw a conclusion without bridging the gap between the reference and your conclusion. I'm just wondering. chill with all the silly and illogical stuff.  

I don't know what a baseline arbitrary game is. I never assumed varys is true and tywin false. verbal prestidigitation is not a thing, quit using your thesaurus button. and I dont have a counter argument, because there wasnt an argument to begin with. you guys sound like I'm attacking your intelligent design arguments and you're scrambling to say any thing you can find to make sense. I'm not attacking anything. just asking you to explain.

[Dragonfish]

Grizzly Mormont, on 12 September 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

heiry and firefish: what are you so upset about? you haven't explained anything. you simply reference a line in the book and draw a conclusion without bridging the gap between the reference and your conclusion. I'm just wondering. chill with all the silly and illogical stuff.

Except that I specifically have linked the line to my conclusion. I have explained this to you twice now. You attempted to respond by stating that the two dominant interpretations of the "mummer's dragon" line are mutually exclusive. I pointed out that they are not, and you have not responded to that argument. So from my perspective, all you've been doing is ignoring my arguments and continuing to insist there is "no evidence" when in fact there is. Can you understand why that might be a little irritating?

Quote

I don't know what a baseline arbitrary game is. I never assumed varys is true and tywin false. verbal prestidigitation is not a thing, quit using your thesaurus button. and I dont have a counter argument, because there wasnt an argument to begin with. you guys sound like I'm attacking your intelligent design arguments and you're scrambling to say any thing you can find to make sense. I'm not attacking anything. just asking you to explain.

You do have an argument. When you claim that there is no evidence for the theory, that is an argument. We, in turn, have attempted to explain all we can. It's not our fault if you don't want to listen.

Edited by Dragonfish, 12 September 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Lonin]

As stated before , I believe that Aegon might be legit.  Part of my concern is the "lateness" of Aegon's arrival on the scene, hard to believe a real Targaryen would appear so late -  I have to remind myself that GRRM had planned for the story to be a trilogy, and maybe Aegon was not originally going to be a late arrival.

The "Mummer's Dragon" can be interpreted to indicate:
  - a fake dragon (Targaryen) will appear on the scene
  - points to Varys, a mummer, being behind the dragon, Aegon - to me, this hints at Aegon being legit.


If you interpret "Mummur's Dragon" to point to a fake Targaryen, there are not a lot of candidates - Dany, Jon, and Aegon.

In response to OP question: I think much of the Aegon is fake comes from people (like myself-99% sure) who believe that R + L = J, and that J is legitimate.  If Aegon is legit, than Jon is fake, and I think Jon is real.   I am holding open the option that both Jon and Aegon are real, and that "mummer's dragon" refers to Varys and Aegon.

[Harry the Heir]

Claiming that you're not attacking anything in the same paragraph that you compare opposing arguments to "intelligent design" is pretty classic.

[little & less]

I don't think I really care if he's real or not.  By the end of DwD, he's more likable than Dany, imo.

Let's say that he's fake, but he believes he's a real Targ.  Is Dany just going to kill him when/if they meet?  "Slayer of lies" and all that.

Unless it's revealed that Aegon is in on some diabolical scheme to be a tyrant, I'll always prefer him over Dany, real or not.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

I think its corny if aegon turns out to be real. It seems too good in a story where hardly anything good happens. Before they brought aegon back I thought the cloth dragon would be melisandre's trick raising the stone dragon. Making people believe she raised a dragon. But after aegon came out all bright and shiny. I thought I found my cloth dragon. Then tyrion thought. His eyes looked blue. A common trait of people with silver
hair from lys. Although his hair was blue then it still Furthered my opinions on the deception. I think jon c heavy role with wanting to make up for his past mistakes is a driving reason for aegon to be fake.

Edited by liam stark, 12 September 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Maester Tormund]

BranRaven, on 12 September 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

You've also got to ask yourself, would GRRM really give us two Eggs? He want into great detail to flush out Aegon V in the Dunk and Egg stories, a boy who would one day be king raised with a Hedge Knight so he could learn humility and have a greater perspective on life and not end up like his spoiled brothers.

Would GRRM really give us yet another Aegon, a boy who would be king riased well and taught that being king is duty...blah blah everything Varys said to dying Kevan?

Varys and Illyrio strike me as two people who know history, it wouldn't surprise me if they recreated this 'Aegon' in the exact same way to emulate that story.

Most people, as far as I know, don't know about Egg and his wonderings with Dunk.  It was very important to keep it quiet.

[Maester Tormund]

Dragonfish, on 12 September 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Except that I specifically have linked the line to my conclusion. I have explained this to you twice now. You attempted to respond by stating that the two dominant interpretations of the "mummer's dragon" line are mutually exclusive. I pointed out that they are not, and you have not responded to that argument. So from my perspective, all you've been doing is ignoring my arguments and continuing to insist there is "no evidence" when in fact there is. Can you understand why that might be a little irritating?

I can completely see how you link the two ideas, that not only Aegon is fake but that he is also being manipulated by the mummer (Varys).  However that doesn't mean the two ideas have to be linked which is what you seem to be saying.  If I'm misinterpreting I apologize but it seems only that you're insisting that the Aegon argument just supports the Faegon argument.

[Dragonfish]

The Lost Baratheon, on 12 September 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I can completely see how you link the two ideas, that not only Aegon is fake but that he is also being manipulated by the mummer (Varys).  However that doesn't mean the two ideas have to be linked which is what you seem to be saying.  If I'm misinterpreting I apologize but it seems only that you're insisting that the Aegon argument just supports the Faegon argument.

All I'm saying is that the mummer's dragon vision constitutes evidence that Aegon is fake, not proof. I am simply contesting Grizzly Mormont's argument that there is no evidence for the theory.

[Maester Tormund]

Dragonfish, on 12 September 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

All I'm saying is that the mummer's dragon vision constitutes evidence that Aegon is fake, not proof. I am simply contesting Grizzly Mormont's argument that there is no evidence for the theory.

Ohhhh ok, I understand it better now.  There's obviously some evidence for both sides, otherwise there wouldn't even be a discussion of whether or not he was real.

[Black Wolf Smith]

BranRaven, on 12 September 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

You've also got to ask yourself, would GRRM really give us two Eggs? He want into great detail to flush out Aegon V in the Dunk and Egg stories, a boy who would one day be king raised with a Hedge Knight so he could learn humility and have a greater perspective on life and not end up like his spoiled brothers.

Would GRRM really give us yet another Aegon, a boy who would be king riased well and taught that being king is duty...blah blah everything Varys said to dying Kevan?

Varys and Illyrio strike me as two people who know history, it wouldn't surprise me if they recreated this 'Aegon' in the exact same way to emulate that story.

Well GRRM are likes to have Parrallel or Mirror story lines so yes I think he would. The endings usually constrasting or conflicting with each other....

[fyrfly]

but why did Elia fight like a tigress for a child that was not hers? but than Elia is have said to love little children she even thought baby tyrion was cute maybe out of guilt that some other child would die in place of hers and why wouldn't she ask the same for Rhaenys, maybe Varys said he would get her out too, the girl was not with her, and at the sack of kings landing, we know where jaime was, we know where pycelle was, but we dont know where varys was, I think he might be real, and illyrio's wife had blue eyes, as seen from the miniature, if she had purple eyes the artist would have taken great care to make her eyes purple

[Dragonfish]

fyrfly, on 21 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I think he might be real, and illyrio's wife had blue eyes, as seen from the miniature, if she had purple eyes the artist would have taken great care to make her eyes purple

The fact that her eyes were blue doesn't mean she couldn't be carrying the genes for purple eyes. In other words, her eye color doesn't rule her out as a possible mother for Young Griff.

Edited by Dragonfish, 21 September 2012 - 02:49 AM.

[A Son of Ice and Fire]

Well first of all hello everyone... new here and found this topic really interesting...

I see that most people who think Aegon is fake is taking that "mummer's dragon" expression, not sure if I'm wrong but the term "mummer" didn't make me think sth is fake. The expressions used as "mummer's farce" etc. are related to be fake. What I understood from the books is mummer is sth like an actor or clown, so the mummer's farce is considered to be a theater play. As mummer's dragon I think it may mean a dragon (Targ in this case) controlled or accompanied by a Mummer, which may be an actor, an imposter or simply someone who is disguised. So the dragon was kept by a certain JonC, who accepted to be seem and die as a thief and then continued his life as Griff. This doesn't make Aegon false, all around him are mummers in someway, septa included... so from my point of view, the dragon is real, but controlled or accompanied by a mummer or more...

Edited by A Son of Ice and Fire, 21 September 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[Ser Loudmouth]

Not everyone thinks that Aegon is fake. I personally don't.
This being said, the question of Aegon's legitimacy must definitely be the biggest talking point to come out of the 5-th book. I have allready debated it on several threads, and I don't know if I have the energy or patience to repeat all my old arguments, but it seems that some people just can't get enough of this discussion.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

I think mummer would be varys rather than jon con

[Dragonfish]

A Son of Ice and Fire, on 21 September 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Well first of all hello everyone... new here and found this topic really interesting...

I see that most people who think Aegon is fake is taking that "mummer's dragon" expression, not sure if I'm wrong but the term "mummer" didn't make me think sth is fake. The expressions used as "mummer's farce" etc. are related to be fake. What I understood from the books is mummer is sth like an actor or clown, so the mummer's farce is considered to be a theater play. As mummer's dragon I think it may mean a dragon (Targ in this case) controlled or accompanied by a Mummer, which may be an actor, an imposter or simply someone who is disguised. So the dragon was kept by a certain JonC, who accepted to be seem and die as a thief and then continued his life as Griff. This doesn't make Aegon false, all around him are mummers in someway, septa included... so from my point of view, the dragon is real, but controlled or accompanied by a mummer or more...

This misses a few key points:

1) The first time we encountered the mummer's dragon was in the HotU, where Dany saw a vision of a fake dragon. It's only later that we learn that this fake dragon is referred to as a mummer's dragon.
2) Moreover, the vision of the mummer's dragon is associated with the line "slayer of lies," which implies that there is something fraudulent about the whole thing.
3) Your assertion that the term "mummer's" isn't necessarily associated with fakeness is false. Dany specifically uses the term "mummer's tears" to refer to another characters insincere tears. So it makes sense to suppose that the "mummer's dragon" is a fake dragon, in one way or another.

[A Son of Ice and Fire]

Well if any word used along with "mummer" means it is fake, then I fear that you think that Bloody Mummers weren't bloody.Mummer's tears are actually tears, not someone places sea water in their eyes and shed them...  it is just used to underline the insincerity of the person, so, linguistically speaking "mummer=fake" is at least misconception. We do not know if Aegon is real or fake, but I believe that he is real and I do not expect much from him even if he is... he is being used by mummers, from the begining. This does't make him fake, just a pawn...

[Dragonfish]

A Son of Ice and Fire, on 21 September 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well if any word used along with "mummer" means it is fake, then I fear that you think that Bloody Mummers weren't bloody.

No, this is illogical. The point I'm making is that the word "mummer's" is a modifier that indicates fakeness or fraudulence of some kind. The example you bring up is not comparable, because "mummers" is not the modifier in that case (the word "bloody" is the modifier).

Quote

Mummer's tears are actually tears, not someone places sea water in their eyes and shed them...

Actually, it's not clear if Xaro is truly weeping in the scene. Dany simply describes him as "weeping mummer's tears", which clearly means he is projecting an air of sadness that is insincere, regardless of whether or not there are any actual, physical tears.

Quote

it is just used to underline the insincerity of the person, so, linguistically speaking "mummer=fake" is at least misconception.

This is all just semantics. The point is that the term "mummer's" carries an implication of fakeness or deceit.