The Mummer's Dragon...Dany Is The First To Say It, Not Quaithe

[jpreis]

I don't have the answers because I am not George R R Martin, and until the time he tells us on page all we can do is come up with theories.

You don't have to be George R.R. Martin to distinguish between a plausible and an implausible explanation. The notion that Aegon is "fake" is not a theory. It's a premise that readers who suspect it's true begin with, then attempt to defend with farfetched, half-baked notions about the story.

In the Epilogue to Book 5, the author established that Varys told the dying Kevan Lannister that Aegon lives. I can't wait to read the author's explanation of Varys's motive for lying to a dying man.

The reason you don't see any evidence is because you flat out deny it or just ignore it.

The reason I don't see any evidence that Aegon is "fake" is because there isn't any.

Contradicting the premise that Aegon is "fake" with logical arguments based on textual evidence is not "denial."

Denial is refusing to admit that Varys had no plausible motive to lie to a dying man. Ergo, Aegon must be authentic. QED.

I'm curious what you have to say about the fact that the cloth dragon on poles, whether a mummer's dragon or not, is in the section in the HotU for lies that Dany must slay.

The mere fact that a phantom voice echoes the words "...mother of dragons, slayer of lies..." in the midst of a long paragraph that refers to many things does not imply that all those things are "lies that Dany must slay." Morevoer, slaying a lie is not the same as slaying a person.

The same paragraph begins with a vision of Viserys, Dany's unborn son (?), and her brother Rhaegar, followed by a voice echoing the phrase "...mother of dragons, daughter of death..." By your logic, the juxtaposition of that phrase implies that Dany must kill Viserys, her unborn son and her brother Rhaeghar. Does it mean that Viserys and Rhaegar are lies that must be slain?

The same paragraph mentions that "A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly." This refers Lord Hoster Tully, in failing health at the time of the vision, but not dead until the next book (book 3). By your logic, Hoster is either a lie or a person that Dany must slay. But Hoster is already dead by the end of Book 5, when Dany is still in Slaver's Bay. So how did she slay Hoster? Oh, I suppose that will be revealed in Book 6 or 7.

I very much agree with you that the cloth dragon represents Aegon and that the people support him, but (1) it is not a real dragon and (2) it is the middle prophecy of three in the "slayer of lies" section. THIS is evidence. Refute but don't reject it.

You misunderstood. I didn't say the cloth dragon represents Aegon. I said it's being swayed amidst a cheering crowd to demonstrate their SUPPORT for Prince Aegon.

As Dany explained to Jorah, a "mummer's dragon" is a cloth dragon on poles. A cloth dragon on poles is not a person. When Quaithe uses Dany's term "mummer's dragon", the term literally refers to the cloth dragon from the HotU vision, and metaphorically to the SUPPORT demonstrated by the cheering crowd in the HotU vision.

Again, a technicality. She didn't say it on page, but Jorah said she does.

No, This is an salient point, not a mere technicality. The term "mummer's dragon" does not appear in the text until Jorah says to Dany, "A mummer’s dragon, you said. What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?” The text does not disclose the conversation in which she previously mentioned a mummer's dragon. She answers Jorah by explaining that a mummer's dragon is a cloth dragon on poles. But she does not say that the cloth dragon in the vision is a mummer's dragon. The most you can infer is that in the undisclosed conversation, she told him that the cloth dragon in a vision REMINDED her of mummer's dragon. However, such a cloth dragon might also be used by a cheering crowd to demonstrate their support, which would explain why the cloth dragon in the vision swayed admist a cheering crowd.

If you weren't married to the premise that Aegon is "fake", you might grasp the logic of my explanation.

Again, this really doesn't matter. The main reason people interpret this scene to mean Aegon is fake is not because of the term "mummer" but because of the fact that it is a lie she must slay. You are ignoring that most important aspect and getting caught up on the term mummer and where the cloth dragon should be located, but those are technicalities beyond the real important point.

Because of the "fact that it is a lie that Dany must slay"? That is not a fact. That is merely a conclusion they draw from the HotU paragraph in which with a voice echoes the words "...mother of dragons, slayer of lies..." Nowhere in the text does it state that "it is a lie that Dany must slay."

The same people that draw that childish conclusion also reason that the mere presence of the word "grey" in the vision "a corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly" is a clue that vision must refer to Jon Connington, because the word "greyscale" has "grey" in it, or to a Greyjoy, because that name has "Grey" in it.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I’ve posted this as a comment in the topic about Aegon being the real deal (or not), but it hasn’t gotten too many responses (thanks for your thoughts Apple Martini!), and I think it’s an important clue that we need to consider in our numerous debates of the mystery of Aegon/Young Griff.

When people are debating whether or not Aegon is “the real deal,” I see that Aegon being the mummer’s dragon is often brought up as a point of argument against him.

Two main pieces of evidence are:

1. Dany’s vision in the House of the Undying Ones:

A Clash of Kings Page 706 (Dany Chapter)

“A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd…mother of dragons, slayer of lies”

2. Quaithe’s warning to Dany in Meereen:

“Soon comes the pale mare, and after her the others. Kraken and Dark flame, lion and griffin, the sun’s son and the mummer’s dragon. Trust none of them. Remember the Undying. Beware the perfumed seneschal.”

But I think I found another important clue that I didn't realize until my third reread of Clash that Dany is actually the first person to identify her House of the Undying Vision of a cloth dragon swaying on poles amidst a cheering crowd as a "mummer's dragon." Those are her exact words, and she is the one who took what she saw and connected it to the phrase "mummer's dragon," not Quaithe. (Previously, I thought Quaithe said that first in Meereen.)

A Clash of Kings Page 875 (Dany Chapter)

Jorah and Dany are discussing Dany’s visions and trying to figure out their meanings and Jorah says:

"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."

I think what Dany says there is so important. She gives the description of the mummer's dragon, and if we add Dany, Aegon and Varys into what she says, Varys (mummer) is using Aegon (mummer's dragon) to give the hero (Dany) something to fight. Does this foreshadow what will happen between them? A battle for the throne or a new Dance with Dragons?

I've asked this before and didn't get an answer, but do those of you who believe Aegon is the mummer's dragon also believe Dany is the hero?

In the vision sequence, she is called the slayer of lies, which further makes it seem like she is the hero in the scenario, but I know a lot of people do not think Dany will be the ultimate hero of the series.

Do you guys think this dialogue is as significant as I do and that it's important Dany first named the mummer’s dragon? Will she identify Aegon as the mummer’s dragon or want an alliance? Will he even want an alliance by the time she gets to Westeros or will he be sitting on the Iron Throne married to a vital political ally.

I really want to hear your thoughts!

My first thought, Quaithe = time traveling Dany!

[Lord Godric]

The mere fact that a phantom voice echoes the words "...mother of dragons, slayer of lies..." in the midst of a long paragraph that refers to many things does not imply that all those things are "lies that Dany must slay." Morevoer, slaying a lie is not the same as slaying a person.

The same paragraph begins with a vision of Viserys, Dany's unborn son (?), and her brother Rhaegar, followed by a voice echoing the phrase "...mother of dragons, daughter of death..." By your logic, the juxtaposition of that phrase implies that Dany must kill Viserys, her unborn son and her brother Rhaeghar. Does it mean that Viserys and Rhaegar are lies that must be slain?

I'm not going to waste my time, but there's a great article on this provided by Westeros. I advise you look it up and read it to understand, they explain it all and I'm not going to waste my time with someone who wants to ignore the text for crackpottery.

The same paragraph mentions that "A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly." This refers Lord Hoster Tully, in failing health at the time of the vision, but not dead until the next book (book 3). By your logic, Hoster is either a lie or a person that Dany must slay. But Hoster is already dead by the end of Book 5, when Dany is still in Slaver's Bay. So how did she slay Hoster? Oh, I suppose that will be revealed in Book 6 or 7.

Um...no that is not talking about Hoster Tully. That is in the "bride of fire" section along with her Silver referring to Drogo and a blue rose referring to Jon. Prophesying people Dany will/has married.

You misunderstood. I didn't say the cloth dragon represents Aegon. I said it's being swayed amidst a cheering crowd to demonstrate their SUPPORT for Prince Aegon.

As Dany explained to Jorah, a "mummer's dragon" is a cloth dragon on poles. A cloth dragon on poles is not a person. When Quaithe uses Dany's term "mummer's dragon", the term literally refers to the cloth dragon from the HotU vision, and metaphorically to the SUPPORT demonstrated by the cheering crowd in the HotU vision.

No, This is an salient point, not a mere technicality. The term "mummer's dragon" does not appear in the text until Jorah says to Dany, "A mummer’s dragon, you said. What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?” The text does not disclose the conversation in which she previously mentioned a mummer's dragon. She answers Jorah by explaining that a mummer's dragon is a cloth dragon on poles. But she does not say that the cloth dragon in the vision is a mummer's dragon. The most you can infer is that in the undisclosed conversation, she told him that the cloth dragon in a vision REMINDED her of mummer's dragon. However, such a cloth dragon might also be used by a cheering crowd to demonstrate their support, which would explain why the cloth dragon in the vision swayed admist a cheering crowd.

Again, this all ignores the slayer of lies context that this image is shown in. So, quit wasting my time.

Again, you're ignoring the slayer of lies section, so not wasting my breath.

If you weren't married to the premise that Aegon is "fake", you might grasp the logic of my explanation.

I'm not married to it. It is a conclusion I came to after looking at the facts, myself. You are the one that seems to have some weird vested interest in Aegon being a real Targaryen because of the phrase mummer.

Because of the "fact that it is a lie that Dany must slay"? That is not a fact. That is merely a conclusion they draw from the HotU paragraph in which with a voice echoes the words "...mother of dragons, slayer of lies..." Nowhere in the text does it state that "it is a lie that Dany must slay."

No, but it is clear that the HotU represented prophecies about Dany's life. Her brothers and son dying. Her marriage to Drogo and future marriages to others. And three lies that she'll slay.

You're hopelessly ignoring textual evidence and then claiming there isn't any, I'll let someone else bash their head against the wall from now on.

[jpreis]

You're contradicting yourself within the same post. How can one be false by claiming to be a dragon, and yet then Moqorro be figurative when talking about Aegon?

No, I never said anything of the sort.

I was merely pointing out that the dragons in Moqorro's vision of “Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark" need not all be people. I demonstrated this by identifying actual dragons that fit the descriptions of old, young, bright, dark and/or true. For an example of a false dragon, I observed that since no person is a real dragon, any person claiming to be a dragon is a false dragon. This demonstrates that there's no need to consider figurative dragons in order to interpret Moqorro's vision.

But for the benefit of those who insist that ANY of Moqorro's dragons might be people, I observed that even if Moqorro had a true vision (i.e., if he read his flames correctly) about a false (figurative) dragon, it cannot refer to Aegon, because Varys confirmed to the dying Kevan Lannister that Aegon lives and there's no plausible motive to lie to a dying man.

Dany has certainly called herself a dragon, claims she has blood of the dragon, and dragon blood, all claims she makes sincerely, so she's a false dragon?

That's not the point. The point is that it's possible to interpret Moqorro's vision of dragons without considering any figurative dragons. As I demonstrated, his false dragon can be any person, simply because no person can literally be a dragon.

She also clearly buys into the no burning claptrap, just like she buys into the no sickness one, too. But in this chapter she has both burns and is sick. And the burns she tries to turn her mind away from since admitting she can burn means the special vision she has of herself would be shattered.

When we read "He was no dragon, Dany thought curiously calm. Fire cannot kill a dragon", she was being ironic, not literal. I have no doubt that Dany realizes that fire can kill her.

And Varys never confirms this the boy he speaks of is Aegon Targaryen son of the late Crown Prince Rhaegar Targaryen. He never even says the word Targaryen, it is left for the reader and Kevan to come to that conclusion on their own. never mentioned any name

That's a childish argument, like saying Varys wasn't really lying if he had his fingers crossed.

If Varys had been speaking of a different Aegon than the one Kevan obviously had in mind, then Varys would have been lying to a dying man without any plausible motive.

Your argument also ignores the semantics of the relevant passage:

"Doubt, division, and mistrust will eat the very ground beneath your boy king, whilst Aegon raises his banner above Storm’s End and the lords of the realm gather round him.”

“Aegon?” For a moment he did not understand. Then he remembered. A babe swaddled in a crimson cloak, the cloth stained with his blood and brains. “Dead. He’s dead.”

“No.” The eunuch’s voice seemed deeper. “He is here..."

The "he" in "he is here" is Varys's answer to Kevan's "Aegon?" There can be no doubt in Varys's mind or the reader's which Aegon Kevan meant.

Your welcome to believe that readers are free to indulge whatever foolish interpretations might pop into their heads. But serious authors do not write to indulge such foolishness.

[lady m]

That's a childish argument, like saying Varys wasn't really lying if he had his fingers crossed.

If Varys had been speaking of a different Aegon than the one Kevan obviously had in mind, then Varys would have been lying to a dying man without any plausible motive.

Your argument also ignores the semantics of the relevant passage:

"Doubt, division, and mistrust will eat the very ground beneath your boy king, whilst Aegon raises his banner above Storm’s End and the lords of the realm gather round him.”

“Aegon?” For a moment he did not understand. Then he remembered. A babe swaddled in a crimson cloak, the cloth stained with his blood and brains. “Dead. He’s dead.”

“No.” The eunuch’s voice seemed deeper. “He is here..."

The "he" in "he is here" is Varys's answer to Kevan's "Aegon?" There can be no doubt in Varys's mind or the reader's which Aegon Kevan meant.

Your welcome to believe that readers are free to indulge whatever foolish interpretations might pop into their heads. But serious authors do not write to indulge such foolishness.

Yes, Kevan thinks of Aegon Targaryen, that what Varys intends him to think, but it's not what Varys says. Varys never outright lies, he's not Littlefinger, he tells partial partial truths which the reader or POV character then has to pick through to find the actual truth. We do not see into Varys mind, EVER, which is purposeful, then we would fully understand the games he plays. So we do not know who the parents are of the boy he calls Aegon, because Varys would never give that much information. As for why tell a lie to a dying man, Varys has never given a straight lie or truth the entire series, why start now. Because Aegon Targaryen son of Rhaegar can be dead, while Aegon son of whomever can be 'here' all without explicitly defining who he is.

The rest of it, well this too, you're working yourself into a pretzel trying to make your 'facts' into something logical, I'm not bothering. I will say, however, calling people names is rude and against board rules.

[jpreis]

Yes, Kevan thinks of Aegon Targaryen, that what Varys intends him to think, but it's not what Varys says. Varys never outright lies, he's not Littlefinger, he tells partial partial truths which the reader or POV character then has to pick through to find the actual truth. We do not see into Varys mind, EVER, which is purposeful, then we would fully understand the games he plays. So we do not know who the parents are of the boy he calls Aegon, because Varys would never give that much information. As for why tell a lie to a dying man, Varys has never given a straight lie or truth the entire series, why start now. Because Aegon Targaryen son of Rhaegar can be dead, while Aegon son of whomever can be 'here' all without explicitly defining who he is.

The rest of it, well this too, you're working yourself into a pretzel trying to make your 'facts' into something logical, I'm not bothering. I will say, however, calling people names is rude and against board rules.

Once again, nothing you've said provides a plausible motive for Varys to lie to a dying man.

The premise that you can't know for certain which Aegon Varys is talking about because he didn't provide Aegon's full name and pedigree is typical fan forum nonsense.

You're the one do all the twisting. And I still haven't called you any names. If you have nothing better to offer, please don't respond to my posts.

[armidil0]

You're the one do all the twisting. Your rationale for Varys to lie to a dying man is childish. And I still haven't called you any names. If you have nothing better to offer, please don't respond to my posts.

Maybe Varys has been lying to himself for what...around 20 years? I'm not saying he might actually believe it (though he may) but that the only way to make sure the truth about something like this from getting out is to keep saying the lie, and never saying the truth once. Not even to a dying man, because even Varys doesn't know everything, and you have to assume you are being listened in on at all times in his position.

[jpreis]

>I'm not going to waste my time, but there's a great article on this provided by Westeros. I advise you look it up and read it to understand, they explain it all and I'm not going to waste my time with someone who wants to ignore the text for crackpottery.

You're one ignoring the text and indulging in "crackpottery". You confuse the wayward conclusions you draw from textual evidence with evidence.

The "great article" at westeros.org/Citadel/Prophecies/Entry/1813 indulges childish notions such as the notion that presence of the word "grey" in "grey lips smiling sadly" refers Jon Connington's "greyscale" or the name "Greyjoy". I suppose that's where you get your ideas about Aegon.

Um...no that is not talking about Hoster Tully. That is in the "bride of fire" section along with her Silver referring to Drogo and a blue rose referring to Jon. Prophesying people Dany will/has married.

Um...yes. "A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly" does refer to Hoster Tully:

The keep was three-sided, like Riverrun itself, and Lord Hoster’s solar was triangular as well, with a stone balcony that jutted out to the east

like the prow of some great sandstone ship

. From there the lord of the castle could look down on his walls and battlements, and beyond, to where the waters met. They had moved her father’s bed out onto the balcony. “He likes to sit in the sun and watch the rivers,” Edmure explained.

The "sadly" refers to Hoster's regrets about his relationship with Lysa and his disappointment that she didn't come to see him before he died.

BTW, the "silver" in "her silver was trotting through the grass" refers not to Drogo, but to the horse he gave Dany.

Again, this all ignores the slayer of lies context that this image is shown in. So, quit wasting my time.

No, you simply don't grasp the fact that the cloth dragon in "a cloth dragon on poles swayed amidst a cheering crowd" is not a person. No person is being swayed amidst a cheering crowd. LoL

You're the one wasting my time, so stop complaining.

I'm not married to it. It is a conclusion I came to after looking at the facts, myself. You are the one that seems to have some weird vested interest in Aegon being a real Targaryen because of the phrase mummer.

Hey, you're the one trying to convince me that Aegon is "fake", yet you can't offer a plausible motive for Varys to lie to a dying man.

The only reason I've focused on the "mummer's dragon" issue is because THAT is what everyone else keeps rehashing to defend the premise that Aegon is "fake."

Everyone else but you. You're the first person I've encountered who uses a "slayer of lies" premise to defend the Aegon is "fake" premise.

But what ever argument or rationale is used to defend the latter premise, that premise is still contradicted in the Book 5 epilogue.

No, but it is clear that the HotU represented prophecies about Dany's life. Her brothers and son dying. Her marriage to Drogo and future marriages to others. And three lies that she'll slay.

According what Pyat Pree told Dany to expect in the HotU, some visions would relate to future events, some to past events, and others would be nonsense.

Not all the visions in HotU relate to Dany's life. E.g., the vision of the aftermath of red wedding had nothing to do with her life.

And a lie is not a person.

You're hopelessly ignoring textual evidence and then claiming there isn't any, I'll let someone else bash their head against the wall from now on.

I haven't ignored anything. I just reached different conclusions. The wayward conclusions you've drawn from your analysis of the text is not "textual evidence." It's evidence of poor reading comprehension.

[Lummel]

...According what Pyat Pree told Dany to expect in the HotU, some visions would relate to future events, some to past events, and others would be nonsense.

Not all the visions in HotU relate to Dany's life. E.g., the vision of the aftermath of red wedding had nothing to do with her life...

And a vision of Hoster Tully would be a nonsensical thing to show Daenerys. Something not relevant to her past, present or future and of no political significance even in Westeros. Not that Pree actually uses the term nonsense.

It is fine to believe that Aegon is really the son of Rhaegar, there are other believers on the forum, but why get so tied up in the mummer's dragon? You can't disprove doubt. If the feeling was universal that Aegon was legitimate and his case was watertight nobody would entertain any doubts.

But the basic story is dodgy. We are required to have faith in the belief of a man obsessed with his love for Prince Rhaegar and his need to do something for the man he loved and to trust Varys who is clearly not unbiased since he is an Aegon supporter. Varys is quite explicit in telling people that he uses information, what he says and what he does not say is a tool of his trade, along with being a mummer of course.

The view that Daenerys was mistaken and what she describes as a mummer's dragon was not a mummer's dragon, presumably because she doesn't understand, or has forgotten her own vision is not convincing.

[mormont]

[mod] Keep it polite, people. There is no need to be having a go at people just because you disagree with them on interpreting a text in a fantasy novel. [/mod]

[jpreis]

And a vision of Hoster Tully would be a nonsensical thing to show Daenerys. Something not relevant to her past, present or future and of no political significance even in Westeros. Not that Pree actually uses the term nonsense.

Pree said, "Within, you will see many things that disturb you. Visions of loveliness and visions of horror, wonders and terrors. Sights and sounds of days gone by and days to come and days that never were."

The vision of the feast of corpses was not part of Dany's past, present or future either.

It is fine to believe that Aegon is really the son of Rhaegar, there are other believers on the forum, but why get so tied up in the mummer's dragon? You can't disprove doubt. If the feeling was universal that Aegon was legitimate and his case was watertight nobody would entertain any doubts.

My williness to take the time to respond to other people's wayward notions about the mummer's dragon is not getting "tied up in the mummer's dragon". It's being generous with my time.

Nor am I trying to disprove doubt. I said that doubt is not evidence.

Most readers start with the PREMISE that Aegon is not really Prince Rhaeghar son, then try to explain away any textual evidence that contradicts the premise by inventing implausible conspiracy theories and implausible motives.

I was reading some of the westeros.org articles about the HotU visions. Now I understand where you're all getting your dogma about the visions. You even parrot the same formulas used in those articles.

But the basic story is dodgy. We are required to have faith in the belief of a man obsessed with his love for Prince Rhaegar and his need to do something for the man he loved and to trust Varys who is clearly not unbiased since he is an Aegon supporter. Varys is quite explicit in telling people that he uses information, what he says and what he does not say is a tool of his trade, along with being a mummer of course.

Correction: Varys is NOT a mummer. He hasn't been a mummer since his childhood days in Essos, before he was cut. There is no "once a mummer, always a mummer" rule, principle or law.

The only thing you are required to believe is that a character must have a plausible motive to lie to a dying man.

The view that Daenerys was mistaken and what she describes as a mummer's dragon was not a mummer's dragon, presumably because she doesn't understand, or has forgotten her own vision is not convincing.

The premise that a mummer's dragon refers to a person is unconvincing.

As Dany explained to Jorah, a mummer's dragon is a "cloth dragon on poles." A cloth dragon on poles is not a person.

=================

On a somewhat different topic, I found this passage that describes follies as "comic combats":

The queen had also wished to forbid the follies, comic combats where cripples, dwarfs, and crones had at one another with cleavers, torches, and hammers (the more inept the fighters, the funnier the folly, it was thought).

This supports my earlier statements that a mummer's folly in which the heroes fight a dragon represented by a prop consisting of cloth dragon swayed on poles is meant to be comic, not dramatic, and therefore, the expected reaction of the audience would be laughter, not cheering.

And here's a description of an actual folly, which takes place in a pit apart from the audience:

The battle was followed by the day’s first folly, a tilt between a pair of jousting dwarfs, presented by one of the Yunkish lords that Hizdahr had invited to the games. One rode a hound, the other a sow. Their wooden armor had been freshly painted, so one bore the stag of the usurper Robert Baratheon, the other the golden lion of House Lannister. That was for her sake, plainly. Their antics soon had Belwas snorting laughter, though Dany’s smile was faint and forced. When the dwarf in red tumbled from the saddle and began to chase his sow across the sands, whilst the dwarf on the dog galloped after him, whapping at his buttocks with a wooden sword, she said, “This is sweet and silly, but …”

[Lummel]

...Correction: Varys is NOT a mummer. He hasn't been a mummer since his childhood days in Essos, before he was cut. There is no "once a mummer, always a mummer" rule, principle or law...

I will intrude a little further on your generosity then.

Varys is a mummer. We see him in numerous disguises including a begging brother and a woman. He plays the part of Rugen frequently enough not to lose the job in the prison and as we learn in the epilogue he's been playing the part of faithful servant while working all along to make Aegon king.

I would be surprised if most readers start from the premise that Aegon is fake. The natural course of things surely is to read the books and tread in Tyrion's footsteps as he works out that Young Griff is Aegon. Doubt comes later I would have thought, but then I don't know most readers.

I don't think the cloth dragon has to be understood as a person in that first instance. It is a commentary on the claim. Raising the standard is a public declaration, that what is raised is a mummer's dragon suggests the claiment is a prop and the claim false, a pretence. In a broader sense that the entire attempt on the throne and future reign will be a mummer's folly. Alternatively in the light of the dragon dreams in The Hedge Knight and The Mystery Knight we can understand that this is person pretending to be a Targaryen.

In anycase you seem happy enough to believe that a vision of a figurehead can be an actual person in the shape of Hoster Tully so why draw the line between two inanimate objects.

What I see that Varys is hurting Kevan by telling him what he does. Varys chooses to talk to him, it wasn't obligatory, and letting him realise that all his life's work will be destroyed is going to be painful. From that I assume that what Varys wants to do is make him suffer before his end. Whether what Varys is telling Kevan is true or false isn't the main point - what is the impact of those words going to be on Kevan? He is being told that his life was in vain, Kevan is hardly going to be relived at this news.

[jpreis]

Varys is a mummer. We see him in numerous disguises including a begging brother and a woman. He plays the part of Rugen frequently enough not to lose the job in the prison and as we learn in the epilogue he's been playing the part of faithful servant while working all along to make Aegon king.

Wearing a disguise to conceal one’s identity does not make one a mummer.

I would be surprised if most readers start from the premise that Aegon is fake. The natural course of things surely is to read the books and tread in Tyrion's footsteps as he works out that Young Griff is Aegon. Doubt comes later I would have thought, but then I don't know most readers.

No doubt could remain after reading the conclusion of Book 5, in which Varys confirms to the dying Kevan Lannister that Aegon lives. Only a reader with the expectations of child could believe that Varys was referring to some Aegon other than one Kevan had in mind, or that Varys would have any plausible motive to lie to a dying man.

I don't think the cloth dragon has to be understood as a person in that first instance. It is a commentary on the claim. Raising the standard is a public declaration, that what is raised is a mummer's dragon suggests the claiment is a prop and the claim false, a pretence. In a broader sense that the entire attempt on the throne and future reign will be a mummer's folly. Alternatively in the light of the dragon dreams in The Hedge Knight and The Mystery Knight we can understand that this is person pretending to be a Targaryen.

The vision was “a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd.” The assumption that the cloth dragon is a person does not fit the vision. No person is on poles. No person is being swayed. The crowd is not cheering the cloth dragon. The cloth dragon need not be a “standard.” The cloth dragon is simply a cloth bearing the image of a dragon. A cloth dragon used by a cheering crowd to demonstrate their support for Aegon could also be used as a dragon prop in a mummer’s folly in which the heroes fight a dragon. Dany did not state that the cloth dragon in her vision had to be such a prop or that the event depicted in the vision was a mummer’s folly. The text does not disclose the details of her conversation with Mormont in which she used the term "mummer's dragon", but we could reasonably assume that the cloth dragon in the vision reminded her of a prop that could be used in the mummer's folly in which the heroes fight a dragon. Moreover, she made up the term "mummer's dragon." Otherwise, Mormont would not have needed to ask, "What is a mummer's dragon, pray?"

In anycase you seem happy enough to believe that a vision of a figurehead can be an actual person in the shape of Hoster Tully so why draw the line between two inanimate objects.

A “figurehead” is a person who holds de jure an important title or office yet de facto executes little actual power. Explain how the vision of "a corpse stands at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly,” is a vision of a figurehead. Who's the corpse? Why he stands at the prow of a ship? What ship is this? Why are his eyes bright? Don't tell me this must mean his eyes are blue, because the text makes several references to bright eyes that are not blue. Why is he smiling sadly?

If your explanation involves Dany's husbands and the juxtaposition of the words "bride of fire", then account for her 2nd husband, Hizdahr, and the juxtaposition of the words "daughter of death" with the deaths of Viserys, her unborn son, and Rhaegar.

What I see that Varys is hurting Kevan by telling him what he does. Varys chooses to talk to him, it wasn't obligatory, and letting him realise that all his life's work will be destroyed is going to be painful. From that I assume that what Varys wants to do is make him suffer before his end. Whether what Varys is telling Kevan is true or false isn't the main point - what is the impact of those words going to be on Kevan? He is being told that his life was in vain, Kevan is hardly going to be relived at this news.

There’s no foundation in the story for such a farfetched interpretation, but that’s the kind of interpretation you must resort to if you insist Aegon is “fake”

[jpreis]

No he didn't. Cersei and Jaime caused the realm to descend into war when they fucked each other. You can't blame Ned (who is a hero) for events that were set in motion by others. The Lannisters started the war when they invaded the Riverlands (first deployment of actual troops) and the Lannisters are the ones that are keeping it going by holding on to their fake claim. They are the ones to blame, not Ned.

Tywin Lannister attacked the Riverlands in retaliation for Catelyn Tully Stark abducting Tyrion Lannister, which she did because Littlefinger made her believe that the dagger used in the attempt to kill Bran belonged to Tyrion.

But it turns out that Joffrey supplied the dagger to euthanize the broken Bran.

Arguably, if Bran hadn't been climbing the castle walls, in disobedience of his mother's wishes, he would not have fallen and been broken, there would have been no attempted euthanasia, no dagger to connect to Tyrion, no abduction of Tyrion and no retaliatory attack on the Riverlands.

But there would STILL have been a war over the succession after King Robert's death. Arguably, even if Joffrey had been Robert's legitimate heir, Renly might still have contended for control of the Iron Throne after Robert's death.

[Lord Egeman]

“A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd…mother of dragons, slayer of lies.

Is it only me that thinks the "mother of dragons, slayer of lies" part to be the cheering of the mentioned crowd? That would make Daenerys the cloth dragon in the prophecy. Has she not ben used around by Ilyrio for a long time, married to Khal Drogo and been offered to go back to Pentos, only to be given to Aegon with her dragons?

[PatrickStormborn]

Is it only me that thinks the "mother of dragons, slayer of lies" part to be the cheering of the mentioned crowd? That would make Daenerys the cloth dragon in the prophecy. Has she not ben used around by Ilyrio for a long time, married to Khal Drogo and been offered to go back to Pentos, only to be given to Aegon with her dragons?

The answer to your question is in your post: Daenerys is not in any way controlled by a mummer. Illyrio and Varys (and Viserys) gave her to Khal Drogo, where Illyrio expected her to die; instead, she survived and hatched three dragons. Illyrio sent Barristan and Belwas to bring her to Pentos; instead, she turned into Slaver's Bay and started a war.

Everything Dany does goes against what Illyrio and Varys are planning. Therefore she cannot be the "mummer's dragon".

Also I'm not sure why a crowd would be chanting "slayer of lies" at Daenerys. I think it's clear that the visions are lies she must slay.

But there would STILL have been a war over the succession after King Robert's death. Arguably, even if Joffrey had been Robert's legitimate heir, Renly might still have contended for control of the Iron Throne after Robert's death.

Surely that's obvious? Renly didn't actually believe that Joffrey was a bastard; he was rebelling whilst believing that Joffrey was Robert's son.

[jpreis]

Is it only me that thinks the "mother of dragons, slayer of lies" part to be the cheering of the mentioned crowd? That would make Daenerys the cloth dragon in the prophecy. Has she not ben used around by Ilyrio for a long time, married to Khal Drogo and been offered to go back to Pentos, only to be given to Aegon with her dragons?

"A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd" is not a person. It's not a person being swayed on poles. The cloth dragon on poles is simply a banner bearing the image of a dragon, and swayed amidst a cheering crowd to demonstrate their support for, say, Prince Aegon, the young dragon of House Targaryen. Such a cloth dragon might also be used as a prop for a dragon in a mummer's folly in which the heroes fight a dragon. The proximity of the words "slayer of lies" does not imply that the "cloth dragon" or anyone associated with it is a lie to be slain. Similarly, the proximity of the words "daughter of death" to the "dying prince" does not imply that Daenerys killed or will kill him or the woman whose name he murmurs.

[jpreis]

The answer to your question is in your post: Daenerys is not in any way controlled by a mummer. Illyrio and Varys (and Viserys) gave her to Khal Drogo, where Illyrio expected her to die; instead, she survived and hatched three dragons. Illyrio sent Barristan and Belwas to bring her to Pentos; instead, she turned into Slaver's Bay and started a war.

"Mummer's dragon" does not mean "Varys's dragon." Varys hasn't been a mummer since the days when he was a young orphan apprenticed to a mummer's troupe in Essos. The young Varys ceased being a mummer when the master of the troupe sold him to the man who cut him. Afterwards, the young Varys became a thief, eventually, with the help of Illyrio, specializing in the theft of secrets. Word of his skills reached Westeros, and that is how he became master of whisperers.

Everything Dany does goes against what Illyrio and Varys are planning. Therefore she cannot be the "mummer's dragon".

The "mummer's dragon" is not a person and, as I explained, has nothing to do with Varys. A mummer's dragon is merely a cloth banner bearing the image of a dragon. Such a banner could be (1) used as a prop in a mummer's folly in which the heroes fight a dragon or (2) swayed amidst a cheering crowd to demonstrate their support.

Also I'm not sure why a crowd would be chanting "slayer of lies" at Daenerys. I think it's clear that the visions are lies she must slay.

It's not a crowd chanting to Daenerys. These are whispering voices in her head, "the ghost chorus inside her skull with never a lip moving, never a breath stirring..." These are presumably voices of the Undying in the House of the Undying. And the conclusion that are all her visions are lies she must slay is unwarranted, because the same logic leads to the ridiculous conclusion that she killed her brother Rhaegar.

Surely that's obvious? Renly didn't actually believe that Joffrey was a bastard; he was rebelling whilst believing that Joffrey was Robert's son.

Whether Renly believed Joffrey was Robert's trueborn son is irrelevant. Renly had no more hereditary claim to the Iron Throne than Robert had had when he seized it, and Renly meant to do the same. Renly was asserting his popular claim to the Iron Throne: "Small wonder the lords gather around him with such fervor...he is Robert come again." And he had the support of Highgarden, which is why he married Margaery Tyrell. The powerful Tyrells wanted one of their own to be queen. "Their marriage was the mortar that held the great southron alliance together."