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

[The Chequered Raven]

Yes, and your last line really captures the heart of it.

To virtually every reader who has suffered through the trials and tribulations of the main characters from book 1, the sudden arrival of the supposed Aegon to lord it over them all is an insult, a slap in the face.

We WANT him to die, because if he was the real heir, then Martin should have had us share his story since book 1.

He can't just rock up in Book 5 and expect to get our sympathy.

Die little shit, die.

Literature is not democracy!

The readers have no votes concerning the outcome...

---

I also think he will die, but surely not because you or other readers want him to die.

[Lummel]

...Nevertheless, a "mummer's dragon" does not signify a "fake" Aegon. As Dany explained to Jorah, by "mummer's dragon", she meant "a cloth dragon on poles...mummers [actors] use them [as props] in their follies [comedy skits] to give the heroes [they portray] something to fight about."

However, she was mistaken about the function of this "cloth dragon on poles". Read the narrative of her vision: "A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." The crowd is cheering, not laughing, because the cloth dragon is a standard they rally to, not a prop used by actors in a comedy skit intended to provoke laughter.

There's no requirement that "a banner flies from one pole - a flagstaff." You're grasping at straws. You're imposing an arbitrarily narrow definition. The cloth dragon isn't being carried by a single standard bearer at the head of an army. Apparently it's a large banner stretched between poles held by different people who are swaying the banner "amidst a cheering crowd.".

King's Landing has a Flea Bottom, a Sowbelly Row, a Pisswater Bend and other colorfully named slum districts. Pisswater Bend is mentioned after the riot: "...the bloody flux is spreading in the stews along Pisswater Bend...." and in the Epilogue of Book 5, Kevan Lannister reflected that Cersei was now "soiled goods...every tart and tanner from Flea Bottom to Pisswater Bend had gazed upon her nakedness." So apparently Pisswater Bend is an actual place in King's Landing, an impoverished place noted for its tanners.

You view is that Daenerys misinterpreted her own vision, but that would be to see it as a literal vision of the future rather than as something figurative when generally the visions described in the series are not literal. Even if we assume that it is that unusual thing, a literal vision of Aegon's standard being raised in the future, that is no proof that he is real.

I don't recall any requirement in the series that Mummers can only perform comedies and that no reaction other than laughter is imaginable when watching one of their performances either.

Yes, Pisswater Bend is in the world that GRRM created, however GRRM was at perfect liberty to choose which ever street he wanted. He could have used one named elsewhere, or invented a new one. But Pisswater Bend was the one he chose. And Varys, we're told, takes the child from Pisswater Bend.

If you like you can assume that GRRM's choice of names is meaningless, but he has a history of playing games with names.

[indignant mushroom]

Let's not attack ad hominem or get defensive here. This is open discourse so there's no reason why one opinion needs to be treated as the only possibility.

We can treat Dany's interpretations of the prophecy as being 100% correct, with Quentyn as the Sun's son and the infection as the pale mare, meaning that the MD is a fake, cloth dragon.

But Gurmy really doesn't like to make things that simple, so she's either a) wrong about the MD or B) will be wrong in the future

The alternative is that the MD is Aegon (a Blackfyre) as a puppet of mummers (Varys).

There's probably a third option that hasn't been explored yet because we haven't thought of it.

I'm just going to wait for her first chapter in WoW before I draw conclusions.

[jpreis]

You view is that Daenerys misinterpreted her own vision, but that would be to see it as a literal vision of the future rather than as something figurative when generally the visions described in the series are not literal. Even if we assume that it is that unusual thing, a literal vision of Aegon's standard being raised in the future, that is no proof that he is real.

I don't recall any requirement in the series that Mummers can only perform comedies and that no reaction other than laughter is imaginable when watching one of their performances either.

Yes, Pisswater Bend is in the world that GRRM created, however GRRM was at perfect liberty to choose which ever street he wanted. He could have used one named elsewhere, or invented a new one. But Pisswater Bend was the one he chose. And Varys, we're told, takes the child from Pisswater Bend.

If you like you can assume that GRRM's choice of names is meaningless, but he has a history of playing games with names.

I never even suggested that mummers can only perform comedies. I used the term "mummer" just as Dany used it when she explained to Jorah what she meant by "a mummer's dragon": "A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." "Follies" are what we might call "comedy skits." Translating her pseudo-archaisms into more conventional English, her "mummer's dragon" is "a cloth dragon on poles such as actors use as a prop in their comedy skits, to give the heroic characters they portray something to fight."

The description of the vision Dany gave Jorah is inconsistent with the narrative, which stated that "a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." Note that the crowd is cheering, not laughing. The language of the narrative suggests a large banner swayed amidst a cheering crowd witnessing a ceremony or participating in a celebration. But Dany's description suggests a comedy skit intended to provoke laughter from an audience entertained by the antics of the performers on a stage or sorts that is separate from the audience. Morevoer, a prop used in a comedy skit would be swayed on the stage, not amidst the audience ("crowd") watching the performance.

As I have shown, the King's Landing slum known at Pisswater Bend is mentioned multiple times in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with Varys or Prince Rhaegar's son Aegon. But you have the perfect liberty to attach whatever significance you choose---no matter how improbable---to the name "Pisswater Bend" in order to advance the thesis that Aegon is "fake." Nevertheless, the term "mummer's dragon", as Dany explains it, refers to a prop used in a comedy skit and swayed on the stage, not amidst the audience ("crowd"), whereas the language used by the narrative to describe the vision in question suggests a celebration or ceremony with a large banner swayed "amidst a cheering crowd".

[jpreis]

Granted, just thought I'd get in the spirit of bending things every which way they can be bent.

I forgot Varys was a mummer so it specifically could mean his dragon.

But there is no "mummer's dragon" indicated by the language of the narrative that actually describes the vision in question: "A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." Contrast that language with Dany's explanation of what she meant by "a mummer's dragon": "A cloth dragon on poles... mummers (i.e., "actors") use them [as a prop] in their follies (i.e., "comedy skits") to give the heroes (i.e., the heroic characters they portray) something to fight." Note that the crowd in the narrative is cheering, not laughing as would an audience being entertained by the comedic antics of the performers in a comedy skit. And why would the supposed prop consisting of a cloth dragon on poles be swayed amidst the audience watching a comedic skit? Wouldn't the prop be swayed on the stage or arena where the actors are performing, rather than amidst the audience? Dany's recollection of the vision is inconsistent with the narrative's description of the vision.

[jpreis]

Two things I just wanted to toss in here

1: mummer's dragon most likely does refer to a DRAGON made by a MUMMER. Varys and Illyrio being the mummers and aegon being the dragon.

But that does not necessarily mean that aegon is fake. Varys and Illyrio did make aegon but let's think about what that actually means. If it can be said that Dany is uneducated, than that most likely is due to her lack of a really invested guardian to ensure that she be properly educated. Aegon on the other hand if you believe the words of Varys and JonCon has had the "Bronx Tale" education. Being that he has had the 'formal' education that most princes would be expected to have had. Plus the 'street' education, as he'd has worked the fields and the fishing docks. He is trained at the sword and the lance and speaks numerous languages. He WAS TRULY MADE INTO A DRAGON. He has been learning the meaning of ruling his whole life, aware that to rule was his duty to the people. But that is because he was made to believe these things by a MUMMER. Aegon was made into a "dragon/king" while dany raised herself up as a dragon after the death of khal drogo. So the mummer's dragon being the cloth dragons mummer's make to fight the hero theory can still hold true if aegon is in fact who he claims to be.

2- THERE ARE 3 HEADS OF THE DRAGON! so let's see in book one GRRM let's us know that dany is a dragon and hints that Jon might be one as well. And waits until 4 books later REINTRODUCES another dragon. Now I'm not saying is for sure a real dragon but let's do a recap: westeros in turmoil. Also on verge of a massive attack from from the winter replenishing horde of the Others. No better time for the return of the 3 heads of the dragon. Of our potential candidates which of them has proven that they are destined for greatness? Dany-dragon breeding pyre survival. Aegon-supposedly killed as an infant, 'escaped' the genocide of his family, returned to save westeros. Jon-YOUNGEST LORD COMMANDER IN THE HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS WATCH, brokered the deal to create the peace between the people north and south of the wall. Do all potential dragons command the respect, allegiance and arms of the people? Dany- unsullied thief, slave freer, khaleesi, "mother". Aegon-JonCon, Golden Company, in the process of conquering westeros. Jon-possible King of the North(depending on Robb Stark's will), defender and friend of the free folk, and did I mention...YOUNGEST LORD COMMANDER OF THE NIGHTS WATCH IN HISTORY?? Do all potential dragons have the blood of the dragon? Dany-fact. Aegon-rumored. Jon-popular reader theory.

So in my opinion it could come to blows between aegon and dany but if that happens to take place in westeros I don't see it lasting very long as the Others will become the main antagonist in this story. And all three of the "dragons" will have to work together.

I'd really like to know the criteria by which we determine that Dany is "fact" but Aegon is merely "rumored." Dany believes she is who people have told her she is and other characters believe it too. Aegon believes he is who people have told him he is and other characters believe it too. So what would it take to convince you?

Obviously, a mummer's dragon is a mummer's dragon, but it's neither an actual dragon nor a symbol for any particular person. When Dany was describing her visions in the House of the Undying to Jorah, he didn't understand what she meant by "mummer's dragon", so she explained that she meant a cloth dragon on poles such as actors ("mummers") use as a prop in their comedic skits ("follies"), to give the heroic characters they portray ("the heroes") something to fight. But that is merely her recollection of the vision. In the narrative, the actual vision was described as "a cloth dragon swayed from poles amidst a cheering crowd", not a laughing audience. And a cloth dragon used as a prop in a comedic skit would be amidst the performers on the stage, not amidst the audience.

[jpreis]

Let's not attack ad hominem or get defensive here. This is open discourse so there's no reason why one opinion needs to be treated as the only possibility.

We can treat Dany's interpretations of the prophecy as being 100% correct, with Quentyn as the Sun's son and the infection as the pale mare, meaning that the MD is a fake, cloth dragon.

But Gurmy really doesn't like to make things that simple, so she's either a) wrong about the MD or B) will be wrong in the future

The alternative is that the MD is Aegon (a Blackfyre) as a puppet of mummers (Varys).

There's probably a third option that hasn't been explored yet because we haven't thought of it.

I'm just going to wait for her first chapter in WoW before I draw conclusions.

Dany's interpretations of visions? Or her recollections of visions? A "mummer's dragon" is a term Dany coined when she was describing her visions in the House of the Undying to Jorah Mormont. He didn't know what she meant by a "mummer's dragon." She explained that by "mummer's dragon", she meant a cloth dragon on poles such as actors ("mummers") use as a prop in their comedic skits ("follies"), to give the heroic characters they portray ("the heroes") something to fight. But that is merely her recollection--rather than interpretation--of the vision. In the narrative, the vision was described as "a cloth dragon swayed from poles amidst a cheering crowd", not a laughing audience. And a cloth dragon used as a prop in a comedic skit would be amidst the performers on the stage, not amidst the audience ("crowd") watching the performance. Her recollection of the vision is inconsistent with the language used in the narrative's description of the vision. In Book 6, when Dany learns that her brother Rhaegar's son lives and is already in Westeros raising his banners and rallying his supporters--I suspect she will make the connection to the vision in question.

[indignant mushroom]

Dany's interpretations of visions? Or her recollections of visions? A "mummer's dragon" is a term Dany coined when she was describing her visions in the House of the Undying to Jorah Mormont. He didn't know what she meant by a "mummer's dragon." She explained that by "mummer's dragon", she meant a cloth dragon on poles such as actors ("mummers") use as a prop in their comedic skits ("follies"), to give the heroic characters they portray ("the heroes") something to fight. But that is merely her recollection--rather than interpretation--of the vision. In the narrative, the vision was described as "a cloth dragon swayed from poles amidst a cheering crowd", not a laughing audience. And a cloth dragon used as a prop in a comedic skit would be amidst the performers on the stage, not amidst the audience ("crowd") watching the performance. Her recollection of the vision is inconsistent with the language used in the narrative's description of the vision. In Book 6, when Dany learns that her brother Rhaegar's son lives and is already in Westeros raising his banners and rallying his supporters--I suspect she will make the connection to the vision in question.

I guess her recollection? I haven't read the series since the last book came out so I'm not really certain on the specific situation. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lummel]

I never even suggested that mummers can only perform comedies. I used the term "mummer" just as Dany used it when she explained to Jorah what she meant by "a mummer's dragon": "A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." "Follies" are what we might call "comedy skits." Translating her pseudo-archaisms into more conventional English, her "mummer's dragon" is "a cloth dragon on poles such as actors use as a prop in their comedy skits, to give the heroic characters they portray something to fight."...

No you never have said that mummers can only perform comedies. But you talk of mummers follies as being comedy skits, write of stages and laughter, however only Daenerys out of any of us has seen mummers follies in Essos. She has the vision of the cloth dragon on poles and she interprets it as being a mummer's dragon. She doesn't explain the vision to Mormont and ask him to interpret it. Mormont is the one who doesn't understand the reference. For Daenerys, despite the apparent lack of comedy, skittishness or a stage the vision is recognisable as being of a mummer's dragon.

You are arguing that Daenerys misinterprets her vision. Mormont doesn't notice the misinterpretation, and Daenerys has to have a low enough intellectual capacity to make such a misinterpretation. OK. But if she misinterprets her vision then isn't her misinterpretation still likely to colour her future attitude towards Aegon?

Aegon's legitimacy still isn't proven by Daenerys misinterpreting her vision either. A false Aegon can have a banner raised in his name as readily as a real one.

[jpreis]

No you never have said that mummers can only perform comedies. But you talk of mummers follies as being comedy skits, write of stages and laughter, however only Daenerys out of any of us has seen mummers follies in Essos. She has the vision of the cloth dragon on poles and she interprets it as being a mummer's dragon. She doesn't explain the vision to Mormont and ask him to interpret it. Mormont is the one who doesn't understand the reference. For Daenerys, despite the apparent lack of comedy, skittishness or a stage the vision is recognisable as being of a mummer's dragon.

You are arguing that Daenerys misinterprets her vision. Mormont doesn't notice the misinterpretation, and Daenerys has to have a low enough intellectual capacity to make such a misinterpretation. OK. But if she misinterprets her vision then isn't her misinterpretation still likely to colour her future attitude towards Aegon?

Aegon's legitimacy still isn't proven by Daenerys misinterpreting her vision either. A false Aegon can have a banner raised in his name as readily as a real one.

The vision in question is "a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd."

A "mummer" IS an actor; "their follies" ARE a comedies; mummers DO perform in an area ("stage") that is SEPARATE from the audience; a mummer's prop is surely not swayed amidst the audience ("crowd"), and the expected audience response to the humorous antics of mummers performing a mummer's folly would be laughter, NOT cheering!

You keep insisting that Dany is "interpreting" her visions from the House of the Undying. She's doing no such thing. YOU'RE the one interpreting her visions. As she rode beside Jorah to the waterfront, she was RECALLING, not "interpreting", those visions to him.

We can assume that ANY cloth dragon on poles might SUGGEST a "mummer's dragon" to Dany. When she explains to Jorah what she meant by "mummer's dragon", she's merely saying that the cloth dragon on poles REMINDS her of a "mummer's dragon", not that the vision of "a cloth dragon swayed amongst a cheering crowd" represents a mummer's folly. We don't know how much of that vision she described to Mormont. We only know that she mentioned a "mummer's dragon", he asked her what she meant, and she explained that she meant "a cloth dragon on poles...mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

There's not a shred of evidence that Aegon is "fake", yet you insist he is "fake". So you discount all evidence to the contrary and come up with a farfetched interpretations of Dany's vision in order to support your belief.

You insist "mummer" in "mummer's dragon" must mean Varys and "dragon" must mean Aegon, then reach the CONCLUSION that Aegon MUST be "fake". That conclusion is unwarranted for any of the following reasons:

1. At the time Varys rescued Prince Aegon, Varys was not a mummer. He hadn't been a mummer since his days as an orphan child in Essos, before he was cut. Once a mummer, always a mummer?
   
2. Even if we allow that "mummer" in "mummer's dragon" is an obscure reference to Varys and "dragon" a reference to Aegon, this still does not warrant the conclusion that Aegon is "fake".
   
3. There's no mention of a "mummer's dragon" in ANY of Dany's visions from the House of the Undying.
   
4. Dany did not say the cloth dragon on poles in the vision is a "mummer's dragon" or that the vision she saw depicted a mummer's folly. The cloth dragon merely reminded her of the props mummers use in their follies.
   

[jpreis]

how do i delete this?

[jpreis]

Aegon's legitimacy still isn't proven by Daenerys misinterpreting her vision either. A false Aegon can have a banner raised in his name as readily as a real one.

Regarding Aegon's "legitimacy", by which I assume you mean his authenticity as Prince Aegon, you might be right.

I found the following exchange between Lemore and Griff in "The Lost Lord" from "A Dance with Dragons" (Book 5):

“We have gone to great lengths to keep 'Prince' Aegon hidden all these years,” Lemore reminded him with a wink.

The author rewards the discerning reader with subtle clues.

[Turkey Jack]

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

Varys original plan was to have Aegon and Viserys unite and fight for the Iron Throne no?

As for Dany being the hero, you can read it as the mummer giving the hero something to fight so the hero is viewed as great, as I think you mean, but also it can be read as the mummer giving the hero something to fight - but as a distraction, so she fights Aegon while the Others advance unchallenged.

Personally I don't want him to be fake and it would be sad if she becomes a kinslayer/cursed for taking his life only to realise her mistake later.

What I find peculiar is the order and its potential significance "Soon comes the pale mare - 1st and after her the others. Kraken - next ? and Dark Flame they are listed as a pair so Moqorro probably, lion and griffin again a pair Tyrion is the obvious lion and griffin Connington which is a strange pair and if not a pair the order means nothing, the sun's son and the mummers dragon, again a pair, now sun's son suggests Martell and with Quentyn dead Trystane is the likely candidate if the order is important and would be easier for him to be a pair with the mummers dragon. Beware the perfumed seneschal - last Varys?

Being a verbal warning and this would be a bit of word play/deceit by Martin sun's son could be son's son which could (clutching at straws) refer to Aerys son's son i.e. Aegon which would leave mummers dragon open.

[jpreis]

Varys original plan was to have Aegon and Viserys unite and fight for the Iron Throne no?

As for Dany being the hero, you can read it as the mummer giving the hero something to fight so the hero is viewed as great, as I think you mean, but also it can be read as the mummer giving the hero something to fight - but as a distraction, so she fights Aegon while the Others advance unchallenged.

Personally I don't want him to be fake and it would be sad if she becomes a kinslayer/cursed for taking his life only to realise her mistake later.

What I find peculiar is the order and its potential significance "Soon comes the pale mare - 1st and after her the others. Kraken - next ? and Dark Flame they are listed as a pair so Moqorro probably, lion and griffin again a pair Tyrion is the obvious lion and griffin Connington which is a strange pair and if not a pair the order means nothing, the sun's son and the mummers dragon, again a pair, now sun's son suggests Martell and with Quentyn dead Trystane is the likely candidate if the order is important and would be easier for him to be a pair with the mummers dragon. Beware the perfumed seneschal - last Varys?

Being a verbal warning and this would be a bit of word play/deceit by Martin sun's son could be son's son which could (clutching at straws) refer to Aerys son's son i.e. Aegon which would leave mummers dragon open.

As Varys told Ned Stark, he serves the realm. Accordingly, Varys acted (1) to protect the heir to the Iron Throne, the infant Prince Aegon, from the expected assassination attempts by the usurper Robert Baratheon and his supporters by hiding Aegon in Essos and (2) to prepare Aegon for the day when conditions in Westeros might be ripe for his return. Varys's "original plan" hasn't changed. He is doing whatever he can behind the scenes to foster doubt, division, and mistrust between Cersei and the Tyrells in order to erode the Lannister/Tyrell alliance that keeps the boy king Tommen propped up on the Iron Throne, while Prince Aegon raises his banner above Storm's End and the lords of the realm rally around him.

As an orphan child in Essos, before he was cut, Varys was apprenticed to a mummers' troupe until his master sold him to the man who cut him. Afterwards, the young Varys stole to survive, eventually specializing in the theft of secrets, then came to Westeros where he served King Aerys, and later King Robert, as master of whisperers and member of the king's council. So the claim that the "mummer" in "mummer's dragon" refers to Varys is really reaching. Once a mummer, always a mummer? I don't think so.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the view that Aegon is "fake." Book 5 repeatedly establishes that Prince Aegon lives. In the Epilogue, Varys himself confirms to the dying Kevan Lannister that Aegon lives.

Is it possible that Aegon is "fake"? Anything is possible. But show me some actual evidence, not dubious interpretations that twist the meaning of words in the story like a pretzel.

Quaithe warns Dany: "The glass candles are burning. 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."

At the time Quaithe warns "trust none of them", Dany has not yet met any of them. And just because Quaithe warns "trust none of them" doesn't mean that any of them are "fake".

• Glass Candles: After Drogon burned the House of the Undying, Xaro told Dany he was not sure the warlocks were powerless to do her harm. "It is said that the glass candles are burning in the house of Urrathon Night-Walker, that have not burned in a hundred years." In other words, sorcery is brewing. There are numerous other obscure references to glass candles.
  
• Pale Mare: the horse that will bear the rider who warns of the pestilence in Astapor.
  
• Kraken and Dark Flame: Victarion and the red priest who accompanies him.
  
• Lion and Griffin: I assume this means Tyrion and Jon "Griff" Connington, former lord of Griffin's Roost. Beyond the literary allusion, I don't see current significance to the pairing. Tyrion and Griff got separated. Tyrion is in Slaver's Bay. Griff is in Westeros and has no idea what happened to Tyrion.
  
• Sun's Son: Quentyn Martell, the son of Prince Doran Martell, the Lord of Sunspear and ruler of Dorne. The Martell banner is a red sun pierced by a golden spear. Quentyn is not yet dead, not yet even arrived to woo Dany. Trystane is in Westeros and too young to be relevant.
  
• Mummer's Dragon: Quaithe repeats the same term Dany coined when she was recalling her visions to Jorah. At the end of Book 5, Dany still doesn't know that Prince Aegon lives and that he and his swords are already in Westeros raising his banners. The vision Dany alluded to was "a cloth dragon swayed from poles amidst a cheering crowd." In the context of what Prince Aegon is doing in Westeros by the end of Nook 5, the cloth dragon can be understood as a banner swayed on poles by a cheering crowd of Prince Aegon's supporters.
  
• Beware the Perfumed Seneschal: Reznak is a perfumed seneschal. It cannot possibly refer to Varys because he is not a seneschal.
  
• Remember the Undying: Remember what happened in the House of the Undying? Remember the visions the Undying revealed?
  

[Ser Pollo Loco]

As Varys told Ned Stark, he serves the realm. Accordingly, Varys acted (1) to protect the heir to the Iron Throne, the infant Prince Aegon, from the expected assassination attempts by the usurper Robert Baratheon and his supporters by hiding Aegon in Essos and (2) to prepare Aegon for the day when conditions in Westeros might be ripe for his return. Varys's "original plan" hasn't changed. He is doing whatever he can behind the scenes to foster doubt, division, and mistrust between Cersei and the Tyrells in order to erode the Lannister/Tyrell alliance that keeps the boy king Tommen propped up on the Iron Throne, while Prince Aegon raises his banner above Storm's End and the lords of the realm rally around him.

As an orphan child in Essos, before he was cut, Varys was apprenticed to a mummers' troupe until his master sold him to the man who cut him. Afterwards, the young Varys stole to survive, eventually specializing in the theft of secrets, then came to Westeros where he served King Aerys, and later King Robert, as master of whisperers and member of the king's council. So the claim that the "mummer" in "mummer's dragon" refers to Varys is really reaching. Once a mummer, always a mummer? I don't think so.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the view that Aegon is "fake." Book 5 repeatedly establishes that Prince Aegon lives. In the Epilogue, Varys himself confirms to the dying Kevan Lannister that Aegon lives.

Is it possible that Aegon is "fake"? Anything is possible. But show me some actual evidence, not dubious interpretations that twist the meaning of words in the story like a pretzel.

Quaithe warns Dany: "The glass candles are burning. 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."

At the time Quaithe warns "trust none of them", Dany has not yet met any of them. And just because Quaithe warns "trust none of them" doesn't mean that any of them are "fake".

• Glass Candles: After Drogon burned the House of the Undying, Xaro told Dany he was not sure the warlocks were powerless to do her harm. "It is said that the glass candles are burning in the house of Urrathon Night-Walker, that have not burned in a hundred years." In other words, sorcery is brewing. There are numerous other obscure references to glass candles.
  
• Pale Mare: the horse that will bear the rider who warns of the pestilence in Astapor.
  
• Kraken and Dark Flame: Victarion and the red priest who accompanies him.
  
• Lion and Griffin: I assume this means Tyrion and Jon "Griff" Connington, former lord of Griffin's Roost. Beyond the literary allusion, I don't see current significance to the pairing. Tyrion and Griff got separated. Tyrion is in Slaver's Bay. Griff is in Westeros and has no idea what happened to Tyrion.
  
• Sun's Son: Quentyn Martell, the son of Prince Doran Martell, the Lord of Sunspear and ruler of Dorne. The Martell banner is a red sun pierced by a golden spear. Quentyn is not yet dead, not yet even arrived to woo Dany. Trystane is in Westeros and too young to be relevant.
  
• Mummer's Dragon: Quaithe repeats the same term Dany coined when she was recalling her visions to Jorah. At the end of Book 5, Dany still doesn't know that Prince Aegon lives and that he and his swords are already in Westeros raising his banners. The vision Dany alluded to was "a cloth dragon swayed from poles amidst a cheering crowd." In the context of what Prince Aegon is doing in Westeros by the end of Nook 5, the cloth dragon can be understood as a banner swayed on poles by a cheering crowd of Prince Aegon's supporters.
  
• Beware the Perfumed Seneschal: Reznak is a perfumed seneschal. It cannot possibly refer to Varys because he is not a seneschal.
  
• Remember the Undying: Remember what happened in the House of the Undying? Remember the visions the Undying revealed?
  

Fire priest tells Tyrion he has seen visions of dragons, young and old, true and false, light and dark

There's textual evidence of a false dragon(s), i would call that at least a shred of evidence until another person claims to be a Targ

[jpreis]

Fire priest tells Tyrion he has seen visions of dragons, young and old, true and false, light and dark

There's textual evidence of a false dragon(s), i would call that at least a shred of evidence until another person claims to be a Targ

I said there's not a shred of evidence to support the view that AEGON is "fake." Book 5 repeatedly establishes that Prince Aegon lives. In the Epilogue, Varys himself confirms to the dying Kevan Lannister that Prince Aegon lives.

Moqorro said nothing of Aegon. His vision of "dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark" was vague and nonspecific. Did he see real dragons or metaphoric dragons?

I can also read the flames and see dragons old, young, true, false, bright and dark.

The dragons of Aegon the Conqueror are examples of old and true dragons.

Dany's dragons are all young and true. The cream-and-gold dragon she calls Viserion is bright. The black dragon she calls Drogon is dark.

Since no Targaryen is a real dragon, ANY Targaryen that calls himself or herself a dragon is obviously a false dragon.

Oh, you think Targaryens can be dragons? Dany's brother Viserys liked to think of himself as a dragon, yet he died when Drogo crowned him with a pot of molten gold. This led Dany to the conclusion that Viserys was no true dragon, because "fire cannot kill a dragon." Therefore, Viserys must have been a false dragon,.

I have just demonstrated the utter vacuousness of Moqorro's visions.

[Lummel]

...We can assume that ANY cloth dragon on poles might SUGGEST a "mummer's dragon" to Dany. When she explains to Jorah what she meant by "mummer's dragon", she's merely saying that the cloth dragon on poles REMINDS her of a "mummer's dragon", not that the vision of "a cloth dragon swayed amongst a cheering crowd" represents a mummer's folly. We don't know how much of that vision she described to Mormont. We only know that she mentioned a "mummer's dragon", he asked her what she meant, and she explained that she meant "a cloth dragon on poles...mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

We are clear that Daenerys does describe her vision of a cloth dragon swaying on poles as a Mummer's dragon. The text is clear, she does not say that the vision reminded her of a mummer's dragon (and if she saw a standard she would say she saw a standard, she would hardly say that it reminded her of a mummer's dragon), she simply and directly says that it is a mummer's dragon. We know exactly how much of her vision she relates to mormont because it is all there in Daenerys V ACOK.

If for the sake of the argument we say that Mummers only perform comedies, there is always laughter when they perform and they always perform on stages then for Daenerys to use the phrase mummer's dragon to describe the cloth dragon rather than standard we have to assume that either Daenerys has never seen a standard, banner or flag or that there is something about the cloth dragon, despite the absence of laughter and a stage, that identifies it intrinsically as a mummer's dragon rather than something else or that Daenerys is deliberately seeking to mislead Mormont.

It is possible to believe that Aegon is real and that Daenerys has a vision of a mummer's dragon, there are people who lay the stress on mummer's dragon as meaning the dragon belonging to a mummer, or that it refers to some other pretender with Targaryen blood.

While a vision of a crowd cheering the raising of Aegon's banner is an attractive one, it does imply that Daenerys either has never seen a banner, flag or standard or can't tell the difference between that and the prop dragon used in a mummer's folly, or is deliberately misleading Mormont. It is much more likely that Daenerys knows what she is talking about and is giving an honest account of what she saw.

[jpreis]

We are clear that Daenerys does describe her vision of a cloth dragon swaying on poles as a Mummer's dragon. The text is clear, she does not say that the vision reminded her of a mummer's dragon (and if she saw a standard she would say she saw a standard, she would hardly say that it reminded her of a mummer's dragon), she simply and directly says that it is a mummer's dragon. We know exactly how much of her vision she relates to mormont because it is all there in Daenerys V ACOK.

If for the sake of the argument we say that Mummers only perform comedies, there is always laughter when they perform and they always perform on stages then for Daenerys to use the phrase mummer's dragon to describe the cloth dragon rather than standard we have to assume that either Daenerys has never seen a standard, banner or flag or that there is something about the cloth dragon, despite the absence of laughter and a stage, that identifies it intrinsically as a mummer's dragon rather than something else or that Daenerys is deliberately seeking to mislead Mormont.

It is possible to believe that Aegon is real and that Daenerys has a vision of a mummer's dragon, there are people who lay the stress on mummer's dragon as meaning the dragon belonging to a mummer, or that it refers to some other pretender with Targaryen blood.

While a vision of a crowd cheering the raising of Aegon's banner is an attractive one, it does imply that Daenerys either has never seen a banner, flag or standard or can't tell the difference between that and the prop dragon used in a mummer's folly, or is deliberately misleading Mormont. It is much more likely that Daenerys knows what she is talking about and is giving an honest account of what she saw.

We are not clear that Daenerys describes her vision of a cloth dragon swaying on poles as a mummer's dragon. The text of the scene does not give any such detail. We only know that she MENTIONED a mummer's dragon in her dialogue with Jorah:

JORAH: 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?

DANY: A cloth dragon on poles. Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight.

She explains what she means by a mummer's dragonm, but she does not state that the vision itself is a mummer's folly. She merely characterizes the cloth dragon as a prop used in a mummer's folly.

The actual vision that is merely alluded to in this dialogue is explcitly described in the narrative from the House of the Undying as "a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." That description is inconsistent with a folly because a prop in a folly would be swayed amidst the performers, not amidst the audience ("crowd"), and the expected reaction of an audience watching a folly would be laughter, not cheering.

An intelligent reader without the hard need to see the words "reminds her of" in the text might reasonably conclude that the cloth dragon in the vision merely reminds her of the props used in follies.

In any case, Dany was not intepreting her visions. She was merely recalling them with Jorah. Even at the end of Book 5, Dany is still as clueless about the meaning of the vision of the cloth dragon as are many readers who, unlike Dany, know that Prince Aegon is already in Westeros rallying the lords to his cause.

Reread the narrative of the actual vision of the cloth dragon. The crowd is neither cheering a cloth dragon, nor the raising of a cloth dragon. Nor is any cloth dragon being raised. The cloth dragon is being SWAYED, not raised, AMIDST THE CHEERING CROWD, not in front of it.

We don't need to assume that mummers only perform comedies. But we do need to understand that a "mummer" is an actor and a "mummer's folly", or more simply "folly", is a comedy.

It is clear from Dany's explanation that her mummer's dragon is a prop used in a folly. A mummer's dragon is not a dragon belonging to a mummer. And Varys hasn't been a mummer since he was a child. So it's quite a stretch to claim that "mummer" in "mummer's dragon" refers to Varys.

[Lummel]

...It is clear from Dany's explanation that her mummer's dragon is a prop used in a folly...

Well exactly. Daenerys sees a cloth dragon swaying on poles in the house of the undying. When telling Mormont about the vision she describes that as a mummer's dragon.

If the cloth dragon on poles looked like a standard why would she have described it as a mummer's dragon? And if for the sake of the argument we accept all that you say about mummer's, follies, laughter and stages then this thing that Daenerys saw must really very much not look like a standard for her to use the phrase mummer's dragon rather than standard or flag to describe it to Mormont.

We are left with then either Daenerys wanted to deceive Mormont or Daenerys has never seen a flag and has no idea what one looks like or that what she saw was a prop, a mock dragon, as used in mummer's follies for the hero to fight.

[jpreis]

Well exactly. Daenerys sees a cloth dragon swaying on poles in the house of the undying. When telling Mormont about the vision she describes that as a mummer's dragon.

If the cloth dragon on poles looked like a standard why would she have described it as a mummer's dragon? And if for the sake of the argument we accept all that you say about mummer's, follies, laughter and stages then this thing that Daenerys saw must really very much not look like a standard for her to use the phrase mummer's dragon rather than standard or flag to describe it to Mormont.

We are left with then either Daenerys wanted to deceive Mormont or Daenerys has never seen a flag and has no idea what one looks like or that what she saw was a prop, a mock dragon, as used in mummer's follies for the hero to fight.

1.

Well exactly. Daenerys sees a cloth dragon swaying on poles...

Not quite. Whatever she saw or whatever you think she saw, the text describes the actual vision as “a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd”, not a cloth dragon swaying on poles.

The cloth wasn't "swaying" passively. It was being actively "swayed" amidst a cheering crowd, surely by people in the crowd.

2.

When telling Mormont about the vision she describes that as a mummer's dragon.

No. Nowhere in the text does Dany ever describe the vision.

According to the text, she merely explained to Jorah what SHE meant by "a mummer's dragon". She explained that she meant "a cloth dragon on poles" such as actors ("mummers") use as a prop in comedies ("their follies"), to give the heroic characters ("the heroes") they portray something to fight. Ser Jorah frowned after hearing her explanation because it made no sense.

3.

If the cloth dragon on poles looked like a standard...

A cloth banner on poles bearing the image of a dragon could be used (1) as a banner to demonstrate support for, say, Prince Aegon, the young dragon of House Targaryen and rightful heir to the Iron Throne, or (2) as a prop in a mummer’s folly to give the heroes a dragon to fight.

In either case, the dragon banner need not be a standard nor need it bear the sigil of any house.

4.

And if for the sake of the argument we accept all that you say about mummer's, follies, laughter and stages...

Let's be crystal clear. Each of the following is an indisputable fact, not an argument for you to accept or reject:

• A "mummer" is an actor.
  
• A "mummer's folly" is a comedy.
  
• Actors do not perform amidst an audience. They perform on a stage or other area apart from, not amidst, the audience.
  
• Actors' props are swayed amidst the actors, not amidst the audience.
  
• The expected response from an audience watching a comedy would be laughter, not cheering.
  

5.

We are left with ...

No. As I've shown in this post, your conclusion is based on false premises.

Understand that even at the end of Book 5, Dany still does not know that Prince Aegon lives and is already in Westeros raising support among the lords. So she is not yet in a position to make a connection between the actual vision of "a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd" and a scene of, say, a cheering crowd swaying an adhoc cloth banner bearing the image of dragon to demonstrate their support for Prince Aegon, the young dragon of House Targaryen and rightful heir to the Iron Throne.

Understand that there’s no reason this adhoc dragon banner could not just as well be used as a prop in a mummer’s folly about heroes fighting a dragon.

Understand that in her dialogue with Jorah, Dany is merely recalling her visions to Jorah. She's not interpreting those visions. Even at the end of Book 5, she's still as clueless about the meaning of her vision of "a cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd" as are some readers who've read all five books from beginning to end.