Young Griff is a Blackfyre pretender BUT....

[Eejit]

Perhaps it ends with Dany being fed to a dragon?

Even dragons can't digest plot armor of that magnitude!

[ARYa_Nym]

It's true. Dany does have plot armor. I think she will deal with Aegon first when she lands. She still has to deal with the other two in the slayer of lies sequence.

She also has to go to Jon because of the bride of fire sequence.

[MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious]

The current momentum of the story is that Aegon will most likely take Kings Landing and with that remove all but 2-3 Lannisters from the story (Cersei, Jaime and Tyrion). Dany is coming, there is no other way around it, unfortunately. She will fight Aegon because she has been pre-warned of a fake Dragon/Targaryen. She will not fall for him.

Dany was warned about a "mummer's dragon". "Mummer's" is possesive so it really only means "a dragon belonging to a mummer". I doubt that Dany realized this because she only heard the prohecy and didn't see it written down but us as readers should know that "mummer's dragon" is not difinitive proof at all that Aegon is fake.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She also has to go to Jon because of the bride of fire sequence.

This, added to the "fire to love" thing, is not giving me any reassurances whatsoever about the possibility of her becoming a pyromaniac.

[Lummel]

Dany was warned about a "mummer's dragon". "Mummer's" is possesive so it really only means "a dragon belonging to a mummer". I doubt that Dany realized this because she only heard the prohecy and didn't see it written down but us as readers should know that "mummer's dragon" is not difinitive proof at all that Aegon is fake.

She also sees the Mummer's Dragon - it is one of her visions at the House of the Undying. It is described as a dragon painted on cloth held aloft on poles which the crowds cheer.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She also sees the Mummer's Dragon - it is one of her visions at the House of the Undying. It is described as a dragon painted on cloth held aloft on poles which the crowds cheer.

This is true, she sees it in the House of the Undying. It could still be a "visual pun" of sorts. I think that's its power — it can be read in multiple ways. I think we may never get explicit confirmation (in the books) about Aegon's veracity.

[Towel]

I think we may never get explicit confirmation (in the books) about Aegon's veracity.

I 100% think this. Kind of on the level of Renly and Loras. He's going to give us enough clues to spell it out, but never any outright confirmation

(although that probably means in the show they will beat us over the head with it)

[ghost the direwolf]

[quote name=Apple Martini' timestamp='1335275042' pos

t='3152054]

This, added to the "fire to love" thing, is not giving me any reassurances whatsoever about the possibility of her becoming a pyromaniac.

[ost]

Just going back to Aegon being fake and Dany having to kill him.. Another thing to note is that if he's definitely a Blackfyre (which I reckon he is) that still means he's next in line to the throne after Dany as Daemon Blackfyre was legitimated.

And Dany doesn't seem to be moving. So whether he's Aegon Targaryen or Aegon Blackfyre, as long as Dany sits in Meereen, he should be king.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Just going back to Aegon being fake and Dany having to kill him.. Another thing to note is that if he's definitely a Blackfyre (which I reckon he is) that still means he's next in line to the throne after Dany as Daemon Blackfyre was legitimated.

And Dany doesn't seem to be moving. So whether he's Aegon Targaryen or Aegon Blackfyre, as long as Dany sits in Meereen, he should be king.

I imagine that the Blackfyres were attainted for what they did, so ...

[The guy from the Vale]

Just going back to Aegon being fake and Dany having to kill him.. Another thing to note is that if he's definitely a Blackfyre (which I reckon he is) that still means he's next in line to the throne after Dany as Daemon Blackfyre was legitimated.

And Dany doesn't seem to be moving. So whether he's Aegon Targaryen or Aegon Blackfyre, as long as Dany sits in Meereen, he should be king.

Eh... The Blackfyres have about as much of a claim to the Iron throne as the Karstarks have a claim to Winterfell. That is, there's a claim, but there are others who have better claims. I'm talking about the Baratheons and Martells, who both would probably inherit before the Blackfyres would.

[Longspear Ryk]

If aegon is a blackfyre... Do you think he has Blackfyre?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If aegon is a blackfyre... Do you think he has Blackfyre?

I think the Golden Company still has it. And for that reason, given its connotations, I don't think it'd be in Aegon's interests to show up wielding it.

[Dragonfish]

And how many generations of separation were between that Daenerys and Elia? probability for silver-blonde hair as an adult with such parentage is far less than 50%, even if the real baby Aegon had blonde-silver hair when a small baby he probably wouldn't have it (very, very unlikely) the same color as an adult.

EDIT: not to mention other features, such as eye color and skin tone and the probability for the combination of them all... the fact that this adult 'Aegon' looks exactly like his supposed father did, when he had the mother he suposedly had, is well, very unlikely.

You're reading too much into this. Martin has said that Westerosi genetics do not necessarily work according to real world genetics. They work according to how he needs them to work.

As for the "Wouldn't Martin have said more about the Blackfyres if this were the case?" thing — 11 of the 16-ish Blackfyre references in the books (not D&E, but ASOIAF) come in ADWD. It's also brought up, in pretty straightforward detail, in the Theon gift chapter. So two-thirds of the books' Blackfyre mentions come in the book in which "Aegon" first appears. Curious, no?

I would also add that in the original version of Tyrion's second chapter in ADWD, there was apparently a lot more exposition involving the Blackfyres, but George took most of it out before final publication. It's entirely possible that he removed the exposition because it would have made things too obvious.

[Dragonfish]

Dany was warned about a "mummer's dragon". "Mummer's" is possesive so it really only means "a dragon belonging to a mummer".

No it doesn't. Or at least, that is not the only interpretation. There is at least one scene where the term "mummer's" is used to imply fraudulence (it's on p. 217 of ADWD, where Dany describes Xaro's insincere tears as "mummer's tears"). Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the mummer's dragon is first encountered in a vision, where it is described as a "cloth dragon on poles", i.e. a fake dragon being controlled by someone else. This strongly implies that whoever the mummer's dragon is, he too will be both fake and under someone else's control.

[James Arryn]

No it doesn't. Or at least, that is not the only interpretation. There is at least one scene where the term "mummer's" is used to imply fraudulence (it's on p. 217 of ADWD, where Dany describes Xaro's insincere tears as "mummer's tears"). Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the mummer's dragon is first encountered in a vision, where it is described as a "cloth dragon on poles", i.e. a fake dragon being controlled by someone else. This strongly implies that whoever the mummer's dragon is, he too will be both fake and under someone else's control.

I agree with the last point...I just recently had my misconception corrected by someone in here along those lines.

But the tears analogy is still the same line of thinking, ie the action of faking or being fake is the mummer. Insincere tears are no less material than real tears. Exact same composition, etc. IOW, they aren't fake...the person using them is just being insincere with them.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

But the tears analogy is still the same line of thinking, ie the action of faking or being fake is the mummer. Insincere tears are no less material than real tears. Exact same composition, etc. IOW, they aren't fake...the person using them is just being insincere with them.

Bearing in mind that a Blackfyre is still technically a dragon.

[James Arryn]

Bearing in mind that a Blackfyre is still technically a dragon.

Right, but there is nothing inherently 'fake' about 'fake tears'. It's not like blanks vs. bullets. Its like a stunt punch vs. a real punch...the fist isn't any different.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Right, but there is nothing inherently 'fake' about 'fake tears'. It's not like blanks vs. bullets. Its like a stunt punch vs. a real punch...the fist isn't any different.

Oh I know, I wasn't disputing you. In this case, the "dragon" itself would still technically be a "dragon," just one ... handled ... by someone with less than honest intentions.

[Dragonfish]

But the tears analogy is still the same line of thinking, ie the action of faking or being fake is the mummer. Insincere tears are no less material than real tears. Exact same composition, etc. IOW, they aren't fake...the person using them is just being insincere with them.

You're reading things too literally. The tears themselves figuratively represent Xaro's supposed sadness, and the fact that they are associated with the word "mummer's" means that it is Xaro's "sadness" is fake.