danm_999 Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 But I am pretty certain that Jon Connington would know something was up. He knew Rhaegar intimately, he migt just be deluding himself but I'm sure he'd know whether this kid was half Targ and half Dornish, as well as the son of his best friend.He didn't meet Aegon until he was 5, and he hasn't seen Rhaegar for decades. Not to mention he's kind of wracked with guilt over failing Rhaegar, so I don't know he can necessarily be counted upon to provide an objective set of eyes on whether the kid was actually Aegon or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unborn Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 The sun's son = the son of Doran Martell (Quentyn)and the mummer's dragon = Varys's dragon (Aegon)That's the way I always read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malgarroth Posted May 13, 2012 Author Share Posted May 13, 2012 He didn't meet Aegon until he was 5, and he hasn't seen Rhaegar for decades. Not to mention he's kind of wracked with guilt over failing Rhaegar, so I don't know he can necessarily be counted upon to provide an objective set of eyes on whether the kid was actually Aegon or not.The point is he KNEW Rhaegar, his face often haunts him. In his POV he's never once mentioned that Aegon doesn't look like Rhaegar.And they do share a look. Viserys looked like Aerys according to Jorah, and Viserys also looked a lot like Rhaegar, enough for Daenerys to mistake him for Viserys in the HoTU. So this leads me to believe that the whole thing will hinge upon Aegon and Daenerys meeting, seeing as she most recently saw both Rhaegar and baby Aegon.The sun's son = the son of Doran Martell (Quentyn)and the mummer's dragon = Varys's dragon (Aegon)That's the way I always read it.My view on the mummer's dragon is that it literally means "bullshit dragon" because she sees an actual fake dragon. The vision doesn't make sense to me when it's viewed in the posessive sort of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danm_999 Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 The point is he KNEW Rhaegar, his face often haunts him. In his POV he's never once mentioned that Aegon doesn't look like Rhaegar.Right but that's not necessarily confirmation, because as we've discussed, Connington is not exactly an objective source. It's totally possible he believes Aegon is Rhaegar's, but to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnorak Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 The quote is "Trust none of them. Beware the perfumed seneschal" Not "Beware the mummer's dragon"And, as I've mentioned, he believe's that he's destined to ride a dragon due to his bloodline and that belief is proved false. I know he doesn't run around yelling "I'm a dragon, I'm a Targaryen" it's more subtle than that.Is it so absurd that we're being led to believe that Aegon is the mummer's dragon so that we can be surprised later? Is it such an odd idea that the least obvious answer is the correct one? Surely not! GRRM doesn't do plot twists! -_-Just saying, if Rhaegal gets all cuddly with Aegon, it's a pretty safe bet that he's a Targaryen. Dragons are good at seeing through bullshit.I thought the whole point of a "mummer" reference was the deception. I see Quenton thinking he can ride the dragon as more like LF thinking he can beat Brandon Stark in a duel. Lots of deception but its all self-deception. I can see someone describing the Brandon/LF duel as a "mummer's farce" but I still think its too much of a stretch. Predicting a guy will do something really stupid to impress a girl just isn't that prophetic. It is not that your interpretation is impossible, just that Aegon is by far a much better fit. For all that it matters, it can refer to a fake Aegon as fake dragon or a real Aegon as the dragon owned by the mummer Varys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malgarroth Posted May 13, 2012 Author Share Posted May 13, 2012 Right but that's not necessarily confirmation, because as we've discussed, Connington is not exactly an objective source. It's totally possible he believes Aegon is Rhaegar's, but to be wrong.I know, not confirmation, but it does reinforce my point that we do not KNOW the answer. They are just theories and either one could be correct.I thought the whole point of a "mummer" reference was the deception. I see Quenton thinking he can ride the dragon as more like LF thinking he can beat Brandon Stark in a duel. Lots of deception but its all self-deception. I can see someone describing the Brandon/LF duel as a "mummer's farce" but I still think its too much of a stretch. Predicting a guy will do something really stupid to impress a girl just isn't that prophetic. It is not that your interpretation is impossible, just that Aegon is by far a much better fit. For all that it matters, it can refer to a fake Aegon as fake dragon or a real Aegon as the dragon owned by the mummer Varys.I think that;s the reason I don't believe that Aegon is the mummer's dragon. He fits the profile (on an omniscient reader level) too much. I think that the answer is less obvious.And Martin has been known to take totally mundane things (like doing something stupid to impress a girl) and make them a part of prophecy. Look at the dragon egg fiasco in Dunk and Egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Okay. So we can see here that those that are coming are arranged in pairs here, grouping together members of the various parties.'The 'pair' thing might be true, but it isn't necessary.It could well be a simple list but the apparent 'pairings ' are for lyrical, rhythmical or 'foreign language structure' reasons.Its a warning not a prophecy, but it is couched in prophetic language and it is very likely that, as with most prophecies, lyricism and rhythmicality are essential parts of the delivery. Its all drama. Its far more dramatic, and flows better, to pair up parts of a list when you say it. Just say the whole line out loud, once as a non-paired list deadpan, and once with dramatic rhythm, paired, and you should understand.Its also possible (though less likely important IMO) that it is simply a structural variation of language due to Quaithe being foreign to Dany.But again, it is also possible that it is a list of pairs as it appears.My view on the mummer's dragon is that it literally means "bullshit dragon" because she sees an actual fake dragon. The vision doesn't make sense to me when it's viewed in the posessive sort of way.The vision is a different entity from Quaithe's warning though. There is no connection between the two, except that Quaithe uses a literal term that Dany (or her advisor, I forget), separately, used to describe Dany's HotU vision, not from her vision.What Dany sees in her vision is crowds cheering the return of a dragon that presumably they believe is real, and she sees as fake. But somewhere in the vision is a lie that she will slay. Is the lie that the crowds cheer for the dragon at all? Is the lie that the dragon is fake, deceiving the crowds? Is the lie that the 'fake' dragon is not in fact fake? Is the 'mummer's dragon' an actual fake dragon, or just the prophetic symbol of a dragon directed by a mummer? Or is the lie something else we haven't thought of yet?We still cannot be sure, though many readers appear to have made their minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard of Summer Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I actually like this. Never thought about it this way either! It may seem a little narrow to some, but I think you might be on to something...I've been thinking about the definition of mummer- someone who is acting a part-. I think it could be someone who isn't necessarily pretending to be a "Targaryen" Dragon (Targaryen or Blackfyre red or black a dragon is still a dragon right?). But it could be a some other Targaryen/Blackfyre( not all are dead. Aerion "Brightflame" Targaryen was exiled to essos and a son. and his son could have had son's and whatnot so on and so forth. Aerion too served with the second sons) pretending to be someone else. They may come to Dany and not be really significant plot changing character, they try and scheme her some way, she finds out who they are and they die via Drogon.Anyways it gave me something to think about. I won't completely dismiss it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost the direwolf Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 what I like is the fact that someone will always come with a new way of seeing, interpreting those prophesies. I do like your interpretation ( the pairing thing, I never really gave much thoughts on those prophesies to be honest. I was deeply influenced by this forum ( always reading spoilers while reading the books) but why is the last one referring to the same person when the other ones are referring to 2 different persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eejit Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 My view on the mummer's dragon is that it literally means "bullshit dragon" because she sees an actual fake dragon. The vision doesn't make sense to me when it's viewed in the posessive sort of way.And if you think that, that's your prerogative. But I still think it's inaccurate to see the sun's son and the mummer's dragon as the same person. Even though I think Aegon is a fraud, I just want to point out that if Varys is the one pulling those strings, "mummer's dragon" can just as easily just mean "Varys' dragon," without having to mean that he's fake. So even if you think "Aegon" is real, there's no reason why he couldn't still be the mummer's dragon, just in the context of "Varys' dragon" and not "fake dragon." I think he's both — a fake dragon, and Varys' dragon — but it doesn't have to be read that way.Indeed, either occurrence could also be referring to a puppet dragon in combination with either of the above meanings. Remember that if Aegon is a 'fake' then if he is a Blackfyre (or Brightflame) he arguably still counts as a 'dragon'.I do take Quaithe's warnings with a large pinch of salt however since realising that they aren't prophecy per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namtose Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I've been analysing this one line from Quaithe regarding the people who are coming to Daenerys in ADWD."No. Hear me, Daenerys Targaryen. 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."I'm pretty comfortable with the mummer's dragon refers to Aegon. It maintains the couplet structure of the warning and Varys is our only mummer of notice. Varys saved the child and has been instrumental in raising the boy along with Illyios.It is pretty remarkable that Quaithe is very accurate for these are the people that are seeking Dany, all for their own purposes and none for her benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Indeed, either occurrence could also be referring to a puppet dragon in combination with either of the above meanings.Remember that if Aegon is a 'fake' then if he is a Blackfyre (or Brightflame) he arguably still counts as a 'dragon'.I do take Quaithe's warnings with a large pinch of salt however since realising that they aren't prophecy per se. :agree:This is not about being the "purest" Targ blooded (since then even fake Aegon could possibly end up with more direct decendants of the Targ - Blackfyre line than Dany if we assume both Blackfyre and Aerion Brightflame in his lineage), but that Aegon has been set up by Varys: the Mummer.The only one who has "confirmed" Aegon's identity so far is Varys, and maybe to a lesser degree Illyrio, who is in on Vary's plan.It's interesting to note as well that Varys himself is very, very skilled at adopting various personalities, or even dressing up as a woman, to deceive or escape notice. Masquerading is something that's one of his essential characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard of Summer Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 So Brown Ben Plumm is not on the list right? He claims to have Targaryen blood. Could he be someone she needs to look out for? I don't really think he's a candidate but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccioSword Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't think it's so much about Aegon being a "fake" dragon (not really Rhaegar's son). Maybe it's kind of like with Viserys. Do you remember Dany's thoughts when he died?"He was no dragon, Dany thought, curiously calm. Fire cannot kill a dragon."So maybe Aegon really is Rhaegar's son, but even if he is the blood of the dragon, that does not mean he will be able to win the war. I think he is a mummer's dragon because he will fail. She is the real dragon, the real queen.I think the point of the prophecy is that they can't help her sit the Iron throne. She will have to do it by herself. It's like "Soon comes the pale mare, and after her a bunch of losers. Kraken and dark flame, lion and griffin, the sun's son and the mummer's dragon. All losers, girl." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teal'c Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The mummer's dragon could be someone else who was travelling with Quentyn. The two Dornishmen are well identified, but I am still very curious about the Tattered Prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard of Summer Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I was just thinking the guy from the Citadel Marwyn is supposed to be on his way to Mereen via the Cinnamon Wind to Dany, do you think he will try to put himself off as a Targaryen in order to try and get close to her? To teach her the ways of dragonlore or whathaveyou. Will he pretend to be Aemon?Also I think Quaithe is real she is just using a draongglass candle to speak to Dany. That's how she just appears and disappers at will. In AFFC it states that dragonglass was Valyrian sorcery....."all valyrian sorcery was rooted in blood or fire. the sorcerers of the freehold could see across mountains, seas, and deserts with one of the glass candles. they could enter a man's dreams and give him visions, and speak to one another half a world apart, seated before their candles..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitters23 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'd like to agree, but I can't see Aegon being something other than a Blackfyre due to his late appearance in the series. I've been thinking about Daenerys' visions in the House of the Undying, and it may be possible that each "mummer's dragon" are separate people, maybe Quentyn is from the vision and Aegon is the mummer's dragon from Quaithe's prophecy? I know, it's a bit farfetched.If he is a fake than who is the 3rd head to the dragon? And if it is someone else than we are going to be introduced to them even later into the series, unless some crazy stuff is revealed to make it someone we already know well. (I like the Tyrion theory if this is the case) The point is he KNEW Rhaegar, his face often haunts him. In his POV he's never once mentioned that Aegon doesn't look like Rhaegar.And they do share a look. Viserys looked like Aerys according to Jorah, and Viserys also looked a lot like Rhaegar, enough for Daenerys to mistake him for Viserys in the HoTU. So this leads me to believe that the whole thing will hinge upon Aegon and Daenerys meeting, seeing as she most recently saw both Rhaegar and baby Aegon.Also, let's not forget Elia Martell brought new blood into the line, so I always thought that Aegon and his sister would look a lot like her too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Roaring Bear Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 My view on the mummer's dragon is that it literally means "bullshit dragon" because she sees an actual fake dragon. The vision doesn't make sense to me when it's viewed in the posessive sort of way.Well, if you want to be literal, then it is posessive since there is an apostraphe 's'. So literally reading as "Dragon that belongs to the mummer".If we wanted a literal reading for "Bullshit dragon" then it would be the "Mummer Dragon" but it doesnt.The only way your interpretation might be literal is to say that a mummer wouldnt use a real dragon so yadda yadda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuaitheTheShadow Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Mispost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well, if you want to be literal, then it is posessive since there is an apostraphe 's'. So literally reading as "Dragon that belongs to the mummer". If we wanted a literal reading for "Bullshit dragon" then it would be the "Mummer Dragon" but it doesnt. The only way your interpretation might be literal is to say that a mummer wouldnt use a real dragon so yadda yadda. Malgarroth is referring to the original vision, in which only a physical, fake dragon is shown. The words "mummer's dragon" are never spoken in the vision; it is simply the term Dany uses to describe the fake dragon she saw there.Also, it is not at all true that you'd have to say "mummer dragon" in order to imply "fake dragon." If I say I have "athlete's foot", does that mean I literally have the foot of an athlete? Or if I say I have a "baker's dozen" of something, does that dozen literally belong to a baker? No, they are clearly metaphors, and so too is the term "mummer's dragon." In fact, there is a passage from ADWD where Dany specifically uses the term "mummer's tears" to refer to another character's insincere tears, so clearly the author disagrees with you about the whole mummer vs. mummer's issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.