Aegon and the mummer's dragon, a (hopefully) new argument

[Ditocorto]

(I'll recap a little bit, but even if you're familiar with all the theories about Aegon I invite you to read all of it)

since the very first appearence of the mummer's dragon in Dany's vision the more or less widely considered correct interpretation was mummer's dragon = fake dragon, someone that pretends (or other people pretend is) to be dragon, i.e. a Targaryen

So sure enough when Aegon appears readers, at least some of them and many on this forum, called bullshit on him, especially when later in ADWD Dany "meets" Quaithe that mentions the mummer's dragon between the people that are coming to Mereen and she should distrust. At that point in the book Aegon and co. are actually coming to Mereen and since Quaithe is more likely seeing it (and communicating with Dany) through a glass candle it's not a prophecy we're talking about, but the actual present state of things the Asshaite (I think I just made up the word) is seeing and reporting. There are some things about this warning that Quaithe give that strike me as odd, but I'm going to discuss them later, for now let's assume Aegon is the mummer's dragon, and this was just a almost crystal clear confirmation of our doubts by GRRM

well, what is Aegon if he's not a Targ? some clues (not particularly convincing to me but I recognize that the whole argument is solid and plausible) point to the possibilty that he's a Blackfyre, not a Targaryen

so a fake dragon, right? WRONG, the Blackfyres are consistently called the black DRAGONS, not the fake dragons, so a Blackfyre will still be a dragon, not a fake, ergo Aegon can't be the mummer's dragon if we take it to mean "fake dragon". Also a Blackfyre that doesn't want to usurp the throne per se but rather reunite the two lines is basically a Targaryen, I'm pretty sure that if one of the descendant of Daemon said to the current Targ king "ehi I'm sorry my grandgrandfather was an asshole, can I come back? I renounce to any claim and just want to live back in Westeros" he would have beenn allowed to. Aegon wants to marry Dany and basically rule together, and even when he starts to conquer the Stormlands the plan is never, not even for a moment, to seize the power for himself but rather to help Dany's conquest (and the fact that he's guided by Connington kind of assures that he will basically be a Targ - Dany - loyalist). Do you think Dany, who married a freaking mereneese to save a few lives, won't say yes to someone of the blood of the dragon to save a kingdom? of course she will marry him, and rule with him (that if the lad doesn't get killed first, which is not unlikely). It kinda sucks somehow that Martin pulled a deus ex machina out of a sleeve but the carachter is actually not that bad and Connington is pretty good, it could have been worse.

But I digress, back on topic! we have two choiches here

1) Aegon is not the mummer's dragon, that explains for example why Quaithe mentions all the coming dangers in pair (kraken and dark flame, griffin and lion, sun's son and mummer's dragon) but keeps the mummer's dragon far from the two he's supposed to come with. Also remember that she sees Connington and Tyrion in the glass candle (and we can assume she recognize them since has a good knowledge of Westeros) but she doesn't really have the means to know who's the young kid is, remember this is not a prophecy but a simple "report" of what she can see. Who's the mummer's dragon then? could be someone we haven't seen yet, could be the way Quaithe calls Brown Ben Plumm (who claims to have dragon blood) since she thinks he's the mummer's dragon (I think she knows of the prophecy, can't remember if the two talked about it though) and wants to warn Dany (could be a misunderstanding of the prophecy by Quaithe, in that case Aegon could be the "real" mummer's dragon - see below -)

2) Aegon is the mummer's dragon, but the meaning is not "a fake dragon". Can it mean "Vary's/Illiryo's dragon"? maybe, but he and Connington change the plan pretty soon and don't really seem to be the "dynamic duo's" creatures. My idea is that it means "the dragon cheered by the people" (foreshadowed in the little puppet play we heard is played in the streets of KL in, I believe, ACoK), meaning that this dragon (a real dragon) is the one that will be cheered by the people). How does it fit in the "slayer of lies" thing? IT DOESN'T and IT DOESN'T HAVE TO, since prophecies are treacherous bitches, and the Undying are not exactly the most reliable source and are exactly the kind of guys that would twist the words in a way that will make Dany misunderstand the visions. My idea is that what Dany sees is actually "true" but the words she hears are said by the undying ergo misleading, even if based on actual foreshadowing. In this particular case "slayer of lies" means "those are the fiercest opponents you will face", and we have Stannis (who competes for the place of Azor Ahai), the stone dragon (some kind of beast, maybe born or freed by the burning of Winterfell?) and let's say Aegon: in all three cases (except maybe the stone dragon) Dany doesn't really have to fight those (morrow not yet made...) but the Undying want her to, and so they use those words to let her think those three as a threat.

So to wrap it up my idea is that even if Aegon IS the mummer's dragon of the vision a) he doesn't have to be neither "fake" nor a Blackfyre (which won't be fake, but a black dragon instead of red one) and more likely means simply "the cheered dragon/ the dragon the people will love" (as opposed to Dany who I don't think the common folk in westeros will welcome) b ) he doesn't have to be an enemy of Dany, even if she may think (being tricked by the Undying) he is, I guess she will be hostile at first but, hoping in good counsel (Tyrion! he had to have those scenes with Aegon for a reason right?), will come to understand that a prophecy is, indeed, a treacherous bitch.

wow that was long, and I hope my english didn't make you cringe :) (I decided that if I ever start writing stories, and I have a few half developed projects, it will be in English rather than my native language)

[Jedi Master Hot Pie]

Aegon is actually Jon Arryn in disguise. It is known.

[Silmarien]

Your English is excellent. Better than mine (I'm a native speaker lol).

Interesting theory, and I'm SO glad this isn't another "Aegon is real bc Varys wouldn't lie to a dead man!" thread!

I just wanted to say, I think it's really weird that the Undying are so focused on, when they literally gave Dany prophecies with the intention of killing her and them never coming true. Why do we all take these so seriously? Why would these people who wanted to kill her tell her stuff about the "future"? It's kind of absurd if you think about it....

[danm_999]

Firstly, your English is excellent for a non-native speaker. Kudos. Secondly, there is an error or two in your analysis.

Daenerys does not see a mummer's dragon. She sees:

A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd.

This is very, very important, because while a mummer's dragon may be interpreted as a true dragon belonging to a mummer (which personally, I think is wrong given how mummer's blank is repeatedly refers to a fake something or other, I'll address that below), something made of cloth can only be interpreted as something fake or hollow. It is then, that Daenerys describes to Mormont what a cloth dragon's purpose is:

“Perhaps,” she said reluctantly. “Yet the things I saw . . .”

“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?”

“A cloth dragon on poles,” Dany explained. “Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight.”

This is a really important point, because it shows both that Daenerys identifies draws a link between something that's not real, and the phrase "a mummer's dragon", something manufactured for theatre, but not actually real. The term is something Dany has heard before, and indicates a lack of genuinity. It's likely that Quaithe is simply parroting back an idiom that Daenerys knows, not giving her an innate truth about how a mummer actually owns the dragon.

Because I have a problem with assuming that "mummer's dragon" means "Varys' dragon". It doesn't really fit at all. Every other pseudonym Quaithe uses (Lion, Griffin, Dark Flame, Sun's Son) we know who they are striaght away, and the pseudonym unquestionably defines them.

But a mummer does not define Varys at all. We know Varys was apprenticed to a mummer's troupe, but he was sold to a wizard before he became an actual mummer. He know he knows tricks of mummery, but then Varys is accomplished in half a dozen other fields as well.

Quaithe more accurately could have said the Spider's Dragon, the Spymaster's dragon, the perfurmed seneschal's dragon or the Eunuch's dragon. Assuming that Quaithe is referring to Varys obliquely because of some field Varys once studied in, but less accurately describes him than any other title I gave, is not likely, since every other person she alludes to has such a clear relationship with their title. Calling Varys a mummer isn't clear, even by Quaithe's standards, and that's saying something.

Moreover, what about Illyrio? From what we see, Illyrio has as much, if not more, to do with the raising of Aegon than Varys did, and from what we know was never a mummer. Why isn't Aegon called the cheesemonger's dragon? It just doesn't seem to fit, given what we know about Aegon.

[Ditocorto]

thanks! maybe I will write something :D

the way I see the Undying bit is that they have a limited control over the visions they gave her (them not shaping the future, as goes without saying), so basically just by inviting her in they "triggered" the visions, and then added their voices to instill confusion, fear of the future and doubt in her, so that she would be more inclined to ask their help at the end of the ride and therefore end up in their trap

[Ditocorto]

(and I finally chose an avatar, yay! not asoiaf related but still)

[Silmarien]

(and I finally chose an avatar, yay! not asoiaf related but still)

Well it's a dragon! That's related. ;)

Re: your topic. I dunno, (f)Aegon seems awfully obvious to be the Mummer's Dragon. But maybe not? Many people believe he's real. I don't, but it's possible. I just don't really think there's another candidate that makes sense.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

Why do we all take these so seriously? Why would these people who wanted to kill her tell her stuff about the "future"? It's kind of absurd if you think about it....

I started taking the Undying seriously when Dany's vision of Aerys was confirmed by Jaime Lannister. "Mhysa, Mhysa!" and the Red Wedding sealed the deal.

My take on the scene was that, to the extent that Dany was vulnerable to the spell (or effects, or whatever) of the Undying, she was also accessing their abilities/knowledge/midichlorians (but without a full understanding); the more she is exposed to the truth of whatever it was that was going on there, the closer she came to falling under its power (forever). So I don't think that any of the visions (or voices) were deceptions - except in that, if the Undying had their way, Dany would never have gone on to do anything they were talking about.

As to the OP: I think the beauty of the whole "mummer's dragon" thing is its ambiguity. While I'm pretty sure that it refers to Aegon, I think that it is equally possible that it means "fake dragon", or "Vary's dragon", or possibly both at once. The Blackfyre adds another layer of ambiguity, as Aegon's being a Blackfyre could satisfy the "false dragon" meaning (technically not a Targaryen) while still being just as good as a "real" dragon - sort of a double negative. He's not not a dragon.

And Martin has constructed this so that any one of these things could potentially be true, and we all get to keep guessing.

Also, I just want to say that I had no idea that you weren't a native English speaker until you mentioned it.

[Eejit]

This is very, very important, because while a mummer's dragon may be interpreted as a true dragon belonging to a mummer (which personally, I think is wrong given how mummer's blank is repeatedly refers to a fake something or other, I'll address that below), something made of cloth can only be interpreted as something fake or hollow.

Wrong. It can be interpreted as simply being a puppet. Please don't pretend that your favoured interpretation is the only possible one. It's disingenuous.

[The guy from the Vale]

@OP: Let me state outright that I'm unconvinced by your argument, mainly due to the lack of alternatives for the mummer's dragon (who else should it be?) and the fact that Young Griff's story mirrors Perkin Warbeck quite closely.

That said, I think you make just about the best case for Young Griff not being the mummer's dragon that I've come across so far. Still, if Young Griff is a Blackfyre (something I'm quite convinced of by now), he'd be a dragon, as you stated. But at the same time, he'd be decieving everyone (and be decieved himself) about the color of that dragon, so there's still an enormous deception involved, giving the 'mummer's' characterisation additional importance: Young Griff is a Dragon, but not the kind of dragon he claims and believes to be.

[Arionis]

My idea it's a long shot: I was wondering about the first Dunk&Egg novella, where there's the whole thing with the mummer's dragon made of cloth and the psyco Targ; the prince got angry and homicidal when he saw the cloth dragon being slayed.

What if the mummer's dragon refers to the possible death of Aegon, being slayed like his cloth counterpart??

[danm_999]

Wrong. It can be interpreted as simply being a puppet. Please don't pretend that your favoured interpretation is the only possible one. It's disingenuous.

And puppets aren't real.

If the symbolism was Aegon was being controlled by someone, you can do that without having him made out of fake materials. A dragon leashed by a mummer, for instance.

Alternatively, every other representation of a character is depicted as real; Robb Stark as the dead wolf, Rhaegar and Viserys, Aerys and Darry as themselves, Stannis with Lightbringer, Dany's Silver, the unidentified Greyjoy, Mirri Mazz Duur, the unidentified lion, Dany herself as a little girl.

So why is Aegon's artificial depiction explicable by him being a puppet, and not as an actual dragon, when half of the characters above have their actions controlled by other parties too (some even by Varys/Illyrio). Saying Aegon's being controlled doesn't explain that, the answer is that showing Aegon as made of cloth speaks to his true identity.

[Eejit]

And puppets aren't real.

If the symbolism was Aegon was being controlled by someone, you can do that without having him made out of fake materials. A dragon leashed by a mummer, for instance.

Yes if GRRM wanted to write some godawful symbolism, sure. If Aegon is a blackfyre he's still a dragon FYI, so the puppet being made out of 'fake materials' is still extraneous.

[danm_999]

Yes if GRRM wanted to write some godawful symbolism, sure. If Aegon is a blackfyre he's still a dragon FYI, so the puppet being made out of 'fake materials' is still extraneous.

He may be neither.

[Eejit]

He may be neither.

Sure, which then adds a whole new set of questions to Varys' motives.

[Buried Treasure]

I just wanted to say, I think it's really weird that the Undying are so focused on, when they literally gave Dany prophecies with the intention of killing her and them never coming true. Why do we all take these so seriously? Why would these people who wanted to kill her tell her stuff about the "future"? It's kind of absurd if you think about it....

the way I see the Undying bit is that they have a limited control over the visions they gave her (them not shaping the future, as goes without saying), so basically just by inviting her in they "triggered" the visions, and then added their voices to instill confusion, fear of the future and doubt in her, so that she would be more inclined to ask their help at the end of the ride and therefore end up in their trap

My take on the scene was that, to the extent that Dany was vulnerable to the spell (or effects, or whatever) of the Undying, she was also accessing their abilities/knowledge/midichlorians (but without a full understanding); the more she is exposed to the truth of whatever it was that was going on there, the closer she came to falling under its power (forever). So I don't think that any of the visions (or voices) were deceptions - except in that, if the Undying had their way, Dany would never have gone on to do anything they were talking about.

Something along these lines. I find it useful to envision the House of the Undying as a kind of echo chamber that reflects a person's own destiny and possibilities back at them. I think the Undying had the power to turn the magic on or off but not to control the prophecies, and clearly they turned the magic on for Dany in order to distract her.

[Maxpey]

I would like to point out that it may be possible that LG/Aegon could simultaneously be a "fake" dragon and Rhaegar and Elia's son.

This would require that the term "dragon" means the Targaryen who is fated to sit on the Iron Throne.

Remember that Viserys often referred to himself as the dragon because he believed that he was destined to sit on the Iron Throne. However, as Dany herself correctly pointed out "he was no dragon." Thus, Viserys turned out to be a Targaryen who was a "fake" dragon. Under this interpretation, LG/Aegon could very well be Rhaegar and Lyanna's son but could still be a fake dragon because he is not fated to sit on the Iron Throne.

Just an idea.

[dark sister]

Your English is excellent. Better than mine (I'm a native speaker lol).

Interesting theory, and I'm SO glad this isn't another "Aegon is real bc Varys wouldn't lie to a dead man!" thread!

I just wanted to say, I think it's really weird that the Undying are so focused on, when they literally gave Dany prophecies with the intention of killing her and them never coming true. Why do we all take these so seriously? Why would these people who wanted to kill her tell her stuff about the "future"? It's kind of absurd if you think about it....

I totally agree! ALSO, why do some users constantly assume that Quaithe is there to HELP Dany? Or even reveal true information? Some of it might be true (the sun's son) and some of it may be false. When Dany got out of the HotU, she said, pretty emphatically, that a mummer's dragon was a cloth dragon on poles, etc. Was this an actual vision? Because I don't remember. And even if it was, that doesn't mean one should trust it.

@OP: Let me state outright that I'm unconvinced by your argument, mainly due to the lack of alternatives for the mummer's dragon (who else should it be?) and the fact that Young Griff's story mirrors Perkin Warbeck quite closely.

That said, I think you make just about the best case for Young Griff not being the mummer's dragon that I've come across so far. Still, if Young Griff is a Blackfyre (something I'm quite convinced of by now), he'd be a dragon, as you stated. But at the same time, he'd be decieving everyone (and be decieved himself) about the color of that dragon, so there's still an enormous deception involved, giving the 'mummer's' characterisation additional importance: Young Griff is a Dragon, but not the kind of dragon he claims and believes to be.

Just because we haven't seen other alternatives so far doesn't mean that one won't come up later. I mean, isn't Martin famous for bringing in new characters pretty subtly? The thing is, I agree with the OP. The Blackfyres are true Targaryens on BOTH sides. Daena Targaryen had sex with Aegon the Unworthy and had Daemon Targaryen, and when he got the sword he changed his name to Blackfyre. He was a bastard, but still a true Targaryen. What would make more sense of a "mummer's dragon" (and I know this has been tossed around) is Illyrio having a baby with his "sweet Serra", who had silver-blonde hair and blue eyes. Illyrio has blue eyes and golden hair. That makes a pretty Targaryen-looking baby, if you ask me. He seemed strangely sentimental when he finally bid goodbye to Tyrion -- he wanted to see Young Griff -- and he knew what his favorite candy was. Also, Tyrion was wearing clothes that were fitted out for a little boy. I'm sure you know all this but my real question was...who was Perkin Warbeck? It sounds English. I'm learning a lot about British history, but I don't know it fully as of yet.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Aegon can still be a mummer's dragon even if he is a Blackfyre. There's still deception involved; he claims to be Aegon and he isn't.

ETA: Dany's interpretation of a mummer's dragon being something for the hero to fight is interesting, because presumably, the vision comes from her perspective of herself. That is to say, she sees herself as the hero meant to fight the mummer's dragon, but objectively speaking, that may or may not be the case.

[butterbumps!]

Just for clarification, I wanted to point something out in terms of the sequence of "cloth dragon" and "mummer's dragon."

At the HotU, between Daughter of Death and Slayer of Lies, Dany sees

A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd.

This is the first time a "cloth dragon" is referenced in the story. (And the 2 adjacent images are the blue eyed king, and the stone beast taking wing).

Then, in her next chapter, when Dany explains her visions to Jorah, she calls this vision a "mummer's dragon."

J: "A mummer's Dragon you said. What is a mummer's dragon, pray."

D: "A Cloth dragon on poles. Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

It is only much later in Dance that Quaithe refers to anything as a "mummer's dragon," notably after Dany has made up her mind that the cloth dragon on poles = "mummer's dragon," and Quaithe merely regurgitating this in terms Dany believes.

I wanted to point this out this way, because it might be an instance where personal expectations interfere with the interpretation of a prophesy. A cloth dragon swaying on poles could be a theatrical dragon as Dany interprets it as, OR it could simply be dragon banners raised amidst a cheering crowd by a very "real" Targaryen (Blackfyre or otherwise). My point is that it is Dany who makes the leap to associate the dragon with "fake," not necessarily the vision itself.

One other point of interest to me is that Dany explains a "mummer's dragon" as something that gives "the heroes something to fight." In Dance, Dany seems very aware and insecure over the fact that dragons are something heroes fight-- she recalls stories of dragonslayers being called great heroes in history, and she struggles with the fact that dragons are actually monsters. This is off topic here, but I find Dany's admission of "heroes" fighting dragons quite interesting- if she's got dragons, shouldn't the hero be fighting her?