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

[Swiftraven]

Quaithe does indeed mention them all in pairs apparently, except for the last one: "The sun's son and the mummer's dragon".

Could that mean that Quentyn is both the sun's son and the mummer's dragon?

Or maybe the mummer's dragon is someone who was with him.....Gerris Drinkwater...?

Waters was a bastard name for Targaryens (like Brynden 'Bloodraven' Waters).

And don't bastard branches often add something to their surnames (like Rennifer Longwaters for example)?

I'm not sure if 'Water' is totally different from 'Waters' here...but I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Edit: But if House Drinkwater is a bastard Targaryen branch, what they are doing in Dorne I don't know.

[captsoap]

I Fudged up

[captsoap]

Quaithe does indeed mention them all in pairs apparently, except for the last one: "The sun's son and the mummer's dragon".

Could that mean that Quentyn is both the sun's son and the mummer's dragon?

Or maybe the mummer's dragon is someone who was with him.....Gerris Drinkwater...?

Waters was a bastard name for Targaryens (like Brynden 'Bloodraven' Waters).

And don't bastard branches often add something to their surnames (like Rennifer Longwaters for example)?

I'm not sure if 'Water' is totally different from 'Waters' here...but I don't know, just thinking out loud.

This I buy.

[the Scorpion Knight]

I came yesterday to to the conclusion

that aegon could also be as well the sun's son(his mother was elia martell of dorne) as well as quentyn the mummer's dragon

[captsoap]

I came yesterday to to the conclusion

that aegon could also be as well the sun's son(his mother was elia martell of dorne) as well as quentyn the mummer's dragon

I honestly never even put 2 and 2 together. Brilliant!

[Saltwater]

Why should I actually think that the vision and Quaithes mummers's dragon are the very same thing? Just because Dany explains it to Jorah? She was already wrong with adding it gives the hero something to fight, because the crowd in the vision is cheering and not fleeing in fright.

And it was pointed out in this thread already, that the other visions are quite literal, her silver, the lion, MMD....

It could actually be a real event. Cheering crowds, a parade in the streets, of corse they very well could parade a cloth dragon. Just like nowerdays you have wagons with the Wine Queen sitting on it and alike, we all know those parades.

And honestly, well that's at least my opinon, when I would write a book with so many prophesies and little clues, I would add some to simply distract. Otherwise, when you can figuere things out like a Memory mummers's dragon=mummer's dragon, wouldn't that be boring?

So maybe this event simply refers to Barristan telling her the lie that Westeros is waiting, and has absolutely nothing to do with Quathes mummer's dragon?

[Dragonfish]

Why should I actually think that the vision and Quaithes mummers's dragon are the very same thing? Just because Dany explains it to Jorah? She was already wrong with adding it gives the hero something to fight, because the crowd in the vision is cheering and not fleeing in fright.

When Dany says the mummer's dragon is used to give the hero something to fight, she is referring to how mummer's generally use it in their shows, not how the mummer's dragon appeared in the vision. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Dany when she describes the cloth dragon as a mummer's dragon.

And it was pointed out in this thread already, that the other visions are quite literal, her silver, the lion, MMD....

Uh, no they aren't. The vision of her silver quite clearly symbolizes Drogo, and the image of the blue rose obviously symbolizes Jon. There are visual metaphors all over those prophecies.

[Saltwater]

When Dany says the mummer's dragon is used to give the hero something to fight, she is referring to how mummer's generally use it in their shows, not how the mummer's dragon appeared in the vision. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Dany when she describes the cloth dragon as a mummer's dragon.

But this is still no evidence, that this one is the same as Quaithes. It's a cloth dragon on poles, and apparently a pretty huge one. So, a dragon on strings would be one as well, or a dragon-socket-puppet would be one as well, quoting Dany that it is a kind of Dragon used in a show, of some kind however. And I personally doubt that you in general can really nail a cloth dragon on poles to a mummer show, which she does. You could even make a cloth dragon on poles for your kid to play with it. That's what I mean, it can be a thing for any kind of spectacle, not limited down to a mummer only.

Uh, no they aren't. The vision of her silver quite clearly symbolizes Drogo, and the image of the blue rose obviously symbolizes Jon. There are visual metaphors all over those prophecies.

Isn't it a blue flower? So no, Jon is actually not really obvious. I'm really careful with things being obvious, prophesies are fickle, and not always there to give help and nifty hints either. And like I have said, this might have to do with Barristan telling her the lie of Westeros waiting, so literally telling her that there is a cheering crowd to parade her. When the silver stands for Drogo, why then not the paraded dragon for Dany?

I guess I haven't been clear enough, sorry. English is not my first langugae. When the Dragon maybe simply is a dragon that is cheered at from a crowd, it could be her. That this dragon must be a mummers is her assumption, she could be wrong about that part.

[Dragonfish]

But this is still no evidence, that this one is the same as Quaithes.

You don't need evidence, it's the default assumption. When an author places foreshadowing in the text that refers to a rather unusual term like "mummer's dragon," and when another character uses that very same term later on in the text, the starting point is to assume that they are one and the same. You are the one who has to provide evidence that they aren't the same.

It's a cloth dragon on poles, and apparently a pretty huge one. So, a dragon on strings would be one as well, or a dragon-socket-puppet would be one as well, quoting Dany that it is a kind of Dragon used in a show, of some kind however. And I personally doubt that you in general can really nail a cloth dragon on poles to a mummer show, which she does. You could even make a cloth dragon on poles for your kid to play with it. That's what I mean, it can be a thing for any kind of spectacle, not limited down to a mummer only.

It doesn't need to be limited to mummer's only in order to be a mummer's dragon. As long as it is the type of tool that is strongly associated with mummers, the name is appropriate.

Isn't it a blue flower? So no, Jon is actually not really obvious.

Yes, it's a blue flower, not a rose, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's obvious. It's growing from a wall of ice, for crying out loud. Who else could it possibly refer to?

I'm really careful with things being obvious, prophesies are fickle, and not always there to give help and nifty hints either. And like I have said, this might have to do with Barristan telling her the lie of Westeros waiting, so literally telling her that there is a cheering crowd to parade her. When the silver stands for drogon, why then not the paraded dragon for Dany?

Because Quaithe tells Dany the mummer's dragon is coming to her. Dany can't be the mummer's dragon if this is true.

Oh, and I never said her silver symbolizes Drogon, I said it symbolizes Drogo, her husband. Not sure if that's what you meant to write or not.

I guess I haven't been clear enough, sorry. English is not my first langugae. When the Drogo maybe simply is a dragon that is cheered at from a crowd, it could be her. That this dragon must be a mummers is her assumption, she could be wrong about that part.

How could she be wrong? Knowing what a mummer's dragon is requires only a modicum of cultural knowledge, like knowing how to recognize a puppet when you see one. And if she was indeed mistaken about the vision being a mummer's dragon, then it is remarkably coincidental that the term still crops up again later on in the story.

[nekrohsis]

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?

Well, if Varys planned to have Aegon "save" Westeros after Dany invades with a Dorthraki horde, then Dany is there to be given the heroes something to fight--something orchestrated by a former mummer. What if the mummer's dragon represents what people will try to use Dany for? Maybe Quaithe is warning her not to become the mummer's dragon.

Again, with 'kraken and dark flame' and 'lion and griffin', those are pairs that travel together on the same ship while journeying to Dany. Since it's pretty clear who the sun's son is, what could be the mummer's dragon traveling with him? One of the sellswords who pretends to desert with him? One of his companions? Or is it the letter he carries--an invitation for Dany to come home, to step back into the Westerosi 'game of thrones'? This is a little jumbled, but I find it hard to assume that Doran Martell, this supposed political genius, would only rely on a marriage pact to support his rebellion. He's already sending his daughter off to Aegon . . . what if he's working with Varys? What if they're still trying to cast Dany as a foreign enemy?

When you mix this in with Dany's whole 'floppy ears' thing, we see Dany struggles to establish her own identity. She has dragons in Mereen, but never uses them. She slowly looses power there, becoming, in effect, little more than a cloth dragon, a figurehead. Is it feasible to consider that the mummer's dragon may represent one of Dany's personal flaws?

[Saltwater]

You don't need evidence, it's the default assumption. When an author places foreshadowing in the text that refers to a rather unusual term like "mummer's dragon," and when another character uses that very same term later on in the text, the starting point is to assume that they are one and the same. You are the one who has to provide evidence that they aren't the same.

You mean forshadowing things like, Jamie throughing Bran down, expensive dagger used for failed assasination attemp and Lysas letter blaming the Lannisters? I do not give much about such forshadowing, especially when it is to one person, or a group that can talk about it. It could very well just be for the reason to mislead you as a reader. Most time the real interesting things are told to people that have no clue, like Sam meeting Arya. You might want to believe that Martin always gives out easy hints that will turn out true, I believe he's having fun to come up with surprises that you cannot come up so easily with just finding two fitting cards in a Memory game. There is no definit PROOF that the two mummers dragons are the same, it is assumed. So I can assume otherwise as well

It doesn't need to be limited to mummer's only in order to be a mummer's dragon. As long as it is the type of tool that is strongly associated with mummers, the name is appropriate.

But does that makes it a mumers dragon and that only? She is telling what she is seeing, and that is a cloth dragon. If it would be so obvious to her that it is this one thing only, why not saying it right away? It is only later that when she is explaining it to Jorah.

She could have described the whole scene as cheering for a mummers dragon, but she did not.

Yes, it's a blue flower, not a rose, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's obvious. It's growing from a wall of ice, for crying out loud. Who else could it possibly refer to?

Oh, I believe I recently read a pretty good therory about it here lately.

Calling it a flower means either Dany never seen a Rose, or it isn't a rose. I never refered in my life to a rose simply as a flower, when talking about roses. You simply don't say I have been given flowers, when it was actually roses.

Because Quaithe tells Dany the mummer's dragon is coming to her. Dany can't be the mummer's dragon if this is true.

Oh, yes this is when you nail the prophecy to what Dany is telling Jorah later and when you take for granted that those two things are definately and unquestionable the very same thing, which I don't.

The prophecy in the HOTU is about lies. And that would mean, cheering crowds for Aegon, but that's not true cuz it's a lie, so no cheering crowds for him. Good for her^^ And then we have Barristan who is telling her that Westeros is waiting, which is a lie....

The prophecy is not simply a cloth dragon, but a cheering crowd that is parading one. Makes much more sense for me to warn Dany about that lie, then anything regarding Aegon. Especially when she gets a warning about that from Quaithe, when you want to take her mummers dragon as him. Barristan is doing her no favour in making her believe she will have back up, that is far more fatal and vital, then the info that she may expose Aegon, especially when Quaithe points to that as well. If you put both together, you rule out for Dany to find out about Barristan lieing, which is in her disfavour, and not helping. She alone would never expect Barristan to tell her lies! Thinking that they are the same will make her overlook that lie. I hope I could make clear to where I was going at. Making HER both think of as mummers dragons and assume it's the same will make her overlook that they may not... There is danger in that and not glory of exposing. I hope I could make myself somehow clear in that. So putting both terms to the same thing/event/person could be hindering instead of helping. I'm not claiming that they may not turn out to be and I can surely be wrong. But it would make sense for me to have her go that way and overlooking danger in that point

Oh, and I never said her silver symbolizes Drogon, I said it symbolizes Drogo, her husband. Not sure if that's what you meant to write or not.

Yes, that was a typo

How could she be wrong? Knowing what a mummer's dragon is requires only a modicum of cultural knowledge, like knowing how to recognize a puppet when you see one. And if she was indeed mistaken about the vision being a mummer's dragon, then it is remarkably coincidental that the term still crops up again later on in the story.

Well, look above. It still could simply stand for a dragon cheered upon. How else would you "paint" that? In a mummers game, with a mummers dragon and a puppet-knight, the mummers dragon stands simply for a dragon as well, and not a fake one. And do we know Quaithe is actually helping? She did not warn about the Harpy, unless you want to take the senechal. But then why not be clear and say Harpy? Maybe Quaithe especially choose mummers dragon? We do not know....

I rather look at any possibilities then simply dismiss one. Prophecies are fickle, they can help, they can drive you insane, overlooked and misinterpreted ones can prove fatal.... that is their nature.

[David C. Hunter]

OP, ur theory points to Aegon being neither Targ or Blackfyre, which is my belief as of today

[Khal Porno]

Someone mentioned that he must be fake because the cloth dragon on poles is a puppet, and puppets are fake. Not true; a literal puppet is fake, yes - but someone who is being USED or controlled by someone else is also a puppet. Aegon is being controlled (or at least "managed") by Connington, which would make him somewhat of a puppet - so he could be who he thinks he is.

Also, as we've seen a "mummer" is another word for "actor" in Ice & Fire, and Connington is pretending to be someone he's not (Griff) - essentially he is acting. And since Aegon is under his control/stewardship, he can be considered a "mummer's dragon."

Tyrion seems pretty convinced of his identity as well, and I think he would be more skeptical of what appeared to be true, or perceptive if it is false. Not proof that Aegon is who he thinks he is, but evidence that he likely is.

Plus in Connington's POV chapters there haven't been any hints that Aegon is false - if he was, then we would at least see him saying SOMETHING that would subtly hint that he was concerned that something wouldn't work, even without coming right out and saying "I hope no one figures out Aegon is fake!" Unless of course Connington doesn't know and believes that he is truly Elia's and Rhaegar's son. But then if he wasn't, why would he believe this? Wouldn't he also be skeptical?

I think that the simplest answer is usually true, and most likely Aegon is who he believes he is. All of this speculation that he is fake seems to mostly come from message boards and not really what is suggested in the text.

However, he could be fake and part of some elaborate plan. The answer is that we won't know for sure until it is (or isn't) revealed by Martin.

This whole thing is kind of like the "Is Deckard a replicant?" argument about Blade Runner.

[Jem]

Plus in Connington's POV chapters there haven't been any hints that Aegon is false - if he was, then we would at least see him saying SOMETHING that would subtly hint that he was concerned that something wouldn't work, even without coming right out and saying "I hope no one figures out Aegon is fake!" Unless of course Connington doesn't know and believes that he is truly Elia's and Rhaegar's son. But then if he wasn't, why would he believe this? Wouldn't he also be skeptical?

Connington has no idea. How could he know one way or the other? He didn't meet Aegon until the boy was 5 or 6 years old.

Connington is desperate to believe. He feels guilt and shame over his failure during the Rebellion and the loss of his love, Rhaegar. Connington was content to drink himself to death as part of the Golden Company until Aegon came along and gave him a reason to keep on going.

[Dragonfish]

You mean forshadowing things like, Jamie throughing Bran down, expensive dagger used for failed assasination attemp and Lysas letter blaming the Lannisters?

Uh...no. None of that qualifies as foreshadowing.

I do not give much about such forshadowing, especially when it is to one person, or a group that can talk about it. It could very well just be for the reason to mislead you as a reader. Most time the real interesting things are told to people that have no clue, like Sam meeting Arya. You might want to believe that Martin always gives out easy hints that will turn out true, I believe he's having fun to come up with surprises that you cannot come up so easily with just finding two fitting cards in a Memory game. There is no definit PROOF that the two mummers dragons are the same, it is assumed. So I can assume otherwise as well

Of course it is assumed that a mummer's dragon is the same thing as a mummer's dragon. That is the default assumption, as I said, and there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.

But does that makes it a mumers dragon and that only? She is telling what she is seeing, and that is a cloth dragon. If it would be so obvious to her that it is this one thing only, why not saying it right away? It is only later that when she is explaining it to Jorah.

She could have described the whole scene as cheering for a mummers dragon, but she did not.

Dany never describes it as a cloth dragon when she sees the vision. That is the narrator giving a physical description of what she's seeing.

Oh, I believe I recently read a pretty good therory about it here lately.

Calling it a flower means either Dany never seen a Rose, or it isn't a rose. I never refered in my life to a rose simply as a flower, when talking about roses. You simply don't say I have been given flowers, when it was actually roses.

From one native speaker of English to a non-native speaker, I have to say that this is bullshit. A rose is a flower. It can be called by either name. "Rose" is just more specific.

Oh, yes this is when you nail the prophecy to what Dany is telling Jorah later and when you take for granted that those two things are definately and unquestionable the very same thing, which I don't.

The prophecy in the HOTU is about lies. And that would mean, cheering crowds for Aegon, but that's not true cuz it's a lie, so no cheering crowds for him.

No, I think the "lies" refer to Aegon's false identity.

I rather look at any possibilities then simply dismiss one. Prophecies are fickle, they can help, they can drive you insane, overlooked and misinterpreted ones can prove fatal.... that is their nature.

Ok, but your point isn't just based on the fickle nature of prophecies, it's based on the idea that Dany somehow cannot recognize a mummer's dragon when she sees one. As I said, that's like saying that someone cannot recognize a puppet when they see one. It's a huge stretch to think that Dany is that ignorant.

[Dragonfish]

Someone mentioned that he must be fake because the cloth dragon on poles is a puppet, and puppets are fake. Not true; a literal puppet is fake, yes - but someone who is being USED or controlled by someone else is also a puppet. Aegon is being controlled (or at least "managed") by Connington, which would make him somewhat of a puppet - so he could be who he thinks he is.

Except that the "mummer's dragon" is associated with the line "slayer of lies", so there's clearly something fraudulent about him.

Also, as we've seen a "mummer" is another word for "actor" in Ice & Fire, and Connington is pretending to be someone he's not (Griff) - essentially he is acting. And since Aegon is under his control/stewardship, he can be considered a "mummer's dragon."

We've also seen the terms "mummer's show" and "mummer's farce" used to refer to people putting on airs or pretending to be something they're not. And we've also seen the term "mummer's tears" used metaphorically to describe a character's insincere sadness. So if we're going off of how the term "mummer's" is actually used in the story, we have to conclude that it implies fakeness of some kind.

Tyrion seems pretty convinced of his identity as well, and I think he would be more skeptical of what appeared to be true, or perceptive if it is false. Not proof that Aegon is who he thinks he is, but evidence that he likely is.

Actually, Tyrion appears to be skeptical of Aegon's story. He is dripping with a "this is all too good to be true" tone when recounting Aegon's explanation of how he was saved as a child, and when Aegon knocks over the cyvasse table, Tyrion says to himself, "Perhaps he is a Targaryen after all."

Plus in Connington's POV chapters there haven't been any hints that Aegon is false - if he was, then we would at least see him saying SOMETHING that would subtly hint that he was concerned that something wouldn't work, even without coming right out and saying "I hope no one figures out Aegon is fake!" Unless of course Connington doesn't know and believes that he is truly Elia's and Rhaegar's son. But then if he wasn't, why would he believe this? Wouldn't he also be skeptical?

See Jem's post above.

I think that the simplest answer is usually true, and most likely Aegon is who he believes he is. All of this speculation that he is fake seems to mostly come from message boards and not really what is suggested in the text.

Yes, the theory comes mostly from people on the message boards, but that doesn't mean it's not based on the text. At one point, Moqorro even mentions that he sees dragons "true and false" in his visions, so right there is a direct statement from the text that refers to the existence of some sort of false dragon. It's fine if you choose to interpret it a different way, but you can't say that those of us who believe Aegon is fake are pulling this out of our asses.

[Lord Godric]

I think that the simplest answer is usually true, and most likely Aegon is who he believes he is. All of this speculation that he is fake seems to mostly come from message boards and not really what is suggested in the text.

I agree with you that the simplest answer is usually true, Occam's Razor. However, I do not agree with you that the simplest answer is that Aegon is truly who he believes he is. I also do not agree that the speculation mostly comes from the message boards. The entire idea of the "mummer's dragon" is canonical and in the text, and in there more than once. The fact that we know there is a "mummer's dragon" that Dany has to "slay" suggests there is a fake dragon out there. And when the question "who is that fake dragon" is asked the simplest answer is Aegon.

[richard_ba]

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

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."

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?

Ok, you say that Dany made up her mind about cloth dragon on poles, but if Quaithe merely regurgitated it, why she mentions characters which Dany hadn't up in her mind? i.e.: Sun's Son, Dark Flame, et al.

[richard_ba]

And even if Aegon is a Blackfyre, he is a mummery, hasn't anyone in here heard about identity theft? If he claims and assumes he is someone who he isn't, this is a mummery

http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-15/news/29421604_1_security-firm-security-guards-payrolls

[Saltwater]

Uh...no. None of that qualifies as foreshadowing.

Well then how about that? The red comet, funeral pyre, tears? Blood on the stars of the tabard, smoking wound, Bowen tears? And two different people? And no proof that we will not see a third event that will fit right in. There is no way something is absolutely pointing to one thing until it is really fulfilled. Two different people that are using one term do not proof that this is one thing, especially when you don't know the real intentions of one of them.

Of course it is assumed that a mummer's dragon is the same thing as a mummer's dragon. That is the default assumption, as I said, and there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.

So there is no reason? Well lets see how that turns out for Dany to think, that this vision is about Aegon. She will expose Aegon to not be true und still end up nowhere. Aegon wanted to ally and marry her, so actually get the throne together.

Here we have Barristan, telling Dany there is a cheering crowd waiting for her to return to Westeros. This is what he is implying. This vision could be about that after all, but Dany is not seeing it, well cuz it's about that mummers dragon that is coming right?

Dany going to Westeros, thinking it will be all nice and cosy, people are waiting for her return, they will provide support and food for her army. And everyone will be happy that she chased the Lannisters away with fire and blood and will love her.

The truth is, Dany will come into a winterly, warridden Westeros, with starving people, tired of war. no cheering, no support, no saviour needed and she will be hated for more destruction.

Would it have been important to know that before? To find out that Barristan is telling a lie about cheering crowds for a dragon? I think yes. Especially when that lie comes from a person she absolutely trusts and we know nothing about Quaithes real intentions. It would be something else, if Barristan would not have said it, but as it is, I see that a dangerous situation.

Of corse anyone can believe what they want, and I don't want to claim to be right. If you want to think it is about Aegon this is fine. I for myself just don't want to overlook the danger in Barristans lie and Dany not seeing it because exactly of that two mummers dragons are the same. I believe that a forum is about input, and maybe coming up with other possibilities.

Dany never describes it as a cloth dragon when she sees the vision. That is the narrator giving a physical description of what she's seeing.

But that still does not render it to be the very exact same thing. Like I said, when Mummers do use it, they actually are picturing a real dragon in their game. It may still look the same and be the same, but it shows two different things. They may just show her a dragon that is cheered upon while Quaithe uses it for one that is controlled. Quaithe might have after all used this term especially to drive Dany away from that vision.... Someone refering in Cerseis presence to someone as a Valonquar might have the same effect, that she absolutely would jump for it, while not being her own valonquar.

From one native speaker of English to a non-native speaker, I have to say that this is bullshit. A rose is a flower. It can be called by either name. "Rose" is just more specific.

More specific is the enemy of a prophecy^^ The divil's in the detail, not in the big picture ;) and it's the small details that always lead to the downfall cuz of being overlooked. And a rose is important, when it is ment to point to a very specific other rose. A flower is a loose thing, could point to Tyrells, even to Spring itself... hell, it could even point to some nifty natural magic on the wall from the COTF.

No, I think the "lies" refer to Aegon's false identity.

Well of corse you are more then welcome to believe that. I just think that this information is not really that important to Dany after all, becuase he will be the only back-up she will be having. And I see no way for her to do so, cuz after all we know, she is the one with the least knowledge about anything or anyone in Westeros after all. She does not even know her sigils or something, so how will it be her to uncover Varys plan, when noone so far ever was able to really get behind him, or LF or some other schemes. She's having tea with the Harpy as far as we can suspect^^ and blurping out all her plans and intentions, sure she will uncover Aegon, with not even him knowing he is "not true". So far I have been given absolutely no reason from the books to come to the conclusion, that Dany will turn out to be the Sherlock Holmes of Westeros, actually more the opposit of that.

Ok, but your point isn't just based on the fickle nature of prophecies, it's based on the idea that Dany somehow cannot recognize a mummer's dragon when she sees one. As I said, that's like saying that someone cannot recognize a puppet when they see one. It's a huge stretch to think that Dany is that ignorant.

No, you got me wrong there. This is what I was trying to say all along. A cloth dragon, just cuz she refers to it as a mummers dragon is not intentionally the very same mummers dragon Quaithe brings up. Or even Quaithe calling it one, cuz Dany used this reference before. Like, if there was a festivity for her to welcome her in KL, and the crowds would actually really parade through the streets with dragons of cloth to honor her, would you still call them mummers dragons with the intention of saying, that they parade them to show that dany is not real or a fake? Or would you take that they symbolise her as a dragon, as she refers to herself? This is why I am saying it could be her, even if you refer to it as the term of mummers dragon, it does not exactly have to do anything with being a fake. You have that symbolism all the time, Tywin having golden Lion Shoulderblades, Loras has juwel flowers on his armour. And maybe sometimes a dragon of cloth symply symbolises a Tagaryen, or Dany.

And at least, Dany's mummers's dragon is simply one thing. She just sees a dragon, not the mummer as well. Which would have been enough, if it only was about a fake Aegon, to show a mummer opparating a dragon. But the mummer is missing and instead it has a cheering crowd. And as Martin put it so nifty in Quaithes prophecy, the mummer's dragon comes along with the Sun's (Doran) Son (Quentin). Which would render him as the product of refering to two people. The mummer and the dragon.