Varys Targaryen?

[Szar]

The facts may not deny it, but they don't have to. In the absence of evidence, we go to the null hypothesis; i.e. what we can reasonably assume. We have no evidence that supports Varys as a Targaryen, therefore he is not one.

[Three Dog Knight]

"Proof" and "evidence" are two words for the same thing. (Not precisely, but close enough for the purposes of this discussion.)

What a bizarre argument. I assure you, they do not mean the same thing. I invite you to consult your nearest dictionary.

Let me give you an example. Before we knew Arstan was Barristan, was there any evidence? Well, he was an old man. He was a good fighter. His name sounded kind of similar. Those things were all evidence that Arstan was Barristan. Were they proof? No. This is the way GRRM writes. He likes to leak out clues and then surprise us. This is evident all throughout ASOIAF. Sometimes they turn out to be true, sometimes they are red herrings.

Anyway, if you are going to argue by trying to redefine the English language, enjoy.

[Guest Other-in-law]

What a bizarre argument. I assure you, they do not mean the same thing. I invite you to consult your nearest dictionary.

Let me give you an example. Before we knew Arstan was Barristan, was there any evidence? Well, he was an old man. He was a good fighter. His name sounded kind of similar. Those things were all evidence that Arstan was Barristan. Were they proof? No. This is the way GRRM writes. He likes to leak out clues and then surprise us. This is evident all throughout ASOIAF. Sometimes they turn out to be true, sometimes they are red herrings.

Anyway, if you are going to argue by trying to redefine the English language, enjoy.

Have you bothered to check what the definition of "evidence" is? The first hit I got was:

1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.

It seems to me that your use is more "lack of proof to the contrary" than making evident the proof of something. Maybe Littlefinger is really Archmaester Marwyn...what is our "evidence" in favour? They are both mammals. They are never seen in the same room. Hey, there's some evidence that they are the same right there!

[the silent speaker]

It is indeed. It is such extraordinarily weak evidence that no one sensible would put it forward as a serious argument (I here omit all discussion of the "all ravens are black" paradox), but it is at least retroactive evidence by virtue of not refuting. A lot of the R+L=J evidence is of a similar character: "Ned looked like Lyanna, Arya and Jon both look like Ned, therefore Jon looks like Lyanna, thus evidence that Jon could be Lyanna's son" is a common one.

Although I should note that we never actually see Littlefinger lactating, so you will need to defend your assertion that he is a mammal.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Although I should note that we never actually see Littlefinger lactating, so you will need to defend your assertion that he is a mammal.

"Brandon was too kind to you," Ned said as he slammed the little man back against a wall and shoved his dagger up under the little chin beard.

The presence of a beard on LF's chin strongly suggests that he has hair. Turkey's are also said to have beards, but theirs normally grow from the chest not the chin. Perhaps someone should ask GRRM if LF has a snood....he'd probably give the "keep reading" answer if questioned directly about LF's mammalhood, but a sly question about snoods is more like to slip under his radar.

[Szar]

What a bizarre argument. I assure you, they do not mean the same thing. I invite you to consult your nearest dictionary.

And I assure you that they do (or closely enough for the purposes of this discussion). I naturally consulted a dictionary prior to making that statement, something you evidently haven't done. Evidence is the currency by which you fulfill the burden of proof.

Let me give you an example. Before we knew Arstan was Barristan, was there any evidence? Well, he was an old man. He was a good fighter. His name sounded kind of similar. Those things were all evidence that Arstan was Barristan. Were they proof? No. This is the way GRRM writes. He likes to leak out clues and then surprise us. This is evident all throughout ASOIAF. Sometimes they turn out to be true, sometimes they are red herrings.

Yes, that is evidence, because it supports the case in question. (Well, not the name thing.)

In order to suggest a theory that is based on the books and not simply pulled out of thin air, you must have a basis on which to build it. Prior to Arstan being revealed as Barristan, you could present the theory that they are one and the same based on those facts: 1) Arstan and Barristan are both old. 2) Arstan and Barristan are both skilled fighters. 3) Arstan only appeared on the scene after Barristan left it.

Let's try your theory with your so-called evidence. You think Varys is Targaryen, because 1) Varys is bald, 2) his name is similar to many Targaryen names, 3) he assisted Viserys and Daenerys.

They are facts, certainly, but they do not support the theory. Varys could be prematurely bald, or he could simply prefer a shaved head. His name is similar to many Targaryens? Well, he is Lysene, which is a nation descending from old Valyria -- and the Targaryens were a Valyrian family. As for why he assisted Viserys and Dany... well, there could be any number of reasons, ranging from simply preferring the Targaryens on the throne to helping an old friend, Illyrio, achieve his ambitions.

So, while it is possible that Varys is Targaryen, there is no evidence that supports such a theory.

[Satoris T Born]

The facts may not deny it, but they don't have to. In the absence of evidence, we go to the null hypothesis; i.e. what we can reasonably assume. We have no evidence that supports Varys as a Targaryen, therefore he is not one.

Man, this message board is tough as nails. Some of you guys take these discussions personally. Szar.

I think it's a little early to just say, "I'm say no evidence and what I say goes" on this issue. So, if you don't like it, you can find another topic more to your liking. Why not try "Are we absolutely sure Winterfell was of the North?" I think that topic will have plenty of "proof" and "evidence" for you to police. Then you won't lose sleep over this topic anymore. If you want to discuss "why not"...I welcome it.

Anyway, thanks to the folks who brought up some possible lineage for Varys. That's one reason I have tossed this idea around. The Targs seemed to have pretty well defined family trees, but there are some holes from the last generation or two- and it seems more like GRRM is just waiting for good times to reveal them, more than anything.

And what's also interesting is that not many have referenced his past. Tyrion heard about it first hand....but why does no one else really have any background on him? I mean, nothing! Not even some loose refernce to check in the Free Cities. He's a bit of an enigma. And good call on the use of his blood by the magi. I never considered that. Normal blood probably doesn't work....

Despite what some want to declare on someone else's unfinished book series (riddled with things yet to be revealed), I enjoy seeing reasonable rebuttals. Not just weak chirps of: "Nu-uh! No he isn't! Nu-uh!!"

Maybe VArys isn't Targ. That's fine....hence the word "theory". But no one knows. So don't just slap "case closed" on a topic. Last I checked, we're all waiting on book 5 of 7.

[Guest Other-in-law]

And good call on the use of his blood by the magi. I never considered that. Normal blood probably doesn't work....

I actually find the idea that slapping a gold hat on someone changes the power of their blood a bit offensive. Mel certainly advances this line when promoting her wicked scheme, but it's worth noting that the only really certifiably successful magic ritual involving King's Blood (I see those leeches as a sham) employed a dead king. The only living blood that burned in the dragon incubator was that of Mirri Maz Duur.

And for that matter, normal blood can work well enough, if we take Alester Florent's immolation as the reason for Stannis' record pace when sailing north.

[Hidden Prince]

I actually like this theory. Not one I've ever thought of before but does have some sense to it. I'll support it.

For one thing though evidence and proof are not the same thing, similar but on difference levels. You gather evidence to reach the level of proof in which you can or believe you can "prove" or show others that your belief is correct. Police gather evidence to convict people and prove they are guilty in court. This theory is built so far on circumstantial evidence. In that the evidence points to circumstances which leads on to believe that Varys could be a Targ. You could use circumstantial evidence as proof for your theory but it a much harder sell than direct evidence that points to him being a Targ.

Is he a Targ? I think its a good possibility. He used something similar with Aemon and fooled me before so I wouldn't put it past him to try it again.

[Goofyhead]

Wouldn't someone make the connection if he were a Targaryen? If Robert had suspected it, Varys wouldn't be serving on Robert's court and might even be dead. So obviously he isn't an acknowledged bastard like Jon or Edric Storm. And if he isn't acknowledged, then I doubt he would be getting any special treatment or have any reason to be a Targaryen loyalist. And his physical appearance must not give any indication he has dragon blood, purple eyes or otherwise, because such traits would undoubtedly be noted by the POV characters--but of course if you believe R+L=J, then you might be able to assume those traits are recessive since Jon doesn't appear to have any either.

[Szar]

Man, this message board is tough as nails. Some of you guys take these discussions personally. Szar.

I don't take it personally. I'm simply explaining the situation as I see it.

I think it's a little early to just say, "I'm say no evidence and what I say goes" on this issue. So, if you don't like it, you can find another topic more to your liking. Why not try "Are we absolutely sure Winterfell was of the North?" I think that topic will have plenty of "proof" and "evidence" for you to police. Then you won't lose sleep over this topic anymore. If you want to discuss "why not"...I welcome it.

No need to worry about me; I get plenty of sleep.

Until and unless we get evidence, this theory has no merit. There's nothing backing it up. If you don't like it when people tell you facts, perhaps you should stay off the Internet.

Despite what some want to declare on someone else's unfinished book series (riddled with things yet to be revealed), I enjoy seeing reasonable rebuttals. Not just weak chirps of: "Nu-uh! No he isn't! Nu-uh!!"

Maybe VArys isn't Targ. That's fine....hence the word "theory". But no one knows. So don't just slap "case closed" on a topic. Last I checked, we're all waiting on book 5 of 7.

The only proof you have is negative. Your entire theory relies on the fact that we can't know he's not a Targaryen.

Once you have some actual evidence, we can have an actual discussion on the topic. Until then, you're just asking for people to walk all over you.

[Lord Varys]

I think it's evident now, that Mel's real spells (the shadow babes) worked because she used Stannis's blood or (more likely) his sperm. And Stannis has pretty much Targaryen blood, not only the 'refreshment' the Baratheons got from Rhaelle Targaryen, but also is the entire House descending from Aegon Targaryen's father (or his mother, to be honest), and there could have been more Targaryen-Baratheon-marriages we are not aware of.

The fact that idiots like Axell Florent don't see anything in the flames is no surprise, but that Stannis, who has 'magical' blood, is able to get glimpses of important things makes sense (I don't want to say that only Targaryen blooded people can see things in the flames; that's an art in itself, but you need to get properly educated to see things, and Stannis certainly was not).

All other 'spells' Melisandre does I consider as sham, even the burning of Alester Florent (even her surviving the Strangler might be due to taking an antidote before, as she certainly knew that Cressen was going to try to poison her). Mel (and Stannis) wanted him dead, so they burned him. Period. That Stannis fleet got especially good winds could have been as easy a coincidence as were the murders of three would-be kings after the leech thing (and GRRM needed them to have good winds, so what would be better than to make their luck to one of Melisandre's successful charms)

It seems to me, that sorcerers (like Melisandre) are able to use the magical quality of Targaryen (or pther pure blooded descendants of valyrian dragon riders) for their spells, but on the other the Targaryens themselves are also able to do spells due to their heritage.

That's why Melisandre wants Edric Storm so desperately. She is not able to do much 'real' strong magic without exploiting people with Targaryen blood.

Daenerys obviously does not sacrifice herself to wake dragons. But the spell works because she is who she is (Azor Ahai), and she is Azor Ahai because of her heritage (at least, according to this prophecy we don't know exactly yet).

The chances that the sorcerer that cut Varys would have more success with a child with Targaryen than with everyone else is difficult to oppose. Certainly, but not as well as it would have worked if Varys had dragon blood. The Fire and Blood magic was dying before the dragons came back, but it was not completely dead yet. We know that from the sorcerers of Qarth and the Alchemist Guild.

[Szar]

We've seen blood magic before. It didn't involve Targaryen blood then, no reason why it should when Varys was involved.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I think it's evident now, that Mel's real spells (the shadow babes) worked because she used Stannis's blood or (more likely) his sperm. And Stannis has pretty much Targaryen blood, not only the 'refreshment' the Baratheons got from Rhaelle Targaryen, but also is the entire House descending from Aegon Targaryen's father (or his mother, to be honest), and there could have been more Targaryen-Baratheon-marriages we are not aware of.

It seems to me, that sorcerers (like Melisandre) are able to use the magical quality of Targaryen (or pther pure blooded descendants of valyrian dragon riders) for their spells, but on the other the Targaryens themselves are also able to do spells due to their heritage.

As you note at the beginning Stannis' sperm was likely the ingredient for siring the shadowbabies, not his blood. And being part Targaryen has nothing to do with that at all. Mel tries to get Davos Seaworth to make more shadowbabies with her, so she's not even trying to claim that. The odds of low-born smuggler Davos being a secret Targ are essentially nil.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Why in the name of Heaven and Hell is Ilyrio a Targaryen loyalist? He is in it because he expects to get something out of it.

This only shows that Dany's survival served their purpose.

Then why not inform Viserys or Dany of his role as a double agent? 'Cause he isn't working for either of them, he's working for Varys and Ilyrio. They don't want to serve Dany, they want to manipulate her.

I thought you and Rinso were both correct: Varys seems to be a Targ loyalist. That doesn't necessarily make him a Dany loyalist - she's a she, not only not king but not even queen yet, and like Selmy they need to be sure she's capable. She's one of their options for reestablishing a Targ dynasty, but I think not the only one.

Alternatively, he may be simply "for the realm", and just happen to believe that Targaryen rule is likely to be the most suitable for Westeros.

But I think you're wrong about Varys and Illyrio manipulating Dany. They've been incredibly hands-off with her, watching and sometimes protecting, providing some support such as ships. Well, OK, they had her married to Khal Drogo, but that seems like just pushing her out of the nest, so to speak, not manipulation. I presume they're waiting to see if she'll warrant their loyalty to her person, rather than to the Targaryen line generally.

Varys seems to have no ambition for personal wealth; he does very well as a grizzly gaoler. Illyrio takes wealth entirely for granted. Is he just using the Targaryen dynasty as one of the stars to which he's hitching his wagon - hoping to do very well if they succeed? Difficult to say.

And a question: how is it that Varys can so drastically and suddenly alter his appearance? One moment he's a powdered, perfumed courtier, and the next he's a grizzled man at arms. I've wondered if he has FM abilities.

[AvengingAryaFan]

"Proof" and "evidence" are two words for the same thing. (Not precisely, but close enough for the purposes of this discussion.)

...

None of what you listed is evidence, because Varys does not have to be a Targaryen for even a single one of them.

...

Szar, your assertion that "proof" and "evidence" are close enough for the purposes of the discussion is wildly inaccurate. The discussion is all about proof and evidence; so conflating or confusing those terms just about guts the sense of (your) postings. For example, that error leads you to make statements like the second one above, in which you use the word "evidence" when what you almost certainly mean, were you only aware of the difference, is "proof". When you intend to convey something quite different from that which a word actually means, you cannot expect people to understand what you mean. You need to use words in their ordinary sense.

I expect you can readily distinguish between "money" and "fortune": Sufficient money constitutes a fortune; yet even though a couple of nickels is undeniably money, nobody would consider it a fortune. Is that clear? You wouldn't contend that any amount of money - say, a penny - is a fortune, would you?

I imagine you'd find it confusing and/or annoying to discuss a financial matter in which "money" and "fortune" are central concepts with a person who believes the two words mean essentially the same thing - and would say, without intending irony, that "even an ordinary worker at McDonalds is paid a fortune," and "It's really a travesty that CEOs are paid money." But whether or not you are confused or annoyed by such misuse of words central to a discussion, I can assure you that many of us feel confused and/or annoyed by your confusion of "evidence" and "proof".

"Proof" is related to "evidence", in some respects, as "fortune" is related to "money." Just as sufficient money is a fortune, sufficient evidence is proof; but just as a bit of money isn't typically a fortune, a bit of evidence isn't typically proof.

There is almost always "evidence" offered on both sides of a legal question put to a jury; some evidence tends to lead to one conclusion, and other evidence tends to lead to a contrary conclusion. Merely providing evidence does NOT constitute proving something; the whole point of a jury (or judge, in non-jury trials) is to decide which of two contrary assertions the many bits of (often contradictory) evidence, taken together, most tends to support. Even when one side's evidence is adjudged better, it may be deemed convincing under a "preponderence of the evidence" standard, yet still not be sufficient to be deemed "proof", such as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"; that's why it's much more difficult to get a jury to agree to the latter.

See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Houghton Mifflin Company 1979): evidence n. 2. That which serves to indicate or suggest: His reaction was evidence of guilt. Less helpfully, 1. The data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established. The problem with definition 1 is that it talks about the evidence collectively, taken together, rather than (as typically is meant in discussions on these boards) individual bits of evidence, which is better described by definition 2. Or, see Wikipedia's entry on evidence, which begins with this statement: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

You often involve yourself on this board in discussions to which concepts of "evidence" and "proof" are central. I hope you can begin to see that for purposes of discussions in which those words are important, it is wrong, confusing, and annoying to conflate or confuse their meanings. I doubt I'm the only reader of these threads that would be quite relieved to never again see anybody absurdly postulating, or tacitly assuming, that "evidence" and "proof" mean the same thing. They are two different words for very good reasons.

[Satoris T Born]

Szar, your assertion that "proof" and "evidence" are close enough for the purposes of the discussion is wildly inaccurate. The discussion is all about proof and evidence; so conflating or confusing those terms just about guts the sense of (your) postings. For example, that error leads you to make statements like the second one above, in which you use the word "evidence" when what you almost certainly mean, were you only aware of the difference, is "proof". When you intend to convey something quite different from that which a word actually means, you cannot expect people to understand what you mean. You need to use words in their ordinary sense.

I expect you can readily distinguish between "money" and "fortune": Sufficient money constitutes a fortune; yet even though a couple of nickels is undeniably money, nobody would consider it a fortune. Is that clear? You wouldn't contend that any amount of money - say, a penny - is a fortune, would you?

I imagine you'd find it confusing and/or annoying to discuss a financial matter in which "money" and "fortune" are central concepts with a person who believes the two words mean essentially the same thing - and would say, without intending irony, that "even an ordinary worker at McDonalds is paid a fortune," and "It's really a travesty that CEOs are paid money." But whether or not you are confused or annoyed by such misuse of words central to a discussion, I can assure you that many of us feel confused and/or annoyed by your confusion of "evidence" and "proof".

"Proof" is related to "evidence", in some respects, as "fortune" is related to "money." Just as sufficient money is a fortune, sufficient evidence is proof; but just as a bit of money isn't typically a fortune, a bit of evidence isn't typically proof.

There is almost always "evidence" offered on both sides of a legal question put to a jury; some evidence tends to lead to one conclusion, and other evidence tends to lead to a contrary conclusion. Merely providing evidence does NOT constitute proving something; the whole point of a jury (or judge, in non-jury trials) is to decide which of two contrary assertions the many bits of (often contradictory) evidence, taken together, most tends to support. Even when one side's evidence is adjudged better, it may be deemed convincing under a "preponderence of the evidence" standard, yet still not be sufficient to be deemed "proof", such as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"; that's why it's much more difficult to get a jury to agree to the latter.

See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Houghton Mifflin Company 1979): evidence n. 2. That which serves to indicate or suggest: His reaction was evidence of guilt. Less helpfully, 1. The data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established. The problem with definition 1 is that it talks about the evidence collectively, taken together, rather than (as typically is meant in discussions on these boards) individual bits of evidence, which is better described by definition 2. Or, see Wikipedia's entry on evidence, which begins with this statement: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

You often involve yourself on this board in discussions to which concepts of "evidence" and "proof" are central. I hope you can begin to see that for purposes of discussions in which those words are important, it is wrong, confusing, and annoying to conflate or confuse their meanings. I doubt I'm the only reader of these threads that would be quite relieved to never again see anybody absurdly postulating, or tacitly assuming, that "evidence" and "proof" mean the same thing. They are two different words for very good reasons.

Agreed. All these points are submitted as evidence in order to prove the theory. No decree has been made. It's up to debate. Until GRRM writes the outcome, it will remain that way, whether Szar likes it or not.

Varys is a Targaryen, per my theory. I don't declare it as law. I submit it for a discussion in a message board. It is to be discussed. This isn't a forum for ideas to be accepted or rejected. If you don't agree, you can discuss intelligently. If you want to reject the idea, fine. You've rejected it. Now bugger off. You've added little in this discussion, and your presence is needed even less.

[Weak With The Dawn]

To put everything back on topic.

Proposal: Varys is a hidden Targaryen.

Reasons for Proposal:

1. He is Hairless.
   
2. There has never been mention of his eye color (that the OP is aware of).
   
3. His own claim of "serving the realm" being ambiguous.
   
4. His manipulation and/or cooperation with Jorah, Barristan, and Illyrio.
   
5. Lack of description explaining his rise to the small council.
   
6. Use of his blood/manhood when he was cut in a ritual.
   

Much of this can indeed be explained away.

Hairlessness: As has been explained, he was cut before he matured, and thus grows no hair on his body. This is most likely the reason he is frequently referred to as "Hairless" by other people. Though lack of hair on his head has never been directly referred to, it's likely he also shaves his head.

Reasons he might shave his head:

1: To make disguising himself easier (much the same reason Jaime had his cut off when escaping Riverrun)

2: To hide silver/platinum hair. This COULD point to him being a hidden Targ, but, even if he does have silver hair, it could be due to his being Lysene, descendants of old Valyria (of which the Targs also count).

Lack of eye description: If they are indeed purple then reasons would be similar to why he shaves his head. However, what also must be kept in mind is that house Dayne, a family with similar blood to the Targs, also possesses purple eyes and light hair. Once again, this could merely point to Varys' Lysene heritage.

Serving "the Realm": This could be Varys' way of subtly informing his acquaintances that he is a Targ, however one could also point to the Night Watch's vow to protect the realm. There are too many possible and valid reasons for this statement for it to be used strengthen any argument.

Manipulation/Cooperation with Jorah, Barristan, Illyrio: Varys could have been having Jorah spy on Dany for two reasons.

1: To assist her, and to prove himself trustworthy, and thus able to be assisted, or manipulated by the Spider and his cohorts.

2: To watch over her and stay close and to perform any action Varys may chose (i.e. poisoning her when she was most likely to disrupt the realm, and then saving her when her potential to save the realm increased). This argument could be used to defend his "serving the realm" versus "serving the Targs". By the time Barristan was sent to Dany, we already saw Westeros bleeding under too many kings and Dany was indeed the best option for unifying the realm by her birthright to the throne.

Illyrio is most likely making much profit off of this, and certainly will profit if Dany does indeed win her throne.

Varys' Rise to Small Council: I think Littlefinger would be the best way to explain this away. He worked his way from the ground up to become master of coin. It is highly probably that Varys also just proved himself worthy to the old kings. Not to mention, having a eunuch as master of secrets ensures that he will never be swayed by promise of sexual recompense. It is similarly possible, that he was a Targ given a powerful position by way of blood. Evidence is inconclusive on this one.

Use of his blood/manhood in magic: This point can strongly be argued in a number of ways. The two that make the most sense to me are as follows.

1: Varys is Lysene, blood of old Valyria, as were the Targs. Seeing as the Targs evidently have something mystical in their blood (or some of them seem to, we saw this in how the dragons reacted to another person with ancient bloodlines). If this is the case then "Blood of Kings" could refer to any blood of old Valyria.

2. Prophecies are tricky things and can often speak in riddles. We as readers have put a lot of stock into the Blood of A King, even more so then the red priest who put forth the notion. Mel is seemingly willing to burn anyone who is related or crowned. It can be argued that in fiction, prophecies oft use symbols to describe pawns meant to play out the events. If we assume that the Blood of a King is merely a symbol, that, to some degree any mans blood could be potent in the event of a ritual. If we called Littlefinger the King of Coin, or hell King of Dragons (gold coins are called Dragons) chances are, Mel would be attempting to sacrifice him as well.

Also, let us mention, it is Varys' manhood that was use in the ritual, his blood may or may not have been a key component.

In Conclusion: Nothing clearly supports OR denies that Varys could be a Targ. This only proves that his usefulness as Master of Secrets is well earned. All we know of Varys' background is what he told Tyrion, which could very well have been a lie. Anything concerning Varys' bloodline is purely speculation because we have no concrete evidence. Everything can be used to support both sides of the argument.

[Satoris T Born]

To put everything back on topic.

Proposal: Varys is a hidden Targaryen.

Reasons for Proposal:

1. He is Hairless.
   
2. There has never been mention of his eye color (that the OP is aware of).
   
3. His own claim of "serving the realm" being ambiguous.
   
4. His manipulation and/or cooperation with Jorah, Barristan, and Illyrio.
   
5. Lack of description explaining his rise to the small council.
   
6. Use of his blood/manhood when he was cut in a ritual.
   

Much of this can indeed be explained away.

Hairlessness: As has been explained, he was cut before he matured, and thus grows no hair on his body. This is most likely the reason he is frequently referred to as "Hairless" by other people. Though lack of hair on his head has never been directly referred to, it's likely he also shaves his head.

Reasons he might shave his head:

1: To make disguising himself easier (much the same reason Jaime had his cut off when escaping Riverrun)

2: To hide silver/platinum hair. This COULD point to him being a hidden Targ, but, even if he does have silver hair, it could be due to his being Lysene, descendants of old Valyria (of which the Targs also count).

Lack of eye description: If they are indeed purple then reasons would be similar to why he shaves his head. However, what also must be kept in mind is that house Dayne, a family with similar blood to the Targs, also possesses purple eyes and light hair. Once again, this could merely point to Varys' Lysene heritage.

Serving "the Realm": This could be Varys' way of subtly informing his acquaintances that he is a Targ, however one could also point to the Night Watch's vow to protect the realm. There are too many possible and valid reasons for this statement for it to be used strengthen any argument.

Manipulation/Cooperation with Jorah, Barristan, Illyrio: Varys could have been having Jorah spy on Dany for two reasons.

1: To assist her, and to prove himself trustworthy, and thus able to be assisted, or manipulated by the Spider and his cohorts.

2: To watch over her and stay close and to perform any action Varys may chose (i.e. poisoning her when she was most likely to disrupt the realm, and then saving her when her potential to save the realm increased). This argument could be used to defend his "serving the realm" versus "serving the Targs". By the time Barristan was sent to Dany, we already saw Westeros bleeding under too many kings and Dany was indeed the best option for unifying the realm by her birthright to the throne.

Illyrio is most likely making much profit off of this, and certainly will profit if Dany does indeed win her throne.

Varys' Rise to Small Council: I think Littlefinger would be the best way to explain this away. He worked his way from the ground up to become master of coin. It is highly probably that Varys also just proved himself worthy to the old kings. Not to mention, having a eunuch as master of secrets ensures that he will never be swayed by promise of sexual recompense. It is similarly possible, that he was a Targ given a powerful position by way of blood. Evidence is inconclusive on this one.

Use of his blood/manhood in magic: This point can strongly be argued in a number of ways. The two that make the most sense to me are as follows.

1: Varys is Lysene, blood of old Valyria, as were the Targs. Seeing as the Targs evidently have something mystical in their blood (or some of them seem to, we saw this in how the dragons reacted to another person with ancient bloodlines). If this is the case then "Blood of Kings" could refer to any blood of old Valyria.

2. Prophecies are tricky things and can often speak in riddles. We as readers have put a lot of stock into the Blood of A King, even more so then the red priest who put forth the notion. Mel is seemingly willing to burn anyone who is related or crowned. It can be argued that in fiction, prophecies oft use symbols to describe pawns meant to play out the events. If we assume that the Blood of a King is merely a symbol, that, to some degree any mans blood could be potent in the event of a ritual. If we called Littlefinger the King of Coin, or hell King of Dragons (gold coins are called Dragons) chances are, Mel would be attempting to sacrifice him as well.

Also, let us mention, it is Varys' manhood that was use in the ritual, his blood may or may not have been a key component.

In Conclusion: Nothing clearly supports OR denies that Varys could be a Targ. This only proves that his usefulness as Master of Secrets is well earned. All we know of Varys' background is what he told Tyrion, which could very well have been a lie. Anything concerning Varys' bloodline is purely speculation because we have no concrete evidence. Everything can be used to support both sides of the argument.

Very well said. Thank you.

In regards to the eye color thing....I definitely think it's important BECAUSE of it's prevalence in the realm. No one would really take issue and get suspicious if it's here and there. Hence, no one really sniffing around Varys' world. Violet eyes just are here and there sometimes. Same with silver or silverish hair. The pairing is what makes me wonder. Would we be discussing it if Varys was a silver haired eunich, even if his eyes remains a mystery? Would we be discussing it if we knew he had violet eyes?

And just for kicks: Can anyone mention a character, or characters, that do have the combo outside of known Targaryens?

[Rinso]

And just for kicks: Can anyone mention a character, or characters, that do have the combo outside of known Targaryens?

The members of House Dayne generally have the combo. And they are not even descendant from Valyria, for all I know.

Ser Gerold Dayne, the Darkstar, is described with "thick hair" that "fell to his collar like a silver glacier, divided by a streak of midnight black". He has dark eyes, but if you look at them closely, you can see that they are actually dark purple.

Edric Dayne, the young lord of Starfall, has "big blue eyes, so dark that they looked almost purple". His hair is "pale blond, more ash than honey".

Ashara Dayne, the girl that some say that Ned Stark was in love with before he married Catelyn, is described with "laughing purple eyes", though there is no mention of her hair. I don't think that it would be a stretch to imagine that she had silver or light blonde coloring.