[ADwD Spoilers] Quaithe's Prophecy

[RhaegarTargaryen]

A mummer's dragon is a fake dragon. Mummers don't use actual dragons in their shows. The vision Dany saw in the House of the Undying was of a cloth dragon on poles. It was not a dragon that merely belonged to or was controlled by mummers. It was a fake dragon being controlled by mummers. I think that's a pretty strong indication that Aegon (if he is the mummer's dragon) is fake.

You are taking the vision literally. Westeros is not a beautiful woman, and the kings are not actually little imps. The vision depicted a mummer's dragon; the words Quaithe used to warn Dany.

A mummer's dragon is a dragon used by mummers in the show. Varys and Illyrio are without a doubt the mummers, and Aegon the dragon. Perhaps he is fake, maybe he is real. He looks it, and he's the right age.

However, the Undying call Dany 'slayer of lies' before showing her that vision. Perhaps his identity is the lie, perhaps it is something else. She is full blood Targaryen whereas he would be half.

[Flea Bottom's Up!]

You are taking the vision literally. Westeros is not a beautiful woman, and the kings are not actually little imps. The vision depicted a mummer's dragon; the words Quaithe used to warn Dany.

A mummer's dragon is a dragon used by mummers in the show. Varys and Illyrio are without a doubt the mummers, and Aegon the dragon. Perhaps he is fake, maybe he is real. He looks it, and he's the right age.

However, the Undying call Dany 'slayer of lies' before showing her that vision. Perhaps his identity is the lie, perhaps it is something else. She is full blood Targaryen whereas he would be half.

Slaying the lie that Aegon died might fit. It's a bit difficult to make that argument but I'll throw it out there.

I suppose you could look at it as Aegon invades and his forces perform effectively (ala Rob) and the response from King's Landing is that it can't be the real Aegon... and then auntie comes to the rescue.

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Or perhaps she severs the ties of lies between Varys/Illyrio and Dany/Aegon.

[youper]

The vision of the dragon on poles will probably happen when Aegon declares himself. I can see this happening during a parade through Sunspear(?). The crowds gather and have a parade to celebrate with a dragon on poles.

[Dragonfish]

You are taking the vision literally.

No I'm not. If I were taking it literally, then I would be arguing that we'll eventually see an actual cloth dragon being cheered on by a crowd at some point.

When people use the term "mummer's dragon", they're not just using it to mean "a dragon owned/used by a mummer", they're using it to mean a fake dragon used by a mummer. This combined with the "slayer of lies" quote makes it clear to me that Aegon is a fake.

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Do you know people who use the term 'mummer's dragon'? Or did you have an indepth conversation with GRRM?

All that is being said is "mummer's dragon" as in a dragon owned by a mummer. In your interpretation, you are assuming this to mean that it is fake. Assumptions are the base of all misconceptions.

I've admitted the possibility that he is indeed fake, but the term 'mummer's dragon' does not make that true. As I said, it could be interpreted as 'a dragon controlled by a mummer'. Recall that I brought up the fact that it mentions Slayer of lies, with my own views on it, none of which you countered.

The vision of the cloth dragon itself is likely to come to pass when Aegon declares himself, as youper mentioned.

[Eddard Stark]

Try and remember what Dance of the Dragons was originally - a war between a brother and sister over who was the rightful heir to the Targaryen house and throne. Perhaps the point of the title is that Aegon and Dany are destined to clash.

[The Stranger]

the prophecies can be summed up in one sentence, which I wish the masked broad would utter: "Get your ass to Asshai, don't get distracted by any penises on the way."

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Perhaps; though Aegon has the clear stronger claim. Dany is his aunt, not his sister.

[Dragonfish]

Do you know people who use the term 'mummer's dragon'?

Yes, Dany explains to Ser Jorah that a mummer's dragon is used in a mummer's performance. Performances may depict certain events and have certain prominent figures as characters, but none of those events or characters are real. An actor plays a role, just as a mummer's dragon plays a role. And just as an actor playing Henry VIII is not actually Henry the VIII, a mummer's dragon is not actually a dragon.

Recall that I brought up the fact that it mentions Slayer of lies, with my own views on it, none of which you countered.

Why would I counter something I have no disagreement with?

The vision of the cloth dragon itself is likely to come to pass when Aegon declares himself, as youper mentioned.

Isn't this interpreting things too literally?

[Ipse Dixit 000]

Yes, Dany explains to Ser Jorah that a mummer's dragon is used in a mummer's performance. Performances may depict certain events and have certain prominent figures as characters, but none of those events or characters are real. An actor plays a role, just as a mummer's dragon plays a role. And just as an actor playing Henry VIII is not actually Henry the VIII, a mummer's dragon is not actually a dragon.

Yeah...but...dany has made so many retarded decisions so far that her interpretation of a prophecy is worth...little and less.

It could very well end up meaning Vary's dragon.

[Dragonfish]

Yeah...but...dany has made so many retarded decisions so far that her interpretation of a prophecy is worth...little and less.

It could very well end up meaning Vary's dragon.

I never mentioned Dany's interpretation of the prophecy. In fact, I don't even think she offers an interpretation of that particular part of the prophecy. I only mentioned how Dany defines a mummer's dragon. So unless you're arguing that Dany is so "retarded" that she doesn't know what a mummer's dragon is, I don't really see what your point is.

[Rhaegar's Son]

I never mentioned Dany's interpretation of the prophecy. In fact, I don't even think she offers an interpretation of that particular part of the prophecy. I only mentioned how Dany defines a mummer's dragon. So unless you're arguing that Dany is so "retarded" that she doesn't know what a mummer's dragon is, I don't really see what your point is.

Don't want to derail the conversation too much, but when does Dany offer this explanation?

I went back to look at the Hedge Knight where we see a dragon as in her vision; no mention is made of the puppeteers being mummers. In fact, mummers (as you stated in an example) would be more like actors, not puppeteers who control inanimate objects.

Also, if we take the vision to mean Aegon is a fake dragon, then he would have been set in place by multiple people (at a minimum Illyrio and Varys). The result then would be mummers' dragon, not mummer's dragon.

Perhaps GRRM is super careless with definitions and grammar...

***Just taking the devil's advocate position here, I can't decide which side of the fence to hop down on***

[Songstress]

Don't want to derail the conversation too much, but when does Dany offer this explanation?

"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."

Martin, George R.R. (2011). George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones 4-Book Bundle: A Song of Ice and Fire Series: A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, and A Feast for Crows (Kindle Locations 31671-31674). Bantam. Kindle Edition.

ETA: This was in Clash of Kings, Daenerys V

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Yes, Dany explains to Ser Jorah that a mummer's dragon is used in a mummer's performance. Performances may depict certain events and have certain prominent figures as characters, but none of those events or characters are real. An actor plays a role, just as a mummer's dragon plays a role. And just as an actor playing Henry VIII is not actually Henry the VIII, a mummer's dragon is not actually a dragon.

Aegon is playing his role, as controlled by Varys and Illyrio. He is being paraded before a crowd (Westeros) who are cheering for him.

Remember that their original intention was to marry him to Dany, and offer them both their support. What would they have to gain by finding a boy the exact age of Aegon, fooling Rhaegars allies, raising the boy secretly, and then marry the pretender they control to Dany, who is another they control?

They had both Viserys and Dany. Why bother raising a fake?

The mummers dragon is a metaphor, not a simile. He is not ACTUALLY a dragon being controlled in a play, but he is a dragon being controlled in plots. Assume for a moment he is real: I doubt it would make sense if the vision showed a real dragon on poles being controlled and paraded before a cheering crowd.

Why would I counter something I have no disagreement with?

Why would you use the point I made with it's implications when I had already stated them?

Isn't this interpreting things too literally?

Perhaps. Not all, but about half of the other visions manifested themselves directly; it was only their meanings that were different or concealed.

Perhaps this vision will really happen (when he declares himself, cloth dragons will be mounted on poles and paraded to the cheers of crowds).

[Markus]

Try and remember what Dance of the Dragons was originally - a war between a brother and sister over who was the rightful heir to the Targaryen house and throne. Perhaps the point of the title is that Aegon and Dany are destined to clash.

The title of the book was "A Dance with Dragons" though and not all of these dragons need be true ones as Moqorro tells us:

"Dragons," Moqorro said in the Common Tongue of Westeros... "Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all."

At the moment Young Griff seems to be quite a plausible candidate to be a false dragon of Moqorro's vision when one considers the vision of the mummer's dragon in connection with Dany being the slayer of lies.

[GoodKingAlf]

Why couldn't the 'cloth dragon on poles' merely be banners with the Dragon sigil?

I.e... a vision of Aegon raising his banners.

Also, the interesting part of Quaithe's prophecy for me is...

The glass candles are burning.

I.e... The candles that wouldn't burn previously (Sam's AFFC chapter at the end) are now burning, and "You are being watched".

[Dragonfish]

Aegon is playing his role, as controlled by Varys and Illyrio. He is being paraded before a crowd (Westeros) who are cheering for him.

Right, he's playing a role, as I said. When people play a role as an actor plays a role, they are pretending to be something they're not.

Remember that their original intention was to marry him to Dany, and offer them both their support. What would they have to gain by finding a boy the exact age of Aegon, fooling Rhaegars allies, raising the boy secretly, and then marry the pretender they control to Dany, who is another they control?

They had both Viserys and Dany. Why bother raising a fake?

They didn't have Viserys and Dany until they were teenagers. And I'm not quite understanding why their plan to marry Aegon to Dany indicates that he's probably fake. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why they'd want to marry them: Dany is undisputedly a Targ, and her marrying Aegon would act as "confirmation" for all of Westeros that this Aegon is indeed the real deal.

Why would you use the point I made with it's implications when I had already stated them?

All I said was, "This combined with the 'slayer of lies' quote makes it clear to me that Aegon is a fake." I was referencing something we both agreed on. I suppose it would have been clearer if I had said, "This combined with the 'slayer of lies' quote, which you mentioned, makes it clear to me that Aegon is a fake," but the idea is still the same. And furthermore, my last question is still relevant: why would I counter something we agree on?

Why couldn't the 'cloth dragon on poles' merely be banners with the Dragon sigil?

It's not a banner, it's a dragon made out of cloth and manipulated by poles to be used in mummer's shows. Dany explains this in ACoK. Then later, in ADWD, Quaithe mentions that the "mummer's dragon" is coming to Dany, so I think we can safely assume that it is symbolic of a person. The real question is which person it is symbolic of, and whether or not it indicates that this person is a "fake" dragon.

[Tonythetiger]

Aegon is not a dragon just as Viserys wasn't a dragon. That does not mean he is not a Targaryen.

[Dragonfish]

Aegon is not a dragon just as Viserys wasn't a dragon. That does not mean he is not a Targaryen.

This is a fair point. However, what makes me think it is more likely he is simply not a Targ is the "slayer of lies" quote. Aegon is not really pretending to be a "true" dragon, at least not explicitly, so I'm not sure how this could be the "lie" that Dany reveals. It's more likely to me that the "lie" is the claim that he does make explicitly, namely, that he is the son of Rhaegar.