The Human Abstract Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 - mummer´s dragon associated with Dany´s Slayer of Lies prophecies. There has been speculation for a long time as well that this might be a Aegon-Targaryen impostor. A fake dragon. And now in ADWD we get a Aegon pretender showing up from people with dubious shady motivations, and no convincing evidence yet that he is a Targaryen. Maybe GRRM has just decided to introduce a central, important real-third-head-of-the-dragon on his 5th book and is going to introduce the fake Targaryen dragon later. But I think the odds are that YG is the mummer´s dragon. I guess "convincing" is subjective. I see no convincing evidence that he's not a Targaryen.I think he's both the real thing and the mummer's dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkodemus Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 The idea that there might be a "Aegon" (true or false) around has been in speculation since at least ASOS came out - and almost surely before that, but I can only swear personally to the theory being at least 11 years old. And keep in mind we got two prophecies, two things that we have been hit on the head with for a long time:- three heads has the dragon, 3 dragons, 1 rider for each dragon. And Targaryens having a special connection to dragons. Hence the speculation for a hidden Targaryen. Jon´s cover has been blown right from first book (though seriously, lots, most readers do not get there on their own). Maybe somebody else. AND it does not even have to be Aegon. Or some other interpretation.- mummer´s dragon associated with Dany´s Slayer of Lies prophecies. There has been speculation for a long time as well that this might be a Aegon-Targaryen impostor. A fake dragon. And now in ADWD we get a Aegon pretender showing up from people with dubious shady motivations, and no convincing evidence yet that he is a Targaryen. Maybe GRRM has just decided to introduce a central, important real-third-head-of-the-dragon on his 5th book and is going to introduce the fake Targaryen dragon later. But I think the odds are that YG is the mummer´s dragon.Before joining this place, I never thought of anybody else beside Stannis wrt the "fake dragon" business. And it still works, because GRRM has painted Melly as a bit of a mummer now with all her powder fire. And Connington, Varys and Illyrio don't really come off as mummers The last two pump the whole wheels within wheels within wheels but so does littlefinger and we don't call LF a mummer. Why those two? If we call everyone playing the double game a mummer its blown open. Because they're fat? And Connington is too serious to be a mummer. All the Red Priest and Melly in particular come off way more mummer-like.Melly's practically a fake person, and she kinda reminds you of the witch woman from the arc in "Angel" who starts a cult and has a lot of followers, beautiful and irresistible on the outside, but really using a glamour cause she was all maggoty. GRRM's put in now that she can do glamours and uses trickery on people. Also, i was thinking that she could even be Cersei's witch, who was in a circus or something like that, which would make her even more of a mummer, but i know that's kind of farfetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiffchaff Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Before joining this place, I never thought of anybody else beside Stannis wrt the "fake dragon" business. And it still works, because GRRM has painted Melly as a bit of a mummer now with all her powder fire. And Connington, Varys and Illyrio don't really come off as mummers The last two pump the whole wheels within wheels within wheels but so does littlefinger and we don't call LF a mummer. Why does two? Because they're fat? And Connington is too serious to be a mummer. All the Red Priest and Melly in particular come off way more mummer-like.Varys claimed to have been a mummer as a kid I think. And there is a whole lot about him that is mummer like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkiller Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I think YG is the real thing simply because Connington was Rhaegars best friend and would recognize the real baby Aegon. I know he said something to the effect of "Who is going to recognize one baby from another when they are that young?" type of thing, but I believe Connington would know the real baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 I guess "convincing" is subjective. I see no convincing evidence that he's not a Targaryen.Considering then YG a masterwork lost and thought destroyed never seen, and now found. Provenance is important, the whos, whys, whats of what happened. What needs to be proved is that he IS the missing heir. And keep history in mind, for so so many missing royal children, impostors always show up - Anastasia, the dauphin, so many more.I think he's both the real thing and the mummer's dragon.That is a contradiction of metaphors that I do not think GRRM will do.Mummer has no relation to weight or physical appearance as far as I can tell. Nor do the mummer´s show up in the vision. Think of mummer´s dragon as a puppet dragon if that is a simpler way of thinking on it.And the mummer´s dragon is almost surely not Stannis because besides Stannis never making any claim to anything Targaryen or dragon related, the vision precisely before that one (?) the blue eyed king is by most likely Stannis himself, also as part of the Slayer of Lies prophecy and visions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faint Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 In regard to the Illyrio and Sera theory, what makes it tantalizing is all these little tidbits we were given. We just happened to get a sense of what Illyrio looked like when he was younger. And then later on, we just happened to get a view of what Sera looked like before she died. Then, so as to get our attention once more, we have Tyrion ruminating on why Illyrio is so invested in this plot to seat "Aegon" on the throne. Too many things add up for this all to be nothing more than casual coincidence. All the puzzle pieces fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I believe Connington would know the real baby.Because he has magical baby identification senses? He probably barely looked at the real Aegon when the two of them were in the same place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 I think YG is the real thing simply because Connington was Rhaegars best friend and would recognize the real baby Aegon. I know he said something to the effect of "Who is going to recognize one baby from another when they are that young?" type of thing, but I believe Connington would know the real baby.I think a most men, particularly medieval warriors, might not recognize easily in a 4 or 5 year old a baby they saw a few times when a baby ( younger than 1 year old). I am a woman, and supposedly naturally better at that, but besides coloring and obvious clues of who a baby should be, NOT EASY, I can not look at a baby and imagine how it will look as a toddler or a 5 year old or 20 year old. Coloring and general features is about as far as it goes.And regarding coloring, even Connington thinks YG´s eyes are not as deep a purple as Rhaegar´s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarrileteCosmico Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Assuming that mummer's dragon = fake dragon is a logical fallacy. Mummer's dragon could easily mean a dragon belonging to a mummer (ie: Varys), so the Aegon = mummer's dragon does not necessarily mean that he's a fake Targaryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiffchaff Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Im sure I'm alone here, but I honestly wouldn't mind that much if Martin never makes it clear if YG is Aegon or not (at least blatantly clear). Of course if he gets involved in the prophecies, his blood will matter, but otherwise I wouldn't mind the mystery. It would require readers to reflect on whether it matters more whose son he is, or who he has grown up to be. I'll admit that I'm a complete hypocrite here, because I demand a definitive explanation of Jon's heritage. Even so, there are so many mysteries in this series, maybe it'd be nice to leave some unresolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkodemus Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 And the mummer´s dragon is almost surely not Stannis because besides Stannis never making any claim to anything Targaryen or dragon related, the vision precisely before that one (?) the blue eyed king is by most likely Stannis himself, also as part of the Slayer of Lies prophecy and visions.There's the part in Samwell's point of view where Aemon is saying that because Stannis' grandmom was a Targ, Melly's mixed up the prophecy like everybody else, the same fire+salt prophecy that Egg and Rhaegar were working with and that she's working with a fake. His drop of dragon is just as weak as Quentyn Martell's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeejee Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Assuming that mummer's dragon = fake dragon is a logical fallacy. Mummer's dragon could easily mean a dragon belonging to a mummer (ie: Varys), so the Aegon = mummer's dragon does not necessarily mean that he's a fake TargaryanNo, but that combined with prophecies that call for dragons "true and false" does imply that one will be a fake - and Aegon is the only other person claiming to be a Targaryen at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 Assuming that mummer's dragon = fake dragon is a logical fallacy. Mummer's dragon could easily mean a dragon belonging to a mummer (ie: Varys), so the Aegon = mummer's dragon does not necessarily mean that he's a fake TargaryanThe vision itself is a cloth dragon on poles, with a crowd cheering. In no way does this seem like a good imagery for a real dragon. It implies something which pretends to be what it´s not, manipulated by puppeteers. It has very precise connotations of imposture, of stage props, of theatre. Every association of the image reeks of falseness. And it IS part of the slayer of lies prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 There's the part in Samwell's point of view where Aemon is saying that because Stannis' grandmom was a Targ, Melly's mixed up the prophecy like everybody else, the same fire+salt prophecy that Egg and Rhaegar were working with and that she's working with a fake. His drop of dragon is just as weak as Quentyn Martell's.Yes, but having a claim of dragon blood does not mean either Quentyn or particullarly Stannis (who never even mentions is) are the fake dragon, because they never claim to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkiller Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I think a most men, particularly medieval warriors, might not recognize easily in a 4 or 5 year old a baby they saw a few times when a baby ( younger than 1 year old). I am a woman, and supposedly naturally better at that, but besides coloring and obvious clues of who a baby should be, NOT EASY, I can not look at a baby and imagine how it will look as a toddler or a 5 year old or 20 year old. Coloring and general features is about as far as it goes.And regarding coloring, even Connington thinks YG´s eyes are not as deep a purple as Rhaegar´s.Most medieval warriors aren't desperately in love with the father of said baby either!As for the looks, not every Targ baby has to look the same. Do you subscribe to R + L= J? If so, Jon looks even less like Rhaegar than YG does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Indeed. For me, a fake dragon has to be a false Targaryen or it has to be a genuinely fake dragon... somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Abstract Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 The vision itself is a cloth dragon on poles, with a crowd cheering. In no way does this seem like a good imagery for a real dragon. It implies something which pretends to be what it´s not, manipulated by puppeteers. It has very precise connotations of imposture, of stage props, of theatre. Every association of the image reeks of falseness. And it IS part of the slayer of lies prophecy.A dragon puppet dancing for a cheering crowd could merely imply a dragon whose strings are being manipulated and controlled by others -- which we already know Young Griff is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkiller Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Because he has magical baby identification senses? He probably barely looked at the real Aegon when the two of them were in the same place.Nope no magic at all, just what I believe.YG could have a dragon shaped birthmark on his ass for all we know, and that's how Connington would know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Winter Rose Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Because he has magical baby identification senses? He probably barely looked at the real Aegon when the two of them were in the same place.No but he definitely spent a lot of time looking at Elia, and especially Rhaegar ;) I think Griff would be able to tell if the kid was a fake better than anyone. If YG ends up not being Aegon I will be extremely upset, why get us all excited about Aegon not being dead only for him to turn out to have been dead all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 A dragon puppet dancing for a cheering crowd could merely imply a dragon whose strings are being manipulated and controlled by others -- which we already know Young Griff is.No. In that case the image would be a real dragon on a stage or a mummer´s dragon turning into a real dragon, or something else. I am sure GRRM could came up with an image for that.Being in love with a guy does not give necessarily a person a secret bat-sense radar to ID their children (and if you disagree and subscribe to the secret gaybatsense, remember Connington thinks Rhaegar´s eyes were a different color than YG´s).And it is a bit too late, 6 books from the start (because so far there is no hint) to discover a magic birthmark on the missing heir to the throne which has not been mentioned yet on about 5000 pages of many many details. Mind you, I think there is a good method to ID real Targaryens, meeting a dragon - and I guess that will be YG´s trial by fire on books to come. If I had to bet money on it, I would bet on barbecue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.