[ADwD Spoilers]The Mummers dragon

[Faint]

George has said that the third head need not be a Targaryen.

I keep bringing this point up but more as evidence that the third head is almost surely not Targaryen. Why would the author even note the fact that it was possible that one of the heads need not be Targaryen if he was going to go ahead and make the three heads Targaryens anyway?

[Cromm]

Am I the only one who thinks that "mummer's dragon" refers to the dragon that Tyrion (who has for some time been a mummer) will eventually be riding?

I hadn't thought of that but it ties into another one of my ideas, which is what if one of the dragon's is killed by one of the Others? Will it return as a wight? What if this is the mummer's dragon from the prophecy to beware of? Either Tyrion or Aegeon work here.

[A Wolf of Winterfell]

I guess Jon could be an option, except if R+L=J he is a real dragon, not a fake one, and he gets his own image in the "bride of fire" visions: "A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness..."

If the lie is truly referring to the identity of the cloth dragon then no, but you know I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the lie refers to a fake Targ. Only the next book or the one after that or possibly another one after that will shed some light on these prophesies. All I know is I wish I would have taken my sweet time reading the 5th book, cause now I'm right back to the waiting game. When the next one comes out I may not even remember ever having this debate.

What I meant was that Aegon was killed in a manner that is just way too convenient for a baby switch and we have only Varys' word (which Tyrion, one of the smartest characters in the books, doubts) that he did indeed switch the babies. Varys' entire plan hinges on nobody noticing that the baby, whose death wasn't even certain when the switch took place, is killed and nobody notices that he is not, in fact, Aegon. It's not like there aren't servants around in the Red Keep who could identify the child's corpse, but luckily Gregor Clegane smashed his head so nobody can tell whether it's him.

Then you have Illyrio and his suspicious behaviour. He could have just formed an attachement to the kid when he was in his care, but he still seems to feel awfully strongly for a child whose primary caregiver he hasn't been for at least a dozen years and whom he only took in because he meant to use him as a political pawn. Kinda makes you wonder.

It's true, Varys could have seen how badly baby Aegon was injured and decided to raise a child of similar coloring as the real Aegon, and then reveal him later with the story that they were switched before the killing. He may have been biding his time waiting to see if Viserys panned out, keeping Aegon as a back-up plan. Better a real Targ than a fake one if you can help it.

On the other hand, Varys may have decided to take a gamble with finding a baby that had similar coloring as Aegon, hoping that since he was just a baby people would have a hard time telling if he was really Rhaegar's son. It may have been a maneuver just to buy time, but not expected to fool permanently. It just so happened that The Mountain smashed his head against a wall. Had someone eventually realized a switch had been made, it still would given Varys the time he needed to get the real Aegon out of Kingslanding. There was so much confusion and turmoil going on at the time, it would have been as good a time as any to move a baby.

As for Illyrio, I can't say what his deal is, or Varys' for that matter. Why do these two have such a strong obligation to meddle in the politics of a foreign country? What debt does Illyrio owe? Is it to Varys or someone else? I got the impression he was talking about someone else, and also because he seems to have such an invested interest in the Targaryens, more than he should for being a foreign liaison of sorts.

"Child of" is usually used to refer to someone's parents. I think this is more in line with the "daughter of death" bit, three important events/people that shaped Dany into the person she is and set her on her path.

I considered this as well, Dany is quite literally a child of three. Her two older brothers and her. But when she asks the Undying to explain what "three" means they tell her "the dragon has three heads". This could also mean everything comes to her in threes, as the prophesies the Undying give her indicate. The three in the 'daughter of death' prophesy are Viserys, Rhaegon, and Rhaegar. The vision with Rhaegar, after he says there needs to be one more is what makes me think the dragon with three heads may also refer to three living Targaryens.

[Jon AS]

As for Illyrio, I can't say what his deal is, or Varys' for that matter. Why do these two have such a strong obligation to meddle in the politics of a foreign country? What debt does Illyrio owe? Is it to Varys or someone else? I got the impression he was talking about someone else, and also because he seems to have such an invested interest in the Targaryens, more than he should for being a foreign liaison of sorts.

I think Varys and Illyrio coming up with the idea to make Illyrio's son king of the Seven Kingdoms (by pretending that he is Aegon) makes the most sense.

Think about it: nobody has been able to build a lasting realm in Essos since the Doom. The Dothraki, constant infighting between the Free Cities and fun traditions like sacrificing the ruling prince of your city to appease the gods in times of crisis have seen to that. On the other hand, Aegon the Conqueror unified Westeros, and that unity has survived various rebellions and civil wars. So if you are filthy rich but still want your kid to be better off than you are, why, the idea of making him king of the one big, relatively stable realm around might be appealing.

I even believe that Varys is more or less sincere when he talks about his concern for the smallfolk. He wants a good and worthy king and thinks getting one on the throne is worth a lot of bloodshed. And of course what constitutes a good king in Varys' eyes is one who does what Varys wants him to.

[variance]

Tyrion could be the third head (whether he's a Targ or not). George has said that the third head need not be a Targaryen.

I keep bringing this point up but more as evidence that the third head is almost surely not Targaryen. Why would the author even note the fact that it was possible that one of the heads need not be Targaryen if he was going to go ahead and make the three heads Targaryens anyway?

He never said that the third head need not be of Targaryen descent.

Jon Snow may be half-Targaryen, but he isn't a Targaryen, he is a Snow.

[A Wolf of Winterfell]

I keep bringing this point up but more as evidence that the third head is almost surely not Targaryen. Why would the author even note the fact that it was possible that one of the heads need not be Targaryen if he was going to go ahead and make the three heads Targaryens anyway?

The problem with this is that not everyone is privy to comments Martin has made in the past about his books or answers he has given to fan questions. He might just be tossing out a misdirect, so he doesn't give too much away. Or he's not and that leaves it open for anyone to become a head of the dragon. Certainly Tyrion's a viable candidate, Bran could be, Jon, anybody who may play an important part in the coming events if that's the case.

I'm sure many fans are only going off the text that is provided in the books, not Martin teasers. Maybe I should find the section on questions and letters from fans to Mr. Martin and read through them then, cause this is the first time I've heard of it.

Though shouldn't we be careful about trusting everything he says, hes been known to change his mind. 5 year gap for example, the release date of a Dance With Dragons...several times. He's back tracked before... Depending on what he decides is best for the story he may change his mind again. Not that this particular comment won't turn out to be true, but....can we trust our author? :P

[Dragonfish]

He never said that the third head need not be of Targaryen descent.

Jon Snow may be half-Targaryen, but he isn't a Targaryen, he is a Snow.

Well, technically Jon could be a Targaryen, if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

Not that this particular comment won't turn out to be true, but....can we trust our author? :P

George has always reserved the right to change his mind, so we shouldn't assume that things he said at conventions will always turn out to be true. Nevertheless, it is clear from Martin's quote that the third head does not necessarily need to be a Targaryen. The third head could turn out to be a Targ, but it is not the case that he must be a Targ. So anyone who argues that Aegon is surely real because Dany needs a third head is basing their argument on a faulty premise.

[Lady of Casterly Rock]

Guys, "mummer's dragon" is only the words Jorah put on Dany's vision. We do have the vision, it's in the "slayer of lies" triplet:

Glowing like sunset, a red sword was raised in the hand of a blue-eyed king who cast no shadow.

A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd.

From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire.... mother of dragons, slayer of

lies

...

Perhaps this means Aegon is at least partly successful conquering Westeros.. The people cheer at him. And than Dany comes to Westeros and has the evidence that Aegon is not her nephew (her dragons do not except him, she has met somebody who knows his real identity or something like this).

[Brewmaster]

If Aegon was fake, why would Varys bother keeping up the ruse in front of Kevan, whom he'd just killed?

Aegon is real.

He may or may not be the mummer's dragon.

And as for Varys being the Mummer, he wasn't just a mummer as a youth, Varys is still a mummer to this day. He dresses up in costumes, disguises and aliases to sneak around. He is a actor who deceives and manipulates people based on a daily basis. He's a mummer.

The cloth dragon is a puppet. If that's supposed to be Aegon, there is also no reason to assume that he would be fake. Stannis could easily be called a puppet of Melisandre. Political figures are often puppets beholden to others pulling the strings.

[Jon AS]

If Aegon was fake, why would Varys bother keeping up the ruse in front of Kevan, whom he'd just killed?

This has been discussed. Two plausible reasons:

-Varys adopts the same mentality that Littlefinger instills in Sansa: never, even when alone, mention the truth. It makes it less likely to slip up.

-Varys isn't alone with Kevan. There's his little birds present, and a secret this big is not something you share easily. It's entirely possible that Varys and Illyrio are the only people who know the truth.

[Brewmaster]

This has been discussed. Two plausible reasons:

-Varys adopts the same mentality that Littlefinger instills in Sansa: never, even when alone, mention the truth. It makes it less likely to slip up.

-Varys isn't alone with Kevan. There's his little birds present, and a secret this big is not something you share easily. It's entirely possible that Varys and Illyrio are the only people who know the truth.

I don't buy it. Varys doesn't need to say anything to Kevan at all. He wants to rub it in the face of Tywin's brother that he didn't get the job done.

Plots within plots within plots. There's plenty of deception, but at some point you have to accept some things at face value. They've been raising some baby all this time. Varys had the ability to make the switch. So why wouldn't he?

Its enough deception and misdirection already. Its just that Dany and Viserys are the Targs that Varys/Illyrio were using to misdirect people. The plot doesn't need to add even more layers of deception on top of it.

[A Wolf of Winterfell]

I think Varys and Illyrio coming up with the idea to make Illyrio's son king of the Seven Kingdoms (by pretending that he is Aegon) makes the most sense.

Think about it: nobody has been able to build a lasting realm in Essos since the Doom. The Dothraki, constant infighting between the Free Cities and fun traditions like sacrificing the ruling prince of your city to appease the gods in times of crisis have seen to that. On the other hand, Aegon the Conqueror unified Westeros, and that unity has survived various rebellions and civil wars. So if you are filthy rich but still want your kid to be better off than you are, why, the idea of making him king of the one big, relatively stable realm around might be appealing.

I even believe that Varys is more or less sincere when he talks about his concern for the smallfolk. He wants a good and worthy king and thinks getting one on the throne is worth a lot of bloodshed. And of course what constitutes a good king in Varys' eyes is one who does what Varys wants him to.

Well the realm was stable....

Illyrio does mention his lady love several times, though no children were mentioned. Not that he couldn't have had any, but why help out Viserys if he was planning on passing his own son off as a Targaryen? It seems like Aegon has been in the care of Jon Connington since day one. We also have no indication when he met his wife or when she died. He could have found her five or ten years ago and then the time frame wouldn't fit.

Illyrio also mentions he has debts of affection to repay. Though, Tyrion does seem certain he is lying, stating there is something worth more to him than gold or castles. Blood it may be. His blood or someone else's? Who knows. I'm not sure a child of Illyrio and his wife could pass for a Targaryen. I don't remember Illyrio's eye color but I know his wife's were blue. She had pale golden hair and Illyrio is blond. Light coloring yes, but not exactly silver. Aegon hasn't been described without the blue in his hair, but he should have silver hair if he's going to pass as a Targaryen. We do know that Rhaegar's are dark indigo, which would match the color that Tyrion observes in Aegon's and the way the light and color of his hair plays on the dark blue and purple in his eyes.

You have an interesting theory and it's within the realm of possibility. Lots of things are in the air at this point, and there is much we don't know for certain, which is why I can't agree conclusively. It does give food for thought though.

However, the thing that bothers me the most about Illyrio is the fact he keeps his dead wife's hands in his bedchamber...that's kind of gross.

[Dragonfish]

I don't buy it. Varys doesn't need to say anything to Kevan at all. He wants to rub it in the face of Tywin's brother that he didn't get the job done.

Except that's not what he does. He doesn't even say that Aegon is Rhaegar's son, and that Kevan's brother failed to finish the job all those years ago. Instead, he lauds Aegon for having been trained and raised to be the perfect king, and to believe that the kingship is his duty, not his right. He doesn't focus on Aegon's heritage, he focuses on Aegon's qualities. He never once mentions that this Aegon is Rhaegar and Elia's child. So it is simply not true that he taunts him for his brother's failure to get the job done.

Plots within plots within plots. There's plenty of deception, but at some point you have to accept some things at face value.

When it comes to Varys, accept nothing at face value.

[Jon AS]

I don't buy it. Varys doesn't need to say anything to Kevan at all.

Well no, but then Varys wants to gloat, it seems (of course a more prosaic reason for his little speech is to give information to the reader, but let's not go to the meta reading level, that way lies madness), and what's easier to say: that he's setting up Rhaegar's heir to take the throne, or to explain his whole complicated plan, right there in front of six witnesses he'd have to kill and replace afterwards?

Plots within plots within plots. There's plenty of deception, but at some point you have to accept some things at face value. They've been raising some baby all this time. Varys had the ability to make the switch. So why wouldn't he?

Did Varys have the ability to make the switch? At the very least he'd need Elia's consent. And would he really expect the kids to be brutally murdered? Heirs to the throne have been passed over before, and not all of them were killed to make sure they caused no trouble (though I'd actually be interested to learn what happened to some of them. Were they given to the Faith?).

You have an interesting theory and it's within the realm of possibility. Lots of things are in the air at this point, and there is much we don't know for certain, which is why I can't agree conclusively. It does give food for thought though.

Not mine, I think Ran may have been the first to bring it up on the board (and he and Linda go into some detail in one of their videos). I just think it fits very well.

[Brewmaster]

Did Varys have the ability to make the switch? At the very least he'd need Elia's consent. And would he really expect the kids to be brutally murdered? Heirs to the throne have been passed over before, and not all of them were killed to make sure they caused no trouble (though I'd actually be interested to learn what happened to some of them. Were they given to the Faith?).

He should have. Tywin was coming to take the city.

What was it that Jon Connington said about Stoney Sept again? What would Tywin have done? He would have burned the entire city to the ground to get Robert. Tywin wasn't going to leave anyone alive in the take over and Varys would have known that.

[Dragonfish]

He should have. Tywin was coming to take the city.

What was it that Jon Connington said about Stoney Sept again? What would Tywin have done? He would have burned the entire city to the ground to get Robert. Tywin wasn't going to leave anyone alive in the take over and Varys would have known that.

He didn't know how the Trident would turn out, though, or that King Aerys would allow Tywin into the city. Varys is not omniscient.

[A Wolf of Winterfell]

George has always reserved the right to change his mind, so we shouldn't assume that things he said at conventions will always turn out to be true. Nevertheless, it is clear from Martin's quote that the third head does not necessarily need to be a Targaryen. The third head could turn out to be a Targ, but it is not the case that he must be a Targ. So anyone who argues that Aegon is surely real because Dany needs a third head is basing their argument on a faulty premise.

Certainly, all authors have the right to change their minds. I don't deny that, nor fault them for it, just caution against dismissing ideas because the author makes a vague comment about the text, and using it as proof of fact because it came from the mouth of the author. Not that you were doing that however. Martin may have given us a hint or instead stirred the hornet's nest.

Most(maybe all)fan predictions for the future are based on faulty premises, given that the fictional world of the author can change at anytime. Not to mention that the fan's interpretation may be wrong or their conclusions incorrect, seeing as no one here is Martin's clone. Even facts can become fiction depending on new information that is revealed. Before Dance I would have agreed that Aegon was dead, and now supposedly he is not. Maybe he'll turn out to be fake, but for now he's alive. Some of us will get lucky and guess right, but nothing is certain until it is.

[Ygritte]

I keep bringing this point up but more as evidence that the third head is almost surely not Targaryen. Why would the author even note the fact that it was possible that one of the heads need not be Targaryen if he was going to go ahead and make the three heads Targaryens anyway?

Another possible reason is so that we wouldn't know how many living Targs there really were. If the dragon has three heads, and he says they do all need to be Targs, then it follows that there are at least three Targs out there, when Dany was supposed to be the only one left. It gives too much away.

[Ser Arthyr Dracenstein]

I think the Mummer's dragon is Aegon. In that link to the video conversation, they point out that 'Aegon' is a couple years younger than he should be.

I believe that 'Aegon' is really Ned Stark and Ashara Dayne's son. When Ned brings the Ser Arthur Dayne's sword back to Starfall, he also has Rhaegar and Lyanna's son with him, which he will take to Winterfell as his bastard. Ashara actually does have Ned's bastard and she (or they) decide to take Ned's bastard to the Free Cities, but to do so, Ashara somehow convinces Varys that the bastard is really 'Aegon', so he sends 'Aegon' to his good friend Illyrio to bring up.

As both men believe 'Aegon' is Aegon, they convince Jon Connington that 'Aegon' is Aegon, thus the Mummer's dragon. Just a curious point which might mean nothing, but Connington has the word 'con' in it. Con as in confidence trick. They all trick themselves into believing that the boy is the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne.

I hope that 'Aegon' does survive and somehow finds out the truth and then meets up with Jon Snow. With Jon unlikely to want the the throne, 'Aegon' may actual get to sit on it. Until Daenerys turns up...

[Dragonfish]

Another possible reason is so that we wouldn't know how many living Targs there really were. If the dragon has three heads, and he says they do all need to be Targs, then it follows that there are at least three Targs out there, when Dany was supposed to be the only one left. It gives too much away.

That sort of makes his choice of words odd, though. According to the transcript, George specifically said that the third head need not be a Targaryen, not that the three heads in general need not be Targs. This would imply that the other two heads must be Targs, and that there is at least one more Targ than Dany out there (presumably Jon). Of course, I suppose it's possible that whoever transcribed his words was merely mistaken, so it's best to take the transcript with a grain of salt.