R + L = J v 50

[Jon Icefyre]

Speaking of prophecies, I usually tie "the mummer's dragon" with "slayer of lies" which appears among Dany's "titles" in HotU and Moquorro's "dragons true and false", which, unless it is a mystical mumbo jumbo, means that there is a false Targ out there.

:agree: Good stuff!

[corbon]

No, I'd say lllyrio's conversation to Tyrion is another huge indicator,

Blackfyre reference? I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, sorry.

along with the washed up sign,

Covered by the GC, following Aegon into Westeros, as already pointed out.

and the presence of the GC,

Whose connection to the Backfyres is historical and appears to anyone with the amount of inside knowledge we have, to be deader than the male Blackfyre line...

not mention the fact that GRRM decided to point out in the books that the Blackfyre's could have lasted through their female line.

Doesn't point it out, just the language used doesn't rule it out. As only the male line inherits by Targ tradition, thats all that was of interest to those talking IIRC. The female line is simply not mentioned.

And then yes there's lllyrio's description of Serra and also

Which has nothing to do with the Blackfyres, except by fan invention, as already pointed out.

the fact that Varys claims to be a Targ supporter and yet he's done suspicious things like warn the mad king about Rhaegar's plot to call a meeting among the lords at the TOH to discuss unseating Aerys. I mean if Varys was truly a Targ supporter and just wanted the best Targ king possible for the realm then I don't see why he would try to foil Rhaegar's plans to unseat Aerys when it was clear to everyone else in the realm that Rhaegar would have made for a much better king than Aerys.

We don't know much about what went on back then. At all. We don't know the facts, we don't know the motivations, we don't know the actions and we don't know the actual results, just a thin veneer of surface facts.

At that time Varys was new to the job IIRC, and Aerys was still a reasonably respected King.

Heck, even after the full madess of Brandon's trial and its aftermath, he still had support of most of the realm!

Also as some others have mentioned on here, it's extremely suspicious that Varys never actually addresses 'Aegon' by his surname of Targaryen or mentions Rhaegar when he's talking to Kevan Lannister about YG and you would think that since this was Kevan's last dying moments that Varys would tell him the truth.

No, please. Its not the slightest bit suspicious except by pure invention of those advocating Varys is lying there (in spirit if not technically). If Varys is not lying then that whole conversation fits together perfectly with nothing suspicious except more invention by people worried about Varys' little birds, whom nobody else has contact with and who can't speak, spilling the beans on Varys. Which is paranoia on the level of Aerys, but suits those with an agenda to claim.

There have been some other indicators in the text as well that don't necessarily say YG is a Blackfyre but do say he's a fake, and yet Dany is supposed to run into the 'mummer's dragon' at some point who is most likely YG. 'Mummer' means actor which is something Varys has admitted he used to be professionally, so by 'Mummer's dragon' that could simply mean a dragon(black or red but real) under Varys control. But if YG is truly Aegon Targaryen then I can't possibly see how Dany could rightfully see him as an antagonist to her or a pretender seeing as though his claim would be stronger than hers... But wait if YG is indeed a fake, then how can he still be a dragon? Well if he's not really Aegon Targaryen and yet he's still a dragon, I'd say a black dragon(Blackfyre) is more likely than most. Again I don't think it's a coincidence that the book that has the heaviest amount of Blackfyre references(ADWD) also happens to be the same book that YG appears in........

See, you pointed out an alternative solution yourself. The mummers dragon propechy has no blackfyre reference or connotation at all, except that invented. Varys could be the mummer, or Aegon could be no dragon, or it could reference someone else.

Aegon being a fake is not necessarily a Blackfyre reference.

You don't have to believe or agree with it, it's just my opinion and you have yours and I respect that so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But hey that's fine after all human beings aren't made to agree on everything. :thumbsup:

I'm not actually disagreeing just pointing out that your 'sources' for this are so very very hollow and do not justify the astounding level of surety you evince. Its a case of people who have argued themselves into conviction without every being properly challenged to check the fair relevance of their sources.

Its a bit like what people claim on R+L=J in fact. One gets shouted down loudly and angrily if one challenges the Blackfyre theory, except unlike R+L=J, its basis is quite laughably weak when looked at closely.

Like Tyrion=Targ there is lots of evidence (not perhaps quite as much as that theory in terms of sheer volume of tidbits, but then Tyrion is an active major character) but none of it is individually strong and all of it has alternative explanations. Which is why its a solid theory (has plenty of basis in textual support, for existing as a theory, but very very far from a compelling one as yet.

[Maxpey]

Speaking of prophecies, I usually tie "the mummer's dragon" with "slayer of lies" which appears among Dany's "titles" in HotU and Moquorro's "dragons true and false", which, unless it is a mystical mumbo jumbo, means that there is a false Targ out there.

Of course there is, and his name is Jon Snow (JK!!!) :bowdown:

[Maxpey]

Blackfyre reference? I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, sorry.

Covered by the GC, following Aegon into Westeros, as already pointed out.

Whose connection to the Backfyres is historical and appears to anyone with the amount of inside knowledge we have, to be deader than the male Blackfyre line...

Doesn't point it out, just the language used doesn't rule it out. As only the male line inherits by Targ tradition, thats all that was of interest to those talking IIRC. The female line is simply not mentioned.

Which has nothing to do with the Blackfyres, except by fan invention, as already pointed out.

We don't know much about what went on back then. At all. We don't know the facts, we don't know the motivations, we don't know the actions and we don't know the actual results, just a thin veneer of surface facts.

At that time Varys was new to the job IIRC, and Aerys was still a reasonably respected King.

Heck, even after the full madess of Brandon's trial and its aftermath, he still had support of most of the realm!

No, please. Its not the slightest bit suspicious except by pure invention of those advocating Varys is lying there (in spirit if not technically). If Varys is not lying then that whole conversation fits together perfectly with nothing suspicious except more invention by people worried about Varys' little birds, whom nobody else has contact with and who can't speak, spilling the beans on Varys. Which is paranoia on the level of Aerys, but suits those with an agenda to claim.

See, you pointed out an alternative solution yourself. The mummers dragon propechy has no blackfyre reference or connotation at all, except that invented. Varys could be the mummer, or Aegon could be no dragon, or it could reference someone else.

Aegon being a fake is not necessarily a Blackfyre reference.

I'm not actually disagreeing just pointing out that your 'sources' for this are so very very hollow and do not justify the astounding level of surety you evince. Its a case of people who have argued themselves into conviction without every being properly challenged to check the fair relevance of their sources.

Its a bit like what people claim on R+L=J in fact. One gets shouted down loudly and angrily if one challenges the Blackfyre theory, except unlike R+L=J, its basis is quite laughably weak when looked at closely.

Like Tyrion=Targ there is lots of evidence (not perhaps quite as much as that theory in terms of sheer volume of tidbits, but then Tyrion is an active major character) but none of it is individually strong and all of it has alternative explanations. Which is why its a solid theory (has plenty of basis in textual support, for existing as a theory, but very very far from a compelling one as yet.

In contrast to all the evidence supporting R + L = J, I don't think GRRM wants us to know one way or another.

As you point out, there are alternate explanations for much, if not all, of the evidence proponents of the Aegon is fake theory use to support their position

Blackfyre references in aDwD are either: (1) subtle clues that Aegon is a Blackfyre; or (2) simple backstory to explain why the GC would help Aegon.

Also, like you, I still have trouble understanding why Varys would have lied to his little birds during his speech to the dying Kevan. If he thought they were spying on him, why would Varys use them? And if they were spying on Varys, to whom were they reporting? Illyrio? Isn't he already in on the plot? The explanation that Varys lied to Kevan raises more questions for me than it answers.

I really don't know what the truth is at this point.

[Jon Icefyre]

Blackfyre reference? I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, sorry.

Covered by the GC, following Aegon into Westeros, as already pointed out.

Whose connection to the Backfyres is historical and appears to anyone with the amount of inside knowledge we have, to be deader than the male Blackfyre line...

Doesn't point it out, just the language used doesn't rule it out. As only the male line inherits by Targ tradition, thats all that was of interest to those talking IIRC. The female line is simply not mentioned.

Which has nothing to do with the Blackfyres, except by fan invention, as already pointed out.

We don't know much about what went on back then. At all. We don't know the facts, we don't know the motivations, we don't know the actions and we don't know the actual results, just a thin veneer of surface facts.

At that time Varys was new to the job IIRC, and Aerys was still a reasonably respected King.

Heck, even after the full madess of Brandon's trial and its aftermath, he still had support of most of the realm!

No, please. Its not the slightest bit suspicious except by pure invention of those advocating Varys is lying there (in spirit if not technically). If Varys is not lying then that whole conversation fits together perfectly with nothing suspicious except more invention by people worried about Varys' little birds, whom nobody else has contact with and who can't speak, spilling the beans on Varys. Which is paranoia on the level of Aerys, but suits those with an agenda to claim.

See, you pointed out an alternative solution yourself. The mummers dragon propechy has no blackfyre reference or connotation at all, except that invented. Varys could be the mummer, or Aegon could be no dragon, or it could reference someone else.

Aegon being a fake is not necessarily a Blackfyre reference.

I'm not actually disagreeing just pointing out that your 'sources' for this are so very very hollow and do not justify the astounding level of surety you evince. Its a case of people who have argued themselves into conviction without every being properly challenged to check the fair relevance of their sources.

Its a bit like what people claim on R+L=J in fact. One gets shouted down loudly and angrily if one challenges the Blackfyre theory, except unlike R+L=J, its basis is quite laughably weak when looked at closely.

Like Tyrion=Targ there is lots of evidence (not perhaps quite as much as that theory in terms of sheer volume of tidbits, but then Tyrion is an active major character) but none of it is individually strong and all of it has alternative explanations. Which is why its a solid theory (has plenty of basis in textual support, for existing as a theory, but very very far from a compelling one as yet.

Like I said we're gonna have to agree to disagree, I'm standing my ground on this, I'm a big supporter of the Blackfyre theory and your not. As I said before that's fine we don't have to agree on everything but this back and forth arguing over it isn't going to make me any less inclined to believe the Blackfyre theory, I'm just not sold on the Ashara being Lemore thing and it seems far more likely to me that YG is a fake so IMO the Blackfyre theory makes the most sense. You don't agree with that fine that, I have no problem with that. Either way I'm not changing my opinion on the mater just like your not......Also I would appreciate it if you didn't talk/label me as if I'm some case study to be grouped up in a jar while you're the all knowing scientist that studies me, ok thanks.....Anyways as I said before just because you don't think a specific source is strong doesn't mean other ppl share your opinion on the matter so again, I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on the matter and just leave it at that.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, anyways I'm over the YG talk, we should probably get back to talking about Jon Snow.....

[MtnLion]

by 'Mummer's dragon'

Daenerys meant something very specific. It is her term, use her definition, not one that someone else may want to use. She said simply, that it was a cloth dragon on poles, and she saw it surrounded by cheering people, no mummers involved at all.

[Ygrain]

Daenerys meant something very specific. It is her term, use her definition, not one that someone else may want to use. She said simply, that it was a cloth dragon on poles, and she saw it surrounded by cheering people, no mummers involved at all.

True enough, this often gets overlooked. It was not a worded prophecy but a vision - and one showing a fake dragon.

ETA: Do the cheering crowds in the vision mean that the people will know him a fake but want to bellieve him real?

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

True enough, this often gets overlooked. It was not a worded prophecy but a vision - and one showing a fake dragon.

ETA: Do the cheering crowds in the vision mean that the people will know him a fake but want to bellieve him real?

Not necessarily fake, it could be a cloth dragon i.e. a paper tiger. It could mean that he is a real dragon, but that he has no real dragons backing him up.

Another possibility is that they are the Westerosi that Dany is told are sewing dragon banners for her return. The lie being slayed is that there are none, and she'll arrive in Westeros to fear and rejection.

[Ygrain]

Not necessarily fake, it could be a cloth dragon i.e. a paper tiger. It could mean that he is a real dragon, but that he has no real dragons backing him up.

Nonsense. A cloth dragon is merely a substitute for the real thing, pretending to be real for the sake of the story .

Another possibility is that they are the Westerosi that Dany is told are sewing dragon banners for her return. The lie being slayed is that there are none, and she'll arrive in Westeros to fear and rejection.

Eh... you recall that when Viserys was told that lie, Dany was the one not believing it?

[Erudain]

In contrast to all the evidence supporting R + L = J, I don't think GRRM wants us to know one way or another.

As you point out, there are alternate explanations for much, if not all, of the evidence proponents of the Aegon is fake theory use to support their position

Blackfyre references in aDwD are either: (1) subtle clues that Aegon is a Blackfyre; or (2) simple backstory to explain why the GC would help Aegon.

Also, like you, I still have trouble understanding why Varys would have lied to his little birds during his speech to the dying Kevan. If he thought they were spying on him, why would Varys use them? And if they were spying on Varys, to whom were they reporting? Illyrio? Isn't he already in on the plot? The explanation that Varys lied to Kevan raises more questions for me than it answers.

I really don't know what the truth is at this point.

My biggest point on the "Aegon is fake theory" it's the explanation Varys gives about the baby switch...his action only makes sense in hindsight, for someone who already knows how the baby was killed.

At least to me that's my main point in "Aegon is fake"...if he is a Blackfyre or random guy #### it's a different matter...

[corbon]

My biggest point on the "Aegon is fake theory" it's the explanation Varys gives about the baby switch...his action only makes sense in hindsight, for someone who already knows how the baby was killed.

If you have a royal double prepared for the her to the throne, and the stupid king orders the gates open against your advice to a man you believe to be a brutal (Reynes and Tabecks anyone?) traitor, you hurry away to swap the double immediately.

You get there amidst the sack, either before during or after Gregor. If before, you make the swap and a desparate Elia agrees and plays along.

Gregor was in a violent rage, raping Elia to death after tearing the baby out of her hands and tossing it away. Or dashing it against the wall, who actually knows? It depends how the baby is, but you may be able to make the switch (at possibly great risk) while he is busy or after he is gone, if the baby is not badly hurt. You then bash one of the babies' head in and make sure it is dead and unrecognisable before taking the other one out the secret ways and shipping it to Essos. Whch one? Depends...

No hindsight is required for any of this. Merely a prepared rough-double (which is a sensible thing to do, and done by others in the series, notably the Lannisters for Myrcella) and a knowledge of the secret ways through the Red Keep and KL.

[corbon]

Also I would appreciate it if you didn't talk/label me as if I'm some case study to be grouped up in a jar while you're the all knowing scientist that studies me, ok thanks....

Ser, it is a group, not just you. Don't take it personally.

Andif you want to make public declamations, prepared to have them studied. And assessed.

[J. Stargaryen]

If you have a royal double prepared for the her to the throne, and the stupid king orders the gates open against your advice to a man you believe to be a brutal (Reynes and Tabecks anyone?) traitor, you hurry away to swap the double immediately.

You get there amidst the sack, either before during or after Gregor. If before, you make the swap and a desparate Elia agrees and plays along.

Gregor was in a violent rage, raping Elia to death after tearing the baby out of her hands and tossing it away. Or dashing it against the wall, who actually knows? It depends how the baby is, but you may be able to make the switch (at possibly great risk) while he is busy or after he is gone, if the baby is not badly hurt. You then bash one of the babies' head in and make sure it is dead and unrecognisable before taking the other one out the secret ways and shipping it to Essos. Whch one? Depends...

No hindsight is required for any of this. Merely a prepared rough-double (which is a sensible thing to do, and done by others in the series, notably the Lannisters for Myrcella) and a knowledge of the secret ways through the Red Keep and KL.

Above all else, whether you find the scenario fishy or not, it's meant to plausible in-story.

[Jon Icefyre]

Ser, it is a group, not just you. Don't take it personally.

Andif you want to make public declamations, prepared to have them studied. And assessed.

Ya and I disagree with your opinion of my so called 'assessment' it's as simple as that. Just because you gave me your opinion on my 'declamations' doesn't mean I have to be any more or less inclined to change my pov, just like you don't have to be any more or less inclined to agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine on the matter, it's not a big deal as I said before we're not gonna agree on everything. Again I'm kind of over discussing YG and think we should probably get back to discussing more centrally focused R+L=J related issues.

[corbon]

Above all else, whether you find the scenario fishy or not, it's meant to plausible in-story.

Are you saying that its a bit silly to call it implausible, because if it was, Varys woudn't have tried claiming it to be true?

Because thats definitely true.

[J. Stargaryen]

Are you saying that its a bit silly to call it implausible, because if it was, Varys woudn't have tried claiming it to be true?

Because thats definitely true.

Something like that, but also that there's not any burden of proof to demonstrate how a baby swap could have worked.

[finger]

No, I'd say lllyrio's conversation to Tyrion is another huge indicator, along with the washed up sign, and the presence of the GC, not mention the fact that GRRM decided to point out in the books that the Blackfyre's could have lasted through their female line. And then yes there's lllyrio's description of Serra and also the fact that Varys claims to be a Targ supporter and yet he's done suspicious things like warn the mad king about Rhaegar's plot to call a meeting among the lords at the TOH to discuss unseating Aerys. I mean if Varys was truly a Targ supporter and just wanted the best Targ king possible for the realm then I don't see why he would try to foil Rhaegar's plans to unseat Aerys when it was clear to everyone else in the realm that Rhaegar would have made for a much better king than Aerys.

Also as some others have mentioned on here, it's extremely suspicious that Varys never actually addresses 'Aegon' by his surname of Targaryen or mentions Rhaegar when he's talking to Kevan Lannister about YG and you would think that since this was Kevan's last dying moments that Varys would tell him the truth. There have been some other indicators in the text as well that don't necessarily say YG is a Blackfyre but do say he's a fake, and yet Dany is supposed to run into the 'mummer's dragon' at some point who is most likely YG. 'Mummer' means actor which is something Varys has admitted he used to be professionally, so by 'Mummer's dragon' that could simply mean a dragon(black or red but real) under Varys control. But if YG is truly Aegon Targaryen then I can't possibly see how Dany could rightfully see him as an antagonist to her or a pretender seeing as though his claim would be stronger than hers... But wait if YG is indeed a fake, then how can he still be a dragon? Well if he's not really Aegon Targaryen and yet he's still a dragon, I'd say a black dragon(Blackfyre) is more likely than most. Again I don't think it's a coincidence that the book that has the heaviest amount of Blackfyre references(ADWD) also happens to be the same book that YG appears in........

You don't have to believe or agree with it, it's just my opinion and you have yours and I respect that so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But hey that's fine after all human beings aren't made to agree on everything. :thumbsup:

There could be another meaning. Tyrion was in mummer's guise when Dany flew on Drogon. And there's the theory that Tyrion is Aerys' son. But it should rather read "mummers' dragon".

Besides, we're reading true/false in the sense of real, factual, or the opposite. It can also be read in the sense of loyal/disloyal. Dany has to know three treasons.

Martin is funny to read, but difficult to understand.

[finger]

At that time Varys was new to the job IIRC, and Aerys was still a reasonably respected King.

Heck, even after the full madess of Brandon's trial and its aftermath, he still had support of most of the realm!

Aerys was undoubfully a cruel person, but I'm starting to think he was not so f**king mad as he's normally presented. I'd like to know something more about Stark's "southron ambitions". Aerys could have just seized the chance of getting rid of a possible foe, like Lord Rickard. He managed the "trial" so that Rickard couldn't survive anyhow.

[finger]

There could be another meaning. Tyrion was in mummer's guise when Dany flew on Drogon. And there's the theory that Tyrion is Aerys' son. But it should rather read "mummers' dragon".

Besides, we're reading true/false in the sense of real, factual, or the opposite. It can also be read in the sense of loyal/disloyal. Dany has to know three treasons.

Martin is funny to read, but difficult to understand.

@ Ygrain too

Eta: I mean the message answers Ygritte too, not that she's funny to read, but difficult to understand (well, sometimes she is) :lol:

[finger]

I'm not fond of baby swaping, but a plausible theory deserves to be explored. I guess if Alia can stand some resusciting deads, I can stand some little babies parallels.

We have a story in full. Val and Jon take care of Dalla's son when the camp is assaulted. Mance' son is in danger for having "king's" blood. Stannis could have him dead. Gilly leaves her son with Val and flees with Mance's to Braavos, and further. Val grows ever more maternal to "monster"

We can imagine another story. Ashara had a daughter (by whom?). When Elia wasn't allowed to leave KL, A was allowed to visit her. Varys provided her with a baby, that she swept with Aegon, and then took Aegon to Starfall. When they knew from Ned that Aegon was in danger, because Robert could have him dead, Ashara left her daughter to his brother, who accepted her as his own daughter, and she fled with Aegon to the Free Cities and further. She must be hiding Aegon as Ned hid Jon, and we expect her to show up and tell us the rest of the story.

I don't think she's Quaith, or they're with Howland eating frogs, but I wouldn't swear it.

I'm looking forward to your violent rejections :lol: