The boy-king and the three lies

[Tharendil]

So Il'gynoth says

The boy-king serves at the master's table. Three lies will he offer you.

And then there's Ogmot's Dream Journal that says

Three lies. Da first one been told.

Bound by dat throne? No. Free. Free!

Da next gonna come soon. Maybe dey see dis one.

Since recent whispers of the old gods have been shown to be followed up by lore developments (the thing with the dreadlords and the cosmic forces), it seems to me like this one most likely will also have some truth to it.

What caught my attention was the "bound by the throne" thing. So assuming this is true, Anduin is not bound by the throne. That means he is not the rightful heir to the throne? Meaning he is not actually Varian's son? Could it be that we find out in Shadowlands that Anduin is really Arthas' son? With Arthas most likely playing a role in the Shadowlands, that reveal seems very much possible.

[Varodoc]

What? Anduin is the rightful heir to the throne, and there is no indication in any lore material that he is actually the bastard son of Arthas, or that Arthas and Tiffin even met in the first place.

Anduin remains the King of Stormwind in Shadowlands, and is even addressed as such in the Maw. Turalyon will simply act as his regent/steward in Stormwind during his absence.

I don't even know why some people unironically believe this theory is true, we have a literal pic of Varian and Tiffin holding a newborn Anduin:

[Tharendil]

What? Anduin is the rightful heir to the throne

Did you read the text?

Assuming what is said in Ogmot's journal is true, Anduin isn't actually bound by the throne.

What does it mean to be bound to the throne? He has a duty to be the king of Stormwind because of his heritage. If he wasn't really Varian's son, then that would free him of his duty.

Of course there is nothing saying he is the son of Arthas. Please read properly. I don't want to waste my time with nonsense responses.

[Rafoel]

You are late to the party. "Bound by dat throne" has been theorized to refer to the Lich King long before Shadowlands cinematic. And it turned out to be true - Bolvar is no longer bound by the throne.

EDIT: It could even be metaphor for the Jailer, the true lord of death, who isn't bound by any throne - everybody believed the threat of undead is solved by putting Bolvar on throne, but it was never the case. Still, it has nothing to do with Anduin.

[Tharendil]

You are late to the party. "Bound by dat throne" has been theorized to refer to the Lich King long before Shadowlands cinematic. And it turned out to be true - Bolvar is no longer bound by the throne.

EDIT: It could even be metaphor for the Jailer, the true lord of death, who isn't bound by any throne - everybody believed the threat of undead is solved by putting Bolvar on throne, but it was never the case. Still, it has nothing to do with Anduin.

The boy king isn't Arthas. It's Anduin. Anduin isn't bound by the Frozen Throne, he is bound by the throne of Stormwind.

[procne]

What does it mean to be "bound by the throne"?

[rayvio]

Anduin offers the lies, that doesn't mean they're about him

[Varodoc]

Did you read the text?

Assuming what is said in Ogmot's journal is true, Anduin isn't actually bound by the throne.

What does it mean to be bound to the throne? He has a duty to be the king of Stormwind because of his heritage. If he wasn't really Varian's son, then that would free him of his duty.

Of course there is nothing saying he is the son of Arthas. Please read properly. I don't want to waste my time with nonsense responses.

You realize Ogmot's whisper refers to Bolvar, right? First of all in Ogmot's journal there is no mention that the boy king is the one telling the three lies, nor that the lies refer to him. So the first lie is that Bolvar is bound to the throne, when we know from Legion that Bolvar had a lot of autonomy and could basically do whatever the fuck he wanted (for example he messed with the Silver Hand and the Red Dragonflight), and then we come to Shadowlands... remind me, what is the literal first thing that happens in Shadowlands? Exactly.

Yes, there is something wrong with saying he's Arthas' son, everything wrong in fact. As I proved with my pic, which you couldn't disprove in any way, so you simply resorted to ad-hominem.

[Tharendil]

What does it mean to be "bound by the throne"?

That's exactly what I asked.

- - - Updated - - -

Anduin offers the lies, that doesn't mean they're about him

When did Anduin ever talk about Bolvar being "bound by the throne"?

- - - Updated - - -

You realize Ogmot's whisper refers to Bolvar, right? First of all in Ogmot's journal there is no mention that the boy king is the one telling the three lies. So the first lie is that Bolvar is bound to the throne, when we know from Legion that Bolvar had a lot of autonomy and could basically do whatever the fuck he wanted (for example he messed with the Silver Hand and the Red Dragonflight), and then we come to Shadowlands... remind me, what is the literal first thing that happens in Shadowlands?

Yes, there is something wrong with saying he's Arthas' son, everything wrong in fact. As I proved with my pic, which you couldn't disprove in any way, so you simply resorted to ad-hominem.

It says so that the boy king offers three lies. Again, learn to read properly. Ignoring you now.

[Varodoc]

That's exactly what I asked.

- - - Updated - - -



When did Anduin ever talk about Bolvar being "bound by the throne"?

- - - Updated - - -



It says so that the boy king offers three lies. Again, learn to read properly.

NOT IN OGMOT'S JOURNAL.

Three lies. Da first one been told.

Bound by dat throne? No. Free. Free!

Da next gonna come soon. Maybe dey see dis one.

Where do you read any mention of a "boy king"? You literally posted this quote in your OP. You believe there must exist some sort of connection between Il'gynoth and Ogmot's whispers simply because they both talk about lies, but that connection is not a given and is just your headcanon. Ogmot makes no mention of any boy king.

[BrintoSFJ]

3 lies can simply be three promises that he could not keep. For example : failure to make peace between alliance and horde, failure to punish sylvanas, failure to keep his faith in light.

It really doesn't have to be a betrayal or outright lie.

[Tivy]

When did Anduin ever talk about Bolvar being "bound by the throne"?

Anduin: Bolvar was a noble man. To know that he sits frozen upon that accursed throne, devoting his very life to keeping the monsters at bay...

I don't know if that is also on live but it's still up on wowhead from 8.3 datamining.

[Skulltaker]

So Il'gynoth says



And then there's Ogmot's Dream Journal that says



Since recent whispers of the old gods have been shown to be followed up by lore developments (the thing with the dreadlords and the cosmic forces), it seems to me like this one most likely will also have some truth to it.

What caught my attention was the "bound by the throne" thing. So assuming this is true, Anduin is not bound by the throne. That means he is not the rightful heir to the throne? Meaning he is not actually Varian's son? Could it be that we find out in Shadowlands that Anduin is really Arthas' son? With Arthas most likely playing a role in the Shadowlands, that reveal seems very much possible.

I really love that you take what the Old Gods say at face value. Nothing in the history of WoW went wrong with people trosting what the Old Gods had to say about a given topic.

- - - Updated - - -

3 lies can simply be three promises that he could not keep. For example : failure to make peace between alliance and horde, failure to punish sylvanas, failure to keep his faith in light.

It really doesn't have to be a betrayal or outright lie.

IF Boy King actually refers to Anduin. And the three lies don't even have to be his own, or promises he made. If he takes a lie presented to him as truth and conveys it, he presents you with a lie. As an abstract example: Shortly after the Battle of the Undercity, Sylvanas sends him a letter, saying "We'll negotiate a peace treaty three days from now, at Ratchet. Ill bring Puppies for Everyone, and I'll bake a cake." Of course, she doesn't show, and no puppies or cake for anyone. If Anduin conveys this message, he has presented you with three lies.

I really don't understand why people take the Old gods and their minions literally. Their entire shtick is that they tell you truths from a certain point of view, or parts of the truth, or a truth that would apply to multiple scenarios. And since they also observe multiple outcomes to the events unfolding, they might even tell you truths that could, but never will come to pass.

[Armourboy]

I really love that you take what the Old Gods say at face value. Nothing in the history of WoW went wrong with people trosting what the Old Gods had to say about a given topic.

- - - Updated - - -



IF Boy King actually refers to Anduin. And the three lies don't even have to be his own, or promises he made. If he takes a lie presented to him as truth and conveys it, he presents you with a lie. As an abstract example: Shortly after the Battle of the Undercity, Sylvanas sends him a letter, saying "We'll negotiate a peace treaty three days from now, at Ratchet. Ill bring Puppies for Everyone, and I'll bake a cake." Of course, she doesn't show, and no puppies or cake for anyone. If Anduin conveys this message, he has presented you with three lies.

I really don't understand why people take the Old gods and their minions literally. Their entire shtick is that they tell you truths from a certain point of view, or parts of the truth, or a truth that would apply to multiple scenarios. And since they also observe multiple outcomes to the events unfolding, they might even tell you truths that could, but never will come to pass.

Not to mention Blizzard has zero issue changing a past story to line up with a new one if they need to, or heck just flat out ignoring it.

[Tharendil]

I really love that you take what the Old Gods say at face value. Nothing in the history of WoW went wrong with people trosting what the Old Gods had to say about a given topic.

No, I'm not. Go back and read what I wrote. I said "assuming it is true" several times.

- - - Updated - - -

Anduin: Bolvar was a noble man. To know that he sits frozen upon that accursed throne, devoting his very life to keeping the monsters at bay...

I don't know if that is also on live but it's still up on wowhead from 8.3 datamining.

He didn't say he is bound by the throne, and even if he did, back then it was correct, so it wasn't a lie.

[mrsohta]

Honestly, if it comes to pass it will probably be near the end of this expansion or during the next one. We have no clue what it means yet. Blizz can also change their minds on this and not do anything with it. Seems like they just used Old Gods as a way to set up foreshadowing without dealing with consequences if they don't follow up on their ideas, the whole thousand truths thing :P

If you ask for my opinion tho, I think the boy-king is Anduin and not bound by throne means he just doesn't care to be the king of Stormwind. He rather wants to unite everyone and bring peace. I remember the comics where he is leading people into a big war. Maybe he'll become the focus at some point and he's not gonna be a naive person at that point, so he'll lie and do whatever it takes to reach his goals but he'll still be a good guy. That's what I would guess anyway

[Skulltaker]

No, I'm not. Go back and read what I wrote. I said "assuming it is true" several times.

- - - Updated - - -



He didn't say he is bound by the throne, and even if he did, back then it was correct, so it wasn't a lie.

Please note that 'assuming it is true' is looking at the truth from a certain point of view, so I told the truth when I said 'you take it at face value.' Which is exactly what the old gods would do. I hope you enjoyed this lesson in 'how the old gods work' and why you shouldn't speculate off of it. It might be fun, but it sure as hell is futile.

[Echo of Soul]

What if we've had this all wrong and the boy king isn't a king who's a boy but a king who rules over boys

[Cherry123]

Anduin is a plot hole in a cancer, a blizzard tries to do something about it, but each time abandons its plans.

[Gleem]

The boy-king serves at the master's table. Three lies will he offer you.

So we get a pronoun for the person that offers lies. In the first sentence, we get two semi-proper nouns. We get the boy-king (likely Anduin, as it's often how he's been referred) and we get the master of the boy-king. "He", as in the one telling three lies, is either the boy-king (likely Anduin) or the boy-king's master, whoever that is.

Three lies. Da first one been told.

Bound by dat throne? No. Free. Free!

Da next gonna come soon. Maybe dey see dis one.

So here, you're drawing a parallel between the old god whisper and the journal, due to the three lies thing, yes? Okay, so let's go into that line by line.

Three Lies. Da First one been told.

So, again, we've got 3 lies. And we know the first one has been told already. Okay, cool, straightforward.

Bound by dat throne? No. Free. Free!

This questions the statement, "Bound by dat throne." It implies that the first lies was, "Bound by dat throne." However, note that it doesn't say specifically who is bound, nor by which throne. It doesn't even give a gender. So whomever the lie-teller is, they told a lie that someone was bound by some throne. If we are assuming Anduin said this, then it could be referring to anyone that Anduin has ever stated is bound by a throne. It could mean himself, as he's definitely said he's bound by his throne. But has he said anyone else is bound? Did he say Bolvar is bound by the Frozen Throne? Did he apply a human social construct of "the throne" to Sylvanas, maybe, and infer she would act in the best interest of The Horde when it wasn't true? This is vague. That's how these things work. This could refer to many different things.

Da next gonna come soon. Maybe dey see dis one.

And this part says that the next of something is gonna come soon, which seems to imply the next lie is gonna come soon. And then states that maybe they'll see this one, implying (to me at least) that maybe they'll actually see the next lie told for what it is, a lie.

I am coming at this from someone that doesn't know shit about WoW lore. But I also get the benefit of not immediately drawing a conclusion. Because I don't know WTF this stuff is talking about, I can see the vagueness of the statements.