"Da first one been told."

[Cerune]

I think there's something everyone is overlooking. "The boy-king serves at the master's table. Three lies he will OFFER you." The lies will be OFFERED, not told.

[Moozart]

I have a few theories since finding this book, watching the new cinematics and looking back at what Il'gynoth whispered to us.

1. Anduin wrynn is this boy king Il'gynoth and Ogmot speaks about. During the fight in emerald nightmare no lie had yet been told but as we find Ogmots journal the first of three lies has been told. As a youtuber doing an indepth review on the alliance cinematic pointed out, Anduin seem to be the only one that has a very physical reaction to touching the "titans blood" (I think its old god blood but yea). When Shaw drops the crystal in his hand he reacts and some sort of whispering sounds can be heard.

I think the lie might be him not telling anyone about this and instead he wants more of it and to control the substance.

2. Anduin tells what he thinks is truth but what is in fact a lie. As many of you has pointed out before you seem to think Anduin isn't Varians son. I kinda share that theory. I looked up Anduins family tree. Every Wrynn male in his lineage has brown/dark hair and yet he has blond hair like his mother? (I know game of thrones much?)

But wait there's more. At the section of the wiki about Anduins mother it states that "Though her marriage was arranged at birth in order to give her family a place in the Stormwind" and that "she did have a short-lived relationship with another man". (from her wiki)

I have been saying this for a while

[Redwolf]

Presumably, it's a reference to the same thing as Il'gynoth's whispers:



So, taking into account the boy-king thing, that would mean that Anduin has offered one lie already. But if Anduin is the one who offered a lie, and not another character like Shaw or Genn, then what could he have lied about?

The comment about being bound (or more specifically, not being bound) by a throne is interesting. The only figure I can think of that even remotely lines up with that is the Lich King/Bolvar, but it wouldn't really make sense anyway. Not only does he have pretty much nothing to do with anything Anduin has said and done, but being "bound" to the Frozen Throne has never really been an issue for any Lich King. So it's definitely not that.

In the absence of that, which throne is being referred to?

If I remember my time as Alliance in vanilla, wasn't Bolvar the one who watched over Stormwind, helped raise Anduin during his fathers absence? Wouldn't it make sense he see's him as more of a father figure than his real father? Some interesting things could come of that dynamic...

Side note: Bolvar Fordragon is now the Lich King

[Jokubas]

I'm convinced it's a reference to the lich king(bolvar), and the general lie that he is bound by his duty to the Frozen Throne and the threat of the undead is passed. Bolvar is holding in check a force that would consume the entire world, and he's certainly decided he's no longer a passive party to world events. He's been making some pretty serious moves with some pretty questionable methods if you've played through the DK weapon acquisition and campaign quests to their completion.

How it links to the old gods, I'm not sure.

I think Bolvar would be a hard sell as a "boy" king, unless you mean he fits in somewhere else. On the other hand, I think Arthas could be argued as the boy-king. He may have died in his 30s, but he was still the young inheritor, and Uther famously said "You are not my king yet, boy." back during Stratholme. In that case, the lie could be that Arthas never actually died and we haven't actually been dealing with Bolvar (although that would conflict with the throne lie).

That could easily tie into the Old Gods, as well. In the Warlords of Draenor quest "Shadowy Secrets", Darion has you bringing back information on the Void-using alternate Ner'zhul in order to hopefully unlock the secrets of the Frozen Throne, implying that the characters in-universe, at least, assume a connection between the two forces. Then, from this old CDev Q&A ( https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/2721372142 ), has this little tidbit: "Yes, that does also mean that Arthas and Ner'zhul were not unleashing the full force of the Scourge during their respective reigns: you are welcome to speculate on the reasons for that." This implies that there was more to the Scourge and its motives even when it was just Ner'zhul in charge. Finally, there's the fact that the Lich King's artifacts were made by the Nathrezim, and Sargeras first met the Nathrezim on the first Void world he ever saw. In other words, while there's no current proof that their loyalty is in question, there is certainly precedent for the Nathrezim and their works to be connected to the Void.

On the other hand, I'm honestly still suspicious of Wrathion. I used to defend Wrathion for being an interestingly deep character who was morally ambiguous in a unique way. He was incredibly young, but had a grown mind, sincerely wanted to protect the world, but was so paranoid and so inexperienced that he ended up creating the very danger he was worried about. In the end, his ultimate lack of appearance in the very conflict he was defined by threw a lot of that out of the window. What I find interesting though, is that he's been getting subtly retconned over time. His already contradictory relation to Deathwing was scrubbed from the updated version of the Ultimate Visual Guide, and in Hearthstone his flavor text calls out the fact that the game explicitly does not consider him a dragon. This could mean that Wrathion's origins are retroactively a lie we've been offered, and that could cascade into explaining a lot of other things about him, like what really happened on Draenor, and why he skipped out on the Legion invasion he seemed so invested in. Him wanting us to work together to defeat the Legion could have been the absolute truth... but for completely different reasons than we thought. Certainly, the Void wouldn't have wanted Sargeras to have killed Azeroth.

I just don't think Anduin has been in the proper situation yet for this. Not that it literally can't be him, and using the terminology of boy-king toward him is certainly eyebrow-raising, but he simply hasn't been in the story enough or said enough. That's not a critique of Anduin's character, just that it's hard for him to have offered a lie, especially one meaningful enough to have such a warning about it, when most of what he's done is state things we know or simply make observations.

Also, it's possible that these warnings themselves have changed context. For all we know, most of them weren't supposed to mean anything in particular and were just supposed to sound ominous, but Blizzard saw how much people were latching onto them and then decided to come up with what they really meant, in which case a lot of these details could be poorly connected to existing events.