• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mayura

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/13/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

739 profile views
  1. I don't know how you call that but, in my book, if someone retains such a crucial information from me and let me engage into a fight with little men *knowing* I could have waited and be better off, I call that a lie and a big one. So yes, I can blame Sansa because, in my opinion (and I'm ok if you disagree with it), she still hasn't learned she needs to stick with her family rather than side with strangers... It bit her in the ass back in s01 when Lady died and Ned was beheaded but she's still making the same mistake. So yes, I read the interview in which Turner says it's because Sansa doesn't trust anyone. But still, was it worth risking her last brother's death? Anyway, this isn't a Sansa thread so I'll stop there, but I think show Sansa isn't that sure about pushing LF away and we'll see more of them in S07.
  2. I can see the show doing that Imagine the nightmare: Sam proves to be very efficient and gets his chain in no time and is then sent to the Red Keep to replace Pycelle. Damn it! (no worries, it's just a joke, I know it won't happen)
  3. 1. Correct me if I'm wrong (and that's possible): I thought that because it was a Trial by the Faith, the presence of the King doesn't matter as the 7 septons are the only judges. Therefore, it seems plausible that Tommen wouldn't be there, because he would find it too hard to watch the trials of his brother in law and of his mother. His absence is weird but understandable, it just becomes obvious to Marg that something is up when she realizes both Cersei and Tommen are missing from the Sept. ETA: and I'm not surprised the High Sparrow started the trial in Tommen's absence. Because the HS had become arrogant, in my opinion. He had made it clear that the regal power was nothing but an instrument to the faith. 2. I also agree: I don't think Cersei knew what was up. From Natalie Dormer's interview, it just seems she realized something was up and understood the High Sparrow had underestimated Cersei and hadn't made sure she couldn't plot anything. And I assume Margaery was too absorbed by her brother's trial to realize they were in danger before. 3. As for Lancel: it was indeed a way to show us what was going on below the Sept. Even if Lancel had reached one of the candles on time, the fire would still have been ignited by one of the other candles. But indeed, this scene was just to add more suspense and to show us the mechanics of the big Sept blow up
  4. I think you'd have to read the interview before making these kind of assumptions: So not only does it look like the books and the show will have a similar ending (if not the same, unless GRRM changes the ending he sold to D&D), it also sounds like the show runners like the ending.
  5. D&D said GRRM's ending was "satisfying". I don't know if it means they'll go 100% with that specific ending but I'm expecting both endings to be similar (that is, if GRRM doesn't decide to change his own ending after the show ends)
  6. I just read an interview with Sophie Turner and... Well I guess we'll see how it plays out but she indeed hinted that Sansa thought LF might give her the credit she deserves. BTW, she also told Brienne she didn't trust LF but still lied to Jon about him. So I do not really trust what Sansa says, but rather what she does. And even if she refused LF, I don't think she'll be 100% over him next season. But again, it is just my prediction and only the tv show will give us the answer.
  7. - While I would love a Cersei x Euron alliance, I don't think Queen Cersei would enjoy sharing her power with any man. So if there is an alliance between these two (which is the only likely alliance for Cersei so far, considering all of the other houses are her enemies), I think it won't be marriage based but rather out of common interest. Plus Euron wants the Iron Throne as well and I don't think Cersei is ready to share/leave it to anyone, she'll hold it until the bitter end. And I don't think Euron would respect a woman enough to be her ally or to share the rule with her without planning to end her asap. - So I think Euron is indeed going to challenge Daenerys' fleet upon their arrival in Westeros, he might even ambush her close to Oldtown as some has suggested, therefore not being completely off course of his books arc. I would actually love show Euron to secretly possess a dragon horn: Dany would arrive in Westeros assured to take the throne easily and to have her 3 dragons' support, but it would be interesting if she lost at least one of them to Euron before ending him and his fleet. - I think Cersei will indeed march on King's Landing pretty early in the season, possibly taking the strongholds as she advances (much like Aegon does in the books, she could take while she's at it. I'm not convinced we won't be seeing Edmure anymore, I think Daenerys might ask for his support and, as he is a bit of a pussy, he will not refuse her. - In King's Landing: Queen Cersei will be ruling for a very short time with no friends, no allies around her besides Qyburn. She will hold the throne until she is killed on it and/or die with her burning city. - Jaime will likely try to reason with Cersei to understand what happened and upon understanding the matter, I can see him trying to negotiate the terms of the Lannister surrender with Tyrion and Daenerys. But despite Jaime's attempt at negotiating a peaceful arrangement, Cersei will refuse to surrender the throne and might attempt to burn the whole city. Jaime will kill her and possibly still die with her. - Tyrion will be reunited with Jaime and will have the opportunity to negotiate Cersei's surrender. Jaime will try to convince him to let them go peacefully with the guarantee he'll be leading the Lannister's army to war besides Daenerys. Tyrion will negotiate an alliance with the North and will actually vouch for Jon and Sansa as Dany's allies and not enemies. (I like to think Tyrion will be the peacemaker). - Alternative for Cersei: I would like her to refuse to surrender the Red Keep and for Daenerys to command her dragons to burn the throne room wihile Cersei is still sitting on the throne and is in complete denial of her defeat (but it's a personal fantasy and it likely won't happen :)) - I'm still unsure of Littlefinger's loyalty. Although he apparently declared for the Starks, he did mention to Cersei he might let Stannis fight the Boltons to let them kill each other and appear at the end of the fight like a hero with the knights of the Vale. So he might still be going on with that plan, with Jon's army instead of Stannis's. So my bet is on: Littlefinger toying with Cersei a little bit and possibly trying to sell a Stark x Iron Throne alliance before finding out Daenerys is coming with her army. Then he'll try to push a Stark x Targaryen alliance, so all of the westerosi armies will unite to fight the Others and we will see Littlefinger usurp the Iron Throne in the broken throne room, while everybody else is warring North to try to stop the WW and wights. And he will be king of the ashes while nobody actually cares about KL, about the throne, and about claims to the throne. So we will be able to witness Littlefinger in all of his glory: sitting on a now meaningless throne and overwhelmed by the events that are taking place. Because Littlefinger isn't a warrior, he's a politician. And he'll be overtaken by the events taking place and will keep fighting for the meaningless throne until he actually holds it but it means nothing. The world as he knows it will crumble and he will become meaningless as well. - Sansa might be seduced by LF's ambitions and consider plotting with him for a while, before actually noticing LF is most probably still trying to manipulate her. I hope she will eventually have to choose between trusting LF and trusting Jon and she'll trust Jon over LF and she'll realize Baelish is just a miserable man who thrives in chaos and politics but who isn't worth shit when bad stuff actually come knocking at the door. I hope Sansa will want to hold the Dreadfort, will change the place's name and will start her own branch of House Stark. House Stark of Lemon Cake Hall (please let this happen). - Bran will go through the Wall and allow for the WW and wights and all dead creatures to take the Wall down. He'll take refuge at Winterfell and tell Jon about his parentage about the prophecy that makes him the promised prince. I'm hoping for a lengthy Lyanna x Rhaegar flashback and I think we will have that. The Directors have been withholding informations about Rhaegar for too long, so it's about time they start explaining that story. - Arya will likely meet up with the BWB and reunite with Sandor Clegane. She will make her way to KL just on time for Cersei's death (mirroring her last scene in KL where she witnesses the death of her father). Then she will be North bound upon hearing Jon and Sansa took Winterfell back and she'll be north bound to join the fight against the WW. - Jon and Daenerys will unite and possible arrange a power marriage (the show has been a bit too obvious on that matter, imo so even if I think it'd be cheesy, I'm kind of expecting it to happen). And they will unite against the Others and the wights to save the day. - Theon and Yara: I'm expecting them to join the fight against the WW and I'm expecting Theon to do something for the Starks before he definitely dies in s06, to redeem himself once again. - I don't know what'll happen to minor characters like Missandei, Greyworm etc but I'm assuming a healthy amount of them will die during the WW invasion
  8. Well, how can you be so sure she absolutely can't have a weak claim, like the one Lady Hornwood/Dustin had in the absence of an heir? That's what I find disturbing in your thought process: you're assuming things work absolutely differently regarding the IT and therefore you're discarding opinions based on books precedents. I think the correct answer to the question that was asked is "we don't know whether Cersei has a claim or not, she could potentially have a weak claim or no claim at all". We don't know the definite answer. And I don't want to start a conversation about Dany but regarding the current dynasty on the IT (which is Baratheon - arguably Lannister now - and not Targaryen - overthrowned rulers), Daenerys has no claim at all. Her "claim" is only valid for those who believe the Targaryens are still the relevant dynasty. All this to say that the law of succession and "claims" in Westeros are less easy to understand and less straightforward than we might think. At the end of the day, the person who sits the Iron Throne and who manages to hold it holds the power, they might as well have no claim at all or pretend they have a weak claim if they really want to. What I mean is : if Cersei really wants to find a base to a "claim", her supporters will be able to come up with something. Like Big Bob who, after conquering the IT, decided to say he had a claim on the IT based on his Targ ancestor. But that was a weak ass claim, the truth is that nobody wanted to bother throwing him out of that chair and he could just have taken it and said nothing. That's probably what Cersei will do. But if anyone asks her which "claim" she has and she decides to play along and to justify her position, she might try to use the "queen dowager x lady Hornwood" card
  9. Well, whether or not Cersei has a claim, which we actually don't know (yes, maybe the fact she is queen dowager can come into play, nobody has told us it wasn't possible yet), it doesn't change the reality of it: Cersei Lannister took the throne in her own name. She is clearly not basing her "claim" on a Baratheon or Targaryen lineage and her crown, for example, bears absolutely no link to her late husband/sons sigil. She established her own dynasty and nobody has opposed her so far (but some people will). So whether she has a "claim" or not actually doesn't matter: the throne was vacant, she held the power in KL at the right time and she decided to take the throne just because she could. Whether she'll want to justify that maneuver by any "claim" remains to be seen.
  10. @Kusanagi Hmmm I see your point but indeed, instead of basing your arguments on precedents in the ASOIAF-verse, you are making assumption regarding how the law of succession applies. That being said, I specifically wrote that this "could" be what Cersei would base her claim on off-screen (if she really needs to make people believe she had any "claim") if the question was ever raised. I'm not saying this is definitely the solution here but it is supported by precedents in Westeros. @Lord Varys Very enlightening posts that I enjoyed reading very much. I agree with your vision of things although I'd be unable to express my thoughts with the same fluidity and clarity
  11. She seemed to take the throne because there was nobody to oppose her. If I remember correctly, in the absence of a royal heir, the Small Council has to elect the next regent. In my understanding show-Qyburn killed Pycelle so the Grand Maester couldn't interfere further with Cersei's desire to rule through Tommen (and ultimately, Pycelle's death means he's not there to oppose Cersei's crowning). So after Tommen's death, there is no Small Council left to choose the next ruler besides Qyburn who is Cersei's servant. If there wasn't that rule according to which the Small Council elects the regent in the absence of an heir, I think Cersei could still have a claim on the throne. We've seen in the books that in the absence of a heir, house Hornwood went to Lady Hornwood née Manderly. I'm not sure the Small Council would have chosen to apply this rule to the Baratheon lineage but in the absence of a "Small Council" and of a "better option" (as everyone who was known to be claiming that throne and who was physically in Westeros is definitely dead - it's because we know Daenerys wants that throne and is a massive threat to the ruler on the IT, but the westerosi seem generally pretty unaware of the Dany threat and of the fact she's coming for the IT), I guess Cersei was the obvious choice. And maybe her claim can be justified by that specific rule of inheritance (which is applied in the North in ASOIAF).
  12. I'd like your insight on that: I actually thought that, in the books, we were obviously showed that names and titles do matter up to a certain point (easier to make a claim, easier to get support under regular circumstances) but that ultimately, "power resides where men believe it resides". So I'm really not sure the message even GRRM is trying to convey is that "name, title, law of inheritance > all". To the contrary, I was under the impression he was telling us that the law of inheritance isn't that clear in Westeros and that it indeed sometimes works a bit "à la carte", depending on who the people think is the alpha-ruler at the moment (a good example was already given: a lot of men followed Renly and supported his claim although it was obviously shaky but his men loved him, decided they wanted to follow him and therefore decided to bet on him). And even though some of these characters are playing the game of thrones and believe their lordship and position will come into use, names and titles will absolutely not matter in the long run, because while the high lords are busy tearing each other apart in the name of their "claim", a worse threat is coming from the North. And quite frankly, I fail to see what Sansa, for example, could do against the Others/White Walkers. She could indeed inherit Winterfell "because she has the better claim and she is a Stark", but she would still not be the leader the Northmen want to follow. And I think this is the important part: to stand united, the North (and Westeros as a whole) has to unite behind an elected leader, someone they want to fight with and for. Clearly, Sansa wasn't that person and I don't find this illogical. Jon and the northmen in general understand there is a massive threat coming from the North and that the Others are coming for all mankind. They won't give a F about who is King or Lord of whichever region. So it was maybe the right time to sit on old customs and for the people to choose the person they'll follow into the war to come. I've also seen people criticizing the apparent "anarchy" on the show (no respect for family rights, people taking other families' seats etc) but I actually think that will happen in the books as well (probably with more subtlety, granted). GRRM said that quite a few players will sit the Iron Throne before the end of the books and I doubt all of these players who'll sit the IT will have a "legal claim" to it. That chair will most likely be held by opportunists who'll just sit on it whenever they can, regardless of any "claim" they might have. And I though that was the entire point of this story: for Westeros to dive into a complete anarchy as the people are tearing each other apart to get a piece of power while they don't actually notice the real threat is coming from the North and none of their claims and stupid quarrels actually matters.
  13. ^I would *love* that, she deserves it! Do you have a link to your Sansa/Harrenhal theory (if there is a thread at all?). i'd love to read that!
  14. Honestly, I understand, it isn't the right place for this topic, there are so many discussions to have about Sansa ! Whether Sansa wants the Dreadfort or not is actually another question. But you were saying she cannot claim the Dreadfort because she wasn't born a Bolton and that "the claims don't work that way". But that information was actually not correct: claims do work this way, in the North at least, in the absence of a surviving heir. Now while Sansa might not want the "Dreadfort" and while she will definitely not want to be called "Lady Bolton", she could still claim the castle and the lands and either hold them to support Jon or name a castellan to watch her land for her until she has a heir to whom she can give this land. She could even rename it and start her own House or Stark branch like the Karstarks did in the past. Just my two cents but the Dreadfort is quite an important castle in the North and Jon himself says (in the books) that when Winter comes, they could make great use of the Dreadfort as it is a strong castle with thick walls (paraphrasing here, can't remember the quote). Adding to that that strongholds in the North are actually quite valuable, it would be pretty stupid, in my opinion, for Sansa to waive her rights on the lands and castle. She suffered at the hands of Ramsay and killed the bastard, it would only be justice if she ended up inheriting his land and turned the Dreadfort into the seat not of house Bolton, but of her own house.
  15. You seem quite sensitive about the Sansa Stark/Bolton/Lannister topic so I won't expand on the matter, as it is your wish as the OP that the other users of this forum keep quiet about the topic in this thread and I'll respect that, but I just wanted to point out that Sansa being a Bolton by marriage (which she is/was on the show, whether we want it or not) could actually come in handy. Remember: in the books, Donella Hornwood (born Manderly) became the Lady of Hornwood when her husband and son died, although she was merely a Hornwood by marriage. So yes, the fact Sansa married Ramsay Bolton and that there are no remaining Bolton heirs actually gives her the opportunity to become Lady of the Dreadfort. The claim actually works this way in the ASOIAF books universe and it could well work this way on the show too.