TheSeer27

ghost of high heart prophecy

38 posts in this topic

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying  a savage giant in a castle built of snow."

How do you guys interpret this? Sounds to me like she means Catelyn becoming Lady Stoneheart. Could the savage giant be her killing Gregor Clegane? At Winterfell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a theory, of course, but I think it's more likely an allusion to Sansa's hairnet that contained the poison (purple "stones") that the Queen of Thorns most likely passed to her grandson Garlan who then poisoned Joffery with it;)  Also, the "savage giant" being slain in a castle built of snow could be an allusion to Sansa being the ultimate downfall of Littlefinger.  Remember, the Baelish's sigil is the Titan of Braavos (get it, a giant) and the castle made of snow could be Winterfell...maybe:dunno:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Just a theory, of course, but I think it's more likely an allusion to Sansa's hairnet that contained the poison (purple "stones") that the Queen of Thorns most likely passed to her grandson Garlan who then poisoned Joffery with it;)  Also, the "savage giant" being slain in a castle built of snow could be an allusion to Sansa being the ultimate downfall of Littlefinger.  Remember, the Baelish's sigil is the Titan of Braavos (get it, a giant) and the castle made of snow could be Winterfell...maybe:dunno:   

Very nice! I like yours better lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSeer27 said:

Very nice! I like yours better lol

Thanks!  We won't know for sure until Martin tells us, of course, but I'm quite confident about the hairnet thing.  However, I'm less confident about the "savage giant" being slain being Littlefinger.  It could be that or it could just be a nod to the scene in the vale where Sansa built a snow castle version of Winterfell and Sweetrobin "attacked" it with his doll like it was a marauding giant.  Or maybe it's both?:dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the savage giant being LF. But isn't his sigil a hummingbird? But it kinda makes sense, hes definitely a giant as in a major player in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be Tyrion as well now that I think a little bit more about it. "giant" of Lannister. But I like the LF idea best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Just a theory, of course, but I think it's more likely an allusion to Sansa's hairnet that contained the poison (purple "stones") that the Queen of Thorns most likely passed to her grandson Garlan who then poisoned Joffery with it;)  Also, the "savage giant" being slain in a castle built of snow could be an allusion to Sansa being the ultimate downfall of Littlefinger.  Remember, the Baelish's sigil is the Titan of Braavos (get it, a giant) and the castle made of snow could be Winterfell...maybe:dunno:   

 

2 hours ago, TheSeer27 said:

Very nice! I like yours better lol

Right on, except for the whole part about passing it to Garlan so he could poison Joffrey's wine. The poison was clearly placed in Tyrion's pie by Lady O herself. That's how Joffrey was able to drink his wine without dying, but then eats the pie and dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 

Right on, except for the whole part about passing it to Garlan so he could poison Joffrey's wine. The poison was clearly placed in Tyrion's pie by Lady O herself. That's how Joffrey was able to drink his wine without dying, but then eats the pie and dies.

Well, we'll know for sure when Martin tells us...but wine that hasn't had anything purple added to it generally doesn't change from red to purple;)

ETA: I just read the Purple Wedding chapter again and I am less inclined to believe it was Garlan who put The Strangler poison in Joffery's chalice.  As you say, it most likely was Olenna herself (she and Garlan were standing nearby when Joffery placed the chalice on the table) .  However, I will forever remain quite confident the poison was delivered via the wine due to the changing description of its color from red to purple to deep purple (and, no, that's probably not a reference to "Smoke on the Water":P).

Edited by Prince of the North

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheSeer27 said:

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying  a savage giant in a castle built of snow."

How do you guys interpret this? Sounds to me like she means Catelyn becoming Lady Stoneheart. Could the savage giant be her killing Gregor Clegane? At Winterfell?

The maid with purple serpentsin her hair is universally believed to be Sansa with the poisoned hairnet.  There are several possibilities as to who the savage giant is

1.  Sweetrobin's doll that got ripped apart in the model of Winterfell that Sansa built.

2.  Littlefinger, whose family sigil is the Titan of Braavos

3.  Tyrion, who could be ironically known as a savage giant.  Doesn't seem likely, though

4.  Gregor Clegane, who is obviously a giant and savage.  No connection between them yet, though.n as a savage giant

5.  One of the Umbers, whose sigil is ... a savage giant with broken chains.

I think Littlefinger is the most likely, considering he has a large number of skeletons in his closet that could cause Sansa to wish him dead.  The doll and an Umber are possibilities, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an interesting thread with a brilliant analysis about Sansa including this prophecy

But beware of spoilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Well, we'll know for sure when Martin tells us...but wine that hasn't had anything purple added to it generally doesn't change from red to purple;)

ETA: I just read the Purple Wedding chapter again and I am less inclined to believe it was Garlan who put The Strangler poison in Joffery's chalice.  As you say, it most likely was Olenna herself (she and Garlan were standing nearby when Joffery placed the chalice on the table) .  However, I will forever remain quite confident the poison was delivered via the wine due to the changing description of its color from red to purple to deep purple (and, no, that's probably not a reference to "Smoke on the Water":P).

Um, no. The wine went from purple to red to deep purple. The red, in fact, was after Joffrey started choking. So how could poisoned wine be running down his chin, then non-poisoned wine spill over the dais, then extremely poisoned wine be sitting in the chalice at the end of the scene?

And how could Lady O have possibly poisoned the chalice? She's barely taller than Tyrion, who had to climb into his chair to reach it. The chalice is three feet tall sitting atop a 3-4-foot table, which puts the rim at least six feet in the air.

I could go on and on with all the other inconsistencies in the wine theory, but there are other threads for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Um, no. The wine went from purple to red to deep purple. The red, in fact, was after Joffrey started choking. So how could poisoned wine be running down his chin, then non-poisoned wine spill over the dais, then extremely poisoned wine be sitting in the chalice at the end of the scene?

And how could Lady O have possibly poisoned the chalice? She's barely taller than Tyrion, who had to climb into his chair to reach it. The chalice is three feet tall sitting atop a 3-4-foot table, which puts the rim at least six feet in the air.

I could go on and on with all the other inconsistencies in the wine theory, but there are other threads for that.

Um, yeah.  I just read it again yesterday.   Here's the relevant quotes:

First wine color description: (bolding mine)

Quote

“Let the cups be filled!” Joffrey proclaimed, when the gods had been given their due. His cupbearer poured a whole flagon of dark Arbor red into the golden wedding chalice that Lord Tyrell had given him that morning. The king had to use both hands to lift it. “To my wife the queen!”

Second wine color description:

Quote

“Your Grace,” was all he had time to say before the king upended the chalice over his head. The wine washed down over his face in a red torrent.

Third wine color description:

Quote

Joff yanked it from his hands and drank long and deep, his throat working as the wine ran purple down his chin.

Fourth wine color description:

Quote

The chalice slipped from his hand and dark red wine went running across the dais.

Fifth wine color description:

Quote

There was still a half-inch of deep purple wine in the bottom of it.

So, the wine went from being described as dark Arbor red, to red, to purple, to dark red, to deep purple.  So, again we won't know until Martin confirms it but I will still go with the purple Strangler from Sansa's hairnet being put in the wine darkening its color.  And I don't find your point about Lady Olenna's height compelling.  Either she or Garlan could still have put the poison in the chalice.  They were both right there.  And, yes, there are other threads for that but I don't find your points here to be any more compelling than the wine theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Um, yeah.  I just read it again yesterday.   Here's the relevant quotes:

First wine color description: (bolding mine)

Second wine color description:

Third wine color description:

Fourth wine color description:

Fifth wine color description:

So, the wine went from being described as dark Arbor red, to red, to purple, to dark red, to deep purple.  So, again we won't know until Martin confirms it but I will still go with the purple Strangler from Sansa's hairnet being put in the wine darkening its color.  And I don't find your point about Lady Olenna's height compelling.  Either she or Garlan could still have put the poison in the chalice.  They were both right there.  And, yes, there are other threads for that but I don't find your points here to be any more compelling than the wine theory.

lol, OK, well I too would be interested to see how Martin makes it possible for a four-foot woman to poison a chalice in which the rim is six feet in the air and probably two or three feet from the edge of the table. I'd also like to know how should could possibly predict all the unlikely events that put the chalice right in front of Garlan at exactly the right time, and why the brave, noble knight who waded into the thick of battle on the Blackwater would suddenly turn so craven as to use a woman's/eunuch's weapon to kill a foe. I wonder what her plan was if, after the poison was deployed, someone had suddenly called out a toast at this formal event when toasts are commonly called out ("Lord Buckler wants to toast us") and chivalry would have required that the bride drink first. Or why Cressen dropped in seconds following his drink but Joffrey goes on for half-a-minute. Or why it was better to kill Joff now and then wait another five years for Tommen to produce the Tyrell heir to the Iron Throne rather than just wait for Margy to give Joff a son and then kill him if and when it became necessary. Again, I could go on and on, but this isn't the thread for it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

lol, OK, well I too would be interested to see how Martin makes it possible for a four-foot woman to poison a chalice in which the rim is six feet in the air and probably two or three feet from the edge of the table. I'd also like to know how should could possibly predict all the unlikely events that put the chalice right in front of Garlan at exactly the right time, and why the brave, noble knight who waded into the thick of battle on the Blackwater would suddenly turn so craven as to use a woman's/eunuch's weapon to kill a foe. I wonder what her plan was if, after the poison was deployed, someone had suddenly called out a toast at this formal event when toasts are commonly called out ("Lord Buckler wants to toast us") and chivalry would have required that the bride drink first. Or why Cressen dropped in seconds following his drink but Joffrey goes on for half-a-minute. Or why it was better to kill Joff now and then wait another five years for Tommen to produce the Tyrell heir to the Iron Throne rather than just wait for Margy to give Joff a son and then kill him if and when it became necessary. Again, I could go on and on, but this isn't the thread for it. ;)

Your opinion, nothing more.  Please PROVE your assertions rather than prattling on and on with questions OR simply admit that your theory of how exactly everything happened when Joffery was poisoned isn't any more legitimate or better than any other at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Your opinion, nothing more.  Please PROVE your assertions rather than prattling on and on with questions OR simply admit that your theory of how exactly everything happened when Joffery was poisoned isn't any more legitimate or better than any other at this point. 

GRRM reserves the right to reveal more details on the actual killer, but these are his words about the Purple Wedding:

In the books — and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal — the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa’s hair net, so that if anyone actually did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She certainly had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Everything she’d heard about him, he was wildly unstable, and he was about to marry her beloved granddaughter. The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew that at some point he would get bored with Margaery, and Margaery would be maltreated, the same way that Sansa had been. Whereas if she removed him then her granddaughter might still get the crown but without all of the danger. So is that a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know.

Edited by Tucu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tucu said:

GRRM reserves the right to reveal more details on the actual killer, but this are his words about the Purple Wedding:

In the books — and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal — the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa’s hair net, so that if anyone actually did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She certainly had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Everything she’d heard about him, he was wildly unstable, and he was about to marry her beloved granddaughter. The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew that at some point he would get bored with Margaery, and Margaery would be maltreated, the same way that Sansa had been. Whereas if she removed him then her granddaughter might still get the crown but without all of the danger. So is that a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know.

Thanks for the quote and I completely agree - Martin does reserve the right to reveal more details anytime he likes.  John Suburbs came on fast and hard making the assertion that the poison was actually in the pie rather than the wine.  I simply ask for proof of that assertion.  I have very little patience for those who treat their own opinions/theories as fact or who think their supposition, etc. is somehow superior to others' when they, of course, have no proof.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Thanks for the quote and I completely agree - Martin does reserve the right to reveal more details anytime he likes.  John Suburbs came on fast and hard making the assertion that the poison was actually in the pie rather than the wine.  I simply ask for proof of that assertion.  I have very little patience for those who treat their own opinions/theories as fact or who think their supposition, etc. is somehow superior to others' when they, of course, have no proof.   

Yes, in the end the actual killer might be Moon Boy for all I know. But for now I am sticking with Olenna, she is neither too short nor too old to not be able to put the poison in the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tucu said:

Yes, in the end the actual killer might be Moon Boy for all I know. But for now I am sticking with Olenna, she is neither too short nor too old to not be able to put the poison in the cup.

Very much agreed.  In the end,  Joffery's poisoning will have happened in exactly the way Martin intended it to happen.  No more, no less.  Until Martin chooses to reveal more details about it I will remain convinced of the purple, crystalline Strangler poison being delivered via dissolving it in the wine.  I subscribe to this theory because it makes the most sense to me and, in my opinion, has the most support.  But, of course, "support" is not proof.  The only one who can prove it is Martin.  That's why, while I'm convinced of it, I'm very careful not to treat it as canon yet.

On 8/22/2016 at 2:32 PM, TheSeer27 said:

I like the savage giant being LF. But isn't his sigil a hummingbird? But it kinda makes sense, hes definitely a giant as in a major player in the game.

Sorry, I missed this post early on!  Littlefinger took the mockingbird as his personal sigil but his family's sigil is/was the head of the Titan of Braavos;)     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Your opinion, nothing more.  Please PROVE your assertions rather than prattling on and on with questions OR simply admit that your theory of how exactly everything happened when Joffery was poisoned isn't any more legitimate or better than any other at this point. 

lol, please PROVE your theory that it was Garlan, or whatever it is you happen to believe. The whole point of this blog is to discuss ideas and exchange information. If we insisted that every idea must be PROVEN before it can enter these hallowed boards, then practically 99 percent of all post should be deleted, according to your standard.

My proof is in the text: Cressen dies in seconds while Joffrey doesn't even show the first sign of trouble for half-a-minute, even though his wine was "deep purple" and therefore more concentrated than Cressen's normal-looking wine. And that's just for starters.

4 hours ago, Tucu said:

GRRM reserves the right to reveal more details on the actual killer, but these are his words about the Purple Wedding:

In the books — and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal — the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa’s hair net, so that if anyone actually did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She certainly had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Everything she’d heard about him, he was wildly unstable, and he was about to marry her beloved granddaughter. The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew that at some point he would get bored with Margaery, and Margaery would be maltreated, the same way that Sansa had been. Whereas if she removed him then her granddaughter might still get the crown but without all of the danger. So is that a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know.

I love it. "...the conclusion that the careful reader draws..." Classic Martin. And people take this is convincing proof that this is the truth.

You also hit the one of the nails on the head, Tucu: "The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew at some point he would get bored with Margaery..." So why on earth would she take such a drastic action and place virtually her entire family and perhaps her very house at risk for something that may become a problem "at some point"? All she would have to do is wait for Margaery to produce an heir or two and then kill Joffrey quietly, in private and made to look like an accident. That way, she gets what she really wants -- a Tyrell on the Iron Throne with Margaery as Queen Regent for the next decade or more -- right away rather than wait five years for Tommen.

This is just more proof, and yes it is proof, that the wine theory is full of holes. From the events on the page to the motivations of the plotters to the unfathomable logistics to put the wine right where it needed to be, the wine theory fails across the board.

4 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

 John Suburbs came on fast and hard making the assertion that the poison was actually in the pie rather than the wine.  I simply ask for proof of that assertion.  I have very little patience for those who treat their own opinions/theories as fact or who think their supposition, etc. is somehow superior to others' when they, of course, have no proof.   

You crack me up -- "came on fast." All I said was I agreed with the other guy's theory except for the part about Garlan poisoning Joffrey with the wine.

I'll say again, prove your assertion, or else keep it to yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

lol, please PROVE your theory that it was Garlan, or whatever it is you happen to believe. The whole point of this blog is to discuss ideas and exchange information. If we insisted that every idea must be PROVEN before it can enter these hallowed boards, then practically 99 percent of all post should be deleted, according to your standard.

My proof is in the text: Cressen dies in seconds while Joffrey doesn't even show the first sign of trouble for half-a-minute, even though his wine was "deep purple" and therefore more concentrated than Cressen's normal-looking wine. And that's just for starters.

I love it. "...the conclusion that the careful reader draws..." Classic Martin. And people take this is convincing proof that this is the truth.

You also hit the one of the nails on the head, Tucu: "The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew at some point he would get bored with Margaery..." So why on earth would she take such a drastic action and place virtually her entire family and perhaps her very house at risk for something that may become a problem "at some point"? All she would have to do is wait for Margaery to produce an heir or two and then kill Joffrey quietly, in private and made to look like an accident. That way, she gets what she really wants -- a Tyrell on the Iron Throne with Margaery as Queen Regent for the next decade or more -- right away rather than wait five years for Tommen.

This is just more proof, and yes it is proof, that the wine theory is full of holes. From the events on the page to the motivations of the plotters to the unfathomable logistics to put the wine right where it needed to be, the wine theory fails across the board.

You crack me up -- "came on fast." All I said was I agreed with the other guy's theory except for the part about Garlan poisoning Joffrey with the wine.

I'll say again, prove your assertion, or else keep it to yourself.

 

Nice stawman (and so, so utterly predictable).  Please show me where I ever said the wine theory was fact (unlike you with your pie theory).  Also, you might want to go back and re-read (because you obviously couldn't comprehend it the first time) where I already said I no longer thought it was probably Garlan who put the poison in the wine.  No, I still think it was most likely Olenna herself.

So, again, please provide proof of your assertion that the poison was in the pie (but I know you can't).  I contend that I believe the wine theory to be true while you say it's wrong and that the poison was in the pie.  Should be easy for you to prove that:rolleyes: 

ETA: spelling

ETA II: Also, what you contend is proof is nothing of the sort.

ETA III: I'll say again, prove your assertion, or else keep it to yourself;)

Edited by Prince of the North

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now