Lord Friendzone

Speculations, news, theories for season 7. (includes leaks )

2,890 posts in this topic

51 minutes ago, dsug said:

We are assuming that what happened at the Sept was common knowledge. Most people might not even know exactly what happened, nonetheless who exactly was inside. Cersei could always blame someone else for the Sept, there have been theories that she blames Dorne, hence the cheering crowds when Euron takes Ellaria to the Red Keep.

Maybe Cersei lies about how Kevan dies, using the good old "poisoned by our enemies" tactic. 

Or maybe, the hordes of Lannister soldiers aren't as fanatically loyal to Kevan Lannister as you are expecting. Maybe they do what they're told because they are soldiers and that is their job. Maybe they don't really give a rat's ass whose in charge as long as they're paid and protected. 

But even if it not common knowledge yet, it is blatantly obvious that Cersei is the one who organized the events. First of all, it was her trial and she is the one who survived, the King's corpse is not burned (so he was not in the Sept, and that means that the one who burned the Sept wanted him out of it) and finally Cersei has crowned herself Queen of the 7 Kingdoms.

The news will arrive to the rest of the 7 kingdoms in the first episode (Cersei will have informed that she is Queen), at most. Then they will know that the Sept has been burned with the HS, the heir of HG, the Queen, the Hand of the King (Lannister) and the other nobles who attended the trial. Maybe the news have actually arrived by the end of 6.10  because the last episode shows the events of Dorne weeks after the incident happened.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

But even if it not common knowledge yet, it is blatantly obvious that Cersei is the one who organized the events. First of all, it was her trial and she is the one who survived, the King's corpse is not burned (so he was not in the Sept, and that means that the one who burned the Sept wanted him out of it) and finally Cersei has crowned herself Queen of the 7 Kingdoms.

The news will arrive to the rest of the 7 kingdoms in the first episode (Cersei will have informed that she is Queen), at most. Then they will know that the Sept has been burned with the HS, the heir of HG, the Queen, the Hand of the King (Lannister) and the other nobles who attended the trial. Maybe the news have actually arrived by the end of 6.10  because the last episode shows the events of Dorne weeks after the incident happened.

tywin lannister blatantly organized the Red Wedding, he was the only one who benefitted from the slaughter of Robb, Catelyn, and Talisa, and their thousands of soldiers. And he still had an army.

 Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheron blatantly organized the slaughter of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys Martell, as they were the only ones who benefitted from their deaths. And they still had an army.

Robert Baratheon murdered the crown prince. He still had an army.

Aegon II and his mother clearly defied the wishes of King Viserys and usurped the throne from Rhaenyra. And they still had an army.

Aerys II murdered lords left and right, raped his wife, and was an all around terrible ruler. And he still had an army. 

So I ask you, what makes Cersei any different? 

Share this post


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

tywin lannister blatantly organized the Red Wedding, he was the only one who benefitted from the slaughter of Robb, Catelyn, and Talisa, and their thousands of soldiers. And he still had an army.

 Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheron blatantly organized the slaughter of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys Martell, as they were the only ones who benefitted from their deaths. And they still had an army.

Robert Baratheon murdered the crown prince. He still had an army.

Aegon II and his mother clearly defied the wishes of King Viserys and usurped the throne from Rhaenyra. And they still had an army.

Aerys II murdered lords left and right, raped his wife, and was an all around terrible ruler. And he still had an army. 

So I ask you, what makes Cersei any different? 

I was addressing the bolded points, the fact that Cersei was the only one who organised the Sept incident and it's virtually impossible that people can think another person did it, as you claimed it could be.

As for the points you mention, I'll leave Aegon II out because I've not read aWOIAF.

-in Tywin's case, he was a commander, and his men were the ones who actually obeyed his orders in order to kill everyone who was killed in the Red Wedding. It's very different from Cersei's terrorist attack.

-In Robert's case it was at war times. I think we talked about that not so long ago.

-Aerys, I was not aware that he murdered lords during times of peace, but in the case of raping his wife, that's not a reason why his army would not be loyal to him (assuming they knew about that) because that was a private affair, and many kings through real and fictional history have done that and nothing happened because that was not banned.(eve if it's a grotesque thing). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I was addressing the bolded points, the fact that Cersei was the only one who organised the Sept incident and it's virtually impossible that people can think another person did it, as you claimed it could be.

As for the points you mention, I'll leave Aegon II out because I've not read aWOIAF.

I'm not saying whether or not people will believe Cersei, but it is fully possible that she will put out a story. Blame Dorne, the Targaryens, the wrath of the gods themselves. As long as there is an excuse going, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that at least some people would believe it. 

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-in Tywin's case, he was a commander, and his men were the ones who actually obeyed his orders in order to kill everyone who was killed in the Red Wedding. It's very different from Cersei's terrorist attack.

Tywin and Walder violated guest right, a sacred thing in Westeros. Cersei destroyed the Sept, a sacred thing in Westeros. Not that different. Tywin committed sacrilege and his grip over Westeros was tighter than ever. Cersei commits sacrilege, why is it so unbelievable that she still has allies?

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-In Robert's case it was at war times. I think we talked about that not so long ago.

Were the sickly Princess Elia Martell, the toddler Princess Rhaenys, and the infant Prince Aegon at war with Robert? They were the mad king's glorified hostages. And they were raped and slaughtered. At least Margaery was an adult and died quickly, she wasn't a child, her head smashed in and raped. The murder of the Princess Elia and her children was pretty divisive, Ned himself was outraged, but Robert's reign was stronger than ever. He and Tywin committed an atrocity, but they still had an army. 

In fact, by the time Tywin sacked King's Landing, the war was already won. The Targ army was gone, save for a few pockets of loyalists, like the small garrison protecting Queen Rhaella at Dragonstone, and she was harmless. The Kingsguard was either dead or scattered throughout Westeros. King's Landing was nothing more than a city full of commoners and the Mad King himself.

So, no, the "they were at war" speech doesn't fly here. The commoners the Lannister soldiers slaughtered and raped as they sacked the city, in addition to the royal children who suffered the same fates, were not warriors. But the survivors cheered for Lord Tywin all the same, and applauded Robert's marriage to his golden daughter. 

Hell, even Jaime being a Kingslayer is really no different from Cersei. He committed treason, sacrilege, broke his vows, etc etc. And he got away with it. Because there was a new boss in town, a new regime that pardoned him. Hell, he even became Lord Commander of the Kingsguard eventually. Cersei commits an atrocity, kills a monarch, and gets away with it because the new power (in this case, herself) let her. Jaime commits an atrocity, kills a monarch, and gets away with it because the new power (in this case Robert) let him. And the people accepted it. Jaime still led soldiers in the War of the Five Kings. They didn't desert him for killing Aerys. And before you say "oh but he saved them from wildfire!!", realize that nobody knew that. As far as anyone knew, Jaime just killed the Mad King because he was losing anyway, and knew his father and Robert would let him get away with it.

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-Aerys, I was not aware that he murdered lords during times of peace, but in the case of raping his wife, that's not a reason why his army would not be loyal to him (assuming they knew about that) because that was a private affair, and many kings through real and fictional history have done that and nothing happened because that was not banned.(eve if it's a grotesque thing). 

When he murdered Rickard and Brandon, and demanded the heads of Ned and Robert, there was still peace. The war started after he did all that. So yes, the Mad King did kill powerful people in times of peace. He burned them with wildfire, and strangled them in front of crowds. 

As for his treatment of Rhaella, yes the armies would not know about that. But Jaime kept serving him, despite his disgust with his treatment of his Queen. That in itself is a parallel to Jaime continuing to work for the crown, despite his disgust with her. You don't have to like your boss to keep working for them, especially when you know you can't get a job anywhere else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dsug said:

I'm not saying whether or not people will believe Cersei, but it is fully possible that she will put out a story. Blame Dorne, the Targaryens, the wrath of the gods themselves. As long as there is an excuse going, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that at least some people would believe it. 

Tywin and Walder violated guest right, a sacred thing in Westeros. Cersei destroyed the Sept, a sacred thing in Westeros. Not that different. Tywin committed sacrilege and his grip over Westeros was tighter than ever. Cersei commits sacrilege, why is it so unbelievable that she still has allies?

Well it's different basically because his army were the ones who did it, so if they decided they would execute his orders, they would still be loyal to him afterwards. The Lannister's army were loyal to Tywin and Kevan, if they are the same people, they might not be very concerned about the incident of the Sept (they are "bad" people), but Cersei is not a commander, she has not fought in battle with them, she has actually murdered Kevan (they were loyal to him and his brother) and, apart from that, the Red Wedding was about killing the enemy, and the Queen and the kIng (he committed suicide as a consequence of that) were not precisely the enemy. They should be loyal to the King and he was a Lannister.

As for Cersei, I don't think she will blame anyone else. I think she is proud of her action. If there is a plothole and all the soldiers from the Lannisters are loyal to her (making it the big army that the leaks suggest it will be) they won't be with her because she says the contrary. The showrunners mentioned we should fear her. She is on Cersei's evil mode from now on. She won't say she didn't do it. On the contrary.

PS: I think that even if all the soldiers were loyal to her the army should not be as big as it is suggested, considering they have to beat Dany and Jon (I don't know about the numbers of eachside because I don't pay a lot of attention to them when watching the show, but my understanding is that Dany and Jon's side is much much bigger than Cersei's). However, I think it's impossible that all of them (to make a big army) are loyal to her for the reasons I mentioned in my first paragraph. So that means she realistically shouldn't have that big army on her side. We know the consequences of it: Stannis in s5.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin didn't break any guest rights, he wasn't at the Twins.  That is on Walder Frey and his family.  

Maybe Cersei is going to pull a Joan of Arc, and lead the troops herself.  That would be great.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dsug said:

Were the sickly Princess Elia Martell, the toddler Princess Rhaenys, and the infant Prince Aegon at war with Robert? They were the mad king's glorified hostages. And they were raped and slaughtered. At least Margaery was an adult and died quickly, she wasn't a child, her head smashed in and raped. The murder of the Princess Elia and her children was pretty divisive, Ned himself was outraged, but Robert's reign was stronger than ever. He and Tywin committed an atrocity, but they still had an army. 

In fact, by the time Tywin sacked King's Landing, the war was already won. The Targ army was gone, save for a few pockets of loyalists, like the small garrison protecting Queen Rhaella at Dragonstone, and she was harmless. The Kingsguard was either dead or scattered throughout Westeros. King's Landing was nothing more than a city full of commoners and the Mad King himself.

So, no, the "they were at war" speech doesn't fly here. The commoners the Lannister soldiers slaughtered and raped as they sacked the city, in addition to the royal children who suffered the same fates, were not warriors. But the survivors cheered for Lord Tywin all the same, and applauded Robert's marriage to his golden daughter. 

??? Robert did not murder Elia and the babies. Robert is not Tywin either. the example You mentioned was Robert killing Rhaegar, and it was in a battle.

17 minutes ago, dsug said:

Hell, even Jaime being a Kingslayer is really no different from Cersei. He committed treason, sacrilege, broke his vows, etc etc. And he got away with it. Because there was a new boss in town, a new regime that pardoned him. Hell, he even became Lord Commander of the Kingsguard eventually. Cersei commits an atrocity, kills a monarch, and gets away with it because the new power (in this case, herself) let her. Jaime commits an atrocity, kills a monarch, and gets away with it because the new power (in this case Robert) let him. And the people accepted it. Jaime still led soldiers in the War of the Five Kings. They didn't desert him for killing Aerys. And before you say "oh but he saved them from wildfire!!", realize that nobody knew that. As far as anyone knew, Jaime just killed the Mad King because he was losing anyway, and knew his father and Robert would let him get away with it.

I wouldn't say Jaime commits an atrocity. It was high treason, that's true, but necessary. He kills a monarch who was like Cersei, that wanted to kill people burning the city. I don't think killing Cersei would be an atrocity, either.

 

17 minutes ago, dsug said:

When he murdered Rickard and Brandon, and demanded the heads of Ned and Robert, there was still peace. The war started after he did all that. So yes, the Mad King did kill powerful people in times of peace. He burned them with wildfire, and strangled them in front of crowds. 

As for his treatment of Rhaella, yes the armies would not know about that. But Jaime kept serving him, despite his disgust with his treatment of his Queen. That in itself is a parallel to Jaime continuing to work for the crown, despite his disgust with her. You don't have to like your boss to keep working for them, especially when you know you can't get a job anywhere else. 

Sorry, this is so true. When you mentioned lords for some reason I thought there were other lords from the past, long before the Rebellion, but it's true. I always have on my mind them as Brandon and Rickard, and since it was just before the Rebellion (the moment when he went crazy) I was thinking about a period of time before that, thinking you were referring that he had been killing lords in general since he was crowned. I don't know why I forgot about them:bang:, but it's completely true. It was a lapse. Yes, he was probably the most similar one to Cersei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Tywin didn't break any guest rights, he wasn't at the Twins.  That is on Walder Frey and his family.  

With that logic, Cersei didn't kill anybody in the Sept either. She was having a nice glass of wine, trying on a new gown. That is on Qyburn and his little birds. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dsug said:

With that logic, Cersei didn't kill anybody in the Sept either. She was having a nice glass of wine, trying on a new gown. That is on Qyburn and his little birds. 

 

How so?  Guest right is a thing, it's different from murder.  If Robb wasn't a guest of Tywin Lannister, how did Tywin break guest right at the Twins?  Is Tywin guilty of betraying his liege lord and king, Robb Stark just because he aided Roose Bolton to do the same?  Answer:  no.  He's guilty of participating in the planning of Robb's murder and the murder of his men.  He didn't betray his liege lord or his king or break guest right.  

Edited by Cas Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

??? Robert did not murder Elia and the babies. Robert is not Tywin either. the example You mentioned was Robert killing Rhaegar, and it was in a battle.

I mentioned both. And Tywin did, with Robert's approval. Tywin had three royal innocents butchered, and his "punishment" was his daughter becoming queen and his son being pardoned for kingslaying and being kept on as a member of the elite Kingsguard. 

Hell, since Robert's Targ blood is so important to some posters, his murder of Prince Rhaegar, and his enthusiasm for the murders of his wife and children, should constitute kinslaying. But no one ever brings that up. Instead, Robert killing his relative is simply written of as "war is war." Hmm, that's very interesting...

5 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I wouldn't say Jaime commits an atrocity. It was high treason, that's true, but necessary. He kills a monarch who was like Cersei, that wanted to kill people burning the city. I don't think killing Cersei would be an atrocity, either.

A kingsguard breaking his vows and murdering his king is about as treasonous and sinful as it gets. What Aerys did or was planning on doing is irrelevant, Jaime took a vow to protect the king and he broke it. Why do you think half the kingdoms revile him as a "kingslayer"? Barristan Selmy and Ned wanted Jaime exiled. Robert kept him on because he could, and because honor wasn't as valuable to him as Lord Tywin's favor. 

The same is with Cersei. If someone does something bad (blow up the Sept) but the new regime (Queen Cersei) pardons it, there is nothing the people can do. They can't just say "oh well I don't like Cersei, so she's not the queen," just like they didn't say "Oh I don't like Jaime, so he's not kingsguard." Jaime was on the KG whether they liked it or not, just as Cersei is on the Throne whether they like it or not. They can complain and call him a kingslayer, they can call cersei a killer and whore all they like, but words are wind, and she's still on the Iron Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

How so?  Guest right is a thing, it's different from murder.  If Robb wasn't a guest of Tywin Lannister, how did Tywin break guest right at the Twins?  Is Tywin guilty of betraying his liege lord and king, Robb Stark just because he aided Roose Bolton to do the same?  Answer:  no.  He's guilty of participating in the planning of Robb's murder and the murder of his men.  He didn't betray his liege lord or his king or break guest right.  

you said tywin didn't break guest right because he wasn't personally present at the twins. 

by that logic, cersei didn't personally kill anybody, because she was on the other side of the city getting hammered. 

Tywin condoned Walder Frey's betrayal, and enocuraged the breaking of guest right. By the transitive property (assuming you're familiar), Tywin is just as guilty as Walder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dsug said:

I mentioned both. And Tywin did, with Robert's approval. Tywin had three royal innocents butchered, and his "punishment" was his daughter becoming queen and his son being pardoned for kingslaying and being kept on as a member of the elite Kingsguard. 

Hell, since Robert's Targ blood is so important to some posters, his murder of Prince Rhaegar, and his enthusiasm for the murders of his wife and children, should constitute kinslaying. But no one ever brings that up. Instead, Robert killing his relative is simply written of as "war is war." Hmm, that's very interesting...

No, actually you mentioned them on separate sentences: Red Wedding vs Robert killing Rhaegar. And I answered you separately.

Quote

A kingsguard breaking his vows and murdering his king is about as treasonous and sinful as it gets. What Aerys did or was planning on doing is irrelevant, Jaime took a vow to protect the king and he broke it. Why do you think half the kingdoms revile him as a "kingslayer"? Barristan Selmy and Ned wanted Jaime exiled. Robert kept him on because he could, and because honor wasn't as valuable to him as Lord Tywin's favor. 

 

I already said it was high treason, so it seems we agree on that.

Irrelevant? How planning to burn the city is irrelevant to a knight?

Quote

The same is with Cersei. If someone does something bad (blow up the Sept) but the new regime (Queen Cersei) pardons it, there is nothing the people can do. They can't just say "oh well I don't like Cersei, so she's not the queen," just like they didn't say "Oh I don't like Jaime, so he's not kingsguard." Jaime was on the KG whether they liked it or not, just as Cersei is on the Throne whether they like it or not. They can complain and call him a kingslayer, they can call cersei a killer and whore all they like, but words are wind, and she's still on the Iron Throne.

She's there until someone re-usurps it or claims it...or kills her.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

No, actually you mentioned them on separate sentences: Red Wedding vs Robert killing Rhaegar. And I answered you separately.

you did not reply to my original remarks about Elia and her children. You said "that's war  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " about him killing Robert, but did not address Elia. 

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I already said it was high treason, so it seems we agree on that.

Irrelevant? How planning to burn the city is irrelevant to a knight?

It was irrelevant to a Kingsguard. I agree that it was the morally correct thing to do, but vows are vows and Jaime broke them. When Jaime had to listen to the Mad King rape his wife and didn't do anything, that was morally wrong, but understandable, as he was fulfilling his vows to serve the King and only the King. If Barristan Selmy, the most honorable man on the face of the earth, wanted Jaime out of the KG, that should be good evidence of how well received the kingslaying was. Doesn't matter how the Mad King was acting, Jaime took a vow to protect him, and he broke that vow and killed him instead.

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

She's there until someone re-usurps it or claims it...or kills her.

Yeah well, season eight I guess. 

But peasants who don't like her are not a threat to her reign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dsug said:

you said tywin didn't break guest right because he wasn't personally present at the twins. 

by that logic, cersei didn't personally kill anybody, because she was on the other side of the city getting hammered. 

Tywin condoned Walder Frey's betrayal, and enocuraged the breaking of guest right. By the transitive property (assuming you're familiar), Tywin is just as guilty as Walder. 

I did. You can only break guest right if you are one of the hosts.  

When you plan someone's murder you are considered guilty of murder whether you commit the actual act of killing or not, e.g. transitive property, you hired killers, your orchestrated the killing, the killing was done on your orders, so Tywin is guilty of murder and so is Cersei.  But not breaking guest right.  Just like Roose Bolton is guilty of betraying his liege lord and king.  Tywin is not.  Both are guilty of Robb Stark's murder.  One is not like the other.

However, guest right is irrelevant to how realistic it is that Cersei Lannister would be able to command forces outside of the Red Keep or King's Landing, maintain her father's bannermen and their loyalty or be serious enough force that anyone, let alone Daenerys Targaryen would seek to appease her and ally with her, based on the events of the show in preceding seasons. 



We can agree to disagree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dsug said:

you did not reply to my original remarks about Elia and her children. You said "that's war  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " about him killing Robert, but did not address Elia. 

I'm not aware/don't remember who orchestrated these murders. My understanding is that it was Tyrin, not sure about Robert.

So maybe the order should be:

 (less evil) Robert<<<Tywin<<<<<Aerys approx. equal to Cersei (most evil)

I am not really sure if we can say Aerys is as evil as Cersei, bc he really was very  bad and killed people, but when we has about to burn the city he would have probably have burned it with him in (meaning maybe he was having hallucinations, which I don't think so, but could be)

Quote

It was irrelevant to a Kingsguard. I agree that it was the morally correct thing to do, but vows are vows and Jaime broke them. When Jaime had to listen to the Mad King rape his wife and didn't do anything, that was morally wrong, but understandable, as he was fulfilling his vows to serve the King and only the King. If Barristan Selmy, the most honorable man on the face of the earth, wanted Jaime out of the KG, that should be good evidence of how well received the kingslaying was. Doesn't matter how the Mad King was acting, Jaime took a vow to protect him, and he broke that vow and killed him instead.

I haven't said that Aerys statements were  "irrelevant" to a kingsguard, but to a knight. A kingsguard is a title given to a knight that has specialized in guarding a king, as the name says.

But it's interesting you bring that topic because Jaime's arc is always about "the vows". The duality of his decision: was it good or bad? Which vows are the ones I should take into account when they are contradictory? In fact, Brienne is the one who reminds him of that he is in a knight in Season 6, and it's also interesting he is a not a kingsguard anymore from s6 on. I don't think it's a coincidence.

His arc in the books it's also about being a knight more than anything else.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dsug said:

you did not reply to my original remarks about Elia and her children. You said "that's war  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " about him killing Robert, but did not address Elia. 

It was irrelevant to a Kingsguard. I agree that it was the morally correct thing to do, but vows are vows and Jaime broke them. When Jaime had to listen to the Mad King rape his wife and didn't do anything, that was morally wrong, but understandable, as he was fulfilling his vows to serve the King and only the King. If Barristan Selmy, the most honorable man on the face of the earth, wanted Jaime out of the KG, that should be good evidence of how well received the kingslaying was. Doesn't matter how the Mad King was acting, Jaime took a vow to protect him, and he broke that vow and killed him instead.

Yeah well, season eight I guess. 

But peasants who don't like her are not a threat to her reign. 

If Aerys blew up KL and survived, would he still be King? Of course not, he would be considered a monster.

Cersei is a woman who has been publicly paraded in front of vast crowds naked in a patriarchal society. She has blown up a holy place filled with women and children. She murdered the King's wife and her own uncle. She has laid claim to the throne when she has no lawful right to it. The suggestion that these actions have strengthened her position is ridiculous. This is a feudal army we are talking about, not the SS. 

You know full well that conflating the events of the war of the five kings (or pretty much anything in GOT canon) with what Cersei does to the sept is fundamentally inaccurate. The only comparable example is the near miss of Aerys using the wildfyre himself. This was an act of terrorism by a woman scorned. Public order would break down. The machinery of government would collapse. The entire population of KL, some 400,000 people, should be desperate to escape the city, to get away from a fiery death that could take them at any time and Cersei's soldiers would be doing the same. The public perception, both civilian and military, would be that Cersei has lost her mind.

No alliances, no diplomacy, no major power status. This is a ludicrous situation if Cersei's reign is anything other than a descent into anarchy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dp

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dsug said:

tywin lannister blatantly organized the Red Wedding, he was the only one who benefitted from the slaughter of Robb, Catelyn, and Talisa, and their thousands of soldiers. And he still had an army.

 Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheron blatantly organized the slaughter of Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys Martell, as they were the only ones who benefitted from their deaths. And they still had an army.

Robert Baratheon murdered the crown prince. He still had an army.

Aegon II and his mother clearly defied the wishes of King Viserys and usurped the throne from Rhaenyra. And they still had an army.

Aerys II murdered lords left and right, raped his wife, and was an all around terrible ruler. And he still had an army. 

So I ask you, what makes Cersei any different? 

Tywin had ordered that done before Robert arrived to approve or not and Elia was done that way because Tywin actually never addressed her fate to the Mountain or Armory Lorch. It was done because The Mountain wanted too. Robert had nothing to do with it.

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the hell did Robert ever order Tywin to send Gregor and Lorch to get rid of the targs? He was out of commission for awhile thanks to him saving Barristan, it was purely a Tywin thing to show he was "always" with the rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Tywin had ordered that done before Robert arrived to approve or not and Elia was done that way because Tywin actually never addressed her fate to the Mountain or Armory Lorch. It was done because The Mountain wanted too. Robert had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the clarification. I suspected he didn't order it, but I don't know the story in all the details, and  being told otherwise I preferred not to mention it, since I only discuss the things I know from certain; and thus, I didn't address that sentence in particular the first time.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

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