Is Tommen going to die?

[Lizaveta Martell]

Would GRRM create such an obvious Woobie though? It would be out of character for such high quality books.

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

He dies sometime before or after Ser Patrick Massey is awarded Lannisport and wedded to Asha Greyjoy

[Ashen Shugar]

I think that sleeping with other people is significantly less immoral than letting your sister die. Such a "double standard". Particularly because the reason it's supposed to be oh so important to Jaime that she slept with other people is that he loves her. Frankly, I think his love is shallow and unrealistic if he would prefer her to die.

Except he isn't letting her die, she'd have people lining up to fight for her if she didn't have Strong already anyway. He would of most likely lost and gotten them both killed.. which doesn't seem to bother poor Cersie at all. Perhaps Jamie had been willing to overlook the many flaws she has as long as he believed she was loyal to him, perhaps after he found out about her cheating he finally saw her true colours. I don't remember him wanting her to die, he just doesn't want to be the one to save her, he knows perfectly well that someone most likely more competent than himself will champion her. Even though it is unintentional he is actually doing her a favour by not fighting.

So yeah, I don't think Cersei sleeping with other people is a huge betrayal. I don't believe in sexual fidelity. Plus, Jaime didn't hold it against her when she had to sleep with Robert. She probably assumed he was used to her position as a sex object for power.

It's ok that you don't believe in sexual fidelity(tmi), but you do understand that a lot of people do right? And that those people have a right to be majorly pissed when their partner cheats on them. And Jamie hated that she was sleeping with Robert it is mentioned several times, he loved her enough to overlook it, do you think if the positions were reversed Cersie would of stayed Jamies mistress while he married another woman? And she knew very well how Jamie felt about sharing her, she just cared more for power than for him.

Of course Cersei is judged for being a woman. Everyone (even GRRM) seems to be fixated on her sexual life in a frankly perverse way. Tyrion can whore his way across two continents and we never doubt that he "loves" Tysha. Tywin can murder children and orchestrate the Red Wedding and no one seems to focus on his sex life.

Actually many people here don't believe Tyrion truly loves Tysha, Tywins sex life is also mentioned several times, as are those of several other male characters, but once again your FDS addled mind misses the point that neither of them were cheating on any one. People are fixated on her sexual life because she uses sex as a weapon and it has gotten her into so much trouble, not because of sexism.

Additionally, the US can run a deficit because we are a modern, banking, bureaucratic democracy who can to some degree control our rate of interest on federal debt. The Middle Ages did not have the same latitude with borrowing money.

That is totally irrelevant(and not totally correct) to the point I made about Bush and Obama.. So you are suggesting that Cersie paid the Crowns debt with her own funds??

[Lizaveta Martell]

At the time she wrote the letter and at the time Jaime received it, Robert Strong did not yet exist. It is very clear from Cersei's reasoning at the time she wrote the letter that she thought Jaime was her best chance. Otherwise, she would not have written to him.

Whether or not you think Jaime has a right to be angry about Cersei using sex to her advantage, I don't understand where it's a moral decision on Jaime's part to not confront Cersei about it directly. Yeah, Cersei uses sex as power. As many people have mentioned before, she really only has soft power. You haven't explained where she'd get money to outspend other people (the Tyrells, Tyrion, etc), because as I explained, she cannot borrow unendingly as Queen (unlike the US government, which can essentially borrow indefinitely- which was my point). She would not have private funds. She's not a Lannister anymore, so she doesn't have Lannister money. She doesn't receive money from the Baratheon lands, because they are held by Renly/Stannis. She only has Crown funds, which are running in the negative. Obviously she spends money, but even that seems to be run through the small council (ie Joffery's wedding, etc). My point isn't that she can't spend any money, merely that there is clearly a limit and there are clearly players in the game who have money and resources. Someone could always out spend her.

I think Cersei cares more about not losing than she cares about winning. You win or you die. If she felt the need to sleep with Lancel to accomplish her ends, because that was how she could get rid of Robert, then I don't see how that's very different from sleeping with Robert to be queen. Yes, Jaime was angry that she had to sleep with Robert. But he accepted that as a path to power. Why not sleeping with Lancel as a path to more power? Jaime is not totally averse to having Cersei use her body for power, but he needs to sign off on it? She needs a permission slip from him? Yes, I understand that many other people have a romantic attachment to sexual fidelity. But Jaime seems remarkably inconsistent where that's concerned.

Finally, I think the amount of vitriol expended on Cersei's sex life when compared to Tyrion or Tywin or Robert is overwhelming. She's slept with all of 5?people in her life. Jaime, Robert, Lancel, Kettleblack1 and Kettleblack2 (I mix them up)? Am I missing any? Taena I guess. So 6. It's not that no one is talking about male sex lives on this forum, it's that SO many people are talking about Cersei's and most of them in an uncritical and hateful way.

[Towel]

And what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Queen Cersei I]

He's probably a marked boy. The wrenching twists of books 1-3 have all but died out as of 4-5, what with "not quite dead" being the order of the day and zombies popping up everywhere. I think at least one cruel, innocent death is just the sort of thing we need to make Arya's little "anyone can be killed" creed look more credible. You know, without adding "unless one of our various necromancers can bring them back." Who better than poor little Tommen?

I respectfully disagree-- not because I don't concur that Tommen is a sweet and innocent kid; but simply because I wouldn't really see his death as surprising in any sense at this point. IMO, Tommen and Myrcella both getting offed would not really prove GRRM's claims that "anyone can die," rather, it would highlight the fact of how predictable who is going to live and who is going to die has become at this point. Just as Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei, Arya, Sansa, Danerys, Jon Snow, et. al pretty much have a clear pass for "the breathers club" until the very last book, poor Tommen and Myrcella pretty much have "R.I.P., kiddies!" tattooed on their foreheads.

[Queen Cersei I]

You know he's going too, and since he's such a nice and loving kid you can be sure his death will be hellish and brutal in the extreme. I won't be surprised if he dies at Cersei's trial by combat. The faiths champion will duck under a swing from Roberts massive sword when they are fighting next to the edge of the arena area, were Tommen happens to be standing to get a better view of the action. Roberts sword that missed the faiths champion will be just long enough to accidentally reach and decapitate Tommen. Robert will of course kill the champion with his next swing thus freeing Cersei of her accusations, but her freedom will be bittersweet since it cost her a son and this event will send her even further into madness.

Interesting, but I doubt Tommen will meet his end until the very last book, and I strongly, strongly suspect that then it will be at Cersei’s hand. IMO, its Myrcella who may well die in TWOW, who will doubtlessly die in some situation clearly caused by Cersei, who will naturally blame everyone else and refuse to accept responsibility for her actions, all the better for readers to loathe her.

IMO, Jaime is clearly going to off Cersei, but, judging by the tone of the chapters of both these two thus far, GRRM’s going to do it in a way that assures that Cersei looks as deserving as possible, and Jaime and justified and righteous as possible. Currently, one can make the argument that Jaime is one of the few people in Westeros who would NOT be justified in strangling Cersei; if she kills their son in a fit of narcissism/ batshit insanity, that will no longer be the case.

IMO, one of the large reasons for showing Cersei is to show her self-destructing on her own “greed.” (I.E., her insisting on taking the same privileges that men in her society do, and pretty much doing whatever the hell she wants.) What happens to a woman who dares refuse to have the children of her lawful husband the king, uses her sexuality to get numerous men to do her bidding, desires power in and of itself, rankles at being given away in marriage as her society deems fit, refuses to submit to any man, and sneakily threatens the entire base of her society’s patriarchal structure? Why, she kills off her own family, destroys her children, gets hideous and ugly and repeatedly humiliates herself by still trying to use sex to get ahead, loses all her power, destroys the realm, and turns drunk and glutton and ends up murdering her own beloved child in a fit of insanity. That’s what happens.

[James Arryn]

What I'm saying is that Cersei slept with Kettleblack to make him do her bidding. She did not sleep with Kettleblack because she was attracted to him-it was not sex for sex's sake.

Yeah, got that. Confused as to how you see that as less of a betrayal. It doesn't seem to me to matter whether the benefit she sought was material or sexual. Unless you think sexual vanity is central to sexual betrayal. She knows Jaime knows she gets no sexual gratification with Robert. But she knows he hates it anyways.

She did not to the best of my memory reject Jamie's love. She did reject his insane idea that they get openly married and acknowledge their children's parentage-which would have been rather stupid in my opinion.

Our memories differ. I recall her specifically rejecting him, mocking his infirmity.

Lastly, in my opinion, Jamie, for all his protestations of love, was quick to abandon her when she needed him.

If you wish, there is a Defend Cersei thread we can move this argument to.

Which?

[James Arryn]

IMO, one of the large reasons for showing Cersei is to show her self-destructing on her own “greed.” (I.E., her insisting on taking the same privileges that men in her society do, and pretty much doing whatever the hell she wants.) What happens to a woman who dares refuse to have the children of her lawful husband the king, uses her sexuality to get numerous men to do her bidding, desires power in and of itself, rankles at being given away in marriage as her society deems fit, refuses to submit to any man, and sneakily threatens the entire base of her society’s patriarchal structure? Why, she kills off her own family, destroys her children, gets hideous and ugly and repeatedly humiliates herself by still trying to use sex to get ahead, loses all her power, destroys the realm, and turns drunk and glutton and ends up murdering her own beloved child in a fit of insanity. That’s what happens.

Do you realize what a tautology you've built here?

If I have the sequence right, it goes.

A) Cersei was original a sympathetic character whose actions were demonized and misunderstood within the context of the book and by readers outside same due to her gender and their bias towards same.

B ) Cersei's increasingly unsympathetic behavior as the books progress is not in fact affirmation of the criticisms you dismissed as the result of misogyny....but in fact evidence that the author who in your view previously depicted Cersei as sympathetic (accidentally?) has now decided to alter her persona as a sacrifice to the alter of misogyny. Or was that his plan all along, the devious ******?

Either way, if you allow for such extreme 180's mid-stream, how can you ever be wrong?

[Queen Cersei I]

Do you realize what a tautology you've built here?

If I have the sequence right, it goes.

A) Cersei was a sympathetic character whose actions were demonized and misunderstood within the context of the book and by readers outside same due to her gender and their bias towards same.

Actually, you do not have it right. I was saying:

A) Cersei's never been sympathetic, and is presented negatively from the beginning. What I question is whether or not having another man's babies rather than the husband who raped her is pure evil, as it is presented as, rather than understandable. I think that the idea that a queen who is unfaithful to her hsuband committed treason and thus deserves death is something that has been held as gospel for centuries, and in these books GRRM does not only not question it, he glosses over it.

But Cersei was never drawn as sympathetic. Ever. I was merely questioning whether a few of the things she's done that are generally critisized as pure evil should, in fact, be termed as such, considering her circumstances.

(And these actions do not include Cersei's acts of murder, torture, or cruelty, but her sexual behavior.)

whose actions were demonized and misunderstood within the context of the book and by readers outside same due to her gender and their bias towards same.

People loathing and demonizing Cersei (in terms of her book one through three behavior) for committing infanticide, allowing a little girl to be brutally whipped, and other heinous acts? Totally legitimate.

The idea that Cersei is evil because she refused to bear the children of the man who, we are told in book four, began holding her down and forcing her legs apart "once a fortnight" starting a few weeks after their wedding, before Cersei had even done anything evil to Robert? I'd say that is a far more tenuous and complex issue.

B) Cersei's increasingly unsympathetic behavior as the books progress is not in fact affirmation of the criticisms you dismissed as the result of misogyny...

What?

..but in fact evidence that the author who in your view previously depicted Cersei as sympathetic

He has never depicted her sympathetically. But with the addition of her POV in AFFC, we got more sexist cliches (Cersei wants power, thus she must really want a penis!), annoying implications (Cersei is the only woman in these books to actually compllain about not being able to inherit and about being given away like a mare in marriage-- thus, such criticisms must be an epression of her bitchiness), and a focus on Cersei's sexual behavior that seems as obsessive as it is unnecessary.

.but in fact evidence that the author who in your view previously depicted Cersei as sympathetic (accidentally?) has now decided to alter her persona as a sacrifice to the alter of misogyny.

In fact, as I've noted, he never portrayed Cersei as sympathetic, by any stretch of the imagination. And from the beginning, her presentation had some troubling elements. But it was not until she got her own POV that these elements came more into the light.

And yes, she acts out of character in several respects in AFFC, but I'm not really going to even bother to get into it, since we've already strayed far enough off topic as it is.

. Or was that his plan all along, the devious ******?

I've never said or even thought this. I don't by any means think the author is a devious "*****" (whatever that means....) I do think that some of the stuff he's written contains sexism that bears attention and discussion. And no, that does not mean I think the author is a card carrying sexist.

Many non sexist people carry one, two, or even a handful of sexist opinions. Most people are made up of thousands of opinions, a more coherent, integrated system of morality, and their own deeds and actions. Having a few sexist opinions would not make the author a "devious ******". But it would make some issues in his books problematic and deserving of further discussion and examination.

[AngrySoviet]

Naw. I'd bet my life that Cersei is going to off Tommen in a fit of bat shit insanity ("everything I do, I do for my children," thought Cersei Lannister as she slowly strangled the life out of her last remaining child."). Then Jaime the poor, tragic misunderstood hero is going to have to (heroically!) strangle Cersei, to the applause of audiences everywhere. The Cersei is possibly going to soil herself (because no humiliation is too much or too gross for this character), and Jaime is going to be killed by the men of Danerys Targaryen, going out like the tragically misunderstood hero he is.

In short-- Tommen is dead, dead, dead. All of Cersei's "unnatural" children, evidence of her unique female rebellion (and singular, supposedly evil (as these books would have it) decision to choose the father of her own children) will not make it to the end of the series. Cersei doomed her kids by creating them, when she naturally refused to mother the kings heirs, chose the father of her own babies, and symbolically threatened the entire patriarchal structure of her entire society.

Tommen and Myrcella are dead, just as surely as Robert's noble, worthy bastards will end up inheriting Storm's End and the Barahteon name when Stannis burns his daughter alive. Because the patriarchy will always triumph, and the seed is strong. Very, very strong.

Ummm... I don't think "choosing the father of your own children" is SUPPOSEDLY wrong from the moment you commit incest with your own brother...

[Queen Cersei I]

Ummm... I don't think "choosing the father of your own children" is SUPPOSEDLY wrong from the moment you commit incest with your own brother...

Consensual sibling incest between adults is evil? Some would argue that, in fact, how wrong that is morally is up for debate.

I'd certainly agree that it is (to my sensibilities) gross and inexplicable. But morally wrong? That's a muddier issue.

[James Arryn]

Actually, you do not have it right. I was saying:

A) Cersei's never been sympathetic, and is presented negatively from the beginning. What I question is whether or not having another man's babies rather than the husband who raped her is pure evil, as it is presented as, rather than understandable. I think that the idea that a queen who is unfaithful to her hsuband committed treason and thus deserves death is something that has been held as gospel for centuries, and in these books GRRM does not only not question it, he glosses over it.

But Cersei was never drawn as sympathetic. Ever. I was merely questioning whether a few of the things she's done that are generally critisized as pure evil should, in fact, be termed as such, considering her circumstances.

(And these actions do not include Cersei's acts of murder, torture, or cruelty, but her sexual behavior.)

People loathing and demonizing Cersei (in terms of her book one through three behavior) for committing infanticide, allowing a little girl to be brutally whipped, and other heinous acts? Totally legitimate.

The idea that Cersei is evil because she refused to bear the children of the man who, we are told in book four, began holding her down and forcing her legs apart "once a fortnight" starting a few weeks after their wedding, before Cersei had even done anything evil to Robert? I'd say that is a far more tenuous and complex issue.

What?

He has never depicted her sympathetically. But with the addition of her POV in AFFC, we got more sexist cliches (Cersei wants power, thus she must really want a penis!), annoying implications (Cersei is the only woman in these books to actually compllain about not being able to inherit and about being given away like a mare in marriage-- thus, such criticisms must be an epression of her bitchiness), and a focus on Cersei's sexual behavior that seems as obsessive as it is unnecessary.

In fact, as I've noted, he never portrayed Cersei as sympathetic, by any stretch of the imagination. And from the beginning, her presentation had some troubling elements. But it was not until she got her own POV that these elements came more into the light.

And yes, she acts out of character in several respects in AFFC, but I'm not really going to even bother to get into it, since we've already strayed far enough off topic as it is.

I've never said or even thought this. I don't by any means think the author is a devious "*****" (whatever that means....) I do think that some of the stuff he's written contains sexism that bears attention and discussion. And no, that does not mean I think the author is a card carrying sexist.

Many non sexist people carry one, two, or even a handful of sexist opinions. Most people are made up of thousands of opinions, a more coherent, integrated system of morality, and their own deeds and actions. Having a few sexist opinions would not make the author a "devious ******". But it would make some issues in his books problematic and deserving of further discussion and examination.

As it seems to be the central obstacle to mutual understanding, re-frame my entire post with the words 'relative to common perception' after the word 'sympathetic'.

And as far as people unwittingly carrying around issues that color their perceptions a lot of the time, clearly there we agree.

:)

[Towel]

The idea that Cersei is evil because she refused to bear the children of the man who, we are told in book four, began holding her down and forcing her legs apart "once a fortnight" starting a few weeks after their wedding, before Cersei had even done anything evil to Robert? I'd say that is a far more tenuous and complex issue.

For the sake of the totally ridiculous argument that has absolutely no purpose in a thread about whether TOMMEN WILL OR WILL NOT DIE. The only time we hear this is from her. And she's known to lie.

[Queen Cersei I]

First, Scootydowop, I apologize if your entire post here was tongue in cheek and I in my denseness am missing that fact. That said, however…

I couldn't give a pigs fart and a lions piss about either of them. Both are poisons to the realm, and abominations born of treasonous incest. Cute kittens and beet banning isn't enough to make them worthy of life, but the conduct of their mother has earned them a kiss from a blade.

No, I'd say the conduct of their mother... has earned their mother a kiss from the blade. Not her helpless, utterly innocent offspring who are guilty of nothing more than having the wrong parents, something I'm not really sure that can be helped.

I couldn't give a pigs fart and a lions piss about either of them. Both are poisons to the realm,

Unless you buy into the ridiculous patriarchal conceit that only the mighty seed of the trueborn Robert Barahtheon deserves to inherit, than I'd say that this is pure B.S. A kid that was clearly poison to the realm? Joffrey. A horrible sociopathic kid and a lamentable king. But both Myrcella and Tommen seem fairly capable, competent, intelligent, and decent. Much is made of Tommen's "woobiness", but he clearly has a good head on his shoulders.

Of course, you could argue that they are "Poison to the realm" because they are not the legit heirs, so wars must be fought. I would argue that its more the attitudes like the one you express here that are responsible for the carnage. The child must be Robert's trueborn son, or else the heir is not legit... but how did Robert get the throne? Oh yeah-- by killing the truly legitimate heir to the throne himself, then approving of the murders of the two child heirs who would have inherited before him.

Your claim that Stannis is the true heir is as shaky as your claim that the kids are basically walking natural disasters because their mother chose to have them with a father other than Robert Baratheon. Is Stannis the legit heir, as he claims, or does Danerys have a better claim on the throne? He claims he won it by conquest, so then wouldn't it be just as legit for Jon Snow or one of Robert's bastards to start a war and usurp him? Or for Dany herself to do so?

[Ame]

Sorry for being such a killjoy but I think every single one of you are overlooking demographics.

GRRM has based so much of ASOIAF on Medieval Europe and the men and women of the middle ages had very frightening mortality. High birth could but didn't always help, nor did time always help.

To list just a few examples from England (which GRRM seems to like best)

1. The hero of Agincourt Henry V died not long after from dysentary

2. Henry VIII and Blessie Blount had a son; who had tutors who considered him an idiot was being considered as Henry's heir and died at only 17.

3. Prince Arthur Henry VIIIs older brother died without ever consumating his marriage

4. Edward the Black Prince died before his dad

5. Henry Frederick died at 18

6. The first born son of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon died after living only a few months.

I could list more from France, and with a little bit of research I could come up with a massive list. Violence isn't the only enemy Tommen has, in a medieval setting natural causes could very easily come for a young boy.

ETA-of course any of the factions can kill Tommen, if one of them does I think it will be the Tyrells. It would not be in their character to tie themselves to a very weak claim, and remember who killed Joffrey.

[James Arryn]

For the sake of the totally ridiculous argument that has absolutely no purpose in a thread about whether TOMMEN WILL OR WILL NOT DIE. The only time we hear this is from her. And she's known to lie.

Even if I believe her, it's only rape if you post-apply contemporary morals. An understandable thing to do, especially if that kind of issue has a particular gravity for you, but problematic when reading any historical or pseudo-historical fiction that makes any attempt at consistency.

At the 'time' concurrent with Westeros' other moral standards, not only would Robert's sexual violence not be considered rape, but not having relations,however welcome, with some kind of regularity with his wife would be seen as be a failure of duty as a husband and especially noble/king. And Cersei's refusals would also be seen as a significant failure of duty. It must also be remembered that at the time a woman's role in sex...and I don't just mean from the male perspective, but equally from her peers...was submission and procreation. Not only was a wife's finding pleasure in the act unnecessary, it was commonly viewed with suspicion.

It's brutal, but then so were the times. So was feudalism, arbitrary execution, serfdom/slavery, gross inequity, warfare, and all kinds of other practices we accept as party to the times the story takes place in. I don't see why some issues being selectively perceived through a modern moral lens is going to enhance our understanding. It's like 'killing another human being in horrible'. Most people in a modern context would agree. And yet when we analyze the actions of the characters in ASOIAF, we don't break down each and every example of someone killing someone else, but contextualize it relative to the established standards of the time. Hence Ned killing the deserter isn't a moral wrong, but rather an example of his personal integrity. In a modern context we'd only imagine someone like a Saddam wanting to personally execute someone.

But it doesn't get in the way because our expectations are not that a man from another age uphold the moral standard we hold today.

[Towel]

I seem to remember her as describing Tyrion sleeping with hookerbots as rape too.

(if not then my bad)

[Melq]

I think Tommen have decent chances of surviving, Tyrell's or even the High Septon can arrange the Nullity of the marriage, Stannis, Aegon or Dany surely wont be killing Tommen perhaps the worst that can happen to Tommen is Euron taking the throne and capturing him or Stannis forcing him to eat beets in order to lose weight , those Ironborn can do the same brutality levels as Lord Tywyn.

[Towel]

^^ except for the prophesy that says that all of cerseis children will die before her.