nyser1

In fairness, nobody "knew" of Joffrey as monstrous outside his inner circle because he had been the pampered, pompous, protected prince all of his life hidden behind Lannister Guardsmen. He did not have any authority, although the few instances where we see him give orders (to Sandor, to Mycah) it's clear who and what he is. Once he is crowned, he is still hiding in the Red Keep. The first time he leaves to see Myrcella off - we all know how that went. The incidents afterwards ie with the crossbow don't help. They do see him as a monster.

Come the death of Robert, Renly on the throne was the best option for the longevity of the realm & most of our protagonists. It's amazing how many people are angered by this topic - a Renly lives scenario is quite fascinating.

Sorry Robar and Shields peeps.

Of course. For better or worse, ASOIAF universe everything for me.

I wish we had some concrete figures for demographics but, during the War of the Five Kings (pre-Aegon’s landing) -The Riverlands were devastated. Militarily high casualties, I would reckon civilians too (particularly given the Lannister tacticd). -The Crownlands see action too, but more civilians due to starvation and disease. -Westerlands suffer military casualties and I am sure some civilians. The Starks are noble but this is medieval warfare. -North is devastated in certain areas (Ironborn and possibly where Ramsay rampaged) but untouched civilian wise elsewhere (Barrowton, Last Hearth, White Harbor, the Rills…). Militarily massive casualties. Stormlands and Ironborn - some military from their respective battles. Reach - Bitterbridge brawl and some at Blackwater. Dorne and Vale - Vardis Egen, Oberyn, and the mountain clans.

I always held the opinion that Tyrion was viewed as disposable asset (or to Tywin/Cersei, perceived/liability) who was a pawn to the real players. Even as he tries to prove them wrong, they still position him as such. Ex - for the Targaryens, he could be paraded as a gift to either hold hostage or execute (revenge) or to try to get rally support against his own family. For Baelish - scapegoat for his political scheming. For Varys - same as for the Targaryens, but also to cover his own behind with the incumbents. For Tywin - to stamp his name where useful, to stamp the blame for failures.

I do not think he saw Cersei as an utter nut but viewed her the way most patriarchs viewed women in this period (with the added arrogance, mindset, and pride of good old Tywin). He saw her as a means of breeding the future for the crown (and thus a branch off of the Lannister bloodline). Not as one to hold meaningful political office. Nor would he let a male of another line take control of the Rock and the Westerlands. I think he was hoping for Jamie & would rather have one of Kevan’s kids (under his tutelage) if not Tyrek. Would not be as much of a win as his own bloodline but would be a male born from Tytos, like him.

Oh as a general I agree 100 percent. I would not expect (nor want him to) lead his armies into battle. Kings in this world and ours were seldom good Kings and good generals as well. Robert was this and, briefly putting his reign aside, put himself at great risk in the battles he participated in. Thus he also put the kingdoms in political danger each time.

Do you believe characters such as Cregan and his uncle serve a purpose for George in illustrating not only the different cultural of the North, but a “darker” and less Disney hero side than that which way Ned and Robb appear to be? Not saying that they are, but they can be seen in that light.

1. Congratulations on pointing out that Cat believed her father resented Walder for close connections with the Westerlands. I gave my reasoning as to why it might tick off the Tullys. 2. These aren’t straw arguments. You can rattle on about what Hoster owes Walder in theoretical feudalism and Hoster’s own potential hypocrisy marrying outside the regions. Feudalism is a two way street but not an equal street. For example, the Lord retains the higher rank, theoretically has more power overall because said lord has plural vassals. As for the marriages, yes this could make Hoster a hypocrite. However, I would counter that the alliances were created before the rebellion, Ned took Brandon’s spot. 3. We still have no concrete evidence (none you have presented) that Hoster looked down upon Walder prior to the Trident. Yes, Walder had to choose an obligation. Well by choosing not to help the winning side there are consequences. Given personalities such as Tywin and Stannis, perhaps he should consider himself fortunate that not having Hoster attend weddings and being called the Late Walder Frey are what he gets. It’s a book universe written by neither of us with the both of us considering & applying real world history and systems to our opinions. You may not like my answers but insisting they are in bad faith is ridiculous. I’m not George so I don’t pretend to know the answers, these are my opinions. I’m not responding to that sort of rhetoric beyond the time spent here. Good day.

I do not recall reading about his resentment for him being tied to the Westerlands, but marrying into another Lord Paramount's house (someone of equal ranking and a rival to your own Lord) should and would not earn him any favors. Hoster joined it late? He was at the Battle of the Bells, this is factually wrong. If he is late, so are Ned Stark and Jon Arryn. You are correct that it is a two way street. However, it sounds like it was absent from the Frey side, even political manuevering (first three wives from outside of the Riverlands and marrying into the Lannister mainline). This plus not showing up when it matters when you feudal obligations are called for - cannot expect to be put on a pedestal or offered a marriage.

We only know of this existing since the Trident and well as far as loyalties, honor, and marriages are concerned - by this time Walder is the one who needs to make up for it. What exactly does Hoster owe him? The Freys not showing up quite literally could have cost him his head.

Perhaps Walder’s wealth combined with whatever upbringing he had led him to believe he was entitled to some superior treatment from his lord. While it would make sense for a Lord to retain blood ties to vassals and peers, particularly ones who strengthen it, there are issues with this: -Walder has a ton of progeny, who in turn by and large have multiple children each. This dilutes the value of any marriage pacts. Not to mention, not having a marriage pact with the first son or his son will remove realistic potential of being part of the ruling line. Also makes any potential fighting over inheritance more chaotic. -There are other wealthy bannermen with longer lineages and potentially comparable wealth. Bracken, Mooten, Blackwood, Darry, Mallister, etc. Freys are strong but they aren’t anything particularly special, unless you plan to routinely ferry Northern armies in and out. -Sets a bad precedent in a feudal and honor based society to essentially prostitute your house to a wealthy buyer. Only in desperate times do houses seem to do this.

I could say Blacks because I like the Starks and others backing the faction, but, for me it comes down to her being the designated heir. If Aegon II had been the designated heir, I would have backed the Greens.

The Freys have played a role in their history prior to this Lord Walder. Walder earns distrust through his actions in the rebellion. Just because his bridge revenue allows him to generate a lot of income does not mean his overlords should cow tow to his desires and marry into his house. With that said, there should have been some effort by Walder after the Rebellion to make up. And if it did happen but Hoster did not allow it, the blame goes both ways.