CamiloRP

Tyrion is not a random squire tho, he's the former hand of the king, current master of coin and heir to casterly rock. And a wedding isn't a tourney, people go to tourneys expecting violence, people falling from their horses, people bitting eachother with blunted weapons (even firery swords), bones being broken, etc. Tyrion dying would certainly create chaos akin to Joffrey dying. In today's society a president dying would create more chaos than a random person dying, but so would if the person who died was at the same time the former VP, current ministry of economy and the heir to Elon Musk.

I disagree completely. Tyrion is a noble lord, master of coin, former hand of the king and heir to Casterly Rock. He saved the city in some people's eyes, at least Garland Tyrell. And he's still... you know... a person. HIm dying out of the blue would cause people to panic. Him choaking would cause some people want to help him, maybe maesters, maybe Garland, maybe Oberyn. Joffrey's and Cersei's reactions would cause distraction too. And Tywin too, probably. I see no world in which he starts to die in the same gruesome matter as Joffrey and people just get on with the wedding. Poeple would panic anyway.

To be honest, I haven't noticed that bit, and from now on I'll consider it the most solid piece of evidence for Joff being the target (which doesn't intself mean Olenna was involved as it makes no sense). However, that does not necessarilly mean the strangler was in the wine. Wine is neither red nor purple, it's an in-between color, deppending on the light it can be either or, in fact, GRRM often describes it as one or the other, and he often plays with eye color, for example. This is why I say it's not a deffinitive proof. Did george put those lines there purposely? absolutely. But weather it was to confirm or to mislead we can't yet know. As I said, it could;ve been a trick of the light or a different wine being served.

I know of no substance that is disolved only in wine. I know of no poison that if ingested is not lethal unless you dissolve it first. I doesn't make sense for people to intend to simmulate a choaking using a liquid. That would be easy as hell to spot.

Shes a 70 year old woman in the middle ages, it's a wonder she's still alive. And she's a noble lady, so her hands aren't that exercised as to retain strenght and dexterity in her later years.

Olenna could've send someone to rob a maester (safer than trusting LF) or ask some of the many maesters related to her for some of it. If Olenna took it when she fixed Sansa's hair, then she took it before entering the feast, so why not have it in her pocket the whole time, instead of relying on Sansa? That would be even more complex, adding another person who can fail, and Garlan is even further away from Joff. The pie is the most likely food for someone to eat tho. And you can't choak on wine. She was near Joff when he died, and no one noticed. I showed plenty of textual support, while the Olenna?Littlefinger theory has only one piece of textual support: the word of a liar.

Be it the king, or be it a random servant, people will try to help them and people would run away scared. Tyrion is the master of coin, former hand, apparent heir to Casterly Rock and to some, savior of the city. His death would create chaos anyway.

ha! nice addition

I don't mean they would betray them, but one of them could look guilty or something like that, maybe giving the plan away. Or maybe the "signal" you proposed could be noticed by someone. And look at it from LF's pov, instead of using a trusted henchman, why would he involve three people he has no reason to trust? Also, let's say Marge knocked the chalise, but not all of the wine got dumped, she then got served again, would she drink it, knowing the remaining wine might be poisoned? It is needless, because you can ensure Marge's survival by putting the poison in Joff'so food, which would also have the added bennefit of making a more realistic choaking. I already said this, Marge is right next to Joff, meaning her poisoning the wine is easier to conceal. It's also easier to conceal given she's more dextrous than her grandma. Also, why puting any of them in any risk at all? why not puting the poion in Joff's food, so there's no risk of Marge dying? why not hiring a thief to sneakily put the poison in, so there's less chances of them being caught and if they are caught, there's less chances of implicating the Tyrells. If it dissolves in wine, then it dissolves in saliva or stomach acid, we've been through this. Besides, there were seventy-seven courses in the menu. A few of those must've been liquid based, such as soup, and the westerosi love to eat things with wine sauces, so probably there was some of that as well, why not use that. Also, Olenna could simply ask a maester, it's not that hard, several family members of her are maesters. So, you're sugesting she threw the poison into the chalice like a basketball without being spotted? Does this seriously make sense to you?

This has already been adressed tho, in the chaos and confusion of someone being poisoned it wouldn't be hard for her to sneak out, since everyone would be focused on the dead guy. This is in fact exactly what happened, Joffrey was close enough to Sansa to grab a piece of pie from right next to her, and she was able to sneak out unbothered.

So, even more needless conspirators and added complexity to the plan. Why didn't Olenna just carry the poison herself from the getgo and poisoned Joff's food instead of his wine? that would both be safer for Marge and more believable when it comes to simulating a choaking. Also, if Marge was in on it, why wasn't she the one to do the poisoning? she's both closer to Joff and likely has more dexterity to do so unnoticed.

I don't think it'd point to him hiding something. I don't think it's expected for her body to be examined, after all we only see one corpse get examined: Joffrey's, and it was to determine the cause of death. If Ned says she died, he must've came up with a cause of death too. Yes, I agree with you, we don't have the full story.

It would be imposible for him not to know who the mother was if he was the father, he's line was "I'm not telling" not "I don't know". And for the rest, idk, there isn't all that much information on the TOJ. The people in Starfall should assume the baby is Lyanna's, as if it wasn't, why would Ned take it from it's mother without finding a wet nurse first? Also, taking the baby from the mother it's already incredibly cruel for both the baby and the mother. On the other hand, some people assume Ned went back for Lyanna, he didn't take her at first. But anyway, I don't think her corpse adds any proof. A few days passed between her death and them ariving at Starfall, more than enough for the obvious signs of pregnancy to disappear, and Ned could'v erefused anyone to examine her. Him taking the body doesn't add any information: people know she's dead, Ned shows up with a baby anyway, and what did she die off if not childbirth? why would the Kingsguard kill her? and Rhaegar was almost certainly raping her in the eyes of everyone, as he kidnapped her for a reason...

The thing is, him ariving there with a newborn is still suspicious, corpse or not. There are two options: there was a wet nurse in the TOJ or there wasn't. If there was, Ned can arrive to the TOJ claiming the wet nurse to be the actual mother of the baby (tho for it to work, we have to assume the wet nurse had no child of her own). If there wasn't a wet nurse, Ned ariving in Starfall with a new born and no way to feed it would be suspicious as hell, regardless of Lyanna's body.

Mmm, I'm not sure. First of all, we don't know what "that time" is. The trip between the TOJ an Winterfell likely takes a few months by horse (a minimum of 53 days according to this, but likely more, as they are carrying a corpse). By ship it would take at minimum 7 days to get from the TOJ to Storm's End, then 20 days in a ship from Storm's End to White Harbor and an additional 10 days from White Harbor to Winterfell, for a total of 37 days, this mimimum is certainly enoug. That seems like enough time for her corpse to decompose enough to remove evidence of her giving birth. Also, Ned could've stayed some h for her to be decomposed to the point extra time in either the TOJ or St dorm's End (in fact, he likely stayed some extra time, bringing down the tower). And we have to add in some extra time for his trip to Starfall. Keep in mind that she wouldn't need to be examined at Starfall for it to be suspicious, as Ned would've turned up in Starfall with a baby. There's also the fact that corpses in the story are often cleaned with beetles, Ned might have done that. I mean, I would do that rahter than travel with a rotting corpse. Finally, why would anyone examine the corpse? Ned can simply ask for it not to be done and there's no reason to examine her remains.

Lyanna is confirmed several times by several characters (Ned, Robert, and Lady Dustin, at least) to be buried in the cripts. Ned her bones back, but no one else's. What "game" do you think taking her to Winterfell "gives away"? The TOJ incident is believed (or confirmed, I'm not sure) to have happened after Ned lifts the siege of Storm's End, which itself happened after Robert got to King's Landing, which happened after the Sack of King's Landing, which happened after the Batlle of the Trident. Considering travel times, teh TOJ took place a few months after the trident, so she wasn't giving birth during the battle, and there was no way for Robert or Ned to know she was pregnant. Also, with this timeline, the TOJ took place after the war had ended, so there was no immediate need for NEd or his companions.

Thing is, manathe Freys had reason to trust the Boltons as they would become the rulers in the North and the Boltons had reason to trust the Freys because they would become the rulers in the Riverlands, and they have the support of the Lanniter-Tyrell alliance, while the Starks didn't even have control of the North, as Roose said, they had already lost. On top of all of it: after the red wedding, the kingdom of the North would end, leaving no one to punish them. On the other hand, the Tyrells have no reason to trust LF, Lf has no reason to trust the Tyrells, and regardless if they manage to kill Joff or not, the Lannisters are still in power and able to punish them if they are caught. And the Lannisters are largely believed to be winning the war, so betting against them is not as good an idea as betting against Robb. So? the regent e still be Ned, and the power of the goldcloaks was behind Petyr, so they would have control over the kingdom for three years, regardless of Tywin and Cersei. Unless Petyr planned to kill Tywin he had no reas to think he would die before Tommen came of age in 8 years, he's not that old. Also, Cersei plays herself out of power because Tywin is dead, she couldn't have done it while under Tywin's control. Finally, even if Tywin dies and Cersei is sent to Casterly Rock, there's still the Tyrells, Kevan and any other number of people who would definitely be against Petyr acting as regent. That's not an explanation. It still makes no sense for her to agree to such a plan, or for LF to agree to such a plan. "They planned it off-screen" is not an explanation for the senselessness of the plan. But he is obssessed with Sansa, he certainly doesn't want her to die. Besides, there's no need to plant her as a patsy if you already have Tyrion. Specially if there are no traces of the poison, because it was all used in the poisoning. This makes no sense. Precisely my point: why risk the "mutually assured destruction"? why not just do it yourself and remove that risk? If Olenna was caught handling the poison (which is very likely) there's no reason for her not to implicate LF. Conversely: if Dontos spills, he can implicate LF and him in turn, Olenna. Why risk that? If she felt unsure about that, why involve Petyr, Sansa and Dontos? Why not involving someone in the most important part to add someone. It makes no sense to add all those people and do all the work herself? I can get not wanting to involve extra people, so why didn't she carry the poison in her pocket from the get go, and poison the cup herself, removing the risk of involving three very risky allies and the added risk of handling the poison an extra time? So, no reason? You seem to ignore the latter part of the question: or risk her be implicated in the murder if Joff offered her some wine, she refused and then he died, poisoned by that wine? Besides, if Margeary knew about the poisoning it makes more sense for her to be the poisoner: she's seated right next to Joff and presumably has more agile hands than her almost 80 year old grandmother. Is it worth it, given it adds extra preasure to the poisoning? as everyone is looking in Olenna's direction. If anything that gives power to House Lannister. With Tywin in the capital and a less wild king, with more time to regent over, he strengthens their possition. Joffrey is the whole reason why the North is in war with the Lannisters, that would've never happened under Tywin-Tommen. Also, Joffrey's cruel nature would probably create friction between the Tyrells and the Lannisters, which would bring more chaos. In that case, LF should want to kill Tywin, not Joffrey. That only proves Tyrion didn't do it, but "the story" at that time still was that Cersei was guilty, so this doesn't change my point. "The story" at that time was wrong, and the only evidence we had for "the story" was a lie crafter by LF, why would it be different here? Specially including all the similarities between both victims and murder ploys. You are ignoring all the evidence i pressented for Tyrion to be the target. Mace couldn't be the target, as the poison was either in Joffrey's/Margeary's wine or Tyrion's pie. So the target must be one of those three. We already discussed why Joffrey makes no sense. Let's examine Margeary as a target. Now, if Margeary was the target, Olenna can't be the poisoner, which ofcourse I find fine, as I don't think she was the poisoner, but still there are a few problems with Margeary as a victim: LF has no reason for wanting her dead. Why poison her wine instead of her food? the wine would risk Joffrey dying. Also, if the wine was what held the poison, it was poisoned at a time when Joffrey was the only one drinking it, making it a poor choice if you want to kill Margeary. Like with Joffrey, everyone was looking in the chalice's direction, why use the poison at that time instead of at any other? Like with Joffrey, why use Sansa to carry the poison? she wasn't seated near Margeary. Like with Joffrey, why put the poison in wine if you intend to simulate a choaking? you can't choak on wine. So yeah, Margeary as a target makes no sense. (Most of this inconsistencies apply to Mace as well, and to any other attendant to the wedding, with one exce[tion). Now let's see the reason's why I think Tyrion was the intended target: Right of the bat, for process of elimination Tyrion makes sense as a target, because Joff and Marge (the only other two likely victims) don't make sense. However, if that was the only evidence there was for Tyrion being the target, it would be a weak case, but I have more: The pie makes more sense if you intend to simulate a choaking, which is what GRRM claimed the idea was. If the poison was in the pie, Tyrion was the target. LF has a lot of reasons for wanting Tyrion dead: he wants to marry Sansa (which he can't if she's married to Tyrion); Tyrion has shown himself hostile to LF; Tyrion promissed Harrenhall to LF (something LF clearly wants) but then went back on it; Tyrion knows LF lied about the dagger, so he knows LF sort of started the war; if Lf wants to de-stabilize the Lannisters Tyrion is the second best victim (after Tywin); Despite being antagonistic throughout ACOK, LF recomends Tyrion as master of coin, why? would it be, to put it in LF's words "Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you." There's also the fact that LF is likely the one behind Tyrion's murder attempt in the battle of the Balckwater. Mandon Moore was named to the Kingsguard by Jon Arryn, but Jon didn't like him, so he was probably recomended by Lyse, who's under LF's control. And Lf is known to use the kingsguard as his henchmen. Then there's the fact that the poison was with Sansa, meaning it was right next to Tyrion, allowing any LF henchmen to take it from Sansa and place it in the pie in one simple move. The jousting dwarves point at the target being either Joff or Tyrion, but I think they point to Tyrion more, as they would distract him, making it easier for the pie to be dozed without him noticing. And I'll bring this up again: Littlefinger wants to marry Sansa, the whole plan is to rescue Sansa in order to eventually marry her. So he definitely needs Tyrion to die. If the target wasn't Tyrion, and the poison was succesfully used to simulate a choaking, Sansa wouldn't be widowed and LF wouldn't be able to wed her. So, as you can see. Tyrion makes much more sense as the target than anyone else.

No, they kill pretenders, that is, the killing of those kings bennefitted the eventual king so they are spared. This is not the case unless LF intended the place Stannis or Dany in the throne, or that Tommen was somehow involved in the killing of Joffrey. And even then, if they are caught, their life is still definitely over, as the life of the Freys and Boltons would've been if Robb had found out about their plans. Your argument makes no sense. You do realise this situations are extremely different, no? In his original plan his idea was to hold influence over Ned, since Ned would've been the one rulling. Same thing with Sweetrobin, he held influence over Lysa, who ruled in Arryn's sted, and now rules by virtue of being his stepfather. In what world would overprotective Cersei, power obsessed Tywin, or the power hungry Tyrells would've let act as Tommen's regent? In what world LF can manipulate Tywin better than he can Joffrey? If everything fits, why haven't you been able to answer any of my questions? How does it fit that Olenna gets involved in a regicide ploy with three untrustworthy people (a liar allied to the target, a teenager and a drunken fool) only to do all the work herself? Why place the poison in Sansa, involving her and Dontos and risking Olenna to be spotted taking it rather than Olenna carrying it herself from the get go? Why would the Tyrells assume they can trust LF and why would LF assume he can trust them? Why would LF or the Tyrells think it's a good idea to have an old woman with pressumably slow and weak hands sneakily handle poison in plain sight twice (the second of those times being when everyone was looking in the direction of Joffrey and the chalise? Why place the poison on Sansa when there was no reason to assume she would be seated near Joff? Why would the Tyrells risk Margeary's death by poisoning the cup she drinks from, or risk her be implicated in the murder if Joff offered her some wine, she refused and then he died, poisoned by that wine? Why would Petyr spend time and energy getting the jousting dwarves if they, if anything, only complicated the plan by causing Olenna to have to get out of her sit in order to be close to the chalise again? And why would Olenna choose this time to place the poison, rather than a more discreat time? Why use Olenna as a poisoner? besides her old, slow hands, there were three people between her and Joff, hardly close enough to discretely plant the poison from her seat. Why would Petyr kill Joffrey? not only he looses influence over the Iron Throne by doing it, but he also has admitedly no motive. Also, I wanted to go back to this for one reason: saying "it's the story" is just saying "it's what a character told us" in this case. If you used that same logic for, say, the murder of Jon Arryn, you woudl've been pigheadedly certain that Cersei had him killed, because "it's the story". And we had more reason to believe that story than we have for the Olenna/LF theory, as Lysa wasn't known as a liar to us back then, while LF is, and Cersei had more reason for wanting Jon Arryn dead than LF has for wanting Tyrion dead. But you would've been wrong. Cersei wasn't the killer, "the story" lied to us. Funnily enough, this lie about a poisoning commited using the aid of a Tully woman was in all likelyhood invented by Littlefinger. And in this case his intended target was an adult from a noble house who served as hand of the king and was wed to a much younger Tully woman, which LF intended to marry. Do this events mirror one another? I don't think you can use the word "trying" if you haven't successfully explained the holes poked. Well, besides the reasons given above, there are other reasons: George claimed he wanted us to think about the answer, what would be there to think about if the answer was to be given only a few chapters later? There's also the reason George had Joff eating Tyrion's pie when he died to at least hint at the possibility of Tyrion being the target. And he had Tyrion dunk the wine, so the poison in the wine was unable to be confirmed. Then there's a discussion about weather or not the poison was in the wine or the pie. They reach the conclussion that it was in the pie, however they do so by reasons we know to be false: Tyrion dunked the wine because he knew it was poisoned. Ofcourse we know Tyrion didn't know that. Also, "the story" being told by arguably the biggest liar in the series, who also provides no evidence and no motive, is a reason to distrust it. In the end, there's only one piece of "evidence" that points to the Olenna/LF theory: the word of a liar. And there is much more evidence pointing it to be a false theory.

There's been a recent thread about most hated theories and in there I mentioned a theory I find incredibly charming despite not subscribing to it one bit: the Petyr Baelish is a greenseer theory. The evidence for this theory is as follows: Petyr is a small guy, with green eyes, and Brynden Rivers tells us: From Bran III ADWD Also, like Baelish, Jojen is a small guy with green eyes, and a greenseer. Petyr also spent some time in a sort of comma, like Bran and Jojen did before unlocking their gift. Finally, there's this scene: From Eddard XV AGOT, which is remarcably simmilar to this scene: From The Forsaken TWOW, and we know in this scene Euron is sending visions to Aeron, was LF sensing visions to Ned? Now, to clarify again, I don't buy into this theory, I think LF is tiny because George came up with a cool nickname he liked, and he spent a few days in a comma like state because it gave him cool characterization, his eyes are gray-green, rather than moss-green and the simmilarity between the scenes above is likely given by the fact that both scenes were written by the same guy and deal with simmilar circumpstances (the POV of a guilt ridden guy, imprisoned after failing to place the war-monger brother of the king rather than his psicopathic decendant in the throne, having fever dreams). But I still find this theory really charming. Anyway, is there any theory you feel this way about?

It probably was, still, why would the Tyrells accept rather than just decline/narc on him and do it themselves without his involvement and without exposing Olenna as much? In fact, if it was his plan it's even more of a reason to mistrust him, as his plan screams "set up". Even if you wanted to murder someone, would you go ahead with it if a random guy you had no reason to trust (and is a known ally of your victim) would to approach you with a plan that involved you murdering the in front of a thousand people, while carrying the murder weapon yourself for a long period of time, handling it in open view of everyone and use a teenager and a drunk as accomplices? Like I said, it screams set up. And if LF planned the whole thing, why does he need the Tyrells? Why risk them ratting on him? why use an old woman with presumably weak and slow hands to sneakily handle poison in plain view twice without being caught? why not using one if his many henchmen? Bronn and Tyrion have much more of a relationship than LF and the Tyrells, so Bronn has much more of a reason to assume that Tyrion won't execute him or narc on him, and Tyrion has more of a reason to know that Bronns motives are to serve him, and he wouldn't do it if Tyrion doesn't ask. Also, Tyrion's relationship with Joff is much more strained than Joff's relationship with the Tyrells, whom he likely has only met briefly and varely interacted with. A vaguely implied regicide ploy is still a regicide ploy, probably the worst crime there is in the story, and an incredible risk to do, specially if you have no need for the aid of your co-conspirators. Tyrion and Varys do, ofcourse they can be wrong. But someone did tip of Slynt that Ned was gonna get excecuted and instructed him to act quickly, who else but LF? and how did LF know that if he wyasn't the one who persuaded Joff? Besides, Joff is shown to disobey his mother in favor of council from other people without Tywin at court and without apparently liking either of his uncles this person must either be Petyr or Maester Pycell, as we knowo the Hound wouldn't care about such things and Varys seems unable to control him. Who do you think Joffrey is more likely to listen to? The old pathethic maester who urges caution, the eunuc or the charismatic guy who likely advices him to indulge in hi impulses? So Petyr has at least some influence on Joff, which means he has more influence on him than on Tommen, who as a little boy has no reason to talk to Baelish or really anyone whom he isn't related to (or isn't an authority figure like a teacher (such as Pycell or a septon or septa). So why give that up in favor of a king that can more easily be controlled by his enemies? (the queen, Kevan, Tywin, Pycelle and even the Tyrells). Yeah? When did he betray someone who was useful to him to favor someone who wasn't? When did he use as a tool someone he didn't have complete controll under? When did he use an elaborate plan rather than a much more simple alternative? (Sansa is the exception to the first two, since he has a massive, creepy weakspot for her) One thing is to trust him to aid in war, or with a pact, or to trust him enough to give him lands you wouldn't give to someone of greater standing, but trust him in the greatest crime there is in this society is a wholy different beast.

He's been the Lannister's man for years and for all they know he was with Ned for a few weeks. Not the same things, he also provided needed aid to the lannisters in several ocations, but he helped the Tyrells not once (they didn't need him for the murder), and he even went against them when he had Sansa wed Tyrion. But still, he looses influence over the king, replacing Joff with Tommen. He asked for Harrenhall twice, and was offered it a third time. But what does LF bring to the table? Why increase the risk by adding a known liar (and trusted advisor of your target), a drunken fool and a teenager when she was gonna do the poisoning herself, and take the poison from Sansa in plain view of a lot of people? Wouldn't it be better to keep the poison in her pocket from the get go, excluding the possibility of the plan being foiled by those three untrustworthy individuals and people spotting her taking the poison from Sansa?

Killing Jon started the war, which he needed to get a title and better standing. Not only did it start the war, but it started a sort of "intelligence warfare" in which he was extremely valuable to all sides, despite having no army, and allowed him to manipulate all sides at the same time, as all sides were in the same location. He integrated with Lysa because they know eachother from childhood, and she was obsessed with him. By betraying Ned he got Harrenhall and to keep his job as Master of Coin, which he would've lost if Ned placed Stannis on the throne. He integrated himself with Ned because Catlyn knew him as a child, and vouched for him, also he helped Ned with both the murder of Jon Arryn and the attempted murder of Bran, partially gaining his trust. By betraying Lysa he got untampered control over Robert Arryn, as well as to save Sansa, whom he's obsessed with. What does he gain by betraying the Lanniters? In each previous betrayal he gained something. Also, what conditions make the Tyrells trust him, so he can integrate himself with them and, can he ever integrate with him if they know he betrayed his previous allies? After all, Horesbane Umber says: Is maybe having influence over the Tyrells better than definitely having influence over the King and being considered a trusted ally by the queen and her family? And again, what do the Tyrells gain from him? How did each side knew they could approach regicide without immidiately being turned in?

I did miss it, genuinely. Tho I still don't see it as a confirmation.

But... that's precisely the oposite of what happens. a character says "this happened this way", despite no evidence of it being done that way, what blanks are to be filled? we just have to accept what LF says and done. Filling the blanks would be what I'm doing: realizing the plan makes no sense, knowing LF is a liar, noting Joff ate Tyrion's pie, realising LF doesn't reveal any information to Sansa, the characters in the story questioning if the poison was in the wine. Do you mean this bit: "I think the idea with Joffrey’s death was to make it look like an accident" How is this a confirmation? if he had said "when people plotted Joffrey's murder" maybe. But the only thing this confirms is that joffrey did die and that it was intended to look like an accident (which works against the poison being in the wine). It's the other way around: it's 'anti-complexity' to have two supposedly smart scheeming characters come up with such a bonkers plan, and it's 'anti-complexity' to fully trust in the word of a known liar.

So, your answer is what I posted above then: George is a bad writer (but only in that bit). Also, where did he supported it?? I don't get this at all.