Alma11

Aegon's problem is that we don't know if he's really who he claims to be. He could be a suitable candidate, but if we're not certain of his origin we can't include him in the list. For example, if the theory about Varys being a Blackfyre is true, than he could be on the list too. That's the problem with secret identities, it's like you miss a piece of a puzzle, but no one knows what that piece is. It's a really valid argument!

I would gladly agree with you, because the use of the definite article is suspect. To use "the" it must be someone special, someone unique, supernatural, who has power in the text (prophesy) and in the story and I see nobody that has all this requisite at the moment, but it's the "his" that still makes me doubt. You're right about personifying the non-human, but hasn't the English language a straightforward grammatical rule about it? I mean, if it's really the poison, then it's not a little bit like cheating from Martin? In other languages this would not be a problem, but in English it is. I think that's the beauty of prophecies, it already happened so you can't really change it. Yes, it could be, but in my mind she drink the strangler of her own volition without knowing that it's also called "the valonqar"

I thought this as well, but the prophesy says "his hands", so I doubt that it's neutral. It came to my mind that it may be poison Maggy is referring to, but why then use "his"? If she intended the strangler why not use "its"? Otherwise I agree with you on the importance of the difference between "the" and "your", plus the use of a valyrian word, I doubt the valonqar is one of her brothers.

I was thinking about the use of the valyrian word "valonqar" in the prophesy Maggy tells Cersei. As Maggy says: I want to point out how in the text valonqar is the only word used in the valyrian language. This word comes up solely in Cersei's chapters. A little excursus of its apperance in the book (AFFC): It appears for the first time in Cersei I, from nowhere, after Cersei's dream, which is linked with the prophesy (which the reader knows nothing about yet) It shows up a little further in the same chapter. This time is directly linked with Tyrion, not just implied. The meaning is still unknown. It shows up again in Cersei VI, in wich she reminisces her meeting with Maggy. In Cersei VIII it's the first time another character uses the word, in this case a Tyroshi man who gives her a head he thinks belong to Tyrion. In the same chapter is told the encounter between Cersei and Maggy. In Cersei IX we finally found out what this word means: little brother. The last use of this word comes up in Cersei X, after the accusation of Margaery's adultery. She thinks she is finally free of the prophesy. So, we came to know the meaning of this word near the end of the book, but from its first apperance we can assume it's linked with Tyrion, or at least that Cersei thinks it's linked with Tyrion. There are many theories about the valonquar that never linger on the choice, from the author, to use a valyrian word to point out the person who will murder Cersei, but exclusively on the translation (apparent) of valonqar. Therefor, analyzing the prophesy taking into account this last factor, we can come to the conclusion that Cersei's murderer has links with valyrian culture, otherwise the choice of the term in the text loses meaning, making it solely a matter of translation, which is given anyway at the end of the book. Following this reasoning, the only (main) male characters that have a valyrian connection are Jon and Euron. I admit, however, that I don't rule out Tyrion, because he mudered a woman in the same way described in the prophesy and because he can have valyrian connection in the future (regardless of the theory that he is Aerys's son, that I do not subscribe, but it goes well with my essay). Regarding Jaime, I admit that there are foreshadows in the text about him beeing the valonqar, but he doesn't have a link with valyrian culture. I think is important, also, to point out the fact that the translation of valonqar could be wrong, but it's improbable, because another character confirms it. So, my question is: how do you resolve the specific use of word valonqar in the text?

But, in all of this, how Joffrey didn't sense that there was something in the pie hard to chew? I think that one can notice chewing something the size of a seed. Even if he sallowed before chewing, the same can be said for Tyrion. First, as I said above, Tyrion wouldn't eat in an hurry, I think that there are enough possibilities that he would chew the pie. So, he could've sensed the crystallized poison. Second, if Tyrion wouldn't eat the pie? Or if he would eat the part where there wasn't the poison and put the rest aside? I think your theory makes sense, it is how it is put in place that doesn't make sense. There are too many risks and uncertainties.

Your theory is plausible, in the end, whatever the truth, is a win-win (for Littlefinger at least). But how did Littlefinger know in real time that Joffrey was killed and not Tyrion? And why didn't Oleanna plan to take Sansa immediatly after the (supposed) death of Tyrion, like Littlefinger did? It was possible that Tywin, after the death of Tyrion, would've locked the girl somewhere either to investigate his son's death (if it was suspected to be murder), or to let her mourn her housband (as per tradition). In this case, Oleanna's plan would've been pointless. Sorry for all this questions, I just want to clear all my doubts

I don't know, I understand your point and it'd be interesting if Joffrey died for an unfortunate coincidence and the real target was Tyrion, but why Oleanna would want Tyrion dead? To make Sansa a widow and take control of Winterfell, you'd say. And it would make sense. But why make her run away with Littlefinger, then? If Oleanna wanted to wed Sansa to her nephew, why let her escape? Unless Littlefinger betrayed her and, without her knowing, instructed Dontos to take Sansa away. But if this was indeed the original plan, what Oleanna would get to give Sansa to Littlefinger and let him wed her to a noble of the Vale? Besides, it would have been risky to kill Tyrion anyway, because then Tywin could have married her to another Lannister man before Oleanna could carry out her plan.

I actually like those theories Or rather the concepts behind them. But I agree that there are no proofs and that they'd cheap the actual story. I mean, there is not enough build up and if they turned up to be true at this point of the story, the ending would not be good.