Jump to content

True.Edged

Members
  • Content count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About True.Edged

  • Rank
    Squire
  • Birthday 04/02/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  1. When evidence is referenced in literature they use it with more direct results. Otherwise, it is literally just conjecture even in literature. For anything you suggested to be considered evidence, you would have to show that it is in fact foreshadowing and not simply a set of coincidental red herrings. Which is why even in literature you need more than just idle speculation about whether something is true or not. For example, in literature you could make the argument that any given narrator is unreliable, BUT to do so you would have to have at least one direct example of this in order to bring in other elements of that story to support it. In this case, the "evidence" supports a theory that doesn't have any direct evidence, meaning that any and/or all of the support could be a red herring rather than foreshadowing. It's a fun theory, it may even be right, but you can't pretend that something is evidence when it lacks support. It's a beautiful castle built on sand. As far as the mechanism of putting a wife aside, there are undoubtedly other means. The silent sisters as pointed out by Bael, the right of might (Renly doesn't care at all about the law or divine right), not to mention historical examples or just straight up ignoring the church. The problem is, as far as I know, there are no examples of divorce ever being a thing in Westeros. We've seen a lot of examples within ASOIAF and the extended works, surely there would be a side note about it if it was a thing in this world/society. Admittedly I have not read Fire and Blood, so if there's an example in there I apologize.
  2. There is no evidence of divorce, however putting aside Cersei is relatively easy via annulment after accusations of incest/infidelity. For all we know Renly's plan might have even been for Cersei to die since Robert was not likely to let her live if he believed such accusations. None of that is circumstantial evidence, it would be considered conjecture or hearsay in either a court room or in a research report. Possible connections sure, but not really evidence. In a book you have foreshadowing, which would be considered evidence, but would only become so after the facts are known. Circumstantial evidence of the nature you are describing requires direct evidence to support it, otherwise it is not evidence at all and is merely a set of quaint oddities that are coincidental. (People have funny ideas what constitutes circumstantial evidence. DNA, fingerprints, facial recognition, video are all circumstantial evidence along with things that point to motive; direct evidence are things like eye witness reports, which in many cases are far less reliable or damaging than some forms of circumstantial evidence.)
  3. Sometimes crackpot theories are just more fun!

×