Melifeather

We've got a formerly respected tv news journalist (now ridiculed conspiracy theorist) over here in Minnesota that made a "documentary" (and I mean that generously) about the "fall" of Minneapolis when people rioted after George Floyd was killed by police. 1300 businesses were damaged with about 100 being severely or completely destroyed including three post offices. I'm not trying to downplay the damage nor do I agree with the rioters, but when a city "falls" then I would expect that the attackers would then gain control over the city which didn't happen. In many people's minds they (still) believe Minneapolis "fell" and that it is now a dangerous place largely left in ruins and run by gangs which would be news to the thousands of people who actually live and work there. Granted, the people that believe this are from rural areas of the state and avoid downtown, preferring to stick to the suburbs to get their Scheels and Fleet Farm shopping done. I'm only using this as an example of how something can be described as "fallen" when it obviously remains intact.

Yeah, that does seem to be an accidental slip, however I guess it depends upon the definition of "fall". Technically the Wall did fall as soon as LC Jon Snow allowed the wildlings through the tunnels. Yes, there are still things beyond the Wall like the wight army that are (for now) still being contained, but with wildlings on the south side now, I would not be surprised if Winds begins with wights on the south side as well. I also still like an old theory of LynnS where she posited that the Wall is blowing away, that originally the Wall drew the cold unto itself accumulating ice and snow through the ages, but that the blizzard that is now emanating - seemingly through Winterfell - is evidence that the reverse is happening. It is expelling itself in the form of a blizzard and blowing away - which would be a fulfillment of this Mirri Maz prophecy: When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east is a reversal of time. When the seas go dry could mean the Narrow Sea and other large bodies of water freezing over and allowing people to walk across. "Mountains" blow in the wind like leaves could be explained as the Wall disintegrating and blowing away.

What we call the early Christians were people who still identified with Judaism. Many of the letters between Paul and the various congregations were clarifications of the law as written in the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) which comprise the Torah. These books dictate how to atone for particular sins and the sacrifices needed in order to receive forgiveness which included animal sacrifices and burnt offerings of grain, etc. Paul instructed these congregations that sacrifices were no longer needed since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, but they still requested guidance on a number of practices that were common to the Jewish faith such as abstaining from eating blood or anything strangled, avoiding bigamy and other sexual immorality, and prohibiting idol worship. The early Jews knew of Jesus and believed he was a prophet, but the large majority didn't believe he was the Messiah. The Jews that believed Jesus was their Messiah began referring to themselves as those who followed "The Way". The earliest known use the term Christianity wasn't until 100 years after Jesus's death.

It’s just something that I was wondering about. I’m afraid I’m an avid reader and love history as well as historical fiction. You actually learn allot about history reading historical fiction! I just see the overall „issue“ of our age to be equal rights for everyone and the age of Aquarius is supposed to be a time of enlightenment both spiritually and figuratively. MLK embodies the time we live in. As for the debate about fishes…I can just imagine the Romans thinking how perfectly the symbolism worked out. I could do a deep dive on this particular subject alone, but I’m just now walking into work!

Martin Luther King Jr has been on my mind lately as well. I have been wondering lately if years from now people will believe he was the "Messiah" for the Age of Aquarius just as Jesus was for the Age of Pisces (2 fishes). I feel I must insert that I am not religious nor do I believe Jesus was a god, but I do believe that the Bible is a collection of historical records and should be viewed as a large history book assembled by the Council of Nicaea in 325 common era at the directive of the Roman emperor Constantine. The "good news" that Jesus was known for has been distorted over time. He was actually a political activist preaching about debt - financial debt that used to be forgiven every Jubilee year. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the jubilee was a time to free slaves, to return land to its rightful owners, and to forgive debts. It was both a time of repentance when injustices were put right and the symbolic beginning of a new era. It was also how rulers were overthrown with the new ruler promising to bring about a Jubilee year - a tradition that the Romans abolished in 313 common era. Is it a coincidence that the council of Nicaea followed so closely after? The Romans created the Christian faith (and gave it a home base in Italy) in order to control the messaging - a sophisticated propaganda campaign that rewrote Jesus's message of forgiveness. How clever of the Romans to turn the message of financial debt forgiveness into the forgiveness of venial sins. The Romans based Christianity on the Zodiac knowing that the symbolism would appeal to the masses which followed a variety of gods including horoscopes. Jesus is symbolized by two fish (Pisces) which matched up with the current astrological age in which they were living (1 CE to 2150 CE). The precession of the equinoxes are roughly 2150 years until we move from one astrological age to the next. In the Bible, Luke 22:10 confirmed that the next "age" would be Aquarius. It states, “When you have entered the city, a man carrying an earthen jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house that he enters." We have about 150 years before we are officially in the age of Aquarius. Maybe some political giant as clever as the Romans will make MLK or someone like him be the prophet of this age?

I saw something else when I was looking at the timeline...Pycelle told Tyrion that he helped Jon Arryn die. Lyssa Arryn takes credit for giving him the tears of Lys, but Pycelle told Tyrion that Maester Colemon was treating him properly, but that the Queen (Cersei) needed him dead. Ironically, I think Pycelle made an assumption that it was the Queen that had Jon Arryn poisoned.

I don't think the text describes in detail when Tyrion poisoned his father. The only text that I've uncovered so far are the two passages that are two Tyrion chapters apart in A Storm of Swords. It's interesting that the claim by Pycelle that Tyrion stole his poisons is from Swords Tyrion IX (chapter 66) while the line about knowing where to find his father (on the privy) is Swords Tyrion XI (chapter 77). I would call this a very subtle revelation. Yes, Pycelle claims Tyrion took all his poisons, but by the time we get to Tyrion XI and the line about knowing where to find his father, we dismiss the line because its been several chapters from the accusation that we sort of forget about it and then Tywin didn't actually die from poisoning and maybe this is why Tyrion decided he needed to make sure the job was finished before he left? Here's a handy link for chapters. Joffrey's poisoning occurs prior to Tywin's assassination by Tyrion, but Tyrion (while acting as Hand during his father's absence) took Pycelle's poisons from him in A Clash of Kings - the book before Swords. Pycelle isn't restored to his position to make his complaint against Tyrion until Tywin returns as Hand in Swords. Tywin's poisoning is probably one of the three-fold revelations that we were discussing up thread. I'm thinking we remove the Cressen poisoning from the group and make Tywin's poisoning the first and most subtle of the three. Joffrey's poisoning would remain as the second and more blatant poisoning, with Ser Gregor Clegane remaining as the third and most spelled out poisoning.

Here it is: That is a curious line. It does sound like it suggests Tyrion knew something.

That'd be cool though!

I don't know if its supposed to be a tradition to share goblets when toasting or for a bride and groom to share one at their wedding feast, but there does seem to be something "blatant" and "spelled out" with regards to having a three-foot tall golden wedding chalice with seven bejeweled sides and large handles on either side. The description sounds like a championship trophy! It's an attention grabber. It screams off the page to pay attention to the huge-ass chalice!

I had read something too...something that made him constipated and that is why he was sitting so long on the toilet in the first place. I'm assuming the gut shot is why Tywin smelled so bad and the large amount of stool in his colon.

This too bothered me all evening. I'd like to retract my post for now. Oberyn used venom. Then I thought the third was Jon Arryn, but Lyssa used Tears of Lys on him. GRRM does utilize a three-fold strategy, but I think I used an incomplete example. This doesn't change my thoughts that Melisandre's shared cup with Cressen was intended to be similar to Joffrey's poisoning though. Like you say, perhaps there will be a third one yet to come.

I should add that the three-fold strategy unfolded in this order: The first, subtle - Cressen tried to poison Melisandre. (A Clash of Kings, Prologue) The killer is killed. The second, blatant - Lady Olenna poisons Joffrey. (A Storm of Swords, chapter 60) The killer (via a proxy) kills their intended target. The third, spelling it out - Oberyn poisoned Ser Gregor. (A Storm of Swords, chapter 70) The killer ends up killed, but still manages to poison their target. Sorry for all the edits...just small corrections in grammar and one book!

GRRM's editor Anne Groell once said: I do believe that Cressen's attempted poisoning of Melisandre is one of GRRM's three-fold revelation strategies. I guess technically you could say this is a murder-suicide since surely Cressen understood he would die when he drank the rest of the wine. He was just hoping Melisandre died too. Joffrey's poisoning took out the intended target and concealed the killer. It was a successful murder and the killer went free which suggests that there was a third murder attempt by poison, that ends with the death of the killer...and there is such an account: Oberyn Martell. Oberyn poisoned his lance prior to fighting Ser Gregor Clegane - its what nearly killed Gregor and placed him into the "healing" hands of Qyburn who turned him into Ser Robert Strong. Oberyn, of course, was killed when Ser Gregor crushed his head.

The wedding chalice symbolically represents the game of thrones. It has seven sides that might even represent the Andal Faith of Seven, with the seven major houses: Lannister (ruby lion), Tyrell (emerald rose), Baratheon (onyx stag), Tully (silver trout), Arryn (blue jade falcon), Martell (opal sun), and Stark (pearl direwolf). They're all playing games in order to gain power and it cannot look deliberate. The best game players, by all appearances, look innocent.

Let's pretend we're the Tyrels for a moment and that we did plot Joffrey's poisoning. How would the preparations go? The 3-ft golden chalice with the seven bejeweled sides is an over-the-top gaudy wedding gift that was sure to capture a teenaged king's attention and likely insure that he'd want to drink from it - actually, he probably was obliged to drink from it since it was a gift intended to be used during the wedding feast. Its sheer size offers concealment in more than one way. When placed in front of you, you cannot see down inside. The solid gold would only shade the wine inside from light. It also insures that a full flagon is needed to fill it. If Joff managed to finish the first cup, he'd be sure to be intoxicated and less likely to notice anything amiss. Having Margaery share it - deliberately seen drinking from the same cup makes it appear safe. Surely the Tyrells wouldn't use a shared cup to poison Joffrey! That is why timing is so important. Margaery needed to be seen drinking from the same cup, but then a plan needed to be in place for when the cupbearer put the poison in: the toasts. They were waiting until the customary time to toast the bride and groom.

But would you see anything at the bottom of a three foot tall golden chalice filled with red wine? I think that was actually the point of Mace Tyrell having such a large thing constructed. The chalice itself was deliberately made in order to disguise the poison.

A three-foot tall chalice that Tyrion mutters is taller than he is... question - when Joffrey upended it over Tyrion's head, did he let go of the chalice let it fall to the ground? It's not clear how the chalice ended up on the floor, but when Joffrey demanded Tyrion pick it up, he kicked it away from Tyrion's hands. After Tyrion retrieved it, he takes the flagon from (I'm assuming) Joffrey's cupbearer, fills it 3/4's full, and then wonders if he's going to get another wine bath. Does this sound like the opportune time for Tyrion to drop the Strangler into the chalice? If you've only got one shot, you don't take it when you think it's just going to get dumped on your head again. I think this passage clears Tyrion as a suspect. Added to that, the chalice is as tall or taller than Tyrion. When it was on the table the rim would have been way over Tyrion's head. If Tyrion dropped the Strangler into the chalice, it would have had to be done during when he retrieved the chalice off the floor or when he refilled it. Refilling it must have been a challenge too. How did Tyrion hold the chalice and refill it and drop in the Strangler? Did he place the chalice on the floor while he poured the wine? At first I thought he placed the empty cup on the table and then filled it, but that would have been physically impossible for someone so short. No, Tyrion retrieved the cup from under the table. Joffrey demands that he refill it. Tyrion takes the flagon from the cupbearer and fills the chalice 3/4 full. Joffrey takes the chalice, drinks deep - as deep as someone can when they're tipping a 3-foot high chalice 3/4's full, and places it upon the table in front of Tyrion. It's not until Joffrey decides to shove his hand into Tyrion's pie that he tries to finish the wine and it pours down his face. If Joffrey was the target and the poison was in the pie, why was it Tyrion's piece that had it? I remain firmly convinced that Joffrey was the target, that the Strangler was dropped in the wine flagon by his cupbearer, and not in the pie. I also suspect that Margaery understood when the Strangler would be placed in the wine and that is why she was calling Joffrey back to his seat for a toast. She too would not want the wine wasted on top of Tyrion's head.

Okay, this next part confirms my suspicions that the 3ft tall chalice was the one used at the wedding: And this... I am delighted to have proof that Joffrey had a cupbearer and that a flagon could fill this giant, three-foot wedding chalice.

I think it’s likely that this was the wedding chalice:

I don't think they typically use glass goblets. More likely silver or bejeweled.

True, the Ghost of High Heart (who many suspect was a child of the forest with the gift of green dreams) did say she saw a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, dripping with venom, but she never offers an interpretation. As for Melisandre's vision of Cressen - we'll never know, because we weren't privy to any of it on the page. You are filling in some blanks here but, if that's how you interpret it who am I to say that you are wrong?

But there is room for interpretation. IMO Melisandre knew Cressen wanted her dead, but I don't think she knew exactly how it was to be done. And it's not like the Strangler is the only poison in Westeros. There's nightshade, powdered Greycap, basilisk and manticore venom, tears of Lys, Sweetsleep, Demon's dance, hemlock, wolfsbane, Widow's blood, and several kinds of mushrooms. Did Melisandre take antidotes for all of these things just to cover her bases?

Here's an example of Melisandre's visions...not quite clear, a little symbolic, ultimately misinterpreted. Melisandre thought for sure the "grey girl" was Jon's sister. Of course we all know now it was Alys Karstark and she was dressed all in black. Furthermore the Karstark colors are black and white. Even though Alys was fleeing a forced marriage, was Melisandre's vision even about her? Or was it about poor Jeyne Poole who was fake Arya, also about to enter into a forced marriage, who flees Winterfell with Theon Greyjoy, and in an early release Winds chapter is being escorted to the wall by Ser Justin Massey. Jeyne (fArya) is dressed in grey squirrel clothes. In Melisandre's vision, the grey girl turns to ash and crumbles. That doesn't bode well for poor Jeyne Poole. I'm not trying to derail this thread, but rather remind you of what Melisandre's visions look like and her ability to interpret them correctly. I acknowledge that she had a vision that gave the impression that Cressen was a threat, but I think its unlikely that everything was spelled out clearly for her.