[Spoilers] The Princess and the Queen, complete spoilers discussion

[aryagonnakill#2]

That's irrelevant.

The text I quoted said pretty much that the Greyjous sat out the war to attack the weakest target, and I have pointed out that it isn't true.

The difference is semantics, instead of waiting until the troops were all dead they waited until they were as far away as possible.

[Lion of the West]

The difference is semantics, instead of waiting until the troops were all dead they waited until they were as far away as possible.

Orange orange orange orange orange orange?

Could you read that? Its a matter of semantics really.

Words have meaning and correct words should be used to convey the correct meanings.

[History of Westeros]

Orange orange orange orange orange orange?

Could you read that? Its a matter of semantics really.

Words have meaning and correct words should be used to convey the correct meanings.

The meaning was obvious, only by intentionally raising the semantics question is this remotely confusing.

Anyway, the Greyjoys *did* sit out the war if we're getting really technical.

When two sides are fighting and a 3rd party attacks one of those sides for their own gain (i.e. not to help one of the others)... that's not joining a war, that's starting a concurrent one.

[Lion of the West]

The meaning was obvious, only by intentionally raising the semantics question is this remotely confusing.

Anyway, the Greyjoys *did* sit out the war if we're getting really technical.

When two sides are fighting and a 3rd party attacks one of those sides for their own gain (i.e. not to help one of the others)... that's not joining a war, that's starting a concurrent one.

It was obvioust to me because I know how matters actually stood. If someone read your post alone they would have gained an incorrect view of the Greyjoys' actions in the war.

Depends on what is meant with "the war". You could argue that Robb Stark also sat out "the war" because he fought a separate war from the Baratheon brothers and the core issue of the WoFK was the matter of succession within House Baratheon. I take a broad which in that all the interconnected conflicts together form the War of Five Kings. Thus the Greyjoys' war is as much part of "the war" as Stannis' or Robb's.

[History of Westeros]

It was obvioust to me because I know how matters actually stood. If someone read your post alone they would have gained an incorrect view of the Greyjoys' actions in the war.

Depends on what is meant with "the war". You could argue that Robb Stark also sat out "the war" because he fought a separate war from the Baratheon brothers and the core issue of the WoFK was the matter of succession within House Baratheon. I take a broad which in that all the interconnected conflicts together form the War of Five Kings. Thus the Greyjoys' war is as much part of "the war" as Stannis' or Robb's.

Exactly, which is why your initial complaint about the use/meaning of words is a silly. Words do mean things, but they mean different things to different people at different times.

Case in point: "the war"... depends on what is meant indeed.

[Lion of the West]

Exactly, which is why your initial complaint about the use/meaning of words is a silly. Words do mean things, but they mean different things to different people at different times.

Case in point: "the war"... depends on what is meant indeed.

I complain because its wrong. If I say that the Boltons killed Robb Stark in the Red Wedding, and leave it at that I am not wrong, but I am not giving the correct picture of the events either.

And when you use "the war" its up for grabs about what you are meaning and thus you are either obtuse or misleading. The common understanding of the term "the war" is however all the fighting, from start to finish, and not a selected part of it. Its like me saying that "American troops only landed in France in significent numbers after WW1" and mean that WW1 is only Russia's major involvement in the war. You can see how misleading this is.

[Fire Eater]

Rhaenyra said she needed more dragons. That doesn't mean that she intended to ride them herself. Aegon was still with her, and she may have thought that he could claim another dragon (it's not fully confirmed that he could not claim another dragon), Baela and Moondancer were still there, and she could have new riders for additional dragons.

Do you think she would thrust her young son into battle? The last son she had left, and she was clutching to after Joffrey's death?

Yeah, it could be fear, but wouldn't disobeying a royal command lead to the same outcome? They would be fried in any case, why not raid and pillage first? In any case, sitting out the war didn't sound very much like the Greyjoys, not a Balon-ish thing to do at all, but Balon did sit out Robert's Rebellion, so they might have their reasons for doing so.

I don't think so, both sides are looking to win lords, and they won't win the Greyjoys by declaring them traitors. Doing that with lords would drive them into the arms of their foes.

[Lord Varys]

My take on the dragon thing is that Rhaenyra knew that she - as well as the Targaryen dynasty as a whole - could only survive if she did get more dragons. Not only because they could be used as weapons (young dragons would have been of no great use in the fighting regardless who would ride them), but mostly because they were a powerful symbol. They were the very embodiment of the Targaryen 'divine nature', they were essentially what set them apart from 'the lesser men' they ruled.

I'm sure that the rise of Aegon III and the survival of the Targaryen dynasty is connected to (at least) one dragon egg hatching, as well as to (a) Targaryen (loyalists) claiming either Silverwing or the Cannibal as mount.

The Targaryens were closest to extinction at the end of the Dance. Baela, Rhaena, Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaera are all children, and we don't even know yet if Baela and Rhaena survive the war (I guess at least one of them does, but that's not confirmed yet). The Lords could have easily decided to seat one of their own on the Iron Throne after Aegon II was dead. I'm pretty sure there were factions out there that wanted to put an end to the incestuous madmen. The difficult thing would have been to decide who should rule in their stead, as well as the fact that they would have to kill young children to get rid of them. And if one of them - say, Prince Viserys or Lady Rhaena - became a dragonrider and a very successful figurehead for the Blacks, such a thing would have become much more difficult (especially if Aegon II goes down during/after a battle for King's Landing that the Blacks win - which would not mean that they had won the war, if there were still other Green armies in the field).

[History of Westeros]

I complain because its wrong.

and I complained to you because you were being rude and belaboring a great thread with semantics. If someone's point isn't clear, isn't it better to ask or seek clarification rather than jumping on them for perceived mistakes? Were you really that confused about her point?

[History of Westeros]

My take on the dragon thing is that Rhaenyra knew that she - as well as the Targaryen dynasty as a whole - could only survive if she did get more dragons. Not only because they could be used as weapons (young dragons would have been of no great use in the fighting regardless who would ride them), but mostly because they were a powerful symbol. They were the very embodiment of the Targaryen 'divine nature', they were essentially what set them apart from 'the lesser men' they ruled.

I'm sure that the rise of Aegon III and the survival of the Targaryen dynasty is connected to (at least) one dragon egg hatching, as well as to (a) Targaryen (loyalists) claiming either Silverwing or the Cannibal as mount.

The Targaryens were closest to extinction at the end of the Dance. Baela, Rhaena, Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaera are all children, and we don't even know yet if Baela and Rhaena survive the war (I guess at least one of them does, but that's not confirmed yet). The Lords could have easily decided to seat one of their own on the Iron Throne after Aegon II was dead. I'm pretty sure there were factions out there that wanted to put an end to the incestuous madmen. The difficult thing would have been to decide who should rule in their stead, as well as the fact that they would have to kill young children to get rid of them. And if one of them - say, Prince Viserys or Lady Rhaena - became a dragonrider and a very successful figurehead for the Blacks, such a thing would have become much more difficult (especially if Aegon II goes down during/after a battle for King's Landing that the Blacks win - which would not mean that they had won the war, if there were still other Green armies in the field).

Not sure I can agree with this. Surely some would've wanted to get rid of the Targs, but old prejudices die hard. Getting rid of the Targs means making a new dynasty, and how could that possibly be settled? How would a realm that was dis-united for millenia find a way to come together now? Endless warring kingdoms didn't create this need before 130 years earlier, why now? I think if the Targs died out the kingdom would fracture.

The realm is much different at the time the main novels have started. The Tyrells and Tullys had time to shore up their power (we all know they were appointed to Lord Paramount, they didn't get it by being the strongest, necessarily). The Stormlands and Reach are considerably less concerned with Dorne as a threat. They are now an unpleasant neighbor instead of a warlike one.

There are literally dozens upon dozens of real world examples where a throne was given to a relative of the former dynasty *precisely* to avoid, or at least to greatly reduce the chances of, future civil war. New dynasties claiming, in part, a right to rule based on ties to the previous dynasty is common. Note that Robert's claim was the superior one at the end of the Usurper's war in large part because he had blood ties to the Targaryens. Tywin didn't think of himself as a possible king even, despite everyone knowing he was the most powerful man in the realm, and with massive experience.

I do agree that a dragon or two was likely a huge factor, but I'm doubtful that getting rid of the Targs after the Dance was ever a serious idea.

Apart from that, I disagree that the Targs were closest to extinction at the end of the Dance. I think they were closer at the time of Egg's ascension and after. The Great Council time. "Treason, turmoil and war that ended at Summerhall". They had no dragons, they had few adults, and they still had the threat of the Blackfyres and whatever else the "treason and turmoil" refers to.

Even if I'm wrong, the Targs were not "close" to extinction. There were still dragons and it's not so easy to just kill off royal children and claim the throne. The lack of adult Targs means some lords will aim to create figurehead rulers... They won't aim to usurp the dynasty, it's simply not realistic. In other words, someone takes a child in hand and rules through them, it doesn't mean they seek to kill all the Targs and set themself or their own child on the throne.

This is pretty much exactly what the Tyrells are trying to do with Tommen, and quite possibly what others tried to do through Aegon III.

[Lion of the West]

and I complained to you because you were being rude and belaboring a great thread with semantics. If someone's point isn't clear, isn't it better to ask or seek clarification rather than jumping on them for perceived mistakes? Were you really that confused about her point?

And if you experience me to be rude you are allowed to complain.

Furthermore I apologize if you or anyone else experience me as being rude as I should have formulate my correction of that post differently.

However I will not relent on that a misleading post was made to which I posted a correction. I fail to see the great and horrible crime in it.

[ser_basil]

Just finished reading the TPATQ (skipped all the other stories in "Dangerous Women". who didn't). Had to come here right away and post a message.

1. All the folks who are screaming that GRRM "kills his characters" are in for a rough ride. Is this perhaps the biggest body count out there of _major_ characters (even better than Robert's Rebellion) out of the stories that have been told (The Blackfyre Rebellion should be a close contender, but we do not know much about it).

2. Is Melisandre from the Alys Rivers line? Aemond mentions that Alys "sees things in the fire" when he gets into the final confrontation with Daemon.

3. The Iron Throne bleeds people that it rejects? Aerys II was known for getting cut and bruised (IIRC from Jaime's heartfelt conversation with Brienne) and he ruled for almost 28 years.

[J. Stargaryen]

Just finished reading the TPATQ (skipped all the other stories in "Dangerous Women". who didn't). Had to come here right away and post a message.

1. All the folks who are screaming that GRRM "kills his characters" are in for a rough ride. Is this perhaps the biggest body count out there of _major_ characters (even better than Robert's Rebellion) out of the stories that have been told (The Blackfyre Rebellion should be a close contender, but we do not know much about it).

2. Is Melisandre from the Alys Rivers line? Aemond mentions that Alys "sees things in the fire" when he gets into the final confrontation with Daemon.

3. The Iron Throne bleeds people that it rejects? Aerys II was known for getting cut and bruised (IIRC from Jaime's heartfelt conversation with Brienne) and he ruled for almost 28 years.

Interesting. There's a pretty popular theory around here that Mel is the daughter of Bloodraven and Shiera Seastar: Melony Seaster. It's worth a read.

[Lord Varys]

I should have been somewhat more specific. As of yet, we don't know what happens during the remainder of the Dance. Let's take the worst case scenario for a continuation of the Targaryen dynasty:

1. Aegon II is slowly driven mad by his constant pain. He makes erratic decisions, and his hellbent on destroying everyone who ever fought for the Black cause, and thus causing defections on his side.

2. Aegon III never sees the light of day throughout the half-year restoration of Aegon II. He spends all his days in a dark cell on Dragonstone, or in one of the black cells of the Red Keep. When he is freed, he is has serious issues with pretty much everything (quite unlikely, since such an experience should completely break a ten-year-old).

3. Baela Targaryen dies of her wounds/is poisoned by Aegon II. Rhaena Targaryen has died off-screen during the first half of the war.

4. Prince Viserys remains missing in action throughout the whole Dance. He only returns to Westeros/KL some years after the Dance has ended.

5. Princess Jaehaera is indeed a lackwit.

If this were true, the only Targaryen left to take the Iron Throne upon the death of Aegon II would be Aegon III. And he would be in a pitiful state, possibly even half mad, completely out of touch of reality, unable to even serve as puppet king. His installation could only work if he was freed by the Black faction continuing the war in his name. But if no Targaryen is with them, it would be a huge stretch to assume that these guys were actually fighting the war for him, Aegon III, and not because out of other reasons. Most of Rhaenyra's inner circle died during the war, and I'm not sure that the commanders and generals what will survive until the very end on both sides will be the ones who are most loyal.

If we imagine that the war ends with a Black army taking KL, and killing/executing Aegon II - while there are still Green armies in the field - a powerful Black general would have won that battle. He would be the one who installs a new Targaryen king. If Aegon III did spend all the time in the dungeons it would not even be certain that he was still alive. The war would have continued in the name of a (possibly) dead king. That sounds very unlikely. In such a scenario the people fighting for the Black cause would most likely fight for their own cause, possibly even against Targaryen oppression as a whole (embodied in Aegon II).

This is why I think why the Blacks must have had either a dragon and/or a Targaryen pretender (Viserys, Rhaena, or both). That Prince Viserys apparently never was declared King Viserys II at this time could also indicate that Aegon III did not spend all his time in a cell. He may have been freed shortly after Rhaenyra's death (I'd not be surprised if some men of the Dragonstone garrison turned their cloaks again, especially after it became evident that Sunfyre would not recover), or he may have become a visible hostage at the court of Aegon II, confirming that he was alive.

[HexMachina]

I'm curious about the Blood and Cheese incident (which incidentally is a great scene, despite and perhaps because of its horrifying nature) and why, if Daemon had friends that could infiltrate the Red Keep so easily, they did not.do more than they did. Even if the passages were secured afyer the incident, why would Blood and Cheese not take hostages of Alicent, Helaena, Jaehaera and Maelor. If they had done that, would the War not be as good as won? I find it very strange that they simply left the remaining Royals untouched.

Also, I remain curious about the Pale Stranger who is Daemon's special friend, and also his friend on the Green Council. I know its been discussed already, I just thought I would bring it up again. IMO Orwyle was Rhaenyra's after Dragonstone, but whether he ever returned to KL... i dont know

[Lion of the West]

I'm curious about the Blood and Cheese incident (which incidentally is a great scene, despite and perhaps because of its horrifying nature) and why, if Daemon had friends that could infiltrate the Red Keep so easily, they did not.do more than they did. Even if the passages were secured afyer the incident, why would Blood and Cheese not take hostages of Alicent, Helaena, Jaehaera and Maelor. If they had done that, would the War not be as good as won? I find it very strange that they simply left the remaining Royals untouched.

Also, I remain curious about the Pale Stranger who is Daemon's special friend, and also his friend on the Green Council. I know its been discussed already, I just thought I would bring it up again. IMO Orwyle was Rhaenyra's after Dragonstone, but whether he ever returned to KL... i dont know

I would say that it was a psycological torment that Daemon wanted to inflict on his adversaries. If they died they wouldn't have suffered any more.

However I have a pet theory that I thought that I should mention. We know that House Baratheon declared for Aegon II but they didn't take part in the war that we are told about. Is is possible that they entered the fray late and so held King's Landing for Aegon II against a siege conducted by the other Black armies that are marching on it? To me that would explain what role the Stormlanders had in the war and also explain why Aegon II could hold out for another half-a-year when both Hightower and Lannister have been knocked out of the war and there are Black armies marching in the field.

[RumHam]

I'm curious about the Blood and Cheese incident (which incidentally is a great scene, despite and perhaps because of its horrifying nature) and why, if Daemon had friends that could infiltrate the Red Keep so easily, they did not.do more than they did. Even if the passages were secured afyer the incident, why would Blood and Cheese not take hostages of Alicent, Helaena, Jaehaera and Maelor. If they had done that, would the War not be as good as won? I find it very strange that they simply left the remaining Royals untouched.

Also, I remain curious about the Pale Stranger who is Daemon's special friend, and also his friend on the Green Council. I know its been discussed already, I just thought I would bring it up again. IMO Orwyle was Rhaenyra's after Dragonstone, but whether he ever returned to KL... i dont know

I think it would have been tricky to carry hostages through those narrow tunnels and ladders against their will. Then depending on where they exited the tunnels they'd have to worry about drawing attention and being captured.

Orwyle did return to King's Landing after his failed negotiations on Dragonstone:

Queen Alicent rose to the challenge, closing the gates of castle and city, sending the gold cloaks to the walls, and dispatching riders on swift horses to find Prince Aemond and fetch him back. As well, she commanded Grand Maester Orwyle to send ravens to “all our leal lords,” summoning them to the defense of their true king. When Orywle hastened back to his chambers, however, he found four gold cloaks waiting for him. One man muffled his cries as the others beat and bound him. With a bag pulled down over his head, the grand maester was escorted down to the black cells.

[HexMachina]

I think it would have been tricky to carry hostages through those narrow tunnels and ladders against their will. Then depending on where they exited the tunnels they'd have to worry about drawing attention and being captured.

Orwyle did return to King's Landing after his failed negotiations on Dragonstone:

Thats a good point about the hostages, I had forgotten about the ladder with 200 odd rungs. Never mind.

And I had also forgotten about Orwyle being taken to the Black Cells. That pretty much confirms he wasnt the friend on the Green Council then. Sorry about the mistake, I borrowed Dangerous Women to read tPatQ so I don't have it to hand for quotes etc. I wanf the full story now though :p

[The hairy bear]

And I had also forgotten about Orwyle being taken to the Black Cells. That pretty much confirms he wasnt the friend on the Green Council then.

It seems that the consensus (at least in this thread) is that Orwyle is Daemon's friend in the council. The fact that he was captured while hastening to his chambers is far from definite, and we don't hear from him afterwards.

As for the others Otto and Jasper were executed, Tyland was tortured, and Larys single-handedly saved the Green house from utter defeat. The only other possibility is that Daemon's friend was whoever substituted Tyland as master of ships.

[aryagonnakill#2]

While reading tpatq I had assumed his friend was the master of whispers. He remained silent while the traitors plotted and only spoke up after the lc murdered the 1 guy, to say that they should swear a blood oath. It always seemed to me he was just trying to seem like a traitor.