The Purple Wedding Conspiracy (long, long, long, long post)

[Fool of a Book]

1). If the pie was poisoned, I've already reasoned Shae could have done it. It did not have to be poisoned right there in front of everyone. Crush it (it is sugar crystal, after all), add it to the serving, then wait for them to drink wine. Even if the crystal is harder, like glass, anyone in the world can take some glass and crush it to dust with a few smacks of an iron cooking pot. There is no indication the substance is as hard as diamonds or needed to be left whole.

2). The live bird pie was ceremonial, not meant to be eaten. When Tyrion get his slice, he remarks it was properly cooked, not like the other one that was full of live birds. Meaning, there were other, edible pies made for actual consumption, and Tyrion was served a particular serving meant for him.

And to be fair, I still have not heard a proper "chain of command" regarding the wine.

Tyrion remarks Joff is as drunk as he is. Joff snorts wine from his nose. Clearly, none of that wine was poisoned. Joff dumps the remnants of the chalice on Tyrion's head.

The last wine Joff drinks, Tyrion gets the flagon from a serving girl. Immediately before this, the chalice is on the table in front of Tyrion's chair, and Marg and the QoT are in the vicinity. This is the ONLY conceivable time the wine could be poisoned.

How anyone could reach into the chalice and drop in the poison, when Tyrion needs to stand on a chair to lift the goblet) is beyond me.

- And I don't think it would be a trick on GRRM's part. I can hear LF say "Oh, the wine was not poisoned... but the pie was!" *mustache twirl*

A few Wiki-thingies:

It is known that a 16th-century amusement was to place live birds in a pie, as a form of entremet (entertainment in the form of food between other courses).

Noteworthy for its entertainment value to the assembled nobles of the time, the 17th century provided a memorable banquet event courtesy of the host, the Duke of Buckingham. In honor of his royal guests, Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria, a pie was prepared concealing a human being—famous dwarf of the era Jeffrey Hudson

[FittleLinger]

Hyperbole much?

Apparently.

Look, if someone happens to enjoy making up fanciful theories, there's absolutely no harm in that. But if that person comes up with a theory and is suggesting it as what actually happened, in preference to the explanation in the book, well, again, there's no harm in it - but they're making an actual claim, and the validity of that claim can be assessed. Indeed, they're pretty much asking us to do that.

And on any remotely sensible assessment, that claim has to be assessed as a failure. This theory is bunk. It makes very little sense, and none at all from the storytelling point of view. The idea that the author introduces a poison that he shows working one way, and then sets up a situation where every indication is given that it was used in that way again, but in fact he was secretly tricking the reader because it was actually used in this other way that is not set up anywhere in the text - well, from a story point of view, that's ridiculously bad writing. Really, really bad. And that's just one of a dozen major problems with this theory.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that a theory is bunk, any more than there is in marking an exam answer as wrong. And this one is wrong.

I totally agree with this. I, personally, am here to learn from more observant and analytically thinking people than me, and also share my own ideas and catches if I decide they're good enough, all with the purpose of understanding the deep and complex work that ASOIAF is and get closer to what's really going on in the books.

Not to show the world what I unique flower I am.

I mean, making up convulted theories because many people agree with the "main" ones, is the same as disagreeing with something evident because few people agree with it. It's the same, really.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I thought it was very odd, too, that Shae was adjusting Sansa's hairnet just before the feast, and she specifically asks to serve at table because she "wants to see pigeons fly out of a pie."

As to this whole question as who has to prove what, why do we place that burden on one theory and not another? Why is it up to me to 'prove' that Lady O and Margaery were speaking the truth when they expressed no real concern about Joffrey, but others do not have to 'prove' Littlefinger was speaking the truth on the ship?

Well, a new theory in school has a somewhat tougher life that all the other kids. Albert couldn't just say "time is relative, but the speed of light in vacuum is not, disprove me if you can" - he had to work on it. But the fact is, you don't actually have to prove anything. Do, or don't, it's entirely up to you, freedom of expression and all that. But if you don't, I hope you're not terribly surprised if yours truly - and apparently others - remains unconvinced.

[Fanless Mace]

Joffrey was youthful and healthy, the poison simply took a few moments longer with him. Plus, we all know GRRM is not good with timing his events. Plus, the incentive for both LF and Lady O to off Joffrey seems much more compelling to me. Killing a Tyrion gets them...not very much. (And Sansa, even if suspected of killing Tyrion, would probably be hailed by Cersei as a heroine.)

Having said that...it's an interesting OP and something worth keeping an eye on.

[Mulled Wino]

I thought it was very odd, too, that Shae was adjusting Sansa's hairnet just before the feast, and she specifically asks to serve at table because she "wants to see pigeons fly out of a pie."

As to this whole question as who has to prove what, why do we place that burden on one theory and not another? Why is it up to me to 'prove' that Lady O and Margaery were speaking the truth when they expressed no real concern about Joffrey, but others do not have to 'prove' Littlefinger was speaking the truth on the ship? I've laid out some very good reasons why my version could very well be accurate, and all I see from other is, 'well it's just obvious that Margaery and Lady O were lying and Littlefinger was telling the truth."

By the same token, why do I have to prove the crystal could have softened in the pie first and than made a rapid dissolve in the wine when others do not have to prove that dissolution in wine and only wine must come first? If you are going to use the argument that GR would introduce the poison one way and never in a million years deploy it again in another way because it isn't fair to "trick" your readers, well I beg to differ. Tricking readers is one of the great joys of narrative writing: get the reader to believe one thing at first, and then bring out the "big reveal" at the end. It's why people love mystery books so much: all evidence points to the dangerous and dashing nephew or the meek daughter who stands to inherit everything, and in the end it's the butler.

Neither the wine theory or the pie theory can be 'proven' IMO. And as I said right at the beginning of the OP, I claim no certainty in any of this and do not pretend to know the facts. I merely propose it so other readers may consider it -- preferably without getting all bent out of shape. This is just a work of fiction after all.

1) It's plainly obvious. They don't want to express their concern right in front of Sansa, just like they don't get overly emotional about anything in the conversation except maybe when Margery is trying to convince Sansa to scatter off to HG. Another example of you making something out of nothing.

2) no you have not. First off, the situations are clearly different so they need to be looked at independently. One group is on a fact finding mission to confirm what they've heard. the other is an old creepy guy clearly trying to impress and impart some part of "the game" on her.

3) because the dissolution in wine was already proved textually for a reason most likely (99% likelihood) you must not be a gambler.

4) sure tricking is great, but not in such a menial minor detail, and certainly not to have them poisoning someone they have zero reason to poison. it completely ruins his high garden trip and how he explains the game is played to sansa.

5) well, the wine theory has infinitely more textual evidence than zero.

[John Suburbs]

To be nice, this was a horribly laid out theory with more false assumptions than can be explained in under 2000 words.

Is that the max in this forum, 2000 words? That might be the reason why I had such trouble posting it and wound up with two copies.

Does anyone know how I might delete that other one? I thought there used to be a delete button somewhere, but now I can't find it.

[Natmus]

My guess is also that the pie was poisoned off-screen (best and obvious place to do it), and that Tyrion was the intended target. Joffrey would be rotating in his grave if he knew he had saved Tyrion' life.

My reasons for considering the pie the far most likely candidate are the usual: There is no way that anybody in advance could forsee the way the chalice would appear at Tyrion's place and be left unattended, for Joffrey to return a little later and drink from it. How would either Garlan or QoT have poisoned the chalice if Jofrrey hadn't impulsively brought it down to Tyrions end of the table? Not to mention the insane risk either Garlan or QoT takes if they according to plan drops the poison into the chalice.

With the poisoned wine seeming extreemly unlikely to me, the best estimate must be poison in the pie, without quite knowing who was behind.

However, it does seem likely that Littlefinger and Ser Dontos were involved, as they had some plan ready for Sansa's escape. As for the rest, I don't think anything can be said with certainty.

The whole Tyrell consipiracy seems to work alone on LF's claim to Sansa. Sansa believes him, but she is a rather naive young persen (13-14 years old?). Just because she believes him, I don't think I will.

Of course it is possible to somehow see a chain of events when seen through the lens of LF's claims, but isn't it the same way Tyrion later is judged guilty of Joffrey's murder, as the factual events are presented in such a context as to make Tyrion's guilt seem certain?

In other words, are we readers any better at judging the events than the judges that pronounce Tyrion guilty?

When I ignore LF's claims in a re-read of the events, I cannot see any independent evidence of any Tyrell doing anything untoward. The only one claiming Tyrell involvement is LF, and he probably implicates them to cut Sansa away from her only other potential allies, namely the Tyrells. Thus gaining her total dependence on himself. It's like Sylvio Forell would have said "My words lied. My eyes and my arm shouted out the truth, but you were not seeing." In this case it is LF's lying words that cheats the readers, so many readers see what LF wants you to see. Like Sansa does.

An as for nobody having any reason to kill Tyrion, let us not forget that there have been earlier attempts to get rid of him. LF can be said to have started the whole mess by claiming Tyrion owned the dragonbonehilted dagger. That nearly cost Tyrion his life.

Later Tywin Lannister placed Tyrion in a position of extreme danger at the Green Fork.

And a white cloak tried to kill Tyrion on the Blackwater, and remind me if we ever have found out who was behind that. Who was the supects of that affair?

Of course, there is the Ghost of High Heart and her words about the girl with serpents in her hair. That would seem to confirm the entire gemstone-hairnet-poisoned-wine line of reasoning. But seers have both in this series and in general a way of saying things that can be understood in more ways than one. Do we actually know, positively know, that the words refer to the PW?

In conclusion, we have precious little hard information on what really happened. Most likely a piece of pie, that had been poisoned off-stage, was placed in front of Tyrion in the hope he would eat it and die. In that confusion following Tyrion's death, Sansa would be taken away from the Red Keep, as she was despite changed circumstances. Joff happens to eat the pie and dies. LF hardly misses a beat in taking credit for the events to Sansa, and cutting her off from the Tyrells. But there is not really any other hard evidence to support his claim, because that plan is simply impossible to work out in advance.

As all of the evidence of the Tyrell involvement is the word of LF, I personally discount it as lies used to manipulate Sansa. Other readers may trust his words more and take them at face value. But I think we all must agree that the words of Littlefinger is the thing that divides the group that believes the poison was in the wine (and hairnet/Tyrell involvement), and the group believing the pie was poisoned.

Which brings all this down to the question: How much do you trust that LF tells Sansa the truth about the PW?

[The King of the Night]

the fact that mace tyrel gave joff the goblet almost proves that their family poisoned him through this goblet. it is the perfect tool bc it provides a means and an alibi.

nice thought provoking theory though, and it helped pass another 25 minutes while I wait for winds.

edit: assuming marge did the physical poisoning of the goblet

edit 2: The World of Ice and Fire app states on the Joffrey Baratheon page

"Due to their constant public clashes, Tyrion is accused of the crime when Joffrey is poisoned and dies on his wedding day. But in truth, Olenna Tyrell- The Queen of Thorns- is the guilty party, who poisoned Joffrey with Littlefinger's aid to save her granddaughter, Margaery, from the match."

[Dorian Martell]

Marg probably did the deed. She is a great actress. She knew she was marrying her brothers gay lover, she knew she was marrying a psychopath and she knew his little brother would be far more tractable so she was willing to kill the psycho blonde bastard. She wants to be Queen, she knows how to charm, she learns from her granny and she knows how to play the game. Joff is an idiot and far too trusting. He is more concerned with humiliating his short uncle than building a kingdom. Even though he does nothing, he claims all the victories in the war as his. He is stupid and deserved to die at the hands of his wife's family and his mom is too stupid to figure out who had a real reason to do it.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

My guess is also that the pie was poisoned off-screen (best and obvious place to do it), and that Tyrion was the intended target. Joffrey would be rotating in his grave if he knew he had saved Tyrion' life.

My reasons for considering the pie the far most likely candidate are the usual: There is no way that anybody in advance could forsee the way the chalice would appear at Tyrion's place and be left unattended, for Joffrey to return a little later and drink from it. How would either Garlan or QoT have poisoned the chalice if Jofrrey hadn't impulsively brought it down to Tyrions end of the table? Not to mention the insane risk either Garlan or QoT takes if they according to plan drops the poison into the chalice.

You keep ignoring Margaery. Just so you know - it's still noticeable.

As for poisoning the pie - now that's an enormous risk. To ensure the correct piece lands in front of the correct victim, the server would need to be in the loop. That's a huge liability. If he isn't a Highgarden man, but on court staff (a reasonable assumption) - that's simply insane. If he blabs, then... heads, spikes.

When I ignore LF's claims in a re-read of the events, I cannot see any independent evidence of any Tyrell doing anything untoward. The only one claiming Tyrell involvement is LF, and he probably implicates them to cut Sansa away from her only other potential allies, namely the Tyrells. Thus gaining her total dependence on himself. It's like Sylvio Forell would have said "My words lied. My eyes and my arm shouted out the truth, but you were not seeing." In this case it is LF's lying words that cheats the readers, so many readers see what LF wants you to see. Like Sansa does.

Then riddle me this: why would Littlefinger have lied specifically regarding the target? Tyrion was supposed to be the victim? Fine, tell Sansa that Tyrion was supposed to be the victim.

Is it because Sansa had some residual fondness for him, and Littlefinger didn't want her to see him as impslayer? Nope, Sansa somewhat liked Dontos, too, and Littlefinger killed him before her very eyes.

Is it because he wanted to score points in exterminating Joffrey? But he doesn't play this card. If he wanted to alienate the Tyrells to Sansa, your version of the events works even better: "those brutes didn't stop from murdering Tyrion just so they could put their filthy paws on your claim, my dear, and as you can see, they're not only immoral, but also incompetent in their villainy". See, Sansa could have misgivings about people who tried to murder Tyrion, but likely would consider Joffrey's murderers as nothing but nice people. She knew him personally, after all.

[FittleLinger]

Marg probably did the deed. She is a great actress. She knew she was marrying her brothers gay lover, she knew she was marrying a psychopath and she knew his little brother would be far more tractable so she was willing to kill the psycho blonde bastard. She wants to be Queen, she knows how to charm, she learns from her granny and she knows how to play the game. Joff is an idiot and far too trusting. He is more concerned with humiliating his short uncle than building a kingdom. Even though he does nothing, he claims all the victories in the war as his. He is stupid and deserved to die at the hands of his wife's family and his mom is too stupid to figure out who had a real reason to do it.

You know what's really funny. On a reread, in AFFC, Cersei actually puts two and two together - she figures they work together, she figures the Tyrells had motives, that Joff was "stronger" than Tommen so they needed him out of the picture, she figures how now they are charming Tommen to make him their creature, etc. And the conclusion she makes is... they freed Tyrion.

She puts two and two together, and gets five point seven.

[John Suburbs]

You keep ignoring Margaery. Just so you know - it's still noticeable.

As for poisoning the pie - now that's an enormous risk. To ensure the correct piece lands in front of the correct victim, the server would need to be in the loop. That's a huge liability. If he isn't a Highgarden man, but on court staff (a reasonable assumption) - that's simply insane. If he blabs, then... heads, spikes.

Then riddle me this: why would Littlefinger have lied specifically regarding the target? Tyrion was supposed to be the victim? Fine, tell Sansa that Tyrion was supposed to be the victim.

Is it because Sansa had some residual fondness for him, and Littlefinger didn't want her to see him as impslayer? Nope, Sansa somewhat liked Dontos, too, and Littlefinger killed him before her very eyes.

Is it because he wanted to score points in exterminating Joffrey? But he doesn't play this card. If he wanted to alienate the Tyrells to Sansa, your version of the events works even better: "those brutes didn't stop from murdering Tyrion just so they could put their filthy paws on your claim, my dear, and as you can see, they're not only immoral, but also incompetent in their villainy". See, Sansa could have misgivings about people who tried to murder Tyrion, but likely would consider Joffrey's murderers as nothing but nice people. She knew him personally, after all.

I covered this in the OP:

It would be far easier to slip the poison crystal in the pie after it had been placed at Tyrion's seat. In this way, they are almost assured that no one but Tyrion would eat it. If the poison were to be placed in the pie somewhere outside the banquet, there would be no need to smuggle it in on Sansa. And I think the Tyrell involvement is clear even without Littlefinger's confirmation because it is undoubtedly Lady Olenna who removes the crystal from the hairnet.

Why would LF lie to Sansa on the boat? Because he still needs her trust to carry out the rest of the plan -- posing as Alaya Stone and whatever else she'll need to do. If he tells her the truth on the boat, he basically has to admit that things are not going as planned, and risk losing her confidence in him.

And I'm also very dubious about this business of sometimes you do completely random things just to keep people off their guard. Really? I've never seen Littlefinger or Varys or any other player do anything at random. And now LF decides the time is right for a completely pointless act, and that is to kill the king? The whole thing sounds like something he made up on the spot because he was taken aback when Sansa told him that Joffrey was dead.

[Dorian Martell]

You know what's really funny. On a reread, in AFFC, Cersei actually puts two and two together - she figures they work together, she figures the Tyrells had motives, that Joff was "stronger" than Tommen so they needed him out of the picture, she figures how now they are charming Tommen to make him their creature, etc. And the conclusion she makes is... they freed Tyrion.

She puts two and two together, and gets five point seven.

she did connect them after tyrion escapes and her dad is killed which is another reason she made up a convoluted plan to frame Marg, which ends up backfiring, but she never accuses Marg of actually being in the plot. All the while she is playing into Petyr's plan, whatever that is.

[John Suburbs]

1) It's plainly obvious. They don't want to express their concern right in front of Sansa, just like they don't get overly emotional about anything in the conversation except maybe when Margery is trying to convince Sansa to scatter off to HG. Another example of you making something out of nothing.

2) no you have not. First off, the situations are clearly different so they need to be looked at independently. One group is on a fact finding mission to confirm what they've heard. the other is an old creepy guy clearly trying to impress and impart some part of "the game" on her.

3) because the dissolution in wine was already proved textually for a reason most likely (99% likelihood) you must not be a gambler.

4) sure tricking is great, but not in such a menial minor detail, and certainly not to have them poisoning someone they have zero reason to poison. it completely ruins his high garden trip and how he explains the game is played to sansa.

5) well, the wine theory has infinitely more textual evidence than zero.

Well, once again, we start right out with that cute little phrase, "It's obvious." It is not obvious. It only becomes so if you start with a preferred conclusion and then view all evidence in support of that conclusion.

There is no indication at all, 'textually' or otherwise, that either Lady O or Margaery are lying. Lady O seems more upset that the lemon cakes are not being served than that Joffrey is a woman-beater. There is no indication at all that Joffrey intends to harm Margaery -- in fact, he seems smitten with her. So to just say that they are lying just to hide their true feelings from Sansa and then declaring it "obvious" is disingenuous at best.

And as in my previous post, I think I can cast some strong doubt as to the truth of Littlefinger's speech on the boat. 'Random acts of violence just to keep everyone guessing.' My ass. More like a quick cover story because he didn't have enough time to come up with anything more plausible.

As for No. 3) the dissolution in the wine is 'proven textually' all right, but does that preclude any other method? A sugar cube dissolves in coffee, but does that mean sugar dissolves only in coffee and nothing else?

And pardon me, but are you calling Joffrey's murder a minor detail? A call it a major plot twist and a turning point in the entire story. And if you go back to the OP, a spend nearly 2500 words explaining the very solid reasons why they both need to get rid of Tyrion right away. Joffrey, at best, is a worry for the future.

In short, I find it hard to believe that after all we've read, people would rely on the "it's obvious" defense so strongly for the wine theory. How many times have the "obvious" things not happened in this story:

--Ned was obviously supposed to go the Wall rather than get his head cut off

--Robb and Renly were obviously going to form a pact and defeat both Stannis and the Lannisters

--Drogo was obviously going to sail the poison water and sweep the seven kingdoms

--Dany was obviously going to sail for Westeros right after Qarth

So many "obvious" story lines that went nowhere. This is the writer we are dealing with, and I think it makes for a more enjoyable read if you open yourself to all the possibilities, not just the obvious ones. You may find that this work is a whole lot more subtle and sublime than it appears.

[Natmus]

You keep ignoring Margaery. Just so you know - it's still noticeable.

As for poisoning the pie - now that's an enormous risk. To ensure the correct piece lands in front of the correct victim, the server would need to be in the loop. That's a huge liability. If he isn't a Highgarden man, but on court staff (a reasonable assumption) - that's simply insane. If he blabs, then... heads, spikes.

Then riddle me this: why would Littlefinger have lied specifically regarding the target? Tyrion was supposed to be the victim? Fine, tell Sansa that Tyrion was supposed to be the victim.

Is it because Sansa had some residual fondness for him, and Littlefinger didn't want her to see him as impslayer? Nope, Sansa somewhat liked Dontos, too, and Littlefinger killed him before her very eyes.

Is it because he wanted to score points in exterminating Joffrey? But he doesn't play this card. If he wanted to alienate the Tyrells to Sansa, your version of the events works even better: "those brutes didn't stop from murdering Tyrion just so they could put their filthy paws on your claim, my dear, and as you can see, they're not only immoral, but also incompetent in their villainy". See, Sansa could have misgivings about people who tried to murder Tyrion, but likely would consider Joffrey's murderers as nothing but nice people. She knew him personally, after all.

Regarding Margary, I think you still intrepret her actions through Littlefingers goggles: If she seems to try to draw Joffrey away from Tyrion and get the feast back on track, then she must be using reverse psycology, because he does the exact opposite, and she must be manipulating Joffrey to return to drink the posioned wine.

Yes, the servant placing the pie in front of Tyrion would be very, very interesting to follow in the minutes leading up to the poisoning, and later. Cersei is said to personally have chosen all the attending servants, but for example Ser Dontos is around to maybe have done something off-stage and then ordered a servant to deliver this plate of pie to Tyrion.

At one point I considered it might have been a faceless man, but dismissed it again, as they wouldn't coordinate the hit with Littlefinger.

As for Littlefinger's manipulating of Sansa, in the way he explains the plot to her, the Tyrells used Sansa as a scapegoat for Joffrey's murder. Sansa thinks that the Tyrells intended for her to be implicated in the murder, but that Littlefinger instead whisked her away to (relative) safety. She will have no other place to go. That he wouldn't tell her that the original plan went somewhat off track when Joffrey took the poison intended Tyrion should not be a suprise. LF tries to present himself as someone who is in control, after all.

On the whole, I still think the balance of probablities points toward a much simpler plot with poison in the pie (poison placed off-stage) and the only evidence of Tyrell involvement LF's words and no independent supporting evidence. In my considered opinion, that is.

[Bloodraven's Lost Eye]

What I'd like to see is somebody answering these two points (or ALL if u have the time) of my first, more elaborate post.

1) the King's chalice is meant to be shared by both King and Queen; do you think they'd take such a risk of killing Margaery?

2) GRRM mentions three times in the text that the pie is meant for Tyrion:

It was placed specifically in front of Tyrion and he mentions Tyrion's pie and his pie. Why would he put such an emphasis of binding the piece of pie to specifically Tyrion, he could've said "all the guests received a piece of pie. No, he mentions it's Tyrion's pie, its placed before him and he makes sure Tyrion remarks the pie and it's cream sauce "this time the pigeons were cooked".

3) All eyes on the wine:

All the eyes are on the wine, all throughout Joffrey's taunting it's all been about the King's chalice and the wine. Everyone on the dais, the hall, everybody is looking at the wine and more specifically Joffrey's (shared) chalice.

I also agree with Natmuss' assessment, it's not necessarily true, but you must beware not to be blindsided by Littlefinger; it's true that LF severs Sansa from the world by saying the Tyrells tried to frame her for Joffrey, whether he's lying or not.

Also, it's totally not Littlefinger's MO to kill the king, only fools like Cersei do so. No just like with Jon Arryn he kills people surrounding the power, staying just under the radar, laying the groundwork for his end-game. his end-game is not absolute power he wants a little finger in every pudding (see what I did there?) His end-game is Sansa: With Sansa he gets a say in The Vale, Riverrun AND the North, this is exactly why Tyrion married her and why the Tyrells wanted to marry her off to the cripple.

When you look at his current situation with Sansa, it's clear that his biggest problem is Tyrion being alive.

Sansa in Highgarden: dealt with

Sansa in King's landing: dealt with

Sansa married to Tyrion: oops, he still lives

So now Sansa is worthless and has to pose as Alayne Stone; if Tyrion were gone, she could declare for herself in the vale, rally Riverrun and Littlefinger would be her trusted advisor, for surely he saved her from both Lannister and Tyrells.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

What I'd like to see is somebody answering these two points (or ALL if u have the time) of my first, more elaborate post.

1) the King's chalice is meant to be shared by both King and Queen; do you think they'd take such a risk of killing Margaery?

Since it's been addressed at least once in this thread, and you apparently didn't bother to press PgUp, I'll bid you good day. Repeating ourselves, fun as it is, must end at some time.

[Bloodraven's Lost Eye]

Since it's been addressed at least once in this thread, and you apparently didn't bother to press PgUp, I'll bid you good day. Repeating ourselves, fun as it is, must end at some time.

I've read everything and endangering Margaery by poisoning the chalice hasn't been addressed.

ok, so this is your response to the chalice being shared:

Read the book, will you please? Margaery did drink from that chalice. That fact was even brought up by Mace himself, and loudly, too. She was supposed to drink from it, touch it, handle it, and nobody saw anything suspicious about that.

Yeah; ok, so you're kinda, totally making my point there...

They wouldn't endanger Margaery by making her the poisoner or even putting the poison in the chalice after she drank it. For all they know, Joffrey makes them drink it at the same time, or he takes a sip and immediately passes it to Margaery, leaving a poisoned chalice in Margaery's hands.

Quoting only one of my 3 points, claiming the one point is already addressed while you haven't, really?

The poisoned wine is up in our face and takes all the scrutiny, while at the same time the emphasis of linking the pie specifically to Tyrion and the actual suffocating happening so fast after Joffrey eats Tyrion's pie is right underneath it all.

[Ygrain]

Er... if Margaery is the poisoner, she is in no danger of being poisoned because she know when to stop drinking.

If she is not doing the poisoning herself, she needs to be privy to the scheme, and given that she participates in QoT's questioning of Sansa, it's not out of a realm of possibility that she is. Then she needs to be signalled not to drink any more, and again, no danger to her. Something like, "don't drink after I mention Rains of Castamere".

[Bloodraven's Lost Eye]

Sooo much can go wrong with that though, like I just said, what If Joffrey wants to do something cute, like drinking together?

Or joffrey falls dead and somebody of the Lannisters grabs the cup and has Pycelle examine it (or they just feed it to a random waiter). The shared nature of the chalice directly implicates Margaery as the poisoner.

If we learned anything from Cressen's prologue, we know being the poisoner has serious risks involved and Davos notices Cressen spiking the wine, so if Cressen's case is a precedent, it won't be that easy to put the crystal into the chalice after drinking it (remember Cressen has those handy sleeves upto his wrist).

Then there's the plausible deniability argument.

IMO it's the unpredictability of Joffrey that got him poisoned in the first place (through Tyrion's pie) aswell as made him a very difficult target to poison through wine, just imagine the wine being poisoned when he poured it over Tyrion? (I know it wasn't/wouldn't be poisoned at that point.)