Crowford Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Nothing? Not even: “The knights of the Kingsguard have served as the rightful champions of king and queen since the days of Aegon the Conqueror. Crown and Faith speak as one on this.” As I've painstakingly explained, Howland is making the rules as he sees fit. And, in this passage, he's agreeing that King and Queen must be defended by the KG. No. Not even that. You are just repeating the same point over and over. The royal family being supposed to be championed by the Kingsguard in a trial of combat is one thing - it means that they have to choose one of their seven knights, of whom at least one is always by their side, usually more. Another thing is the idea that when it comes to a trial of seven, every single combatant for the royal party has to be a Kingsguard, and if not, they have to fight with fewer men. In the only case of a trial by seven ever seen, Dunk's, this was not the case. On the contrary, it was specifically mentioned how a fight six against seven was not permissible. That alone should make it pretty clear that the Faith is not going to be able to use this as a justification. And despite what you keep saying, there is so far no indication that Cersei is (legally) in a different position than Aerion was (except for the obvious thing, that this time it's the other way round), and that she wouldn't be able to fill up her ranks with other knights if not all of the Kingsguard are available. Of course, the Faith has the upper hand at the moment, and they can bend the rules a bit to their liking. But only a bit, because if they had completely free reign, they could just pull an Aerys and only offer Cersei a trial she can't possibly win. It's clear that they have to keep up a semblance of "fair trial", and calling a trial by seven and restricting the accused party to three knights means that semblance goes right out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 there is so far no indication that Cersei is (legally) in a different position than Aerion was (except for the obvious thing, that this time it's the other way round) I consider the difference between the accuser and the accused to be pretty wide. I guess we're just going to disagree on this point. The whole reason Unella had to stop Scolera was to prevent Cersei from naming more Kingsguard. The High Septon wants her handicapped - that's the whole point. And he's been doing things his way since he came to King's Landing. He forcefully took his seat, need I remind you. If it was ok for him to steal the title of High Septon, why is it a stretch to think he would continue to make radical decisions in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 *facepalm* She isn't intending to call a trial of seven, she's intending to call a trial by combat. My theory is that Howland changes the conditions of the trial, not Cersei. Is that even possible? I'm not sure you can. It's Cersei's right to ask what she wants for her trial, as it is Margaery's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 It's Cersei's right to ask what she wants for her trial, as it is Margaery's. No, it isn't. The precedent has been set for that. Cersei is intending to call a trial by combat. Cersei stands accused, like Dunk, and will have the terms dictated to her by her accuser, like Dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Is that even possible? I'm not sure you can. It's Cersei's right to ask what she wants for her trial, as it is Margaery's. Maybe. Dunk went with trial by combat and Aerion chose a trial by seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Maybe. Dunk went with trial by combat and Aerion chose a trial by seven. But they were both involved and they were both meaning to fight. It would be like the accused saying "I choose to fight with swords" and the accuser saying "ok, but only small swords". It's not the same thing as having the main authority there saying how you have to defend yourself. Would be like a judge choosing your lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 It would be like the accused saying "I choose to fight with swords" and the accuser saying "ok, but only small swords". It's not the same thing as having the main authority there saying how you have to defend yourself. Would be like a judge choosing your lawyers. Yea, or like Aerys chosing fire as his champion against Rickard, and roasting him over a pit. You guys are misunderstanding. There doesn't need to be precedent with the law. The High Septon is breaking the laws. It stands to serve, at this point, that he can do as he pleases. The precedent is in the story-telling. In the parallels and connections I drew up. If you guys don't agree, that's fine, but the text is there and all I'm doing is highlighting and giving you my interpretation. Also, I get that you guys are so lazer focused on this point, but I seriously don't get any propers for all the Northmen connections and witty titling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Yea, or like Aerys chosing fire as his champion against Rickard, and roasting him over a pit. You guys are misunderstanding. There doesn't need to be precedent with the law. The High Septon is breaking the laws. It stands to serve, at this point, that he can do as he pleases. The precedent is in the story-telling. In the parallels and connections I drew up. If you guys don't agree, that's fine, but the text is there and all I'm doing is highlighting and giving you my interpretation. Aerys had complete power in KL. The High Sparrow does not. His situation is tenuous at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 Aerys had complete power in KL. The High Sparrow does not. His situation is tenuous at best. You gotta be shitting me... "tenuous at best"? Nobody can stop this guy! If they could, they would have - he's been noted, several times, by various people, to be a danger. Cersei couldn't stop him, or Mace, or Kevan. He's got an army well over two-thousand which is growing by the day. He forcefully stole the title of High Septon. He abducted and imprisoned Margery, the Queen, and wasn't touched. He abducted and imprisoned Cersei, the Queen Regent, and wasn't touched. Absolute control? Well, he's absolutely doing whatever he wants... so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 You gotta be shitting me... "tenuous at best"? Nobody can stop this guy! If they could, they would have - he's been noted, several times, by various people, to be a danger. Cersei couldn't stop him, or Mace, or Kevan. He's got an army over two-thousand which is growing by the day. Oh man. 2,000 strong. It's not like Randyll Tarly is in a position to put them down like dogs if he wants. There's a reason why the HS left Margaery to his care. Mace is coming up the Kingsroad with at least a quarter of the strength of the Reach. My bad. He's already in KL with the entire army that was besieging SE. You can argue that neither Mace nor Tarly will want to free Cersei or ensure a fair trial, but between the two of them they could crush the Faith Militant. Tarly could probably do a fair job of it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher_inthe_Woods Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Thanks pobeb for getting this up this weekend. A lot of work and I certainly enjoyed reading all the theory points put together the way you did. :) This theory has already spurred several deeper book discussions between my partner and myself. Look forward to more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Not Appearing Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 The overall theory is intriguing. Some of the parallels of language are expected and mean less to me than others, but it's an interesting theory that ties together some loose ends.I admittedly get thrown off by the assumption that Cersei is allowed to fight with only three. I agree that the text seems to indicate Kingsguard only, but where does it indicate royalty is special so the seven v seven only rule is bent? All I see is your assumption that royalty equals bent rules. Where is this evidenced? Walk me through that because it's a fairly major leap unless I'm missing something.If the High Septon is making his own rules to damn Cersei, why bend that rule for her, btw? I'd side more on the kingsguard only rule means an automatic guilty verdict because she can't get to seven. That's what seems supported by text and logical for characters, namely the High Septon. (I also don't see why Cersei couldn't just appoint more Kingsguard at that point, as a means of reaching seven)I would wager, based on GRRM's nature, that if it becomes a seven v three trial as you suggest (that I don't quite buy) that it feels impossible for Cersei to win, but that only means that un-Gregor defeats everyone.Somewhat unrelated to your theory, I will be thoroughly disappointed if un-Gregor is not vetted by the High Septon... and used as further evidence of wrong doing by Cersei. A silly amount of plot armor if it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Wow, Pobeb, you picked the wrong day to post this great theory. I think I've seen two valid criticisms in this sea of inane bullsh#t.For me, the tough part is that The Hedge Knight makes clear that failure to have 7 knights means forfeit. It could be that is what the High Septon is depending on so that he doesn't even need a trial to declare Cercei guilty.There's also the precedence for putting aside Kingsguard, so Cercei may strip the white cloaks from everyone not in KL and give them to the best knights available.You do have a really good theory and it's a shame about discussion getting trolled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 I agree that the text seems to indicate Kingsguard only, but where does it indicate royalty is special so the seven v seven only rule is bent? All I see is your assumption that royalty equals bent rules. Where is this evidenced? Walk me through that because it's a fairly major leap unless I'm missing something. Cersei mentions it several times, all listed in the OP's. The High Septon gives Cersei a rundown of how he's planning to conduct the trials. And he says: “The knights of the Kingsguard have served as the rightful champions of king and queen since the days of Aegon the Conqueror. Crown and Faith speak as one on this.” So, precedent or not, he's telling us exactly what conditions he will hold over the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 Wow, Pobeb, you picked the wrong day to post this great theory. I think I've seen two valid criticisms in this sea of inane bullsh#t.For me, the tough part is that The Hedge Knight makes clear that failure to have 7 knights means forfeit. It could be that is what the High Septon is depending on so that he doesn't even need a trial to declare Cercei guilty.There's also the precedence for putting aside Kingsguard, so Cercei may strip the white cloaks from everyone not in KL and give them to the best knights available.You do have a really good theory and it's a shame about discussion getting trolled. I actually expected the laws of the Trial of Seven to be the most heavily focused and debated point. The fact that people are arguing with me, only means I haven't done a good enough job explaining things in the OP. So, this is something I intended to work on, and the debate here is actually helping. I'm starting to see that people are more resistant to the number discrepancy than they are of a Trial of Seven being called. So, at least we're all sorta in the same boat there. All I have to do now is navigate that boat home. Although, I agree in that it would be nice if people discussed the other parallels I brought up - considering the relevance and whatnot ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Traveler Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Two words: I came.Seriously, I'm like "Amen". Good job, really. I find some points that you considered evidence not that obvious, but the general theory and explanation fit perfectly. I'm more convinced that I should start a reread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Not Appearing Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Cersei mentions it several times, all listed in the OP's. The High Septon gives Cersei a rundown of how he's planning to conduct the trials. And he says: So, precedent or not, he's telling us exactly what conditions he will hold over the trial.I'm not sure you understood my question.Where does anything you provided indicate he's going to let her fight with fewer people than required? Trial by seven makes sense... and the text precedent indicates that she default loses because she doesn't have seven kingsguard available. This is the logical conclusion ... yet you provide an alternative of seven v three. Why? If anything, allowing the remote chance that she can win with only three (something is expect) works against his character motivations. Why would he choose to allow a fight? Occam's Razor and all that.... beyond that it's your thread title... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I actually expected the laws of the Trial of Seven to be the most heavily focused and debated point. The fact that people are arguing with me, only means I haven't done a good enough job explaining things in the OP. So, this is something I intended to work on, and the debate here is actually helping. I'm starting to see that people are more resistant to the number discrepancy than they are of a Trial of Seven being called. So, at least we're all sorta in the same boat there. All I have to do now is navigate that boat home. Although, I agree in that it would be nice if people discussed the other parallels I brought up - considering the relevance and whatnot ;)If Cercei needs new Kingsguards for her trial, then so may Marge. Could Garlan Tyrell, one of the best swordsmen in the 7K, get a white cloak? Could Cercei be forced to pack the Kingsguard with all Knights from the Reach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 If Cercei needs new Kingsguards for her trial, then so may Marge. Could Willas Tyrell, one of the best swordsmen in the 7K, get a white cloak? Could Cercei be forced to pack the Kingsguard with all Knights from the Reach? I don't think anyone wants Willas to defend them in a trial by combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victarion Chainbreaker Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I don't think anyone wants Willas to defend them in a trial by combat. Oops, I meant Garlan of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.