Small questions v. 10092

[Lost Melnibonean]

I personally agree with your sentiment, but I think the thought process is that the baby would remain a hostage, while Edmure would be killed, and a baby is much easier to manage and can be raised to think what you want it to think.

This. Edmure would have Nearly every Frey flayed amd quartered if he could. But as as soon as his Lord of Tully has a male heir, Walder can betroth him to a Frey and raise him as a Frey, this subverting House Tully. And if the new Lord of Riverrun ever defies him, the Lord of the Crossing could use the little Lord of Tully to udrrmine his authority.

[Liaraeyne]

Just to make sure I understand... the trial that Margaery and Cersei face, does ONE HAVE TO die? Is it possible that both are being declared innocent? Or is it more like a battle against each other, and only one may win?

[aryagonnakill#2]

^ Both are accused by others, not each other. The trials are technically separate, though I suppose if Cersei was found guilty, she would be guilty of setting up Margery as well since KettleBlack said that.

[Ser Leftwich]

Just to make sure I understand... the trial that Margaery and Cersei face, does ONE HAVE TO die? Is it possible that both are being declared innocent? Or is it more like a battle against each other, and only one may win?

They are two separate events. One does not have to die. Both could be declared innocent.

[Lord Annaly]

This. Edmure would have Nearly every Frey flayed amd quartered if he could. But as as soon as his Lord of Tully has a male heir, Walder can betroth him to a Frey and raise him as a Frey, this subverting House Tully. And if the new Lord of Riverrun ever defies him, the Lord of the Crossing could use the little Lord of Tully to udrrmine his authority.

So the only reason Walder wants a Tully grandson is to piss off Emmon?

Again, a daughter heir of Edmure married to a Frey (not Emmon's heir) would still suffice so no real need to want a male in particular.

[Liaraeyne]

^ Both are accused by others, not each other. The trials are technically separate, though I suppose to Cersei was found guilty, she would be guilty is setting up Margery as well since KettleBlack said that.

They are two separate events. One does not have to die. Both could be declared innocent.

OK that's good news then :) because I was afraid for Margaery to die. OK, she may still die, but it's less likely.

[Lord Annaly]

OK that's good news then :) because I was afraid for Margaery to die. OK, she may still die, but it's less likely.

It's possible she will die and Cersei will then think the prophecy has been thwarted as the "young beautiful queen" who she believed would cast her down is dead.

Leading Cersei to believe that her children are safe and that Tyrion will die too before he has a chance to come and kill her.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

If Edmure has a son, there is another male Tully to keep hostage to keep all the riverlanders in check. If the child is female, then the Riverlands most likely won't rise... A Tully daughter can be married to a Frey, thereby uniting the lines. But marrying a Frey girl to a male child will not make the Tully line go away.

In essence, Walder needs a male Tully heir to ensure that no other Tully blooded person (like the Blacklist) can make a claim for Riverrun. Walder does not necessarily need Edmure for that.. Edmure's son will do just fine, and will be easier to handle, and less likely to try and escape.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

What is the military strength of bravos. Have they been mentioned as a possible ally for Dany? They we're founded by freed slaves aren't they?

[Bluetiger]

Braavos is a great naval power but on land they have small army so they have to use sellswords.

Braavosi hate slavery but they also hate dragons. So they don't seem to be a ally to Daenerys. And IRon Bank has just loaned money to king Stannis so helping another pretendent to throne will be money wasting

[Lord Annaly]

If Edmure has a son, there is another male Tully to keep hostage to keep all the riverlanders in check. If the child is female, then the Riverlands most likely won't rise... A Tully daughter can be married to a Frey, thereby uniting the lines. But marrying a Frey girl to a male child will not make the Tully line go away.

In essence, Walder needs a male Tully heir to ensure that no other Tully blooded person (like the Blacklist) can make a claim for Riverrun. Walder does not necessarily need Edmure for that.. Edmure's son will do just fine, and will be easier to handle, and less likely to try and escape.

All true but why not just kill Edmure after he has his daughter?

Kill Edmure before he has a son to act as a rallying point but the implication is that if Roslin has a daughter that Edmure is safe yet if he is still alive and Roslin is sent to him as Jaime says then he can go on producing heirs.

I understand the danger a Tully heir of Edmure poses but without a son a daughter can be just as dangerous in the right (wrong) hands.

As I said earlier, it makes more sense that Edmure and his chidren are more at risk from Emmon Frey than from Walder Frey. In fact Lady Genna is thr true danger...she would have access to Casterly Rock that Walder would not have.

Genna and Jaime even suggest that Edmure having a daughter is a good thing as she can be married into Emmon's line and settle any rival claims.

So it makes more sense that Edmure should be killed after a girl is born to prevent him from producing a son.

The point of my question is Walder...why is he cited as the danger to Edmure (when it would be Genna & Emmon) and why is Edmure only in danger from Walder only if Roslin has a son.

It is these two points that are the anomalies...

Blackfish is as I said getting on, still looking to fight (&die) and not likely to produce any heirs so in the few years that it would take for the son to be of use to any potential rebel lords to rally in his name there would be no need for a hostage.

A dead Edmure, a dead Blackfish mean that a hostage is of no longer really needed

The Frey's and the Lannisters are fully expecting to be ruling for years to come so as soon as any rumour of the young Ser of House Tully of the Westerlands was aspiring to claim his father's seat he would be met with the full force of King Tommen and Lord Lannister, Houses Frey and the believed Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, Friend of the Crown, Lord Baelish.

A hostage really is not needed after a few years in the belief at the time of an assured victory of King Tommen and his allies.

The crown has all those hostages of the riverlords to keep them from misbehaving even if some fool tries to rise in Ed Jr's name.

Wipe out the Tully name makes sense but not the implication that Walder wants Roslin to have a son.

[Lost Melnibonean]

So the only reason Walder wants a Tully grandson is to piss off Emmon?

Again, a daughter heir of Edmure married to a Frey (not Emmon's heir) would still suffice so no real need to want a male in particular.

Not quite.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Braavos is a great naval power but on land they have small army so they have to use sellswords.

Braavosi hate slavery but they also hate dragons. So they don't seem to be a ally to Daenerys. And IRon Bank has just loaned money to king Stannis so helping another pretendent to throne will be money wasting

Are you sure? Didn't they fight with Aegon the Conqueror against Volantis?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Braavos is a great naval power but on land they have small army so they have to use sellswords.

Braavosi hate slavery but they also hate dragons. So they don't seem to be a ally to Daenerys. And IRon Bank has just loaned money to king Stannis so helping another pretendent to throne will be money wasting

Braavos doesn't hate Targaryens though... they allied with Aegon I before the conquest.. So they could become an ally to Dany.

All true but why not just kill Edmure after he has his daughter?

Kill Edmure before he has a son to act as a rallying point but the implication is that if Roslin has a daughter that Edmure is safe yet if he is still alive and Roslin is sent to him as Jaime says then he can go on producing heirs.

I understand the danger a Tully heir of Edmure poses but without a son a daughter can be just as dangerous in the right (wrong) hands.

As I said earlier, it makes more sense that Edmure and his chidren are more at risk from Emmon Frey than from Walder Frey. In fact Lady Genna is thr true danger...she would have access to Casterly Rock that Walder would not have.

Genna and Jaime even suggest that Edmure having a daughter is a good thing as she can be married into Emmon's line and settle any rival claims.

So it makes more sense that Edmure should be killed after a girl is born to prevent him from producing a son.

The point of my question is Walder...why is he cited as the danger to Edmure (when it would be Genna & Emmon) and why is Edmure only in danger from Walder only if Roslin has a son.

It is these two points that are the anomalies...

Blackfish is as I said getting on, still looking to fight (&die) and not likely to produce any heirs so in the few years that it would take for the son to be of use to any potential rebel lords to rally in his name there would be no need for a hostage.

A dead Edmure, a dead Blackfish mean that a hostage is of no longer really needed

The Frey's and the Lannisters are fully expecting to be ruling for years to come so as soon as any rumour of the young Ser of House Tully of the Westerlands was aspiring to claim his father's seat he would be met with the full force of King Tommen and Lord Lannister, Houses Frey and the believed Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, Friend of the Crown, Lord Baelish.

A hostage really is not needed after a few years in the belief at the time of an assured victory of King Tommen and his allies.

The crown has all those hostages of the riverlords to keep them from misbehaving even if some fool tries to rise in Ed Jr's name.

Wipe out the Tully name makes sense but not the implication that Walder wants Roslin to have a son.

Walder doesn't know what Jaime has decided ;) So Walder's orders and wishes can easily contradict Jaime's later additions and alterations.

Jaime's solution for "it's a girl" is simple... marry her to Emmon's line, and make certain that way that if there ever is a riverlord who thinks about rebelling and killing the new Riverrun line, they will be killing off a Tully.. Which is something those loyal to Edmure won't do.

Walder, in the case of "it's a boy", wants to keep the boy and kill Edmure. I stated the reasons earlier. Jaime, on the other hand, seems to be against the killing.

Currently, Edmure is a hostage.. And hostages are to be killed when someone (in this case the riverlands, and/or the Blackfish) tries to go against the crown.. Killing Edmure without a reason (and no, having a child is not a reason), will enflame the Riverlands, and bring war right back to the country. It will give the Riverlords more oppertunity, and more reason, to rebel.

Roslin and Edmure both being at CR, does not mean that they will be allowed to sleep in the same room, or to ever be without guards.. So Edmure and Roslin both being at CR, does not automatically mean that they will be able to have other children..

Why Edmure is in danger from Walder, and not Genna/Emmon, is because Edmure is Walders hostage, not Genna's, and not Emmon's.

I don't know how you suddenly got to a Ser Tully of the Westerlands.. 1) as I said, Edmure being allowed to live in the same castle as Roslin by no means makes it certain that they will have children, 2) only a fool would knight any son of Edmure's, 3) any child of Edmure will forever be a hostage to House Lannister...unlikely to be knighted, unlikely to be allowed enough freedom to gain fame.

Killing off the entire House Tully, after their surrender, would be seen as the Iron Throne, and thus King Tommen, breaking his royal word.. and thus, that the throne is never to be trusted again. Something that certainly will get you Rebellions and such. House Tully surrendered...

As to why Walder wants Edmure to have a son so he can kill only Edmure... At that point, Edmure is still Walders hostage. Not Jaime's, not House Lannister's...

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Regarding Braavos and dragons, there was a sealord of Braavos who was perfectly content to betroth his son to a dragonrider (Laena Velaryon). It doesn't seem that there's any consistent overriding sentiment from Braavos that can necessarily be ascertained regarding dragons or the Targaryens

[Lord Annaly]

Currently, Edmure is a hostage.. And hostages are to be killed when someone (in this case the riverlands, and/or the Blackfish) tries to go against the crown.. Killing Edmure without a reason (and no, having a child is not a reason), will enflame the Riverlands, and bring war right back to the country. It will give the Riverlords more oppertunity, and more reason, to rebel.

Yes exactly...so why does everyone (Roslin, Jaime, Daven) think Walder will kill Edmure if a son is born. It's counterproductive.

Why Edmure is in danger from Walder, and not Genna/Emmon, is because Edmure is Walders hostage, not Genna's, and not Emmon's.

But he really is not Walder's hostage or else Walder would be the one who gets to keep a knife at his throat but the knife is a Lannister blade. He is, like all the other river lord hostages, a hostage to the Crown (read Lannister)

don't know how you suddenly got to a Ser Tully of the Westerlands.. 1) as I said, Edmure being allowed to live in the same castle as Roslin by no means makes it certain that they will have children, 2) only a fool would knight any son of Edmure's, 3) any child of Edmure will forever be a hostage to House Lannister...unlikely to be knighted, unlikely to be allowed enough freedom to gain fame

I got this straight from the book...

If her child is a boy, he will serve House Lannister as a page

and a squire, and when he earns his knighthood well bestow some lands upon him.

I get the whole needing a hostage but again, why would Walder kill Edmure (going against the powerful Lannisters under whose protection he is) when Roslin has a son?

Edmure is unlikely to do anything with his son in danger so no need to kill him.

Why is Edmure only in danger once he has a son? Why is he safe with a daughter?

It makes no sense because no matter what way you look at it.

They only way it would make sense would be if Edmure was still Lord of Riverrun. Then it would be a move for Walder to get rid of him so his grandson would inherit Riverrun but Frey's already have Riverrun.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Yes exactly...so why does everyone (Roslin, Jaime, Daven) think Walder will kill Edmure if a son is born. It's counterproductive.

The point is to be in control of the person the Riverlanders consider to be the legal Lord of Riverrun. Now that's Edmure. If Edmure has a son, and Edmure dies, his son is the 'Lord of Riverrun', in the eyes of many.

But he really is not Walder's hostage or else Walder would be the one who gets to keep a knife at his throat but the knife is a Lannister blade. He is, like all the other river lord hostages, a hostage to the Crown (read Lannister)

Walder clearly feels that Edmure is his prisoner, his hostage (Jaime, quite obviously, feels differently about that matter, and with his higher rank, will get his way).

Had Cersei not send Jaime, Walder could have gotten away with doing what he wanted for some time.

I got this straight from the book...

Ah, ok, I remember again.. since this is the new Jaime speaking, I guess he is being sincere (though it sounds like a bit riskfull to me, but ok).

I get the whole needing a hostage but again, why would Walder kill Edmure (going against the powerful Lannisters under whose protection he is) when Roslin has a son?

Edmure is unlikely to do anything with his son in danger so no need to kill him.

Why is Edmure only in danger once he has a son? Why is he safe with a daughter?

It makes no sense because no matter what way you look at it.

They only way it would make sense would be if Edmure was still Lord of Riverrun. Then it would be a move for Walder to get rid of him so his grandson would inherit Riverrun but Frey's already have Riverrun.

In the eyes of the crown, Emmon is Lord of Riverrun, yes. In the eyes of most Riverlanders, that Lord is still a Tully..

Say, hypothetically, Edmure has both a son and a daughter, right now. The inheritance would go: Edmure - Son - Daughter - Brynden.

To avoid the Riverlanders from seeking to harm Freys, Walder wants to keep a Lord of Riverrun as his hostage (ideally). If he keeps both Edmure and his son, there is a chance Edmure will escape. Once escaped, Edmure could choose to sacrifice his half-Frey son, and father another child (even a bastard would do), whilst rallying the Riverlands. Rebellion ensues, and Walder will most likely loose (bot only the North remembers).

Killing Edmure and keeping the child, will of course anger the Riverlands.. but to keep their Lord of Tully alive, there will be Riverlanders who will refuse to act on their feelings (there might always be some who decide to sacrifice the babe for Brynden...).

Keeping the boy, but getting rid of Edmure, gives Walder control over the Lord of Riverrun, no matter whether you view the Freys as correct, or the Tully's. Or at least, that is how Walder will be viewing it.

If the child is a girl, killing Edmure would make little sense. A girl's claim is always less good than a male's claim, and so, the Riverlands, with a dead Edmure and only a Tully daughter, have more ground to rise for Brynden. Something that Walder needs to avoid, if he wishes to survive.

And a daughter can be married off rather quickly (we have seen brides under the age of 1), so rising for the daughter (should the riverlanders decide to rise), would mean that they would be supporting a Frey.. which none will ever do.

The situation isn't perfect, but Walder was making the best od it, for as far as he could control..

[The North]

Are wights & Others one and the same? I see the terms used both interchangeably and (what seems to be) in different contexts on this forum and elsewhere. Thanks

[Liaraeyne]

Others are an entirely different, living species.

Wights are ex-humans (animals can also become wights btw) that died and are controlled by the Others to become their marionets/puppets. They are the undead servants of the living Others.

Hope this helps :)

[The North]

Ah thanks, it does. So I guess we have yet to be fully introduced to "Others".