Metheos Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 While Olyvar's testimony about Loras at least had the birthmark to give support (still hardly definitive), his claim about Margaery seeing them didn't have any proof whatsoever. He just said that she saw them once, and didn't give any more details. I didn't see why Margaery couldn't just plead ignorance. Was it just supposed to illustrate the kangaroo court nature of the trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4W13Y Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Agreed. First of all, Olyvar was his squire. He would have seen him naked. Next. Second of all, why trust Olyvar's confession over the Queen of Thorns, Queen of Westeros, and the heir to Highgarden. He didn't look like he was tortured. He was smug and smiling. Next. Third of all, Margaery being arrested on perjury is ridiculous, because it was he-said-she-said. That's hardly a compelling reason to throw her in a dungeon. Overall, extremely contrived and disappointing, which seems to now be par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hol Horse Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I thought I was watching the Spanish Inquisition at work in that scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natmus Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I thought I was watching the Spanish Inquisition at work in that scene. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition in Game of Thrones. Brilliant Plot Twist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wulfram Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Well the hearing clearly was a piece of pre-planned theatre, so I don't think it's a plot problem that the evidence is weak. Though it will become one if things proceed with no one pointing this out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kinkslayer Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 So perjury is punishable by dead? Even book Cersei in her short sighted way of doing things was able to get 2 witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daphne of House Vakarian Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I agree. To me the whole scene made no sense whatsoever. Olyvar was a squire.Squire is essentially a male version of a handmaiden, right?It is perfectly normal for a squire to happen to see his knight naked at some point.Don't they help them get dressedm help them with grooming or baths etc?The birthmark being incriminating evidence of Loras being gay was just shoddy .Also perjury isn't much of a serious crime enough to lock up the Queen herself.She was just protecting her brother. They should have gone with adultery.It's a much more serious offence and they could have easily done that in the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Exactly. At least Olyvar should've brought up Margaery's Volantis-shaped birthmark as evidence that she walked in on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus ennui Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I agree. To me the whole scene made no sense whatsoever. [...] Thank you. My sanity is grateful that others share my thoughts. It has become very clear that the showrunners/writers are not really thinking any of this original material through and it's wretched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihlus Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I thought I was watching the Spanish Inquisition at work in that scene. The Spanish Inquisition actually gave fair trials. Well, as fair as they could be, considering the subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Godric Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Agreed. First of all, Olyvar was his squire. He would have seen him naked. Next. My first thought exactly. He was his squire, he would have dressed him. That's just some sloppy writing, imo. And there's no evidence to arrest Margaery on at all. IMO, while I'm okay with most changes, the way they've handled everything with Loras is awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The whole plotline is idiotic, but arresting the freaking queen because she supposedly lied to save her brother is the cherry on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fiddler Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The whole plotline is idiotic, but arresting the freaking queen because she supposedly lied to save her brother is the cherry on top. For sure. I quite honestly was under the impression that her lying about her brother being straight would then = Renly being straight too, in their eyes, which would then = oh, so she wasn't a maiden before Tommen and *enter book stuff.* Alas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4W13Y Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 For sure. I quite honestly was under the impression that her lying about her brother being straight would then = Renly being straight too, in their eyes, which would then = oh, so she wasn't a maiden before Tommen and *enter book stuff.* Alas. See, I would have bought that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aFeastForDragons Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 They should have postponed the wedding night scene and stuck with the book accusations against Margery. The show trying to distance itself from the books is being handled by absolute morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleath56 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 To be fair, her arrest seems to be based on her lying to the High Septon/Sparrow and breaking a vow with the gods, which is a logical reason for a group of armed religious fanatics to arrest someone, mayhaps even a queen.("Do you swear by the Seven ... to the best of your knowledge?)If Olyvar claims that she walked in on them, then evidently to the best of her knowledge she did know that such a thing may have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon_Tor Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 While Olyvar's testimony about Loras at least had the birthmark to give support (still hardly definitive), his claim about Margaery seeing them didn't have any proof whatsoever. He just said that she saw them once, and didn't give any more details. I didn't see why Margaery couldn't just plead ignorance. Was it just supposed to illustrate the kangaroo court nature of the trial? I'm confused as to how we're supposed to imagine a square isn't expected to have seen his knight's birthmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I was disappointed Tommen didn't do anything. The Kingsguard looked ready to act right there and then had he said the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerpp Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why does everyone assume that Margery is sentenced to death? She has been only taken into custody to await a real trial. Even if she is found guilty in the trial [which she might well be since it will be a stacked trial anyways] it won't be a death sentence... This is obviously in the hypothetical scenario where the Queen of Thorns doesn't get her out via political maneuvering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tadco26 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 It's just poor writing. They could have at least made it less obvious without reminding everyone that he was Loras squire. Aging up Tommen is really backfiring too. The plus for aging Tommen:1) Sex scene with MargaeryThe minuses:1) He should have regency at his age and Cersei should be nothing.2) He shouldn't act like a six year old who can't speak or comprehend what is happening when his queen is threatened or he is challenged. 3) He isn't sweet, young and naïve, he is indecisive and a door mat that anyone can walk over. 4) He signed the order arming the faith, how about signing another one disarming them? For all Margaery's alluded scheming she hasn't accomplished convincing him of even that yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.