Heresy 168

[Voice]

Another point with regards to the Children and their relationship with men.And this Voice may be a point against the cotf trustfulness or it could be a matter of their continued survival.I'm speaking ofcourse of the ones in BR's cave.

Why the secrecy about their existence? Especially now if there is a so called bigger threat. At one time some of them traded wth the Watch,so why not warn them the moment the wws and the wights were on the move.I don't think there's any excuse for that,not when you have an individual that can go beyond the trees and wear any skin.BR is said to have 1,000 eyes and one you mean to say a Child of the forest could find its way to a castle and warn them.It would be a shock,but surely the stories give them a pass.

Leaf knows thw common tongue for heavens sake and she claimed t have walked the world of men for 200 yrs.Why not utilize those same skills and warn the Watch?There is so many alternatives and certainly one that woud have ensured preparation of the North.

What secrecy about their existence? The wildlings know they're out there. They cannot be blamed for the forgetfulness of Kneelers. As Mormont says, the Watch has forgotten it's purpose.

As to Leaf, we don't know if the threat loomed during her travels. Not only that, why should they have to remind the NW how to do their job? You'd think the huge Wall, their solemn vow, stories of BtB, LH, NK, and the annals of record would be enough. If the Night's Watch forgot they are supposed to guard the realms of Men from Others, can blame really be laid upon the Singers? I, for one, certainly don't think so.

And clearly, if Coldhands is their emissary, cotf aren't afraid of making contact with black brothers.

[Voice]

You are too kind re: drivel. I thank you.

1. I'm with wolfmaid on this--the stories suggest a long time. The stories are old--Martin could clearly reveal it was easier--but right now: long time.

2. Assumption seems reasonable given Bran and Bloodraven--but I'll need more evidence to be completely sold (and Martin may not give it). For now--it's viable. I can work with that.

3. But I still assert: neither point 1 nor point 2 (nor the combination thereof) denies the idea that the relationship may have been uneasy or distant due to otherness. Or that the Children and the First Men, while now sharing a religion, kept their distance from each other. The Last Hero's search at least leaves that possibility open--that they are distant also dispenses with the need to assume cozy next door settlements . . . so a bit easier? Not really an argument in its favor, but it's late and I'm a bit loopy.

1. Yeah, the more I think about it, even two years in the frozen dead lands, being chased by the Others, is a helluva long time.

2. :cheers:

3. If the tale of the Last Hero were the last, and most recent tale, I'd agree. But it isn't. Far from it. Not only that, Osha is also of First Men stock, and she openly calls Luwin a "dumbarse" (don't have the exact quote handy ;)) for claiming the cotf are long gone.

[wolfmaid7]

What secrecy about their existence? The wildlings know they're out there. They cannot be blamed for the forgetfulness of Kneelers. As Mormont says, the Watch has forgotten it's purpose.

As to Leaf, we don't know if the threat loomed during her travels. Not only that, why should they have to remind the NW how to do their job? You'd think the huge Wall, their solemn vow, stories of BtB, LH, NK, and the annals of record would be enough. If the Night's Watch forgot they are supposed to guard the realms of Men from Others, can blame really be laid upon the Singers? I, for one, certainly don't think so.

And clearly, if Coldhands is their emissary, cotf aren't afraid of making contact with black brothers.

Ah you mis my meaning.Its not a matter of blame but if the Children ( again i'm using them,i don't think their in charge) would given info to men as a heads up about any looming threat.Remember now we have been talking about the Children giving help to men as being a basis for some alligence or adherence to some pact or not.

My purpose for bringing up Leaf was to point out that she dwelt with men for 200 yrs which may have meant utilizing some form of concealment in order to accomplish this.So couldn't the same be employed to ensure she makes contact?

Now if according to you the Children don't have to tell men anything because men forgot ,then they don't need to help men at all.All they have to do is keep safe in their warded caves and wait until the dust settles.

CHs their emissary? I doubt that,but they are better off not using a dead man in a time when the dead are walking.

[TheSmallOther]

Earlier someone mentioned on the heresy thread of discussing the Lannisters more and I had an interesting thought. In a Feast for Crows in Cersei’s 8^th chapter, the prophesies of Maggy the Frog are remembered by Cersei. Often when discussing the section of Cersei being strangled by the Valonqar there is much talk about how Cersei believes it to be Tyrion. Many readers think it is Jamie because he is also a younger sibling of Cersei. However in the text it says “the Volanqar” NOT “Your Volunqar". Now I believe Valonqar is High Valyrian for “little brother”. So I take that to mean that “the younger brother” will strangle her. So I personally think Jamie would be too obvious to fulfill the role of being the Valonqar and to kill Cersei however, would Stannis being the Valonqar and killing Cersei be…heretical? (at least in some places in the forum)

Why do you think Stannis is younger brother? He was the oldest between Baratheons.

[TheSmallOther]

Now if according to you the Children don't have to tell men anything because men forgot ,then they don't need to help men at all.All they have to do is keep safe in their warded caves and wait until the dust settles.

CHs their emissary? I doubt that,but they are better off not using a dead man in a time when the dead are walking.

Children - yes, most likely. What about trees? There are still quite a number of them south of the wall. Perhaps children are afraid trees will be destroyed.

[Black Crow]

Ah once again far too much to respond to indivually, so forgive me if this is short and sweet.

The fact is that no matter how many tales of co-operation may be cited from the land on long long ago, the Pact has broken by Men - comprehensively.

Are Andals not Men?

Men cut down and burned the weirwoods in the south and men slaughtered the inhuman children, taking their hunting grounds and forcing them to flee. Arguing that it was the Andals who did it, not the First Men, is but semantics, because both are Men and both intermarried and became as one.

Not so in the North? Well that one's always been a puzzler so far as we miserable heretics are concerned way back since the earliest days of the thread. The Andals, as we're repeatedly told, never conquered the North. If the Pact still held or at least was still held by the First Men then the children should have found a refuge there, but yet they did not. They have all gone, not just from the southern kingdoms but from the North as well, all of them fled to seek refuge beyond the Wall.

Its probably significant in this regard that whilst the story of the Warg King is cited as an example of co-operation between Men and Children in the North it's a story that was ended by the Stark of Winterfell slaying the Warg King and "his inhuman allies"

Its the conspicuous absence of the children in the Stark kingdom of the North which has led to the heretical suggestion that the story of the Nights King is really the story, metaphorical or otherwise, of the breaking of the Pact in the North.

There is another curious wrinkle to this worth considering; why are the Starks seemingly held in regard by some of the Free Folk. Is it because they are or were once regarded as protectors? While its easy to see the three-fingered tree-huggers as benign worshippers of nature their culture also to a very large extent revolves around sacrifice. Perhaps its simply that the everyday simple countryfolk we know as the First Men were happy to go along with garlands of flowers and harvest festivals but grew tired of the sacrifices demanded.

[Armstark]

Earlier someone mentioned on the heresy thread of discussing the Lannisters more and I had an interesting thought. In a Feast for Crows in Cersei’s 8^th chapter, the prophesies of Maggy the Frog are remembered by Cersei. Often when discussing the section of Cersei being strangled by the Valonqar there is much talk about how Cersei believes it to be Tyrion. Many readers think it is Jamie because he is also a younger sibling of Cersei. However in the text it says “the Volanqar” NOT “Your Volunqar". Now I believe Valonqar is High Valyrian for “little brother”. So I take that to mean that “the younger brother” will strangle her. So I personally think Jamie would be too obvious to fulfill the role of being the Valonqar and to kill Cersei however, would Stannis being the Valonqar and killing Cersei be…heretical? (at least in some places in the forum)

Yeah, that was me. It's not what I had in mind but I'll bite anyway ;)

What makes you think Stannis could be the Valonquar? Any foreshadowing you noticed or just a general hunch? (I have a few of those as well)

To me it seems a little far fetched especially because Stannis and Cersei have zero interactions in all the books to my knowledge. Of course they have known each other for a long time and interacted during Robert's reign but not since Stannis left for Dragonstone before AGoT.

Ah once again far too much to respond to indivually, so forgive me if this is short and sweet.

The fact is that no matter how many tales of co-operation may be cited from the land on long long ago, the Pact has broken by Men - comprehensively.

Are Andals not Men?

Men cut down and burned the weirwoods in the south and men slaughtered the inhuman children, taking their hunting grounds and forcing them to flee. Arguing that it was the Andals who did it, not the First Men, is but semantics, because both are Men and both intermarried and became as one.

Not so in the North? Well that one's always been a puzzler so far as we miserable heretics are concerned way back since the earliest days of the thread. The Andals, as we're repeatedly told, never conquered the North. If the Pact still held or at least was still held by the First Men then the children should have found a refuge there, but yet they did not. They have all gone, not just from the southern kingdoms but from the North as well, all of them fled to seek refuge beyond the Wall.

Its probably significant in this regard that whilst the story of the Warg King is cited as an example of co-operation between Men and Children in the North it's a story that was ended by the Stark of Winterfell slaying the Warg King and "his inhuman allies"

Its the conspicuous absence of the children in the Stark kingdom of the North which has led to the heretical suggestion that the story of the Nights King is really the story, metaphorical or otherwise, of the breaking of the Pact in the North.

There is another curious wrinkle to this worth considering; why are the Starks seemingly held in regard by some of the Free Folk. Is it because they are or were once regarded as protectors? While its easy to see the three-fingered tree-huggers as benign worshippers of nature their culture also to a very large extent revolves around sacrifice. Perhaps its simply that the everyday simple countryfolk we know as the First Men were happy to go along with garlands of flowers and harvest festivals but grew tired of the sacrifices demanded.

What Free Folk hold the Starks in high regard? I can only think of Rowan of Mance's spearwives and there is a very good theory on why she does so (she is no wildling at all but Mors Umber's daughter).

Am I understanding you right in so far that you think that the Starks can be considered historical foes of the children? How do you reconcile this with the obvious connection between the Others and the Starks and your thinking that the children are behind the Others?

[Sly Wren]

1. Yeah, the more I think about it, even two years in the frozen dead lands, being chased by the Others, is a helluva long time.

2. :cheers:

3. If the tale of the Last Hero were the last, and most recent tale, I'd agree. But it isn't. Far from it. Not only that, Osha is also of First Men stock, and she openly calls Luwin a "dumbarse" (don't have the exact quote handy ;)) for claiming the cotf are long gone.

Am not asserting "gone," only distant. Clearly, First Men knew the Children were around--stories of contact both positive and negative demonstrate that. But even Osha doesn't assert chumminess with the Children. Just that Luwin is foolish to assume the Children are gone.

That still leaves the possibility for my middle ground assumption that for the First Men the Children were knowledgeable and even admirable, but other and seeming-to-know-too-much and thus potentially dangerous.

If that's still how things are north of the Wall, Osha's statement still fits--she knows the Children are there. But she doesn't launch into stories of lunching with them (which may just be an aspect of her personality or the fact that she's a prisoner and unlikely to share too much--my argument is far from airtight. But we're all out on a limb a bit here.)

[Sly Wren]

Earlier someone mentioned on the heresy thread of discussing the Lannisters more and I had an interesting thought. In a Feast for Crows in Cersei’s 8^th chapter, the prophesies of Maggy the Frog are remembered by Cersei. Often when discussing the section of Cersei being strangled by the Valonqar there is much talk about how Cersei believes it to be Tyrion. Many readers think it is Jamie because he is also a younger sibling of Cersei. However in the text it says “the Volanqar” NOT “Your Volunqar". Now I believe Valonqar is High Valyrian for “little brother”. So I take that to mean that “the younger brother” will strangle her. So I personally think Jamie would be too obvious to fulfill the role of being the Valonqar and to kill Cersei however, would Stannis being the Valonqar and killing Cersei be…heretical? (at least in some places in the forum)

Addressing both you and Armstark: fully agree that the Lannisters need more discussing in how the Song will play out.

And the Lannister relationships (or lack thereof) to magics (in Cersei's case, prophesy) could be a good way in to that discussion. Their contrast with how the Starks are tying into the mystical world of the Children and the North, etc. (Not sure if that's where you were going with this, Armstark. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mucking up your intent.)

That being said, do you (Prince of Ghost) have any specific reasons why you suspect Stannis? On a strictly psychological note, he doesn't strike me as likely to strangle anyone save perhaps Melisandre if things don't pick up, or if she goes after Shireen. But that's more my own personal take than an argument backed by clear textual evidence.

[Armstark]

Addressing both you and Armstark: fully agree that the Lannisters need more discussing in how the Song will play out.

And the Lannister relationships (or lack thereof) to magics (in Cersei's case, prophesy) could be a good way in to that discussion. Their contrast with how the Starks are tying into the mystical world of the Children and the North, etc. (Not sure if that's where you were going with this, Armstark. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mucking up your intent.)

I have been fascinated by Tywin Lannister lately. I think he is one of the most underestimated players even if everybody recognizes him as the great Lion of the Rock.

What really is the significance of Shae in Tywin's bed? To me this has never been properly answered by fan theories. It was a big surprise with seemingly no consequences or conclusions other than that he was a hypocrite. I don't buy that.

The significance is that it connects Tywin to whores and thus to Petyr Baelish.

“Yes, but don’t let that trouble you. You’re still half a child. Every man’s a piece to start with, and every maid as well. Even some who think they are players.”

Whose piece was Littlefinger when he started out?

Let's remember the situation at the very beginning of our story: the secret about the Lannister twins was about to be discovered and it really was always just a matter of when it comes out because it is that obvious to the interested observer. A lot of people already knew at that point (Pycelle, Littlefinger, Varys, Stannis, basically the whole council).

Let's consider for a moment that Tywin knew about his golden twins and their incest (maybe even approved of it.... more on that later). What would be his best option if he wants to keep the Lannister kids on the throne? He can't keep the secret forever which means there will be a war for certain. The only option he has is to start the war on some other pretext before the secret gets out and hope the revelation will then seem self-serving. Curiously enough this is exactly what happens and who orchestrated the whole thing? Petyr Baelish.

But if Petyr was Tywin's man why would he try to kill Tyrion repeatedly? Well, Tywin tried the same at the very first time we meet him when he puts Tyrion on the battle flank that was supposed to be crushed. Littlefinger always does what is in Tywin's interest including the purple wedding. I challenge you to find one single thing Petyr Baelish does that is not in Tywin's interest.

What really is the Game of Thrones? How do you win the game? It can be said for a certainty that the game has evolved over the centuries and now is no longer about thrones but of course only about the Iron Throne. So how does a high Lord play the game in the time of the Targaryens? Nobody ever replaced them as the line on the throne (not even Robert as he was a Targayen cousin) so are we to assume that nobody in the last 300 years ever won the Game of Thrones? Not bloody likely.

I think what constitutes winning is to be the Hand of the King and have your daughter married to the crown prince or king. Certainly that is what Tywin tried to achieve all his life. I suspect Rickard Stark's southron ambitions were the same and thus it was his plan all along to put Robert on the throne.

So when part of winning the game is to put (half) your blood on the throne isn't a full blooded grandchild even better? Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella indeed have the purest Lannister blood in generations as their mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all were Lannisters.

[Black Crow]

Am I understanding you right in so far that you think that the Starks can be considered historical foes of the children? How do you reconcile this with the obvious connection between the Others and the Starks and your thinking that the children are behind the Others?

Its no good citing the story of the Warg King and his greenseer and his inhuman allies whilst ignoring the fact the same story also tells how the Stark of Winterfell killed them all.

There is at first sight an apparent dichotomy in the apparent relationships of the Starks to the Old Gods, but this is where the suggestion comes in of a split in the family Stark and the betrayal of the Nights King.

This is also why I'm inclined to wonder whether the present situation is so clear as it appears and whether the Starks are as one with the Old Gods as first appears or whether there is a battle going on to secure Winterfell and whatever lies beneath.

[Black Crow]

I think what constitutes winning is to be the Hand of the King and have your daughter married to the crown prince or king. Certainly that is what Tywin tried to achieve all his life. I suspect Rickard Stark's southron ambitions were the same and thus it was his plan all along to put Robert on the throne.

So when part of winning the game is to put (half) your blood on the throne isn't a full blooded grandchild even better? Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella indeed have the purest Lannister blood in generations as their mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all were Lannisters.

I'd certainly be inclined to go along with this, given what we've discussed about the true motives [and rewards] of the Blessed St.Jon of Arryn.

[TheSmallOther]

So when part of winning the game is to put (half) your blood on the throne isn't a full blooded grandchild even better? Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella indeed have the purest Lannister blood in generations as their mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all were Lannisters.

Well, House Lannister is from First Men. Their gods are still Seven while Targaryens didn't have any gods. When so many generations before you despised incest, you cannot switch your opinion so easily. Even if you do not care about opinion of the sheep, there are still other animals around.

[wolfmaid7]

Children - yes, most likely. What about trees? There are still quite a number of them south of the wall. Perhaps children are afraid trees will be destroyed.

If done correctly maybe not.Even if the historical accounts of the relationship between the COTF and men are a bit embellished the BS about their being a friendship is engrained it would be a ticket.

But again, I think having one of the greatest strategist as a Greenseer might have thought them a few things about humans. BR and the preceding Greenseers offered them a window into men themselves.

[wolfmaid7]

Its no good citing the story of the Warg King and his greenseer and his inhuman allies whilst ignoring the fact the same story also tells how the Stark of Winterfell killed them all.

There is at first sight an apparent dichotomy in the apparent relationships of the Starks to the Old Gods, but this is where the suggestion comes in of a split in the family Stark and the betrayal of the Nights King.

This is also why I'm inclined to wonder whether the present situation is so clear as it appears and whether the Starks are as one with the Old Gods as first appears or whether there is a battle going on to secure Winterfell and whatever lies beneath.

If we go back to the Garth the Greenhand section we have another tale where Brandon of the Bloody Blade doing the same thing and he was said to be the father I think of Brandon the Builder

I think at times House Stark either backslid or were just infiltrated.Bran the Builder probably was the First to be grafted and where there was a falling away of the Starks the Old powers reasserted themselves on the line.

The NK may have be such a person when house Stark was being a prodigal son.Except it didn't go to well for him.Now Winterfell has forgotten but through this generation I see a returning to their identity. Jon always kept the Old gods, but didn't the rest at one time keep Old

And new?

Bran went full on Old gods, Osha isn't going to be schooling Rickon about the Seven.Is Sansa still both, what about Arya?

I see the contamination of Rickard's southern ambitions washing away as bit by bit the Old gods are asserting that hold on them.If Arya keeps having Tree dreams she'll be on her way home.

[Sly Wren]

What really is the Game of Thrones? How do you win the game? It can be said for a certainty that the game has evolved over the centuries and now is no longer about thrones but of course only about the Iron Throne. So how does a high Lord play the game in the time of the Targaryens? Nobody ever replaced them as the line on the throne (not even Robert as he was a Targayen cousin) so are we to assume that nobody in the last 300 years ever won the Game of Thrones? Not bloody likely.

I think what constitutes winning is to be the Hand of the King and have your daughter married to the crown prince or king. Certainly that is what Tywin tried to achieve all his life. I suspect Rickard Stark's southron ambitions were the same and thus it was his plan all along to put Robert on the throne.

So when part of winning the game is to put (half) your blood on the throne isn't a full blooded grandchild even better? Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella indeed have the purest Lannister blood in generations as their mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all were Lannisters.

Agree with the argument of getting your own blood on the Throne.

That being said, that doesn't seem to be enough--I think it goes back to the question of identity and self-knowledge touched on up-thread. Tywin does seem to have absolutely believed in who he was and what he was doing.

Cersei and Jaime, not so much. Jaime's getting better (though renaming himself via his gold hand seems a bit odd), but Cersei's trying to be multiple people--trying to out-Tywin Tywin, out-Robert Robert's debauchery, even the Targaryans (incest, wildfire)--all this you know.

My point: while the Stark kids (as well as Tyrion and to some extent Dany) are figuring out who they are and how they fit together and into the North, Tywin's progeny are dooming themselves without self-knowledge. Arguable that the Mad King does this, too.

So, bottom line: winning the game of thrones is no good without identity--links the Wolf and Lion story lines, maybe?

All that may just have been spouting the obvious--apologies.

And, just to be annoying--Baelish's taking and keeping Sansa doesn't seem in Tywin's interest . . .

[Sly Wren]

I see the contamination of Rickard's southern ambitions washing away as bit by bit the Old gods are asserting that hold on them.If Arya keeps having Tree dreams she'll be on her way home.

Fully agree (though I'm not fully sold on the entire southern ambitions theory)--fits with the wolf cubs and the Stark kids ALL being wargs, despite the mix of religions. Would also fit with the "Jon marrying Sansa" theory.

Plus, who is it that says "there will come a time when the blood of the Starks will grown thin?" (I need my books). Old Gods need to reassert themselves to undo this.

So, to your point, perhaps this is cyclical, too. Starks fully aligned with their purpose in the North, but then lose sight, get brought back, etc. Fits with the idea of a tenuous relationship between Starks and Children . . .

[Armstark]

Agree with the argument of getting your own blood on the Throne.

That being said, that doesn't seem to be enough--I think it goes back to the question of identity and self-knowledge touched on up-thread. We don't have a Tywin POV, but he does seem to have absolutely believed in who he was and what he was doing.

Cersei and Jaime, not so much. Jaime's getting better (though renaming himself via his gold hand seems a bit odd), but Cersei's trying to be multiple people--trying to out-Tywin Tywin, out-Robert Robert's debauchery, even the Targaryans (incest, wildfire)--all this you know.

My point: while the Stark kids (as well as Tyrion and to some extent Dany) are figuring out who they are and how they fit together and into the North, Tywin's progeny are dooming themselves without self-knowledge. Arguable that the Mad King does this, too.

So, bottom line: winning the game of thrones is no good without identity--links the Wolf and Lion story lines, maybe?

All that may just have been spouting the obvious--apologies.

And, just to be annoying--Baelish's taking and keeping Sansa doesn't seem in Tywin's interest . . .

I was a long time believer in A+J= C+J which would of course bring us right back to identity. Although the World Book has put a dent in that theory and it now seems more likely that A+J=T. But the Twins are Targaryens in all but name. One good, the other mad. Attraction to each other. A queen and a KG. Wildfire obsession. The list goes on.

I believe Sansa was Tywin's payment to Littlefinger for killing a king. Might not have been in his best interest but a Lannister pays his debts. Plus I doubt he ever wanted to put Tyrion on the high seat of Winterfell - it just doesn't fit with all the murder attempts on Tyrion and the farce of a trial Tywin conducted.

Also not annoying at all - bring them on if you got more !

[Prince of Ghost]

Robert was the oldest child then Stannis was next then Renly. To me it was just more of a hunch that Stannis could be a candidate for being the Valonqar. It is a little far fetched I know. Often when I look at theories in relation to the subject many people always mention how Cersei thinks it will be Tryion and many book readers think it will be Jamie because he still one of the the younger siblings of Cersei. There are many candidates in the series that are technically "a younger sibling" it is just my hunch that it may be Stannis. She is in Kings Landing at the moment at the end of Dance but to me there was foreshadowing of Cersei burning down Kings landing with wildfire. I believe there is a SSM where GRRM said the wildfire placed in and around the city of Kings Landing is still hidden throughout the city. When Cersei burned down the Tower of the Hand with wildfire that in my mind at least was foreshadowing of her destroying the city. Granted not much text to back up the theory but I think Cersei will flee to casterly rock which granted is still far from where Stannis is at the end of Dance. I mostly brought it up to see if anyone had their own pet theories on prophesies concerning Cersei in general because at least to me they are fascinating especially given how prophesies may or may not turn out to be true or they are fulfilled in ways that are very different then most readers think they will.

[Sly Wren]

I was a long time believer in A+J= C+J which would of course bring us right back to identity. Although the World Book has put a dent in that theory and it now seems more likely that A+J=T. But the Twins are Targaryens in all but name. One good, the other mad. Attraction to each other. A queen and a KG. Wildfire obsession. The list goes on.

I believe Sansa was Tywin's payment to Littlefinger for killing a king. Might not have been in his best interest but a Lannister pays his debts. Plus I doubt he ever wanted to put Tyrion on the high seat of Winterfell - it just doesn't fit with all the murder attempts on Tyrion and the farce of a trial Tywin conducted.

Also not annoying at all - bring them on if you got more !

Have never really bought the Lannister kids' being actual Targaryens--seems more like they are trying to be Targaryens--even Tywin: take over all 7 Kingdoms (which seems like folly, given the 'importance of identity' argument). And the Targaryens give a pretty good example of forgetting blood-ties and identity in the Dance of the Dragons.

That said: your point on Littlefinger--Sansa as payment might work. But I've wondered for a while if, assuming he did orchestrate the murder and the trial (which is still a big if), he might have intended to annul Sansa and Tyrion's marriage and marry Sansa to another Lannister--possibly Lancel, but more likely Jaime? No, he didn't know about the de-handing, but could have used Tyrion's life as leverage (assuming he assumed Jaime's love for Tyrion, which is again an if), or just pushed Jaime out of the KG via Tommen (oaths don't seem to be hugely important to Tywin).

That being said, the plan is loopy for not taking into account Northern ideals--the North would never accept Tyrion. Would probably kill him to save Sansa. Same with Jaime. Tywin might not have been deluded at all and thus give Sansa to Littlefinger to marry to Sweetrobin---now I'm just rambling. Stopping now.

But I stand by my point on identity--that seems to be the key to the Lannisters' (and even Targaryens') troubles in the game of thrones . . . And also arguably part of the struggle in the North--the struggle to Remember. The Stark blood isn't just on a throne. It's in Winterfell and that godswood. It's in that maddening Wall. They are Northern. Taking over the 7 kingdoms is pointless for them.