Littlefinger was lying about the Purple Wedding

[Colonel Green]

What was the point of Martin revealing after nearly three full novels that Lysa and Littlefinger killed Jon Arryn, not Cersie and Jaime.

No, that Lysa and Littlefinger killed Jon Arryn is a huge revelation that completely recasts our understanding of Littlefinger as one of the series' main villains going forward (and may eventually be part of Littlefinger's downfall, if it is revealed).

Your proposed twist for the Purple Wedding serves no obvious plot purpose. It's just looking for complications in the text where none exist.

[John Suburbs]

Well this is all nice and completely irrelevant. I'm not arguing that they killed Joffrey so Margaery could marry Hot Pie. A marriage to Tommen provides ALL the things you listed above, just with the added benefit of them not tying themselves to a monster who was heading off a cliff.

Even though I hate getting into these endless tit-for-tats, I will plod on nonetheless.

Tommen provides all the things the Tyrells need five years from now, minimum. Westerosi kings have been crowned, won wars, and died in less than five years. If you say that Lady O is in fact as politically astute as you (I think) and I both claim, then there is no way on god's green earth that she would trade the near certainty of a Tyrell heir to the IT within a year through Joffrey for a much less certain heir from Tommen so far into the future. Again, you are not looking at this from the viewpoint of the head of a feudal, dynastic house. You are looking at it from the viewpoint of a 21st Century citizen of a modern, industrial society. You need to get out of your head and into hers.

And also again, if you are so certain that Joffrey is bound to die from his own stupidity in very short order, that's just all the more reason not to kill him now. Just bear his son and sit back and watch him die. No need to risk anything at all. Honestly, it is amazing that you cannot see how your own arguments are working against you.

This is all confusing. So you believe that Lady Olenna was telling the truth when she said she was against the Renly marriage? How can you then argue that she's motivated entirely by a desire to see her Granddaughter as a Queen? Was she then lying when she described the Joffrey marriage as "riding a lion off a cliff"?

Willas is heir to Highgarden and his sons will inherit it after him. That is huge. The only reason that he might find it difficult to find a "suitable" match is because other Houses don't want their daughters marrying a cripple. This seems to contradict your statement above that marriages are only made for political purposes.

Also an heir's main job is to reproduce and keep the line going. Their desire to hold out for someone "worthy" of Willas means he is in his thirties, unwed and childless and, with Loras' taking a vow of celibacy, Mace's entire line now rests on Garlan. How is that putting the good of their House before their children's happiness?

Cersei's ability to bear children is both questionable and irrelevant. You're insisting that House Tyrell attempted to kill Tyrion in order to prevent a future threat from the Lannisters and, yet, they've turned down an extremely valuable hostage. Either the Lannister threat isn't as serious as you say, they care about Willas' happiness enough to turn down a marriage with huge political benefits or they'd rather their heir die childless than than risk marrying a woman who *might* no longer be fertile. It has to be one of them and all of them contradict your argument.

Again, your facts are all wrong. Here is the text:

Her grandmother snorted. "Gallant, yes, and charming, and very clean. He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king. The Baratheons have always had some queer notions, to be sure. It comes from their Targaryen blood, I should think."

That's all she says about Renly, and nowhere does she say she was against the Renly marriage. In fact, if Lady O places Margaery's comfort and happiness above the interests of her house -- and you are claiming this, even if you say you are not; by killing Joffrey instead of Tyrion she is doing that very thing -- why would she have allowed her to marry a known homosexual who she thought was such a buffoon?

Again, I don't know what Willas' story is. Do you? Maybe he's gay too. Maybe he's crazy. I do know from Lady O's perspective, marrying him to someone like Cersei who hasn't born a child in nearly a decade would virtually eliminate the chance of an heir produced from the next Lord of Highgarden.

"Joffrey doesn't wear a mask." That's funny. I could've sworn that he was playing the charming King to Margaery and, yet, he spent a huge portion of his wedding humiliating and berating his Uncle?

Again, your interpretations are not just wrong, they are laughably wrong. Exactly what is he hiding here? He is kind to Margaery because he has no reason to despise her yet. But then right in front of Margaery, he is rotten to Tyrion because he has an entire history with him that produces all sorts of hatred. If he was trying to hide is true self to Margaery, then he wouldn't have gone after Tyrion with the wine, he wouldn't have snorted at the obscene spectacle of the jousting, he wouldn't have gotten himself stinking drunk and made a bloody damn fool of himself in front of the entire court at his own wedding. He would have remained the picture of courtesy throughout the entire day. At the very least he would have taken the hints from Margaery, Tywin, Garlen and others that he was making all of them very uncomfortable throughout the entire scene and then modified his behavior. But he doesn't because he is an idiot who doesn't know how to guard his tongue or hide his emotions in any way.

Do you think Margaery knows the value of an extremely rare copy of a history book that sheds light on how kings should and should not act? Joffrey clearly doesn't, and he makes no attempt to hide his contempt or control his actions in any way because he is completely clueless that he is doing anything wrong. Nobody, least of all Margaery, is fooled by any of this in any way because Joffrey simply, and quite plainly from the text, cannot hide his feelings.

Well THAT's taking a LOT for granted.

House Tyrell has the largest army in the realm remember? They are relatively untouched by the War of Five Kings, have no significant enemies (the Greyjoys having not yet attacked them) and are based in a central location, whereas the Lannister's forces are split across the continent. The Tyrells also beloved by the small folk. The small folk might tolerate Margaery being held by the Faith, but by the Brother Fucker and the Twisted Little Demon Monkey? At a Wedding?!! Just like they did to the Young Wolf?

The Lannisters also lack any real Allies. Dorne has a Lannister hostage, not the other way around, and House Tyrell can offer them far more than Tywin could (unless he's willing to give up his own head). The difference would maker likely be the Vale and who was in charge there? Oh, Petyr Baelish! Even in failure Littlefinger puts himself in a position where he'd decide who the King is.

Even assuming that Tywin could win the war against the Tyrells, he'd then need to go to war with the Vale in order to get to Littlefinger (as Lysa would protect him). That's a huge effort considering there's no actual proof of Littlefinger's involvement, he has no motive, has witnesses that will swear he was nowhere near the city and he has proven his loyalty to Joffrey several times in the past. His hands are clean, shall we say.

Sorry, you've lost me. What does any of this have to do with the indisputable fact that Littlefinger could not have known where the chalice would be at the only time during the feast that it could be poisoned?

I haven't written the word "pie" once in this thread. I don't believe I've used the word "wine" either. That's another opinion you've assigned to me to avoid the points that I've actually made. I've merely pointed out that "Tyrion was the target" holds no water.

Well for god's sake, man, save us all a lot of grief and tell us what you do think. If it was not the wine nor the pie and the target was neither Joffrey nor Tyrion, than what in the seven hells was going on?

Again, saying "THIS IS TRUE" over and over again doesn't make it true.

It's not true because of repetition. It's true because it is the only way the entire sequence of both poisoning events can be explained using real, proven science and the real motivations of people engaged in dynastic political machinations in a feudal society. It does not require twisted, tortured explanations about poison strength, countless multiple co-plotters or that old standby "It's GRRM's story and it has magic in it, so he can write it any way he wants."

I will say that it amazes me that you appear to have deconstructed the movements of the characters in one scene to an obsessive level, while completely ignoring the rest of the series. It's also a bit worrying that you think the possibility of people laughing at me on a forum dedicated to a fantasy series is remotely threatening. Seriously.

You're the one who is missing, son. You have completely missed the geo-political earthquake that has just rocked Westeros and the fact that Casterly Rock is on the verge of achieving military and commercial parity with Highgarden. That is the indisputable fact. All you have to do is read the text and look at the map.

[John Suburbs]

No, that Lysa and Littlefinger killed Jon Arryn is a huge revelation that completely recasts our understanding of Littlefinger as one of the series' main villains going forward (and may eventually be part of Littlefinger's downfall, if it is revealed).

Your proposed twist for the Purple Wedding serves no obvious plot purpose. It's just looking for complications in the text where none exist.

Really? You didn't realize that Littlefinger was one of the chief villains in the story until that reveal? The betrayal of Ned Stark didn't clue you in? The lie he told to Catelyn? The obvious screwing around he does with the crown's gold? The fact that he was behind the plot at the PW and now has Sansa?

All this time you thought Littlefinger was a straight up guy merely doing his honest duty to the realm and his fellow man and along comes Lysa with her confession and you went "Whoa! That changes everything I thought about the man!"?

The idea that GRRM includes or does not include things in the story in order to further the plot in some predetermined fashion is a fiction created by people who don't truly understand his style or why it is such a revolutionary departure from all literature that has come before. Things do not happen in aSoIaF merely because they are needed to further "the plot" any more than they do or do not happen in real life just to further "the plot." Things happen because they happen. There is no reason for it. It doesn't all balance out in the end in some kind of romantic symmetry where the good guy wins and the bad guy loses. Had he lived, Ned Stark would have gone north and played some crucial role with Jon at the wall with the Melisandre and the Others. But he died; end of story, for him. No reason for it, no greater truth behind it. He died because Joffrey gave the command, the sword came down on his neck and it was very sharp.

Tyrion was the target at the PW because he needed to die immediately in order for the principal plotters to further their dynastic ambitions, not because his death, or Joffrey's or anyone else's, was necessary to further the plot of the story that they are all living in.

[Colonel Green]

Really? You didn't realize that Littlefinger was one of the chief villains in the story until that reveal?

No, that was not what I said. I said the scope of what he was doing was unclear until that point.

Tyrion was the target at the PW because he needed to die immediately in order for the principal plotters to further their dynastic ambitions, not because his death, or Joffrey's or anyone else's, was necessary to further the plot of the story that they are all living in.

The idea that Tyrion was some huge obstacle that both the Tyrells and Baelish needed to murder him at Joffrey's wedding is not at all supported by the text, and really not plausible.

Beyond that, you're arguing that GRRM constructed a preposterously elaborate ruse around what was happening at the Purple Wedding, and will presumably reveal this at some point. He does not go to that level of detail for no reason. What purpose would such a revelation serve in the story?

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

Willas is heir to Highgarden and his sons will inherit it after him. That is huge. The only reason that he might find it difficult to find a "suitable" match is because other Houses don't want their daughters marrying a cripple. This seems to contradict your statement above that marriages are only made for political purposes.

Well put. Plenty of marriages in the series are made more palatable to the groom by the bride's beauty. This raises the possibility that the groom might refuse if the bride was sufficiently ugly. Ned did his duty in marrying Catelyn, but would he have been able to go through with it if she had two heads?

Look at the difficulty Lady Stokeworth has in marrying off her retarded daughter, even before she gets gang-raped. Look at Tyrion: given House Lannister's power and wealth, you'd think people would be beating down Tywin's door to marry his son and heir, but as far as I can recall, nobody's interested except Lady Stokeworth.

Politics is a huge factor in these arranged marriages, true, but it's not the only one.

That being said, I think there's a possibility that Willas might have broke his dick along with his legs, which would explain his being a bachelor. At least, it's plausible that other houses would doubt his fertility: that's exactly what Ned thinks after Brandon's fall.

Well for god's sake, man, save us all a lot of grief and tell us what you do think. If it was not the wine nor the pie and the target was neither Joffrey nor Tyrion, than what in the seven hells was going on?

Seconded, I'm grieving super hard right now that I don't know what you think happened, dear stranger on the internet

It's true because it is the only way the entire sequence of both poisoning events can be explained using real, proven science

Science!

The idea that GRRM includes or does not include things in the story in order to further the plot in some predetermined fashion is a fiction created by people who don't truly understand his style or why it is such a revolutionary departure from all literature that has come before. Things do not happen in aSoIaF merely because they are needed to further "the plot" any more than they do or do not happen in real life just to further "the plot." Things happen because they happen. There is no reason for it. It doesn't all balance out in the end in some kind of romantic symmetry where the good guy wins and the bad guy loses. Had he lived, Ned Stark would have gone north and played some crucial role with Jon at the wall with the Melisandre and the Others. But he died; end of story, for him. No reason for it, no greater truth behind it. He died because Joffrey gave the command, the sword came down on his neck and it was very sharp.

I think you're given Martin far too much credit here. Not only is it way too early to tell if this story conforms to any kind of type, but if it doesn't, it would hardly be the first.

Personally, my thinking is that the story is in many respects a classic hero narrative, but told on such a large scale, and with such a wide array of tertiary characters, all of whom are given such a large amount of stage time, that it appears to be more modernist than it really is. Ned's death, in that reading, is no different than Obi-Wan Kenobi's or James Potter's: it's a necessary step in the growth of our heroes, Bran, Arya and Jon. And maybe Sansa.

Christ, Dany is an orphan raised in cruelty, the secret rightful heir to the throne, and the prophesied chosen one. The only difference between her story and every hero story ever is the scope of the storytelling. And that she's a chick, but even that's old hat these days.

[John Suburbs]

No, that was not what I said. I said the scope of what he was doing was unclear until that point.

The idea that Tyrion was some huge obstacle that both the Tyrells and Baelish needed to murder him at Joffrey's wedding is not at all supported by the text, and really not plausible.

Beyond that, you're arguing that GRRM constructed a preposterously elaborate ruse around what was happening at the Purple Wedding, and will presumably reveal this at some point. He does not go to that level of detail for no reason. What purpose would such a revelation serve in the story?

The scope was unclear? He is filching millions of crowns from the king. He is maneuvering his way into lordships and seats with massive castles and walls and mountains to protect them. He is plotting to secure the one person on the planet who could deliver the north and all its riches to whomever controlled her, and somehow you thought that this was all just a hobby of his? He just likes to screw around with geo-politics at this level, and risk his neck in the process, just for fun?

Not only is Tyrion's role in LO and LF's plans supported by the text, it is indisputably and conclusively proven by the text. It is the basic fact on the ground: Tywin Lannister started with the Westerlands. By the time of the PW, Tywin Lannister controls of the Westerlands and the Riverlands, has an alliance sealed in blood with the Neck, controls the Stormlands and Crownlands through his Baratheon grandchild and is on the verge of getting a blood tie to the north through Sansa and Tyrion. Within three years, he has gone from maybe 30,000 swords to more than 100,000, equaling Highgarden and probably surpassing it. If you don't think that someone as smart and cunning as Lady O -- who rose through a male-dominated society to become the titular head of the most powerful house in the realm -- would be either indifferent or unaware of this very serious threat to the future safety and security of her dynasty, then I'm sorry I can't help you because you have not even begun to scratch the surface of this literary work's complexity and sheer genius.

And again, you are failing utterly to comprehend GRRM with all this talk about "purpose," but all right: I would serve to reveal not only the scope of Littlefinger's planning but his ability to look at the geo-political situation and see how he can use it to his advantage. He can spot right away how his and Lady O's ambitions are served by the killing of Tyrion, and therefore she is the most amenable person to approach to help him carry out the plan. Boy, who knew Littlefinger could be so smart?

[JLE]

Any evidence? Not really. This is the best I can do:

1. Why would the Tyrells involve Littlefinger in such a dangerous plot?

They didn't. He involved them in HIS plot...

[John Suburbs]

Well put. Plenty of marriages in the series are made more palatable to the groom by the bride's beauty. This raises the possibility that the groom might refuse if the bride was sufficiently ugly. Ned did his duty in marrying Catelyn, but would he have been able to go through with it if she had two heads?

Look at the difficulty Lady Stokeworth has in marrying off her retarded daughter, even before she gets gang-raped. Look at Tyrion: given House Lannister's power and wealth, you'd think people would be beating down Tywin's door to marry his son and heir, but as far as I can recall, nobody's interested except Lady Stokeworth.

Politics is a huge factor in these arranged marriages, true, but it's not the only one.

That being said, I think there's a possibility that Willas might have broke his dick along with his legs, which would explain his being a bachelor. At least, it's plausible that other houses would doubt his fertility: that's exactly what Ned thinks after Brandon's fall.

The history of Westeros, which is well-known to an educated woman like Lady O, is chock full of kings, lords, princes and others who either married for love or fathered bastards up to their armpits. In virtually every case, the result is bad for the house and ultimately weakens the dynasty. Without strong political ties cemented by blood relatives, houses become isolated, bannermen become resentful and both political and military stature diminishes. Again, not my opinion; it's all in the text and it's in the history books.

So as you say, only something seriously wrong with the prospective match -- impotency, retardation, dwarfism, something that -- would trump the political considerations because, house or no house, you don't want spreading throughout your family tree. And yes, being a mad, maniacal tyrant would be one of those things, but Joffrey. although maniacal, is nowhere near being a tyrant. Aegon the Unworthy was a true tyrant, and people were still throwing their daughters at him seeking his favor.

I think you're given Martin far too much credit here. Not only is it way too early to tell if this story conforms to any kind of type, but if it doesn't, it would hardly be the first.

Personally, my thinking is that the story is in many respects a classic hero narrative, but told on such a large scale, and with such a wide array of tertiary characters, all of whom are given such a large amount of stage time, that it appears to be more modernist than it really is. Ned's death, in that reading, is no different than Obi-Wan Kenobi's or James Potter's: it's a necessary step in the growth of our heroes, Bran, Arya and Jon. And maybe Sansa.

Christ, Dany is an orphan raised in cruelty, the secret rightful heir to the throne, and the prophesied chosen one. The only difference between her story and every hero story ever is the scope of the storytelling. And that she's a chick, but even that's old hat these days.

GRRM has been crystal clear on this subject. He has said on multiple occasions that he does not want his readers to get comfortable thinking that this or that character is safe or that some development could not possibly happen because it would ruin the plot. He wants readers to be truly afraid when the peril mounts, not resting on the certainty that things will all work out right in the end as in other novels. Here is video if you don't believe the SSMs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulUBDu_97z8

So that means that anything you think of as important to the plot and the future direction of the story could be upended at any moment -- through death, revelation, war, natural disaster -- and then the story would then proceed along a new path, with new characters stepping to the fore and old ones either dying or fading away, like Bronn.

So when people say that Tyrion could not possibly be the victim because it doesn't fit the plot, they don't know what they are talking about. Tyrion, Dany and Jon could very well be dead by the end of the next book -- real dead, dead and gone -- and you know what? the story would still go on.

[Colonel Green]

The scope was unclear? He is filching millions of crowns from the king. He is maneuvering his way into lordships and seats with massive castles and walls and mountains to protect them. He is plotting to secure the one person on the planet who could deliver the north and all its riches to whomever controlled her, and somehow you thought that this was all just a hobby of his? He just likes to screw around with geo-politics at this level, and risk his neck in the process, just for fun?

There's a rather big difference between being an opportunist looking to elevate himself and being the man responsible for starting the whole war.

Not only is Tyrion's role in LO and LF's plans supported by the text, it is indisputably and conclusively proven by the text.

There is no indication whatsoever that the Tyrells consider control of the North some make-or-break enterprise (which is dumb, anyway, given how beaten-down it is at that point, and how far in the future any possibility of Tywin gaining control of it is, which cuts completely against your idea that this is some kind of impending crisis that has to be acted on right that minute). It was a useful bonus they aimed to collect alongside their main plan, cementing control over the Crown itself by securing Tommen as a pliable king, nothing more.

[UnFit Finlay]

Even though I hate getting into these endless tit-for-tats, I will plod on nonetheless.

Tommen provides all the things the Tyrells need five years from now, minimum. Westerosi kings have been crowned, won wars, and died in less than five years. If you say that Lady O is in fact as politically astute as you (I think) and I both claim, then there is no way on god's green earth that she would trade the near certainty of a Tyrell heir to the IT within a year through Joffrey for a much less certain heir from Tommen so far into the future. Again, you are not looking at this from the viewpoint of the head of a feudal, dynastic house. You are looking at it from the viewpoint of a 21st Century citizen of a modern, industrial society. You need to get out of your head and into hers.

No, YOU are looking at it from YOUR interpretation of the head of a feudal, dynastic house, and ignoring all the evidence in the text that contradicts your assumptions.

Olenna isn't even the Head of a House. She's the mother of the Head and the text indicates that she has little influence on him (her encouraging Sansa to beat her children often so that they'll listen to her). From the text her relationship with Mace appears to be similar to Tyrion when he was Joffrey's Hand, Viserys II with Baelor or Jon Arryn with Robert - Mace makes a mess and she does her best to clean it up.

And also again, if you are so certain that Joffrey is bound to die from his own stupidity in very short order, that's just all the more reason not to kill him now. Just bear his son and sit back and watch him die. No need to risk anything at all. Honestly, it is amazing that you cannot see how your own arguments are working against you.

Joffrey is cruel and unstable, he is not a clumsy oaf like Lother Tyrell. House Tyrell would be taking a massive gamble that he would simply die quietly without taking anyone with him. As others have mentioned, Loras murdered Robar Royce and Emmon Cuy after Renly's murder, even though they were completely innocent. There is no reason for anybody to assume that he would simply stand back and allow his sister to be mistreated....and, yet, if he doesn't then there will be war.

If Margaery consummates the marriage with Joffrey and he dies before she gets pregnant then she is no longer Queen, and the Lannisters have a legitimate reason to refuse a wedding to Tommen. If she gives birth, they off him and then that son dies, then Margaery is no longer Queen.

Again, your facts are all wrong. Here is the text:

Her grandmother snorted. "Gallant, yes, and charming, and very clean. He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king. The Baratheons have always had some queer notions, to be sure. It comes from their Targaryen blood, I should think."

That's all she says about Renly, and nowhere does she say she was against the Renly marriage. In fact, if Lady O places Margaery's comfort and happiness above the interests of her house -- and you are claiming this, even if you say you are not; by killing Joffrey instead of Tyrion she is doing that very thing -- why would she have allowed her to marry a known homosexual who she thought was such a buffoon?

See quote below.

"Grandmother," Margaery said, "mind your words, or what will Sansa think of us? "

"She might think we have some wits about us. One of us, at any rate." The old woman turned back to Sansa. "It's treason, I warned them, Robert has two sons, and Renly has an older brother, how can he possibly have any claim to that ugly iron chair? Tut-tut, says my son, don't you want your sweetling to be queen? You Starks were kings once, the Arryns and the Lannisters as well, and even the Baratheons through the female line, but the Tyrells were no more than stewards until Aegon the Dragon came along and cooked the rightful King of the Reach on the Field of Fire. If truth be told, even our claim to Highgarden is a bit dodgy, just as those dreadful Florents are always whining. 'What does it matter?' you ask, and of course it doesn't, except to oafs like my son. The thought that one day he may see his grandson with his arse on the Iron Throne makes Mace puff up like . . . now, what do you call it? Margaery, you're clever, be a dear and tell your poor old half-daft grandmother the name of that queer fish from the Summer Isles that puffs up to ten times its own size when you poke it."

"They call them puff fish, Grandmother."

"Of course they do. Summer Islanders have no imagination. My son ought to take the puff fish for his sigil, if truth be told. He could put a crown on it, the way the Baratheons do their stag, mayhap that would make him happy. We should have stayed well out of all this bloody foolishness if you ask me, but once the cow's been milked there's no squirting the cream back up her udder. After Lord Puff Fish put that crown on Renly's head, we were into the pudding up to our knees, so here we are to see things through. And what do you say to that, Sansa?"

She clearly, and repeatedly, states that she was against the Renly marriage and that it was all Mace's idea. Is she lying and if so, why?

Again, I don't know what Willas' story is. Do you? Maybe he's gay too. Maybe he's crazy. I do know from Lady O's perspective, marrying him to someone like Cersei who hasn't born a child in nearly a decade would virtually eliminate the chance of an heir produced from the next Lord of Highgarden.

And having him stay single isn't?

His story is irrelevant. You are arguing that marriages are made entirely for political purposes with no thought to the children's happiness or their personalities and, yet, the Heir to Highgarden remains single and one of his brothers has taken a vow of celibacy. If anything happens to Garlan then the future of House Tyrell is in serious jeopardy. Either they have turned down numerous marriage proposals, at the expense of securing their future as rulers of Highgarden, or those offers haven't been made in the first place. Either way, Willas being unmarried contradicts your argument.

Cersei is 34, not 40. She also presents a major hostage to use against the "Lannister power block" that you've mentioned is House Tyrell's "biggest fear". She might be "used up" but Willas marrying her is far more useful to their House than him sitting around unmarried.

Again, your interpretations are not just wrong, they are laughably wrong. Exactly what is he hiding here? He is kind to Margaery because he has no reason to despise her yet. But then right in front of Margaery, he is rotten to Tyrion because he has an entire history with him that produces all sorts of hatred. If he was trying to hide is true self to Margaery, then he wouldn't have gone after Tyrion with the wine, he wouldn't have snorted at the obscene spectacle of the jousting, he wouldn't have gotten himself stinking drunk and made a bloody damn fool of himself in front of the entire court at his own wedding. He would have remained the picture of courtesy throughout the entire day. At the very least he would have taken the hints from Margaery, Tywin, Garlen and others that he was making all of them very uncomfortable throughout the entire scene and then modified his behavior. But he doesn't because he is an idiot who doesn't know how to guard his tongue or hide his emotions in any way.

Please stop twisting my words. You said that Joffrey had been the perfect gentleman to Margaery, and had no reason to doubt him. I said Joffrey couldn't get through his wedding without exposing himself a crass, ignorant, bully. His actions towards Tyrion surely went a long way towards dispelling any doubts she may have had about Sansa's description of him

He behaved similar with Sansa as well. He played the perfect, charming Prince with her until they stumbled on Arya and Mycah and then Joffrey's claws came out.

Sorry, you've lost me. What does any of this have to do with the indisputable fact that Littlefinger could not have known where the chalice would be at the only time during the feast that it could be poisoned?

Let's recap: I said that Littlefinger didn't need to know where the chalice was, you mocked this suggestion and insisted that he'd never take the risk of the Tyrells being caught as that would cost him everything. I am simply pointing out that that is not only not the case, but Littlefinger would, in fact, be in a position to benefit from it.

Are you now willing to concede that Littlefinger had very little reason to fear Tywin? Or do you seriously think that House Lannister would be in any position to take on the Vale after the war with Highgarden? It can only be one or the other.

I'll also repeat the question that I, and others, have asked you before. How could Littlefinger know that Catelyn would meet Tyrion on the road to Winterfell when he lied to her about the dagger? He couldn't. Following your logic that means that he could not have told her that the dagger was Tyrion's.

You've said yourself in this thread that Littlefinger's entire "M.O" is to get pieces into place without knowing exactly how they'll be used. Do you now retract that?

Well for god's sake, man, save us all a lot of grief and tell us what you do think. If it was not the wine nor the pie and the target was neither Joffrey nor Tyrion, than what in the seven hells was going on?

I've already said that Tyrion being the target makes no sense, in which case the poison must've been in the wine. I was merely trying to avoid you deflecting our discussion into a general one against "all you idiots who believe the wine theory", rather than actually responding to MY points. It's kind of annoying.

Plus I'd rather set myself on fire than get into a discussion about whether their were trollies and tapestries present.

As it is the only argument I can see towards the Pie theory is that we don't know enough about who was where when the poisoning occurred. That is not enough to dismiss all the other evidence, particularly the huge amount of foreshadowing that the Tyrells were going to kill Joffrey, that is present in A Storm of Swords.

It's not true because of repetition. It's true because it is the only way the entire sequence of both poisoning events can be explained using real, proven science and the real motivations of people engaged in dynastic political machinations in a feudal society. It does not require twisted, tortured explanations about poison strength, countless multiple co-plotters or that old standby "It's GRRM's story and it has magic in it, so he can write it any way he wants."

Aren't you the one who went on a twisted and tortured explanation about how the heat from the pie would weaken the strength of a completely fictional poison that we know nothing about?

Do you believe that Jeyne Westerling was replaced, incidentally? Or do you believe GRRM can sometimes make mistakes. It can only be one or the other.

You're the one who is missing, son. You have completely missed the geo-political earthquake that has just rocked Westeros and the fact that Casterly Rock is on the verge of achieving military and commercial parity with Highgarden. That is the indisputable fact. All you have to do is read the text and look at the map.

Please provide me textual evidence that anybody from House Tyrell is worried about the Lannisters taking Winterfell, and if so, please explain why they chose to refuse a very valuable hostage who would not only mitigate the threat, but could potentially have eliminated it altogether if she'd borne Willas a son.

That's actual evidence remember. Not vague references to real world history or saying "read the text and look at the map".

[John Suburbs]

There's a rather big difference between being an opportunist looking to elevate himself and being the man responsible for starting the whole war.

There is no indication whatsoever that the Tyrells consider control of the North some make-or-break enterprise (which is dumb, anyway, given how beaten-down it is at that point, and how far in the future any possibility of Tywin gaining control of it is, which cuts completely against your idea that this is some kind of impending crisis that has to be acted on right that minute). It was a useful bonus they aimed to collect alongside their main plan, cementing control over the Crown itself by securing Tommen as a pliable king, nothing more.

The north is hardly beaten down. Robb marched south with only the barest fraction of the strength of the north given the short amount of time he had to get moving. And you are completely ignoring the virtually limitless supplies of wood, stone, ore, gold, furs and the fact that it has a port on the Narrow Sea ready to divert all that lucrative trade income from Winterfell to Casterly Rock.

Sansa could produce the next Lord of Winterfell within a year, which would necessitate them both moving north to take their seat, leaving Tyrion as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North for the next 14 years at least. Lady O does not fear that Tywin Lannister will immediately call banners and march on Highgarden, but it does give him military parity with HG so that Tywin will probably start by pressing increasingly intrusive claims on lands that historically belonged to the Reach along the two realm's nearly 400-league border, and then increase the pressure from there. And if push ever did come to shove, the results would prove very detrimental to the Reach even if Highgarden were to emerge as the military winner.

The reason Tyrion has to go at the wedding has nothing to do with the speed at which Tywin would subsume the north but the fact that Lady O is set to decamp to Highgarden immediately after the wedding and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out an assassination of this magnitude through proxies from hundreds of miles away -- even more so when the target is a little baby.

[UnFit Finlay]

Well put. Plenty of marriages in the series are made more palatable to the groom by the bride's beauty. This raises the possibility that the groom might refuse if the bride was sufficiently ugly. Ned did his duty in marrying Catelyn, but would he have been able to go through with it if she had two heads?

Look at the difficulty Lady Stokeworth has in marrying off her retarded daughter, even before she gets gang-raped. Look at Tyrion: given House Lannister's power and wealth, you'd think people would be beating down Tywin's door to marry his son and heir, but as far as I can recall, nobody's interested except Lady Stokeworth.

Politics is a huge factor in these arranged marriages, true, but it's not the only one.

That being said, I think there's a possibility that Willas might have broke his dick along with his legs, which would explain his being a bachelor. At least, it's plausible that other houses would doubt his fertility: that's exactly what Ned thinks after Brandon's fall.

True, but that doesn't explain why House Tyrell wouldn't be willing to lower their standards in order to secure the future of their House. As it is, if Willas dies without an heir, and something happens to Garlan, Highgarden will pass to House Baratheon, and then House Fossoway, and then House Redwyne if Margaery and then Janna Fossoway die without an heir. That's a bit risk. I mean, Randyll Tarly's got daughters, though we don't know their ages, and that's one bloke who definitely doesn't give a crap about his kids happiness, and would surely be honored. Walder Frey's got a few that I'm sure he'd willing to unload as well.

Completely off topic but I wonder if the reason Edmure Tully remained unmarried for so long might've been because of the guilt and regret that Hoster felt over his treatment of Brynden and Lysa. Small stuff like that is why I love ASOIAF.

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

Are we sure he died of the Strangler? I guess I kind of always thought he died because he's a dumbass who was eating, drinking and laughing and being a pissant and just choked. Olenna and LF are just using it for street cred.

[John Suburbs]

No, YOU are looking at it from YOUR interpretation of the head of a feudal, dynastic house, and ignoring all the evidence in the text that contradicts your assumptions.

Olenna isn't even the Head of a House. She's the mother of the Head and the text indicates that she has little influence on him (her encouraging Sansa to beat her children often so that they'll listen to her). From the text her relationship with Mace appears to be similar to Tyrion when he was Joffrey's Hand, Viserys II with Baelor or Jon Arryn with Robert - Mace makes a mess and she does her best to clean it up.

My interpretations are informed by real-world precedence and the countless examples of exactly this kind of thing (Catelyn, Lysa, Cersei, fArya, Elia, literally the list is endless) throughout the text. Your interpretation is informed by nothing more than your desire for a safe, comfortable conclusion that satisfies your emotion needs.

Yes, Mace Tyrell, that towering bastion of intellect and bravery, the guy who gets bossed around by his mother to stop hectoring the queen and send a raven to the Hightowers immediately to call off Garth's departure to the capital. Yes, he is the real power in Highgarden.

Lady O is clearly the power behind the Lord and is the person someone like Littlefinger treats with to forge alliances and plan marriages and assassinations. I agree, it is like Tyrion with Joffrey, Tywin with Aegon, and Jon Arryn with Robert: the real, clear-eyed political movers and shakers who are really calling the shots from behind the clueless idiot lords. Once again, your own examples disprove the claim you are trying to make.

And the fact that Lady O has done this in the most powerful house in the realm from within a male-dominated culture populated by the likes of Randall Tarly and Paxter Redwyne makes it all the more impressive. To suggest that someone like that lacks the awareness to realize what the change in the balance of power represents to Highgarden, or the cunning to do something about it, flies in the face of the text, the history on which the text is based and just plain old common sense.

Joffrey is cruel and unstable, he is not a clumsy oaf like Lother Tyrell. House Tyrell would be taking a massive gamble that he would simply die quietly without taking anyone with him. As others have mentioned, Loras murdered Robar Royce and Emmon Cuy after Renly's murder, even though they were completely innocent. There is no reason for anybody to assume that he would simply stand back and allow his sister to be mistreated....and, yet, if he doesn't then there will be war.

If Margaery consummates the marriage with Joffrey and he dies before she gets pregnant then she is no longer Queen, and the Lannisters have a legitimate reason to refuse a wedding to Tommen. If she gives birth, they off him and then that son dies, then Margaery is no longer Queen.

Joffrey is a clumsy oaf. He does one stupid clumsy oaf thing after another without the slightest clue what it means to the bigger picture: Ned's beheading, leaving Sansa to the mob, playing revenge games with three massive catapults rather than using them to defeat the invading army. He's as big a boob as his father and Lord Luthor, and he hasn't even gotten warmed up yet.

But I agree again. It wouldn't be in Lady O's style to just leave something like that to chance. Which is why when and if Joffrey becomes a problem there are plenty of ways to get rid of him quietly and with much less risk of being caught, and you have the added bonus of not needing him anymore because Margaery will be mother to the new king and she doesn't have to wait five full years to see that happen.

Loras murdered Cuy and Royce in the heat of passion as Renly bled into the dirt. There is no indication whatsoever that Joffrey meant Margaery any harm, so such an eventuality would be months if not years in the making, and Lady O would most certainly have had a conversation with Loras on this very subject: if Margaery starts taking beatings from the kingsguard, keep cool and play it smart.

To take Littlefinger's word that Loras would go berserk and kill Joffrey as the unimpeachable truth is, again, patently ridiculous.

If Margaery consummates the marriage with Joffrey and he dies before she gets pregnant then she is no longer Queen, and the Lannisters have a legitimate reason to refuse a wedding to Tommen. If she gives birth, they off him and then that son dies, then Margaery is no longer Queen.

See quote below.

She clearly, and repeatedly, states that she was against the Renly marriage and that it was all Mace's idea. Is she lying and if so, why?

And the desire to maintain the alliance and unite the houses -- the argument used to pretend that the Tyrell's were risking nothing by killing Joffrey -- suddenly disappears because Margaery is no longer a maid? And because Joffrey is so weak and sickly that his death from natural causes will happen before the next moon? And then even if their son dies, the Tyrells are out just like that? And yet there are no ifs at all when it comes to the five-year time frame it will take before Tommen is ready to produce an heir? Once again, you have Lady O trading a near certainty for a long series of ifs and maybes.

And honestly, given what you've already admitted about Lady O being the power behind the lord like Tyrion and Jon Arryn, do you honestly think that Tyrell support for Renly and his marriage to Margaery would have happened without Lady O's support?

And having him stay single isn't?

His story is irrelevant. You are arguing that marriages are made entirely for political purposes with no thought to the children's happiness or their personalities and, yet, the Heir to Highgarden remains single and one of his brothers has taken a vow of celibacy. If anything happens to Garlan then the future of House Tyrell is in serious jeopardy. Either they have turned down numerous marriage proposals, at the expense of securing their future as rulers of Highgarden, or those offers haven't been made in the first place. Either way, Willas being unmarried contradicts your argument.

Cersei is 34, not 40. She also presents a major hostage to use against the "Lannister power block" that you've mentioned is House Tyrell's "biggest fear". She might be "used up" but Willas marrying her is far more useful to their House than him sitting around unmarried.

And yet you are completely ignoring the fact that when a marriage for Willas finally was on the table, it wasn't to some local maid who made him happy, but Sansa Stark, someone he has never met, has no idea what she is like, but she does provide the only key to a vast northern territory that has enormous political and military implications for House Tyrell and the entire realm. Certainly nothing political about that.

Cersei will be no more an effective hostage than Sansa would have been if Catelyn hadn't betrayed Robb and released Jaime.

Please stop twisting my words. You said that Joffrey had been the perfect gentleman to Margaery, and had no reason to doubt him. I said Joffrey couldn't get through his wedding without exposing himself a crass, ignorant, bully. His actions towards Tyrion surely went a long way towards dispelling any doubts she may have had about Sansa's description of him

He behaved similar with Sansa as well. He played the perfect, charming Prince with her until they stumbled on Arya and Mycah and then Joffrey's claws came out.

No twisting at all. All of this duplicitous, deceptive Joffrey simply does not exist. He is a beast at the wedding, but he is courteous to her: embracing her, dancing, twirling...

He was courteous to Sansa right up until the incident on the Trident because she was his betrothed, he was willing if not eager to marry her, and she had done nothing to get on his bad side. Once the Trident happened and he was publicly shamed, he was stone cold toward her: no effort to trick her into believing otherwise, indeed not indication that would have been capable of doing so if he tried. So again, your very example disproves your claim.

Joffrey has no mask. His emotions and attitudes are as plain as the scowl on his face.

Let's recap: I said that Littlefinger didn't need to know where the chalice was, you mocked this suggestion and insisted that he'd never take the risk of the Tyrells being caught as that would cost him everything. I am simply pointing out that that is not only not the case, but Littlefinger would, in fact, be in a position to benefit from it.

Are you now willing to concede that Littlefinger had very little reason to fear Tywin? Or do you seriously think that House Lannister would be in any position to take on the Vale after the war with Highgarden? It can only be one or the other.

I'll also repeat the question that I, and others, have asked you before. How could Littlefinger know that Catelyn would meet Tyrion on the road to Winterfell when he lied to her about the dagger? He couldn't. Following your logic that means that he could not have told her that the dagger was Tyrion's.

You've said yourself in this thread that Littlefinger's entire "M.O" is to get pieces into place without knowing exactly how they'll be used. Do you now retract that?

How can you possibly imagine that LF has nothing to fear from Tyrion? The moment Tyrion works out all the embezzlement, he brings it right to Tywin and then it's by-bye lordships, bye-bye Wardenships, bye-bye all the castles and land, and bye-bye to all that money in the bank.

Tywin Lannister could certainly march on Highgarden first, and then he could simply attaint Littlefinger, strip him of all his titles and let the lords of the Vale do the rest. Let Littlefinger freeze his little balls off in the Eyrie all winter.

And where on god's green earth did you get the idea that Littlefinger planned for Catelyn and Tyrion to meet on the road? Honestly, if you think LF is magic, just say so. It would be a crutch, but at least more rationale than all this other nonsense. The dagger story could have played out in all sorts of ways, particularly when Tyrion arrived in KL with Ned as Hand. So to suggest that the dagger lie was specifically intended to cause Catelyn to snatch Tyrion on the road is just another example of things working out one way rather than another and then imagining that Littlefinger planned it all along.

I've already said that Tyrion being the target makes no sense, in which case the poison must've been in the wine. I was merely trying to avoid you deflecting our discussion into a general one against "all you idiots who believe the wine theory", rather than actually responding to MY points. It's kind of annoying.

Plus I'd rather set myself on fire than get into a discussion about whether their were trollies and tapestries present.

As it is the only argument I can see towards the Pie theory is that we don't know enough about who was where when the poisoning occurred. That is not enough to dismiss all the other evidence, particularly the huge amount of foreshadowing that the Tyrells were going to kill Joffrey, that is present in A Storm of Swords.

I agree, the trolley thing was ridiculous. But since you obviously think that Littlefinger can foretell the future, there is no point in once again stating that the timelines between the two poisonings do not match and there is no rational way to explain the difference, so therefore the wine theory is bunk. If the poison was not in the wine, then it was in the pie and that makes Tyrion the target, not matter much you wish it otherwise. Facts trump foreshadowing -- especially when the foreshadowing does not really exist.

Aren't you the one who went on a twisted and tortured explanation about how the heat from the pie would weaken the strength of a completely fictional poison that we know nothing about?

Do you believe that Jeyne Westerling was replaced, incidentally? Or do you believe GRRM can sometimes make mistakes. It can only be one or the other.

Again, the insistence that the wine theory can rely on the blind acceptance of countless illogical and outright impossible circumstances that are neither proven nor even hinted at in the text while the pie theory must be clearly and unambiguously verified in the text down to the minutest detail is hypocrisy in its rankest form. But I'll say again that yes, a crystal that can dissolve near instantly in wine could certainly be expected to soften up in hot, moist pie, and the fact that Joffrey did not show any sign of biting down on something hard can in no way be taken as "proof" that the poison could not have been in the pie.

I don't know what you mean by replaced. Who replaced Jeyne? The whole thing was a setup by Tywin and Lady Westerling. The reveal did not come for another two full novels, and it did nothing to further our understanding of Jeyne, Tywin, Sybelle, Robb or anyone else.

Please provide me textual evidence that anybody from House Tyrell is worried about the Lannisters taking Winterfell, and if so, please explain why they chose to refuse a very valuable hostage who would not only mitigate the threat, but could potentially have eliminated it altogether if she'd borne Willas a son.

That's actual evidence remember. Not vague references to real world history or saying "read the text and look at the map".

Again, Cersei would not mitigate any threat. Her child-bearing years are about done, if they're not over already, so she has no value either as a wife or a hostage, any more than Sansa, Elia and countless other wives and mothers.

The proof of the Lannister threat to the Tyrells is right on the page, but you have to do more than just look at the words, you have to see the story underneath.

"The true seeing, that is the heart of it."

[John Suburbs]

Are we sure he died of the Strangler? I guess I kind of always thought he died because he's a dumbass who was eating, drinking and laughing and being a pissant and just choked. Olenna and LF are just using it for street cred.

The wine/pie mush that Tyrion spills from the chalice at the end of the scene is "deep purple" while when it spilled on the dais it was "dark red." So yes, he was undoubtedly poisoned.

Exactly how the wine went from red in the chalice to purple running down his chin to red on the floor to purple at the end is impossible to explain if the poison had been in the wine from the very beginning. But it is very easily explained with the poison being in the pie.

[xXx_Petyr_Baelish_xXx]

Any evidence? Not really. This is the best I can do:

/thread

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

...when and if Joffrey becomes a problem there are plenty of ways to get rid of him quietly and with much less risk of being caught...

Wait, won't Olenna be in Highgarden by then? I thought it was unreasonable to assume that she could arrange an assassination through proxies from such a great distance?

(Cue bleating about how Winterfell is further away, and Olenna will find an excuse to be in King's Landing, and Littlefinger was secretly "just outside" of King's Landing the whole time)

GRRM has been crystal clear on this subject. He has said on multiple occasions that he does not want his readers to get comfortable thinking that this or that character is safe or that some development could not possibly happen because it would ruin the plot. He wants readers to be truly afraid when the peril mounts, not resting on the certainty that things will all work out right in the end as in other novels. Here is video if you don't believe the SSMs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulUBDu_97z8

So that means that anything you think of as important to the plot and the future direction of the story could be upended at any moment -- through death, revelation, war, natural disaster -- and then the story would then proceed along a new path, with new characters stepping to the fore and old ones either dying or fading away, like Bronn.

So when people say that Tyrion could not possibly be the victim because it doesn't fit the plot, they don't know what they are talking about. Tyrion, Dany and Jon could very well be dead by the end of the next book -- real dead, dead and gone -- and you know what? the story would still go on.

1. Chris Carter used to say the same thing about The X-Files, but somehow Mulder and Scully always managed to survive.

2. Why would Garge announce to the world that certain characters are off-limits? Surely he'd keep that secret, so as not to undermine the effects of Ned Stark's death

3. Killing off seemingly-important secondary characters to give a heightened sense of peril when the main characters are in danger is a well-worn technique. It's just that the scale of Martin's work makes those secondary characters seem very important indeed. Ned Stark got a whole detective story to himself, but he's ultimately about as significant to the narrative as James Potter or Ben Kenobi. 5 books in, we can see who the truly important characters are: the Stark children, Dany, and Tyrion. You can bet that none will die until the last book in the series, at which point their arc is over anyway. (Possible exception to be made: there are 5 remaining Stark children, all of whom fit the classic hero template, albeit rather obliquely in Sansa's case. He can and may kill one of them off in book 6 to keep us on our toes without really affecting the story too much.) What he's doing here is using modernist tropes to hide the fact that he's telling an old story. That's what good writers do: they find a way to give you the same old stuff but in a new and interesting way. If he was truly ignoring the basic rules of drama, then the books would be intensely frustrating and terrible.

The wine/pie mush that Tyrion spills from the chalice at the end of the scene is "deep purple" while when it spilled on the dais it was "dark red." So yes, he was undoubtedly poisoned.

Exactly how the wine went from red in the chalice to purple running down his chin to red on the floor to purple at the end is impossible to explain if the poison had been in the wine from the very beginning. But it is very easily explained with the poison being in the pie.

Dark red and purple are very close: I always took that to mean that the wine looked different in the shifting candlelight and variegated shadows, etc. Bear in mind the chapter is from Tyrion's subjective perspective.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

Are we sure he died of the Strangler? I guess I kind of always thought he died because he's a dumbass who was eating, drinking and laughing and being a pissant and just choked. Olenna and LF are just using it for street cred.

Excellent question! The evidence we have for this is way slimmer than you'd think. I think Martin might have carefully set up a red herring by introducing the Strangler, and then by having Sansa immediately suspect poison after Joffrey dies. That introduces the idea to us and colours our perception of the event, but of course Sansa had absolutely no good reason to think that Joffrey had been poisoned.

There's a super-long post I did on this earlier in the thread: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/129589-littlefinger-was-lying-about-the-purple-wedding/?p=7136496

But if you have better things to do than read all that (and why would you, hmm?), then suffice to say that our only sources that Joffrey was actually poisoned are:

Sansa, who just assumes

Cersei, who just assumes

Littlefinger, who I suggest is lying

Tywin, via "the maesters" - and if he means Pycelle, then it's possible that this is a lie too.

That's why this whole thing has devolved into absurdly detailed reconstructions of the crime scene: there's not even enough details to prove that Joffrey was poisoned at all, let alone who was responsible.

(Cue bleating about how no, the details provided, plus Science, prove conclusively that it was Olenna Redwyne, in the throne room, with the poisoned pie-crust, and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot)

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

They didn't. He involved them in HIS plot...

Lol, maybe so, but that still doesn't explain why they'd trust him. He can only bamboozle them so far: at a certain point they have to say to themselves, okay, let's murder the king in concert with this man we've recently met. A man who, it's worth adding is obviously untrustworthy: he just brought them into the royal fold, and now he's helping them kill the king. Why would they trust him not to fuck them over in future?

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

/thread

You'd think so, but no