Leto Atreides Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 18 hours ago, Darren Allen said: He wanted Jaime and Cersei out of King's Landing well before all of this conflict started with the Faith. I think he's using this as an opportunity. That's also what I think. He sees this as an opportunity to get rid of Jaime and also reduce Cersei's influence over Tommen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfgangII Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 hour ago, YOVMO said: I think they did briefly mention Tytos' shortcomings. and yes, LF, Roose Bolton have both mentioned that the bannisters without tywin have lost a lot of power. While we do not see Tommen's machinations we can assume that Mace and/or Queen of Thrones knew exactly the power they would consolidate with a child born of the king and queen. Tommen is also being controlled by the high sparrow now who does have an agenda. You are prob right about no jamie securing weterlands plot line in the show (I assume it will be in the book) You are right, Mace, Olenna and even the High Sparrow might try to secure more lands for the next monarch Baratheon-Tyrell-Lannister. My question will be: Could the king claim as his one of the Seven Kingdoms? Robert didn't retaing the Stormslands when he ascended to the Throne (Heck, he didn't even retain Dragonstone for him or his children). Sure, a king can do whatever he wants if he got the strenght, but I'm talking about legalities and precedents. Could Tommen's heir rule the Iron Throne and one of the Seven Kingdoms (ff not three)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tianzi Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 On 30.05.2016 at 3:11 PM, Johnimus said: I'm just wondering because he is the regent of the Iron Throne. Tommen Baratheon is what, 12 or 14 years old in the show? Power is exercised for him through his regent. He does not have the power to strip a Kingsguard of his cloak without his council's say so. This was established in the show in Season 1, where it was the council, not Joffrey, who sacked Barristan. So, by the show's own canon (leaving the books out of it), either Tommen has dispensed with his regency early, or Ser Kevan Lannister, whose antipathy to the faith was just established two episodes ago, has now become a tremendous zealot who is offended in the sight of gods and men by the actions of Ser Jaime Lannister - actions he himself endorsed just two episodes ago. Can anyone help? (I'm a show fan, by the way. It's nowhere near as good as the books, but it's nowhere near as bad as some here allege. This is just a particularly perplexing twist). I wonder about the regency rules in the show. It seemed that Cersei was Joffrey's regent when he was older than Tommen is now, but stopped because he got married. Kevan is the Hand, but I don't remember is he is also the regent. But I was also confused by the sight of him staying at Tommen's side when the boy king dispensed Jaime, and looking somewhat smugly. Two episodes ago Kevan was all about retrieving Lancel, so I doubt he has any newfound love for the Faith. But he seemed irritated by Jaime for some time, so maybe he was just taking some pleasure watching his humiliation. As for the power structure itself, it could have changed since Tommen declared alliance with the church. The Faith wouldn't have much use from the newly converted king if he had no decision making powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOVMO Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, WolfgangII said: You are right, Mace, Olenna and even the High Sparrow might try to secure more lands for the next monarch Baratheon-Tyrell-Lannister. My question will be: Could the king claim as his one of the Seven Kingdoms? Robert didn't retaing the Stormslands when he ascended to the Throne (Heck, he didn't even retain Dragonstone for him or his children). Sure, a king can do whatever he wants if he got the strenght, but I'm talking about legalities and precedents. Could Tommen's heir rule the Iron Throne and one of the Seven Kingdoms (ff not three)? You are right about Robert. However, I think a lot of rules have changed. Robert may have taken the throne by rebellion but if Aerys/Rhargar/Viscyers all died in a skiing accident I think Robert would have got it anyway. I can't think of anyone before him in the line of succession. The reason I think that is important is that a lot of the rules remained the same. With Tyrell Army, Lannister Gold and Baratheon Lands I really can't see anyone telling Tommen no which means it is going to be a free for all on manipulating him. I do believe that Tommen's Heir could conceivably rule 3 of the 7 kingdoms and the iron throne. The question is what would have happened if Robert had no siblings. Ostensibly he would still have kept Storms End and Dragon Stone and appointed Castilians. If Loras were do die then Tommen's son would be, I think, the lawful heir to Storm's End, Casterly Rock, The Reach, the Iron Throne. With the North all in pieces the only family who could field an army worth mentioning is the vale and they have Sweet Robin and a marginalized Bronze Yohn. The Frey's will go wherever the wind blows. River run is a shell of it's former self. The starks are done and Dorne (on the tv show) now has no ruling family so there is probably going to be a power struggle for control and they also did off Princess Marcella so the crown isn't going to be too pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor's Aunt Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 On 30.5.2016 at 0:02 AM, pettes said: as we saw when Ned was executed in season one the king still has the command. the regency over Joffrey was established after that incident because of it. So he could not have ordered the next Ned Stark's beheading. @OP Power lies where people believe it lies. Joffrey couldn't rebell against Tywin and his big army, but Cersai has no army and Kevan doesn't either. So if the King decides to put business in his own hands - backed by the zealot forces - there is nobody to prevent him. That is no matter of "show canon" or "book canon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20goodHoldtheDoors Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 42 minutes ago, Hodor's Aunt said: the regency over Joffrey was established after that incident because of it. So he could not have ordered the next Ned Stark's beheading. @OP Power lies where people believe it lies. Joffrey couldn't rebell against Tywin and his big army, but Cersai has no army and Kevan doesn't either. So if the King decides to put business in his own hands - backed by the zealot forces - there is nobody to prevent him. That is no matter of "show canon" or "book canon". LOL, well said sir On 5/30/2016 at 4:58 PM, Johnimus said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
good girl Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I think Kevan is playing along because he is genuinely a peaceful man, a faithful man and loves his grand-nephew. He doesn't like the Sparrows but has respect for the Seven. He may also have taken the opportunity to expel Jaime to put him at the head of the Lannister Army hundreds of miles away while he uses his own diplomatic skills in the capital with his hotheaded kin diminished. It makes sense for Kevan to take the Lannister forces out of his own power when he could be compelled to turn them over to the church if he wants to remain as Hand. If we can conflate pragmatism and duty it looks Kevan is what is best for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.