Cersei's thoughts about Joffrey's betrothal to Sansa

[FictionIsntReal]

On 6/23/2018 at 4:40 PM, John Suburbs said:

We don't know this. There is a four-day gap between the assault on Joffrey and Arya's recovery, plus, none of these characters are POVs. So there is no way to know what they thought, what they said, how they perceived the whole situation...

What we do know is that Sandor is Joffrey's personal guard, not a member of the KG. He was brought in by the queen, whose father is Sandor's liege lord, to protect her son. So if there was any action taken to punish him for his dereliction, it would come from the queen or directly from the king. Nobody else, not even Selmy, is going to question this because it is not their place to question the royal parents in this matter. For all we know, Robert did question the Hound, who would merely bend the knee and offer his most sincere apologies and then Robert would forgive him, because that is what he does. Cersei, however, is flipping mad over this whole affair, so she should be calling for his head just as ardently as she demands the wolf's head, because they were both responsible for what happened. She utters not a peep over Sandor. Awfully suspicious, that.

No, Joffrey cannot rape a little girl. That's why he will never be found guilty of such a crime. It would literally tear the realm apart and possibly lead to a civil war, let along cast shame on House Baratheon and Robert himself. I agree, this is another level of seriousness compared to Joffrey abusing a butcher's boy, and yet Robert cannot even judge Joffrey guilty of that crime, even though he knows he is lying through his teeth. How on earth do you suppose he would find him guilty of the much more serious crime of rape of a highborn maiden?

Cersei is not planning that it ever become known that she plotted the whole thing. Where did you get that idea from?

Those characters aren't POVs in that specific book, but Cersei & Barristan are later, and none of the POVs in A Game of Thrones think about it afterward, even as they come to distrust Cersei more.

You find it awfully suspicious, but no character in the books does. Jaime tries to instruct the other Kingsguard that they shouldn't simply obey the orders of a child king, but this is after he's changed a good deal. Naming Sandor to the KG is considered a bad move by Cersei, because he's not even a knight (and later deserts to become a notorious outlaw). Nobody complaining about that decision brings up this incident as a black mark on his record.

Nobody talked about the butcher's boy because nobody cares about him. Joffrey wasn't facing charges of abusing a peasant, as there would be no punishment for it. The question was whether Arya's direwolf had attacked Joffrey with or without provocation. This is a dispute between members of the nobility, which is why Robert is doing any adjudicating at all. Raping Sansa would produce a much more severe dispute between the noble houses. Recall that Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna wound up bringing down the Targaryens. The Mad King punished the Starks who demanded justice for their kin because he was mad, Robert would have no claim to legitimacy if he behaved the same.

In your hypothetical Cersei & Joffrey would accuse 11 year old Sansa of seducing Joffrey, and therefore an unfit queen-to-be whose betrothal should be cast aside.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 6:19 PM, Nevets said:

Having a character state that there was something wrong or unusual about any of the events you have cited would be substantially less obvious than, say, Tyrion's remark about Jeyne Westerling when he found out about her marriage ("She would be better of with a bastard in her belly than married to Robb Stark"), which you seem to think gives nothing away.

"Whose idea was it to let those kids go out by themselves?  They're both drunk!"

"Why did the queen meet with them? It's not as if they have anything to discuss"

And that's just off the top of my head.  Btw, it appears that Joffrey deliberately ditched his bodyguard.  That may have saved Sandor.  That, or the fact that GRRM didn't really care or think) about that aspect of it.

You missed his point the same way you missed mine - on the same subject!   These are not real people.  If GRRM wants them to say something, they certainly will.  He can put whatever words he wants in whatever mouth he wants.

Lol, that was a quick retirement.

Sorry, Tyrion surmising the foolishness of the Westerlings is hardly as pointed as someone standing up in the middle of a tense meeting and declaring that the queen is a liar and should be just as miffed at the Hound as a she is with a wolf who had nothing to do with the whole affair. Talk about obvious, and completely unrealistic. Besides, Martin has already given you the most obvious clue: "We're not supposed to leave the column, Father said so."

Joffrey did not ditch the Hound. He told him to back away from Sansa, and the Hound apparently interpreted this as permission to take the rest of the day off. Utterly inexcusable when your charged with protecting the crown prince.

GRRM can also have minor characters voice these concerns away from the POVs, if they voice them at all. You're missing the point that he is not going to reveal his hidden plots in such an obvious and amateurish way just to make it easy for you to figure out. It would utterly defeat the purpose of creating them in the first place.

23 hours ago, Nevets said:

Joffrey is only 12, about a year older than Sansa, which would make it easier to accept his guilt than it would be for an adult.

Given that Robert has expressed unease about Joffrey succeeding him, he could decide that he has had enough of Joffrey's shit and use this as an excuse to disinherit Joffrey and put him on a ship to Eastwatch.  Sansa is the daughter of a great house, after all, not to mention the daughter of his Hand and best friend.

And then he could offer an alternative betrothal: Tommen + Arya.   And Cersei thought Sansa was bad!

Sorry, but along with a conspicuous lack of evidence, it appears that too much could go wrong with this idea as well.  

Are you kidding? It's easier to accept a crown prince who is already a rapist at 12 than, say, 20? Even today, rape charges against a 12yo boy would be big news, and it would be the crime of the century if he happened to be a crown prince.

If Robert tried to depose Joffrey in this way, he would bring an end to the Baratheon Dynasty and plunge the realm into civil war, not to mention bring great shame to himself as a person. Whatever "unease" Robert feels about Joffrey, it's not enough to simply disinherit him on his deathbed so it is therefore not enough shatter the realm by finding him guilty of rape. He is fully vested in the idea of Joffrey being king, even if he is not the son he wanted.

Right, so the one betrothal ends in the crown prince raping your eldest daughter and shaming her for the rest of her life, so the next move is the betroth your younger son to the next daughter. All the while, the Lannisters are in open revolt and you have to throw your own queen into the dungeons because she is trying to overthrow you. Good plan.

Plenty could go wrong with the plan, as indeed, it did. I never said Cersei was a genius. But the evidence is ample. If you don't want to acknowledge it, then don't. Why keep beating your head against the wall trying to prove a negative?

 

 

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Those characters aren't POVs in that specific book, but Cersei & Barristan are later, and none of the POVs in A Game of Thrones think about it afterward, even as they come to distrust Cersei more.

Like I said, they have all kinds of things to worry about in the here and now rather than this one incident more than a year ago. Selmy never ponders why only he, Darry and Llewyn were sent to protect Rhaegar on the Trident while the three most powerful knights in the order, and the realm, got to twiddle their thumbs at some tower in the marches.

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You find it awfully suspicious, but no character in the books does. Jaime tries to instruct the other Kingsguard that they shouldn't simply obey the orders of a child king, but this is after he's changed a good deal. Naming Sandor to the KG is considered a bad move by Cersei, because he's not even a knight (and later deserts to become a notorious outlaw). Nobody complaining about that decision brings up this incident as a black mark on his record.

The only person who complains is Blount, who wasn't even at the Trident. What sane person is going to stand up in open court and defy a royal decree? No one. Just like no sane person would stand up and call the queen a liar and a hypocrite because she wants to blame a wolf for what happened rather than the man who has sworn to protect the prince.

Again, you don't know that no one finds this suspicious, just that no one voices these concerns within earshot of a POV.

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Nobody talked about the butcher's boy because nobody cares about him. Joffrey wasn't facing charges of abusing a peasant, as there would be no punishment for it. The question was whether Arya's direwolf had attacked Joffrey with or without provocation. This is a dispute between members of the nobility, which is why Robert is doing any adjudicating at all. Raping Sansa would produce a much more severe dispute between the noble houses. Recall that Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna wound up bringing down the Targaryens. The Mad King punished the Starks who demanded justice for their kin because he was mad, Robert would have no claim to legitimacy if he behaved the same.

Exactly, there would be no repercussions for Joffrey if the king were to judge him at fault here, and yet the king can't even bring himself to do that even though he knows Joffrey is lying.

If Aerys had produced Rhaegar to answer these accusations, either in court or by TbC, the Starks would have been mollified. What ticked them off is that Brandon sought justice but was imprisoned, followed by Rickard, and then both were executed and the king demanded Ned and Robert. If Robert found Joffrey guilty, then he would have to pass sentence, which would have to be something severe, undoubtedly drawing the wrath of Tywin and probably the imprisonment of Cersei. His only option would be to judge Sansa to be the guilty one, which would send Ned back to Winterfell, since he is unlikely to rebel against Robert here and now, and would be quickly taken into custody if he tried.

Again, medieval mindsets are at play here; people are quick to assume that women seduce innocent men, particularly when the prize is the crown prince.

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

In your hypothetical Cersei & Joffrey would accuse 11 year old Sansa of seducing Joffrey, and therefore an unfit queen-to-be whose betrothal should be cast aside.

Yes, but where did you get the idea that Cersei also intended her plotting to be revealed and people would realize that she railroaded Sansa? If the plan worked out as she wanted, then Sansa would be tarnished, Joffrey is innocent, and nobody should have any reason to think ill of him -- particularly since the next betrothal is years from now and will likely be forgotten.

[Tagganaro]

On 6/21/2018 at 4:32 PM, John Suburbs said:

She is drunk and appears to be deflowered. That's all they need to make the charges stick. This is Cersei we're talking about here. She's not going to let a little thing like age get in her way.

Yes she is...even Cersei was angry at Jaime for what he did to Bran and is disgusted by the attempt on his life.  With Cersei you also have to consider pre-Joffrey's death and post-Joffrey's death.  They are 2 different people, one of which is insane and obsessed with a prophecy and Tyrion.  You also have to consider Cersei's own disgust towards rape as she is a victim of that as well along with her feelings for Joffrey- do you really think Cersei would want to turn Joffrey into a rapist and be ok with it?

Quote

Elinor, Megga and Alla Tyrell were, "all close to Sansa's age". Barely a year after the Trident, and with Alla still a maid not yet flowered, they were all dragged away by the faith on morals charges -- all due to the plottings of Cersie Lannister.

I'm not sure we know their specific ages, but they are around Sansa's age at the start of the story, meaning I think they are all flowered by the time AFFC comes around.  Either way, you should both see a big difference between actively setting up a rape of someone and manipulating false witnesses to say they witnessed sex.  The fact that Cersei plots this stuff with Elinor, Megga, and Alla and does not once think "hmmm...this is similar to what I planned for Sansa" also cuts against the fact that this ever happened.

Quote

They weren't supposed to leave the column. The fact that they did leave the column and that Joffrey's sworn shield, the man who has vowed to protect the crown prince from all harm at all times even at the cost of his own life, was not there but received no punishment for this gross dereliction of duty is about as strong a hint as you'll get with Martin that this whole thing was a setup. Cersei's excuse that she has matters to discuss with "the good councilors" is equally sketchy. What matters of import can she possibly need to discuss with Renly, Selmy and Illyn Payne that will take all day long? What could possibly be more important to Cersei than face-time with the girl that she will one day bend her knee to and call "Your Grace"?

Again, we don't know whether the Hound was punished.  What we do know is that Joffrey is petulant and does whatever he wants anyway, and Cersei rarely if ever stops him.  To me him leaving the column just again cuts to that rather than any kind of crazy plot like this.  Who knows what Cersei could be discussing with Renly and Selmy?  It could be any number of things, we know Cersei likes to feel like she's in charge it could be any political matter.  

Quote

The Hound can leave Joffrey in the confines of the Red Keep. He can leave him when he is going directly to his mother, who will undoubtedly have her own escort back to the castle. He cannot leave him to go riding off all by himself across strange country wearing enough gold and jewelry and a golden-pommeled longsword the represents enough wealth for even an honest smallfolk to commit murder in order to live a life of luxury beyond their wildest dreams. Robert and Ned, two of the fiercest warriors in the realm, both armed and armored, have a full tail when leaving the column. In example after example, as I've posted above, highborns never leave the confines of their castles without protection. The idea that in this one instance only that it was perfectly OK for Joff and Sansa, who are utterly defenseless despite Joffrey's pretty sword, to ride off alone is patently absurd.

Again, Joffrey is a petulant spoiled little brat who does what he wants.  I don't think it's patently ridiculous he would leave the column nor be allowed to...he was raised with extreme disregard by Robert and extreme coddling by Cersei which helped to make him the way he is.  Arya is also able to leave the column, did Cersei plan for her to be raped as well?

[Nevets]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Besides, Martin has already given you the most obvious clue: "We're not supposed to leave the column, Father said so."

That's a clue?  Two children disobey their father's direct order?  Wow!  I'm shocked that they would do that!  Shocked beyond belief!  (Apologies to Casablanca)  Come to think of it, Arya has been doing that since forever, without consequence.  Sansa probably figured that it didn't apply to her if she was with Joffrey, and his sword, as he would keep her safe.   Also, Ned's not much of a disciplinarian.  In any case, nothing he says has any bearing on Joffrey, who is making the decisions here.  Sorry, but you'll have to a lot better than that.

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

But the evidence is ample. If you don't want to acknowledge it, then don't. Why keep beating your head against the wall trying to prove a negative?

Your definition of ample is quite different from mine.  I find the evidence to be even thinner than Donald Trump's skin, which is quite thin indeed.  And yes, I am wondering why I am giving myself a headache and a bloody forehead on this.  I guess I just can't resist shoveling bullshit out of the way!

I would say more, but @Tagganaro has said much of it already.  

 

[FictionIsntReal]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, Tyrion surmising the foolishness of the Westerlings is hardly as pointed as someone standing up in the middle of a tense meeting and declaring that the queen is a liar and should be just as miffed at the Hound as a she is with a wolf who had nothing to do with the whole affair. Talk about obvious, and completely unrealistic. Besides, Martin has already given you the most obvious clue: "We're not supposed to leave the column, Father said so."

Joffrey did not ditch the Hound. He told him to back away from Sansa, and the Hound apparently interpreted this as permission to take the rest of the day off. Utterly inexcusable when your charged with protecting the crown prince.

GRRM can also have minor characters voice these concerns away from the POVs, if they voice them at all. You're missing the point that he is not going to reveal his hidden plots in such an obvious and amateurish way just to make it easy for you to figure out. It would utterly defeat the purpose of creating them in the first place.

Are you kidding? It's easier to accept a crown prince who is already a rapist at 12 than, say, 20? Even today, rape charges against a 12yo boy would be big news, and it would be the crime of the century if he happened to be a crown prince.

If Robert tried to depose Joffrey in this way, he would bring an end to the Baratheon Dynasty and plunge the realm into civil war, not to mention bring great shame to himself as a person. Whatever "unease" Robert feels about Joffrey, it's not enough to simply disinherit him on his deathbed so it is therefore not enough shatter the realm by finding him guilty of rape. He is fully vested in the idea of Joffrey being king, even if he is not the son he wanted.

Right, so the one betrothal ends in the crown prince raping your eldest daughter and shaming her for the rest of her life, so the next move is the betroth your younger son to the next daughter. All the while, the Lannisters are in open revolt and you have to throw your own queen into the dungeons because she is trying to overthrow you. Good plan.

Plenty could go wrong with the plan, as indeed, it did. I never said Cersei was a genius. But the evidence is ample. If you don't want to acknowledge it, then don't. Why keep beating your head against the wall trying to prove a negative?

 

 

Why can't characters point out things outside of public meetings but in range of a POV character? Renly laughs at Joffrey when Arya gives her account, then later tries to conspire with Ned to seize Cersei's children. GRRM could have had Renly mention to Ned then that Cersei's meeting was no basis and that the lack of punishment for the Hound was suspicious, but he didn't. We get no indication that Renly thought anything of it. The "clue" is just that Sansa is a dutiful little girl who does what her parents & septa say. We already know that Bran, in contrast, persists in climbing and Ned has given up trying to get him to stop (nothing comes of this habit of his until he's unlucky enough to stumble across Jaime & Cersei, and we have no reason to think the same would not be true if Joffrey hadn't stumbled on Arya & Mycah).

It would be quite stupid to have minor characters only voice such concerns away from POV chapters to prevent readers from knowing that any characters find it suspicious. If a character has knowledge we're not supposed to know about, it makes sense not to reveal it until the author thinks the readers should know, but why do that for the opinions of all the characters on some events which are common knowledge? Even for the private knowledge of Cersei, why keep that hidden even after Joffrey is dead? With the dagger, we get Tyrion coming to a conclusion shortly before Joffrey dies. As noted, I don't find that entirely satisfactory, but that's the approach GRRM took. He didn't delay that until multiple books after Joffrey was dead and we'd ceased caring about him.

I agree that it's unusual for a 12 year old boy to commit a rape, which is part of why I don't think Joffrey would actually be a reliable means of carrying one out. But there's less of an obvious age line for boys, whereas for girls puberty is dated to the first menstruation, and Sansa still has a way to go for that.

Rhaenyra was named heir partly in response to Daemon Targaryen's misbehavior. It might not be an easy thing to dispossess someone already named heir (Aerys waited until Rhaegar was dead to dispossess Aegon), but at least Robert would have the benefit of another male heir. Since Tywin Lannister would still get a grandson on the throne, he would have less grievance against Robert than otherwise. Having Sansa marry the newly designated heir would help to compensate (Deuteronomy includes a section requiring the rapist himself to marry his victim and prohibits a man from making false accusations of non-virginity against his wife to divorce her, but as that particular text doesn't exist in this universe they are not bound by the letter of the law).

The evidence is not "ample". It's all in your head, and multiple people are arguing against you because it strikes us as supremely wrongheaded.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The only person who complains is Blount, who wasn't even at the Trident. What sane person is going to stand up in open court and defy a royal decree? No one. Just like no sane person would stand up and call the queen a liar and a hypocrite because she wants to blame a wolf for what happened rather than the man who has sworn to protect the prince.

Exactly, there would be no repercussions for Joffrey if the king were to judge him at fault here, and yet the king can't even bring himself to do that even though he knows Joffrey is lying.

If Aerys had produced Rhaegar to answer these accusations, either in court or by TbC, the Starks would have been mollified. What ticked them off is that Brandon sought justice but was imprisoned, followed by Rickard, and then both were executed and the king demanded Ned and Robert. If Robert found Joffrey guilty, then he would have to pass sentence, which would have to be something severe, undoubtedly drawing the wrath of Tywin and probably the imprisonment of Cersei. His only option would be to judge Sansa to be the guilty one, which would send Ned back to Winterfell, since he is unlikely to rebel against Robert here and now, and would be quickly taken into custody if he tried.

Again, medieval mindsets are at play here; people are quick to assume that women seduce innocent men, particularly when the prize is the crown prince.

Yes, but where did you get the idea that Cersei also intended her plotting to be revealed and people would realize that she railroaded Sansa? If the plan worked out as she wanted, then Sansa would be tarnished, Joffrey is innocent, and nobody should have any reason to think ill of him -- particularly since the next betrothal is years from now and will likely be forgotten.

Quote

[Barristan Selmy] lent honor to any man he served. Can anyone say the same of the Hound? You feed your dog bones under the table, you do not seat him beside you on the high bench.

That's Tywin Lannister, not Blount.

When Robert (privately) apologizes to Ned, he refers to Arya & the direwolf. He doesn't mention Mycah because neither of them care about Mycah. The matter in front of him was whether Joffrey or Arya was telling the truth about the wolf attack, with just their public testimony and his own private knowledge that Joffrey cut open a pregnant cat. The Hound kills Mycah during his search for Arya before the king even adjudicated the matter.

Brandon was yelling for Rhaegar to "come out and die". We can take that as implicitly challenging him to a one-on-one trial by combat, but when Aerys characterized it as threatening the prince he's not incorrect in a literal sense. It was a demand for justice, in the form of a threat. Aerys' response was especially sadistic, but simply dismissing the charge would not be acceptable to a great house either. Lyonel rebelled against the Targaryens merely over a broken betrothal, and succeeded in getting the king to agree to another one. A rape and a broken betrothal would be all the worse.

Did the medievals believe that pre-pubescent girls were more likely to be at fault than an older boy?

Cersei takes Joffrey's side in the argument over the direwolf. In your hypothetical the dispute is instead over whether Sansa is a harlot who seduced Joffrey before she even had her first period. Joffrey can try making that argument himself while Cersei stays quiet and see how it goes. And people don't simply forget these things. Betrothals are fundamental parts of politics, and everyone remembers that Aerys refused Tywin's suggestion of Cersei in favor of Elia, and then later Tywin sacked King's Landing and Elia & her children were horribly killed. Since the last dynasty had ended over the abduction of the eldest Stark daughter, this would be especially easy to remember.

[Nevets]

@John SuburbsTry this on for size:

"Joffrey, it seems that 2 councilors will arrive shortly.  A meeting with them would be the perfect excuse for you to spend some time with Sansa.  Get to know her."

"Why?"

"So she will like you.  The stupid little brat [inaccurate, but that's what Cersei thinks] is half in love with you.  Show her a good time, a little excitement perhaps.  Get her to love you, and want to be with you.  If she wants to be with you, she will be less of a threat if her father tries to move against us.  Heck, she might even side with us [come to think of it, something like that did happen].

"Can I go riding?"

"Um, I guess.  The area around here is pretty peaceful, I think."

"I don't think she likes the Hound, and I don't like her wolf.  Can I leave him behind if she leaves her wolf."

"Well, I don't like her wolf, either.  I'll arrange it if you can get her to leave the wolf behind.  And please don't do anything stupid"

So what do you think.  Answers most of your objections, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you've been peddling.

 

By the way, I do not necessarily believe this is what happened.  I still think Joffrey is playing hookey (going AWOL) and ditching his bodyguard, and doing it on his own initiative. 

As to why Sandor isn't with them, I don't know and don't really care.  Actually, I do know.  George evidently planned to combine the ride (or whatever else they did) with the fight with Arya.  The two could be separate, but combining them streamlines things.  Of course, the fight can't occur with an adult present, so, bye-bye Sandor, and to hell with strict realism.  To be honest, I doubt George even thought about explaining why Sandor wasn't there.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Yes she is...even Cersei was angry at Jaime for what he did to Bran and is disgusted by the attempt on his life.  With Cersei you also have to consider pre-Joffrey's death and post-Joffrey's death.  They are 2 different people, one of which is insane and obsessed with a prophecy and Tyrion.  You also have to consider Cersei's own disgust towards rape as she is a victim of that as well along with her feelings for Joffrey- do you really think Cersei would want to turn Joffrey into a rapist and be ok with it?

She's not turning him into a rapist. He never touches her. The intent is to make it appear as if she seduced him. All Joffrey has to do is lie about it, and he's good at lying.

Also, you're jumping the gun in thinking that Cersei is a completely different person pre- and post-Joffrey. We only have her POV after Joffrey's death, so we don't know to what extent she was thinking about Maggie and Tyrion, etc., before that. Clearly, her paranoia is ratcheted up after Joffrey's murder, but that was a traumatic event. I hardly think she was sweet as a dove before that -- she arranged the death of King Robert and then ordered the murder of everyone in the Hand's Tower after Ned was taken into custody. Indeed, she shows a high degree of paranoia right from the first conversation we see, with Jaime in the tower at Winterfell.

22 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm not sure we know their specific ages, but they are around Sansa's age at the start of the story, meaning I think they are all flowered by the time AFFC comes around.  Either way, you should both see a big difference between actively setting up a rape of someone and manipulating false witnesses to say they witnessed sex.  The fact that Cersei plots this stuff with Elinor, Megga, and Alla and does not once think "hmmm...this is similar to what I planned for Sansa" also cuts against the fact that this ever happened.

At the time of their arrest, Elinor and Megga are flowered, Alla is not -- and Megga is just barely. Again, Cersei is not actively setting Joffrey to rape Sansa. She is setting it up so that it looks like Sansa seduced Joffrey. Big difference.

By the time Cersei sets her sights on Margaery, Joffrey is dead, Sansa is gone and her chief concern is now protecting her one remaining son. It's not that unusual that she is focusing on the problem at hand, not one from a year ago.

22 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Again, we don't know whether the Hound was punished.  What we do know is that Joffrey is petulant and does whatever he wants anyway, and Cersei rarely if ever stops him.  To me him leaving the column just again cuts to that rather than any kind of crazy plot like this.  Who knows what Cersei could be discussing with Renly and Selmy?  It could be any number of things, we know Cersei likes to feel like she's in charge it could be any political matter.  

Cersei wants the head of the wolf who was not even responsible for Joffrey's injuries, and yet the Hound is still Joff's sworn shield, takes an active part in the search for Arya and Mycah and is eventually rewarded with a white cloak. If Cersei was as flipping mad about what happened, then the Hound would have been dismissed at minimum, and knowing Cersei he would be lucky to still be alive. Joffrey has the authority to tell the Hound to do all sorts of things, but not to just take off for the day so he can go off riding through strange country all alone. His vow to protect the prince at all times comes directly from Cersei and Robert and supersedes Joffrey.

Please give men an example of "any number of things" that would require an all-day conference between the queen, the LC of the KG, the Master of Laws and the mute King's Justice. It's still early in the morning and Cersei has just cleared her entire day to meet with the "good councilors." What crises could possible be upon them that it requires 6, 8 maybe even 10 hours of strategizing with the queen, but not an immediate summons to the king and his hand? Cersei plays no role in the governance of the realm, has no title, serves on no council; what political matter could possibly concern her?

22 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Again, Joffrey is a petulant spoiled little brat who does what he wants.  I don't think it's patently ridiculous he would leave the column nor be allowed to...he was raised with extreme disregard by Robert and extreme coddling by Cersei which helped to make him the way he is.  Arya is also able to leave the column, did Cersei plan for her to be raped as well?

It is patently ridiculous because no highborn man, woman or child ever does this. Check and see if you can find one example of someone riding alone through open countryside. Even Robert and Ned, two of the fiercest warriors in the realm, armed and armored, have a tail when they leave the column because it is simply too dangerous to be out alone. The simple fact that Cersei raised him with extreme coddling, as you say, should be proof enough that she would never allow this to happen and would be out to get the man she hired to protect her son.

Arya leaves the column against orders, and she also does not look or act like a highborn, so nobody is likely to bother with her. This is a far cry from two well-dressed pre-teens wearing silks and jewels and carrying enough gold to tempt even the most honest smallfolk to commit one violent act in order to live beyond their wildest dreams for the rest of their days.

Sorry, but this fact is incontrovertible. Despite how things are in Disney movies, crown princes and their ladies were simply not allowed to go joy-riding all by themselves through open countryside. It is simply too dangerous.

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, Nevets said:

That's a clue?  Two children disobey their father's direct order?  Wow!  I'm shocked that they would do that!  Shocked beyond belief!  (Apologies to Casablanca)  Come to think of it, Arya has been doing that since forever, without consequence.  Sansa probably figured that it didn't apply to her if she was with Joffrey, and his sword, as he would keep her safe.   Also, Ned's not much of a disciplinarian.  In any case, nothing he says has any bearing on Joffrey, who is making the decisions here.  Sorry, but you'll have to a lot better than that.

Your definition of ample is quite different from mine.  I find the evidence to be even thinner than Donald Trump's skin, which is quite thin indeed.  And yes, I am wondering why I am giving myself a headache and a bloody forehead on this.  I guess I just can't resist shoveling bullshit out of the way!

I would say more, but @Tagganaro has said much of it already.  

 

It's just as strong a clue as "Promise me, Ned" or "Jeyne Westerling is her mother's daughter and Robb Stark is his father's son."

Sansa is telling you, point blank with no room for doubt, what the rules are. It doesn't matter if they break the rules or if Sansa think's it's OK since she's with Joffrey. The fact is that the rules are clear and the Hound was woefully derelict in his duty to protect the prince. Cersei calls for the head of the wolf who wasn't even involved but lets the Hound off scot free. Those are the facts. Those are the clues to get to the truth here. Martin has done this exact same thing numerous times in the series: make things appear one way on the surface, but the reader has to figure out that it doesn't really add up.

As I told Tagg, Arya does not look or act like a highborn, so no one is likely to take any notice of her at all. This is vastly different from two pre-teens dressed in silks and velvets and carrying enough gold to tempt even the most honest smallfolk, let alone a band of brigands, to commit an act of violence in order to live beyond their wildest dreams for the rest of their days.

I think you're confused by the difference between words like "clue" and "evidence" and  incontrovertible proof. I've never said that any of this is proven; just that it's suspicious, and there are many, many reasons to think there may be more going on here then what Martin has so skillfully and craftily decided to share with you, so far.

[Angel Eyes]

So why doesn’t Sansa have a sworn shield? I’m surprised that Ned didn’t assign someone to see to her protection and be loyal to her.

And all the friends she supposedly made among the Lannister party did her diddly squat.

[John Suburbs]

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why can't characters point out things outside of public meetings but in range of a POV character? Renly laughs at Joffrey when Arya gives her account, then later tries to conspire with Ned to seize Cersei's children. GRRM could have had Renly mention to Ned then that Cersei's meeting was no basis and that the lack of punishment for the Hound was suspicious, but he didn't. We get no indication that Renly thought anything of it. The "clue" is just that Sansa is a dutiful little girl who does what her parents & septa say. We already know that Bran, in contrast, persists in climbing and Ned has given up trying to get him to stop (nothing comes of this habit of his until he's unlucky enough to stumble across Jaime & Cersei, and we have no reason to think the same would not be true if Joffrey hadn't stumbled on Arya & Mycah).

Why would Renly want to defy the queen for Ned's sake? He doesn't know Ned, doesn't know where his loyalties lie... Renly has absolutely no skin in this game, nor does anyone else.

The clue is that the rules are crystal clear: no leaving the column. It doesn't matter if Sansa and Joffrey decide to break the rules. The Hound should have been with Joffrey. That's his job.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It would be quite stupid to have minor characters only voice such concerns away from POV chapters to prevent readers from knowing that any characters find it suspicious. If a character has knowledge we're not supposed to know about, it makes sense not to reveal it until the author thinks the readers should know, but why do that for the opinions of all the characters on some events which are common knowledge? Even for the private knowledge of Cersei, why keep that hidden even after Joffrey is dead? With the dagger, we get Tyrion coming to a conclusion shortly before Joffrey dies. As noted, I don't find that entirely satisfactory, but that's the approach GRRM took. He didn't delay that until multiple books after Joffrey was dead and we'd ceased caring about him.

Every situation is different. To say that Martin handled a reveal one way in one instance so therefore he has to handle it the same way every time is ludicrous. He gave us just enough information through the available POVs to puzzle things out for ourselves. Honestly, if someone stood up at the inn and just blurted all this out, then the whole story would have collapsed before it even started because Robert would have Cersei thrown right into the dungeon.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I agree that it's unusual for a 12 year old boy to commit a rape, which is part of why I don't think Joffrey would actually be a reliable means of carrying one out. But there's less of an obvious age line for boys, whereas for girls puberty is dated to the first menstruation, and Sansa still has a way to go for that.

You're forgetting, Joffrey is not raping anyone. He just has to get her drunk, ride her around for a while, and when she gets back to camp all breathless and stinking of wine he spins the tale of how she seduced him. His reputation remains perfectly intact (in fact, it will probably be enhanced over the years as the prince that girls just can't keep their hands off) while Sansa, and Ned, return to Winterfell in shame.

Prepubescent boys and girls can get into all kinds of trouble, as Cersei and Jaime can attest.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Rhaenyra was named heir partly in response to Daemon Targaryen's misbehavior. It might not be an easy thing to dispossess someone already named heir (Aerys waited until Rhaegar was dead to dispossess Aegon), but at least Robert would have the benefit of another male heir. Since Tywin Lannister would still get a grandson on the throne, he would have less grievance against Robert than otherwise. Having Sansa marry the newly designated heir would help to compensate (Deuteronomy includes a section requiring the rapist himself to marry his victim and prohibits a man from making false accusations of non-virginity against his wife to divorce her, but as that particular text doesn't exist in this universe they are not bound by the letter of the law).

Honestly? Tywin Lannister, the man who set the riverlands on fire because someone kidnapped his vile dwarf second son, is going to have no problem with Robert imprisoning and perhaps banishing his eldest grandson to the Wall just because he has a spare to take the Iron Throne? I think you need to reread Tywin's chapters.

It is equally ludicrous to think Sansa would be eligible to marry Tommen in this scenario. Whether she was victimized or not, Sansa is no longer a maid and is therefore ineligible to marry the crown prince. That's just the way it is. That's why they had to go through the mummer's farce at court to claim Margaery was still a maid despite having been married for however many months, and it is why Cersei frames Margaery for sexual impropriety in order to get her away from Tommen.

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The evidence is not "ample". It's all in your head, and multiple people are arguing against you because it strikes us as supremely wrongheaded.

The evidence is far more ample than RLJ, which consists solely of "Promise me, Ned." Just skim through the book and see if you can find a single example of a high lord or lady, let alone their children, riding alone through strange country. It doesn't happen, ever. This is a dangerous world and highborns are easy targets for pirates and brigands. Here, more text to support exactly what I am saying:

Quote

GoT, Cat IV, when she decides to go to King's Landing:

"You will need a strong escort, my lady," Theon said.

"I'll send Hal with a squad of guardsmen," Robb said.

"No," Catelyn said. "A large party attracts unwelcome attention. I would not have the Lannisters know I am coming."

Ser Rodrick protested. "My lady, let me accompany you at least. The kingsroad can be perilous for a woman alone."

Too dangerous for a woman alone, yet it's perfectly safe for two children alone? Please. This part of the theory, at least, is indisputable: they should not have been out there alone. It is the Hound's responsibility to protect the prince. That's his job, his only job.

Of course multiple people are arguing against it, but I contend that many more agree that this is at least plausible. How many times have you gotten caught up in endless threads talking about how much you agree with what the other poster is saying?

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That's Tywin Lannister, not Blount.

Yes, Tywin thinks the Hound is not worthy. Do you honestly think that Cerei would share this little plan of hers with her father?

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

When Robert (privately) apologizes to Ned, he refers to Arya & the direwolf. He doesn't mention Mycah because neither of them care about Mycah. The matter in front of him was whether Joffrey or Arya was telling the truth about the wolf attack, with just their public testimony and his own private knowledge that Joffrey cut open a pregnant cat. The Hound kills Mycah during his search for Arya before the king even adjudicated the matter.

The fact remains: Robert knows Joffrey is lying about the whole thing, that he was the one who instigated the attack in exactly the way Arya described. Despite the fact that there would be zero consequences for Joffrey if Robert were to pass judgement based on what he knows, he still cannot do it because of the shame it would bring to himself, his house and his dynasty. So I ask again, if Robert cannot even bring himself to rule against his son in this trivial matter, what makes you think he will declare him a rapist of one of the highest born maidens in the land? Sorry, but you entire argument is based on a fantasy. The fact is, Robert would never do that. He would have to lay the blame on Sansa given the evidence of her appearance and the testimony of the crown prince, and Cersei knows this.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Brandon was yelling for Rhaegar to "come out and die". We can take that as implicitly challenging him to a one-on-one trial by combat, but when Aerys characterized it as threatening the prince he's not incorrect in a literal sense. It was a demand for justice, in the form of a threat. Aerys' response was especially sadistic, but simply dismissing the charge would not be acceptable to a great house either. Lyonel rebelled against the Targaryens merely over a broken betrothal, and succeeded in getting the king to agree to another one. A rape and a broken betrothal would be all the worse.

Exactly what I'm saying. It was the fact that Brandon was denied has chance for justice that got the ball rolling, not that Aerys simply declared Rhaegar innocent of all charges. A simple broken betrothal is far less serious than a rape because the maiden's virtue is still intact. Sansa would not be eligible to wed the prince even if she were proven to be completely blameless. Again, that's just the way it was.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Did the medievals believe that pre-pubescent girls were more likely to be at fault than an older boy?

Our own medievals believed that women were evil temptresses responsible for man's fall from grace. In story, they also believe that women used their wiles to lure men away from their inherent male purity. Sansa's shame would be all the greater because she is not even a woman yet and here she is already using her feminine wiles to seduce poor Joffrey. That's how it would be adjudicated by the king, that's what the people would believe, and that's how it would go down in history.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Cersei takes Joffrey's side in the argument over the direwolf. In your hypothetical the dispute is instead over whether Sansa is a harlot who seduced Joffrey before she even had her first period. Joffrey can try making that argument himself while Cersei stays quiet and see how it goes. And people don't simply forget these things. Betrothals are fundamental parts of politics, and everyone remembers that Aerys refused Tywin's suggestion of Cersei in favor of Elia, and then later Tywin sacked King's Landing and Elia & her children were horribly killed. Since the last dynasty had ended over the abduction of the eldest Stark daughter, this would be especially easy to remember.

OK, so everybody remembers this. But that still doesn't change the outcome: the evidence of Sansa's appearance and the story told by the crown prince would be more than enough grounds for Robert to rule against Sansa, and all the noble knights who are witness to this would agree. The Starks head back to Winterfell in shame, and Ned is not likely to march against the entire realm just to seat his daughter beside King Joffrey someday, so Cersei wins: the Stark menace is neutralized, and she now has ample time to choose a bride more suitable to her liking, not Robert's.

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, Nevets said:

@John SuburbsTry this on for size:

"Joffrey, it seems that 2 councilors will arrive shortly.  A meeting with them would be the perfect excuse for you to spend some time with Sansa.  Get to know her."

"Why?"

"So she will like you.  The stupid little brat [inaccurate, but that's what Cersei thinks] is half in love with you.  Show her a good time, a little excitement perhaps.  Get her to love you, and want to be with you.  If she wants to be with you, she will be less of a threat if her father tries to move against us.  Heck, she might even side with us [come to think of it, something like that did happen].

"Can I go riding?"

"Um, I guess.  The area around here is pretty peaceful, I think."

"I don't think she likes the Hound, and I don't like her wolf.  Can I leave him behind if she leaves her wolf."

"Well, I don't like her wolf, either.  I'll arrange it if you can get her to leave the wolf behind.  And please don't do anything stupid"

So what do you think.  Answers most of your objections, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you've been peddling.

 

By the way, I do not necessarily believe this is what happened.  I still think Joffrey is playing hookey (going AWOL) and ditching his bodyguard, and doing it on his own initiative. 

As to why Sandor isn't with them, I don't know and don't really care.  Actually, I do know.  George evidently planned to combine the ride (or whatever else they did) with the fight with Arya.  The two could be separate, but combining them streamlines things.  Of course, the fight can't occur with an adult present, so, bye-bye Sandor, and to hell with strict realism.  To be honest, I doubt George even thought about explaining why Sandor wasn't there.

 

 

No, sorry but this is absurd. Cersei is not going to let her son go riding through the countryside all alone wearing a king's ransom in the finest clothes and carrying a sword with a solid gold pommel. It's simply too dangerous and he is an easy target. The Hound's job, his only job, is to protect Joffrey at all times, and you have Cersei saying it's OK to leave him behind because she thinks the area is peaceful? And yet it's not so peaceful that Robert and Ned cannot go riding without a contingent of guards at their backs. Sorry, a theory is only viable if it fits with the facts, and this is utterly lacking.

You should care why Sandor is not with them. You might think George contrives unrealistic situations just to advance his plot, but I don't. There is a larger truth here and Sandor's absence is clear-cut evidence of that. But, as you say, you don't care about evidence.

[John Suburbs]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

So why doesn’t Sansa have a sworn shield? I’m surprised that Ned didn’t assign someone to see to her protection and be loyal to her.

And all the friends she supposedly made among the Lannister party did her diddly squat.

Sansa is not royalty, and her instructions are clear: "We are not supposed to leave the column." But I agree, Ned should have assigned permanent guards for both his daughters, but he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, particularly when it comes to hidden dangers like this.

I'm not sure what friends she made among the Lannisters. I think she mentions a squire at some point. But honestly, what could they have done for her?

[Nevets]

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

You're forgetting, Joffrey is not raping anyone. He just has to get her drunk, ride her around for a while, and when she gets back to camp all breathless and stinking of wine he spins the tale of how she seduced him. His reputation remains perfectly intact (in fact, it will probably be enhanced over the years as the prince that girls just can't keep their hands off) while Sansa, and Ned, return to Winterfell in shame.

By the way, if you've forgotten, Joffrey is as drunk, or more so, than Sansa.  "The wine had made him wild."  And why, exactly why should they believe anything Joffrey says about it.  And if nothing physical happens, I don't thnk anybody is going to care much, except maybe Sansa and Ned, who will be upset about Joffrey lying.

Of course, we have been given no indication, at any time,that Cersei had any problem with Sansa as her son's consort.  Nothing in her conversation with Jaime that Bran overheard.  Nothing in her POVs in Feast.  Actually, in Feast, she complains that she was kind to her, and Sansa repaid her with betrayal (by killing Joffrey)  Doesn't sound like someone who disliked Sansa.  Also, she kept her as Joffrey's betrothed even after Ned's execution.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Cersei wants the head of the wolf who was not even responsible for Joffrey's injuries, and yet the Hound is still Joff's sworn shield, takes an active part in the search for Arya and Mycah and is eventually rewarded with a white cloak. If Cersei was as flipping mad about what happened, then the Hound would have been dismissed at minimum, and knowing Cersei he would be lucky to still be alive. Joffrey has the authority to tell the Hound to do all sorts of things, but not to just take off for the day so he can go off riding through strange country all alone. His vow to protect the prince at all times comes directly from Cersei and Robert and supersedes Joffrey

Cersei has had it in for the wolves ever since Winterfell.   

Quote

"The queen shuddered.  "There is something unnatural about those animals", she said.  "They are dangerous.  I will not have any of them coming south with us."

This was a perfect opportunity to get rid of a creature she had disliked since before they left Winterfell.  

Joffrey presumably can tell the Hound to get lost with the implication that he is going to hang about camp, and then sneak off riding.  By the time the Hound finds out, Joffrey (with Sansa) is long gone.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

I think you're confused by the difference between words like "clue" and "evidence" and  incontrovertible proof. I've never said that any of this is proven; just that it's suspicious, and there are many, many reasons to think there may be more going on here then what Martin has so skillfully and craftily decided to share with you, so far.

We have had FOUR books since the ride happened, and nobody has so much as mentioned it in passing.  The wolf attack, yes.  the fact that they were out there in the first place, no.  If there was some mystery as to why they were out there, we would have heard about it by now.

 

23 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

You might think George contrives unrealistic situations just to advance his plot, but I don't.

No wonder you come up with ridiculous ides such as this.  We are reading a FANTASY series about an imaginary place, and you are worried about strict realism?  And while it improved in later books, I've seen posts in other threads suggesting that George's world-building abilities are somewhat lacking in the earlier books (of which this is one)

Also, I am reasonably sure that nearly every writer of fiction in the history of literature has ignored reality when it suited or he needed to do so to advance the story.   George is no exception.  Sandor (or any other adult) cannot be present for the confrontation between Joffrey and Arya.  This means he has to get them away from camp.  If he wants a ride to do it, I have no problem with that.  It would appear that no other reader (except yourself) does either.

Btw, if something in this series is wrong, out of place, etc., and that fact is not obvious to the average modern reader, but is important to the story, then I want text to the effect that it is unusual, and George is good about providing it.  It doesn't have to be much, but there has to be something.  Here, George has given us nothing to cause us to believe that this is important to the story.

Final note:  RLJ is based on a LOT more than "Promise me, Ned", which you would know if you were paying attention.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

3 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The evidence is far more ample than RLJ, which consists solely of "Promise me, Ned." 

3 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

You might think George contrives unrealistic situations just to advance his plot, but I don't.

You seem to view plot devices negatively.

All good story writers use them, including George. They usually add excitement, intrigue, and/or mystery to the story (when written correctly), along with moving the plot forward. 

George uses them splendidly. A few I can think of off the top of my head: Arya finding Needle right as the stable boy approaches her, Tyrion and Cat being at the Inn at the Crossroads at the exact same time, Stannis showing up north of the wall as Mance figures out Jon's true intentions. I'm sure there are more but I think I've made my point. These are all unlikely and unrealistic situations but are necessary to move the story forward in an entertaining manner.

When written well, there is nothing wrong with using plot devices.  

[Nevets]

13 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

As I told Tagg, Arya does not look or act like a highborn, so no one is likely to take any notice of her at all. This is vastly different from two pre-teens dressed in silks and velvets and carrying enough gold to tempt even the most honest smallfolk, let alone a band of brigands, to commit an act of violence in order to live beyond their wildest dreams for the rest of their days.

Yes, they are well dressed.  In fact, their clothes and mounts scream one thing.  Nobility.  And high ranking, at that.  We have seen how the smallfolk respond to nobility.  Remember the reaction to Catelyn revealing herself at the inn where she captured Tyrion.  Or Gendry's reaction when he found out who Arya was.  Awe, respect, and deference.  And given the King's party parked on their doorstep, they will have a pretty good idea who these are.  Family members of the King and his Hand.  You don't mess with people like that.  It results in a massive search ending in head-loppings, hangings, and trips to the Wall.  Nobody wants that.

Yes what they are wearing, carrying and riding is worth a lot.  It is also extremely traceable, and the aforementioned massive search will be looking for their stuff as much as for them.  And it will be found.  The Tullys are popular there, and as Doran Martell said, "somebody always talks."  And the culprits will be executed. 

As for carrying gold, I doubt that.  In fact, given that they are children riding through the countryside, I doubt that they have so much as a copper coin between them.  While I agree that they shouldn't  be out there, I expect that they were never in any real danger.

Actually, Arya could be in more danger than Sansa.  While there aren't that many people who would hurt a 9-year-old, those that would (stray pedophiles, slavers, brothel-keepers, etc.) might think she is an inviting target because nobody would care about her.  By the time they realized otherwise, it might be too late.  There is also the local wildlife, some of which might regard a 9 year old as a nice meal.  I think Ned was more worried about the wildlife.

By the way, if the Hound was so negligent, and perceived as such, why didn't Barristan say something when he was being dismissed in favor of Sandor.  He was certainly happy to burn every other bridge in sight.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, Nevets said:

By the way, if you've forgotten, Joffrey is as drunk, or more so, than Sansa.  "The wine had made him wild."  And why, exactly why should they believe anything Joffrey says about it.  And if nothing physical happens, I don't thnk anybody is going to care much, except maybe Sansa and Ned, who will be upset about Joffrey lying.

Of course, we have been given no indication, at any time,that Cersei had any problem with Sansa as her son's consort.  Nothing in her conversation with Jaime that Bran overheard.  Nothing in her POVs in Feast.  Actually, in Feast, she complains that she was kind to her, and Sansa repaid her with betrayal (by killing Joffrey)  Doesn't sound like someone who disliked Sansa.  Also, she kept her as Joffrey's betrothed even after Ned's execution.

Doesn't matter. Sansa is the maid, she takes the heat for being wanton. Cersei will pretend to care and argue, convincingly based on the evidence, that Sansa is unfit to be queen. Nobody cares if princes are not virgins on the wedding days. It's not that complicated of a plan, actually.

We've been given clear indication that Cersei has a big problem with Ned becoming Hand. This betrothal is part of that deal and is used to cement the Stark's hold on political power in the capital. Undo the betrothal, you break the bond between Ned and Robert, Ned returns to Winterfell and the menace is gone.

Lol, Cersei claims she was kind to Sansa: locking her away in a tower, using her as a hostage against her brother and mother, threatening her if she doesn't perform in court as expected and leaving her to the tender mercies of Joffrey when Sansa was begging her to go home... Yes, I am sure Cersei considers all of these things to be kindnesses. Readers know otherwise, and they don't need some random stranger to stand up in court and state the obvious in order to grasp it.

20 hours ago, Nevets said:

Cersei has had it in for the wolves ever since Winterfell.

This was a perfect opportunity to get rid of a creature she had disliked since before they left Winterfell.  

Joffrey presumably can tell the Hound to get lost with the implication that he is going to hang about camp, and then sneak off riding.  By the time the Hound finds out, Joffrey (with Sansa) is long gone.

Sorry, but you quote is woefully lacking. All she says is that the wolves are unnatural and she doesn't want them near the children. Show me your "textual evidence" that she wanted to kill them.

It was also the perfect opportunity to get rid of all the Starks and prevent her darling Joffrey from getting married until Cersei is ready to choose the bride.

No, he cannot tell the Hound to get lost. Sandor's standing orders to protect the prince come directly from the king and the queen, both of whom are higher authorities than Joffrey. If he did just lose track of them, why didn't he immediately set out to look for them? Plenty of people would have seen them go. Why didn't he alert others that the prince was gone? What was he doing all day long? And when Joffrey did get hurt, due to the Hound's carelessness, why is Cersei only angry with the wolf that was not even involved rather than the man that she commissioned to protect Joffrey? Any rational assessment of these facts would be that this is clear evidence that she intended for Joffrey and Sansa to be alone.

20 hours ago, Nevets said:

We have had FOUR books since the ride happened, and nobody has so much as mentioned it in passing.  The wolf attack, yes.  the fact that they were out there in the first place, no.  If there was some mystery as to why they were out there, we would have heard about it by now.

Yes, and there are two more books to go. On what do you base this indisputable conclusion that we would have heard about this by now? Are these rules that Martin stringently follows written down anywhere? I'd love to read them.

20 hours ago, Nevets said:

No wonder you come up with ridiculous ides such as this.  We are reading a FANTASY series about an imaginary place, and you are worried about strict realism?  And while it improved in later books, I've seen posts in other threads suggesting that George's world-building abilities are somewhat lacking in the earlier books (of which this is one)

Also, I am reasonably sure that nearly every writer of fiction in the history of literature has ignored reality when it suited or he needed to do so to advance the story.   George is no exception.  Sandor (or any other adult) cannot be present for the confrontation between Joffrey and Arya.  This means he has to get them away from camp.  If he wants a ride to do it, I have no problem with that.  It would appear that no other reader (except yourself) does either.

Btw, if something in this series is wrong, out of place, etc., and that fact is not obvious to the average modern reader, but is important to the story, then I want text to the effect that it is unusual, and George is good about providing it.  It doesn't have to be much, but there has to be something.  Here, George has given us nothing to cause us to believe that this is important to the story.

Final note:  RLJ is based on a LOT more than "Promise me, Ned", which you would know if you were paying attention.

Martin is the most realistic writer of the genre and has spent years researching medieval history, everything from the wars they fought, the weapons they used, the clothes they wore, the food they ate... And you contend that in all that research he never once encountered the fact that young princes were not allowed to go riding off into strange lands all by themselves.

He has given us plenty to conclude this ride was not normal, but as you say, you simply ignore evidence that you find inconvenient.

But in the end, just sit tight. The patently obvious text will appear before your eyes soon, or not. Martin has complete liberty to reveal, or keep hidden, anything he wants.

What else besides Promise me Ned? Remember, evidence -- incontrovertible, patently obvious textual evidence -- not speculation.

[John Suburbs]

18 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

Please, show me your evidence. Not your speculations, just your evidence.

18 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

You seem to view plot devices negatively.

All good story writers use them, including George. They usually add excitement, intrigue, and/or mystery to the story (when written correctly), along with moving the plot forward. 

George uses them splendidly. A few I can think of off the top of my head: Arya finding Needle right as the stable boy approaches her, Tyrion and Cat being at the Inn at the Crossroads at the exact same time, Stannis showing up north of the wall as Mance figures out Jon's true intentions. I'm sure there are more but I think I've made my point. These are all unlikely and unrealistic situations but are necessary to move the story forward in an entertaining manner.

When written well, there is nothing wrong with using plot devices.  

What you call plot devices, I call subterfuge. Martin has given us ample reasons to conclude that this ride was not normal, but only those with the most rudimentary reading skills and most basic knowledge of feudal society can puzzle it out. The rest will just have to wait until the reveal comes.

Finding the thing she was looking for in the exact place she knew where to find it is not a plot device. It is a perfectly logical event. If she encountered the stable boy and suddenly the sword fell out of the sky right into her hand, that would be a plot device.

Tyrion and Cat's encounter was also eminently logical. She is heading north on the main road through the region, he is heading south. It would be more unusual if they did not meet. The only puzzling thing about that is why Cat was using the road at all, but she is not the most careful thinker.

Stannis attacking while Jon was in the wildling camp is simple coincidence. Stannis had to attack at some point. The plot would have evolved along exactly the same lines if Jon was still imprisoned.

If there are any plot devices, it would be Sam and Arya happening to bump into each other in Braavos, or Jorah just happening to be at the very same brothel as Tyrion, or that they would both encounter the very dwarf who performed at Joffrey's wedding. Oh, and Coldhands, what a huge plot device he was. 

[John Suburbs]

15 hours ago, Nevets said:

Yes, they are well dressed.  In fact, their clothes and mounts scream one thing.  Nobility.  And high ranking, at that.  We have seen how the smallfolk respond to nobility.  Remember the reaction to Catelyn revealing herself at the inn where she captured Tyrion.  Or Gendry's reaction when he found out who Arya was.  Awe, respect, and deference.  And given the King's party parked on their doorstep, they will have a pretty good idea who these are.  Family members of the King and his Hand.  You don't mess with people like that.  It results in a massive search ending in head-loppings, hangings, and trips to the Wall.  Nobody wants that.

Sorry Nev, but you really need to read before you post:

Quote

She found Arya on the banks of the Trident, trying to hold Nymeria still while she brushed dried mud from her fur. The direwolf was not enjoying the process. Arya was wearing the same riding leathers she had worn yesterday and the day before.

So Sansa is wearing a blue silk dress and if Joffrey's clothes are anything like all the other times we see him he is wearing velvets, ermine, gold damask..., and is carrying a castle-forged sword with a solid gold pommel. Arya is wearing common riding clothes, she is dirty, covered in bruises, hair a tangled mess. So no, n-o, nobody who does not already know her thinks she is a little highborn lady on sight. She can come and go as she pleases and no one takes any notice of her because she looks no different from the hundreds of smallfolk who look exactly the same.

Your examples merely prove my point. Nobody recognized Catelyn until she declared herself. Nobody recognized Arya until Harwin spotted her. Why? Because they did not look like the highborns they were. And what did the brotherhood do with Lady Arya Stark once they knew what they had? Awe, respect, deference? Hardly. They took her hostage and planned to ransom her back to her brother, the king. That's what happens to highborns who find themselves alone in strange country with no one to protect them, if they're lucky.

15 hours ago, Nevets said:

Yes what they are wearing, carrying and riding is worth a lot.  It is also extremely traceable, and the aforementioned massive search will be looking for their stuff as much as for them.  And it will be found.  The Tullys are popular there, and as Doran Martell said, "somebody always talks."  And the culprits will be executed. 

Pirates on the river can be in Maidenpool before anyone even finds the bodies. Outlaws can disappear quite easily, as the BwB was able to do. The gold melted down; the silks stripped into bandages; necklaces, brooches and other goodies stripped of their gems, which all look alike on the open market. Nobody ever commits a crime thinking that they will get caught.

Plus there is the possibility of wild animals. If the shadowcat had kittens in its lair, it could very well have launched itself at either one of them and ripped their throat out in the blink of an eye.

Sorry friend, but all your arguments are falling flat. The world is simply too dangerous for the two most valuable children in the realm to be off alone.

16 hours ago, Nevets said:

As for carrying gold, I doubt that.  In fact, given that they are children riding through the countryside, I doubt that they have so much as a copper coin between them.  While I agree that they shouldn't  be out there, I expect that they were never in any real danger.

As I explained above, the solid-gold pommel on Joffrey's sword alone is worth more than a peasant can hope to earn in a hundred lifetimes. He obviously has coin because he used it to buy the meal and the wine at the inn. I would imagine the crown prince of the realm has at least has a dozen silvers or so in his purse.

So now you have me completely confused. Page after page of argument with you saying there is nothing unusual here, everything is perfectly normal, and now you admit that they shouldn't have been out there? So how do you square that new-found epiphany with the fact that Cersei is not even slightly perturbed with the man whose gross dereliction of duty allowed them to be out where they shouldn't be? It doesn't matter that they never encountered "real" danger (although a direwolf's jaws are certainly real). This could have been much worse. Joffrey could have died. Why is Cersei not upset with the man she has charged with not just making sure that this does not happen but that it could never happen?

16 hours ago, Nevets said:

Actually, Arya could be in more danger than Sansa.  While there aren't that many people who would hurt a 9-year-old, those that would (stray pedophiles, slavers, brothel-keepers, etc.) might think she is an inviting target because nobody would care about her.  By the time they realized otherwise, it might be too late.  There is also the local wildlife, some of which might regard a 9 year old as a nice meal.  I think Ned was more worried about the wildlife.

All true, thus the command "We're not supposed to leave the column, Father said so."

You keep getting caught up on the fact that the kids left the column against orders. But that is not the key piece of evidence here. It is the fact that nothing happened, nothing at all, to the one man whose sole job is to make sure the prince is safe at all times. Barriston Selmy was stripped of his white cloak for failing to protect Robert from a boar. Boros Blount was dismissed for handing Tommen over to Braun. True, he was reinstated, but on Tywin's order, not Cersei's. Janos Slynt was exiled for actually obeying Joffrey's orders. Why such punishments for men who were honestly trying to do the right thing, but not even a scolding for the man who decided on a whim that he was just not going to do his job that day?

16 hours ago, Nevets said:

By the way, if the Hound was so negligent, and perceived as such, why didn't Barristan say something when he was being dismissed in favor of Sandor.  He was certainly happy to burn every other bridge in sight.

Again, you need to read before you post. Selmy departs the throne room before Sandor is named to the Kingsguard. He does throw some bile at Jaime, however.

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Doesn't matter. Sansa is the maid, she takes the heat for being wanton. Cersei will pretend to care and argue, convincingly based on the evidence, that Sansa is unfit to be queen. Nobody cares if princes are not virgins on the wedding days. It's not that complicated of a plan, actually.

Just what, exactly, do you suggest that Joffrey will accuse Sansa of, anyway?  It can't be intercourse, as she isn't likely to do that willingly and you've ruled out rape, and it would leave physical signs.  I am hard pressed to think of anything else that would both be believed of an 11 year old and cause scandal.

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but you quote is woefully lacking. All she says is that the wolves are unnatural and she doesn't want them near the children. Show me your "textual evidence" that she wanted to kill them.

"I will not have any of them coming South with us."  How else is she going to prevent it.  

By the way, the BwB is operating in a war zone.  Very different sort of environment from a land at peace.  Especially one as stable and secure as the Riverlands were at the beginning of the story.

42 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Barriston Selmy was stripped of his white cloak for failing to protect Robert from a boar.

Barristan was dismissed because they wanted to replace him with Jaime as LC and Sandor.  It was political.  The boar was a pretext.

I do not know why Sandor wasn't there, or why he wasn't punished.  As I have said before, story considerations necessitated his absence.  Given that he is not a real person, the reason for his absence in-story isn't known and probably never will be.  It appears, that if Sandor's role is your only real evidence, we are at an impasse, as I do not consider it to be significant.  Especially as nobody has mentioned it since.  If Martin is going to give us a reveal, he at least has the good sense to keep the event in our consciousness.