607 - "The Broken Man" - SPOILER FRIENDLY!!

123457

Comments

  • hisdudeness915hisdudeness915 Atlanta, Ga
    edited June 2016


    Lannitik said:

    While I could see that it MIGHT be Arya part of a Usual Suspects trick, I'm willing to bet dick on my forehead in red lipstick that it's not someone else wearing her face or anything of that nature.


    Yeah. I thought the whole point of the Faceless Men was that they wore the faces of dead people. I'm not sure why they would be wearing Arya's face.



    Well, a man has worn Arya's face before... Remember when she was peeling face after face off of Jaqen and hers was there.

    Certainly people can believe what they want, but I put more stock into some sort of FM magic over a mummers farce with fake pig's blood. A waif would know when her knife goes into someone, and when it does not. No way the waif is fooled by Arya wearing chain mail and having fake blood come out... That knife went in repeatedly, and it was twisted while in Arya stomach up to the hilt for good measure.

    I have not seen any evidence for hallucinations (a man drank the potion, not Arya). Not saying it isn't possible, but if we are just going to disregard evidence we don't like as arbitrary hallucinations with nothing to even indicate that is possible, then I am laying dibs on Ned's beheading being a hallucination and he is in fact laying in wait for Sansa and Jon to show up at Winterfell, with his entire Northern Lord's armies at his back.

    While you're right that it was Jaqen/Rando FM who drank the poison, Jaqen told Arya that wearing a face as "someone" is as good as poison. Also, if it is just "magic" then why have all these physical faces in the Hall of Faces? And why do they have to physically remove them? Also, Arya's face is the last one she sees before going blind and that face doesn't get peeled off. I don't think I'm ignoring evidence but rather just trying to find evidence to figure out just exactly how all this crazy shit works.
  • @Duncan Mac While you're right that it was Jaqen/Rando FM who drank the poison, Jaqen told Arya that wearing a face as "someone" is as good as poison. Also, if it is just "magic" then why have all these physical faces in the Hall of Faces? And why do they have to physically remove them? Also, Arya's face is the last one she sees before going blind and that face doesn't get peeled off. I don't think I'm ignoring evidence but rather just trying to find evidence to figure out just exactly how all this crazy shit works.



    Yeah, even in the books we don't know exactly how it works. I cannot say you are wrong, but it seems improbable as no groundwork has been laid at all for the "hallucination" route. Whereas they did lay groundwork for a man to wear a girl's face.

    The "hallucination" route seems like "Dallas" where we learned that the previous season was all just a dream... Worse than LOST even.

    I suspect that the master assassins do not need to physically use the faces that are harvested from the dead. I suspect they have access to Arya's face through her being in "the program" or maybe even by Jaqen paying her the lives debt and killing for her. But notice I use the word "suspect" which means it has not been proven.

    I just think it is way more probable given all the evidence that a FM is wearing Arya's face, than it is that she is doing something with the actress, and somehow the waif didn't notice that her long knife only punctured a bladder with pigs blood before clanking off of chain mail, or something like that which has been proposed on the internet(s).


    Anyway, we will see. That is what makes this all great stuff. 

  • I feel ya. It's not often in this show that I can't even hazard a guess as to what's gonna happen with a plot line. But this one is driving me nuts. I just re-watched this scene again and still can't make heads or tails of it. She seems so unlike Arya pre-stabbing. But then post-stabbing she seems so in character for Arya. Man, I just don't know. Can't wait to find out
    Duncan Maclippy
  • ghm3 said:

    I think you're confusing it with modern inheritance, where the wife is entitled to portions of possessions because she is a partner in the relationship.

    Marriage was a contract: A man's family leased a woman's uterus, she was obligated to provide an heir. (Preferably male). She got a title and he got her property, or frequently a large dowry. At that point *her* inheritance belonged to *him.*

    If Margaery does not provide an heir she gets *nothing.*. She can go back to her family, and maybe be married off again.

    The tragic thing about Cersei is she has *zero* worth at this point, except possibly nostalgic value to her son. she probably wouldn't even find another husband, because no lord is going to risk marrying a woman past child baring age.

    Unless Margaery's family seizes the throne by force-a possibility- she has no right to be anything but a dowager queen. She won't even be a queen mother, which is Cersei's role.

    If Margaery's grandmother wasn't brilliant, if her father wasn't an idiot, and her brother wasn't gay, her personal worth would've less than that of a horse.

    Robert's bastards have more right to the throne. His brother's bastard (if they had had them) would have had more rights. The King's wife is entitled to nothing.
  • One quick historical example:

    Empress Matilda (Maude) of the Holy Roman Empire was unable to produce a child with her husband, the Emperor.

    She was not empress of his realm after he died (although she got to continue using the title), she was sent back to England, where she was married to Geoffrey of Anjou.

    Her father died without a legitimate male heir, so she fought for her own claim for years (the period is referred to as "When Christ and his saints slept," the civil war destroyed the small folk).

    She never was recognized as the English queen, however, her son became king after the death of her cousin Stephen (known to Matilda supporters as the Usurper).

    Not only was she not entitled to her husbands empire, she wasn't even entitled to her own inheritance (although her father made his barons swear they would acknowledge her, as did Stephen).

    Margaery will get nothing unless she pops out a son.
    lippyTheEconomist
  • I'd like to comment on this whole lady Mormont child.

    1. I think the child actor did a fine job.

    2. We grew up in a very different time period where 10 year olds are still children. However, we can't compare a 10 year old in 2016 to a 10 year old from ages ago. There have been many child leaders in the real world and I find it completely believable a 10 year old could handle themselves as such.

    3. Even if you don't believe a child could handle themselves like that the show does a good job of having her ask for help from the 2 dudes sitting next to her. She is taking advice from her seniors.
    lippyhisdudeness915DaveyMacFernNYC17gjulleenSchrodingersWight
  • edited June 2016
    Hatorian said:

    I'd like to comment on this whole lady Mormont child.

    1. I think the child actor did a fine job.

    2. We grew up in a very different time period where 10 year olds are still children. However, we can't compare a 10 year old in 2016 to a 10 year old from ages ago. There have been many child leaders in the real world and I find it completely believable a 10 year old could handle themselves as such.

    3. Even if you don't believe a child could handle themselves like that the show does a good job of having her ask for help from the 2 dudes sitting next to her. She is taking advice from her seniors.

    Hell, there's a 10 year old who was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and he held the post for sixty years, so he must've been good at it.

    I agree that it's not a stretch to believe a child could handle themselves if they had to, but I can see where Jim is coming from to a point when almost all the children in this series are imbeciles like Robin Arryn, Tommen and Sansa when she was that age.
    lippyTheEconomist
  • Why is hard to believe the Brotherhood Without Banners could go and kill the innocent people of Ian McShanes character? With Lady Stoneheart as their leader, they're merciless killers anyway right?
  • lippylippy Australia
    Hatorian said:

    I'd like to comment on this whole lady Mormont child.

    1. I think the child actor did a fine job.

    2. We grew up in a very different time period where 10 year olds are still children. However, we can't compare a 10 year old in 2016 to a 10 year old from ages ago. There have been many child leaders in the real world and I find it completely believable a 10 year old could handle themselves as such.

    3. Even if you don't believe a child could handle themselves like that the show does a good job of having her ask for help from the 2 dudes sitting next to her. She is taking advice from her seniors.

    I loved little lady Mormont, and your post brings up a good point, remember the industrial revolution, we used to send 5 year olds into factory's to work to make money for their families to survive. Maybe not such a stretch after all.

    gjulleen
  • Philip G said:


    lippy said:

    Philip G said:

    @Lippy



    I don't think the high sparrow knows or has proof of Tommon being a product of incest. Cersei is on trial for banging her cousin Lansil not Jamie.


    Good point well made :)


  • Hatorian said:
    And Joan of Arc was like a 17yr old illiterate farm girl so yeah, strange things happen in interesting times.
  • treerocks said:

    Anyone catch Savos mention the mad king when talking to lady Marramont? (I know I spelled that wrong ), he mentioned the mad King practically in the same breath as the White Walkers. Did I not hear correctly? If I did hear correctly, what is he talking about?

    That was "Davos" and he mentioned the "Night King". Try closed captions. I think the thick accents make it hard for non-Brits to understand.
    [Deleted User]
  • BallbegBallbeg Belfast UK
    edited June 2016
    @gjulleen.
    On the issue of legitimacy and claims on the throne by Gendry.
     If we  are using historical precedent & British historical precedent in particular, which is the only one that I have a little knowledge of, then there are very few examples of obviously illegitimate offspring of monarchs having a claim to seizing the crown successfully. 
    Possibly, and its really pushing it a bit also I dont hold to this theory myself, then maybe Elizabeth I.
     Even then she was certainly not the result of a debauched night of sex in a tavern with a serving wench or whore.

    There are, however, a lot more examples of legitimate heirs being successfully declared illegitimate by more ruthless and powerful relatives further down the line of succession.
    The young Princes in the Tower being the most famous and obvious example.
     These two youngsters, Edward V and his younger brother, were the children of Edward IV and nephews of Richard III. 
    After Edward IV's death his brother Richard, who was next in line after the younger Prince, managed to get the Princes declared illegitimate in order to seize the crown himself. He imprisoned them in the Tower of London and they were literally never heard from again.
    Whether you believe that Richard had the two Princes murdered in the Tower of London or not, he most definitely saw them as obstacles in his path to the throne and had them declared illegitimate.

     This action alienated much support for the Yorkist cause in the War of the Roses and ultimately led to Richard's and his house's utter annihilation at the battle of Bosworth Field in Leicestershire in 1485. A battle of European if not global significance which effectively ended the middle ages in England. Given GRRM's well known insipration from the Wars of the Roses, then I have an inkling that this battle will be pretty much used as a template for the forthcoming Battle of the Bastards.

    At Bosworth, Henry Tudor, later Henry VII (Jon Snow?) the last remaining claimant of significance on the Lancastrian side, had marched a small exhausted army hundreds of miles across country from the Welsh coast to face what seemed to all as certain defeat against a large, fresh and well entrenched army of the probable child and relative killer, Richard (Ramsey?) which was 3 times larger.
     A third of Richards army were the men of the northern baron, Lord Stanley whose holdings were in the county of NorthUMBERland. 
    He had never been an enthusiastic ally of Richard and was possibly  scheming with Henry Tudor on the side.
     When battle was joined, Stanley held his men back until the bulk of Richards forces were committed before attacking Richard's men from the side in a surprise attack ( the "My kingdom for a horse" moment in Shakespeare's play). 
    Richard and much of his loyal army were wiped out.
    Richard himself was chopped to pieces (I'd prefer Ghost to savage Ramsey to death seeing as he is so fond of 'feeding the hounds', but will go with hacked to pieces as a suitable alternative), some of the pieces  were later displayed on the bridge over the river Fosse in Leicester days later. 
    His remains were then disposed of unceremoniously somewhere unknown before being discovered under what is now a Leicester car park 3 years ago and given a state funeral in Leicester Cathedral last year. Another reason why I want Ghost to eat Ramsey is that I dont fancy the bastard's corpse being dug up and treated with dignity in 500 Westerossi years time.


    Anyway, first post here. Sorry its so long. I just wanted to get a theory I had out there. 
    TheEconomistLady CpavlovsbellElisatrippylippypodcartfanGiovanni
  • treerocks said:

    Good episode overall except for Arya getting stabbed. I think the double D's got it wrong with Arya.
    They have her walking around Bravos with no disguise, strolling along throwing down judge sums of money, standing on a bridge taking in the sights, then fall for the little old lady trick. This is not the smart savvy Arya we know and love. She might as well have worn a target on her back, she could not have made it anymore easier for the waif. What's up with that double D's?



    @Garrison66

    The Faceless Men literally built Braavos. She wasn't getting out unscathed regardless. Also the old woman wasn't like "fooled you" trick. Waif called out sweet girl and when Arya turned around was immediately stabbed. Arya isn't really all that smart or saavy. She constantly makes stubborn decisions that land her in hot water. If Yoren or Jaqen or Sandor weren't around to clean up her mess she'd be long dead.
    I would toss out this theory: Ayra set the Waif up. She lured the Waif into believing she has killed her so that she can get away. Ayra is much smarter than anyone is giving her credit for. I bet she isn't really hurt rather than the theory of it not being her (she got away from the Waif fairly easily for not knowing what she is doing if it's not her). I bet she got some fake blood props from the Mummers (the one that owes her a favor) and now she is free to make it look like she dies and can now flee to Home
    Lady CElisa
  • Thannos said:

    treerocks said:

    Good episode overall except for Arya getting stabbed. I think the double D's got it wrong with Arya.
    They have her walking around Bravos with no disguise, strolling along throwing down judge sums of money, standing on a bridge taking in the sights, then fall for the little old lady trick. This is not the smart savvy Arya we know and love. She might as well have worn a target on her back, she could not have made it anymore easier for the waif. What's up with that double D's?



    @Garrison66

    The Faceless Men literally built Braavos. She wasn't getting out unscathed regardless. Also the old woman wasn't like "fooled you" trick. Waif called out sweet girl and when Arya turned around was immediately stabbed. Arya isn't really all that smart or saavy. She constantly makes stubborn decisions that land her in hot water. If Yoren or Jaqen or Sandor weren't around to clean up her mess she'd be long dead.
    I would toss out this theory: Ayra set the Waif up. She lured the Waif into believing she has killed her so that she can get away. Ayra is much smarter than anyone is giving her credit for. I bet she isn't really hurt rather than the theory of it not being her (she got away from the Waif fairly easily for not knowing what she is doing if it's not her). I bet she got some fake blood props from the Mummers (the one that owes her a favor) and now she is free to make it look like she dies and can now flee to Home
    I'm not sure. It seemed like the Waif thought Arya was dead when Arya fell into the water and didn't resurface. But then Arya walked through a busy street holding her wounds. Seems dangerous since the Waif could have still been nearby. This plot is worrying me. It's giving me bad memories of the Glenn dumpster fiasco in The Walking Dead.
    Elisa
  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited June 2016
    @Thannos I'm also not convinced they told the story straight either in part because it doesn't make much sense right now (ie, why was she behaving so irrationally/carelessly prior to being stabbed after having behaved rationally/warily overnight).  I'm not sure if we're not giving them the benefit of the doubt, though, it seems like often at least when it comes to the show the theory that depends on complexity is wrong and the one that is the simplest solution is right--by that rationale it seems most likely that she simply made a dumb mistake.

    But if it winds up being that Arya tricked the waif into believing she was dead somehow with fake blood props I'd be pretty disappointed with the implausibility of it--I'm already disappointed if the waif just looks at the water where her wounded but clearly not yet dead victim went and after a couple of seconds turns around and walks off secure in the knowledge of a job well done rather than searching for a confirmed dead body--who would do that?  And how exactly do you trick someone who had a real knife into thinking they stabbed you repeatedly and twisted the knife in your guts?  Why would you assume you were going to be stabbed in the guts rather than, say, have your throat slit?  Something seems off with this stuff but really don't know if it's deliberate or not.
    Why is hard to believe the Brotherhood Without Banners could go and kill the innocent people of Ian McShanes character? With Lady Stoneheart as their leader, they're merciless killers anyway right?
    With LSH as their leader they are clearly merciless with regard to anybody associated with the Red Wedding, they slaughter parties of Freys and will kill Brienne and Pod as Lannister sympathizers without a second thought, although I wasn't under the impression that they just killed anybody and everybody they came across (if so how are they motivated by her vengeance, they hang Freys instead of just killing them like they do everybody else?).  Maybe so, though.  When Brienne is in the Riverlands, Thoros of Myr tells her, "Justice. I remember justice. It had a pleasant taste. Justice was what we were about when Beric led us, or so we told ourselves. We were king’s men, knights, and heroes... but some knights are dark and full of terror, my lady. War makes monsters of us all."  *edit* That said, they also might have recognized the Hound as a former Lannister lackey (he's one of the most recognizable persons in the Seven Kingdoms I imagine) or suspected the group of having something to do with Lannisters/Freys/Boltons somehow and complicit in the Red Wedding--they weren't listening to Brienne's justifications, after all, so it doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence.
  • BallbegBallbeg Belfast UK
    edited June 2016

    Thannos said:

    treerocks said:

    Good episode overall except for Arya getting stabbed. I think the double D's got it wrong with Arya.
    They have her walking around Bravos with no disguise, strolling along throwing down judge sums of money, standing on a bridge taking in the sights, then fall for the little old lady trick. This is not the smart savvy Arya we know and love. She might as well have worn a target on her back, she could not have made it anymore easier for the waif. What's up with that double D's?



    @Garrison66

    The Faceless Men literally built Braavos. She wasn't getting out unscathed regardless. Also the old woman wasn't like "fooled you" trick. Waif called out sweet girl and when Arya turned around was immediately stabbed. Arya isn't really all that smart or saavy. She constantly makes stubborn decisions that land her in hot water. If Yoren or Jaqen or Sandor weren't around to clean up her mess she'd be long dead.
    I would toss out this theory: Ayra set the Waif up. She lured the Waif into believing she has killed her so that she can get away. Ayra is much smarter than anyone is giving her credit for. I bet she isn't really hurt rather than the theory of it not being her (she got away from the Waif fairly easily for not knowing what she is doing if it's not her). I bet she got some fake blood props from the Mummers (the one that owes her a favor) and now she is free to make it look like she dies and can now flee to Home
    I'm not sure. It seemed like the Waif thought Arya was dead when Arya fell into the water and didn't resurface. But then Arya walked through a busy street holding her wounds. Seems dangerous since the Waif could have still been nearby. This plot is worrying me. It's giving me bad memories of the Glenn dumpster fiasco in The Walking Dead.
    If Arya was baiting the Waif into a pre emptive strike that she could feign death from then surely she would expect an attack on her throat not the stomach. Of course Arya doesnt know that Jaaqen told the waif to make it quick and as painless as possible but I would have thought that  a cut throat would be standard MO for the Faceless Men anyway.
     Unless shes double bluffing and knows that the waif's loathing for her would result in a gut attack. But thats seems to me a bit too risky and overcomplicated. 
    So unless the Arya we saw attacked was, as the theory going about states, actually Jaaqen in disguise testing the Waif - and her behaviour before the attack was rash bordering on suicidal and very un Arya like - then I am getting the sinking feeling that the double Ds have righteously fucked this up. 
    I really hope Im wrong, I have faith in them to pull off a cunning plan....hopefully.
  • FernNYC17FernNYC17 New York, NY
    Guys quick question that has me scratching my head today. I'm not a book reader, but i remember reading that in the books one of the big reasons Jaime Turns his back on Cersei beside her going slowly mad is that he finds out that She was sleeping with Lancel and he felt betrayed since he has only been with her. Now in the show if i remember she is having a trail by combat for a few reasons but one of the big ones is for sleeping with Lancel. I'm Assuming Jamie know all the details since he said to her before he left to the river lands that he needs to stay with her because of her upcoming Trail by Combat. So why is TV Jamie More in love with her then ever instead of being pissed as hell for her Affair with Lancel? What am i missing here. Thanks
  • LukeLuke Central Illinois
    @FernNYC17 we have yet to have a scene in the show where Jamie actually finds out why exactly Cersi was charged.

    It's the same situation with Davis and Mel. There are a couple of really big unspoken facts that would greatly change how Davos/Jamie feels, but don't yet know.

    I'll give the writers the benefit of the doubt and say this is intentional and they are saving the reveal for a key ploy turn. But if we end the season with Jamie or Davos still in the dark I would say they are continuity errors.
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    Jaime's arc has been frustrating. I suspect they reshuffled it to make Jaime's break with Cersei more relatable because hopefully it will be about Cersei ruining everything (I think she's going to burn at least part of KL when she goes nuts either because Tommen dies, or something else and he dies as a result of that). Jaime wanted to stay in KL, and Cersei told him to go to Riverrun instead. The Blackfish is going to humiliate him even more, and when Jaime and Cersei meet again, Jaime is not going to be in the mood for her, and he will finally realize what a horrible person she is and will turn on her then. I would find that more satisfying than Jaime getting upset because Cersei cheated on him. (There is more to the prophecy but the show omitted that.) Does Jaime already know about Lancel and not care at the moment, or like Davos, he kind of knows something happened but hasn't dealt with it because more important things have taken his attention? I don't know. The show has glossed over a lot of character development this season in favor of propelling the plot, which is great after a sluggish S5, but I wish there were more balance.

    I think Davos will learn about Shireen when he finds the burned sculpture that he gave her at the camp they are currently at. Then he will confront Melisandre. Maybe Lyanna Mormont being there will play a role in that, who knows?
    ElisaTheEconomist
  • If Margery's worth depends on her bearing an heir, then two questions follow:

    Why is Margery not sleeping with Tommen? Is she playing with atom men's hormones to get higher influence over Tommen with the High Sparrow? The High Sparrow could use the fact that she is depriving her marital duties as Queen to the King.

    Second question,

    has any religious figure in a royal court been appointed to solve sexual matters between a king and Queen? I thought religious figures of the court would be consulted to perform a prayer service that whatever God will send them a child, the batisim of the child and then guidance in practicing the faith.

    The High Sparrow seems to be stepping over bounds talking about sex to the king and Queen. I think his conversation with Margery was a His way of putting Margery, in her place. He has the ear of the king in everything, even on matters of sex, Her only security as Queen lies in bearing an heir, and not sleeping with the King, is neglecting her martial duties, which perhaps could be considered a sin and she could be put back on trial again.

    Within the same breath, the High Sparrow asks about her grandmother and her lack of the sparrow faith, which I believe the High Sparrow knew would scare Margery enough to beg her grandmother to leave. Which she did, Lady Olena leaving is taking away Margery's last alliey, along with the Tyrell army.

    Who does Margery have left to help her get rid of the High Sparrow and/or the strong influence he has over Tommen?

    If Tommen, Margery and Cersi die, who can stop the High Sparrow from taking over the throne? As long as the High Sparrow has the will of the people, any replacement of the King will struggle with the same issues as the Lannister's and Tyrell's.

    I can't see the High Sparrow become king of the iron throne, except maybe temporarily, until someone else shows up that has the military strength to take the throne and the ability to win over the people, to turn against the High Sparrow.

    Another possibility, is that a bloody fight against the high sparrow will destroy both sides, the people of Lannister and the town itself.
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    @FernNYC17 @Luke

    Could be Jaime is just so attached to Cersei he just overlooks or forgives her for the affair with Lancel. Surprisingly she didn't tear into him as much as conceivable for bringing back a dead Myrcella so maybe it's not a great time to throw a fit about an affair. The actor who plays Jaime really thinks he's just madly in love with Cersei.

    The show also has set up a far more elaborate method for getting Jaime out of the city than the rage quit in the books. That rage quit was also after learning Cersei not only had an affair with Lancel but several other men not in the show. That reveal was also by Tyrion right after being released by Jaime to escape execution not an inquiry by the High Sparrow. So book Jaime has more reason to hate Cersei in that moment before shame walk than after when returning with a dead daughter and seeing her abused by the faith mitigates his anger.
    pavlovsbellFernNYC17Melonusk
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    Another reason for Margaery not wanting to sleep with Tommen is that an heir binds her to the Lannisters. "Baratheon" or not, Tommen is at least half Lannister, and part of Margaery's maneuvering is to get rid of the Lannisters. I don't know if Margaery has a long term plan. That rose may have also been a signal to get help.

    Lady Olenna was conspicuously writing letters when Cersei came to her. I got a Tywin vibe from that when he was planning the RW with the Boltons and Freys. 
    TheEconomistvoodooratMelonusk[Deleted User]Elisalippy
  • TheEconomistTheEconomist Chattanooga, TN
    @pavlovsbell

    I've been thinking the Tyrells want out of their alliance with the Lannisters for a while now. Since Tywin died it's being like shackled to a corpse. Wondering if getting Jaime out of the Kingsguard with a Lannister army is a Margaery plot. If the Tyrell army is still inside the city they are positioned for a power play.

    Also wonder if the Tyrells have enough foresight to assume Dany with her dragons and army may one day invade and they can support a Targaryen restoration. They are old time Targ loyalists only bending the knee to Robert after the Mad King's death.

    Either or both would explain withholding an heir and more.
    pavlovsbellElisalippy
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    @TheEconomist  I could see Olenna writing to Randyll Tarly and to Ellaria Martell to bring them back into the plot. Not that anyone is dying for more Dorne, but I don't think we're done with them. And Dany might stop at Dorne before landing in Westeros proper. 

    I really don't know. King's Landing, Dorne, and Dany are the least interesting part of the show for me so I don't give them much thought. But I can see crazy stuff going down in King's Landing in the finale before I can see the Wall falling down with two more seasons to go, even if both of those things occurring simultaneously would be poetic. Maybe the Lannisters and the Faith Militant finally falling while Jon is crowned King in the North as Dany takes off for Westeros is ice and fire enough.
    [Deleted User]Elisalippy
  • @pavlovsbell I could see Olenna writing to Randyll Tarly, but i'm fairly sure she wouldn't being asking for aid from House Martell. A house the Tyrell's have been fighting in the Stormlands for years. Not to mention the fact that Ellaria is baseborn. It's more likely they will throw in with Dany when she finally lands in Westeros 
    pavlovsbell

  • I think Davos will learn about Shireen when he finds the burned sculpture that he gave her at the camp they are currently at. Then he will confront Melisandre. Maybe Lyanna Mormont being there will play a role in that, who knows?
    Young Lady Mormont shows Sir Davos the stag, "Did you make this stag? I found it in the pile of ashes around that stake over there. It has you named carved on it."
    pavlovsbellBallbegElisa
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    @Lord Ratcliff Good point. I was thinking of one of the episode themes of people striking uneasy alliances, but do people even know about the coup in Dorne? I would be happy if they forget about Dorne for as long as possible. 
  • @pavlovsbell I'm not sure if absolutely everyone knows about what happened in Dorne, but Jaime and Cersei brought it up when they confronted Olenna and Kevan at a High Council meeting. Nothing was made of it past that. But I'm in agreement that they have made a debacle of the Dorne storyline.
    pavlovsbell
This discussion has been closed.