Game of Thrones

[Paul W.]

...and I'm *very* OK with the opening episode of the season being nothing but set up. There was plenty of substance in that set-up, if you ask me. Especially at the Wall and in Pentos.

[AndrewCrossett]

Yeah, they're going off in a whole lot of new directions this season, so it was a good idea to take an episode to re-set the playing field a bit. There were quite a few game-changing moments in the ep, though most of them were quieter than what we've come to expect.

What Jon Snow did could have big repercussions. Stannis isn't going to be happy, but I'm betting the Wildlings will appreciate what he did. Daenerys is facing rebellion from both the aristocrats and her own dragons, partially because of her naive idealism and lack of subtlety and experience ("I am not a politician, I am a queen.") But Tyrion has exactly the skillset she most needs right now. Varys is a hell of a smart guy.

Were we supposed to know who Young Cersei's dark-haired friend was? And the witch's prophecy was interesting. All three of Cersei's children will wear crowns, and all three will die prematurely. That means we can expect Tommen to follow his big brother into the grave and his sister Myrcella to succeed him... and then she dies too. The younger, more beautiful queen who will take Cersei's place most seems to fit Margaery, but could also be Myrcella or even Daenerys.

Speaking of Daenerys, her dragons could have easily roasted her when she went down to see them... but they didn't. Seems like they're angry with her, but not ready to turn on her altogether. (Is she immune to dragon fire? She survived Drogo's pyre without a burn.) Dany needs to start controlling the dragons the way her ancestors did... time to saddle up.

[Paul W.]

... All three of Cersei's children will wear crowns, and all three will die prematurely...

Um, I don't think the "crowns of gold" was meant to be literal. Blond hair. But I do think they'll all end up dead. Eventually.

[lancerman]

Um, I don't think the "crowns of gold" was meant to be literal. Blond hair. But I do think they'll all end up dead. Eventually.

They left the biggest part of the prophecy out.

1. She would marry the king not the prince. When she asked that question she was talking about Rheagar. She was promised to him at a young age. The Mad King basically told Tywin to take a hike with that as he didn't need his son to marry the daughter of one of his servants. A Dornish alliance would have been more beneficial. She, like lots of women, was infatuated by Rheagar. Robert was really know prize. Even at his peak he was known as a bit of a womanizing brute. Hence why Lyana had no problem running off with him.

2. The king would have 20 children. Refers to Roberts bastards. She would have 3. Important because none of her three children would belong to the king. Crowns of gold has two meanings. The first is obviously blonde hair. The second is that they will all ascend to the throne. Joffrey and Tommen already did. Myrcella technically could under Dornish law, which Cersei could enact. Shrouds of gold in the book meant that they will all die as royalty. Joffrey already did. Tommen is basically surrounded by Tyrells, Stannis and Dany are bidding their time. In the books there is another player surrounding Kings Landing, and the Lannisters will start seeing a lot of resistance without Tywin. They aren't quite as autonomous.

3. The final part which wasn't revealed on the show. And if you think they might you should stop reading here because of PROPHECY SPOILERS (even though the events didn't happen yet, but they are a good indication) is that her three children would all die before her. And a Valonqar would kill Cersei. Or in laymen terms, a younger sibling. Which is what really explains her hate of Tyrion. Though worth noting that Jamie was technically younger by birth.

[lancerman]

I have no idea what "theory" is being used to dismiss her first born who died, but the correct answer is four. I'm pretty sure that an oracle would be truthful enough to at least get that right. And considering that she reveled in giving bad news, I would think she would jump all over that one. I'm putting this down to poor writing.

I'm pretty sure in the books she took Moon Tea to abort the pregancy. She was very vigilant to never have one of Robert's kids after their wedding knight. Which in hindsight was a horrible decision.

[AndrewCrossett]

Varys and Illyrio have apparently been working for a Targaryen restoration since the story began: I assume Illyrio's gift of the dragon eggs to Daenerys wasn't just symbolic.

So when Varys sent the assassin after Daenerys under Robert's orders, did he also warn Jorah Mormont so he could watch for and intercept the assassin? Seems like a risky game. Seems like it would have been safer and easier to send no assassin at all and tell Robert he did.

[Gaelforce]

Varys and Illyrio have apparently been working for a Targaryen restoration since the story began: I assume Illyrio's gift of the dragon eggs to Daenerys wasn't just symbolic.

So when Varys sent the assassin after Daenerys under Robert's orders, did he also warn Jorah Mormont so he could watch for and intercept the assassin? Seems like a risky game. Seems like it would have been safer and easier to send no assassin at all and tell Robert he did.

The assassin was necessary to light a fire under Daenerys. She had never experienced Westeros treachery and could easily have just continued living her life across the narrow sea. Sure, she knew her brother wanted an army and revenge, but she may well have been content to spend her life with her husband until the reality of the threat from Westeros was thrown in her face.

[Paul W.]

I'm pretty sure in the books she took Moon Tea to abort the pregancy. She was very vigilant to never have one of Robert's kids after their wedding knight. Which in hindsight was a horrible decision.

So, they basically screwed up the writing because they went by the book instead of what's already been revealed in the show?

Weak.

[Jmacq1]

They left the biggest part of the prophecy out.

1. She would marry the king not the prince. When she asked that question she was talking about Rheagar. She was promised to him at a young age. The Mad King basically told Tywin to take a hike with that as he didn't need his son to marry the daughter of one of his servants. A Dornish alliance would have been more beneficial. She, like lots of women, was infatuated by Rheagar. Robert was really know prize. Even at his peak he was known as a bit of a womanizing brute. Hence why Lyana had no problem running off with him.

2. The king would have 20 children. Refers to Roberts bastards. She would have 3. Important because none of her three children would belong to the king. Crowns of gold has two meanings. The first is obviously blonde hair. The second is that they will all ascend to the throne. Joffrey and Tommen already did. Myrcella technically could under Dornish law, which Cersei could enact. Shrouds of gold in the book meant that they will all die as royalty. Joffrey already did. Tommen is basically surrounded by Tyrells, Stannis and Dany are bidding their time. In the books there is another player surrounding Kings Landing, and the Lannisters will start seeing a lot of resistance without Tywin. They aren't quite as autonomous.

3. The final part which wasn't revealed on the show. And if you think they might you should stop reading here because of PROPHECY SPOILERS (even though the events didn't happen yet, but they are a good indication) is that her three children would all die before her. And a Valonqar would kill Cersei. Or in laymen terms, a younger sibling. Which is what really explains her hate of Tyrion. Though worth noting that Jamie was technically younger by birth.

1. Robert was a great warrior and highly charismatic in his youth, but a terrible King and yes, an unrepentant womanizer. His theoretical marriage to Lyanna might not have been as toxic as his relationship with Cersei, but it probably would not have been a particularly happy affair. Robert believed otherwise but he's blinded by "lost love bias."

2. Nothing really to add here.

3. POSSIBLE SPOILERS VIA SPECULATION - Yeah, that last bit is kind of important think. I'm fairly sure that Jaime will kill Cersei, but it'll be a mercy-kill after she's basically lost everything and is probably an insane shell of her former self, and happen just before Jaime himself gets killed, redeemed (as much as any character in this story can be) in his heart and soul, at peace with himself, but still reviled by the public and the foes of the Lannisters.

[PwrdOn]

The Meereen plot seems to be a rather direct metaphor for Reconstruction, with the Sons of the Harpy being the analogue of the KKK and Dany's waffling representing the unwillingness of the federal government to impose harsh policies in order to protect the newly freed slaves. A rather important lesson about how moderation and compromise is not always the best policy, something it took the US over a hundred years to learn.

[7thangel]

some folks may not be happy with ep. 2, but it will have book readers wondering how certain storylines will end up

also (do not check if you haven't watched the 2nd ep.)

spoilers:

that so-called mother of dragons killed bad boy earl kelly, how dare she. hissss

end of spoilers

[7thangel]

The Meereen plot seems to be a rather direct metaphor for Reconstruction, with the Sons of the Harpy being the analogue of the KKK and Dany's waffling representing the unwillingness of the federal government to impose harsh policies in order to protect the newly freed slaves. A rather important lesson about how moderation and compromise is not always the best policy, something it took the US over a hundred years to learn.

i like this interpretation, although i don't think they're thinking that deep

[Jmacq1]

i like this interpretation, although i don't think they're thinking that deep

I would not be at all surprised if they were (or Martin at least). He does that kind of stuff all the time.

[CSTowle]

The Meereen plot seems to be a rather direct metaphor for Reconstruction, with the Sons of the Harpy being the analogue of the KKK and Dany's waffling representing the unwillingness of the federal government to impose harsh policies in order to protect the newly freed slaves. A rather important lesson about how moderation and compromise is not always the best policy, something it took the US over a hundred years to learn.

Maybe it was poor reading comprehension on my part (would hardly be the first time), but I got the vibe in the books that upsetting the slave trade so quickly and decisively without thought to consequence was worse than allowing those societies to "grow out of" the concept and evolve. As a younger man found this to be an offensive idea, but perhaps I should go back and reread them (try to every now and again, but it's a lot of time that could be spent reading books I haven't read already).

[AndrewCrossett]

Morally, I would say allowing slavery to continue one second more than you can help is a greater evil than any social disruption caused by ending it suddenly.

But, Dany fell into the classic well-meaning trap of thinking the problem ends as soon as the shackles come off. Telling the gladiator slaves that they couldn't fight as free men for prize money would be like telling slaves after the U.S. Civil War that they weren't allowed to work for wages on the plantations, even though that's all they'd ever been trained to do and the alternative was starvation.