Season 7 Episode 5 "Eastwatch" - "Book readers"

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

No, I don't believe he was and I sincerely doubt he believed he was either.

Oleanna certainly pulled the strings in the Reach for years. Yet, her puppetry and the tolerance thereof was based on the legitimacy of Mace (and probably the quality of her rule also, in fairness). No Mace or Loras means no legitimate house Tyrell. Without them, Oleanna is nothing and is owed nothing by the Tyrell vassals.

We actually don't know if there are other Tyrrell heirs. It was hardly such a small family that only had four members.

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, it is different for Lyssa as she ruled through Robin- a legitimate Arryn. It is different for Sansa as she is a Stark. Olenna was neither a Tyrell nor did she have a Tyrell to rule through.

So how does that work for Cersei Lannister? Or Jon Snow? This seems like you're scratching around looking for excuses for Tarly's treason. He himself balked at betraying the Tyrrell's until Jaime offered him the carrot to quiet his conscience.

TheIrishGrover

I really liked this episode with some usual cons:

Liked

• Thormond back
• Gendry back... With a big ass f*cking hammer
• Davos... As usual
• The Hound to Dondarion "Shut the f*ck up"
• Dany's ruthlessness. Was good to see another, flawed, side to her.
• Varys' speech. Fantastic.

Wasn't gone on

• Enough with the Jon Targaryan. We get it. Dragon like it. Gilly's amazingly sudden ability to read and discovering he's actually legitimate. We know. We don't need it to be beat into our head by Gendry and his hammer.
• Arya turning into Jessica Fletcher
• The Magnificent Seven Rides North. While cool looking it was a bit too typical Fantasy Novel
• Bron's ability to haul an armour-clad man half a mile down river.
• They're teleporting around at this stage

I've said it in other posts: I don't know if it's because the strands are beginning to come together or that GRRM isn't as involved as much anymore but it's all getting pretty standard fantasy at this stage. While it was indeed cool to see such a great group heading Beyond The Wall,it is a VERY typical and obvious Fantasy trope: The stable-boy/orphan/whoever who is the long lost heir to a dynasty and his rough and ready group go on one last mission. Where the worst of them (But Fan-Favourite) will sacrifice himself for the greater good and the noble one will help him. Will bring him back from the dead at the cost of his own life. (For his spinoff books).

Don't get me wrong: I really did enjoy the episode. Thought it was great fun. But there's nothing coming as a shock anymore. You're just ticking off the next things to happen: A dragon dies, gets turned into ice dragon; Jon finds out about his parentage - is too noble to take advantage of it. Will tell them to tell nobody; Magnificent Seven/A-Team will lose half their men. And on and on (But that should be for the speculation thread I suppose)

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

We actually don't know if there are other Tyrrell heirs. It was hardly such a small family that only had four members.

So how does that work for Cersei Lannister? Or Jon Snow? This seems like you're scratching around looking for excuses for Tarly's treason. He himself balked at betraying the Tyrrell's until Jaime offered him the carrot to quiet his conscience.

Nope- no oath, no treason.

The Tyrells have been wiped out, Tyrion said so when addressing Dickon. They appear to have been, in the TV show, a small unit which is why Oleanna caved when Tywin threatened to sign Loras into the Kingsguard.

Cersei, like Oleanna, is an illegitimate ruler. Tarly has no love for her but rowed in behind her in the face of foreign invasion for lack of alternatives. Lesser of two evils type deal. Don't have the foggiest why you'd mention Jon Snow.

Daith

DeadHand wrote: »

Cersei, like Oleanna, is an illegitimate ruler.

There's no illegitimate rulers. The show has repeatedly shown that "power resides where men believes it resides".

I get that people love the various succession lines but in Game of Thrones, seizing power is also valid. Robert, Cersei, Dany (in Essos), Boltons, Jon Snow (a bastard), Littlefinger, etc.

Okay, Jon had power thrust upon him but he's still Lord of Winterfell over two more legitimate people.

Everybody in the Reach knew Olenna Tyrell was the power there.

Dave_The_Sheep

Daith wrote: »

There's no illegitimate rulers. The show has repeatedly shown that "power resides where men believes it resides".

Thing is, that's not compatible with honor which is what is being talked about here.

If there's no illegitimate rulers, and it's based solely on power, then it's perfectly OK to rebel against your liege lord as long as you win. If you have the power to take over ruling, then you can, and it's OK. Tarly declares for the Lannisters, together they take out Olenna and the remaining Tyrells, Tarley takes over in Highgarden and has thus 'won' making it OK.

Reminds me of a line from Shogun:
Toranaga: There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.
Blackthorne: "Unless you win."
Toranaga: “Yes, Mister Foreigner…you have named the one mitigating factor.”

Of course, that doesn't make sense in terms of honour. Either you respect your liege lord/lady and stick by them, or you don't. If Tarly doesn't believe Olenna is his legitimate liege, then his honour is still intact. If he does, then it isn't. So in terms of honour, there absolutely are legitimate and illegitimate rulers in this sense (see also: Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon).

[edit] I'm not arguing either way that he is or isn't a piece of sh*t. I'm just disappointed he's gone, he was an interesting character in his way.

Loafing Oaf

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Thing is, that's not compatible with honor which is what is being talked about here.

If there's no illegitimate rulers, and it's based solely on power, then it's perfectly OK to rebel against your liege lord as long as you win. If you have the power to take over ruling, then you can, and it's OK. Tarly declares for the Lannisters, together they take out Olenna and the remaining Tyrells, Tarley takes over in Highgarden and has thus 'won' making it OK.

Reminds me of a line from Shogun:
Toranaga: There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.
Blackthorne: "Unless you win."
Toranaga: “Yes, Mister Foreigner…you have named the one mitigating factor.”

.

Or the one quoted by Kevin Costner in JFK:
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

podgemonster

I enjoyed that episode for what it was and knew it wouldn't hit the highs of the spoils of war, some great dialogue, power plays and reunions and reintroductions, they really pushed travel times this episode but I always understood this to be necessary to squeeze in a fantasy saga into a TV show.


There was so much plot progression from almost every storyline setting us up for the final two major episodes. This episode is essentially what I'd call the calm before the storm. Nice moments of humour too needed after the Tarly execution, Jaime & Bronn, Davos & the goldcloaks, Tyrion & Varys, Sam & Gilly and of course Tormund. I doubt this will be an episode I will re-watch on it's own in years to come unlike the previous.


The scene of the episode for me was Jon Snow meeting Drogon. I found it similar to Arya meeting Nymeria. The beast stalks over aggressively but curious and the Stark stands, cautious but fearless. Jon almost seems to sync with Drogon the way his eyes close and open. I read once that that was a signal cats gave when they trusted you, they'd close their eyes knowing you won't hurt them. Drogon's body language changed considerable once he got Jon Snow's scent.


I can't imagine Euron will be pleased when Cersei is having a baby shower in the Red Keep. That character is liable to do anything.

Daith

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

If Tarly doesn't believe Olenna is his legitimate liege, then his honour is still intact. If he does, then it isn't. So in terms of honour, there absolutely are legitimate and illegitimate rulers in this sense (see also: Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon).

Honour's a horse isn't?

I get where you're coming from which is why I wanted Dany to tell Randyll that she was born in Westeros and Randyll served her father so what's the issue?

Heffoman

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I really liked this episode with some usual cons:

Liked

• Thormond back
• Gendry back... With a big ass f*cking hammer
• Davos... As usual
• The Hound to Dondarion "Shut the f*ck up"
• Dany's ruthlessness. Was good to see another, flawed, side to her.
• Varys' speech. Fantastic.

Wasn't gone on

• Enough with the Jon Targaryan. We get it. Dragon like it. Gilly's amazingly sudden ability to read and discovering he's actually legitimate. We know. We don't need it to be beat into our head by Gendry and his hammer.
• Arya turning into Jessica Fletcher
• The Magnificent Seven Rides North. While cool looking it was a bit too typical Fantasy Novel
• Bron's ability to haul an armour-clad man half a mile down river.
• They're teleporting around at this stage

I've said it in other posts: I don't know if it's because the strands are beginning to come together or that GRRM isn't as involved as much anymore but it's all getting pretty standard fantasy at this stage. While it was indeed cool to see such a great group heading Beyond The Wall,it is a VERY typical and obvious Fantasy trope: The stable-boy/orphan/whoever who is the long lost heir to a dynasty and his rough and ready group go on one last mission. Where the worst of them (But Fan-Favourite) will sacrifice himself for the greater good and the noble one will help him. Will bring him back from the dead at the cost of his own life. (For his spinoff books).

Don't get me wrong: I really did enjoy the episode. Thought it was great fun. But there's nothing coming as a shock anymore. You're just ticking off the next things to happen: A dragon dies, gets turned into ice dragon; Jon finds out about his parentage - is too noble to take advantage of it. Will tell them to tell nobody; Magnificent Seven/A-Team will lose half their men. And on and on (But that should be for the speculation thread I suppose)

I think the Gilly thing wasnt just to hint that Jon is just a Targaryn bit if the marriage was legal he is the rightful ruler and not his aunt.

On the same lines is Tyrion the third head of the Dragon then. Was that the reason his father hated him? Would make sense.

Liam O

Daith wrote: »

Honour's a horse isn't?

I get where you're coming from which is why I wanted Dany to tell Randyll that she was born in Westeros and Randyll served her father so what's the issue?

Because the writers only mention things that allow the plot to move the way they want to, whether it makes sense or not. One of the most loyal Targ defenders going against the opportunity to further himself with a sure thing once he sees the dragon just doesn't really make sense. Some people in here will try to defend it but the fact is in the books he's looking likely to turn on the Lannisters anyway.

Dave_The_Sheep

Daith wrote: »

I get where you're coming from which is why I wanted Dany to tell Randyll that she was born in Westeros and Randyll served her father so what's the issue?

Indeed, I thought it was a really odd thing to not bring up myself - it was the obvious thing to fire back at him.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

Nope- no oath, no treason.

Well he thought there was. He actually said so to Jaime when he was being persuaded to join with Cersei: "I swore an oath to House Tyrrell" were his very words.

DeadHand wrote: »

The Tyrells have been wiped out, Tyrion said so when addressing Dickon. They appear to have been, in the TV show, a small unit which is why Oleanna caved when Tywin threatened to sign Loras into the Kingsguard.

Cersei, like Oleanna, is an illegitimate ruler. Tarly has no love for her but rowed in behind her in the face of foreign invasion for lack of alternatives. Lesser of two evils type deal. Don't have the foggiest why you'd mention Jon Snow.

Jon Snow because he was not a legitimate heir to Winterfell, yet was accepted as such, despite there being other legitimate heirs. And more turning up by the episode.

Liam O

Heffoman wrote: »

I think the Gilly thing wasnt just to hint that Jon is just a Targaryn bit if the marriage was legal he is the rightful ruler and not his aunt.

On the same lines is Tyrion the third head of the Dragon then. Was that the reason his father hated him? Would make sense.

His father hated him because he was a dwarf, killed his wife and was the most similar to him of his 3 children.

Jaime and Cersei would be more likely to be Targs for obvious reasons. Even down to Genna Lannister saying at Riverrun that Tyrion is most like Tywin and Jaime isn't.

CMOTDibbler

Liam O wrote: »

His father hated him because he was a dwarf, killed his wife and was the most similar to him of his 3 children.

Jaime and Cersei would be more likely to be Targs for obvious reasons. Even down to Genna Lannister saying at Riverrun that Tyrion is most like Tywin and Jaime isn't.

Yeah. Jaime joining the kingsguard absolutely boiled Tywin's p1ss.

Heffoman

Liam O wrote: »

His father hated him because he was a dwarf, killed his wife and was the most similar to him of his 3 children.

Jaime and Cersei would be more likely to be Targs for obvious reasons. Even down to Genna Lannister saying at Riverrun that Tyrion is most like Tywin and Jaime isn't.

Tyrion has been the only other one to get close to the dragons apart from Jon. Also hes always had a fascination with Dragons as seen in the books.

You could reason that Tywin hated him because the mad King got his wife pregnant and she died in childbirth but his pride wouldn't let him reveal the secret.

Danjamin1

In keeping with the theme of loyalty & betrayal the Northern houses are proving to be a fickle bunch aren't they? Seems like only a few episodes ago they were shouting the King in the North for Jon, now they're just shy of calling for the Queen in the North. Some of them didn't waste any time denouncing Robb Stark either when he refused to execute Lannister POW's. Loyalty & honour doesn't seem to mean much in the North unless you're a Stark.

.......

This post has been deleted.

CMOTDibbler

Danjamin1 wrote: »

In keeping with the theme of loyalty & betrayal the Northern houses are proving to be a fickle bunch aren't they? Seems like only a few episodes ago they were shouting the King in the North for Jon, now they're just shy of calling for the Queen in the North. Some of them didn't waste any time denouncing Robb Stark either when he refused to execute Lannister POW's. Loyalty & honour doesn't seem to mean much in the North unless you're a Stark.

Littlefinger is feeding that line though. Probably saying things like: "The mad dragon queen has locked Jon up and we'll never see him again...". "He's not even a trueborn Stark...". Or just "Sansa's doing a great job, isn't she?".



I really believe he'll get a shock. Sansa is a lot more ruthless and unforgiving than she used to be. Ask Ramsay Bolton.

Danjamin1

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Littlefinger is feeding that line though. Probably saying things like: "The mad dragon queen has locked Jon up and we'll never see him again...". "He's not even a trueborn Stark...". Or just "Sansa's doing a great job, isn't she?".



I really believe he'll get a shock. Sansa is a lot more ruthless and unforgiving than she used to be. Ask Ramsay Bolton.

I have no doubt about that, but the Northern lords don't seem to be offering any restraint. Even Lyanna Mormont wasn't a fan of Jon going south to meet Dany. They've essentially made him king & then immediately disagreed with his first plan and are now on the verge of pledging allegiance to someone else! That's not fealty. It's treason if it's anything.

CMOTDibbler

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I have no doubt about that, but the Northern lords don't seem to be offering any restraint. Even Lyanna Mormont wasn't a fan of Jon going south to meet Dany. They've essentially made him king & then immediately disagreed with his first plan and are now on the verge of pledging allegiance to someone else! That's not fealty. It's treason if it's anything.

To be fair to them, Jon always encouraged discussion and even dissent. He then made his decisions. But he was never one for just saying "it will be so" and ignoring alternative views.

At the moment, they're making suggestions to Sansa and she's making her decisions as Jon would. They're not trying to force her into anything and are acquiescing to her wishes.

Littlefinger is stirring sh1t and when she finds out, that will be the end of him. She's not the stupid, vain girl she was in season one.

DeadHand

Daith wrote: »

Okay, Jon had power thrust upon him but he's still Lord of Winterfell over two more legitimate people.

Everybody in the Reach knew Olenna Tyrell was the power there.

It is never stated that Jon is Lord of Winterfell- he is King in the North, a separate thing entirely. The way I read it, either Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell or no one cares very much anymore.

Oh yes, Oleanna was the de facto power in the Reach. But she was not Lord of the Reach, Tarly was not her sworn vassal. Therefore, he did not commit treason.

Without Mace or Loras she was essentially an old woman in a castle. Now clearly she had some residual support but, given the ease of her final defeat, I'd argue the bulk of the Southern Lords joined Tarly or stayed out of it altogether.

Ann22

Heffoman wrote:

You could reason that Tywin hated him because the mad King got his wife pregnant and she died in childbirth but his pride wouldn't let him reveal the secret.

I think he would've killed the child if that was the case.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

It is never stated that Jon is Lord of Winterfell- he is King in the North, a separate thing entirely. The way I read it, either Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell or no one cares very much anymore.

Oh yes, Oleanna was the de facto power in the Reachburt. But she was not Lord of the Reach, Tarly was not her sworn vassal. Therefore, he did not commit treason.

Without Mace or Loras she was essentially an old woman in a castle. Now clearly she had some residual support but, given the ease of her final defeat, I'd argue the bulk of the Southern Lords joined Tarly or stayed out of it altogether.

You're still missing the point that Tarly himself said he'd sworn an oath to the Tyrrells. And that was to Jaime when Olenna was the de facto head of that house.

Couldn't be any clearer.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're still missing the point that Tarly himself said he'd sworn an oath to the Tyrrells. And that was to Jaime when Olenna was the de facto head of that house.

Couldn't be any clearer.

He swore an oath to Mace, not Oleanna.

Paddy Cow

Ann22 wrote: »

I think he would've killed the child if that was the case.

He told Tyrion that when he was born, he wanted to leave him in the sea but he couldn't because Tyrion is a Lannister.

If there is any chance Tyrion is a Targ, it will be revealed in one of Bran's visions. There is no way Tywin would have kept Tyrion is he didn't believe he was a Lannister.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

He swore an oath to Mace, not Oleanna.

The words he used were exactly this: "I swore an oath to House Tyrrell".

Have you got the small print there that has all the exclusions?

Grudaire

Ann22 wrote: »

I think he would've killed the child if that was the case.

Also if the king took bedding rights that would presumably mean the first born children would be Targs... ie the incestuous twins

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Paddy Cow wrote: »

He told Tyrion that when he was born, he wanted to leave him in the sea but he couldn't because Tyrion is a Lannister.

If there is any chance Tyrion is a Targ, it will be revealed in one of Bran's visions. There is no way Tywin would have kept Tyrion is he didn't believe he was a Lannister.

Later on in that exchange Tywin says something to the effect of "because I cannot prove you're not mine". There's a definite possibility he had suspicions I'd say.

Riddle101

Colin Fast Pesticide wrote: »

Later on in that exchange Tywin says something to the effect of "because I cannot prove you're not mine". There's a definite possibility he had suspicions I'd say.

I think Tywin was just being malicious in that scene. I don't think he meant it literally, but more that he wished he wasn't his son. In any case, I do think he's Tywin's son because numerous people have pointed out how alike they are.

Genna Lannister said this in the book. "Jaime, sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak... but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you. I said so once to your father's face, and he would not speak to me for half a year"

EagererBeaver

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The words he used were exactly this: "I swore an oath to House Tyrrell".

Have you got the small print there that has all the exclusions?

Have you got the small print?

She's a member of House Tyrrell by marriage only. She has no claim to leadership of the house or to Highgarden

CMOTDibbler

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Have you got the small print?

She's a member of House Tyrrell by marriage only. She has no claim to leadership of the house or to Highgarden

Oh no, there are two of them. :pac:

Context, context. He wasn't talking about Mace the roasted or Loras the burnt. He even mentioned Olenna by name. In the very next sentence. Do you think he was a bit confused perhaps?

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The words he used were exactly this: "I swore an oath to House Tyrrell".

Have you got the small print there that has all the exclusions?

As I've explained, Oleanna isn't House Tyrell.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

As I've explained, Oleanna isn't House Tyrell.

This is getting funny at this stage. I'm starting to think you're taking the p1ss.

It really doesn't matter what you've explained. Tarly himself said he'd sworn an oath to House Tyrrell at the same time that Olenna was leading that house and he then said that he'd known her since he was a child. Just in case there might be any ambiguity as to what that oath represented.

Whether you can come up with enough mental and moral gymnastics to make it seem otherwise, Tarly himself believed he was an oathbreaker, else why bother mentioning the oath?

DeadHand

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Have you got the small print?

She's a member of House Tyrrell by marriage only. She has no claim to leadership of the house or to Highgarden

Exactly, she's as much a Tyrell as Cersei is a Baratheon.

Her claim to Highgarden was as problematic as Cersei's claim to the Iron Throne. They came to their respective inheritances under similar circumstances.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This is getting funny at this stage. I'm starting to think you're taking the p1ss.

It really doesn't matter what you've explained. Tarly himself said he'd sworn an oath to House Tyrrell at the same time that Olenna was leading that house and he then said that he'd known her since he was a child. Just in case there might be any ambiguity as to what that oath represented.

Whether you can come up with enough mental and moral gymnastics to make it seem otherwise, Tarly himself believed he was an oathbreaker, else why bother mentioning the oath?

That doesn't prove Tarly was an oath breaker, that only proves Tarly took an oath to House Tyrell in the past. No one disputes this.

He was no longer bound by the oath as a legitimate House Tyrell had ceased to exist by the time of his conversation with Jaime.

If Oleanna was his friend it could be called a personal betrayal. But it is not a political betrayal, oathbreaking or treason. It's not Frey or Bolton level treachery. It was a difficult choice and he chose what he considered the lesser of two evils.

To expand a little, the very fact that Tarly (a man of immense honour) and, presumably, other Reach lords were up for grabs would suggest the region was in some political upheaval. A leadership vaccum seems to have come about with the death of the Tyrells with Southern Lords considering themselves released from their vows to House Tyrell.

What happened in the war and the performance of Oleanna's remaining forces would strongly hint that a great many Southern nobles joined Tarly or, at least, stayed neutral released as they were from their vows to the now extinct House Tyrell.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

That doesn't prove Tarly was an oath breaker, that only proves Tarly took an oath to House Tyrell in the past. No one disputes this.

Ah stop!

He was asked to join Cersei and his immediate reply was that he was sworn to House Tyrrell.

Do you think he was giving a history of all the oaths he'd ever made?

"And I swore an oath to the seven gods and another one to Luthor Tyrrell and then I had to swear a new one to Mace when Luthor diied and I swore an oath to Loras Tyrrell in advance, just in case something happened to Mace and I always keep a spare one handy because you never know what could happen, and everyone knows they run out after a while and have to be recharged".

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ah stop!

He was asked to join Cersei and his immediate reply was that he was sworn to House Tyrrell.

Do you think he was giving a history of all the oaths he'd ever made?

"And I swore an oath to the seven gods and another one to Luthor Tyrrell and then I had to swear a new one to Mace when Luthor diied and I swore an oath to Loras Tyrrell in advance, just in case something happened to Mace and I always keep a spare one handy because you never know what could happen, and everyone knows they run out after a while and have to be recharged".

I never argued he was not sworn to House Tyrell, my argument is that oath was no longer binding as that House was extinct.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

I never argued he was not sworn to House Tyrell, my argument is that oath was no longer binding as that House was extinct.

At the point that he reminded Jaime he had sworn an oath to it?

Getting your timelines tangled methinks.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

At the point that he reminded Jaime he had sworn an oath to it?

Getting your timelines tangled methinks.

Yes, Mace and Loras were both dead at that point so the house was politically extinct.

His exact words were that he "swore an oath to House T". In the past. The point being that he may support Oleanna for old time's sake. He doesn't claim to be sworn to Oleanna because he isn't.

His reservations were based on Cersei's madness and residual personal loyalty to Oleanna, not on his oath which was no longer binding upon the death of his overlord and his overlord's heir.

Savage Tyrant

Good job at sucking all the fun out of the thread lads. Into the Black Cells with yas...

Dave_The_Sheep

I don't know. I enjoy talking to people / reading about it, even in detail, or with differing opinions.

Thread would be awfully dull without it.

Savage Tyrant

Ah, I'm only messing really. Tongue in cheek for the most part. I like reading most of it too.... But some of it does get a little silly.

Savage Tyrant

I'm just realising I completely missed how the Brotherhood without banners came to be in the cells Jon let them out of.
Was that the previous episode or can anyone fill me in?

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

Yes, Mace and Loras were both dead at that point so the house was politically extinct.

His exact words were that he "swore an oath to House T". In the past. The point being that he may support Oleanna for old time's sake. He doesn't claim to be sworn to Oleanna because he isn't.

His reservations were based on Cersei's madness and residual personal loyalty to Oleanna, not on his oath which was no longer binding upon the death of his overlord and his overlord's heir.

I have to hand it to you, you just don't give up. North of the wall with you.

And yet with such a big elephant in the room (as you are suggesting) Jaime doesn't mention it. Instead he tries to up the ante by saying he swore an oath to the crown too.

Randyll: "I swore an oath to House Tyrell"
Jaime: "But sure Olenna isn't a Tyrell, so you're off the hook Randy"
Randyll: "Grand so, you have my oath"

Scriptwriters really messed up there. :rolleyes:

Randyll Tarly was as much an oathbreaker as Roose Bolton.

CMOTDibbler

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

I'm just realising I completely missed how the Brotherhood without banners came to be in the cells Jon let them out of.
Was that the previous episode or can anyone fill me in?

Yeah, just at the end. Tormund said they turned up wanting to go north. He probably locked them up for their own protection.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I have to hand it to you, you just don't give up. North of the wall with you.

And yet with such a big elephant in the room (as you are suggesting) Jaime doesn't mention it. Instead he tries to up the ante by saying he swore an oath to the crown too.

Randyll: "I swore an oath to House Tyrell"
Jaime: "But sure Olenna isn't a Tyrell, so you're off the hook Randy"
Randyll: "Grand so, you have my oath"

Scriptwriters really messed up there. :rolleyes:

Randyll Tarly was as much an oathbreaker as Roose Bolton.

Well, the writers miss/omit many elephants in the room- if they didn't Tyrion would surely bring up the fact that the Tarlys had fought for Aerys.

It's beside the point anyway, as I believe it was understood and taken for granted between Jaime and Randyl that the oath no longer applied. If it did, a man of honour like Tarly would not even be there along with several other Southern Lords.

He was not an oath breaker of any description.

CMOTDibbler

DeadHand wrote: »

Well, the writers miss/omit many elephants in the room- if they didn't Tyrion would surely bring up the fact that the Tarlys had fought for Aerys.

Not the elephant we're talking about, but good deflection.

DeadHand wrote: »

It's beside the point anyway, as I believe it was understood and taken for granted between Jaime and Randyl that the oath no longer applied. If it did, a man of honour like Tarly would not even be there along with several other Southern Lords.

It was understood and taken for granted because he said the exact opposite? If it no longer applied, why bring it up? You're stretching incredibly to try and deny the undeniable.

Also, he can be wherever he likes. It's what he does that's questionable.

When Tyrion accused him of flexible allegiances, he didn't deny it. He knew he had betrayed the Tyrrells and at least had the balls to not try and justify it.

Let's just count off his treacheries shall we?

He sided with the woman who murdered the queen.
The woman who murdered the head of the house he was sworn to.
Who also murdered the heir to that house.
And then actively took part in the final destruction of that house himself.

Nope, not a traitor, honourable as the day is long and a good egg too. Check the small print.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Jaime doesn't mention it. Instead he tries to up the ante by saying he swore an oath to the crown too

He asks him to swear allegiance to Cersei indicating that, with the various deaths and upheavals, Randyl was no longer formally sworn to the Iron Throne and, hence, no longer formally sworn to Highgarden.

He was not officially sworn to any master at that point.

He was sworn to Robert and his heirs but not Cersei in exactly the same way he was Sworn to Mace's father and his heirs but not Oleanna.

His allegiance to Highgarden would need to be renewed (just as his allegiance to the Iron Throne was) in the event he
declared for Oleanna.

If he had bent the knee to Dany he would have been an oath breaker. Dany's offer of life for him and his son was far more valuable than the Lannister offer of additional lands, yet he refused. If he could be bought as easily as you suggest, he'd have sold himself again there and then.

He would not break his oath- even if it was made to a person he despised and meant death for him and his son. He died for honour and with his honour intact.

DeadHand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Not the elephant we're talking about, but good deflection.

It was understood and taken for granted because he said the exact opposite? If it no longer applied, why bring it up? You're stretching incredibly to try and deny the undeniableD

The exact opposite was not said, he did not claim to be currently sworn to House Tyrell or Oleanna. He brought it up as a reminder of his past loyalty to Oleanna, not as a current oath.

He was not under oath.

Those are Cersei's crimes you list; not Tarly's. He had no love for Cersei and was aware of the creature she was but saw her as Westero's only hope in the face of foreign invasion. As he said "there are no easy choices in war".

.......

This post has been deleted.