Game of Thrones begins....

[viper37]

Yeah, it would be really dumb to bother bringing back Gendry like so just to kill him.

If White Walkers can not cross the Wall, because of the magic, like Cold Hands, how are they going to cross the Wall with a captured one?  What will happen?  Will it act like some kind of anchor for the Night King to destroy the wall?  Or does he have that magical horn the Wildlings were searching for?

White walkers can't cross. Zombies can.

Yes.  We saw one that was on the south side of the wall when he attacked Jon and Lord Mormont.

technically, it was a dead nighwatch resurected at the Wall.  Different magic involved or sommink

[The Minsky Moment]

Ten thousand men sent late from an entire kingdom is a tiny contribution. 

Don't know why you say that.  These are supposed to be feudal contingents, akin to late medieval Europe.  A force of 40,000 men is enormous, 10K from a single feudal principality is very substantial.

[grumbler]

Ten thousand men sent late from an entire kingdom is a tiny contribution. 

Don't know why you say that.  These are supposed to be feudal contingents, akin to late medieval Europe.  A force of 40,000 men is enormous, 10K from a single feudal principality is very substantial.

I say that because Dorne is one of the Seven Kingdoms, and could have contributed more men, and more quickly.  Keeping the annulment and marriage secret so that you don't lose out on a mere 10,000 men (hell, there were 4 times that many men besieging Stannis at Storm's End - if you needed another 10,000 men that badly, break that siege and have them), when the upside is starving the rebellion of its basis, isn't wise.  I don't see why you think that it is.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hmm "starving the rebellion of its basis" . . . a few posts earlier you were conceding that even had the information was known, it would not have stopped the rebellion against the Mad King.  His actions were the basis of the rebellion.

And would Rhaegar have colluded in the his father's deposition?  Would the Mad King agree to step down without firing up King's Landing , as he actually tried to do.  Would Robert have accepted Rhaegar's version of events or would he believe that Lyanna was under duress?  Would the rebels feel safe laying down their arms against the legitimate dynasty after having just rebelled against them?   

[grumbler]

Hmm "starving the rebellion of its basis" . . . a few posts earlier you were conceding that even had the information was known, it would not have stopped the rebellion against the Mad King.  His actions were the basis of the rebellion.

His actions in response to their accusations that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna (a widely-held belief, by all accounts).  The Mad King would, indeed, have to have been deposed.  Rhaegar, with the stain of the kidnapping charge lifted, would have been in a better position to do so.

And would Rhaegar have colluded in the his father's deposition? 

Yes.  Jamie says as much, in the books.

Would the Mad King agree to step down without firing up King's Landing , as he actually tried to do. 

I don't think it would have needed his consent.  The fact of the matter was that Aerys had no idea how to make or use wildfire, and his pyromancers had no motive to back him against Rhaegar, given that King Aerys was asking them to suicide themselves in order to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in the service of his madness.  Even without Rhaegar, and without Jamie's action in killing him, I don't believe that the pyromancers would kill themselves in service of Aerys.

Would Robert have accepted Rhaegar's version of events or would he believe that Lyanna was under duress?  Would the rebels feel safe laying down their arms against the legitimate dynasty after having just rebelled against them? 

Unknown, but the chances were better that they would do so knowing the truth, than they would do so if the truth were deliberately withheld from them.  The decision to make Robert king came only AFTER the rebels found out that the royal family was dead or fled.

What objective is served by keeping Rhaegar's wedding a secret?

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes.  Jamie says as much, in the books.

An unimpeachable source . . .

The fact of the matter was that Aerys had no idea how to make or use wildfire, and his pyromancers had no motive to back him against Rhaegar, given that King Aerys was asking them to suicide themselves in order to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in the service of his madness.  Even without Rhaegar, and without Jamie's action in killing him, I don't believe that the pyromancers would kill themselves in service of Aerys.

So Jaime was wrong in thinking otherwise, but right about the Prince's sudden interest in deposing his father?

[HVC]

another leaked episode, so Kat stay off of the youtubes.

[Fate]

another leaked episode, so Kat stay off of the youtubes.

All of the plot of season 7 was leaked at the start. A Spanish GOT translator posted everything on reddit.com/r/freefolk.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

along with the extra Wildlings that have been brought along as cannon fodder

Poor schmucks might as well be wearing red shirts.

the lannisters can't be everywhere at once...

[grumbler]

Yes.  Jamie says as much, in the books.

An unimpeachable source . . .

I suspect that we will discover that the author is lying about these people or places even existing.  So, not one character is unimpeachable if they are all fictional and just way whatever martin wants them to say.

So Jaime was wrong in thinking otherwise, but right about the Prince's sudden interest in deposing his father?

Jamie was wrong in a lot of his thinking, presumably.  He's a human being.  And I have seen no evidence that Rhaegar's interest in stopping his insane father was "sudden," but presumably you will share your evidence.

[The Minsky Moment]

My evidence is that Aerys ruled for 21 years, of which he was reportedly stark raving for the last 5-6 years, and yet the prince did nothing.

[grumbler]

My evidence is that Aerys ruled for 21 years, of which he was reportedly stark raving for the last 5-6 years, and yet the prince did nothing.

So you have no evidence, is what you are saying.

Unless you want to push the logical fallacy that "lack of evidence is evidence of lack"?

There is circumstantial evidence that Rhaegar was, indeed, planning to install a regency:
(1) He and his family dwelt at Dragonstone, not, as was customary, in King's Landing.
(2)  We have Barriston Selmy's first-hand account of the type of man Rhaegar was (yes, Selmy could be lying). If Rhaegar was even half as good as Selmy attests, he wasn't happy with his father's behavior and would begin to scheme the replacement of Aerys with himself as regent.
(3) Aerys hires Varys, of all people, to be his Master of Whispers.  Why would a paranoid prefer to trust a complete stranger to trusting someone he knew?  Because Varys would not have spent time with Rhaegar and thus be potentially corrupted.  This is circumstantial evidence that Aerys thought there was something for Varys to find:  a plot by Rhaegar to overthrow Aerys.
(4) Even if Rhaegar hadn't started scheming for the regency before Varys was hired, he would have to do so in self defense after Aerys brings in a stranger to spy on everyone.

None of this is conclusive evidence, but it is more persuasive than "Rhaegar did nothing because I don't have any way to know what he did."

[The Minsky Moment]

My evidence is that Aerys ruled for 21 years, of which he was reportedly stark raving for the last 5-6 years, and yet the prince did nothing.

So you have no evidence, is what you are saying.

Unless you want to push the logical fallacy that "lack of evidence is evidence of lack"?

No usually the proponent of the proposition - e.g. the king's son intended to depose the king - carries the burden of proof.

Since we have no access to the mind of this fictional character (who has no viewpoint chapter) - his actions are the primary evidence of intent.  The fact that he took no action at all to carry out a deposition plot makes the case to the contrary very difficult to make without strong evidence that such a plot truly existed.  The circumstantial evidence you cite is weak - at best, it shows Rhaegar and Aerys didn't get along well, not exactly an uncommon occurrence in royal families.  The Varys speculation is really stretching it.

Everything actually in the books tends to suggest Rheagar was an honorable person - a quality that led him to disapprove of his father's actions, but at the same time a quality that ensured that disapproval, however great, would never tip over into outright disloyalty.

[grumbler]

No usually the proponent of the proposition - e.g. the king's son intended to depose the king - carries the burden of proof.

And I have provided the evidence: he told Jamie so, in their last meeting.

Since we have no access to the mind of this fictional character (who has no viewpoint chapter) - his actions are the primary evidence of intent.  The fact that he took no action at all to carry out a deposition plot makes the case to the contrary very difficult to make without strong evidence that such a plot truly existed. 

Your "fact" ( the "fact that he took no action at all to carry out a deposition plot) is something you just made up to support a case that you otherwise have no evidence for. 

The evidence in books and show alike that he was a decent and just man, beloved by the people and nobles alike, makes you claim that he was no such thing and was determined to nothing to stop his insane father a real stretch.  Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence, and you don't even have weak evidence.

The circumstantial evidence you cite is weak - at best, it shows Rhaegar and Aerys didn't get along well, not exactly an uncommon occurrence in royal families.  The Varys speculation is really stretching it.

These assertions are stricken as non-responsive.  I have provided evidence, you have provided bupkis.  Until you have evidence to the contrary, the circumstantial evidence I have presented is more persuasive than your naked assertion that you think it is "weak" and "a stretch."  You cannot even provide counter-explanations other than "not exactly an uncommon occurrence in royal families."  Neither was a son trying to depose his father "exactly an uncommon occurrence in royal families."  Your "evidence" cuts against your argument as much as it cuts for it.

Everything actually in the books tends to suggest Rheagar was an honorable person - a quality that led him to disapprove of his father's actions, but at the same time a quality that ensured that disapproval, however great, would never tip over into outright disloyalty.

Except that he wouldn't think it disloyalty to depose an insane king; he'd be doing his father a favor, by removing him from the temptation to further besmirch his name and the name of the family.  No one thinks George Prince of Wales was "disloyal" to his father George III for deposing him in 1810 and ruling as regent.  Honor does not come from blindly obeying insanity.  Not even among lawyers and clergymen.

[HVC]

The king suspected his son wanted to usurp him. Which is why he went to the tourney where rhaeger meant lyanna (the mad king rarely left the castle after his hostage ordeal). So aerys was worried enough about it. But then again he was a paranoid dude.